Sitting of 26 February 2002

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

    MERSEY TUNNELS BILL (BY ORDER)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Tuesday 5 March.

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

    NHS Dentistry (Yeovil)
    Mr. David Laws: What plans he has to improve access to NHS dentistry in the Yeovil constituency. [34700]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): The Government are committed to improving access to NHS dentistry and are working closely with the profession to ensure that that happens. We have allocated £57 million to be spent on dental access centres and other personal dental services pilots over the current financial year. We will have 49 pilots running dental access centres from over 100 sites by the end of this financial year. Over £1.4 million of this funding has been invested to enable the opening of dental access centres throughout the Taunton and south Somerset area. Last February, a new centre was opened in the centre of Yeovil, and it has already provided NHS treatment to more than 1,200 local patients.
    Mr. Laws: Does the Under-Secretary remember the Prime Minister's commitment at the Labour party conference in 1999 that everyone would have access to an NHS dentist by September 2001? Is she aware that none of my constituents has had access to such dentists for the past three years, and that new adult patients have not been able to see NHS dentists? What is she doing to put that right?
    Ms Blears: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken; his constituents have had access to NHS dentists. They may have had some difficulty with registration, but they certainly have had access to treatment. I understand that the hon. Gentleman personally opened the Yeovil dental access centre. He went there, he saw it and he opened it. The centre is treating 1,200 patients—1,200 people who
    544
    have had access to NHS dentistry. Every week, 10,000 people are ringing up NHS Direct, 99 per cent. of whom are getting access to NHS dentists. Our pledge is being met; people can get access to NHS dentists up and down the country. Under the Conservatives, there was an onslaught on NHS dentistry. This Government are committed to improving access, in Yeovil and in the rest of the country.

    Primary Care (South Derbyshire)
    Mr. Mark Todd: What steps he is taking to secure improved provision of primary health care in south Derbyshire. [34701]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): The Derbyshire Dales and South Derbyshire primary care trust will become operational on 1 April. Already, it is developing proposals to provide for the increasing population in that part of Derbyshire, to increase the number of GPs, to improve and extend practice premises and to increase access to NHS dentistry.
    Mr. Todd: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, which summarises the improvement in the prospects for primary health care within south Derbyshire. I should like to refer to the difficulties in accessing NHS dentistry within the area—which are now being addressed—and to the extreme pressure on GPs' lists in the area because of the rising population of what is a very attractive and popular place to live. Will my hon. Friend comment on the support that the Government will give to the primary care group and the new primary care trust, when it becomes operational, in any project that it proposes to improve the situation?
    Yvette Cooper: The primary care trust locally is trying to increase the capacity of primary care locally, including increasing the number of GPs. I am advised that the rate of increase in GP numbers in southern Derbyshire is faster than the average increase across the country as a whole. Clearly, we need to increase capacity in primary care.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Can the Under-Secretary give any comfort to my 18-year-old constituent from Parwich—which was covered by the South Derbyshire health authority—who was refused beta interferon treatment, but desperately needs that drug? Will the new arrangements give any comfort or hope to her?
    Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman knows that beta interferon has been extensively looked at by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. It is right that we take seriously its recommendations to the NHS across the country.
    Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the Under-Secretary welcome the newly formed group of the mental health charity MIND in Swadlincote, south Derbyshire? Those involved will want to know whether she supports MIND's campaign "My Choice", to be launched tomorrow, which emphasises the need for a real choice of primary care treatments for those with mental health problems. What progress has been made in south Derbyshire in meeting the Government's mental health

    545
    targets? In particular, what progress has been made in employing extra primary care staff to increase breaks for carers, employing new graduate primary care mental health workers and reducing suicide? We believe that in south Derbyshire—as in the rest of the country—the answer is that no progress has been made at all.
    Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, for the first time ever, the Government have developed a national service framework for mental health. We are substantially increasing the capacity of primary care across the country. If the hon. Gentleman wants further increases in the capacity of primary care—including additional mental health workers in primary care, which the Government want arid have set out targets to achieve—he has to say where he will get the money from. The Government have said where we will get the money from. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should ask his party's Front-Bench spokesperson Whether he agrees with the shadow Chancellor on whether taxes would rise under a Conservative Government to pay for that.

    Beta Interferon
    Charlotte Atkins: If he will make a statement on the availability of beta interferon to multiple sclerosis sufferers. [34702]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): Following advice from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, we have agreed a scheme with pharmaceutical companies for all multiple sclerosis patients meeting the criteria agreed by the Association of British Neurologists to receive beta interferon and glatiramer on the national health service. The scheme will begin on 6 May 2002. The cost will be about £50 million a year.
    Charlotte Atkins: I am extremely grateful for that reply, which will certainly bring much relief to many of my constituents. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that those patients who currently have to pay privately for beta interferon, as well as those on health authority waiting lists, will benefit from the scheme? Does this mean that postcode prescribing—a legacy from the previous Government—has now gone?
    Mr. Hutton: I thank my hon. Friend for her support for the scheme. She is right: it will mark the end of postcode prescribing for beta interferon and glatiramer, and that is a hugely important step forward. I can confirm that, as we announced the details of the scheme to the national health service in a circular on 4 February, patients will be eligible for free prescriptions of beta interferon from that date.
    Mrs. Marion Roe: Why has it taken more than two years to reach a decision on this issue? If the Secretary of State is able to overrule the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and ignore its advice, what is the point of having NICE?
    Mr. Hutton: It is rather sad that the hon. Lady could not welcome our announcement. The drug will now be available to NHS patients. It is true that NICE has been considering issues concerning beta interferon for some
    546
    time, but it was a genuinely difficult decision for it to make. One of the benefits of the agreement is that it will now provide longer-term evidence of the benefits to MS patients of beta interferon and glatiramer—evidence that has not previously been available. It is an important step forward.

    If the hon. Lady is bemoaning the fact that the Government have taken two years to get to this point, perhaps she will reflect on how long it took the Conservative Government to make no progress whatever on the issue.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: The Government deserve the congratulations of everyone in the House on the decision and on the ground-breaking agreement linking payment for the drugs with their efficacy. I see that my right hon. Friend is smiling. I think that the Government have done a great job here.
    Mr. Hutton rose—
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Hutton: Well, that's a tricky one. I was smiling because I was expecting a "but" halfway through my hon. Friend's point. I genuinely welcome his support and appreciate everything that he has said. There are some more general lessons to be learned, and I will ensure that I keep him informed of progress on not only this scheme but other relevant matters.
    Mr. David Tredinnick: Will the Minister accept that it is not only beta interferon that can help MS sufferers, and that much pain relief is available from acupuncture, as practised at the George Eliot hospital in Warwickshire, for example? Will he also confirm that acupuncture is much cheaper and should be widely available in the health service?
    Mr. Hutton: I genuinely do not know whether acupuncture treatment is cheaper, over the course of a year or longer. On the hon. Gentleman's wider point about the availability of complementary medicine, as long as there is a strong evidence base for a treatment, we will consider making it available on the national health service.

    NHS Hospitals (Private Sector Management)
    David Taylor: What representations he has received on his proposals to involve the private sector in the management of NHS hospitals. [34703]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I have received a number of representations, and announced earlier this month the establishment of a register of interested organisations and individuals who come from a wide variety of backgrounds and are capable of turning around performance in the small minority of the worst-performing local health services.
    David Taylor: Is not the theory that the private sector can successfully manage large acute NHS hospitals utterly perverse? Does my right hon. Friend understand why so

    547
    many Labour Back Benchers are deeply unhappy with his proposal to introduce commercial hit squads as an advance guard for covert privatisation? Does he agree that the real wreckers of the NHS are not the failed administrators but the cynical promoters of the private finance initiative and management madness of the sort announced in the House six weeks ago?
    Mr. Milburn: No one on the Government Front Bench thinks that the private sector is a panacea for the problems in the NHS, but we intend to use it when it can bring expertise or resources to help improve services. My hon. Friend will be interested in the announcement that I made in early February about the first wave of so-called franchising. New management will be brought in to help turn around poor performance. I stress again that the people being brought in to help with the small minority of poorly performing trusts have some NHS experience. They have a track record of proven success in delivering improved NHS services.
    I urge my hon. Friend to accept that we should not simply close our minds to the idea of harnessing managerial experience—as long as it is good and in keeping with the public service ethos—wherever we can obtain it. We do not have a monopoly of wisdom in the NHS. If we can get good managers from local government, the voluntary sector or even from parts of the private sector, we should use them.
    Dr. Evan Harris: Will the Secretary of State admit that he had no clinical outcome data to justify his labelling the hospitals as failing, and that the hospitals were not failing hospitals but scapegoat hospitals? On the day when the right hon. Gentleman announced the franchise plan, two hospitals that I visited—at Portsmouth, and Ashford and St. Peter's—were told that their performances merited two stars, even on the right hon. Gentleman's flawed performance indicators. Are not the hospitals involved facing problems of capacity owing to the scandal of bed blocking and nurse vacancies, which undermine capacity? Would it not be better for the Secretary of State to take expert advice to tackle the problems of capacity? If the private sector managers were from MFI and were able to bring beds with them they might be able to do some good—they will make no difference otherwise.
    Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman's jokes are about as good as his policy—
    Dr. Liam Fox: Better.
    Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman says they are better. I have two things to say about different performance in the NHS. First, every patient knows that there are some first-class hospitals delivering high-quality services. Often, they stand cheek by jowl with other hospitals that are not capable of delivering the same quality, even though they are dealing with precisely the same problems with the labour market, deprivation, health and capacity. The fundamental difference between such hospitals is management organisation, although culture and attitude sometimes play a part.
    If the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) does not recognise that, he should listen to those Back-Bench Liberal Democrat Members who are
    548
    prepared to listen to that proposition. For example, the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws), who is sitting behind the hon. Gentleman, said of his party's policies:
    "Many of our policies are out of date, a legacy of past commitments, endlessly carried forward year after year rather than representing the sort of priorities which we might arrive at logically."
    Indeed, the hon. Gentleman went on to say that Liberal policies were alienating key voters. I think that all hon. Members will express some sympathy for that opinion.
    Dr. Howard Stoate: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be aware that the Darent Valley hospital in my constituency is one of those being franchised out. The interim management led by Sue Jennings are already making an appreciable difference to the way in which the hospital is run, and improvements are noticeable all around. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how the franchising system is running, and whether he believes that the system will finally bring the problems in the Dartford and Gravesham acute trust to an end? Will we be able to look forward to stability and improving standards in the future?
    Mr. Milburn: I am grateful for the support that my hon. Friend has given, in pretty difficult circumstances, to that hospital and to social services in the Dartford and Gravesham area. Some very real problems exist. They are partially problems of capacity and cash, but as my hon. Friend and other clinicians in the local community have recognised, they are also problems of management and organisation. If we can bring in some new blood from elsewhere in the NHS, and use that expertise for the benefit of patients in the area, that would be a sensible thing to do. I hope that the new management team that we will bring in before too long will help to turn around the performance of what has been a difficult hospital to manage. Patients there have not always had the services that they need. My hon. Friend knows as well as I do that good leadership in a hospital, just like good leadership in a school, is crucial to that hospital or school's success. I hope that by bringing in some new leadership, we can make a difference.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: Is the Secretary of State aware that people in my constituency do not care whether managers are private sector or public sector managers so long as they are competent? We are relieved and grateful that his Minister overruled the decision of local managers to close the maternity and children's units at Hemel Hempstead general hospital and decided to try and keep them open. However, is not that decision a vote of no confidence, echoing the vote of no confidence in local management by all parties on St. Albans district council? Local managers have made it more difficult to keep those units alive by their decision to announce a closure, leading to the resignation of large numbers of staff and the biggest nurse shortages in any county in the country.
    Mr. Milburn: I shall certainly not stand here and condemn local management out of hand when I do not know the facts. I shall be very happy to look into the right hon. Gentleman's allegations. However, managing any public service, particularly the national health service,

    549
    is not an easy job. It is pretty difficult. It would be helpful if Conservative Members got behind some of our people rather than always running them down.
    Mr. Tony McWalter: Further to that question, will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations on the tremendous work done by his colleague Lord Hunt for the Hemel Hempstead hospital and the special care baby unit in using the hospital to set up a pilot scheme looking at a national framework for neonatal services? Many of the local health service managers performed outstandingly well when it came to supporting Lord Hunt and arriving at that excellent decision.
    Mr. Milburn: I can only agree with my hon. Friend. It is often difficult when changes are proposed in local health services. I know that my hon. Friend has been concerned about the local situation; he has been to see me about it as well as my noble Friend Lord Hunt. I hope that the solution that we have come up with will be good for staff in the local hospitals as well as the patients who use the services.

    Bed Blocking
    Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds): What his policy is towards tackling bed blocking. [34704]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): Our policy is to reduce bed blocking through additional investment and reforms to the way in which the national health service and social services work together.
    Mr. Ruffley: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. He will be aware that the bed blocking figures for my county are the sixth worst in the country. Given the right hon. Gentleman's personal commitment to private enterprise and the private sector, will he investigate Suffolk social services' abysmal record in encouraging the expansion of private sector residential home care places?
    Mr. Milburn: I will gladly look into the point about Suffolk county council. The hon. Gentleman is right that there is a particular problem in Suffolk with regard to care home or home capacity. I am aware of that. For that reason, the Government have made available additional resources above and beyond the resources made available to other comparable councils. Suffolk is receiving an extra £5 million in this financial year and the next financial year to stabilise the situation, presumably by first raising care home fees and then by investing in new capacity, presumably in the private voluntary sector as well as in the public sector, through intermediate care, rehabilitation services and all the other services that I hope the hon. Gentleman supports. That is the right thing to do first of all.
    I understand from the figures that I have received that these measures are already bearing fruit. There has been a 30 per cent. reduction in delayed discharge problems in the hon. Gentleman's area since the additional money was made available. That, with respect, is what happens when
    550
    additional money is put in. The question for the hon. Gentleman is whether his party would be prepared to match it.
    Ms Julia Drown: I welcome the £800,000 that the Government have given my constituency this financial year and the next to help with the problem of delayed discharges. That money is helping, but we still have far too many people waiting to be discharged from Princess Margaret hospital. I hope that my right hon. Friend welcomes last week's decision by Swindon borough councillors to restore proposed cuts in social services budgets, which would have reinforced the problem. I should be grateful if he would look at the situation. Social services have made it clear to me that we need more funds if we are to develop the specialist domiciliary services that are necessary to get more people out of hospital and into their homes, which is where they want to be.
    Mr. Milburn: As my hon. Friend knows—I visited her just a few months ago to talk about precisely such issues—I am aware of some of the problems in Swindon. In Swindon as elsewhere, we need to do three things. First, it is true that there is a problem with the level of funding received by many social services departments, not just for the care of the elderly but for the care of vulnerable children. Budgets are rising very fast, but resources have not always matched them. I am seized of that problem.
    Secondly, as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) rightly pointed out, there are capacity problems in some parts of the country as a consequence of changes in the residential and nursing home market. We have to do something to stabilise the market and ensure that it can grow again, including offering alternative forms of provision, and more home-based and intermediate care.
    Thirdly, in my view we must reform the relationship between health and social services. We cannot have a stand-off between them. Health and social services are two sides of the same coin. They rely on each other and the patient relies on both, and we need closer, rather than more distant, working relations between them.
    Mr. Archie Norman: Given the Secretary of State's previous answer, does he accept that the time has come for a fundamental review of the funding of nursing care and the relationship between the two Departments? It is the NHS that is carrying the inevitable burden of an inadequate and inequitable system of nursing care funding that is producing perverse results such as that in west Kent. The Kent and Sussex hospital is making available extra beds and recovery wards just to hold the extra patients who cannot be released, but at the same time the number of nursing care beds in west Kent has declined by 17 per cent. in the past two years. Moreover, nursing care funding in Kent per elderly patient is a third of that received in other parts of the country such as London.
    Mr. Milburn: As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) and to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, there is undoubtedly a capacity problem in the south—although the problem is not peculiar to the south—and we have to deal with it.

    551
    Nursing home fees and fees paid by local authorities to care homes have not risen markedly for years. As a consequence, many owners of residential and nursing homes have decided to get out of the business. We must stabilise that situation, but we must do so through more investment. The issue for the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) and his party is whether they are prepared to match the resources that we have put into extra social services funding. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) could stand at the Dispatch Box and agree with us that extra money is going into social services and that more is still needed.
    Syd Rapson: Will the Secretary of State or one of his Ministers visit Portsmouth in the near future to see a good example of a working partnership between social services and the health authority, which has reduced deferred releases considerably? The money provided was very welcome, but a visit from the Secretary of State or a Minister would be a morale booster at a time of change.
    Mr. Milburn: You see—such visits are a morale booster. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Woodspring is not convinced, but the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), who boosts morale wherever she goes, will visit that constituency. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.] On that point, at least, the cross-party consensus on health is alive and well.
    The level of delayed hospital discharges is a very serious problem in the Portsmouth area and across the country, but it is worth getting it in perspective. At the end of December last year, about 5,100 patients aged over 75 had their discharge delayed. That is far too many, and it is clear that we need to deal with the problem, but the numbers are falling. In the comparable period of the previous year, some 5,800 patients had their discharge delayed, but in December 1996 the number was 20 per cent. higher. The extra investment and some of the changes are beginning to bite, and we need to do more of that.
    Dr. Liam Fox: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is a clear relationship between the loss of care home beds, bed blocking in NHS hospitals and the increase in cancelled operations? Who is responsible for the current situation?
    Mr. Milburn: Of course there is a relationship between the capacity available outside and inside the hospital. That is absolutely true. I note with interest, however, figures from the premier market analysts, Laing and Buisson, on the care home market. Those figures confirm, first, that there has been an overall loss in care home capacity of approximately 19,000 places; and, secondly, that demand and supply are more or less in equilibrium in many parts of the country. That is not of course the case in all parts of the country, and we have made extra resources available where it is not so. If the hon. Gentleman and his party are so concerned, the question is whether they are prepared to put their money where their mouth is and match the record extra resources—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister should not ask the Opposition spokesman questions. Questions are put to the Minister for answer.
    Dr. Fox: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for admitting the relationship, but I wonder whether it has come to him as a recent revelation. Why did the Government not do something about it earlier? More than two years ago, on Second Reading of the Care Standards Bill, we predicted exactly what would happen as a result of Government policy. We said that tens of thousands of care home beds would be lost with increased misery for elderly patients, more blocked beds, more cancelled operations and more patients waiting in casualty to be admitted to hospital. Will the Secretary of State apologise for his negligence and incompetence and for the fact that patients have to queue not just to get into hospital but to get out again?
    Mr. Milburn: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman, who is so fixated about care home beds, did not say a word about NHS beds. There is a simple reason for that: when his party was in office, the number of beds in hospitals fell by 60,000. Under the Government, the figure is rising again.
    Dr. Fox: That was a pretty disappointing answer, even by the Secretary of State's standards. Under Labour's stewardship, the number of NHS beds has fallen below the number of administrators for the first time in the history of the national health service, and that tells us all that we need to know about the Government's centralising tendencies. It is typical of the Secretary of State to hide behind a few figures. Under the present Government, we have seen the fiddling of waiting list figures and cancelled operation figures. We have seen the Government fixing accident and emergency times to make themselves look better. They have even taken wheels off trolleys so that they could call them beds and slapped themselves on the back for it. Does not all that simply show that the Government draw no distinction between truth and untruth, merely between convenience and inconvenience.
    Mr. Milburn: There is a fundamental question for our health and social services. We recognise that there is a big problem, which has been caused by decades of neglect and under-investment. The choice for the country is straightforward: are we prepared to invest more money—to put our money where our mouths are—to deal with the evident problems? We say that there is no such thing as a free lunch. If we want world-class health care, we have to invest and we have to pay for it. That is precisely what we are doing and what we are committed to doing. The issue facing the hon. Gentleman is whether he is prepared to match our spending, and the answer is a decisive no.
    Dr. Nick Palmer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that things are not quite as simple as we tend to imagine. We tend to assume that people are either in hospital or in care homes. In fact, however, Nottingham Healthcare NHS trust tells me that the number of patients waiting to go into care homes has reduced greatly as a result of the Government's provision of money, but that there is a problem with intermediate beds for their transfer to acute care. Will my right hon. Friend address that problem as he funds the health service in coming years?
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point: we face not only the problem that, when people are ready for discharge from hospital we are sometimes unable to discharge them, but the fact that many people need not end up in hospital at all. Provided that decent primary and community services are in place, we can offer more appropriate care, closer to home, for many elderly and disabled people.
    My hon. Friend asks about the provision of intermediate care services—often an important missing element in the range of services available in many local communities. There is genuinely good news on that. We expected to see about 1,000 extra intermediate care beds by March this year. That is well on target; indeed, it is ahead of target and I expect there to be about 2,000 extra intermediate care beds by March this year. That does not solve every problem, but it means that we are setting up more appropriate care for many people who would prefer not to be in hospital in the first place.

    MMR Vaccine
    Mr. George Osborne (Tatton): If he will make a statement on trends in the uptake of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine over the last 12 months. [34705]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): The latest available evidence shows that the uptake of MMR at two years old stood at 84.2 per cent. in the summer and in the autumn of last year. The coverage by five years of age remained at more than 90 per cent., having fallen slightly compared with the previous quarters. Those figures were achieved despite extensive media coverage at the beginning of last year of unfounded claims of a link between MMR and autism.
    Mr. Osborne: We shall have to wait until the figures are published to see what the effects of the publicity of the past few weeks have been on the uptake. Will the Minister answer the question that she refused to answer during the debate held in Westminster Hall this morning? If a parent, for whatever reason—however irrational the Minister feels they are—refuses to give their child the MMR vaccine, should the child have three separate vaccinations or no vaccination at all?
    Yvette Cooper: The recommendation from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation is clear. The Committee recommends the MMR jab as the safest way to immunise children against deadly diseases. The equivalent US committee has considered exactly the same issue within the past two weeks and has also concluded that it recommends only the MMR jab. It is not the job of the NHS to recommend something that is less safe and that would put more children's lives at risk. I really wish that Opposition Members would consider carefully the remarks that they make on this issue. It is disgraceful of them to play games with an issue that affects children's health and, ultimately, children's lives.
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: In the light of the fall in the rate of immunisation and given the outbreak of childhood diseases in the London area and other areas, does my hon. Friend welcome the campaign
    554
    by Sense—the charity for deaf-blind victims of rubella—to inform parents of the relative risks of immunisation and non-immunisation?
    Yvette Cooper: I strongly welcome the campaign by Sense. One of the biggest risks in introducing separate jabs would be a dramatic fall-off in the coverage of rubella. Exposure to rubella among pregnant women can lead to serious cases of deafness and blindness in babies. That is not something that we want to return to in this country.
    Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I have to point out that, once again, the Minister has not answered the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne). It is a very important question. The Minister and I are in similar positions as mothers of small babies so she must surely appreciate the position of an individual parent. No matter how often the Minister says—with sincerity, I am sure—that MMR is the best route and no matter how much she believes that, she will not convince every parent in this country who has to take the risk to their own child into consideration. Will she not admit that it would be better to give three injections than none at all— [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Yvette Cooper: I am sorry to hear that question—I really thought better of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing). The evidence and the advice from the medical experts, in this country and abroad, has been extremely clear: MMR is the safest way to immunise children, and introducing separate jabs would put more children at risk. It would lead to reduced coverage. Coverage would fall because children would be left unimmunised for longer between the jabs and more children would not complete the course of immunisation. Recent research from Chester shows that two thirds of the children who are currently given separate jabs do not complete the course. That is very serious. We listen to all the advice from the experts, but Opposition Members are expecting us to reject advice from huge numbers of independent medical organisations—to ignore their advice and to go for the politically easy option of introducing separate jabs. That would be politically easy but it would put children's health at risk and it would be morally wrong.
    Mr. John McFall: The Minister should know that 500 million MMR jabs have been administered worldwide since 1972, but not one scare has taken place in any country in the world, until that of the past year, caused by the political opportunism of the Conservative party. For the sake of allaying young parents' fears and for the sake of sanity and the health of young people in this country in the future, will the Minister and the Department engage in direct mailing or become involved in ensuring that GPs' surgeries inform parents of the weight of medical and nursing opinion behind the MMR jab?
    Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. The overwhelming evidence from and consensus in 90 countries across the world support the MMR jab, not separate jabs. That is exactly why the assistant surgeon

    555
    general in the United States, the head of the vaccine programme of the Pan American Health Organisation, the regional adviser for communicable diseases of the World Health Organisation, the chairwoman of the Australian National Immunisation Committee and the chairman of the American Academy of Paediatrics have all recently contacted us to urge us not to introduce separate jabs and to stick with MMR.
    My hon. Friend is right to suggest that parents need to be able to get answers to their questions; they are understandably concerned, given all the reports that they have read. That is exactly what we are trying to do.

    Cancelled Operations
    Mr. Mark Prisk: How many cancelled operations there were in each of the last two years. [34706]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): In 2000–01, 77,818 operations were cancelled on the day by the hospital for non-medical reasons. During 1999–2000, 60,242 operations were cancelled.
    Mr. Prisk: Given that significant national increase and the fact that, in Hertfordshire, the number of cancelled operations has more than doubled in the five years since 1997, will the Minister explain why the link between bed blocking and the increase in cancelled operations matters? What will she do to reduce both those factors?
    Jacqui Smith: A whole range of issues is likely to determine the number of cancelled operations. The Government are taking action through the Modernisation Agency and an £8.5 million project to ensure that good management and reform is in place to cut the number of cancelled operations. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already said, we are taking significant action and investing significant amounts of money to ensure that we tackle the problem of delayed discharge and its effect not only on the health service, but especially on the individuals whom it affects. We are also increasing capacity in the health service. Although we have not made much progress on that issue, we need to return to the fact that the Government are putting in place the reform and investment necessary to make the difference. Would Opposition Members support that investment?
    Hugh Bayley: I welcome the Minister's statement about the action that the Government are taking to reduce the number of cancelled operations. However, to put the issue in context, will she confirm that, since the Labour Government came to power, the number of operations completed by the NHS has increased by more than 500,000, and that the answer is not to return to the Conservative approach of carrying out fewer operations, but to continue to put in additional resources, so that more people are treated by the NHS under a Labour Government?
    Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend is right. Not only are we performing more operations in the NHS, but we are achieving better outcomes in the NHS. The NHS and those people who work in it deserve congratulations on that. Of course, that is happening because the Government
    556
    are increasing the capacity of the NHS to do so. For example, we have achieved our NHS plan pledge for 20,000 more nurses by 2004 two years early. Opposition Members described that pledge as preposterous. It is not preposterous; it shows that the Government are delivering for the NHS and its patients.
    Mr. Mike Hancock: As one of the most significant contributing factors to Portsmouth Hospitals NHS trust's failing was the high number of cancelled operations, will the Minister give an assurance that finance will play no part in the cancellation of further operations in our hospitals? Will she also consider whether the new private finance initiative franchising scheme for Portsmouth will have to carry forward the £3 million deficit? If it does have to do so, it will lead to even more operations having to be cancelled.
    Jacqui Smith: I am not surprised that Liberal Democrats, following the lead of their health spokesman, should argue for more resources to go into the health service. We have no objection to that. This Government, in two spending reviews, have increased the amount of money going into the national health service by more than a third. However, that must be matched by the sort of reform that is also necessary to ensure that we reduce levels of cancelled operations—sharing best practice, ensuring that the Modernisation Agency brings about improvements and investing in diagnostic and treatment centres to split emergency and elective care. Money itself is not enough—it is crucial, but so is the reform with which this Government are accompanying it.
    Tim Loughton: Will the Minister confirm that the 77,818 operations cancelled last year for non-medical reasons represented not only a 50 per cent. increase under her Government but an increasing trend over the last year—up by 29 per cent.—and an increasing proportion of total operations? Even more worryingly, the number of patients not readmitted for their operation within a month has more than doubled. Although her response to the problem—spending £8.5 billion on appointing a gaggle of cancellation tsars—will no doubt have many patients dancing on their trolleys, will she tell our constituents, in layman's terms, her definition of non-medical cancellations? Furthermore, will she explain why, in her national health service, there are such wide variations in cancellation rates between hospitals, ranging from 0.1 per cent. to 18 per cent?
    Jacqui Smith: Levels of cancelled operations in the national health service are too high. That is why this Government are reforming the service and ensuring that efficient management and systems are in place. Most important, we are increasing the capacity in the national health service. There were more beds last year for the first time in 30 years, more staff and an increase of 5.7 per cent. in the number of consultants working in the national health service. We are increasing capacity and investment. Will the hon. Gentleman support and reinforce that?

    NHS Dentistry
    Lawrie Quinn: If he will make a statement on the number of dentists working in the NHS. [34707]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): A total of 20,480 dentists were working across all dental services in England in September 1997. The number of dentists working in September 2001 was 22,440. That is an increase of 1,960.
    Lawrie Quinn: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and welcome the increase in the number of NHS dentists. Does he agree that in market towns, such as Whitby, where there is great difficulty in gaining access to NHS dentists, people have to travel to larger centres? Will he say what the primary care trust can be expected to do to make it easier for people in rural locations to have access to NHS dentists?
    Mr. Hutton: I agree with my hon. Friend that people in some rural areas clearly experience problems in accessing NHS dentistry. That is true in my constituency. I am sure that he will welcome the decision of the local health authority to establish one of the new dental access centres in his constituency on two sites—one in Scarborough, with which I am sure he is familiar, and one in Whitby, too. Next year, when the service begins to operate with full efficiency, it is estimated that it will be able to treat about 3,500 patients in his area. That is an important step forward.
    As my hon. Friend probably remembers, the Government's rural White Paper made it clear that we were committed to developing access to NHS dentistry in rural areas. There are three things in particular that we can do. First, we need to continue to invest in dental practitioners' premises in rural areas, and the lion's share of investment is going into such practices. Secondly, we have dental access centres, and the majority of the new 49 DACs serve rural areas. Thirdly, local health authorities, including the primary care trust in my hon. Friend's area, can enter into spot contracts with local dentists to treat unregistered patients on the national health service. That will help my hon. Friend's constituents and others in rural areas in particular.
    Mr. James Gray: The experience of the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) matches mine in Chippenham, a town of 35,000 people in which not one national health service dentist practises today. Is the Minister aware of the British Dental Association's commentary on the so-called dental strategy? It says:
    "There is nothing very new in the strategy. What we've been given is ministerial double-speak…We are heading for an unmanned toothache service."
    Is he proud of that?
    Mr. Hutton: I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Gentleman, but he is speaking a load of old cobblers. He might like to look at some of the statistics on NHS dentistry because he will probably be struck, as I was, by the fact that since 1997 the total volume of NHS dental treatment has increased by 1.8 million. That compares strongly with the period between 1992 and 1997, when the number of NHS treatments for dentistry declined. Of course there is a problem. It would be stupid to pretend otherwise and we are taking action to deal with that. The dental strategy is not a waste of time. It is increasing NHS
    558
    access to dental treatment and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman cannot find it within him to welcome any of the progress that is being made.
    Mrs. Betty Williams: Although I welcome the increased number of dentists who work in the NHS in England, will my right hon. Friend undertake to hold discussions as soon as possible with the Health Minister in the National Assembly for Wales to compare the success in England with the success stories in Wales?
    Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. She is aware that such matters are the responsibility of the National Assembly for Wales. However, we keep in regular contact with Jane Hutt, the Health Minister in the Assembly, and we share similar objectives to increase access to NHS dentistry in all parts of the United Kingdom.

    Accident and Emergency Services
    Dr. Andrew Murrison: If he will make a statement on waiting times in accident and emergency units. [34708]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): The NHS plans set a target to reduce waiting times in accident and emergency departments to a maximum of four hours from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge by 2004. The NHS is on track to meet that target with 77 per cent. of all A and E attenders currently spending four hours or less in A and E. In nearly a third of trusts, at least 90 per cent. of people attending A and E are discharged or admitted within four hours. The Government launched the reforming emergency care strategy last October, supported by investment of £118 million. That is helping hospitals around the country to tackle waiting times in A and E departments and to meet the NHS plan target.
    Dr. Murrison: I grateful to the Minister for that upbeat reply. I am afraid that the community health councils, which her Government have pledged to abolished, do not agree with her, however, as they said in their report, "Nationwide Casualty Watch" recently. At the Royal United hospital in Bath and Salisbury district hospital, 10 per cent. of my constituents admitted through the casualty department have to wait for four hours or longer on a trolley. What is she going to do about that? Will she condemn the practice of keeping acutely ill patients waiting in ambulances outside casualty departments for long periods of time?
    Ms Blears: I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government are taking a series of actions to address the admittedly serious problems in his local hospital. An intervention team was established on 7 January this year. It comprises top-class consultants and physicians who have gone into the hospital to work side by side with the clinicians to help them to change their practices, to improve the length of time that people wait in A and E and to ensure that delayed discharges are treated in a much better fashion.

    559
    I am pleased to say that there have been marked improvements on all those indicators in the past two weeks in terms of trolley waits, waits in A and E and delayed discharge. A great deal of extra investment is going into the service. The hon. Gentleman's local hospital shows, however, that it needs to be matched by reform if we are to get the results that will benefit his constituents and patients in that area. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chamber is far too noisy.
    Mr. Alan Simpson: May I thank the Minister for the extra investment in the A and E facilities at the Queen's medical centre in my constituency? I hope that she had a chance to see the excellent fly-on-the-wall documentary produced by Channel 4, "The Trust", which illustrated the enormous pressure under which the A and E department is having to work. I am sure that she recognises that some causes of that pressure are not within our control, but will she act on two points that arose from the documentary? First, will she support the QMC's initiative to take a zero tolerance approach towards violence by patients against A and E staff? Secondly, will she hold serious discussion with primary care trusts about the withdrawal of funding for community-based services relating to drugs, mental health and alcohol problems, which result in a disproportionate—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We will now let the Minister reply.
    Ms Blears: I am delighted that my hon. Friend is pleased about the modernisation that has taken place in his local A and E department. Some 180 A and E departments throughout the country have been improved as a result of Government investment. I am also glad to reassure him that we have a policy of zero tolerance of violence against every person working in the NHS, and those of us who have visited A and E departments on a Friday and Saturday night will have seen the entirely unacceptable stress under which staff operate.
    My hon. Friend is right to say that the problems in A and E are problems of the whole system—of primary care, of delayed discharges and of the need to increase capacity. We must get the whole system working if we are to reduce the pressures on A and E. This Government are about putting investment into the whole NHS system, making sure that A and E departments can provide first class services to the patients for whom they are responsible.
    Hywel Williams: It is not only accident and emergency waiting times that concern us; between 1997 and 2001 the number of people in Wales waiting for treatment for six months or more increased by an enormous 1,000 per cent. In the past, the Secretary of State has told us with some glee that he does not do Wales, but does he not accept that he has some responsibility for that scandal?
    Ms Blears: Obviously, those are devolved matters, but it is not a question of us not doing Wales at all. We are delighted to be able to work with our colleagues in the devolved Administrations to make sure that everybody has the chance to access high quality services. I am sure
    560
    that the hon. Gentleman knows that our NHS services are operating under tremendous pressure; A and E departments see 15 million patients every year, which is 30,000 patients every day, and in the vast majority of cases they are providing top-class, first-rate services. Clearly, there is increased pressure, but the Government are tackling that with increased investment in every part of the NHS, including primary care, secondary care and accident and emergency. That is this Government's record, and I wonder whether any Opposition Members would be prepared to match that investment to make sure that we can provide high-quality services for people in every part of the country.
    Mr. Andy Reed: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the enormous pressures on Leicester royal infirmary. We welcome the extra investment that will improve its capacity. Is my hon. Friend aware of the fantastic achievement of walk-in centres in reducing the number of admissions to places such as the royal infirmary? Will she ensure that continued funding for such centres, particularly the excellent one in Loughborough, is part of the NHS budget from the centre, rather than the burden being placed on local primary care trusts?
    Ms Blears: My hon. Friend makes a characteristically intelligent and analytical remark about the role of NHS walk-in centres. He is absolutely right that such centres, of which there are now 42 throughout the country, with another one set to open this summer, are playing a significant role in reducing pressure on A and E departments because they are able to see many patients with minor illnesses. It is important that we evaluate walk-in centres, which are still pilot projects, before extending the funding nationally. It is vital that we ensure that walk-in centres, minor injury units, NHS Direct and out of hours services provide high-quality services.

    Government Targets (Clinical Decision Making)
    Mr. Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove): What recent discussions he has had with representatives of health care professionals on the impact of Government targets on clinical decision making. [34709]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): Ministers in the Department of Health meet regularly with representatives of health care professionals to discuss all aspects of the Government's strategy for investment and reform in the NHS.
    Mr. Stunell: Is the Minister satisfied that in the north-west cancer patients are being diverted from treatment simply to meet the Government's two-week waiting target when treatment does not affect survival? Would it not be more satisfactory to move to average waiting times when setting those targets, as the Liberal Democrats advocate?
    Mr. Hutton: To be honest, I am probably not alone in not quite knowing what the Liberal Democrats are saying about access to treatment. As I understand it, they want waiting times to come down, but they cannot say by how much or even give a time when patients should be treated. The majority of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, and

    561
    other Members of this place, want patients to be treated at the earliest opportunity, especially if there is a diagnosis of suspected cancer. It is right that we have set targets, which patients and the public support. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to note that the death rates
    562
    for two of the country's major killers, cancer and heart disease, are coming down, and that more than 90 per cent. of cancer patients are now being seen within two weeks of urgent GP referral. That is progress and not, as he would like to characterise it, a step back.

Resignation of Martin Sixsmith
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Stephen Byers): with permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the circumstances surrounding the resignation of Mr. Martin Sixsmith from the post of director of communications in my Department.
On 14 February, the Daily Express and The Mirror reported that my special adviser Jo Moore had sought to schedule an announcement on the day of the funeral of Princess Margaret. Both papers reported that an e-mail had been sent from Martin Sixsmith to Jo Moore in the following terms:
"Dear Jo, there is no way I will allow this Department to make any substantive announcements next Friday. Princess Margaret is being buried on that day. I will absolutely not allow anything else to be."
In fact, no such e-mail was sent from Martin Sixsmith to Jo Moore. Nevertheless, The Mirror reported yesterday that Martin Sixsmith apparently told the reporter concerned on 14 February,
"every aspect of your story is correct. I'm happy with it."
On the morning of 14 February, the Prime Minister's official spokesman briefed the Lobby on the allegations contained in the Daily Express and The Mirror using an explanation that had been agreed with Martin Sixsmith. Subsequently, that lunchtime and into the afternoon, it seems that one or more officials from my Department began to brief the press that the line used by the Prime Minister's official spokesman was incorrect. At least one official appears to have spoken on the basis that he was ringing on behalf of Martin Sixsmith. So what we had was a concerted attempt by a very small number of civil servants in the press office to undermine the Department—[Interruption.] I should stress that only a very small number were involved and their actions are being investigated. The vast majority work in a very good, committed and dedicated manner.
On the morning of Friday 15 February, I met my permanent secretary, Sir Richard Mottram, to discuss the situation. Sir Richard told me that in his view, the positions of both Martin Sixsmith and Jo Moore had become untenable. He felt that the best thing for the Department would be if they both left their posts, because relationships within the Department and with its Ministers had broken down. He recommended that we should seek their resignations. I agreed with Sir Richard's recommendation. I said that I would talk to Jo Moore, and Sir Richard said that he would talk to Martin Sixsmith.
We were clear that the Department could not carry on with the communications department in the state that it was. As I made clear on the Dimbleby programme at the weekend, I believed that both should go. Jo Moore agreed to resign. Martin Sixsmith agreed to resign. I announced the resignations. The details of the events that day are set out in Sir Richard Mottram's statement of yesterday.
Since then, there have been a number of meetings and discussions involving Mr. Sixsmith in an attempt to resolve the detailed terms of his departure. I have not been directly involved in those negotiations. I have not met or spoken to Mr. Sixsmith since his resignation, and the detail of those discussions has been conducted by Sir Richard Mottram. I made it clear to Sir Richard
564
Mottram, however, that in my view—this view is strengthened by the events of the past few days—Mr. Sixsmith should not be given a job elsewhere in government.
Ultimately, I was not in a position to block any arrangement about his future employment elsewhere in the civil service and I accepted that discussions between Sir Richard Mottram and Mr. Sixsmith should continue. Those discussions focused on him either getting another job in government or being compensated according to the terms of his contract. It was because, in the end, this decision about his future beyond his leaving my Department was not for me to take that I sought to make it clear on the Dimbleby programme that I was not personally involved in the discussions with Mr. Sixsmith on an alternative civil service job. But if my answers on the programme gave the impression that I did not put forward a view or make clear my views to others inside and outside the Department, that is obviously something that I regret and I welcome this opportunity in the House to clarify matters.
It is true that I was not personally involved in the negotiations. It is also true, however, that I believed that Mr. Sixsmith should not be given another job. I did not see the Dimbleby programme as a suitable place for detailed discussion about a personnel issue. Indeed, it is with some regret that I stand here now making clear what my views of Mr. Sixsmith actually are.
I should emphasise that this is not an argument between elected politicians and civil servants. As the Prime Minister has repeatedly made clear, the dedication, professionalism and political impartiality of the British civil service is one of this country's greatest assets. [Interruption.] I wholly endorse that view. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State is entitled to have a hearing and the House should give him one. He is going to be questioned and he should be given a hearing.
Mr. Byers: My Department, like every other, is staffed by dedicated, hard-working people who impartially serve Governments of any colour. What is at issue is whether one or two unnamed officials, acting quite contrary to the traditions and ethos of the civil service, can be allowed to disrupt and undermine the vital work of a Department of State. I do not believe that they can. I will not allow this issue to distract myself, my ministerial team or my Department from delivering on the challenging agenda ahead of us. Long before this issue is forgotten, people will judge us by what really matters. I will not shy away from taking the tough decisions, whether in relation to Railtrack, reforming local government, or making sure that none of our regions is left behind.
What matters to the people of our country is seeing improvements to our transport system, value given once again to local government, providing decent homes for our people and the regeneration of our communities. That is what we are committed to doing as a Government, and that is what I am delivering—and will continue to deliver—as Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.
Mrs. Theresa May: Today is a day of humiliation for the Secretary of State, that he should have

565
to come to the House once again to explain how his version of certain events differs from that of other people involved. His Department is in a state of paralysis, key issues are not being addressed, and there is a breakdown in trust between him and the civil servants. He has compromised the impartiality of the civil service and today, yet again, for the third time running, No. 10 has abandoned him.
The Secretary of State's version of events is simply not credible, as he yet again he resorts to blaming civil servants for his own failures. He is ducking and weaving around the facts, and resorting to the last bastion of new Labour: the desperate attempt carefully to choose the words to give one impression, when the reality is very different. He is spinning constantly; spinning to the very end.
Throughout all the claims and counter-claims about the events surrounding Mr. Sixsmith's resignation, two key facts stand out. First, the Secretary of State announced on 15 February that his Department had accepted the resignation of Mr. Sixsmith and Jo Moore; Mr. Sixsmith had not resigned. Secondly, the Secretary of State said on the Dimbleby programme on 24 February:
"I had absolutely nothing to do with and no discussions about Mr. Sixsmith's departure."
Yesterday, however, the permanent secretary made a statement in which he said:
"It was clear to me this situation could not continue and that Jo Moore and Martin Sixsmith should both leave their posts, because relationships within the Department and with its Ministers had broken down. I discussed this with Mr. Byers. He agreed with my proposal."
Today, the Secretary of State needs to answer a number of questions clearly and accurately, with no more words chosen carefully to give an impression that is different from the facts, no more phrases that mean different things to different people, and no more passing the blame on to others. He says that he prides himself on taking tough decisions; let him put those words into action today.
When the Secretary of State announced on Friday 15 February that his Department had accepted Mr. Sixsmith's resignation, had he been told by the permanent secretary, Sir Richard Mottram, that Mr. Sixsmith had resigned? Will the right hon. Gentleman now confirm to the House that, contrary to his clear statement on the Dimbleby programme, he did indeed have discussions with the permanent secretary about Mr. Sixsmith's departure? Will the Secretary of State also tell the House what Mr. Sixsmith did wrong that required his resignation from the Department?
Did the right hon. Gentleman at any time say that he would accept Jo Moore's resignation only if Mr. Sixsmith resigned at the same time? Will the Secretary of State also clarify whether Mr. Sixsmith has now resigned? Since the Secretary of State's announcement on 15 February, has he contacted or sought to contact or been contacted by anyone with a view to discussing a pay settlement for Mr. Sixsmith? Did the Secretary of State see Sir Richard Mottram's statement of 25 February before it was issued?
Does the Secretary of State believe in the impartiality of the civil service? Does he believe that that impartiality has been strengthened or weakened by his actions? Has he no pride? How dare he come to the House today—
566
[Interruption.] After the chaos and paralysis that he has brought to his Department, after compromising the impartiality and neutrality of civil servants, after making statements to the press and on television that do not reflect the reality of the situation, how can he come here today and attempt, yet again, to put the blame—
Hon. Members: Bye, bye.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the hon. Lady speak.
Mrs. May: How can the Secretary of State come here today and yet again attempt to put the blame for his own failures on the civil servants in his Department? Just what does it take for this Secretary of State to go? Is he content to stay at any price—a despised Secretary of State who no one trusts and no one will deal with? He has said that his Department needs a fresh start. He has prided himself on taking tough decisions. Let him salvage something from his shattered reputation: give the Department the fresh start it needs and go now.
Mr. Byers: I think that that was prepared a little earlier, before the hon. Lady had read my statement. The important point that the House needs to address—
Mr. Eric Forth: Answer the questions.
Mr. Byers: I will answer the questions. Mr. Forth: All of them.
Mr. Byers: I will answer all the questions. When Opposition Members have had the opportunity to read my statement, they will see that most of the questions have already been answered in it.
The situation is this. The hon. Lady referred to the Dimbleby programme, on which I was very clear about the circumstances of the resignations. That was reaffirmed by the points made in yesterday's statement by the permanent secretary, Sir Richard Mottram. His view was that the situation of both Martin Sixsmith and Jo Moore was untenable in the light of circumstances in the Department's press office and that we should seek their resignations. I agreed with that. It was a recommendation from the permanent secretary, and I made that clear. If hon. Members see the transcript of the Dimbleby programme, they will see that I said that.
The crucial issue, I think, relates to whether, in the circumstances, Martin Sixsmith's resignation was communicated to me. As yesterday's statement from Sir Richard Mottram makes very clear, he informed me and the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Richard Wilson, that Martin Sixsmith had agreed to resign. It was on that basis that I made the announcement. The hon. Lady raises the issue that the condition of Jo Moore resigning was that Martin Sixsmith should resign as well. There were no such conditions attached to Jo Moore's resignation.
On the issue of whether I have been involved in the detailed discussions relating to Mr. Sixsmith's termination, the situation—I hope that I made it clear in my statement, but I shall try to clarify it for Opposition Members—is that I made it clear to Sir Richard Mottram that, in my view, which I believe has been strengthened

567
by events over the past few days, Mr. Sixsmith should not be given a job elsewhere in government. The crucial issue addressed in the Dimbleby programme, however, was whether I had in some way blocked his appointment. Ultimately, as I have said, I am not in a position to block any arrangement regarding his future employment elsewhere in the civil service, and I accepted that discussions between Sir Richard Mottram and Mr. Sixsmith would continue. It is appropriate that they should.
Those, I think, are the key issues raised by the hon. Lady. I am clear that, given the way in which he conducted himself in the Department, Martin Sixsmith was not a suitable person to remain in government; but that, ultimately, was not a decision made by me as Secretary of State. It is a matter to be discussed between the permanent secretary and Mr. Sixsmith himself, and those discussions were continuing up until last Friday.
Andrew Bennett: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his determination to deal with the real problems that his Department faces in sorting out local government finance, securing a modern transport system for us, and making a reality of urban regeneration. Does he accept that he will be judged at the end of this Parliament, both by Labour Members and in the country, on his success in those areas rather than on the minutiae of today's debate?
Mr. Byers: Of course—and I must stress that not just my ministerial team but the vast majority of civil servants in the Department are committed to achieving those objectives. They are impartial: they serve the Government of the day. We have experienced difficulties in this particular instance, but they have occurred in the communications department and, thankfully, not in a department that has been responsible for delivering on those important aims.
We need to ensure that we concentrate on the key issues that concern people in our country. Those issues are very clear. I can understand why the Conservatives do not want to talk about them: they were responsible for 18 years of neglect. Communities in our country are still suffering the scars inflicted by that Conservative Government, and that is what the Conservatives do not want to talk about. They will concentrate on the contract of employment of one senior civil servant. What about the millions who lost their jobs under a Conservative Government? We hear nothing about that. But this Government, this Department and this Secretary of State are dedicated to improving transport, to reforming local government, to giving decent housing to our people, and to the regeneration of our communities. That is our agenda, that is the country's agenda, and that is what we will deliver on.
Mr. Don Foster: It would be all too easy to call for the Secretary of State's resignation over this one issue. After all, the Tories do it at the drop of a hat. But does not this particular issue demonstrate the feuding that has been going on for far too long at the very heart of the Secretary of State's Department? Not only has that feuding detracted from the Department's ability to do its work; it is symptomatic of a crisis of management within the Department—a crisis of management that has led to chaos on our railways, in London Underground, and in National Air Traffic Services.
568
Does this not mean that the Department no longer even knows what is going on? For example, it does not even keep records of the research that it has commissioned, and does not know whether or not vital safety recommendations to improve our railways have been implemented. Even today's statement was entitled "Resignation of Martin Sixsmith", although it is absolutely clear that he has not resigned at all.
Even more important than the crisis of management over which he presides, however, is the Secretary of State's own behaviour. Section 58 of the ministerial code specifically requires ministers not to issue instructions contrary to the civil service code, and requires them to behave as good employers. As it is clear from his statement that the Secretary of State was directly involved in the removal of Mr. Sixsmith, how can he claim not to be in breach of section 58 of the ministerial code?
How can a senior member of the right hon. Gentleman's Department be removed without any inquiry into allegations of misconduct, particularly when it is now claimed that Sir Richard Mottram has said that there has been no misconduct? Surely if the Secretary of State and his Department are behaving as good employers, Martin Sixsmith should have the same employment rights as anybody else. Like the Secretary of State, Martin Sixsmith deserves to have a hearing. Can the Secretary of State tell the House of what Martin Sixsmith is actually guilty?
Is it any wonder, with all this going on, that it appears that the only person retaining full confidence in the Secretary of State is the Prime Minister? Given all of these causes for concern about the crisis in his Department, would it not be right for the Secretary of State at least to move over and make way for somebody else to lead the Department and to go now?
Mr. Byers: I have looked carefully at the ministerial code as well, and the hon. Gentleman will know that section 58 clearly talks about issuing instructions. I thought that I had made it clear in my statement—certainly Sir Richard Mottram did yesterday—that Sir Richard Mottram came to me on 15 February to say that, in his view, in the interests of the Department, the best outcome would be if Jo Moore and Martin Sixsmith resigned. That was his recommendation to me, and I agreed with it. There is no question of instructions; a permanent secretary came to me and made a recommendation. That was the substance of the allegation that has been made.
The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) says that the Department is not doing anything, and that it is in paralysis and crisis. This is a Department that, in the last eight months—[Interruption.] Conservative Members immediately talk about what we did in relation to Railtrack. I know that it is very difficult for the Conservatives to come to terms with the fact that we have acted in relation to their failed privatisation, but the reality is that we have. In addition, we have issued a White Paper on the reform of local government structures and finance. For the first time since 1947, we have issued a Green Paper on changing the planning system. We have also changed the Strategic Rail Authority to provide greater focus. We have the new deal for communities, which is making a difference to literally hundreds of thousands of people in our country.
That is what we have been able to do in the Department. It is not a Department in paralysis; the Department is taking action. The Liberal Democrats

569
disagree with much of what we have done; I wear that as a badge of compliment. We are doing the right things and we will continue to do so in the interests of the people of this country.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the British civil service not only performs important tasks, but, in his Department, provides skilled and intelligent back-up for transport policies that are desperately needed in a country where the railway system is breaking down and there are considerable problems with roads and aviation. Will he bear in mind that those civil servants are worthy of much better appreciation? Will he make it clear that the politicisation of the civil service relationship—begun under a previous Conservative Prime Minister—will not be tolerated by those who want the transport system of this country to be rejuvenated under the aegis of those who are prepared to take difficult decisions?
Mr. Byers: I have never taken the view that one should judge a civil servant on whether or not they were one of us, and I know that certain Opposition Members would not disagree with that approach. My hon. Friend makes an important point. As Chairman of the Transport Committee, she deals with many officials in my Department and she will know that they are dedicated and hard-working. They want to work with me in meeting the challenges posed by the railways, roads, buses, underground and aviation. Big challenges lie ahead, and I am confident that we will be able to meet them together as a Department. I honestly believe that the resignations of Jo Moore and Martin Sixsmith mean that we are in a stronger position to meet those challenges.
There is no doubt in my mind that the impartiality of the civil service is one of its greatest strengths. I have done nothing as Secretary of State that would in any way compromise that impartiality, and that is how I intend to continue.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: Given that this morning the Prime Minister's official spokesman repeatedly refused to answer the simple, direct question whether the Prime Minister believes that the Secretary of State has told the truth, on what basis should the House form a judgment about the latter's statement? Clearly, the Prime Minister no longer believes him.
Mr. Byers: The Prime Minister will make his position clear. Had the Prime Minister's official spokesman in the Lobby briefing this morning gone through the statement that I intended to make to the House, the right hon. Gentleman would have been the first to criticise that. The House has had an opportunity to hear at first hand from me about the circumstances of Martin Sixsmith's resignation. I have declined invitations to go on numerous television and radio programmes to provide the House with this opportunity, and I have been open and honest, knowing the consequences that would follow were I to mislead the House in any way. My statement, confirming the points made yesterday by Sir Richard Mottram, set out the facts of the events that occurred in my Department over the past two weeks.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: What were the circumstances in which so equable a civil servant as
570
Sir Richard Mottram, whom some of us have known for 20 years, since the time when he was Michael Heseltine's private secretary and gave evidence at the Old Bailey in the trial of Clive Ponting, was prompted to say that the Department was—let me use the word "stymied"?
Mr. Byers: I have heard it expressed in many ways, but "stymied" is not one of them. My hon. Friend's question had a serious point, however. The permanent secretary felt deeply frustrated at the way in which communications in our press office had broken down and there was a lack of confidence and trust. Sir Richard Mottram has indeed had a long and distinguished career in the civil service, and he shared my frustration at what had been going on and expressed himself accordingly. In his statement yesterday, he made it absolutely clear what had happened. I invite all right hon. and hon. Members to study carefully the statement that he made yesterday, as well as the statement that I made this afternoon, because they represent an accurate recollection of events as they took place.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: Whatever the Secretary of State may gloss over, does not he realise quite how demeaning this is for himself, Sir Richard Mottram and the standing of Government? He is evasive on key points. He says that he does not involve himself in personnel matters, but does not recommend that a particular person should find a position in another Department. This is a demeaning process. The House is concerned about the standard of public administration, and this looks like a considerable failure on the part of the Secretary of State and his Department. This is shaming.
Mr. Byers: When the hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to look at the sequence of events that occurred in the week in question, I hope that he will be able to see exactly what Martin Sixsmith was involved in and will draw his own conclusions. It was in the light of that that I expressed the view that he was not a suitable person to remain in the senior civil service. That is the situation, and when hon. Members consider the points that I have made, I think that they will be able to recognise that.
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that these are serious issues in terms of ensuring that the civil service is impartial and can get on with its job. I believe that what we have done will ensure that that impartiality remains.
Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: I assure my right hon. Friend that not many people on the streets of Cunninghame, South are worried about the future of Mr. Sixsmith. They are worried about the state of the roads and the railways. I have been a member of the Transport Committee for many years, and have heard many Secretaries of State give evidence. I assure my right hon. Friend that he is among the best that I have encountered. Perhaps the main reason why he is taking such flak today is that Conservative Members, who were responsible for the privatisation of the railways, now condemn him for taking Railtrack into administration. That is the real reason why they are baying for my right hon. Friend's blood today.
Mr. Byers: Some tough decisions have been taken. Many have been opposed by Opposition Members, which is always an indication that we are moving in the right

571
direction. More difficult decisions will be taken in the months and years ahead. I look forward to appearing before my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) and the Transport Committee for many years to come.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the Secretary of State clarify the situation, as no one ever believes anyone about anything nowadays? The right hon. Gentleman has said that Mr. Sixsmith has resigned, but that gentleman says that he has not and that he was told that he had done nothing wrong. In those circumstances, does Mr. Sixsmith have the right to go for an impartial hearing on unfair dismissal? I hope that the Secretary of State will answer that clear and specific question.
Mr. Byers: The resignation was agreed with Martin Sixsmith and the permanent secretary. It is still the case that the precise terms of his departure are being negotiated and discussed by Martin Sixsmith and the permanent secretary. Mr. Sixsmith' s resignation has been accepted, and the terms under which he is to depart are being negotiated.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Will my right hon. Friend explain how the situation that he has set out to the House this afternoon compares with the occasion when Colette Bowe, a press officer in the Department of Trade and Industry, was ordered by Bernard Ingham to leak a letter from the Solicitor-General against Michael Heseltine? At the time, John Biffen described Bernard Ingham as the sewer, not the sewage. Will my right hon. Friend explain how that action might have compromised the impartiality of the civil service, to use the words of the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May)? Will my right hon. Friend accept it as a compliment that the BBC—which spent the whole of last Monday ringing Labour MPs to get one to criticise the Government on air—and the Tory press are using this matter as a distraction—
Hon. Members: Give way.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must let the right hon. Gentleman put his question.
Mr. Kaufman: They are using this matter as a distraction from the fact that the Government have a lead of 17 per cent., according to the latest ICM poll. The Opposition's present performance will only serve to increase that lead. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the Gorton division— [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Secretary of State can answer.
Mr. Byers: Once again, my right hon. Friend has done the House a service by reminding us of the events of 1985 and the role played by Bernard Ingham. I am conscious of the great support that I have had from my right hon. and hon. Friends. This is not an argument about one civil servant, but a real conflict about the direction in which the Government are going. The Conservatives simply cannot understand that the Government have a commanding lead
572
in the opinion polls because we are putting the priorities of the people first. We will continue to do that and will not be distracted by events such as this.
Mr. Edward Garnier: The Secretary of State has so far given the impression that Mr. Sixsmith was removed because he was inconvenient. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us precisely what Mr. Sixsmith did wrong to warrant his removal, when the allegation was put to him, so that he knew what he had to deal with, and who put that allegation to him?
Mr. Byers: As I think I said clearly in my opening statement, the permanent secretary, when I met him on Friday 15 February, said that in his view the situations of both Jo Moore and Martin Sixsmith were untenable because of the way in which the press office was operating and that it would therefore be in the best interests of the Department if the resignations of both of them could be secured. I agreed with the permanent secretary's recommendation and, as a result, both individuals resigned.
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: May I say to my right hon. Friend how welcome is the clarity of his exposition of the events leading up to the resignation—with hindsight, the welcome resignation—of Martin Sixsmith? I remind him of the full support that he has from those on the Government Benches for the objectives that he has set for his Department. I urge him to ignore the futile fumblings of a mealy-mouthed Opposition and the feeding frenzy in the media and get on with what matters outside Westminster—the delivery of those objectives.
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am sure that in the streets and clubs of Walton, in Liverpool and in the country generally, Martin Sixsmith is not the issue of the day. The issues are about improving our transport system, regenerating communities such as those on Merseyside which have been battered for far too long—we are taking steps there—getting decent housing for our people and ensuring that we have an infrastructure fit for the 21st century and the fourth largest economy in the world. We do not have that at the moment. We are about investing and reforming. Conservative Members do not accept that. They would take the money away and would not put reforms in place either.
Norman Baker: It is indeed brave of the Secretary of State to lay down his civil servant's life to save his skin. What happened to the convention that Secretaries of State take responsibility for what happens in their Department, instead of passing it on to civil servants? The Secretary of State has been very keen this afternoon to rubbish Martin Sixsmith and to say that Jo Moore should have resigned. What responsibility does he take? Does he think that he did anything wrong in this episode, or is he perfection personified?
Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the convention is that Secretaries of State do not get involved in the detailed personnel matters of the civil service. That is the reality of the situation. What happened in this case, as I explained in my statement, is that the permanent

573
secretary came to me with what he regarded as the best way forward, given the difficulties that we had, and I agreed with his recommendation.
Mr. Clive Soley: Will the Secretary of State keep it firmly in his mind when he looks at some of the headlines in newspapers whose journalists spend too much time watching soap operas that the British people are not terribly interested in a conflict between two individuals in one section of his Department, whereas they are extremely interested in putting right the botched privatisation of the railways? In a few months' time, people will remember only one thing about this—it is a story of the media, by the media and for the media.
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point and there is a lesson for us all. When this issue is long forgotten, people will still be looking to us to improve the transport system, whether rail, road, bus, the underground or aviation. Those are the big issues that matter to people, as do regeneration, decent housing and sorting out our planning system. The Opposition may regard this as the big issue of the day, but if they fight the next general election on such a basis they will end up with even fewer Members of Parliament.
Mr. John Gummer: The Secretary of State must know that he has yet to give an explanation of why Mr. Sixsmith was sacked—or of why he resigned—that would stand up in any employment tribunal. He has suggested that Mr. Sixsmith had to go because he could not get on with other people in the Department, but is it not clear that the Secretary of State cannot get on with those people? Does that not suggest that, according not to employment law rules but to his own, he ought to resign?
Mr. Byers: I made it clear that, in the view of the permanent secretary, the positions of Martin Sixsmith and Jo Moore had become untenable and that it would be best for the Department if we could secure the resignations of both. I spoke to Jo Moore and the permanent secretary spoke to Martin Sixsmith, and in the light of that both agreed to resign.
Kate Hoey: The Secretary of State says that he does not want to be distracted from important issues. On leaving the House, will he go back to his office and get out the map for congestion charging in London, which was announced today by Ken Livingstone, and explain to me why Kennington is regarded as being in central London but Harrods is not? Will he also do what he should have done before—call in this ridiculous plan, so that a full public inquiry and environmental audit can be undertaken?
Mr. Byers: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns, and we made clear representations about the matter in discussions with the Mayor of London, but under the terms of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 we are not allowed to deal with it. It has been devolved to the Mayor, who will be answerable for the scheme that he wants to introduce.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Secretary of State say whether Mr. Martin Sixsmith was a civil servant in his Department on 22 February?
Mr. Byers: As I said earlier, Martin Sixsmith offered his resignation, which was accepted, on 15 February.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: This is a sorry affair. If it is true that Martin Sixsmith, while a civil servant, telephoned a journalist on The Mirror on 14 February to make allegations about a fellow Government official, will the Secretary of State confirm that such behaviour was a breach of the civil service code and civil service impartiality, and should have merited instant dismissal?
Mr. Byers: Members of the House will have seen the reports in yesterday's edition of The Mirror, which have been accurately reflected in my hon. Friend's comments. The allegations are clearly serious and simply could not be ignored.
Mr. Roger Gale: The customs and conventions of the civil service are absolutely clear: resignations are placed in writing. The Secretary of State has said time and again this afternoon that Mr. Sixsmith has resigned. Would he be good enough to place in the House of Commons Library the letter from Mr. Sixsmith, dated 15 February, offering his resignation, and say what time it was delivered to him?
Mr. Byers: That issue was addressed in yesterday's statement by the permanent secretary, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to read it.
Mr. Chris Mullin: I have known my right hon. Friend for several years and I know him to be a person of integrity. I suspect that part of his problem is that he has upset some mighty vested interests with his decision on Railtrack. If he is guilty of anything, it is of showing excessive loyalty to a colleague and friend. In these days of shifting values, that is not a very great crime. By his statement this afternoon, my right hon. Friend has lanced the boil and we must not surrender to the feeding frenzy. We now need to look forward and move on.
Mr. Byers: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. I chose o make a statement to the House this afternoon for exactly those reasons. I felt that it was appropriate that the House should have the opportunity to hear my account of events. I will be held to account for the comments that I make in the House and I appreciate that. The statement that I have made and Sir Richard Mottram's statement yesterday reflect accurately the sequence of events that have taken place over the past 14 days.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) asked the Secretary of State whether he required Martin Sixsmith's resignation as a condition of Jo Moore's resignation. The Secretary of State replied that no conditions were attached to Jo Moore's resignation. As he knows, that is not an answer to the question that was put. Given that his

575
integrity is on trial, will he now answer the question directly? Did he make Martin Sixsmith's resignation a condition of Jo Moore's resignation?
Mr. Byers: No.
Ms Karen Buck: I have not always been an uncritical friend of my right hon. Friend's Department, especially in relation to London Underground, but it is to his considerable credit that we have been able to have those disagreements without rancour. Will he accept my confirmation that he has many friends on the Government Benches and in local government, where he is widely seen as the most visionary and supportive local government Minister for a quarter of a century? Does he accept that the delivery of personal social services and housing to millions of people is vastly more important than who said what to whom in a row between two press officers, especially when it is essential that Ministers are able to retain confidence in their press officers?
Mr. Byers: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind words. It is important not to lose sight of the issues that really matter to her constituents and others, including the reform of local government and—especially in her constituency—tackling the problems of children growing up in bed and breakfast accommodation. Far too many children are denied life chances because of the conditions in which they are being brought up, and we want to take action to address that. Those are the real, big issues that matter to people outside this place.
The present issue is a media story, because it is linked with a director of communications. The media have focused on it and are not interested in anything else. However, I have the responsibility in my Department to deliver on the big issues that people really care about, such as transport, quality of life, decent homes and the regeneration and restoration of hope to communities. I and the Government will not be diverted from delivering on that agenda.
Sir Peter Tapsell: The Secretary of State told the House some time ago that the notorious e-mail that started all these discussions was never sent by Mr. Sixsmith to Miss Moore. Can the Secretary of State say whether that e-mail, or a similarly worded one, was sent to anyone else in his Department by Mr. Sixsmith, or was a hoax within the Department, or was just an invention of the newspapers?
Mr. Byers: The e-mail to which I referred in my statement was clearly false. What actually happened has been made public, and I shall be more than happy to place a copy of the relevant e-mail in the Library of the House so that all hon. Members may read it. The director of communications, Martin Sixsmith, sent an e-mail to me at my personal e-mail address rather than, as is normally the case, to a private secretary. That e-mail was sent on the Monday following the weekend of the death of Princess Margaret. The Friday of that week had already been announced as the date of her funeral. The e-mail was sent at about 12.30 pm to me as Stephen Byers MP. It began—these words may not be exactly correct, but they are fairly precise—"You asked me to reschedule an announcement to Friday".
576
The implication was that I, after Princess Margaret's death, had approached Martin Sixsmith and said that I wanted to change the date of an announcement to the Friday. That is totally inaccurate. Anyone who read that e-mail would have drawn the same conclusion as I did. I do not know why Martin Sixsmith sent the e-mail in that form, but, without any explanation behind it, it clearly had the potential to put me, as Secretary of State, in a difficult situation.
Mr. Peter Pike: Is it not a fact that anyone who analysed Martin Sixsmith's talk on Radio 4's "Today" programme this morning and Richard Mottram's statement yesterday would fully accept the statement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just made? Is it not also the case that much of the protest today results from the fact that my right hon. Friend had the guts to take action to deal with the Tory shambles of rail privatisation? That is what the Opposition are protesting about. We should let him get on with doing the rest of his job in the same bold and courageous way that he has done it for the past few months.
Mr. Byers: I have started, and I intend to finish.
Mr. Paul Tyler: In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), the Secretary of State referred directly to the ministerial code—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Please let hon. Members put their questions.
Mr. Tyler: In his response to my hon. Friend, the Secretary of State made great play of the fact that he had not instructed that the resignation or dismissal of Mr. Sixsmith should occur. The word "instruct" does not appear in paragraph 58; can he explain that discrepancy? Furthermore, if the Secretary of State did not instruct that Mr. Sixsmith should lose his job, did he agree with the proposition that Mr. Sixsmith had to go? Was that connected with the e-mail that he has introduced at this late stage of our discussion, and will he place that e-mail in the Library so that we may see the context of the statement that he has just made?
Mr. Byers: In response to a previous question, I said that I would place a copy of that e-mail in the Library. I shall of course do so because it is right that hon. Members should read it. I have also said that I agreed with the recommendation made by the permanent secretary. I made that absolutely clear.
Mike Gapes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that among the so-called pundits called on by the BBC and other media organisations over the past few days is a man—one Andy Wood—who worked from when our Government were elected in 1997 to undermine their efforts to obtain an agreement in Northern Ireland? Is not the reality that although the vast majority of civil servants have worked loyally to implement the reforms that we have tried to make and to support the efforts of my right hon. Friend and his colleagues to improve investment in

577
the London underground, reform Railtrack and much more, some people follow their own agenda and wish to support the Tories—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the Secretary of State need reply to that.
Mrs. Angela Browning: On "The Frost Programme" on Sunday morning, the Secretary of State for Scotland dismissed Mr. Sixsmith as a spin doctor who was seeking to negotiate his exit package. Does the Secretary of State agree with that description of a senior civil servant in his Department? Are we to infer from that that when Cabinet members say that senior civil servants are spin doctors, it is a dismissable offence?
Mr. Byers: The terms of Mr. Sixsmith's departure are being discussed between him, his representatives and the permanent secretary. That is the appropriate way of dealing with these matters.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Will the Secretary of State categorically state that at no time did he insist that he would not accept the resignation of Jo Moore without the resignation of Mr. Sixsmith?
Mr. Byers: I hope that I have made that clear, but I shall try to do so again. There was no linkage between the two. Jo Moore resigned without any conditions being attached. I understand from the statement made by Sir Richard Mottram— [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no point in the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) asking the Secretary of State a question if he does not allow him to answer it. The right hon. Gentleman should let the Secretary of State answer.
Mr. Byers: The statement made yesterday by Sir Richard Mottram made it clear that it was a condition of Martin Sixsmith's resignation that Jo Moore should resign.
Chris Grayling: Does the Secretary of State believe that the shambolic events of the past week reflect well or badly on the leadership of his Department, including himself?
Mr. Byers: I think that we have done the right thing by securing the resignations of Jo Moore and Martin Sixsmith. As I said earlier, I honestly believe that the Department is now in a stronger position to move forward and to meet the challenges that lie ahead.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order.

Resignation of Martin Sixsmith

  NEW MEMBER TAKING THE OATH
  The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:
  Huw Irranca-Davies Esq., for Ogmore

  Point of Order
  4.33 pm
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the statement, the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) chose to smear in a most disgraceful fashion the reputation of Andy Wood, a distinguished public servant with many years of service to his country through public service in Northern Ireland. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will rise to apologise. If he does not, Mr. Speaker, will you confirm that it is wholly out of order for hon. Members to treat in such a disgraceful fashion the civil servants who serve our Government and our country?
  Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members are responsible for what they say. That is a privilege that has some responsibility attached to it. What the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) said is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Andrew MacKay: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I worked with Andy Wood for a long time when I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Northern Ireland Office—as was the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) later—and I can confirm that he was a public servant for more than 30 years. I should like your guidance, Mr. Speaker. Do you have any authority to protect public servants from the sort of attack that we have just heard? It was clearly wrong and demeaned the hon. Gentleman and the Ministers whom he served as a Parliamentary Private Secretary.
  Mr. Speaker: As I have said before, I have only the powers that the House has given to me, and I have no power to do what the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
  Peter Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The remarks about Andy Wood may have been made off the cuff by the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes). As you have rightly said, hon. Members have to use their own discretion on whether to use the power make an attack—whether slanderous, accurate or inaccurate—on someone outside the House. Could you remind the House that that power is occasionally valuable, but when it seems to be used as part of the weaponry of the reputation assassins, trying to support a Minister in trouble, it makes the House look rather mean and silly?
  Mr. Speaker: I have nothing to add to the points that have been made.

Health Reform (Education and Public Involvement)
4.35 pm
Mr. Jim Cunningham: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the training of health professionals and for the involvement of patients and the general public in the decision-making processes of the National Health Service; and to provide mechanisms for the regulation of training and public involvement.
My Bill is based on the Kennedy report. Most people were shocked by what happened at Bristol. It is not necessary for me to remind the House of the grim statistics—we remember them all too well. It is my intention not to reopen that issue today, but to learn from it, particularly from the Kennedy report, which makes it clear that the treatment given to the children was substandard and that parents were dealt with shoddily—hardly the health service that we wish to see. The Bristol royal infirmary and the Government have done a lot to put right the hospital's mistakes, but this is not about the Bristol tragedy; it is about the holes in the NHS through which patients can fall—holes that still exist despite recent changes.
On 18 June 1998, the inquiry was set up by the then Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). Kennedy produced close to 200 recommendations; my Bill seeks to address only two issues. I am aware that the Government have done much, and have plans to do much more. My intention is to assist the Government. They have already introduced a Bill to establish the Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals. My Bill would clarify one of the new council's responsibilities and strengthen patient representation—a principle already embraced by the Government. Kennedy says that staff
"must feel able to be open about their work and the work of colleagues".
On patient representation, it would be obligatory for each NHS trust to appoint two people, as non-executive directors, to oversee patient involvement, to ensure that patients are involved in decisions that relate to their care and that the complaint and decision-making processes are transparent to patients. According to Kennedy, the relationship between the patient and the professional should be
"imbued with the idea of partnership".
Users and providers should meet as equals.
Of course, the professionals who currently sit on the boards can be patients, too, but their job is not to represent patients, and I want people on the boards who only represent patients. Having two representatives would allow trusts to ensure geographical representation, and allow for the division of responsibility.
The Kennedy report states that patients are entitled to
"be cared for by healthcare professionals with relevant up-to-date skills and expertise".
The report also says that:
"periodic revalidation, whereby healthcare professionals demonstrate that they remain fit to practise … should be compulsory for all healthcare professionals".
Therefore, my Bill would also make provision for continuous training.
580
When the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Bill completes its stages, the Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals will come into being. It will have the power to regulate and set uniform, continuous training and assessment requirements for health care professionals. My Bill would make it obligatory for the council, with the Secretary of State, to use those powers and ensure that health care professionals receive regular training to update their skills and working methods. However, there is a disciplinary system in place to cover professionals who refuse training or fall below certain minimum standards of knowledge and practice. Any disciplinary action should be undertaken within reasonable time. I am sure that most hon. Members have heard me mention previously some of the issues affecting the health service in Coventry, where several consultants have been suspended for considerable periods—at least two for a two-year period—at considerable cost to the national health service. Another consultant was suspended as recently as Friday. I do not know too much about the details of the case, but I am struck by the fact that every time a consultant is suspended in Coventry, it seems to be for bullying. That reminds me of my days in industry, when the catch-all offence was gross misconduct. It seems that the charge of bullying is being used in the same sort of way.
As I said, I do not know the details of the case, but I shall not let the matter rest. I intend to seek Adjournment debates to pursue the issue. Some of the managers in the local health service, and even at regional level, have said that they are not going to let half a dozen Members of Parliament push them around. It is not about Members of Parliament pushing management around; it is about ensuring the best possible management for Walsgrave Hospitals NHS trust and Walsgrave hospital. That is the real issue.
The national health service should be a good employer and allow staff to refresh their skills and learn new ones. The Government have spent a lot of time and money encouraging employers to invest in their staff and make lifelong learning opportunities available to them. Surely it would be wrong to exclude such opportunities from the NHS. After all, they are available in the education system. In addition, the NHS would benefit from sharing examples of best practice.
For all those reasons, I want the new council to address the issue and ensure continuous training for all health care professionals. It would be easy to adopt the route of the Opposition and lambast the health service for its inadequacies and mistakes. That is not my style. I am introducing this Bill because it provides a productive approach and real solutions. It will go some way towards giving our constituents an effective service, and a health service to be trusted.
I very much hope that hon. Members will support my Bill and the Kennedy recommendations included in it. Let us start a new chapter in the improvement of the national health service.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jim Cunningham, Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas, Mr. Brian Jenkins, Mr. Stephen McCabe, Mr. Mike O'Brien, Mr. Bill Olner, Mr. Geoffrey Robinson, Ms Debra Shipley, Rachel Squire, David Taylor and Mr. James Wray.

Health Reform (Education and Public Involvement)
  HEALTH REFORM (EDUCATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the training of health professionals and for the involvement of patients and the general public in the decision-making processes of the National Health Service; and to provide mechanisms for the regulation of training and public involvement: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 June, and to be printed [Bill 99].

Proceeds of Crime Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
4.43 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): I beg to move,
That in accordance with the resolution of the Programming Committee of 25th February and pursuant to the Order of 30th October 2001 (Proceeds of Crime Bill (Programme))—

Proceeds of Crime Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

  Consideration and Third Reading
  (1) The proceedings on consideration shall be taken on each of the allotted days as shown in the first column of the following Table and shall be taken in the order so shown, and each part of the proceedings shall., if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table.

  Table

  Proceedings

  Time for conclusion of proceedings

  First allotted day

  New Clauses relating to Part 1, amendments relating to Clause 1, Schedule 1 and Clauses 2 to 5; new Clauses relating to Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4; amendments relating to Clauses 6 to 141, Schedule 2 and Clauses 142 to 248

  Three and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order

  New Clauses relating to Part 5; to 256, Schedule 3, Clauses 257 to 272, Schedule 4 and Clauses 273 to 316; new Clauses relating to Part 6; amendments relating to Clauses 317 to 325, Schedule 5 and Clause 326

  Six hours after the amendments relating to Clauses 249 commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order

  Second allotted day

  New Clauses relating to Part 7; amendments relating to Clauses 327 to 330, Schedule 6 and Clauses 331 to 335

  Two and a quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill Four and a quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill

  New Clauses relating to Part 8; amendments relating to Clauses 336 to 407; new Clauses relating to Part 9; amendments relating to Clauses 408 to 425; new Clauses relating to Part 10; amendments relating to Clauses 426 to 433; new Clauses relating to Part 11; amendments relating to Clauses 434 to 439, Schedule 7, Clauses 440 to 444, Schedule 8, Clause 445, Schedule 9 and Clauses 446 to 450; remaining new Clauses; new Schedules and remaining proceedings on consideration

  Four and a quarter hours after the amendments On the Bill.

  (2) The proceedings on Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of the proceedings on the Bill on the second allotted day—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]
  I should like to state my appreciation for the approach taken by both the main Opposition parties. Her Majesty's official Opposition stated their opposition to programme motions in principle. None the less, they sought to make absolutely sure, as they did in Committee, that the motion was structured to ensure that the appropriate amount of time was available to discuss all the different parts of the Bill. I commend the motion to the House.
  4.44 pm
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: I thank the Minister for his courtesy and for the way in which he has approached the details of programming the two days of Report. Throughout the Bill's proceedings there has been considerable and welcome co-operation between the Government and the Opposition in trying to find sufficient time to discuss the matters that require consideration.
  Although I wish to make it clear that it is not the Opposition's intention to divide the House on the programme motion, it is only right to point out that six hours on each of the two days for Report stage does not give us sufficient time to consider the Bill properly. We have tried to divide the time up as best we can, but I fear that, even if we go as quickly as we can, the sheer volume of a 450-clause Bill will make it difficult for us to meet the timetable that has been set. The Opposition will endeavour to do our best to meet the timetable, but I must record our continuing unhappiness at the way in which the House will I fear, once again, send legislation off to the other place without completing its consideration properly. We will do our best to avoid that, but the possibility remains a source of sadness to me.
  When we started our consideration of the Bill, I said that I hoped that its scrutiny would be a model of its kind. I suspect that, on occasions, we have all fallen short of providing a model, but we have made an effort. Two days on Report, however, is not sufficient to do justice to an extremely important Bill.
  4.46 pm
  Norman Baker: I also wish to thank the Minister for his courtesy in discussing the programme motion with the Liberal Democrats as well as with the Conservative Opposition. Indeed, I thank him for his courtesy throughout the proceedings on the Bill and for the way in which he was prepared to discuss its timetabling and the real issues in Committee. The Committee stage proved to be a useful exercise and all three parties co-operated to try to bring about better legislation.
  Because of a Division, I did not have an opportunity at the end of the Committee stage to make a few comments, so I hope that you will forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I now thank the Minister for the way in which he has listened to the arguments that have produced the Bill as it is today and thank the official Opposition for their constructive approach. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and the staff on the Committee who helped us with our deliberations.
  I am the first to criticise the Government when we do not have sufficient time to discuss detailed legislation. This is a long Bill of 450 clauses, but I believe that the Government allowed us sufficient time in Committee and that it is adequate to have two days on Report. I am happy to make it clear that I do not think that we had enough time to consider, for example, the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, but on this occasion the Government have been quite generous. I have no problem with the amount of time allocated or with the way in which it has been divided up. We will therefore support the programme motion.
  4.47 pm
  Mr. David Wilshire: I shall contribute to the debate because that will take less time than a Division. We either vote to show our displeasure at the programme motion or we place our main points of concern on the record.
  I do not believe for a moment that enough time was provided for the Bill's consideration in Committee or that we shall have enough time today and tomorrow for Report. We need only consider what has happened thus far to appreciate the difficulties that the House faces. The Bill has 450 clauses and, although the Committee had 39 sittings, 133 clauses were not considered. We did not have enough time in Committee. We are now confronted with the prospect of debating 271 selected amendments in two days and, if my maths is any good—I suspect that it is not, but it is not too bad—we shall have two and a half minutes for the consideration of each amendment. It is therefore inevitable that, as happened in Committee, large parts of the Bill will not be considered over the next two days.
  The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. George Foulkes): Only if the hon. Gentleman rabbits on.
  Mr. Wilshire: The Minister says that the Bill will not be considered only if I rabbit on, and he said that several times in Committee. However, the Government do not understand that the Bill needs proper and thorough scrutiny, and I and my colleagues will never apologise for doing the job that we were elected to do, which is to hold the Government to account. If they do not give us enough time, it is their fault—not ours.
  Large chunks of amendments will not be considered today. However, if one accepts that nothing can be done because the Government have the majority and can dictate the time available, it would be churlish of me not to say that within that constraint the approach has been helpful and considerate, with a great deal of give and take. I hope that my Front-Bench colleagues will not force the motion to a Division, despite the fact that we object to it.
  4.50 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I have two questions for the Minister. A huge number of amendments have been selected, despite the fact that the parties agree to the general principles underlying the Bill. Given that we will have about two minutes per amendment, is the two-day restriction based on the Government's belief that there is general agreement for the principles? Did the discussions that took place through the usual channels agree that the timetabling was adequate?
  4.51 pm
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thank hon. Members for their kind comments. Much of our discussion in Committee was constructive. It caused some parts of the Bill to be reviewed and led to us tabling some of the amendments that are before us for discussion. It reflected the House working at its very best in terms of scrutinising and improving legislation. Although that is not true of every hour that we spent in Committee, it is certainly true of many of them.
  I understand why hon. Members claim that we have not had sufficient time to scrutinise the Bill, but we did have 39 Committee sittings. We met every morning and

  585
  afternoon of every Tuesday and Thursday on which the House sat since the first week in November. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary joked that we had been in Committee for 300 years. In addition to the length of time that we spent in Committee, we restructured the time allocated to it in response to problems that were repeatedly raised. I have been thanked for that and the Whip who dealt with negotiations on the Bill has been thanked for being flexible.
  The Bill is large. It is complicated and important, and many amendments are tabled to it. There is no doubt that it looks like a daunting task to get through all of them. However, those of us who spent a considerable amount of time considering the Bill know that it is very repetitive. Things that are changed in part 2 have to be changed in parts 3 and 4, which multiplies the number of amendments to address a single issue. Many of the amendments are minor drafting amendments with no policy implications.
  A large number of the amendments are a direct result of issues raised in Committee and reflect our attempt to respond. I am sure that Opposition Members understand that we were not going to respond to everything that concerned them, but nearly all the amendments that are of substance are in response to problems raised in Committee which I agreed to reflect on and address on Report. I do not think that the task will be as daunting as it looks on paper if the good will demonstrated in Committee continues so that we properly consider the Bill and use the time available appropriately in order to expose the important issues.
  In response to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), I point out that there was flexibility in the time allocation, and a great deal of agreement. In the first instance, there was agreement about the amount of time needed in Committee, which was extended in response to representations. I can therefore answer the hon. Gentleman's question in the affirmative.
  Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Proceeds of Crime Bill
  [1ST ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended in the Committee, considered.

  Proceeds of Crime Bill
    Schedule 1

      ASSETS RECOVERY AGENCY
      4.55 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): I beg to move amendment No. 77, in page 260, line 23, leave out "a senior official" and insert—
      'an assistant to the Director'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government amendment No. 78.
      No. 174, in page 261, line 32, at end insert—
      '(3A) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (3), there shall be no more than 10 performance targets for any financial year and those targets shall relate specifically to the functions of the Agency.'.
      Government amendment No. 79.
      No. 196, in clause 4, page 3, line 6, at end insert—
      '(1A) Such co-operation shall take place in accordance with the provisions of other enactments.'.
      Government amendment No. 89.
      Mr. Ainsworth: In Committee, we discussed whether the title "senior official" was appropriate for the member of the agency who would be responsible for exercising the director's functions in Northern Ireland, and I agreed to reflect further on the issue. Amendment No. 77 is the result.
      We were not attracted by the title "deputy director", which was suggested in Committee, as it would leave scope for confusion. The term "deputy" would imply that the person would act as a substitute for the director on the whole range of his functions. However, the title "assistant director" would avoid such confusion, while reflecting the importance of the agency's work in Northern Ireland. As I said in Committee, the director would have to consult the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland before making that appointment. Amendment No. 78 will include that commitment in the Bill.
      Amendment No. 174, in the name of Conservative Members, would mean that the director's objectives could include no more than 10 performance targets, and those would have to relate specifically to the agency's functions. The performance targets in the agency's annual plan will be drawn up by the director and must be approved by the Secretary of State. I explained in Committee that the targets will take into account the assets recovery strategy and the wider work of the assets recovery committee.
      It is too early to say with certainty what those targets will be, but I shall share with hon. Members, as I did in Committee, our latest thinking on the measures that we ought to apply to the agency's output. They are likely to include the number of confiscation orders obtained by the

      587
      agency and the value of those orders; the number of successful civil recovery actions and the amounts recovered through that route; the number of successful taxation cases and the amounts recovered; and the proceeds recovered as a percentage of the number of confiscation orders made, in respect of those cases for which the agency is responsible for enforcement. Some measure will need to be applied to international co-operation on confiscation matters, the performance of the centre of excellence and the agency's financial performance. We will also seek to include a measure of the agency's involvement with the Secretary of State's priorities and other Government priorities.
      We do not want to restrict the director's ability to draw up targets. It is for the director to decide how many targets there should be, according to his priorities and what he thinks he and the agency will be able to deliver. To impose an artificial cap on the number or nature of targets at this point would be inappropriate.
      5 pm
      I accept concerns expressed in Committee that the scope of clause 4(1)(b) is too broad. We concluded that everyone whom we would wish to be under a duty to co-operate with the director is already covered by subsection (1)(a), so Government amendment No. 79 proposes to delete subsection (1)(b); I hope that that deals with the points that were usefully made in Committee.
      I do not know whether amendment No. 196, which was tabled by the Opposition, is the result of a misunderstanding of the Bill's intentions. The disclosure of information to the director will be governed by the provisions of part 10, so it is clear that clause 4 is not supposed to set out the rules on disclosure of information. The power in part 10 to disclose information to the director will be permissive; nobody will be required to disclose information. Anyone disclosing information can place restrictions on its further disclosure. The amendment would cause confusion about the extent of co-operation required under clause 4. We do not want people to be unsure about whether they can co-operate with the director; we do not want a conflict between the provisions of part 10 and other provisions on disclosure of information.
      Government amendment No. 89 deals with clause 320's taxation powers, specifically inheritance tax appeals. All inheritance tax appeals are already reserved to the special commissioners, but the provisions of clause 320(2) and (3) on the assistance of expert assessors are not currently available for inheritance tax appeals. It would be highly desirable for the commissioners to have such assistance. The amendment would apply the same appeal system—specifically the potential for input from expert assessors—to all the director's tax functions.
      I hope that that is sufficient, as I do not wish unnecessarily to prolong consideration of the amendments. I urge the House to accept Government amendments Nos. 77, 78, 79 and 89, and I hope that in the light of what I have said Opposition Members will not press amendments Nos. 174 and 196 to a vote.
      Mr. Nick Hawkins: Opposition Front Benchers welcome Government amendments Nos. 77, 78 and 79. As the Minister said, and as other Members mentioned in our recent discussions on the programme
      588
      motion, there was quite a lot of helpful and constructive co-operation between the Government and Opposition in Committee. It is fair to say that Government amendments Nos. 77, 78 and especially Government amendment No. 79, which deletes some inelegant phraseology, reflect that continuing co-operation. I am grateful to the Minister for accepting some of the arguments that we made in Committee.
      We are disappointed, however, that the proposal in our amendment No. 174 was not included in the Government's further improvements to the Bill. As the Minister said, on 13 November last year we had a detailed debate in Committee about performance targets, which is recorded at columns 12 to 19 of the Official Report. Although he said that it may be premature to cap the number of performance targets, he may have forgotten what he said in Committee
      "1 accept what the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said about the number of targets and potential difficulties."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 13 November 2001; c. 14.]
      He went on to express some of his misgivings in that regard.
      We have specifically suggested a limit of 10 performance targets; under other legislation, the Government have imposed ridiculous numbers of targets in other law and order fields. In Committee, I mentioned police forces as an example and pointed out that the Government were seeking to impose as many as 58 performance targets on my force in Surrey. As the chief constable told me, such a number is ridiculous: no sensible organisation has 58 separate performance targets. All that such a large number of targets will do is create huge amounts of bureaucracy. The Government listened to some of the Opposition's complaints about the number of targets imposed on chief constables and police authorities, but they reduced the number from 58 to only 43, which is still far too many.
      Amendment No. 174 seeks to bring some common sense to bear. We cannot conceive of any sensible organisation having more than 10 performance targets. The point of such targets is that they should concentrate on the nitty-gritty of an organisation's work. We have, therefore, sought once again to persuade the Government to limit that number. I have no doubt that this matter will arise again in another place if they continue to argue that organisations should be encouraged to concentrate on the main issues only by something as formal as performance targets. That does not mean that there will not be other things beyond such targets that everybody will want an organisation to do well; none the less, it cannot be sensible for any organisation to have more than 10 formal performance targets. It must also be absolutely clear that, whatever the targets are, they should be central to that which is germane to the work of the organisation. Only then will we have a sensible organisation that is not over-bureaucratic.
      I am disappointed that the Minister has not yet been persuaded of the argument—but I have hope, given the constructive way in which he has responded previously, not only by tabling some of the other amendments in the group but by accepting amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and I in Committee. As we shall see, that has happened not least by the Government adding their names to Opposition amendments. They have tried to be constructive when they have felt able to do so, and I still hope that

      589
      amendment No. 174 will be yet another proposal on which they will accept in the end, perhaps in another place, that we have common sense on our side.
      Mr. Ian Davidson: In his relatively brief speech, the hon. Gentleman has twice suggested that if he does not get his own way he will get the old boys along the Corridor to try to emasculate the Bill. Do the Conservatives intend to adopt that strategy throughout this process? If they do not get their own way here, will they try to block the Bill until they do so in another place?
      Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman has perhaps forgotten that in Committee, in relation to a similar amendment, fie said:
      "I support the thrust of the amendment, especially with regard to one subject."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 13 November 2001; c. 17.
      He went on to talk about its remit in relation to Scotland. I am rather disappointed to find that he seems to have changed his mind.
      Mr. Davidsonrose—
      Mr. Hawkins: I shall give way in a moment, when I have finished my point. The hon. Gentleman's contributions in Committee informed and amused us throughout our proceedings. As tributes have been paid to others for their work in Committee, I pay my own tribute to him for those constructive contributions.
      We have no intention of using what the hon. Gentleman describes as the old boys along the Corridor to block the Bill. As he will remember from Committee, we have said throughout discussions on the Bill that we support its broad thrust and are trying merely to improve it. I hope that he will return to what he helpfully said at column 17 on 13 November in expressing his support for the thrust of an Opposition amendment that was similar to amendment No. 174. If he still wants me to give way, I shall do so.
      Mr. Davidson: How can I resist? The hon. Gentleman's compliments on my behaviour in Committee would have been much better received if I had not had to drag them out of him by intervening on him. As he has already twice mentioned the fact that he is going to take these matters to another place, and as the Conservatives raised this point consistently in Committee, may I take it that he is speaking on behalf of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and himself when he says that it is not his intention to sabotage this measure in the Lords? Or is there a division on the Conservative Benches, as there was so often in Committee?
      Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman's memory must be playing him false. There were no divisions between me and my hon. Friend, and we have no divisions on this point. As my hon. Friend has rightly said, we are concerned that the Government might have overloaded the programme for today, and I do not want to detain the House further on this matter. We hope, however, that the Government will continue to consider it in the responsible and constructive way in which they have considered many other issues.
      John Robertson: I pay tribute to the Opposition parties, and to how well they conducted
      590
      themselves in Committee. I also welcome the three members of the Scottish National party to our discussions; I hope that they might contribute something for a change.
      Annabelle Ewing: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has extended a special welcome to us today. The fact is, we have been involved in this matter. We were not on the Standing Committee because we were not awarded a place. We had no place on the Committee of Selection, and we had to rely on the good will or otherwise of the Liberals to secure a place on the Standing Committee. Of course, they preferred to have two places for themselves, although, from looking at their attendance record, I see that they both managed to miss 15 or 16 sittings apiece. Perhaps there was a wasted place, and if the Liberals had not sought to have two places for themselves, they could have allocated one to the SNP—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that we have a sufficiency of that matter on the record. May we please return to the amendment?
      John Robertson: I am sure that my colleagues on the Liberal Benches will respond to the point made by the hon. Lady.
      On amendment No. 174, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) talked a great deal about targets. Although I have some sympathy with the Conservatives on targets—on many occasions, various bodies have to adhere to too many targets—limiting the number to 10 would cause different problems. Which 10 targets should we choose if there happened to be 12, or 20—who knows? Then again, there might only be five. If we talk about a specific number, such as 10, we might have to try to invent targets to get the total up to that number. I accept that the proposal was for a maximum of 10, but sometimes maximums have a habit of becoming actuals. That could be a problem.
      Having read the Bill, I would have thought that the matter would be covered by schedule 1(8)(1), which requires the director to set an agenda for the year. That would involve targets. I would be inclined to consider a reduction in targets, rather than an increase, in circumstances in which the director would examine what was required for the year. The objectives themselves would become targets.
      On amendment No. 196, tabled by the Liberals, I agree entirely with the Minister. I thought that the Liberals misunderstood the matter, and I found the issue very complicated. Then again, I found the whole Bill a bit complicated, not being a lawyer. That is the first time that that has been said in the debate, but it will be said many more times over the next two days.
      I ask the Minister to look at the targets. I know that the situation is fluid and that it will change, but we should consider it in a better light, perhaps strengthen the director's objectives and make them part of the targets.
      5.15 pm
      Norman Baker: First, may I briefly put it on record that we received no request from the SNP for a place on the Committee?
      Annabelle Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Norman Baker: I have not even started.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appeal to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). We do not want to go back down that track. Let us stick to the amendment, as there is an awful lot to cover today.
      Norman Baker: I am sure that we would have given them a seat if they had wanted one.
      I thank the Minister for listening to what was said in Committee and for the Government amendments, all of which we welcome, especially amendment No. 79. As he knows, it addresses a point of concern raised not just by Opposition Members, but by the hon. Member for Redcar (Vera Baird).
      I want briefly to address our amendment No. 196. We shall not press it to a Division, but we want to tease out from the Minister, even at this stage, more information on how the co-operation will occur. Our motivation is the uncertainty that persists following the discussion in Committee, and I refer the Minister to columns 49 and 50 and the rest of that debate.
      We want to ensure, first, that nothing a director does could jeopardise criminal proceedings by cutting across prosecution authorities and, secondly, that the director does not receive material that is passed to him unlawfully. Nor do we want him to be artificially hampered in respect of information that would help his work that has been collected and could be used by him. The amendment represents an attempt to clarify the legal position.
      In Committee, I raised with the Minister the position regarding telephone taps and whether information from such sources could be passed to the director. In return, he referred me to the specific exemptions in part 10—the Data Protection Act 1998 and part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. We are clear on those, but, of course, other legislation is involved. For example, a collection of material relates to telephone communications—not taps, but records of numbers that have been dialled, which are not covered by the two Acts.
      It is possible for information to be collected by a prosecution authority or, indeed, by the security services, which are not among the bodies set out in part 10. Therefore, there is doubt in my mind about whether they are included and what their role is. It is also possible for information to be collected by the security services that is intended for a prosecution. The judgment may be made that a prosecution would not be sustainable. In such circumstances, would it be permissible to pass information that had been collected to the director? If not, would the information be lost in respect of any subsequent action that may be taken by the Assets Recovery Agency
      We are uncertain about those issues. I repeat that I do not want information that should be used for confiscation procedures to be collected but not passed on, but nor do I want anyone to be in a position where they are deemed to be passing information unlawfully. I think that our amendment helps to clarify the legal position, but the Minister clearly takes a different view. He must provide more clarification and, in particular, refer to the position
      592
      of the security services, which are not mentioned in clause 427(5), as other prosecution and law enforcement agencies are.
      Ian Lucas: I shall confine my remarks to amendment No. 174 and the question of the performance targets, which has already been raised. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) may be labouring under a misapprehension. My reading of the Bill suggests that the performance targets will be set not by the Government, but by the director in the confines of the plan. Will the Minister confirm that? The Government are not imposing targets on the director, as the hon. Gentleman suggests; rather, the director, in managing his organisation, will decide to present performance targets in the confines of his own plan.
      Mr. Paul Stinchcombe: Does it not strike my hon. Friend that the purpose of the Opposition's amendment is effectively to allow the Government to impose limitations on the director's discretion to set whatever targets he thinks appropriate?
      Ian Lucas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As so often over the past few months, he has pinched my point and made it better than I could ever have done.
      Mr. Hawkins: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that any director running a sensible organisation in the private sector would have more than 10 performance targets?
      Ian Lucas: As one who ran a business in the private sector before coming here, I would certainly have more than 10—and my business was much smaller than the agency will be.
      I think the Minister's point that Government should not fetter the director's management goals is the salient point, the one that carries real force. If the Minister can confirm that the director rather than the Government will impose the performance targets, the Opposition's argument must surely fall.
      Mr. Stinchcombe: If the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) is right in saying that no sensible director would impose more than 10 targets, he has nothing to fear from the employment of—presumably—such a sensible person. We merely suggest that, rather than our dictating to him how he should exercise his powers and discretions, he should decide for himself.
      Mr. Bob Ainsworth: I do not know what more I can say about disclosure, other than repeating the commitment I gave in Committee that part 10 will do nothing to authorise a disclosure prohibited by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, or cut across the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998.
      The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) asked whether the director would receive information that had been obtained illegally. In effect, the director is not an individual but a public body; certainly, he is a public person. All the usual restrictions involving operating within human rights legislation and other requirements will apply to him as they do to any other person.

      593
      The hon. Gentleman and I may differ on whether, and to what extent, the human rights legislation should be replicated in different parts of the Bill, but we think the restrictions in the Acts I have mentioned, along with the requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998, are sufficient to ensure that the director cannot act in any way that is inappropriate.
      As for the possibility of the director's actions cutting across prosecutory authorities, I can only ask the hon. Gentleman to return to our debate about the hierarchy that we envisage. We do not want any of the powers in the Bill to impede the primary objective, which must be the prosecution and bringing to book of criminals by the ordinary prosecution authorities, and their ability to take such people to court if possible and, when appropriate, to lock them away. Nothing that the director does within any of the powers that we are giving him under the Bill ought to cut across the activities of the other law enforcement agencies, which should come as a first consideration in the hierarchy.
      Norman Baker: Law enforcement agencies might collect information at an early stage with a view to prosecution that would then not be used. Can the Minister guarantee that information that is collected and which may be useful in subsequent proceedings undertaken by the Asset Recovery Agency will be passed on? Are there circumstances in which it will not be passed on?
      Mr. Ainsworth: The hierarchy will work in such a way that the overwhelming majority of the information that comes to the director comes from the police authorities or the prosecution authorities. In most circumstances, that will occur where they have decided that prosecution is not viable or appropriate, for whatever reason. Of course the information, where appropriate, will be passed on to the director of the Asset Recovery Agency so that he can consider whether or not to pursue the issue through civil recovery, his taxation powers or whatever else is appropriate to him.
      I can only repeat that the director will act as a public body. He is restrained by all the requirements that fall upon him under human rights and data protection legislation and the RIPA provisions. We feel that they are sufficient to make sure that information is passed on to the director appropriately.
      We do not want to put any restrictions on people co-operating with the director; quite the reverse. We want people to co-operate with him and we want powers to recover the proceeds of crime used far more extensively in this country than they have been over many years. That has been the desire of Governments of all complexions for a long time, but our legislation has been woefully inadequate until this point. We can only hope that our provisions will rectify that and that we can attack those profits and dismantle some of those organisations by preventing them from doing what they exist in order to do, which is to generate money and proceeds.
      Norman Baker: Can the Minister explain why, in part 10, MI5 in particular and the security services in general are not listed as permitted persons?
      Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman is right; the security services are not listed as bodies that are permitted
      594
      to disclose information to the director. Discussions are continuing as to whether it would be appropriate to list them. We had a discussion in Committee about this. When I am able to say something about it, I will try to make sure that Parliament is made aware of our conclusions. For the moment, the security services are not listed. We are continuing to examine whether they ought to be, and in what circumstances.
      On the question of targets, my hon. Friends the Members for Wrexham (Mr. Lucas) and for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) are absolutely right. There is widespread discussion about how many targets we impose on how many bodies and whether or not it is appropriate for us to do so. We had such a discussion in Committee. I ask Opposition Members to accept that while everyone complains about the number of targets that we require of them, let them try to remove one. The complaints come quickly that by removing the target, we are saying, in effect, that the activity concerned is not core or central and that we are not giving it sufficient prominence. Here, we are not talking about imposing targets on the director, as my hon. Friends have said. The director will draw up the targets. He will have to have the agreement of the Secretary of State.
      Mr. Hawkins: Not too many.
      Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman says that we should not impose too many targets. Obviously, the director will want to manage the business that he has been given and he will need to decide on the level of the targets. The hon. Gentleman may be right, and the director may decide that the number should be far fewer than 10, but why cannot we leave it up to him to decide appropriately?
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Dominic Grieve: The Minister will recall that one of the anxieties expressed in Committee was about detailing targets for what could ultimately be the amount to be confiscated in any given year. The fear is that there could be a conflict between what is essentially an economic target for a Department and the interests of justice. I accept that no such target is set out, but it is a legitimate matter to raise and to express anxiety about.
      Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It would be ridiculous to require the director to involve himself in X number of confiscation proceedings, with no consideration of quality or added value or what return comes from those proceedings. The Bill is structured so as to allow him to draw up the targets. He will have to do that and seek the agreement of the Secretary of State. We do not need a numerical restriction.
      I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Wrexham and for Wellingborough for their input, and I ask hon. Members to support the Government amendments and not to insist on theirs.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 78, in page 260, line 24, at end insert—
      '(2) But the Director must not appoint a person under sub-paragraph (1)(b) unless he first consults the Secretary of State.'s.—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]
      Mr. Alistair Carmichael: I beg to move amendment No. 226, in page 261, line 24, at end insert "and in Scotland.".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 228, in page 262, line 20, at end insert—
      11 A In section 15 of the Scotland Act 1998 (disqualification from membership of the Parliament) insert in subsection (1)—
      "(aa) he is the Director of the Assets Recovery Agency";
      11B In section 12 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 (disqualification from being an Assembly member), insert in subsection (1)—
      "(e) he is the Director of the Assets Recovery Agency".'.
      Government new clause 13—Performance of functions of Scottish Ministers by constables in Scotland.
      Government amendment No. 90.
      Government new clause 14—Performance of functions of Scottish Ministers by constables in Scotland (No. 2).
      Government amendment No. 285.
      Amendment No. 229, in clause 447, page 258, line 29, leave out "or 431(6)" and insert ", 431(6) or 446".
      Government new clause 6—Enactment.
      New clause 1—Operation of the Act in Scotland: reports and review—

      '(1) The Lord Advocate must, as soon as possible after the end of each financial year, publish a report on how he has exercised his functions under Part 3 and under Chapter 3 of Part 5 during the financial year.

      (2) The Scottish Ministers must, as soon as possible after the end of each financial year, publish a report on how they have exercised their functions under Part 5 during the financial year.

      (3) Within a period of two years after the coming into force of Part 5 of this Act, the Lord Advocate and the Scottish Ministers must publish jointly a review of the operation of the Act (other than Part 6) in Scotland, including their opinions on the case for the establishment of a Scottish Assets Recovery Agency.

      (4) A report under subsection (1) or (2) or a review under subsection (3) must be laid before the Scottish Parliament.'.

      Mr. Carmichael: associate myself with the remarks made earlier about the conduct of the legislation and our proceedings in Committee. This is the single largest piece of legislation from Scotland to go through the House since the Scotland Act 1998. In that context, I am pleased to welcome back to the debate Scottish National party Members. I am not given to defending my Whips Office, but I remind the House that Plaid Members, who are in the same position as Scottish National party Members, somehow managed, through my Whips Office, to get representation on Standing Committees. I fear that there is something slightly false in the self-righteous indignation that we hear from the SNP.
      Mr. Alex Salmond: Such is the lack of confidence in the Liberal Whips Office and its representation of minority parties that not only the SNP but Plaid Cymru, all the Unionist parties, the SDLP and every other minority party have defected from the
      596
      Liberals as representatives and are now being represented by the Government Whips, because the Liberal party consistently filched our places on Standing Committees.
      Mr. Carmichael: Had the hon. Members for Angus (Mr. Weir) or for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) asked our Whips Office, they would have been more than welcome.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have heard enough of this argument, which is quite outside the terms of the amendment. Let us get on with the substance of the amendment.
      Mr. Carmichael: I take your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      The amendment is not of massive significance, but I urge the Minister to consider it seriously. The functions of the director of the Assets Recovery Agency that are to be executed north of the border—primarily taxation functions—should be incorporated in a plan. Plans are being outlined for the rest of the country, and I do not see why there should be any difference for Scotland.
      Likewise, in connection with amendment No. 228, it must be remembered that the Bill comes before this House as a result of a Sewel motion. Much has been made during the Bill's passage through the House of the virtue of uniformity of provision throughout the United Kingdom. As drafted, the Bill provides that the director of the ARA would be excluded from membership of both this House and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Given that the director has some functions in Scotland and Wales, it seems only sensible that the exclusion should apply there also.
      More significant is new clause 1. The Bill will require the director of the ARA to make reports to this House. New clause 1(1) would mean that the Scottish Parliament would benefit from the same level of reporting, from the Lord Advocate. The general point is that the Lord Advocate and the ARA director will have nearly identical roles. Therefore, the Scottish Parliament should be able to subject the actions of the Lord Advocate in the performance of his functions under the Bill to the same degree of scrutiny as this House will be able to bring to bear on the performance of the ARA director. Proposed new subsection (2) deals with the execution by other Scottish Ministers of their functions under the Bill.
      Proposed new subsections (3) and (4) are based on the assumption that at some time in the future there will be a Scottish ARA. In Committee, I expressed concern that the Lord Advocate's significant range of functions under the Bill could give rise to a conflict of interests with those functions that he currently executes, either by statute or by common law, in relation to the investigation and prosecution of crime in Scotland. There is a fairly strong argument for saying that, in light of the nature of the powers to be given to the Lord Advocate or executed by the state under the Bill, a new body should be created. That body would physically distinguish the new powers from the Lord Advocate's prosecution functions, which are all based in the Crown Office.
      On balance, I am persuaded that the relatively small nature of the operation north of the border means that the creation of a special ARA for Scotland would lead merely to an unnecessary—and possibly unwieldy and less effective—layer of bureaucracy. However, the option

      597
      should be kept open. Once we see how the functions—especially with regard to confiscation—are carried out when the Bill is enacted, we should be able to consider whether it is necessary to establish an equivalent agency to operate independently in Scotland.
      There is a danger of cross-contamination between some of the confiscation and subsequent civil recovery proceedings, and the investigation and prosecution of crime. It seems to me appropriate that the position should be properly assessed after a couple of years, and that the Scottish Parliament should be able to revisit the matter in the light of experience.
      The only other matter on which I wish to comment at this stage is amendment No. 229. I am prepared, on balance, to support the Scottish National party on the amendment. It highlights an important issue in relation to the conduct of legislation through this House subsequent to the passing of a Sewel motion by the Scottish Parliament. I have gone on record before as saying that it is important to have proper scrutiny by Parliament of the Executive on legislation coming here under a Sewel motion. That is currently problematic.
      The SNP's amendment would at least require an order to be brought before the Scottish Parliament and would allow Members of the Scottish Parliament to have the final say on whether they were happy with what we have done in this place. That is very little in the way of parliamentary scrutiny but it is preferable to none at all, which appears to be the situation at present.
      I understand that the Scottish nationalists may divide the House on the amendment. They will have the support—albeit grudging—of Liberal Democrat Members.
      Annabelle Ewing: I rise to support amendment No. 226, tabled by the Liberal Democrats and the SNP-Plaid Cymru group. I should also like to speak to amendment No. 229 which, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) pointed out, has been tabled by that group.
      The SNP-Plaid Cymru group is broadly supportive of this important Bill's objectives. It is about time that the drugs barons and their like accepted that they are not above the law. There are many good provisions in the Bill that will, I hope, secure the Bill's objectives.
      Amendment No. 229 is of fundamental constitutional importance, because it seeks to ensure that the spirit of the Scotland Act 1998 is respected. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland pointed out that the Bill was referred by the Scots Parliament by way of a Sewel motion, passed on 24 October last year. That was necessary because the Bill covers not only reserved matters but also many matters devolved to the Scots Parliament.
      At the time of the debate in the Scots Parliament in October, my SNP colleagues in Edinburgh supported the procedure proposed by the Scottish Executive on that occasion, although we have grave concerns about the ever-increasing recourse to Sewel motions put forward by the Labour-Liberal Scottish Executive in the Scots Parliament. There have been some 30 Sewel motions since May 1999. Let me put that in context by saying that there have been only 30 substantive Acts passed by the Scots Parliament in that time.
      598
      This matter was passed to Westminster in the sense that it was the original Bill that was approved by the Scots Parliament, including my SNP colleagues. However, there have been many major and substantial changes to the Bill, particularly to part 3, which deals with confiscation orders in Scotland.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Davidson: The hon. Lady says that some 30 Sewel motions have been passed in the Scottish Parliament, compared with the 30 or so Acts that have also been passed. Is she saying that in these circumstances, the business in Sewel motions should have been held back? Is it the position of the SNP that the Bill should not have been dealt with by Westminster and that the measures to be taken against drugs barons should have been delayed until such time as the Scottish Parliament had the space to deal with them?
      Annabelle Ewing: I have already addressed that point; perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not listening. I said that on that occasion, my SNP colleagues supported the Sewel motion on the Bill. That is a matter of record, if the hon. Gentleman should ever read the minutes of the Scots Parliament.
      Mr. Grieve: The hon. Lady might wish to acknowledge that when the complete rewriting of the Scottish parts of the Bill took place in Committee, the opposition to that taking place without further reference to the Scottish Parliament came principally from the Conservative Opposition.
      Annabelle Ewing: On the basis that the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) is not even here, notwithstanding that we are dealing with major changes to Scots law, nothing surprises me about the Conservatives.
      The amended Bill involves major and substantive changes to Scots law, particularly in dealing with the mandatory rather than discretionary powers of the sheriff or the High Court judge to consider whether to proceed with a confiscation order hearing. That represents a major change to Scots law and it should be dealt with in the proper forum—the Scots Parliament. The Scots Parliament was presented with a Bill that did not contain this provision. This is a substantial amendment, and it must surely be in the interests of the democratic process that the Scots Parliament reviews whether it wishes to proceed with such a significant change to Scots law.
      John Robertson: I have been looking at amendment No. 229. Can the hon. Lady explain why she wishes to incorporate clause 446 into the Bill, which is already drafted?
      Annabelle Ewing: We are seeking to ensure that key changes to the Bill concerning part 3 are referred back to the Scots Parliament for proper debate. If there is a Division and the amendment is passed, that is what the amendment will achieve. That is clearly what it states; perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to reflect further on the text. It is the democratic way to proceed.

      599
      If the Government do not concede the point, I am pleased that we will have the support of Liberal Democrat Members in a Division. I wonder, however, what the position of Mr. Jim Wallace, the Liberal Democrat Minister for Justice in the Scots Parliament, would be.
      Mr. Carmichael: It is a particularly cheap shot, even from a Scottish nationalist, to attack someone who is no longer a Member of this House. Does the hon. Lady not understand and accept that Sewel motions do not last for ever? If there is any aspect of the Bill with which she or her colleagues in Edinburgh are not happy, it is open to them, when the Bill is enacted, to bring forward amending legislation in the Scottish Parliament. Surely that is what they should be doing—they should put up or shut up.
      Annabelle Ewing: That is putting the cart before the horse. Surely the best time to deal with legislation is when it is going through its parliamentary stages, which is what we are seeking to do. That is better than adopting legislation and then going through a further procedure.
      Rosemary McKenna: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Annabelle Ewing: With respect to the hon. Lady, I think that I have given way quite a lot. I do not want to tie up the time of the House unduly.
      Many hon. Members have argued in favour of extensive recourse to Sewel motions. However, in January 1998, the late Donald Dewar indicated that the Sewel motion would be used only in very rare circumstances. We in the SNP are trying to respect the spirit of the Scotland Act.
      Mr. Carmichael: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Annabelle Ewing: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
      We hope to get the support of the Minister on the amendment. I remind him that he stated in the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs on 7 November that although there may be no legal obligation to refer the matter back to the Scots Parliament, if there were substantial or major changes such as the mandatory rather than discretionary jurisdiction of the courts, there would be a political imperative to do so. I therefore ask the Minister to support the amendment, so that we do not need to divide. That is the democratic way to proceed.
      I also support amendment No. 226, the argument for which was made eloquently by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. To ensure consistency in the Bill, the director of the new agency, if he is to have a particular role in Northern Ireland, should also be required to explain in his annual plan how he intends to carry out his role in Scotland.
      Mr. Hawkins: On hearing the meowing of the pussycats among the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish nationalists and Scottish Government Members, one feels, as a member of the Opposition Front Bench, as if one is intruding on private grief. We had an interesting debate on these matters in Committee on 6 December 2001. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), whose contributions were otherwise able and distinguished, had to concede that he was doing something other than what one
      600
      of his spokesmen in the Scottish Parliament had asked him to do, and my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and I often felt that we were indeed intruding on the private grief of the other parties.
      There are some serious points. As was noted in Committee, if the Government had envisaged the change from a discretionary to a mandatory regime at the time, one would have expected the Minister for Justice to inform the Scottish Parliament, so that the debate could proceed on that basis; the fact that such a statement was not made before the debate took place in the Scottish Parliament was very odd timing.
      We acknowledge that, through this group of amendments, the Government have introduced some sensible changes. Government new clause 6, which will include Scottish Parliament Acts and Northern Ireland legislation, is a sensible clarification. Amendment No. 90, which amends clause 326, is also helpful. In deleting the phrase
      "but excluding a lease which is not a long lease",
      it addresses a point that was raised in Committee. Through this group of amendments, the Government have adopted the same constructive approach that they adopted in the previous group. We await with interest to hear what the Minister has to say about the issues that have so exercised Government Back Benchers from Scotland, Scottish nationalists—I am never quite sure whether they are calling themselves the Scottish nationalist and Plaid Cymru group instead—and Liberal Democrat spokesmen.
      We understand the point made by the Scottish National party in its short but none the less significant amendment No. 229. Given the overloading of amendments that we must consider in but two days, it remains to be seen whether we will have time to divide on that amendment. Although we are debating it now, it would be called for a Division not today but tomorrow, because it relates to a later part of the Bill. Once again, therefore, we might prove unable to finish discussing an important matter in this House, and it might have to be returned to in another place.
      These are important matters and they will surely receive considerable attention in the Scottish Parliament. We will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say about them, and perhaps we can return to them tomorrow, or in another place at another time.
      Mr. Davidson: am somewhat puzzled by the position of the nationalists. They seem to be against Sewel motions in principle, but in favour of every individual example thereof—such as the Proceeds of Crime Bill—because they are impossible to oppose. That position gives rise to a certain difficulty, particularly when they try to argue for their proposed new procedure.
      As I understand it—the Minister will doubtless correct me if I have misunderstood—under the Sewel procedure the opportunity for amendment always exists. Indeed, that is the purpose of debate in Committee and at this level. I cannot understand why, in such circumstances, the SNP did not ask the Liberal Democrats for a place on the Committee. You have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is out of order to pursue that issue and I do not particularly want to do so, but we need to consider the procedure that should be followed.
      If a party such as the SNP agrees to the Sewel mechanism, it should not then argue that legislation passed by this House must return to the Scottish

      601
      Parliament for further amendment. Under the Sewel mechanism, legislation should be amended in Committee, so the nationalists ought to have asked the Liberal Democrats—their bosses in respect of that procedure—for a place on the Committee. Three places were taken up by Liberal Democrats, but I presume that there was internal dissent, as they were never present at the same time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point. I listened very carefully and he was quite ingenious, but I do not want to go back to the general issue. Has he concluded his remarks?
      Mr. Davidson: No, there is plenty more. However, I take the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am not to mention again that the nationalists were not represented on the Committee, and I shall not discuss the fact that they declined to ask for a place.
      We need to consider how such matters are dealt with and the question of the lack of scrutiny, which was raised by the Conservatives. On several occasions, the Conservatives have threatened us with the old codgers along the Corridor. They have suggested that if they do not get their way here, they will try to block the Bill in the other place. Although the Conservatives have engaged in a degree of constructive discussion, they have also indulged in an inordinate amount of piffle and waffle. It is clear that on some occasions they were deliberately delaying business to prevent further argument on the Floor of the House.
      I realise that it is often difficult for a non-lawyer—many of my colleagues are also not lawyers—to distinguish between time-wasting and the normal language of lawyers. None the less, it was clear to those of us with open minds that the Conservatives were employing circular arguments—admittedly, they were ingenious on occasion—for no purpose other than delay. We must reject completely the strategy that anything that they cannot win here, they will try to win along the Corridor.[Interruption.] I am receiving signals from those on my Front Bench to keep going, but I shall draw my remarks to a close.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that he must not keep going on that subject. May I suggest that he speaks to the amendment? We have a very considerable agenda to get through today, and he will do a service to hon. Members throughout the House if he confines himself to remarks relevant to the amendment.
      Mr. Davidson: In the light of that eloquent plea, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not mention again the fact that the nationalists did not ask for a place on the Committee, and I draw my remarks to a close.
      Mr. Salmond: Repeating an allegation does not make it any more true. I can well understand, having listened to that contribution, why the Committee stage on the Bill took so long. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) is a one-person Committee. If only he would be as assiduous in the Chamber as he is in Committee, he would have a better chance of reselection in Glasgow.
      602
      6 pm
      The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) attacked the SNP, the Liberals and the Government in turn, and he runs the risk of uniting us against him. Those parties share some common characteristics, one of them being that we do not necessarily pay much attention to Conservative Front Benchers. However, I hope to see the Conservatives in the right Division Lobby if the key amendment is called tomorrow.
      The issue of the Sewel motion is a matter of principle. I know that the Minister will answer in that spirit, because when he appeared before the Scottish Affairs Committee on 7 November 2001 he specifically said that he could foresee considerable difficulties with legislation that was amended after a Sewel motion was passed. He said that it would be up to the Scottish Executive to go back to the Scottish Parliament. He continued:
      "I think that there may be no legal obligation but I think that there may be a political imperative to do that, if there was a major change in relation to the principle. In relation to the question of mandatory/discretionary, that would be a major change."
      The Minister saw a difficulty in a significant change being made after a Sewel motion, without a procedure to refer the matter back to the Scottish Parliament.
      I can tell the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok and others that the issue is not about the Sewel process. The issue is what happens if legislation is changed significantly after debate in the Scottish Parliament.
      Mr. Grieve: At the risk of repeating the question that I put to the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing)—to which I received an incoherent and ungracious answer—has the hon. Gentleman read the report of the 15th sitting of the Committee on Thursday 6 December 2001, and if so will he acknowledge that those constitutional points were made by the Conservatives?
      Mr. Salmond: I am willing to reveal to the House that even the Conservative party can be caught telling the truth occasionally and the contributions from the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in Committee were one such example.
      In front of the Scottish Affairs Committee, the Minister acknowledged the real difficulty at issue in this debate. The merits of mandatory or discretionary powers for Scottish sheriffs are not at issue, because they will be addressed in a later amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats. The debate tonight is about the principle of a significant change in legislation.
      If the Minister will not be gracious enough to accept the amendment, at least he should tell us what he thinks is the answer to the question. I know that the Minister has enormous powers of persuasion and he may have convinced the Scottish Minister for Justice that the change is okay. However, it is a question not of the Scottish Executive being convinced, but of legislation passed by this House for the Scottish Parliament. Can the Minister tell us what he sees as the answer? Is it to place a rider in the legislation to the effect that if serious changes are made, the matter must go back to the Scottish Parliament to see if it meets with approval there?
      Mr. Mark Field: I shall not speak at great length, because I appreciate that we have much more to deal with. I wish to associate

      603
      myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), because I have enjoyed serving on what was a good-humoured Committee almost throughout its 39 sittings. The good humour broke down around the 36th sitting, but everything worked out well in the end. We had some useful debate during the three months and, as both my colleagues on the Front Bench have pointed out, some of it has germinated into Government amendments.
      It is implicit in the fact that a Sewel motion has arisen that a Bill of this importance requires revision. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) referred to that revision as being performed by the old codgers down the Corridor, but the fact that we have a second Chamber allows sensible and constructive revision to take place. I am sure that I speak for my fellow Conservatives in hoping that whatever revisions take place in the House of Lords they are constructive and do not destroy the intention of what is proposed. We all hope that the revisions are minor and that we can agree on them.
      I have much sympathy with the hon. Members for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) and for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and their points about Scottish democracy. On this Bill and others in the future, it will have to be decided how, after a Sewel motion has arisen, we can ensure that the right legislative changes have been made. That is one of the problems with the democratic system being thrown into the air after devolution, as we pointed out to the Government five years ago. The issue will remain to be determined in the years ahead.
      I hope that the Scottish issue will not affect the main thrust of the Bill, which everyone on the Conservative Benches understands. We have several concerns that have been expressed in amendments that we will come to today or tomorrow. For example, I would be concerned if, in the provisions on money laundering, we were to have a separate English and Welsh track alongside a Scottish track. It might then be perceived that it was easier to launder money through one of the jurisdictions, and the Mr. Bigs—whom we all wish to catch—would be attracted to London or to Edinburgh to launder their funds. We need to take the issue seriously and that is why the Sewel motion has arisen. The Bill is complex and should be considered similarly throughout the UK.
      The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. George Foulkes): In spite of occasional acrimony in the debate, I propose to be reasonably and perhaps untypically helpful. It was poetic irony that the spat between the SNP and the Liberal Democrats occurred when the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) was moving an amendment tabled by both parties. Amendment No. 226 would require that the director's annual plan set out how the director intends to exercise his functions in Scotland. However, the remit of the director will apply in Scotland only in relation to his taxation functions under part 6. As experts on the Scotland Act 1998 on both sides of the House will know, taxation is a reserved matter: it is not within the remit of Scottish Ministers or the Scottish Parliament.
      The director's tax functions will be delegated from the Board of the Inland Revenue. That arrangement was made precisely because tax is a reserved matter, to preserve a unified tax system throughout the United Kingdom. We do not believe that it would be appropriate for the Scottish Ministers or the Scottish Parliament to become involved,
      604
      however indirectly, in the exercise of tax functions. We will therefore resist amendment No. 226. However, I shall be a little more helpful shortly.
      Under paragraph 10 of schedule 1, the director cannot be a serving Member of Parliament or Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly while he is the holder of the post. Amendment No. 228 would mean that the director would also be disqualified from membership of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. We agree with the principle behind these amendments. There is no obvious reason why the director could become a member of the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly, when he could not be a Member of Parliament here or a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. We do not propose to accept the amendments as drafted, but we will consider how their purpose is best achieved. If appropriate, we will propose amendments to the Bill in the other place—so graphically described by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson).
      As new clauses 13 and 14 and Government amendment No. 285 affected Scotland, the Government consulted and were advised closely by Scottish Executive and Crown Office officials. They, in turn, consulted their Ministers. I pay tribute to the officials who advised me and my colleagues on the Bill.
      Under part 5, the Scottish Ministers are responsible for civil recovery in Scotland. I am pleased to advise the House that we envisage the creation of a small, multidisciplinary civil recovery unit to assist them in their functions. That unit will be staffed by people with relevant skills, including lawyers, accountants and civilian financial investigators. I am sure that that will please many hon. Members, particularly those of my hon. Friends who have asked for it. That initiative will strengthen the arm of the Scottish Executive in the fight against drug barons and money laundering. It will provide what I hope will be an effective new unit.
      In criminal cases, the Lord Advocate and the procurator fiscal will continue to pursue the proceeds of crime of accused and convicted criminals, but with the greatly strengthened powers of the Bill. We envisage that advantage will be gained from seconding to the unit from time to time police constables with experience in investigating the proceeds of crime. On secondment, officers will not take with them their police powers. That would not be appropriate to the civil nature of the part 5 scheme.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: In which Department in Scotland will that unit be located? Will it be among the responsibilities of the Lord Advocate, and therefore located in the Crown Office, or will it be a responsibility of the Minister for Justice, and therefore part of his Department?
      Mr. Foulkes: The internal arrangements are a matter for the Scottish Parliament and Executive. Given all that has been said, far be it from me to determine such matters. The unit will, however, work closely with the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency, representatives of both of which I recently met in Paisley.

      605
      Scottish Ministers have a number of functions under parts 5 and 8 that it would not be appropriate for seconded constables to exercise. The purpose of the two new clauses is to set out those functions for parts 5 and 8 respectively.
      Mr. Davidson: I welcome the fact that a special unit is to be established. As the Minister rightly said, it comes about as a result of an initiative taken by me and my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) and for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) following discussions with Strathclyde police. Does the Minister agree that that, more than anything else that we have heard, demonstrates the advantage of participating in the Committee? Is not this the time to draw to the House's attention the fact that no SNP Member was ever present on that Committee?
      Mr. Foulkes: That point may not have escaped the House, and it certainly would not escape Madam Deputy Speaker if I sought to make it again.
      Amendment No. 90 relates to clause 326 and part 6. It is a drafting amendment to achieve consistency on the matter of the long lease, and I am glad to say that it has been welcomed by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve).
      Amendment No. 229 would require an affirmative resolution of the Scottish Parliament before Scottish Ministers could make a commencement order under part 3. The Scottish Parliament discussed that provision during a debate on the Sewel motion on 24 October. I attended that debate, which I do not believe is true of any of the four SNP Members who are here today. I must tell them that the SNP spokespeople who did attend that debate actually wanted the Bill to be strengthened. The move towards mandatory provision for Scotland takes account of the representations that those spokespeople made, and which were even more eloquently made by my hon. Friends in Committee. As my hon. Friend would doubtless wish to point out, they could have been made by others in Committee too.
      6.15 pm
      When we decided to make that change I consulted the Deputy First Minister, who is Minister for Justice in Scotland, and the Lord Advocate. The change was then discussed within the Scottish Executive, and they agreed that we should proceed along the lines suggested. It was on the basis of that agreement that we did so.
      May I say to the Tories, particularly the English Tories—we do not have the privilege of having the single Scottish Tory with us today—that they should not be fooled, as they were in Committee, by the apparently reasonable blandishments offered by the SNP? The SNP may talk about respecting and understanding the spirit of the Scotland Act 1998, but that is no part of its agenda. The SNP's agenda is to break up Britain, and every action that its members take is to that end. If the hon. Member for Beaconsfield does not understand that, he is more naive than he looks.
      Mr. Grieve: As I said to the Minister in Committee, my party stands for the Union, but it also stands for the proper constitutional working of the devolution
      606
      settlement. That is central to our principles. That is why I expressed concern in Committee, notwithstanding the Sewel motion, which we fully understood, about substantially rewriting legislation without its having gone before the Scottish Parliament. I should add that that issue and the issue raised by amendment No. 229 are not identical, which is why I shall listen carefully to what the Minister has to say.
      Mr. Foulkes: I am not responsible for bringing matters to the Scottish Parliament. My responsibility was to consult the Minister for Justice and the Lord Advocate, and I did so. On this occasion, they judged that because they knew the views of all parties in the Scottish Parliament, there was no need to consult it. At the time of the Sewel motion, effective unanimity had been expressed that we needed strong powers to deal with the drug barons. I think that their judgment was correct.
      Mr. Michael Weir: The Minister will recall that I raised that point in the Scottish Affairs Committee, and he said:
      "I think that there may be no legal obligation but I think that there may be a political imperative"
      to take the matter back to the Parliament. The point was specifically canvassed in the Scottish Affairs Committee. I asked not about the Executive, but the Parliament. I made that point several times. When did the Minister change his mind?
      Mr. Foulkes: I have not changed my mind, and the hon. Gentleman does not make his point any more effectively by shouting—[Interruption.] I shall hear no comments about pots and kettles. I said that there may, in certain circumstances, be a political imperative to consult the Scottish Parliament, but it is up to Scottish Ministers to decide when that is the case. In this case, they decided that it was not necessary, and I respect their decision
      Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Foulkes: I shall deal next with new clause 6.
      Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Foulkes: No, I have dealt with that point and we have many important matters to cover.
      Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): The Minister obviously will not give way.
      Mr. Foulkes: It was fairly obvious, was it not, Madam Deputy Speaker? You are quite right.
      New clause 6 would ensure that where the Bill interacts with other pieces of legislation, it is clear beyond doubt that United Kingdom legislation, including that passed by devolved legislatures, is included within the definition of the enactment. In case hon. Members are curious about why there is an exemption for clause 448(1), that is intended to ensure that additional public money is made available only where it has been specifically provided for by Westminster. I hope that everyone will agree with that.

      607
      Finally, and I hope helpfully to the Liberal Democrats, I will deal with new clause 1. Its effect would be to require the Lord Advocate and the Scottish Ministers to publish separate annual reports and other items outlined by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, which I shall not list again. Hon. Members, particularly the hon. Gentleman, have contrasted the position in Scotland with that of the director of the Assets Recovery Agency. They have pointed out that the director is required by schedule 1 to publish both an annual plan and an annual report. I stress that the difference between the director and the Lord Advocate and Scottish Ministers is that the agency is a statutory body. It is therefore quite correct for the Bill to make detailed provisions on the director's duties and responsibilities. With regard to the Lord Advocate's responsibilities under the Bill for confiscation and cash seizure, I can assure the House that appropriate details of how he has exercised his functions will be set out in the Crown Office annual report, which is laid before the Scottish Parliament. Similarly, appropriate information on how Scottish Ministers have exercised their civil recovery and cash seizure functions will also be published and made available to the Scottish Parliament.
      Mr. Carmichael: I welcome the news that that information will be published as part of the Crown Office annual report. However, does the Minister accept that that is produced only because the current Lord Advocate and some of his predecessors have chosen to do so, not because any such obligations are placed on him? If any future Lord Advocate decided not to produce such an annual report, Scotland would be left in a significantly weaker position than the rest of the country.
      Mr. Foulkes: I do not accept that, because it is up to the Scottish Parliament to require the Lord Advocate and Ministers to produce reports as appropriate, and no doubt they will take that up. The hon. Gentleman has one or two friends in the Scottish Parliament, and he can raise it with them. I shall be helpful to the hon. Gentleman, and had he been a little less impatient he would have been even more excited about what I am about to say.
      The Government attach considerable importance to the Bill and are determined to ensure that they work effectively to deprive criminals and others of the proceeds of their crime. That applies equally to Scotland. I can therefore assure hon. Members that, as with all new policy initiatives, the effectiveness of the new provisions will be kept under regular review by the Lord Advocate and by Scottish Ministers. If they consider that further changes or improvements are required, they will not hesitate to bring them forward. We consider that keeping responsibility for confiscation in Scotland with the Lord Advocate and making the Scottish Ministers responsible for civil recovery is the most effective arrangement for Scotland. However, if that should turn out not to be the case, of course consideration will be given to other options, including the setting up of a Scottish Assets Recovery Agency. I hope that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will welcome that assurance.
      The Government are determined to ensure that the Bill works effectively to deprive criminals and their associates of their ill-gotten gains. It will also recycle substantial
      608
      amounts of the money recovered from the proceeds of crime to help the victims of crime. That is an important part of the Bill.
      Mr. Carmichael: I am happy to welcome the Minister's assurances, but does he not accept that the difference between my proposal and his is that the Scottish Parliament, not the Scottish Executive, should be the ultimate arbiter of whether the system is working well?
      Mr. Foulkes: Of course, the Scottish Executive is accountable to the Scottish Parliament. The hon. Gentleman has colleagues not only in the Scottish Parliament, but in the Scottish Executive. Indeed, he has a very close colleague there, and he should talk to him a bit more.
      Given what I have said, I do not think it appropriate to tie Ministers' hands in the way that the amendment seeks to do. In particular, within two years may be too short a period in which to reach a proper assessment of the overall effectiveness of the Bill's arrangements. We do not know how many civil recovery cases there will be in Scotland, but Ministers will have the option of a Scottish agency if they think it appropriate.

      In the light of the assurances that information on the exercise of Ministers' functions under the Bill will be published, and that the effectiveness of the Bill in Scotland will be kept under regular review, and given my reasonable and, I hope, eloquent reaction to the amendments, I invite hon. Members to withdraw the amendment and not to press the others.
      Mr. Weir: I want to return to the point that I tried to pursue earlier by reminding the Minister that when he appeared with the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Advocate-General before the Scottish Affairs Committee on 7 November, the point about the position of the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament was clearly canvassed. The Minister was specifically asked whether the Bill would go back to the Scottish Parliament if there was major change. He said:
      "I think that there may be no legal obligation but I think that there may be a political imperative to do that,"—
      that is, to take it back to the Scottish Parliament—
      "if there was a major change in relation to the principle. In relation to the question of mandatory/discretionary, that would be a major change".
      That major change has come to pass, so does he not agree that it should go back to the Scottish Parliament? The Bill as agreed by the Scottish Parliament and with the passing of the Sewel motion will now be substantially different from the Bill that will be passed in this place. The Minister spoke of it and was taken up on the point. The Bill should therefore go back to the Scottish Parliament.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 4
      CO-OPERATION
      Amendment made: No. 79, in page 3, line 4, leave out from "offences" to end of line 5.—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]
    New Clause 2

      DISPOSAL OF FAMILY HOME: ENGLAND AND WALES
      '(1) This section applies where a confiscation order has been made in relation to any person and the prosecutor or the Director (as the case may be) has not satisfied the court that the person's interest in his family home has been acquired as a benefit from his criminal conduct.
      (2) Where this section applies, then, before the receiver disposes of any right or interest in the person's family home he shall—

      (a) obtain the relevant consent; or

      (b) where he is unable to do so, apply to the court for authority to carry out the disposal.

      (3) On an application being made to it under subsection (2)(b), the court, after having regard to all the circumstances of the case including—

      (a) the needs and financial resources of the spouse or former spouse of the person concerned;

      (b) the needs and financial resources of any child of the family;

      (c) the length of the period during which the family home has been used as a residence by any of the persons referred to in paragraph (a) or (b),

      may refuse to grant the application or may postpone the granting of the application for such period (not exceeding 12 months) as it may consider reasonable in the circumstances or may grant the application subject to such conditions as it may prescribe.
      (4) Subsection (3) shall apply to an action for the purpose of obtaining vacant possession of that home in order to dispose of it brought by the receiver as it applies to an application under subsection (2)(b) and, for the purposes of this subsection, any reference in subsection (3) to the granting of the application shall be construed as a reference to the granting of the relief sought in the action.
      (5) In this section—
      "family home", in relation to any person (in this subsection referred to as "the relevant person") means any property in which the relevant person has or had (whether alone or in common with any other person) a right or interest, being property which is occupied as a residence by the relevant person and his or her spouse or by the relevant person's spouse or former spouse (in any case with or without a child of the family) or by the relevant person with a child of the family;
      "child of the family" includes any child or grandchild of either the relevant person or his or her spouse or former spouse, and any person who has been treated by either the relevant person or his or her spouse or former spouse as if he or she were a child of the relevant person, spouse or former spouse, whatever the age of such a child, grandchild or person may be; and
      "relevant consent" means in relation to the disposal of any right or interest in a family home—

      (a) in a case where the family home is occupied by the spouse or former spouse of the relevant person, the consent of the spouse or, as the case may be, of the former spouse, whether or not the family home is also occupied by the relevant person;

      (b) where paragraph (a) does not apply, in a case where the family home is occupied by the relevant person with a child of the family, the consent of the relevant person.'.—[Mr. Grieve.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Grieve: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 3— Disposal of family home: Northern Ireland—
      610
      '(1) This section applies where a confiscation order has been made in relation to any person and the prosecutor or the Director (as the case may be) has not satisfied the court that the person's interest in his family home has been acquired as a benefit from his criminal conduct.
      (2) Where this section applies, then, before the receiver disposes of any right or interest in the person's family home he shall—

      (a) obtain the relevant consent; or

      (b) where he is unable to do so, apply to the court for authority to carry out the disposal.

      (3) On an application being made to it under subsection (2)(b), the court, after having regard to all the circumstances of the case including—

      (a) the needs and financial resources of the spouse or former spouse of the person concerned;

      (b) the needs and financial resources of any child of the family;

      (c) the length of the period during which the family home has been used as a residence by any of the persons referred to in paragraph (a) or (b),

      may refuse to grant the application or may postpone the granting of the application for such period (not exceeding 12 months) as it may consider reasonable in the circumstances or may grant the application subject to such conditions as it may prescribe.
      (4) Subsection (3) shall apply to an action for the purpose of obtaining vacant possession of that home in order to dispose of it brought by the receiver as it applies to an application under subsection (2)(b) and, for the purposes of this subsection, any reference in subsection (3) to the granting of the application shall be construed as a reference to the granting of the relief sought in the action.
      (5) In this section—
      "family home", in relation to any person (in this subsection referred to as "the relevant person") means any property in which the relevant person has or had (whether alone or in common with any other person) a right or interest, being property which is occupied as a residence by the relevant person and his or her spouse or by the relevant person's spouse or former spouse (in any case with or without a child of the family) or by the relevant person with a child of the family.
      "child of the family" includes any child or grandchild of either the relevant person or his or her spouse or former spouse, and any person who has been treated by either the relevant person or his or her spouse or former spouse as if he or she were a child of the relevant person, spouse or former spouse, whatever the age of such a child, grandchild or person may be; and
      "relevant consent" means in relation to the disposal of any right or interest in a family home—

      (a) in a case where the family home is occupied by the spouse or former spouse of the relevant person, the consent of the spouse or, as the case may be, of the former spouse, whether or not the family home is also occupied by the relevant person;

      (b) where paragraph (a) does not apply, in a case where the family home is occupied by the relevant person with a child of the family, the consent of the relevant person.'.

      Amendment No. 207, in clause 101, page 60, line 29, at end insert—
      '(bb) the needs and financial resources of a person of the same sex as the person concerned, who is and has been for a period of not less than six months, living with the person concerned in a relationship which has the characteristics, other than that the persons are of the same sex, of the relationship between husband and wife;
      (bc) the needs and financial resources of any member of the person concerned's family who is and has been, for a period of not less than six months, living with the person concerned in the family home.'.
      Amendment No. 208, in page 60, line 31, leave out "or (b)" and insert "(b), (bb) or (bc)".

      611
      Amendment No. 209, in page 60, line 35, at end insert—
      '(3A) Before granting an application under subsection (3) above, the court must take into account representations made to it by any of the persons referred to in paragraphs (a), (b), (bb) or (bc) of subsection (3);
      (3B) In making representations under subsection (3A), any of the persons referred to in paragraphs (a), (b), (bb) and (bc) of subsection (3) shall be entitled to appear before the court.'.
      Amendment No. 210, in page 61, line 5, at end insert—
      'or by the relevant person with a person of the same sex as the relevant person in terms of subsection (3)(bb) or by the relevant person with a member of his family in terms of subsection (3)(bc).'.
      Amendment No. 211, in page 61, line 20, at end insert—

      '(c) where the family home is occupied by the relevant person and a person of the same sex as the relevant person in terms of subsection (3)(bb), the consent of the same sex partner;

      (d) in a case where the family home is occupied by the relevant person and a member of his family in terms of subsection (3)(bc), the consent of the member of his family.'.

      Mr. Grieve: When we considered the Bill's confiscation provisions in Committee, it was noted that the provisions for Scotland, which were otherwise being brought into uniformity with those for England, Wales and Northern Ireland through the Government's amendments, remained entirely different in one respect—that is, the safeguards for the disposal of the family home in the event of the various assumptions being made.
      During the debate, as the Minister of State, Scotland Office, the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), may recall—I could refer him to the relevant passages in Hansard, but I do not want to take up an excessive amount of the House's time—he emphasised the issue of the different regimes that would exist in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. He provided the Committee with interesting historical background on why the safeguards for the family home existed in the Scottish system.
      The official Opposition did not try to amend the sections on England, Wales and Northern Ireland to include a similar provision, but the Minister undertook—on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth)—to consider whether uniformity was desirable for the purposes of safeguarding the interests of spouses or former spouses or the needs and financial resources of any child of the family. However, nothing has happened. I am not criticising the Minister, but I shall be interested to hear why he feels that no further change is necessary.
      When I considered the matter before this debate, I found myself inexorably drawn to what I must assume is the opposite conclusion from that of the Minister: that there are compelling reasons for introducing a similar safeguard under the England and Wales regime to that which existed for Scotland, and likewise for Northern Ireland. I shall explain why.
      During consideration of the Bill in Committee, I accepted that the equitable jurisdiction that applies in English courts when dealing with property, especially property that may be occupied by a spouse or a child, may provide certain safeguards that would mean that if the
      612
      spouse could show that in the course of the marriage she had acquired an equitable share in the property, it is possible that that part of the property might not be seized. I use the word "possible" advisedly, because it is not easy to reconcile the ordinary principles of an equitable jurisdiction with a criminal confiscatory mechanism, as stipulated in part 2.
      During that debate in the 15th sitting of the Committee, the Minister accepted that the principal responsibility of the court, once the assumption had been made, was to realise the assets, and that must include confiscating the family home.
      The matter becomes particularly obvious and glaring in the different regimes that will now exist north and south of the border, as is shown by subsection (1) of new clause 2. It is immediately clear that, under the regime in Scotland, the reversal of the burden of proof that arises when the assumptions are made will not apply if one of the objects of seizure is the family home. The burden will remain on the prosecutor to show that the family home specifically has been acquired as a benefit from the criminal conduct.
      6.30 pm
      Of course, if that specific trigger arises, no protection will be afforded under the Scottish provisions to the wife, former spouse or the children who live in the house. However, if that trigger cannot be fulfilled, there is no reverse burden on the defendant at that point and the court may be able to consider all the circumstances set out in clause 101 in relation to Scotland. The court can postpone seizure or decide that in no circumstances would it be reasonable to allow the family home to be seized at any time. That seems to be a sensible and compelling safeguard, which could ultimately lead to the removal of serious risks of injustice and the perception of injustice. Clearly, that has been thought a very sensible measure in the Scottish jurisdiction, which is why it was introduced with other confiscatory mechanisms in the mid-1990s.
      The more I consider the issue, the more convinced I become that no similar safeguard will exist under current rules in England and Wales or in Northern Ireland. I have become increasingly concerned that we shall end up with a system that diverges considerably north and south of the border—the very thing that the Minister said when arguing on the provisions for Scotland he wanted to get rid of; he wanted to produce uniformity. Also, we run the risk of it being said that the system in England and Wales is unjust. I have to tell the Minister, bluntly, that I cannot help thinking that the other possible outcome is that a far greater burden will be placed on the state through the social security system than might otherwise be the case.
      The more I have thought about the issue, the more convinced I have become that there is every reason to include similar safeguards for the wife, former spouse or child in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland to those that exist in Scotland. I am prepared to be talked out of my position if the Minister can persuade me that similar safeguards that would have the same result exist south of the border. I do not wish to take up too much time because there is a lot of other business to discuss, but that is a very important point. I am sorry that we did not have more time to focus on this issue in Committee.

      613
      This shows that, however carefully legislation is considered, there is always a further opportunity to find something else to do when we consider it again. Perhaps this matter can be dealt with in the other place if the new clauses and amendments that I have tabled are not sufficient.
      Mr. Edward Garnier: Would new clause 2 or the Bill allow the director to apply to the court for a charge on the matrimonial property that can hang there while the wife, spouse or any children need the house?
      Mr. Grieve: The answer to my hon. and learned Friend's question is no, because the purpose of the provision is to produce a mandatory ratchet system, by which, when the assumptions have been arrived at, confiscation must follow. There is one possible caveat: confiscation may not take place if there is a serious risk of injustice. I am always a little anxious about what that term means. In any event, I am not 100 per cent. certain that it relates to the status of the spouse, former spouse or child. The Minister may choose to correct me if I am wrong, but that term seems to relate to the possibility that the asset may have been wrongly identified as resulting from criminal conduct and thus should not be seized.
      The Minister may be able to provide some reassurance about that, but I have to tell my hon. and learned Friend that I do not find the issue at all clear because we are, in fact, dealing with legislation that relates to the confiscation of criminal assets. So such a safeguard may exist, and it may be possible to beef it up even further by going down the road proposed by the Human Rights Committee, which suggests that we should use the term "real risk of injustice" instead of the term "serious risk of injustice". All those things are interconnected in reality.
      In short, I need to hear some compelling reasons why England and Wales should not have the same protection as that which the Government have been happy to provide north of the border. They should accept new clause 2, which I have adapted, I hope correctly, to make it sensible in English, rather than Scots, law. I wait to hear from the Minister on this important issue.
      Mr. Carmichael: I have a broad degree of sympathy with the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) on new clause 2. It would be ungenerous if we did not afford to the English the same protection as that given to the Scots, although that is often the case in any event. However, I do not know enough about English property law to comment on new clause 2 in any great depth, so I merely seek to bring to the House's attention amendments Nos. 207 to 211, tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Lewes (Norman Baker) and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and myself.
      Under amendment No. 207, which has the greatest substance—the other amendments are essentially consequential—we would afford to third parties who are in same-sex relationships the same protection as that given to spouses, former spouses and siblings who may have lived in the family home of the person against whom the confiscation order is made. There may be circumstances in which it is necessary to consider the needs and financial resources of the other members of the
      614
      family who have resided with the accused in the family home. For example, siblings could have resided together in a house that is owned jointly, and it would be inappropriate to disregard the needs or interests of one party because the other is subject to confiscation proceedings under the Bill.
      The point that I seek to make is one of general policy and principle. In 2002, there seems to be no good reason why the rights and interests in law of people in same-sex relationships should not be afforded the same protection in relation to their family homes as that given to spouses and former spouses. Of course, I readily concede that there are some difficulties with the definition of the relationships that might qualify.
      I fully accept that six months is essentially an arbitrary choice, and other hon. Members may disagree about whether it is appropriate. It may be felt to be too short, but I remind the House that the court will still need to be satisfied that there is proof that the relationship exists and is worthy of the envisaged protection. The less time that the relationship has existed, the greater the difficulty in proving in court that it has existed. I draw a parallel with the Scots view on marriage by cohabitation with habit and repute, which has established a substantial case history in which it has been found that such relationships exist in law in some circumstances, but not in others. A general theme throughout the Bill, on which the Liberal Democrats have been happy to support the Government, is that fairly significant curtailments will take place of what would otherwise be regarded as civil liberties and human rights. If the Bill is to be effective and maintain public sympathy and support—which is crucial to the broader aims of the Bill in terms of the prosecution of crime and the promotion of law and order—it is particularly important that the interests of all third parties should be protected. We have identified a classification gap in relation to people who will not be protected.
      John Robertson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that amendment No. 207 might have fitted better if it were inserted into subsection (3)(a), which refers to spouses and former spouses? Perhaps the word "partner" might have been added. Although I support the hon. Gentleman's intention, that might have been a better approach.
      Mr. Carmichael: That would be an option. Without proper consideration, I would not like to say, on the hoof, whether the amendment would fit as neatly where the hon. Gentleman suggests as it does in its current place. However, I welcome his support for the broad principle of our proposal. I reiterate that what is important is that we are seen to give equal credence to the rights of those in same-sex relationships. By taking a more imaginative and bolder step, we might set precedents for the reform of other aspects of property law, particularly in relation to providing protection for people who are in abusive and violent relationships, which can be same-sex as well as mixed-sex relationships. If we are seen to take seriously the rights of every group that stands to be disadvantaged, the Bill will be much better regarded by the community.
      Vera Baird: When a home is not part of the proceeds of crime and the family are innocent of all crime, there should simply be a power for a court to protect them from confiscation by refusing or postponing its sale,

      615
      if that is just. I echo what the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said about the absence of any other kind of protection in English land law if the Bill provides no protection. I, too, have thought long and hard about whether the Government's statement that there was no need for such protection was accurate. However, I cannot find any way in which the rights of innocent families can be protected unless it is expressed in this statute.
      I accept totally that it is right to seize the expensive mansion with swimming pool in the home counties that is owned by a man who has a dog called Brinks and another called Mat. I also accept entirely the right to confiscate cheap houses—the only type of house available in Redcar—as drug dealers live in them, and they should not be subsidised by their lifestyle. Nobody suggests that that power should not exist and should not be strong; it exists and it will remain.
      However, a house is not just a piece of property; it is a home. There may be children between the ages of one and five living there, who do not have a clue that their father is a criminal. What is the difficulty in obliging authorities to obtain the court's sanction to sell in such a situation, therefore obliging the court to balance the interests of the family? If the interests of the family require the court to postpone the sale or outlaw it altogether, it does not diminish one iota the power of the statute to take the proceeds of crime away. It is a way of entrusting a decision to the judiciary. The judiciary will not allow the power to be abused—it makes decisions in other important areas of this Bill so why should it not do so in this one?
      6.45 pm
      The Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, considered the absence of protection for a family in the Bill and wrote to the Home Office raising queries. I do not do the reply an injustice by saying that it asserted that anyone who had a property interest in a home could be protected. That is right. As I have said, however, property rights are not the end of the matter. I am not speaking merely about the obvious justice of protecting families, because there is now a legal duty to protect family life.
      Article 8 of the European convention on human rights provides a right to family life, which, in a democratic society, must not be interfered with unless it is necessary. Under the Bill, such interference would be for the prevention of crime. However, the difficulty is that the Bill does not provide an opportunity for the interests of the family to be weighed when the balance is struck as to whether it is justifiable to intrude—I hope that I am making myself clear. There must be an opportunity for those interests to be brought into play. Unless that point is specified, there will be no such opportunity.
      The Home Office's reply to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is appended to the 11th report of the Committee, stated:
      "Even where it cannot be shown that the family home was, itself, obtained from the proceeds of crime, the receiver may sell it because this is necessary in order to satisfy the confiscation order … The need to ensure that criminals do not retain the benefit of their offending outweighs the interests of innocent family members in staying in their home. The family members will not be prevented from living together elsewhere and, if left without funds, will be able to claim state benefits. Therefore, the family will not be prevented from having a family home."
      616
      It continued:
      "If the spouse or child wishes to make a payment in order to extinguish the defendant's interest and remain in the family home, this is possible".
      I hope and trust that that quotation is one to which no Minister would wish to lend support. On some occasions the public interest in seizing the assets might outweigh the family's interests, although, sometimes, it might not. The trouble is that the Bill provides no opportunity to do the balancing exercise.
      Mr. Garnier: I ask the hon. Lady this question as I suspect that she knows a lot more about the criminal law than most other Members in the Chamber this evening. Does the Crown court have a power of its own motion to hear an affected party who is not the defendant but may be an innocent family member or an innocent affected person outside the confines of that family? Does it have that power anyway, or does the hon. Lady contend that the court will do that only if it is given the power in statute?
      Vera Baird: Not being the author of Archbold—although I am grateful for the compliment paid to me by the hon. and learned Gentleman—it seems that there is probably no such power. There may be a power to allow somebody to be heard but it is unclear what power there would be to restrain the confiscation order as a consequence of what they said unless an express power were provided in the statute to protect that interest under article 8. From two points of view—that of the approach taken by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and that of straightforward justice—there is a real danger that there will be litigation on the matter very soon, and that a hard case of an innocent family evicted for a confiscation order will mean that the Government will lose.
      Mr. John Taylor: The hon. Lady referred to justice and equity, so may I draw to her attention the parallel that developed some years ago in English civil land law, which applied to the rights of the deserted spouse?. I think that it resulted from the case of Bendall v. McWhirter, but it certainly came from the noble mind of Lord Denning when he was Master of the Rolls. The protection of a deserted spouse has a certain resonance in this debate, so might we not draw some useful parallels?
      Vera Baird: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. A self-sufficient legal right developed and in my respectful submission—said she using language that she should no longer be using—it is a good idea, if I can put it in a more folksy way, for the Government to consider whether it is necessary to put something similar in the Bill to protect family interests.
      I emphasise that I am suggesting not that family interests will always prevail, but that they should be taken into account when they are drawn to a court's attention. There is a further danger that, given the situation in Scotland, article 14 of the European convention on human rights, which prevents the discriminatory implementation of the convention's rights, might also cause the Government litigation problems soon. I invite them to take a fresh look at the matter.
      Mr. John Redwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) for

      617
      moving these excellent new clauses, and the whole House benefited from the learned contribution of the hon. Member for Redcar (Vera Baird); I certainly learned from it.
      The Government want to create a strong law, but it is important that it is not a vindictive law. They want it to be a tough law, but it is important that it is not a foolish law. It is very much easier to legislate soundbites but to regret them afterwards when one comes to work out the detail or the unintended consequences. I therefore urge Ministers to think carefully about what well trained and well qualified lawyers in this place have said about the lack of proper protection in English law and the lack of symmetry between Scottish and English law.
      The rest of us, who have concentrated on the possible human tragedies, have pointed out that it would surely not be right to visit in all circumstances all the sins of one person on all the other family members. The issues require careful analysis by proper people in a proper place—in a court of law hearing evidence and making careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances.
      We want to achieve not merely proper punishment of the wrongdoer or to send out the strong and clear message that people should not profit from their crimes, but to create a stable background against which the families of such people have a chance of being brought up in a different lifestyle and in a different way.
      John Robertson: Who will look after the rights of the people who have suffered and died as a result of becoming drug addicts? Who will look after their rights if we allow people to benefit from crime and buy houses from its proceeds?
      Mr. Redwood: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman; he has misjudged his shot at me. I approach the matter in a consensual fashion, because we all agree that we do not want people to exploit others through the misery that is created by drug-pushing. We want to ensure that the villains are likely to have their ill-gotten gains confiscated—that is the purpose of the Bill.
      We are now debating—an earlier intervention suggested that the hon. Gentleman sympathised with this view—whether it is right in every circumstance to take every asset and every valuable away from a family when their home may have originally been acquired quite legally and responsibly. Continued possession of the family home by the family members who are not in prison might be the best and most economical way from the state's point of view of giving that family a chance once they are separated from their loved one or former loved one who committed dreadful crimes and is rightly being punished for them.
      If we consider the issue of state budgeting, we realise that it is not always sensible to take all the means of support from people, only to have to grant other means of support to them. If houses are confiscated, I trust that we will not leave families on the streets. Alternative provision must be made, and that might not only be worse for the family involved but it may turn out to be rather expensive for taxpayers who have to bear the burden of making the provision that had previously legally been made by the family. That could be the result if the law goes too far
      618
      and does not give courts the opportunity to say, "In this case, the family would be better off if they were allowed to stay in the family home. All the assets from the trade have been confiscated and the person involved will be strongly punished in a variety of ways." For the sake of the family involved, it might be better for them to stay in the family home.
      When I read the new clauses, which were drafted with considerable care and admirably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, I was struck by just how moderate they were. They do not tell a court always to allow the family to remain in the matrimonial home and do not spell out circumstances in which they should definitely keep the family home. The new clauses clearly state that, when the family home is acquired as a direct result of the drugs trade, it should be confiscated. As the hon. Member for Redcar memorably remarked, if a great big mansion in the home counties with a swimming pool was clearly acquired from the proceeds of an illicit trade, the law should be designed so that part of the punishment should be its confiscation. There is much sympathy for that view on both sides of the House.
      The new clauses modestly and moderately point out, however, that a protection similar to that in Scottish law should be afforded in English law and that the House of Commons should trust the courts to make difficult judgments and possibly mitigate action in a limited number of cases. The courts should be given the opportunity to decide whether a punishment was too harsh on the family even though it would properly punish the offender.
      The Government have also argued that the protection already exists in English law and that there is no need for the Bill specifically to legislate for such a provision. We have heard the legal advice in the House that has been given freely, which is most desirable and unusual. I am grateful to the members of the legal profession for giving so freely of their advice and pointing out that the protection might not necessarily already exist in English law. Therefore, it is beholden on Ministers to spell out precisely how the protection will be provided if they really believe that it exists elsewhere in the law. If, as I fear, they are unable to do that, why do they not allow the protection afforded by the new clauses to be inserted in the Bill?
      Ministers do not seem to object to the principle of protection in Scotland, so how can it be fair to allow for the protection to exist in one part of the United Kingdom—a kingdom that many of us would like to be even more united than it is under this Government—and not in another? We would like similar protection to be accorded under English law.
      I hope that the Government feel the need to respond to the points made in the debate. They are either arguing that there are no circumstances in which families should be allowed to stay in the family home and that that would always be wrong, or they are saying that there is already adequate protection in English law. If that is so, they need to demonstrate that clearly tonight. I am sure that if they could show that such protection existed, my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield would reflect again on his new clauses.
      I fully support my hon. Friend and the moderate new clauses that he moved so admirably. They deal with a potential injustice in the legislation. I conclude as I began:

      619
      it does not help a law that is intended to be strong to make it vindictive. My hon. Friend is offering a modest but important improvement to the Bill, of which the House could be proud if it accepted it tonight.
      Mr. David Wilshire: I can be brief because virtually all the points that I wanted to make have been made, but I wish to add to something said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood).
      In Committee, Ministers went out of their way—at least, I think they did—to say that we need not worry because the protections exist already. They may be right or they may be wrong, but I do not think that matters. The Government have said that the protection offered in Scotland is right and that we have it in England already. All we are saying, however, is that the new clauses underline what the Government say already exists in England. If I understand that correctly, I cannot understand why they wish to resist the provision because the new clauses merely provide what already exists.
      The only way to resolve the problem is for the Government to say that they agree with what we are trying to achieve. Where is the harm in saying that all over again to make certain that there is no doubt whatsoever? The Minister did not argue in Committee, and I hope that he will not argue tonight, that the protection should not be available in England. That is not the issue; everyone agrees that the protection should be available. The new clauses would ensure that it is, and I do not understand the Government's problem.
      7 pm
      Mr. Garnier: I, too, will be brief because much of what I wanted to say has been said, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and the hon. Member for Redcar (Vera Baird).
      We are under a special duty to get the legislation right. I declare an interest to the extent that I might have to apply the law that we are passing when I sit as a recorder in the Crown court in England. During the past four or five years that I have sat as a recorder, it has occurred to me that most of the people who come before the Crown court are little people; they are not the Mr. Bigs. I dare say that the Government intend to catch the Mr. Bigs, but most of them are sensible enough not to come within our jurisdiction. It is the mules and the smaller fry in the criminal chain who get caught. We must concentrate on them and their families, because that is what happens in real life in the conveyor belt that comes before the Crown court.
      The hon. Member for Redcar said that she represents people who live in fairly inexpensive houses. They are the very people who are likely to get caught because their husbands or wives will be accessible to the police and therefore to the criminal justice system. The families will be the unwitting victims of this well-intended Bill. Once they have lost their houses or whatever chattel may be confiscated, they will fall upon the state. It is unwise of the state to take with one hand for a good and sensible criminal deterrent purpose and to give to the family of that defendant with the other.
      620
      I understand that the procedures under part 2 are compulsory. I may be wrong, and no doubt others who have studied the Bill in more detail will be able to tell me whether it is mandatory on the director to make an application in all circumstances in which the facts fit. If there is a mandatory requirement to apply part 2, we must be all the more careful to ensure that the Human Rights Act 1998 is properly respected.
      Mr. Grieve: The prosecutor does have a discretion to ask the court to proceed. Once he has done that, the wheels grind into motion. The noteworthy aspect is that at that stage there are few exceptions to getting out of the process, apart from the possibility of the court not coming to a final decision because of the serious risk of injustice. As I see it, that relates to the circumstances of the defendant, not the innocent people who may he affected by the eventual decision.
      Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend allows me to bring my remarks to a swift conclusion.
      The simple point is that we are all interested in deterrence and in inhibiting those who benefit from crime. However, I should also like to think that we are interested in justice. If we can do anything during the deliberative process to bring justice to the Bill while achieving its sensible consequences, this is the time for the Government to pause and think.
      Mr. Bob Ainsworth: I shall begin by setting out the background to the different situations in the jurisdictions as they relate to the matrimonial home before I turn to the substantial issues, such as devolution, time to pay, representations and the jurisdiction of England and Wales.
      The difference between parts 2 and 4 and part 3 is one of policy. The same policy difference is found in legislation that covers the three jurisdictions. Courts in England and Northern Ireland enjoy a discretion in the decision to exercise their restraint and receivership powers, but that must always be used to satisfy a confiscation order. I was accused of governing by soundbite. It is an honour to be accused of that. I never thought that that was a strong part of my political armoury, so that accusation is interesting to say the least. The policy difference exists in legislation that was passed by a Conservative Government. There is no provision in legislation that covers England or Northern Ireland to permit the family home not being realised.
      Part 3 reflects the long-standing provision in Scottish legislation that gives Scottish courts the power ultimately to refuse the realisation of the family home when satisfying a confiscation order. The provision replicates earlier confiscation legislation for Scotland contained in the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995. That developed a briefer provision that was set out along the same lines in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987. So the difference in the two jurisdictions has been around for a long time.
      The confiscation legislation in the three jurisdictions is different because Scottish law adopts a different approach to the occupancy rights of spouses in general. The Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 gives the right to occupy the matrimonial home to spouses who are not owners or tenants and provides for the protection of occupancy rights. There is no equivalent

      621
      legislation in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, so the general legal framework against which the confiscation legislation operates is different in the three jurisdictions.
      There are arguments in favour of both positions. What is the justification for allowing someone to retain the proceeds of crime? People say that we are insensitive or, perhaps, ridiculous, and that although we are after the Mr. Bigs we will catch the little people. Let me give a couple of examples to justify the situation in England and Wales. I accept that things are different in Scotland, but that is its choice.
      If we allow the Bill to contain loopholes, the serious criminal will ensure that the overwhelming majority of the proceeds of crime that are visible and retained by him are sunk in the matrimonial home to give him protection. We must make no mistake about that. That is what happens now and it will happen to an increasing extent. People with large homes in Surrey, with their swimming pools and the rest, will say that they are not subject to the legislation if it involves their matrimonial home.
      I love it when Conservatives become concerned about the little person. Let us imagine two little people living side by side in a street of terraced houses in any one of our constituencies. Such people turn up at our surgeries all the time, do they not? One person has lost his job and is unable to pay the mortgage, but there is no discretion for the court to prevent the mortgage company from taking away his home. Such people are not criminals, and their husbands and wives are not criminals. Yet they wind up in our surgeries, having lost their matrimonial home because they are unable to pay their debts. That happens to all of us, all the time. Those cases are heart-rending, and local authority social services and the welfare state do their best to rescue the situation, using whatever power they have.
      Next door to the family who have lost their home because they were unable to pay their mortgage live a couple, one of whom is a drug dealer. He has paid for his home, entirely and beyond doubt from the proceeds of crime. Are we saying that those people should not face the same situation as the honest family next door? It is not only big people that we are talking about; the Bill may affect small people too. We have never been prepared to give to ordinary people who fall on hard times and lose their matrimonial home the protection that some Members claim should apply to people whose home has been paid for with the proceeds of crime and of the misery inflicted on the community in which they live.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Ainsworth: I give way to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier).
      Mr. Garnier: The examples given by the Minister have an attraction, but only a spurious attraction. As often as not, in the civil cases in which people cannot pay their mortgage, both partners will be aware of what is going on and will be able to make their own arrangements with the building society or mortgage lender. I accept that some circumstances will be different, but that will be the case, by and large. Whether or not their actions are effective,
      622
      they will at least be able to take part in a process. In the second example, the spouse or partner may be wholly ignorant of any criminal activities. The Minister may not like my response to his argument, but that is my response.
      Mr. Ainsworth: That is nonsense, and the hon. and learned Gentleman ought to know it. I have been a Member of Parliament for 10 years and I do not know how many times I have seen at my surgery women who claim that their husband ran up debt on a credit card, in a credit agreement or in payment for a car without them knowing anything about it. They are not responsible for that debt, but they end up being jointly and severally liable and losing their matrimonial home as a result. That happens all the time, and the hon. and learned Gentleman must know that. Although there is no joint responsibility for credit card bills, there is a joint responsibility to pay the mortgage, and if people cannot do so they lose their home. If the hon. and learned Gentleman can tell me that that does not happen, I will be more than happy to listen to him.
      Vera Baird rose—
      Mr. Ainsworth: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment because I want to deal with some of the points that she made.
      What about a person who loses their job? How is that the fault of the spouse? Yet the spouse becomes liable for the financial situation that results. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough must know that the circumstances that apply to the innocent spouse in that case are the same as those that apply to the innocent spouse of a criminal. Hon. Members are saying that we should provide protection in one case but not the other. I think that my honest constituents who find themselves in that situation would find it offensive if we gave protection to the spouses of drug peddlers that they themselves are not entitled to.
      7.15 pm
      My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) expressed concerns about time for payment. I refer her to clause 12, which says that if a defendant shows that he needs time to pay, he can be provided with six months, which can be extended to 12 months. Clause 62 provides that any person who may be affected by action that the receiver proposed to take can apply to the Crown court, which can give them extra time to pay. The receiver has discretion, where there are enough assets, to choose which to go for. I suggest that in those circumstances the spouse would be in a situation no worse than that faced by many of our constituents.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Ainsworth: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael).
      Mr. Carmichael: I am not quite the Minister's hon. Friend. He makes a compelling case for reforming the law on debt and on the removal of family members as a result of heritable repossession. I look forward to considering the legislation that will no doubt flow from that. As ever,

      623
      the Minister makes the case on the worst-case scenario— that of the drug dealer, whose trade must be perfectly obvious. I suggest that many cases will involve not a drug dealer but a person who, to all intents and purposes, appears to be a perfectly respectable member of the business community. An example was given earlier of someone who runs a tanning studio in Glasgow, a scrap business or a security company—something with a high cash turnover. In those cases, it may be difficult to establish the facts, but surely it should be open to innocent members of the family to seek protection, and that is what our amendments aim to achieve.
      Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman knows that this provision applies to criminal confiscation and to individuals who have criminal convictions. He knows that the circumstances that we are discussing will probably arise in cases in which a criminal lifestyle assumption has been triggered, and he will know which offences, or pattern of offences, trigger the assumptions procedure. Otherwise, we would be talking about confiscating only the proceeds of a particular crime. We are not talking about cases in which there has been no pattern of criminal activity over a period or evidence of a lifestyle offence being committed. I mentioned drug dealing because it is a lifestyle offence, as the hon. Gentleman will know. We are talking about the homes of convicted criminals.
      Vera Baird: My hon. Friend said some time ago that we are talking about cases in which the home has been acquired, lock, stock and barrel, through the proceeds of crime, but that is absolutely the opposite of the situation that we are talking about. Clause 101 protects only those matrimonial homes that have not been obtained from the proceeds of crime, so with great respect to my hon. Friend, what he said was not right.
      I agree with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) that my hon. Friend makes a good case for providing protection for families in cases where mortgages are to be called in. If, however, the relevant law is wrong, duplicating it in the Bill will not improve it.
      Forgive me for making a long intervention, but may I just ask one more question, Madam Deputy Speaker? My hon. Friend referred to clause 62, which allows any person to make a further application to the Crown court. However, under the Bill the Crown court does not have any power to respond to the application by an injured spouse.
      Mr. Ainsworth: The power relates to the time to pay; I am sorry if that point was not clear. My hon. Friend made much of the fact that she did not think that it was possible to make representations, and was concerned that there would not be time to pay. There is both discretion and time to pay; it is possible to make representations. Hon. Members have said that I have made a good case for the reform of debt and that we should not be making matters worse. However, we would make things worse if we gave protection to family homes where the family had got into debt, because that would have wide ramifications. I do not know what would be the position of different parties and individuals in the house, but it would not be within the scope of the Bill.
      As I have explained, we are not changing the law, which has operated for a long time in the jurisdictions of England and Wales. The power has been in existence
      624
      throughout the time when confiscation legislation has been in place; if we are going to talk about the issue in relation to debt, this is the wrong starting point.
      Vera Baird: My hon. Friend's point about the law having been in existence for some time is relatively minor, given the vast extension of the power to seize the proceeds of crime that the Bill will rightly introduce.
      Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend knows about, and supports, the real need for legislation given the massive problem that we face. The Bill would not be necessary or deemed proportionate if the problem did not exist. I accept that, as a result of historic precedents, different circumstances apply under the three jurisdictions, but to say that because something applies in Scotland it must apply in England and Wales is a strange construction to put on devolution, and would give us real problems.
      The other amendments in this group apply only to Scotland. Amendment No. 207 seeks to extend to same-sex partners the protections that are available to the spouse. Clause 101 provides a degree of protection for the accused's spouse or former spouse and replicates the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995, which in turn mirrors section 40 the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985. The law makes different provision in different contexts for spouses, cohabitees and dependants. In the 1985 and 1995 Acts, and now the Bill, the main question under Scottish jurisdiction is balancing the rights of creditors or the public against the needs of children and spouses. The protection does not extend to cohabitees, whether they are same-sex or not. Spouses have agreed to financial obligations to each other in a way in which cohabitees have not.
      The Scottish Executive are to issue a draft family law Bill based on the Scottish Law Commission's 1992 report. The commission did not propose that protection against the owner of the family home selling it or giving up the tenancy should be extended to cohabitees, whether same-sex or otherwise.
      Mr. Carmichael rose—
      Mr. Ainsworth: I know that the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, and I would like to give way to him, but we have a lot of important amendments to discuss. We have spent a lot of time on this group and I have already taken a lot of important interventions.
      Any changes in this area of the law should not be made piecemeal; they need to be part of a coherent package. I hope that I have explained to Members what, I accept, is a difficult area of the law. However, anomalies would be created if we went down the tempting road of simply examining the issue superficially. I hope that Opposition Members will not to press their amendments to a vote for the reasons that I have given. If not, I hope that my hon. Friends will be prepared to vote them down.
      Mr. Grieve: I am sorry to hear the Minister's response to what, I hoped, were serious and constructive proposals. I hope that I may be forgiven if I did not detect that in advancing his arguments the Minister was not partly persuaded of the merit of the case that I tried to make, and felt that there were intervening factors that required him to make a contrary case.

      625
      I shall pick up a couple of the Minister's points, which highlight the oddity of the Government's position. First, a telling and learned point was made by the hon. Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) about the fact that the proposal has nothing to do with situations where we are certain that assets that are the proceeds or benefits of crime have been used to purchase a house. In those circumstances, there would be no exception, but in circumstances in which the director has not satisfied the court that the person's interest in his family home has been acquired as a benefit of his criminal conduct, new clause 2 kicks in. The idea that, as a result of our proposal, an individual could leave his wife and children in a £5 million house somewhere in Surrey is far-fetched. As we examine clause 102, which applies to Scotland—I am asking that it apply to England, Wales and Northern Ireland—we can see that the court has enormous flexibility and the ability to
      "grant the application subject to such conditions as it may prescribe."
      I can envisage a situation in which, while there ought to be enough money to provide a house, it will not be in leafy Surrey. The new clause is fair, decent and proper, and the provision that it makes is distinct from the question of mortgages and debts. We have strong views because sometimes mortgages are foreclosed in painful circumstances, but at least they concern private property rights. If a person does not honour those rights, they will not receive any money. Courts have powers of postponement, which they sometimes exercise, but eventually the trap door opens, or closes, and people go.
      We are putting together a policy designed to attack criminals, which the Opposition support. Indeed, there is universal support in the House for the principles of the Bill, but we are seeking to mitigate its harshness. In those circumstances, a different set of rules should apply; we should differentiate the rights of the state upholding the rule of law from those of the person to whom the state should sometimes show mercy.
      Mr. Bob Ainsworth: It is not like the hon. Gentleman to present half an argument without presenting the other half. He is right about the circumstances applying to the home, but he must accept that we are talking about an assumptions procedure where there is deemed to be a criminal lifestyle. He cannot present one half of the argument without the other half, and it is not like him to do so.
      Mr. Grieve: I understand the Minister's point, but it is important that the House should understand the issue under discussion. The assumption is made and the person is deemed to have a criminal lifestyle. As he knows, huge consequences will result. Effectively, the burden of proof is reversed and all assets except those which can be shown to have been acquired legitimately disappear and are confiscated. The point of the new clause is to provide an extra safeguard. In some circumstances, the criminal lifestyle may be established to exist, but the reversal of the burden of proof should not take place in relation to the matrimonial home or the home in which the spouse, ex-spouse and children are living. In such circumstances, the burden should stay with the prosecutor. If the prosecutor cannot discharge it, would not a right-thinking person say that there might be a situation in which the full force and rigour of the law should not be invoked?
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Stinchcombe: The hon. Gentleman is arguing that there may be some circumstances in which the full rigour of the assumptions procedure should not bite. However, is it not the case that it does not bite under the Bill if either the assumption can be shown to be incorrect or there is a serious risk of injustice?
      Mr. Grieve: I return to the point that I made at the outset: my view is that the serious risk of injustice arises in relation to the assumption and not to the circumstances surrounding the spouse, ex-spouse or child. I have been very well briefed on the matter and I am sure that the Minister would have corrected me if I had got that wrong. He has not done so. Although I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, I do not think that it alters the force of the argument in any way.
      The hon. Member for Redcar eloquently pointed out that the system will be divergent within the United Kingdom. I appreciate that diversity can exist, but let us consider what would happen if separate cases arose in relation to two adjoining properties in one jurisdiction, but the person in the first case was dealt with through the Scottish courts, while his brother next door—his co-drug smuggler—was put through the English courts. That could produce completely different results for the spouse or ex-spouse and children in each of those adjoining properties. When that happens, people will complain long and loud about that injustice, which may well be in breach of the Human Rights Act 1998.
      We are proposing a small change that would not have the catastrophic consequences that the Minister fears. If it could have such consequences, not only would he never have allowed the Scottish provision to survive, but Scottish Members would have called long and loud for its removal in Committee. However, they did not do so, and I dare say that this provision is seen in Scotland as a fair one that has not been abused. I do not believe that the difficult consequences that he foresees would flow from the new clause. Without it, the House will have a reputation for unfairness in the context of England of Wales on the basis of a law that is inexorable and shows no respite for those whom it should protect.
      I do not know what will happen in another place and I realise that we are unlikely to succeed in persuading enough hon. Members to vote with us for the new clause. Listening to the debate, I hoped that the Minister would make a small concession, so that I could ask leave to withdraw the motion, while these matters could be returned to in another place. However, the more I have heard, the more persuaded I am that we are right to insist on our proposals. We shall, therefore, seek to press the new clause to a Division.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 157, Noes 273.

      Division No. 169]

      [7.33 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Baron, John

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Barrett, John

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Bacon, Richard

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Baker, Norman

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Brady, Graham

      627

      Brazier, Julian

      Lidington, David

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Loughton, Tim

      Burnett, John

      Luff, Peter

      Burnside, David

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Burstow, Paul

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Butterfill, John

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Malins, Humfrey

      Cameron, David

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Moore, Michael

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Moss, Malcolm

      Chidgey, David

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Chope, Christopher

      Norman, Archie

      Clappison, James

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Pace, James

      Collins, Tim

      Paterson, Owen

      Cotter, Brian

      Prisk, Mark

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Pugh, Dr John

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Randall, John

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M

      Rendel, David

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Robathan, Andrew

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Evans, Nigel

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Fabricant, Michael

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Fallen, Michael

      Ruffley, David

      Flook, Adrian

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Sanders, Adrian

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Garnier, Edward

      Shepherd, Richard

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Simmonds, Mark

      Gibb, Nick

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

      Goodman, Paul

      Soames, Nicholas

      Gray, James

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Grayling, Chris

      Spink, Bob

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Steen, Anthony

      Greenway, John

      Streeter, Gary

      Grieve, Dominic

      Swayne, Desmond

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Syms, Robert

      Hammond, Philip

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Hancock, Mike

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Harvey, Nick

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Hayes, John

      Thurso, John

      Heald, Oliver

      Tredinnick, David

      Heath, David

      Trend, Michael

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Hoban, Mark

      Tyler, Paul

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Holmes, Paul

      Viggers, Peter

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Webb, Steve

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Whittingdale, John

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Wiggin, Bill

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Wilkinson, John

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Willetts, David

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Wilshire, David

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Lamb, Norman

      Yeo, Tim

      Lansley, Andrew

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Laws, David

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Leigh, Edward

      Letwin, Oliver

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Mrs. Cheryl Gillan and

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Mr. Charles Hendry.

      628

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Allen, Graham

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Edwards, Huw

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Efford, Clive

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Bailey, Adrian

      Ennis, Jeff

      Barron, Kevin

      Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Fisher, Mark

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Benn, Hilary

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Bennett, Andrew

      Foulkes, George

      Benton, Joe

      Galloway, George

      Berry, Roger

      Gapes, Mike

      Best, Harold

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Betts, Clive

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Blackman, Liz

      Gilroy, Linda

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Godsiff, Roger

      Blizzard, Bob

      Goggins, Paul

      Borrow, David

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Grogan, John

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Browne, Desmond

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Burden, Richard

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Burgon, Colin

      Hanson, David

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Cairns, David

      Healey, John

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Caplin, Ivor

      Heppell, John

      Caton, Martin

      Hermon, Lady

      Cawsey, Ian

      Heyes, David

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hill, Keith

      Chaytor, David

      Hoey, Kate

      Clapham, Michael

      Hope, Phil

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Hopkins, Kelvin.

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Clelland, David

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Cohen, Harry

      Illsley, Eric

      Colman, Tony

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Corston, Jean

      Jenkins, Brian

      Cousins, Jim

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Cranston, Ross

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Crausby, David

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Joyce, Eric

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Cummings, John

      Kemp, Fraser

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Kidney, David

      Dalyell, Tam

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Darting, Rt Hon Alistair

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Davidson, Ian

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Dawson, Hilton

      Lammy, David

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Laxton, Bob

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Lepper, David

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Leslie, Christopher

      Doran, Frank

      Levitt, Tom

      Drew, David

      Lloyd, Tony

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Love, Andrew

      629

      Luke, Iain

      Roy, Frank

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Ruddock, Joan

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Ryan, Joan

      MacDonald, Calum

      Salter, Martin

      McDonnell, John

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      MacDougall, John

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Sawford, Phil

      McIsaac, Shona

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McKechin, Ann

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Sheerman, Barry

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Sheridan, Jim

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McWalter, Tony

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Mann, John

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Marris, Rob

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Martlew, Eric

      Southworth, Helen

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Squire, Rachel

      Merron, Gillian

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Stevenson, George

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Miliband, David

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Moffatt, Laura

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Morley, Elliot

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Mudie, George

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Tipping, Paddy

      Norris, Dan

      Todd, Mark

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Trickett, Jon

      O'Hara, Edward

      Truswell, Paul

      Olner, Bill

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Organ, Diana

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Pearson, Ian

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Perham, Linda

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Picking, Anne

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Pickthall, Colin

      Wareing, Robert N

      Pike, Peter

      Watson, Tom

      Plaskitt, James

      White, Brian

      Pollard, Kerry

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Pond, Chris

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Pope, Greg

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Winnick, David

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Wood, Mike

      Purchase, Ken

      Woolas, Phil

      Purnell, James

      Worthington, Tony

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Rapson, Syd

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Jim Fitzpatrick and

      Ross, Ernie

      Mr. Graham Stringer.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. John Greenway: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to intervene on the deliberations on the Bill, but I understand that it is widely reported that there are two suspected cases of foot and mouth disease on the north York moors in my constituency. I am sure that the whole House would want to express its hope that the tests being carried out on
      630
      samples from the two sheep prove negative. Our thoughts are with the farmer concerned and those in the surrounding area, who must be very apprehensive. In the event that the result of the tests is bad news, the House would like reassurance that there will be an emergency statement from the appropriate Minister, and I would be grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you could ensure through your good offices that would be done.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I have no knowledge of the matter to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Ministerial statements are entirely a matter for the Ministers responsible, but the House will have heard the point that the hon. Gentleman has made.
      Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you had notification from the Minister of State, Scotland Office that he is going to make a statement on an interview that he has given to BBC Scotland suggesting that the Electricity Act 1989 should take precedence over planning Acts in Scotland, to allow decisions on the development of nuclear power stations in Scotland to be made here rather than in the Scottish Parliament? If the Minister is going to make statements subordinating Scottish democracy to this Government's nuclear obsession, at least he should have the courtesy to do so from the Dispatch Box, rather than to BBC Scotland.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.

    Clause 6

      MAKING OF ORDER
      Mr. Grieve: I beg to move amendment No.39, in page 3, line 20, at end insert—
      and the court considers that there is no real of injustices from it so proceeding.'
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 41, in clause 8, page 4, line 20, at end insert—
      '(1A) But the defendant shall not be held to have benefited to the extent that such benefit has already been forfeited by reason of any other power or enactment.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 80, 190 to 192, 85 and 86.
      Amendment No. 204, in clause 94, page 56, line 11, leave out "three" and insert "four".
      Amendment No. 146, in page 56, line 12, at end insert—
      'and the court considers that there is no real risk of injustice from it so proceeding'.
      Amendment No. 205, in page 56, line 23, at end insert—
      '(4A) The fourth condition is that, after considering the evidence contained in a statement of information prepared by the prosecutor under section 104, the court believes that it is appropriate for it to act under this section.'.
      Government amendment No. 230.

      631
      Amendment No. 206, in page 56, line 41, at end insert—
      '(8A) In making representations to the court under subsection (8), any person whom the court thinks is likely to be affected shall be entitled to appear before the court.'.
      Amendment No. 150, in clause 96, page 57, line 16, at end insert—
      '(1A) But the accused shall not be held to have benefited to the extent that such benefit has already been forfeited by reason of any other power or enactment.'.
      Government amendment No. 290.
      Amendment No. 212, in clause 104, page 63, line 11, leave out from first "the" to end of line 12 and insert—
      'prosecutor asks the court to act under section 94, the prosecutor shall, within such period as the court may specify, give the court a statement of information'.
      Government amendment No. 255.
      Amendment No. 213, in page 63, line 31, leave out "If the prosecutor gives" and insert "After giving".
      Amendment No. 214, in page 63, line 32, leave out "he" and insert "the prosecutor".
      Government amendment No. 257.
      Amendment No. 215, in clause 105, page 63, line 36, leave out from beginning to "on" in line 37 and insert—
      'If the court is acting under section 94 and it is satisfied that the prosecutor has served a copy of the statement of information'.
      Government amendments Nos. 258 to 260.
      Amendment No. 216, in clause 109, page 67, line 37, at end insert—
      '(bb) the prosecutor has evidence which was not available to him when the court decided the amount of the accused's benefit for the purposes of the order,'.
      Government amendments Nos. 261, 231, 262 and 263.
      Amendment No. 217, in clause 118, page 73, line 16, at end insert—
      '(cb) a decision of the court not to act under section 94;".'.
      Amendment No. 218, in page 73, line 17, at end insert—
      '(3A) In subsection (2), after paragraph (v) insert—
      (vi) under paragraph (cb), that the decision not to act under section 94 was inappropriate".'.
      Amendment No. 219, in page 73, line 28, at end insert—
      '(cb) a decision of the court not to act under section 94;".'.
      Amendment No. 220, in page 73, line 29, at end insert—
      '(7A) In subsection (4A) after paragraph (b)(v) insert—
      "(vi) under paragraph (cb), that the decision not to act under section 94 was inappropriate.".'.
      Government amendments Nos. 269 to 275, 233, 276 to 278, 234, 280, 283 and 284.
      Amendment No. 147, in clause 162, page 96, line 38, at end insert—
      'and the court considers that there is no real risk of injustice from it so proceeding'.
      Amendment No. 151, in clause 164, page 97, line 37, at end insert—
      '(1A) But the defendant shall not be held to have benefited to the extent that such benefit has already been forfeited by reason of any other power or enactment.'.
      632
      Government amendments Nos. 178, 193 to 195, 183, 184, 100 and 187 to 189.
      Mr. Grieve: Were we to attempt to consider each amendment individually in the time available before the guillotine falls on our proceedings, I fear that we might get into difficulty. Therefore, I intend to confine my remarks to amendments Nos. 39 and 41, which are of considerable importance. However, they are very different and there is no immediate link between them, so they should be discussed separately.
      I start with amendment No. 39. As we discussed at length in Committee, clause 6 is the first relating to confiscation orders, which we have debated in respect of new clause 2. On making an order, clause 6 baldly states:
      "The Crown Court must proceed under this section if the following two conditions are satisfied."
      The first is that a person has been
      "convicted of an offence or offences in proceedings before the Crown Court"
      and is
      "committed to the Crown Court for sentence"
      or
      "committed to the Crown Court in respect of an offence or offences under section 70".
      The second is that
      "the prosecutor or the Director asks the court to proceed"
      or the court
      "believes it is appropriate for it to do so."
      On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) made the point that the process of confiscation may be initiated although a person may have committed only three exceptionally minor offences for gain over the previous six years. That drew a few exclamations from those on the Government Benches, but it was not challenged. Indeed, it is quite clear.
      The point was also made on Second Reading that the process may be initiated by a prosecutor when a person has committed offences amounting, perhaps, to no more than having no rear light on their vehicle. As the law will stand, those are offences for gain, because there is undoubtedly a pecuniary advantage in not having or replacing a rear light. As we discussed extensively in Committee, by such small matters a person may be moved into a procedure that the Minister has often acknowledged is draconian. Indeed, it is intended that it should be draconian towards those from whom assets are to be confiscated.
      In Committee, we suggested that it might be better if "must" were replaced by "may" to allow some judicial discretion as to whether the process should be initiated. If a prosecutor says that he wants to embark on the process, a judge presented with a convicted criminal may simply reply at the outset, "What are this person's assets? Please tell me what you suspect. The offences appear to be of the utmost triviality." The judge could prevent the process from being initiated if he thinks that an injustice would result. Indeed, such a form of words existed for the Scottish provisions until they were reworded at the request, I am told, of Scottish Labour Back Benchers. The change that we discussed earlier therefore came about.
      I acknowledge that the Government have a point about changing "must" to "may" in respect of the signal that might be sent out as to their resolution in dealing with

      633
      criminals. Nevertheless, having thought about the matter following our debates in Committee, I still believe, as does the Law Society and a number of organisations, that a safeguard to prevent the procedure from being embarked on would be useful. That is why amendment No. 39 states that the other factor that may be taken into account when the court proceeds is whether
      "the court considers that there is no real risk of injustice from it so proceeding".
      Those words have been selected advisedly, because, as the Minister knows, the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights spells out specifically that the expression
      "a real risk of injustice"
      is the acid test on which the court would determine the compatibility of the human rights provisions. Indeed, the Committee thinks the confiscation provisions compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998, but suggests a change in the wording, which, unfortunately, we shall not have time to discuss.
      I ask hon. Members to consider whether the change would provide the residual safeguard to prevent time and money from being lost and injustice from occurring while in no way detracting from the force of the legislation. I commend the amendment to the House and say bluntly to the Minister that it would create not some loophole through which a criminal could escape the confiscation of his assets, but prevent time wasting in the judicial process. A judge considering what is being sought could say that injustice would result from the court and the prosecutor embarking on an onerous procedure that places great burdens on the accused.
      Let me put one or two possibilities to the Minister. Ending up with defendants who fall ill, experience memory loss or suffer brain damage is not unheard of. Indeed, I have represented a person on serious criminal charges who was undoubtedly suffering from mental incapacity resulting from injury. In precisely such a case, the judge might say, "How on earth can this individual rebut the assumptions made against him when the burden is placed on him?" That is what the full thrust of the procedures is all about.
      In such circumstances, the power of the legislation would be enhanced by allowing a judge to say at the outset, "This procedure is likely to be unfair and to lead to serious risk of injustice." That would show that Parliament has taken on board the possibility that injustice may result.
      Mr. Stinchcombe: Is it not right that the judge would have some discretion to prevent such proceedings from commencing? The second condition includes the words
      "the court believes it is appropriate for it"
      to carry on.
      Mr. Grieve: No, the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. Were the matter left to the court, it would have that discretion, but if the prosecutor or the director made such a request of the court, it would not. I appreciate his point, but the second condition says
      "or the court believes it is appropriate".
      It does not use the word "and".
      Mr. Stinchcombe: I think I said that the judge has some discretion and that the provision includes the power
      634
      for the court to rule that it is not appropriate to commence. The only point that the amendment attacks is the discretion of the prosecutor or the director also to ask the court to proceed. It contemplates the director asking the court to proceed even if he thinks a serious risk of injustice is present. Surely that is counter-intuitive.
      Mr. Grieve: I hope that, in my time as a prosecutor, I tried to act fairly, but the duties of a prosecutor or a director and those of the judiciary are somewhat different. I think most people hope that they have a fair prosecutor, but I trust that they look to the impartiality and good sense of the judiciary to prevent injustice. I would normally look to the powers of judges in that regard.
      8 pm
      Of course, such powers exist in a multiplicity of areas in judicial proceedings. In criminal proceedings, judges can stop cases. They can direct juries to return verdicts of not guilty. Those are substantial powers, which I have watched being invoked. It seems to me that, in such circumstances, giving the judiciary that power in no way detracts from the thrust of the legislation.
      Amendment No. 41 deals with a completely different issue, which we did not tackle in Committee and to which I was oblivious at that stage. The amendment would make confiscation impossible if the benefit involved had already been forfeited. I am grateful to a professor of academic law at the University of Cardiff for bringing the matter to my attention, albeit too late for it to be considered in Committee.
      A recent House of Lords decision—in the case of R v. Smith (David Cadman) 2001—had a surprising result. Let us suppose that cigarettes worth £200,000 are imported illegally into the United Kingdom and are seized at the port concerned. Let us suppose that those involved are forced to pay the duty, and that confiscation proceedings are then brought and a further £200,000 is demanded—as it would be under the Bill, as proceeds of crime.
      With all due respect to their lordships, I find that a rather surprising concept. It is, in fact, a process of double recovery. I do not understand how the second amount can constitute the proceeds of crime when the proceeds of crime have already been confiscated, and I do not understand how, in that case, the amount can be recovered. It seems to me that a measure that, it should be remembered, related to the precise issue of smuggling rather than the wider issue of criminality could lead to unfairness.
      The House and the Minister may, of course, wish such unfairness to continue. Let me point out to the Minister, however, that as a result of the Bill it may not just continue but be enormously widened. In many instances, people whose drugs worth £2 million are confiscated will be told "The proceeds of the crime are also worth £2 million. Pay up". Those amounts will relate to a single offence.
      Mr. Garnier: I too have read the paper by Professor Peter Alldridge of Cardiff university, and I find the arguments very persuasive. During the Committee's consideration of clause 8, did the Government come up with their own definition of "the defendant's benefit"?
      Mr. Grieve: There was undoubtedly discussion of what constituted the benefit, but it was based on the existing

      635
      rules. There was no discussion of the impact of the court decision to which I have referred. It was not mentioned at any point. In fact, I must plead guilty to complete ignorance of not just its impact, but the consequence of widening the principle contained in it to the much wider issue of proceeds of crime generally.
      I found the arguments of the Judicial Committee surprising, and I feel that Parliament should consider whether this is what it really intends. If we follow such a route, the matter may well not stop at the Judicial Committee; I suspect that it will end up in Strasbourg. Surely saying that, although the proceeds of a crime have already been confiscated under another provision, they will be confiscated again under the Proceeds of Crime Bill is nonsensical. I hope that the Minister will use the few minutes that remain to tell us whether that curiosity will be continued.
      Mr. Carmichael: Of necessity, I shall be brief.
      A number of amendments have been tabled by Liberal Democrats, including me. Under amendment No. 216, before seeking reconsideration of the benefits, the prosecutor must have new evidence that was not available when the court decided the amount of the accused's benefit for the purposes of a confiscation order. Such a procedure should be used in appropriate circumstances, and the amendment would avoid ambiguity.
      Amendment No. 205 would ensure that the statement of information became an integral part of the assessment of the case, rather than something produced after the court had decided whether or not to proceed.
      We agree with the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) on amendment No. 39. It, along with the latter part of our amendment No. 205, would reintroduce to the courts some degree of discretion in the determination of the appropriateness of proceeding.
      The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) spoke of legislating by soundbite. I fear that our desperate drive to emasculate the courts and fetter their discretion will produce bad legislation. The proposals in amendments Nos. 39 and 205 are modest, and even at this late stage I ask the Minister to reconsider.
      Mr. Garnier: I want to speak briefly on amendment No. 41, and to support my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve).
      My hon. Friend referred to the case law in Smith. The question of law certified by the Court of Appeal as being of general public importance for the House of Lords to consider was whether an importer of uncustomed goods who intended not to enter them for customs purposes and not pay any duty on them derived a benefit under section 74 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 through not paying the required duty at the point of importation, where the goods were forfeited by Customs following importation, before their value could be realised by the importer.
      The House of Lords said yes. There was only one speech, delivered by Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, a Scots judge. It was noteworthy for its commitment to a harsh approach to the confiscation legislation. He held that the subsequent fate of the cigarettes was irrelevant to the confiscation order. If they had been lost, liability to pay duty would remain. That they were seized was likewise irrelevant.
      636
      Are the Government aware of that case, and are they passing legislation deliberately in the knowledge of that decision?
      Mr. Foulkes: The list of amendments looks formidable, but many are technical. A number are drafting amendments, and a number bring Scotland into line with England and Wales. Amendments Nos. 39, 146 and 147, however, would require the court not to proceed with a confiscation hearing if it considered that there would be a real risk of injustice if it did so. I am afraid that the amendments run counter to the philosophy underlying the Bill, which is that recovering the proceeds of crime never involves any injustice.
      The Bill specifically makes provision for the court not to make the statutory assumptions, but that is a different matter. Nobody is disputing that making the assumptions may occasionally present a serious risk of injustice and the Bill provides for that. That is not the same thing as a blanket provision that suggests that it may be unjust to proceed at all. If the purpose of the amendments is to suggest that recovering criminal proceeds is inherently unjust, I am afraid that I and my colleagues cannot share that viewpoint. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.
      Amendments Nos. 41, 150 and 151 would require the court to investigate whether any benefit of the defendant's had been recovered by means of any other power or enactment. We understand the spirit behind the amendments but, at the same time, we do not think that the approach is correct. The thinking underlying the amendments is clearly that the same benefit should not be confiscated twice. In fact, the Bill already makes provision to prevent this from happening at clauses 9(3), 97(3) and 165(3). However, I invite Opposition Members to send us details of the matters they have raised. We will consider them and see if any changes would be appropriate in the light of new evidence or circumstances. I hope that they will find that helpful.
      Amendments Nos. 80, 269 and 178 are straightforward. They give the prosecutor in all three jurisdictions, and the director in the case of England and Wales, the right to be heard at all applications for time to pay or an extension of time to pay a confiscation order. That seems to us sensible, because there should be a counterbalance to the submissions of defendants who will often try to avoid payment by stalling for time.
      Amendments Nos. 204 and 205 are unnecessary. The prosecutor's statement that sets out the Crown's calculation of an accused's proceeds of crime and of his assets will always be served upon a convicted person and lodged with the court. Accordingly, the court will always have before it a prosecutor's statement. Amendments Nos. 212 and 215 are consequential and, therefore, equally unnecessary.
      The remaining Government amendments are either drafting amendments or bring Scotland into line with England and Wales. I will not cover them in any great detail.
      Amendment No. 216 relates to proceedings held to consider increasing a confiscation order. It would prevent the prosecutor from deploying evidence at a hearing of this kind if it has been made available to the prosecutor when the confiscation order was made. It is rather odd that this proposal differs from the other reconsideration

      637
      clauses in allowing the prosecutor to use evidence that he or she has not previously deployed. I agree that Opposition Members have a point with this amendment. I am glad to be helpful to Liberal Democrats—not often, but occasionally.
      I am reluctant, however, to bring the clause into line with the others until I am clear why it is being treated differently. There may be good reason for the difference, but it is not immediately obvious. However, on the understanding that I am willing to give the point further consideration and that we will return to the House when matters have been clarified further, I invite hon. Members not to press the amendment.
      I hope that I have answered the points in relation to amendments Nos. 39 and 41. I have resisted amendment No. 39, but I have been helpful on amendment No. 41. I hope that, on balance, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield will not press any of his amendments.
      Mr. Grieve: With respect to amendment No. 41, I will seek to persuade the Minister that the safeguards do not exist in the Bill, because Professor Alldridge has persuaded me that they do not in the particular circumstances of prior forfeiture, as opposed to other confiscation.
      There is an issue of principle with regard to amendment No. 39 and I will seek to put it to the vote. We are proposing a sensible judicial safeguard that will be of great benefit to the Bill and to the reputation of the law that this House passes.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 158, Noes 260.

      Division No. 170]

      [8.13 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Clappison, James

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Collins, Tim

      Bacon, Richard

      Cotter, Brian

      Baker, Norman

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Baldry, Tony

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Baron, John

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Barrett, John

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

      Blunt, Crispin

      Evans, Nigel

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Fabricant, Michael

      Brady, Graham

      Fallon, Michael

      Brazier, Julian

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Breed, Colin

      Flook, Adrian

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Burnett, John

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Burnside, David

      Garnier, Edward

      Burstow, Paul

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Butterfill, John

      Gibb, Nick

      Cameron, David

      Gillan Mrs Cheryl

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Goodman, Paul

      Grayling, Chris

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Chidgey, David

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Chope, Christopher

      Greenway, John

      Grieve, Dominic

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      638

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Hammond, Philip

      Rendel, David

      Hancock, Mike

      Robathan, Andrew

      Harvey, Nick

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Hayes, John

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Heald, Oliver

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Heath, David

      Ruffley, David

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Hendry, Charles

      Sanders, Adrian

      Hoban, Mark

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Selous, Andrew

      Holmes, Paul

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Shepherd, Richard

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Simmonds, Mark

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Soames, Nicholas

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Spink, Bob

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Knight Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Steen, Anthony

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Streeter, Gary

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Stunell, Andrew

      Lamb, Norman

      Swayne, Desmond

      Lansley, Andrew

      Syms, Robert

      Laws, David

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Leigh, Edward

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Letwin, Oliver

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Lidington, David

      Tredinnick, David

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Trend, Michael

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Loughton, Tim

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Luff, Peter

      Viggers, Peter

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Waterson, Nigel

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Watkinson, Angela

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Whittingdale, John

      Malins, Humfrey

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Wiggin, Bill

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Wilkinson, John

      Moore, Michael

      Willetts, David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Norman, Archie

      Wilshire, David

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Yeo, Tim

      Paice, James

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Paterson, Owen

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Price, Adam

      Prisk, Mark

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Pugh, Dr John

      Dr. Julian Lewis and

      Randall, John

      Sir Robert Smith.

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Borrow, David

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Allen, Graham

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Brennan, Kevin

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Browne, Desmond

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Burden, Richard

      Bailey, Adrian

      Burgon, Colin

      Baird, Vera

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Barron, Kevin

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Caplin, Ivor

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Caton, Martin

      Benn, Hilary

      Cawsey, Ian

      Bennett, Andrew

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Benton, Joe

      Chaytor, David

      Berry, Roger

      Clapham, Michael

      Best, Harold

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Betts, Clive

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Blackman, Liz

      Blizzard, Bob

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      639

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Clelland, David

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Clwyd, Ann

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Cohen, Harry

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Colman, Tony

      Joyce, Eric

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Cousins, Jim

      Kemp, Fraser

      Cranston, Ross

      Khabra, Piara S

      Cruddas, Jon

      Kidney, David

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Cummings, John

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Lammy, David

      Dalyell, Tam

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Lepper, David

      Davidson, Ian

      Leslie, Christopher

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Levitt, Tom

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Lloyd, Tony

      Dawson, Hilton

      Love, Andrew

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Luke, Iain

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Donohoe, Brian H

      MacDonald, Calum

      Doran, Frank

      McDonnell, John

      Drew, David

      MacDougall, John

      Drown, Ms Julia

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      McIsaac, Shona

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      McKechin, Ann

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Edwards, Huw

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Effort, Clive

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      McWalter, Tony

      Ennis, Jeff

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Farrelly, Paul

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Fisher, Mark

      Mann, John

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Marris, Rob

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Martlew, Eric

      Foulkes, George

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Galloway, George

      Merron, Gillian

      Gapes, Mike

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Gilroy, Linda

      Miliband, David

      Godsiff, Roger

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Goggins, Paul

      Moffatt, Laura

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Grogan, John

      Morgan, Julie

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Morley, Elliot

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Mudie, George

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hanson, David

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Havard, Dai

      Norris, Dan

      Healey, John

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Organ, Diana

      Hermon, Lady

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Heyes, David

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Hill, Keith

      Pearson, Ian

      Hoey, Kate

      Perham, Linda

      Hope, Phil

      Picking, Anne

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Pickthall, Colin

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Pike, Peter

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Plaskitt, James

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Pond, Chris

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Pope, Greg

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Illsley, Eric

      Primarolo, Dawn

      640

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Purchase, Ken

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Purnell, James

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Todd, Mark

      Ross, Ernie

      Touhig, Don

      Roy, Frank

      Trickett, Jon

      Ruddock, Joan

      Truswell, Paul

      Ryan, Joan

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Salter, Martin

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Sawford, Phil

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Wareing, Robert N

      Sheerman, Barry

      Watson, Tom

      Sheridan, Jim

      White, Brian

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Skinner, Dennis

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan(Swansea W)

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Winnick, David

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Smith, Llew(Blaenau Gwent)

      Wood, Mike

      Southworth, Helen

      Woolas, Phil

      Squire, Rachel

      Worthington, Tony

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wright, Anthony O (Gt Yarmouth)

      Stevenson, George

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Jim Fitzpatrick and

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Mr. Graham Stringer.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being more than three and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

    Clause 12

      TIME FOR PAYMENT
      Amendment made: No. 80, in page 7, line 6, at end insert—
      '(7) The court must not make an order under subsection (2) or (4) unless it gives—

      (a) the prosecutor, or

      (b) if the Director was appointed as the enforcement authority for the order under section 35, the Director,
      an opportunity to make representations.'.—
      [Mrs. McGuire.]

    Clause 14
      EFFECT OF ORDER ON COURT'S OTHER POWERS
      Amendment made: No. 190, in page 8, line 5, leave out subsection (7).—[Mrs. McGuire.]
    Clause 17

      STATEMENT OF INFORMATION
      Amendment made: No. 81, in page 10, line 4, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
      '(4) A statement under subsection (3) must include information the prosecutor or Director believes is relevant—

      (a) in connection with the making by the court of a required assumption under section 11;

      (b) for the purpose of enabling the court to decide if the circumstances are such that it must not make such an assumption;.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

    Clause 25

      INADEQUACY OF AVAILABLE AMOUNT: DISCHARGE OF ORDER
      Amendment made: No. 191, in page 17, line 42, leave out—
      'is situated in England and Wales and'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

    Clause 30

      VARIATION OF ORDER
      Amendments made: No. 82, in page 20, line 20, at end insert—
      '(ba) he is convicted of an offence (or any of the offences) mentioned in section 29(2)(a),'.
      No. 83, in page 20, line 24, leave out from second "the" to "he" in line 25 and insert "relevant period".
      No. 84, in page 20, line 33, at end insert—
      '(3) The relevant period is the period of 28 days starting with—

      (a) the date on which the defendant was convicted of the offence mentioned in section 29(2)(a), or

      (b) if there are two or more offences and the convictions were on different dates, the date of the latest.

      (4) But in a case where section 29(2)(a) applies to more than one offence the court must not make an order under this section unless it is satisfied that there is no possibility of any further proceedings being taken or continued in relation to any such offence in respect of which the defendant has not been convicted.'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

    Clause 42
      RESTRAINT ORDERS
      Amendment made: No. 192, in page 28, line 34, leave out from "by" to "or" in line 35 and insert "the defendant".—[Mrs. McGuire.]
    Clause 55
      SUMS RECEIVED BY JUSTICES' CHIEF EXECUTIVE
      Amendment made: No. 85, in page 37, line 10, leave out subsection (7).—[Mrs. McGuire.]
    Clause 57
      SUMS RECEIVED BY DIRECTOR
      Amendment made: No. 86, in page 38, line 28, leave out subsection (6).—[Mrs. McGuire.]
    Clause 78

      GIFTS AND THEIR RECIPIENTS
      Amendments made: No. 87, in page 50, line 3, leave out "the defendant obtained it" and insert "of the transfer".
      No. 88, in page 50, line 9, leave out "the defendant obtained it" and insert "of the transfer".—[Mrs. McGuire.]

    Clause 94

      MAKING OF ORDER
      Amendments made: No. 230, in page 56, line 33, leave out from "pay" to "amount" in line 34 and insert "that".
      No. 232, in page 57, line 3, leave out "absconds" and insert "is unlawfully at large".—[Mrs. McGuire.]

    Clause 100
      EFFECT OF ORDER ON COURT'S OTHER POWERS
      Amendment made: No. 290, in page 60, line 11, leave out subsection (7).—[Mrs. McGuire.]
    Clause 104

      STATEMENT OF INFORMATION
      Amendments made: No. 255, in page 63, line 12, leave out "specify" and insert "order".
      No. 256, in page 63, line 19, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
      '(3) A statement under subsection (2) must include information the prosecutor believes is relevant—

      (a) in connection with the making by the court of a required assumption under section 99;

      (b) for the purpose of enabling the court to decide if the circumstances are such that it must not make such an assumption.'.

      No. 257, in page 63, line 34, at end insert—
      '(6) If the court makes an order under this section it may at any time vary it by making another one.'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

    Clause 106

      PROVISION OF INFORMATION BY ACCUSED
      Amendment made: No. 258, in page 64, line 42, at end insert—
      '(4A) For the purposes of this section an allegation may be accepted in a manner ordered by the court.'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

    Clause 107

      No ORDER MADE: RECONSIDERATION OF CASE
      Amendment made: No. 259, in page 65, line 8, leave out—
      'as soon as practicable and'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

    Clause 108

      No ORDER MADE: RECONSIDERATION OF BENEFIT
      Amendment made: No. 260, in page 66, line 24, leave out—
      'as soon as practicable and'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

    Clause 109

      ORDER MADE: RECONSIDERATION OF BENEFIT
      Amendment made: No. 261, in page 67, line 38, leave out—
      'as soon as practicable and'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

    Clause 112

      INADEQUACY OF AVAILABLE AMOUNT: DISCHARGE OF ORDER
      Amendment made: No. 231, in page 70, line 29, leave out—
      'is situated in Scotland and'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

    Clause 113

      INFORMATION
      Amendments made: No. 262, in page 70, line 39, leave out ", 110 or 111".
      No. 263, in page 70, line 44, leave out ", 110 or 111".—[Mrs. McGuire.]

    Clause 114

      CONVICTION OR OTHER DISPOSAL OF ACCUSED
      Amendment made: No. 264, in page 71, line 9, at end insert—
      'and if it believes it is appropriate for it to do so'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

    Clause 115

      ACCUSED NEITHER CONVICTED NOR ACQUITTED
      Amendment made: No. 265, in page 71, line 35, at end insert—
      'and if it believes it is appropriate for it to do so'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

    Clause 116

      VARIATION OF ORDER
      Amendments made: No. 266, in page 72, line 21, at end insert—
      '(ba) he is convicted of an offence (or any of the offences) mentioned in section 115(1)(a),'.
      No. 267, in page 72, line No.267, in page, line 25, leave out from second "the" to "he" in line 26 and insert "relevant period".
      No. 268, in page 72, line 34, at end insert—
      '(3) The relevant period is the period of 28 days starting with—

      (a) the date on which the accused was convicted of the offence mentioned in section 115(1)(a), or

      (b) if there are two or more offences and the convictions were on different dates, the date of the latest.

      (4) But in a case where section 115(1)(a) applies to more than one offence the court must not make an order under this section unless it is satisfied that there is no possibility of any further proceedings being taken or continued in relation to any such offence in respect of which the accused has not been convicted.'.—
      [Mrs. McGuire.]

    Clause 119

      TIME FOR PAYMENT
      Amendment made: No. 269, in page 74, line 23, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
      '(7) The court must not make an order under subsection (2) or (4) unless it gives the prosecutor an opportunity to make representations.'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

    Clause 123

      RESTRAINT ORDERS ETC
      Amendments made: No. 270, in page 78, line 5, at end insert—
      '(5A) The court may make such order as it believes is appropriate for the purpose of ensuring that the restraint order is effective.'.
      No. 271, in page 78, line 14, leave out from "includes" to end of line 17 and insert—
      'removing the property from Scotland.'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

    Clause 124

      APPLICATION, RECALL AND VARIATION
      Amendments made: No. 272, in page 78, line 20, leave out "only".
      No. 273, in page 78, line 21, leave out "must" and insert "may".
      No. 274, in page 78, line 42, leave out subsection (10).—[Mrs. McGuire.]

    Clause 129
      SEIZURE
      Amendment made: No. 275, in page 81, line 12, after "constable", insert "or a customs officer".—[Mrs. McGuire.]
    Clause 132
      POWER OF ENTRY AND SEARCH
      Amendment made: No. 233, in page 82, line 43, leave out Clause 132.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
    Clause 134

      APPLICATION OF SUMS BY ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATOR
      Amendments made: No. 276, in page 83, line 32, leave out from "in" to end of line 34 and insert—
      'making any payments as directed by the court;'.
      No. 277, in page 84, line 11, leave out subsection (9).—[Mrs. McGuire.]

    Clause 135
      SUMS RECEIVED BY CLERK OF COURT
      Amendment made: No. 278, in page 85, line 1, leave out subsection (8).—[Mrs. McGuire.]
    Clause 138
      PROTECTION OF PERSONS AFFECTED
      Amendment made: No. 234, in page 86, line 31, leave out from "appropriate" to end of line 32.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
    Clause 139
      RECALL AND VARIATION OF ORDER
      Amendment made: No. 280, in page 86, line 34, after "prosecutor", insert ", an administrator".—[Mrs. McGuire.]
    Clause 148

      TAINTED GIFTS AND THEIR RECIPIENTS
      Amendments made: No. 281, in page 91, line 41, leave out "the accused obtained it" and insert "of the transfer".
      No. 282, in page 92, line 3, leave out "the accused obtained it" and insert "of the transfer".—[Mrs. McGuire.]

    Clause 155

      PROCEEDINGS
      Amendment made: No. 283, in page 94, line 37, at end insert—
      '(5) If—

      (a) the accused is convicted in proceedings for an offence but the court decides not to make a confiscation order against him, and

      (b) on appeal under section 108(1)(ca) or 175(4)(ca) of the Procedure Act, the High Court of Justiciary refuses the appeal,
      the proceedings are concluded on the determination of the appeal.'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

    Clause 157

      SATISFACTION OF CONFISCATION ORDERS
      Amendment made: No. 284, in page 95, line 18, at end insert—
      '(2) A confiscation order is subject to appeal until there is no further possibility of an appeal on which the order could be varied or quashed; and for this purpose any power to grant leave to appeal out of time must be ignored.'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

    Clause 168

      TIME FOR PAYMENT
      Amendment made: No. 178, in page 100, line 20, at end insert—
      '(7) The court must not make an order under subsection (2) or (4) unless it gives—

      (a) the prosecutor, or

      (b) if the Director was appointed as the enforcement authority for the order under section 191, the Director, an opportunity to make representations.'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

    Clause 170
      EFFECT OF ORDER ON COURT'S OTHER POWERS
      Amendment made: No. 193, in page 101, line 23, leave out subsection (7).—[Mrs. McGuire.]
    Clause 173

      STATEMENT OF INFORMATION
      Amendment made: No. 179, in page 103, line 20, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
      '(4) A statement under subsection (3) must include information the prosecutor or Director believes is relevant—

      (a) in connection with the making by the court of a required assumption under section 167;

      (b) for the purpose of enabling the court to decide if the circumstances are such that it must not make such an assumption.'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

    Clause 181

      INADEQUACY OF AVAILABLE AMOUNT: DISCHARGE OF ORDER
      Amendment made: No. 194, in page 111, line 16, leave out—
      'is situated in Northern Ireland and'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

    Clause 186

      VARIATION OF ORDER
      Amendments made: No. 180, in page 113, line 38, at end insert—
      '(ba) he is convicted of an offence (or any of the offences) mentioned in section 185(2)(a),'.
      No. 181, in page 113, line 42, leave out from second "the" to "he" in line 43 and insert "relevant period".
      No. 182, in page 114, line 5, at end insert—
      '(3) The relevant period is the period of 28 days starting with—

      (a) the date on which the defendant was convicted of the offence mentioned in section 185(2)(a), or

      (b) if there are two or more offences and the the convictions were on different dates, the date of the latest.

      (4) But in a case where section 185(2)(a) applies to more than one offence the court must not make an order under this section unless it is satisfied that there is no possibility of any further proceedings being taken or continued in relation to any such offence in respect of which the defendant has not been convicted.'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

    Clause 197
      RESTRAINT ORDERS
      Amendment made: No. 195, in page 121, line 25, leave out from "by" to "or" in line 26 and insert "the defendant".—[Mrs. McGuire.]
    Clause 210
      SUMS RECEIVED BY CHIEF CLERK
      Amendment made: No. 183, in page 130, line 8, leave out subsection (7).—[Mrs. McGuire.]
    Clause 212
      SUMS RECEIVED BY DIRECTOR
      Amendment made: No. 184, in page 131, line 25, leave out subsection (6).—[Mrs. McGuire.]
    Clause 233

      GIFTS AND THEIR RECIPIENTS
      Amendments made: No. 185, in page 142, line 28, leave out "the defendant obtained it" and insert "of the transfer".
      No. 186, in page 142, line 34, leave out "the defendant obtained it" and insert "of the transfer".—[Mrs. McGuire.]

    New Clause 13

      PERFORMANCE OF FUNCTIONS OF SCOTTISH MINISTERS BY CONSTABLES IN SCOTLAND
      '(1) In Scotland, a constable engaged in temporary service with the Scottish Ministers in connection with their functions under this Part may perform functions, other than those specified in subsection (2), on behalf of the Scottish Ministers.
      (2) The specified functions are the functions conferred on the Scottish Ministers by—

      (a) sections 253(1) and (2) and 263(1) and (7) (proceedings in the Court of Session),

      (b) section 272(2)(trustee for civil recovery),

      (c) sections 275(3) and (4) and 276(5)(agreements about associated and joint property),

      (d) section 279(2)(pension schemes),

      (e) section 286(1) and (2)(exemptions)

      (f) section 287(5) and (7)(compensation),

      (g) section 290(2)(financial threshold)

      (h) section 296(1)(code of practice),

      (i) section 301(1)(forfeiture),

      (j) section 306(1)(minimum amount).'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    Clause 249

      GENERAL PURPOSE OF THIS PART
      Mr. Grieve: I beg to move amendment No. 57, in page 148, line 36, at end insert—
      '(3) No powers conferred by this Part are exercisable in relation to any property which is, or represents, property obtained through unlawful conduct prior to the coming into force of this Part.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 201, in clause 250, page 149, line 10, leave out—
      'decide on a balance of probabilities'
      and insert—
      'give the benefit of the doubt to the person whose property is the subject of these proceedings in deciding'.
      No. 60, in page 149, line 10, leave out—
      'on a balance of probabilities'
      and insert—
      'to the standard of proof applicable in civil proceedings'.
      No. 59, in clause 252, page 149, line 30, leave out "thinks" and insert—
      'has reasonable grounds to believe'.
      No. 61, in page 149, line 31, at end insert—
      '(1 A) No proceedings may be taken by the enforcement authority in relation to property where there has been a previous positive finding in relation to a defendant in confiscation proceedings pursuant to section 6 or 162 and the property that was the subject matter of the proceedings under section 6 or 162 includes the property sought to be recovered under this Part.'.
      No. 163, in clause 253, page 150, line 3, leave out "thinks" and insert—
      'has reasonable grounds to believe'.
      No. 164, in page 150, line 4, at end insert—
      '(1A) No proceedings may be taken by the enforcement authority in relation to property where there has been a previous positive finding in relation to an accused in confiscation proceedings pursuant to section 94 and the property that was the subject matter of the proceedings under section 94 includes the property sought to be recovered under this Part.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 133, 114, 286, 287, 235, 115 and 116.
      Amendment No. 202, in clause 282, page 164, line 19, at end insert—
      648
      'or if the property was acquired more than 6 years before the date on which the proceedings were commenced'.
      Government amendments Nos. 117 to 119.
      Amendment No. 62, in clause 287, page 167, line 31, at end insert—
      '(1A) If any other person has suffered a loss or damage as a result of an interim receiver or interim administrator dealing with his property in the reasonable but mistaken belief that he was entitled to do so in pursuance of an interim receiving order or interim administration order, such person may apply to the court for compensation'.
      Government amendments Nos. 120 and 128 to 131.
      Amendment No. 58, in clause 316, page 184, line 13, leave out subsection (3).
      Mr. Grieve: This part of the Bill concerns civil recovery. As the House will be aware from our discussions on Second Reading, it is the intention that, in circumstances in which people have committed no offence whatever, a process can be initiated by the director that aims to seize their assets on the basis that it can be shown on the balance of probabilities that they have been gained as a result of criminal conduct.
      The proceedings are not so much against the person as against the assets. The tainted nature of the assets is the key to whether they are liable to seizure and confiscation. It emerged in Committee as we considered part 5 that the process under civil recovery should not be considered akin to that which one might expect in normal civil litigation between citizens in England and Wales. In fact, it is wholly dissimilar. It is a process of administrative law by which the state sets out to recover assets that it believes to have a criminal origin. The scales are weighed in a way that is wholly different from what happens in ordinary civil proceedings. This is not a case of two people with competing rights going to court. It is a procedure initiated by the state against assets but, in reality, it affects the individuals holding those assets. It can have serious consequences for those individuals, who can suffer eventual bankruptcy. The procedure also attracts adverse publicity, but the Government have always treated the matter as a civil procedure.
      8.30 pm
      After the Standing Committee had concluded its consideration of part 5, the Joint Committee on Human Rights provided a helpful and illuminating report on the Bill's compatibility with human rights legislation. The Joint Committee contains a number of members who are well versed in human rights law. Its report expresses serious doubts about whether part 5 is a civil procedure. I share those doubts, and that view became firmer as we scrutinised the Bill in Committee.
      If it is true that part 5 is not a civil procedure, a glaring difficulty is that it is retrospective in operation. It concerns not only assets that may be acquired after the legislation comes into force, but assets that may have been acquired, subject to the 12—year limitation period, prior to that date.
      Amendments Nos. 57 and 58, the first and last amendments in this group, deal with that matter. Amendment No. 57 proposes that a new subsection (3)

      649
      be added to clause 249 on page 148. That clause deals with the general purposes of part 5, and the proposed new subsection states:
      "No powers conferred by this Part are exercisable in relation to any property which is, or represents, property obtained through unlawful conduct prior to the coming into force of this Part."
      Amendment No. 58 applies to clause 316, which is a definitions clause. The House will see that that clause allows for retrospective application, and the amendment would delete subsection (3), which states:
      "For the purpose of deciding whether or not property was recoverable at any time (including times before commencement), it is to be assumed that this Part was in force at that and any other relevant time."
      I suppose that a pernickety person might argue that amendment No. 58 on its own would have the effect of removing the retrospective element from this part of the Bill, but it seemed wise to spell out, by means of amendment No. 57, what the House was trying to achieve.
      If the Minister believes that the Joint Committee on Human Rights is mistaken, he must provide a detailed analysis this evening of his reasoning. I am mindful that time is pressing, so I do not want to read out the details of the Joint Committee's recommendations. However, the report specifically draws the matter to the House's attention. Paragraph 26 states:
      "In accordance with its view on the classification of civil recovery proceedings, the Government consider that they are not proceedings for a criminal offence or a penalty, and so do not engage the right to be free of retrospective penalties under ECHR Article 7. For reasons which we have already developed, we disagree. The Government accepts that, if it is wrong on the classification issue, the civil recovery provisions would violate ECHR Article 7 because of their retrospective operation. We draw this matter to the attention of each House."
      That is a serious issue. The Minister has put his imprimatur on the Bill to say that it is ECHR compatible, but the Joint Committee set up—ultimately—under the aegis of the Government to provide scrutiny of human rights law, takes the opposite view. It would be much better for the reputation of this House if that conflict could be resolved here rather than subsequently in the courts.
      One approach would be to say that, if in doubt, the House should err on the side of seeking to uphold the principles of the Human Rights Act 1998, which only so recently incorporated the ECHR into our law. The Government gave it a fanfare of publicity, and I am sure that the Minister would not want to go down in history as one of the early examples of non-compliance with the 1998 Act.
      I have read the Joint Committee's report carefully, and I am bound to say that I favour its view. Everything that I have seen about the civil recovery provisions leads me to believe that they have nothing to do with ordinary civil litigation.
      Three other amendments in the group tabled by the official Opposition merit consideration. They are part of a package, and allow the House to take a global view of the principles involved in part 5. Amendment No. 60 applies to clause 250, and addresses the question of what the tests in the proceedings should be to determine whether the assets arise from unlawful conduct. Unfortunately, we have not had an opportunity to look
      650
      at the matter in detail in relation to confiscation, but the Government insist that the correct test in this case is the balance of probabilities.
      My view, which was shared in Standing Committee by other hon. Members, is that the proper test should be the standard of proof applicable in civil proceedings. Generally speaking, that standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. That is how most issues are resolved. For example, if I am run over by a car and sue the driver, the question of whether he is responsible for my injuries through his negligence will be decided on the balance of probabilities.
      However, because it is also well established that allegations are made in civil litigation that are tantamount to allegations of criminal conduct, the courts have developed principles for a higher test. That is because of the gravity of the allegations. Indeed, the test has been known to rise, effectively, to the criminal standard.
      I take the view that when Parliament is initiating such a profound legislative change, it would be wise to allow a measure of discretion to the judiciary to develop, by practice, the appropriate standard within civil litigation to apply. Given the draconian nature of the consequences to the individual of the director establishing that assets have been unlawfully gained, it would be correct to allow the standard of proof applicable in civil litigation proceedings to apply.
      We had a long discussion about this and I do not wish to go over it again. However, I have deep anxieties. I was concerned in Committee that, as these are not ordinary civil proceedings, the standard of proof should not simply be the same as that which applies in a county court if someone has been injured by a motor car through someone else's negligence.
      It is not for us, as a Parliament, to set the way in which judges develop the standard of proof. If the judiciary wish to stick to the balance of probabilities, they can do so. If they wish to evolve a fresh or new test at an intermediate level, they should be allowed to do so. We are fettering them, and I am concerned that that may lead to injustice. I am also concerned that it may lead to the erosion of the Bill's compatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998. For that reason, I commend amendment No. 60 to the House.
      Amendment No. 59 raises a fundamental issue that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) touched on when the matter was discussed on Second Reading. Clause 252 states:
      "Proceedings for a recovery order may be taken by the enforcement authority in the High Court against any person who the authority thinks holds recoverable property."
      My hon. Friend expressed consternation at the presence of such a word in a Bill setting out the requirements on which a judicial process should be initiated. The word "think" does not imply much at all. There should be a higher standard and burden on the director before we start dragging people through the civil courts and, as I said on Second Reading, exposing their entire finances to public scrutiny in a way which may ultimately prove unjustified.
      Mr. Mark Field: I would be interested if my hon. Friend could go into some detail about this. I am also concerned that a "think" test will be applied rather than any of the other tests that would apply to similar civil or,

      651
      indeed, criminal proceedings. Can my hon. Friend go into detail about other legislation in which such a test is believed appropriate before draconian action is taken?
      Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I do not claim great expertise in reading legislation, except possibly in relation to this Bill. I simply believe that it is rather an unusual term to use in relation to an administrative judicial process for the recovery of property against individuals.
      Coming back to my analogy about being run over by a motor car, if I think that the driver was negligent, I may choose to initiate proceedings. I suppose that is where the Government's notion of the director "thinking" comes from. I certainly do not need to do more than that—whether I am justified in thinking that, only the judicial process may expose. There are a number of safeguards as the process unravels, so that if I have no case, it may become increasingly difficult to sustain it.
      The thing about part 5 is that these are not ordinary civil proceedings—they are heavily weighted in favour of the state. The state has power: it can put in the receivers and it can confiscate and hold the assets, pending final determination. The state is given a range of weapons—for, I might add, perfectly valid public policy reasons—but it is important that they are not deployed without good and sufficient reason. That is why to change the test to one of "reasonable grounds to believe", thereby allowing for the possibility of review or criticism if proceedings are initiated when there could not have been said to have been a reasonable ground to believe, would be an appropriate safeguard to ensure that the assets that are pursued and the people who are roped along in the process are not unfairly or unjustly victimised. As the Minister acknowledged in Committee, the legislation will work if the public see the recovery of assets and the targeting of individuals who are palpably suspected of criminality, but who have never been nailed down through the ordinary criminal process. If people run to the courts and disappear off to Strasbourg, complaining that their rights to privacy, family life and property are being interfered with by an all-encompassing state agency with enormous powers—that is what we are creating—our process of law and the House that introduced such legislation will be brought into disrepute. It is precisely that outcome that I want to avoid.
      8.45 pm
      I am sure that the Minister's views and mine are absolutely identical when it comes to the legislation's desired outcome. However, I am anxious that, in their overwhelming desire to leave no loopholes by which devious criminals might suddenly escape, the Government have done rather more than close them. They have created a one-way system from which, potentially, there is no exit for the innocent until a lot of damage has been done. Amendment No. 59 goes a long way towards dealing with that issue and I commend it to the House.
      Amendment No. 61 would amend clause 252, which, as I have said, states:
      "Proceedings for a recovery order may be taken by the enforcement authority in the High Court against any person who the authority thinks holds recoverable property".
      652
      The amendment, which would add a new subsection (1A), states:
      "No proceedings may be taken by the enforcement authority in relation to property where there has been a previous positive finding in relation to a defendant in confiscation proceedings pursuant to section 6 or 162 and the property that was the subject matter of the proceedings under section 6 or 162 includes the property sought to be recovered under this Part."
      I apologise if that is a bit of a mouthful, but I was conscious in Committee that the amendment that I drafted then was deficient. I sought then, as I do now, to prevent double jeopardy, but I appreciate that the original amendment— shall return to this point in a moment—might have had the unforeseen and unintended consequence of creating a loophole.
      The House must ask itself whether it thinks it right in principle that it should be even theoretically possible for the Assets Recovery Agency to tell a person pursued in confiscation proceedings in relation to a particular asset—where the burden of proof is reversed and the asset is excluded from confiscation at the end of that process because the tests were not followed or did not succeed—"Well, we didn't get you that way, but we think we might get you by the civil recovery route." It will be remembered that the civil recovery route will be aimed at the asset, not the individual. I find that highly questionable.
      As I said, I am conscious that the amendment tabled in Committee was defective. It had the unintended consequence of preventing civil recovery in a failed confiscation, even though other assets might exist that were not the subject of the original confiscation proceedings. That is why I have worded amendment No. 61 in a slightly convoluted fashion
      Mr. Garnier: I understand precisely what my hon. Friend is saying, but I wonder whether he can answer this question, so that I can appreciate the strength of his argument. Would not a court faced with a second claim of the type he has just described consider that there had been an abuse and strike it out on that ground, and of its own volition deal with the evil that he has identified through amendment No. 61? Perhaps he has considered that possibility and dismissed it, but I mention it now so that we can include it in our discussion
      Mr. Grieve: My hon. and learned Friend makes a good point. I find it difficult to say whether that might or might not happen, although my opinion was that there were no grounds for believing that it would. We are creating a statutory framework that, in many respects, overrides ordinary principles of criminal and civil law. There is nothing to prevent anyone from embarking on such a double system of recovery. If Parliament thinks that that should not be allowed, it would be wise to spell that out. I am mindful, however, that the area under discussion is not free of pitfalls. I do not wish to create loopholes and will listen carefully to the Minister's response to an amendment that is a variation on a point already raised in Committee.
      I do not think that we should rely on the court's ability to strike out proceedings. For example—this may be an argument in the Government's favour—prosecuting someone who is not convicted does not prevent one from bringing civil proceedings for interference with goods if

      653
      one's house has been burgled. The principle of a civil criminal recovery system is not one with which I take issue.
      The problem is that we do not have such a civil criminal recovery system in this case. We are instead creating two parallel administrative law recovery systems, which are hybrids between the civil and criminal. Rather different tests apply to each. One test is onerous because a person is pushed into it if he has certain previous convictions that mean that he can be defined as having a criminal lifestyle. The other is a slightly more difficult test by which the Assets Recovery Agency may have a go at a Mr. Clean who has no previous track record of criminality.
      All sorts of choices are open to the director, and the House would be wise to be aware that applying the usual test of whether the system is criminal or civil has little relevance. We are creating an administrative law recovery system for the state against individuals and assets that have a taint attached to them. We must be extremely careful about that, and I shall be grateful to hear the Government's response to amendment No. 61. They may think that the matter can be approached in another way, and I believe that it might be approached through guidelines, so I have a slightly more open mind on amendment No. 61 than on some of the others that we have debated tonight.
      I have been on my feet for rather longer than I had hoped, but I had many amendments to put to the House. I hope that we may have a sensible discussion on those and on the Government amendments. In conciliatory mode, I am mindful that the Government are tabling many amendments that address comments and issues raised in Committee. I shall respond further to those amendments in due course, but I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has addressed those matters.
      Norman Baker: I shall focus on the human rights aspect with which the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) began. I agree with much of what he has said. I hope I do not flatter him too much by saying that if the rest of the Conservative party conducted itself as he does, it might be doing better in the opinion polls and have more seats in the House. He is welcome to use that in his election literature if he wants.
      Mr. Hawkins: He can use it against the Liberal Democrat candidate.
      Norman Baker: We are probably too far behind to win Beaconsfield anyway.
      The impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 is important. I was concerned by the Minister's response in Committee when I asked about the Bill's compatibility with the Act. The Minister referred to that tangentially earlier today. In Committee, he said that the proposal then under discussion was compatible with the Human Rights Act because the Act is to be read in conjunction with the Bill. However, I believe strongly that each piece of legislation should in itself be consistent with the human rights legislation, not least because a future Government—run not by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, but perhaps by some of his colleagues—might repeal the Human Rights Act. Each piece of legislation must, therefore, of itself be consistent with the Act.
      654
      I raise that point because of comments made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights of which I am a member, as is the hon. Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), who is in the Chamber. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield quoted from the Committee's 11th report, which was agreed unanimously by all three parties and both Houses. There was no dispute in the Joint Committee as to the direct language used about the clauses that we are considering.
      I shall not read out the whole report, but shall select some portions to which I hope the Minister will respond later. Paragraph 20 of the report states:
      "If domestic law classifies a matter as criminal, it will be treated by the European Court of Human Rights as criminal under the ECHR, automatically attracting all the safeguards accorded to defendants in criminal proceedings."
      There is agreement on that point. However, the paragraph continues:
      "If domestic law classifies the proceedings as civil, that carries relatively little weight under the ECHR. The reason is that giving domestic classification any real weight would make it too easy for a State to deprive people of the protection of appropriate standards of criminal procedure, merely by reclassifying matters as civil. We are therefore not swayed by the decision in the Bill to characterize the proposed new regime as civil."
      That was one of the key paragraphs in the report. Another was paragraph 24, in which the Committee concludes:
      "Taking all these matters into account, we consider that the Government's confidence that the civil recovery process would be treated as civil, rather than criminal, for ECHR purposes is not justified."
      Furthermore, paragraph 26—to which the hon. Member for Beaconsfield referred—states:
      "The Government accepts that, if it is wrong on the classification issue, the civil recovery provisions would violate ECHR Article 7 because of their retrospective operation."
      I do not criticise the Minister for not giving a detailed response to those conclusions as they were only recently published, but we need him to explain why the provisions would not fail the ECHR test under article 7. Is he confident that the word "civil" is not a misdescription of either a criminal or hybrid system as regards ECHR law?
      I turn now to the arguments about the balance of probabilities although I do not want to repeat points made in Committee. The Bill's powers are far reaching. An appropriate balance must be struck. We must ensure that criminals and those who benefit from the proceeds of crime are properly apprehended and charged or have their assets seized, as appropriate; but it is equally important not to do injustice to innocent people by setting standards and thresholds that are so high that they cannot convince the relevant authorities of their innocence.
      I am not sure that the Government have got that balance right, especially given my comments and those of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield about the human rights implications. That is why I draw the Minister's attention to our amendment No. 201, although I freely confess that it would introduce a novel form of safeguard. It would replace the words
      "decide on a balance of probabilities"
      with the phrase
      "give the benefit of the doubt to the person whose property is the subject of these proceedings in deciding".
      We have chosen that form of words because we are confident that the Government would not wish to see a major increase in the threshold, which would defeat their purpose.

      655
      9 pm
      We want to draw attention to the fact that we are uncomfortable with the phrase "balance of probabilities". We are seeking a way marginally to improve the protection for innocent parties without weakening the legislation in a way that would defeat the object of the Bill. That is why we suggest the phrase that we do, which I discussed with John Wadham of Liberty the other day; I hope that the Government will look on it kindly—we are always optimistic.
      I fully support amendment No. 59, tabled by Conservative Members. The word "thinks" looks entirely out of place in clause 252. It is the sort of word that some of us might have included in an amendment after being a Member for a couple of months; it is not the sort of word that one expects Government draftsmen or Ministers to use, although I do not blame any individual for using it. I am sure that the Minister will take responsibility for any bad drafting in the Bill.
      The suggested alternative phrase—"has reasonable grounds to believe"—appears regularly in legislation and is commonly understood by legislators and those in the courts. It is a reasonable phrase to include. After all, if a person, or an authority, does not have reasonable grounds to believe something, how can he or she proceed? The word "thinks" is a rather looser term, which defies tight description, so I hope that the Government will consider that amendment sympathetically.
      I shall conclude my remarks because I want to give other hon. Members a chance to contribute and to ensure that we move on to later groups of amendments, but we are dealing with important issues, especially given the conjunction or interface—to use that dreadful word—with human rights legislation. It is simply not good enough for the Minister to say that the Human Rights Act exists so we should not worry as the courts will deal with such issues later. The Bill should reflect the fact that Parliament has passed the Human Rights Act, not simply as an adjunct but in the Bill itself.
      Mr. Garnier: I, too, will be as brief as I can, given what has been said already. I turn first to amendment No. 57. I agree with the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) that European convention jurisprudence is not concerned so much with what Governments think—if I can use that word—but with the effect of any provision. Certainly on first blush, clause 249 involves a criminal penalty, and to dress it up as part of a civil proceeding does not rescue the Government from that problem. Given that, in effect, a criminal penalty will be exacted, the evil of retrospection ought to be carefully guarded against.
      Powers of retrospection seem to be increasingly introduced into this country's criminal law, but as often as not they are confined to serious terrorist activities. I shall be corrected by the Minister who knows an awful lot about this, but I think that the terrorist statutes that the House has passed in the past two or three years are examples of laws where retrospection has been accepted to a greater or lesser extent.
      Mr. Davidson: The hon. and learned Gentleman speaks about the evils of retrospection and is prepared to accept them for terrorist offences, but does he accept that more people have been killed in my constituency as a result of
      656
      drug misuse than by terrorist activity and, therefore, that the significance of retrospection should be considered in that context as well as simply in that of terrorism?
      Mr. Garnier: I am not an expert on the hon. Gentleman's constituency or on how people die in it. I dare say that what he says is perfectly true. However, we are not talking about criminal offences but about what the Government claim is civil recovery. If he is right, he should confine his remarks to the criminal law. We should not introduce retrospection into civil law, which this part of the Bill claims to be about.
      On the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and the hon. Member for Lewes, the Government should inform us of their view of article 7 of the convention, of which I am sure the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) is aware. If they did, we would be able to understand what lies behind their thought processes in relation to part 5. I do not need to labour those points—they have been made already with considerable force by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield—but they are there to be answered. I take it that the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights has recently been published, although I regret that I have not read it. The Government have therefore not yet had a chance to reply in full or had a chance to indicate whether they intend to reply at all. I dare say that somebody will assist me on that.
      Amendment No. 60 deals with the question of the balance of probabilities and/or the standard of proof applicable in civil proceedings under clause 250(3). My hon. Friend was right to say at the outset that in all civil proceedings the general standard of proof is based on the balance of probabilities. However, in those proceedings, the judge or jury will be advised to consider a particular allegation in a slightly different way. In my field of defamation, a defendant publisher will often want to allege that it is true that the claimant is guilty of fraud or some other hugely antisocial activity. By and large, the more serious the allegation that is being made, the greater the degree of proof that the court will require to be satisfied that it has occurred.
      In the context of a Bill that deals with serious criminal activity—whether it be drug trafficking, money laundering or another serious crime—we are dealing, as a sub-set of that, with civil recovery by the agency of unlawful proceeds, which is, in effect, a criminal penalty. It certainly seems to me that it would be just that the court should not accede to the claim issued by the authority unless the wording of amendment No. 60 were taken into account. To use the expression "balance of probabilities" is, in these circumstances, insufficient. I urge the Government to think carefully about what my hon. Friend has said.
      Amendment No. 59 refers to clause 252. There has already been criticism of the use of the word "thinks". Although it is an English word that is easily understood, I am not sure that it is the right one to use in this context. Not all thoughts are necessarily rational or based on evidence or fact; they may be based on other factors. I dare say that the authority—or the director who runs the authority—would not wish to mount a claim on an irrational basis simply because it thought that somebody held recoverable property. None the less, it is an unwise word to use in this Bill even though an element of protection might be provided by the pleadings process that

      657
      the authority will have to employ to mount its claim. We know that the enforcement authority must serve a claim form, which used to be called a writ, and a particulars of claim, which used to be called a statement of claim. No doubt those two documents—or one document, if one is endorsed on the other—will set out properly the basis on which the case is to be deployed. If that is so, there is no harm in the Bill reflecting the need for something more than thought to be the basis on which a claim is mounted.
      My hon. Friend's arguments in support of amendment No. 59 are unanswerable. It would be sensible, wise and just to replace "thinks" with
      "has reasonable grounds to believe".
      That does not damage the Bill. Indeed, it makes it more respectable. The same could be said of clause 253(1), which relates to Scotland.
      My hon. Friend's amendments would not damage or wreck the Bill. Indeed, they would enhance its ability to do what the Government intend. I trust that the Minister, having listened to what my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Lewes said—even if he ignores what I have said—will conclude that the amendments are good and give them serious consideration. I hope that he accepts them.
      Vera Baird: Amendment No. 57 deals with retrospectivity, which is a theoretical issue at the moment and is part and parcel of whether the proceedings are criminal or civil. If what the Government call civil turns out to be criminal, the retrospectivity will make the proceedings incompatible with the European convention on human rights. On the other hand, it is good that we will have the power to seize the proceeds of a crime committed a long time ago or the day before the Bill comes into force. What were criminal goods before that date will retain the quality of criminal goods after it and should be seized. While the procedure remains civil, the problem with retrospectivity is relatively small.
      Amendment No. 60 deals with the standard of proof. Current legislation uses the standard of proof that is applicable to civil proceedings. The draft Bill used the same standard of proof. The Government have changed that—if change it be—to the balance of probabilities. The issue is whether the change is cosmetic and whether it matters. Opposition Members said that common law authorities have noted that even if proceedings take place on the civil standard of proof, the fact that the complaint involves a criminal allegation requires that standard to slide upwards in relation to the criminality and the consequences that follow.
      Interestingly, having accepted that that principle is right—indeed, I have experienced it and implemented it in court many times and seen the sense of it—we must consider a problem that was recently set out by Lord Bingham in a case in 2001. He said:
      "It should, however, be clearly recognised…that the civil standard of proof does not invariably mean a bare balance of probability … The civil standard is a flexible standard to be applied with greater or lesser strictness according to the seriousness of what has to be proved and the implications of proving those matters."
      658
      The difficulty is contained in what he went on to say:
      "I have no doubt that, in deciding whether the"—
      question in respect of truth of criminality—
      "is fulfilled, a magistrates' court should apply a civil standard of proof which will for all practical purposes be indistinguishable from the criminal standard."
      Granted, the Bill sets out, and the background documentation sets out as a policy, a hierarchy of proceedings so that the choice will be to prosecute on the criminal burden of proof when prosecution is possible and to resort to civil recovery only when it is not. It is not practical for the burden of proof in civil recovery ever to be as high as that in criminal proceedings, or one would not be able to succeed where one had already failed. Consequently, there are real conundrums in respect of the standard of proof.
      9.15 pm
      I looked, as a good lawyer would, to an evidence textbook to muddy the waters even further. I found in the latest edition of the textbook, that the civil standard of proof and the balance of probabilities were dealt with as though they were exactly the same thing. I comfort myself in this way: under clause 6(7), the court has to decide on the balance of probabilities the issues that arise under that clause, and under subsections (4) and (5) in particular. When it comes to the big decisions to be taken under clause 11, and to whether or not the assumptions should bite—that will be the penal bite of this aspect of the Bill—the court will not have to apply a standard of proof at all. It has to be satisfied that there is not a serious risk of injustice if the director's application is granted.
      As I have understood it throughout my practising life, when a judge is considering the question of an injustice, he does not apply a burden or standard of proof on either side; he uses his experience and reason and makes a proper decision. Consequently, the backstop, which encourages me to think that the amendment is not as necessary as it might have first appeared, is that one can, I suspect, leave the balance of probabilities to be applied by the judiciary within the confines of what is acceptable.
      Mr. Garnier: Is not the point that the hon. Lady is drawing to our attention that most decisions reached by the courts do not depend on the burden of proof but are much affected by the standard of proof? The burden of proof is who has the duty of proving a particular thing, and the courts are not always very worried about that. They are interested in the quality of the evidence in front of them and the standard to which it has to be proved.
      Vera Baird: know what the hon. and learned Gentleman means, but I have argued time and again at the Court of Appeal, when it is eminently in my interest and that of my client to do so and when the issue is injustice, that the burden of proof falls on one side, and I have repeatedly been faced with the answer that it does not. I have been told that when the issue is one of injustice, what is important is the judge's properly reasoned view of what is just and what is not.
      As a backstop provision, that comforts me into thinking that however doubtful one might be, there is that difficult conundrum that the civil burden of proof, is capable of rising up until its application becomes wholly impractical. The Government will already have tried to prosecute the

      659
      person concerned and will be unable, on the same standard of proof, to take away his property under civil recovery proceedings.
      I conclude my remarks on this difficult issue by saying that, as long as these are civil proceedings, it is acceptable to leave the question to the judiciary. If they become criminal proceedings, we will have to think again.
      Mr. Mark Field: We have spoken at great length on this matter, so I shall keep my comments brief because I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say. I agreed almost entirely with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve).
      Part 5 has been the crux of Opposition Members' concern, both in Committee and on Second Reading. I fully understand the inevitable frustrations of many Labour Members, which, as usual, were vocally expressed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson), when individuals are seen to get away with blue murder, or at least with the proceeds of their crime. I hope that Members on both sides of the House accept our concern about many aspects of part 5. I probably go a wee bit further than my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, who, in his perennially consensual way, talked about our agreement with the main thrust of the proposals. I agree with the basic long-term aims of part 5, but I have deep concerns about the way in which the Government propose to introduce it. As has been said in relation to amendment No. 57 and the issue of retrospective recovery, we are trying to make a civil recovery test when we are dealing with criminal activity. There is therefore great concern that we are muddying the judicial waters.
      On amendment No. 60, there is, as a number of Members have said, great concern about using the test of a balance of probabilities, rather than a test based on a decision beyond reasonable doubt. The hon. Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) made an extremely good point that is slightly unanswerable: that if we move towards a test based on a decision beyond reasonable doubt, many other amendments that we may wish to make would inevitably fall away. I entirely understand where the hon. Lady is coming from, but equally I would like the Minister to say something about the proposals in amendment No. 60, which, broadly speaking, rehearses arguments that we made in Committee.
      On amendment No. 59, there is understandable concern about the power of the state, which, to many people with a libertarian cast of mind, is being unacceptably extended by the Bill. The state will have an almost overwhelming power; there is an assumption that if an individual is not prepared to tell all and sundry about the state of their bank account and assets they will quickly find themselves under full-frontal assault by a number of different state agencies, not least the all-powerful Assets Recovery Agency. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say, but the use of the word "thinks" in clause 252 is symptomatic of the state's all-embracing power. At the very least, it should be substituted by words such as "reasonable grounds".
      Norman Baker: The words "thinks" is a test that the ARA applies to an individual. It can say, "Well, we did think that", and that is all that has to be satisfied, whereas
      660
      the criterion in the amendment based on "reasonable grounds to believe" is external and has to be justified and validated by someone else.
      Mr. Field: I thank the hon. Gentleman and entirely agree that that is our core concern. I should be grateful if the Minister elucidated other cases in which such power rests with a state organ and in which there is simply a test on its director to think rather than believe or have reasonable grounds to believe.
      I shall not harp on, as other Members have done, particularly the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), about human rights aspects of the Bill. That ground has been covered; Members will know that had I been in the House when it discussed our country becoming a signatory to a lot of European human rights legislation, I would not have supported that proposal. We all want to make sure that the Bill works. Nothing could be worse than finding ourselves in a position where a number of high-profile cases fell through simply because the European court of human rights could interfere, and the legislation became a jamboree for a lot of human rights lawyers. That is not a sensible way forward, particularly given the long-term goals of the Bill and the ideas that have understandably been put in place.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield was right that there are no loopholes through which wrongdoers can possibly escape; the risk, however, is that a lot of innocent people will be put through the mill.
      On amendment No. 61, concern has been expressed about what is almost a double-whammy in terms of the underlying intention of the Bill. I fear that the Assets Recovery Agency will be put under great pressure to produce results, with an increasing temptation for it or other organs of the state to go through the process of a second prosecution.
      Clause 287 deals with compensation—I know that it arises elsewhere in the Bill, but it is obviously specific to part 5. Amendment No. 62 seeks to bring a certain level of justice into play by accepting that a receiver or interim administrator can initiate a course of action without culpability.
      Mr. Grieve: In a desire to sit down and allow the debate to progress, I inadvertently failed to comment on amendment No. 62, whose importance my hon. Friend clearly appreciates. He may agree that the reason for that importance is that the Bill as it stands allows a defendant to obtain compensation in respect of a civil recovery, but not a third party that has been affected by the actions of the receiver. As the process is initiated by the state and may leave a third party at a grave disadvantage, that appears rather surprising, as he may agree.
      Mr. Field: Something might be said about organ grinders and monkeys—but perhaps I am being a little too harsh on myself. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the innocent person must be protected. The current provisions establish a convoluted route; in effect, as he says, a defendant can get compensation if his interests have been upset, but a third party will always have to be put into the shoes of a defendant in order to do so. That is why some amendment is necessary to protect the interests of other persons.
      Mr. Davidson: I rise to speak with some trepidation, given that so many learned Members have spoken.

      661
      The implication in such debates is always that the rest of us are not so learned. Allow me to confirm that prejudice by speaking from a non-legal background, as this is one of those debates where the voice of non-lawyers ought to be heard.
      Norman Baker: That includes me.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Davidson: The hon. Gentleman is a Liberal, and I am never quite sure what category the Liberals fall into. They certainly have a natural tendency to bore.
      I speak as someone who has been generally committed to the principles of civil liberty. For a long time, I was a member of the executive of the SCCL, the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties, so I do not approach these matters from an intolerant point of view. As the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) and some other hon. Members said, however, we are considering a question of balance. I have heard little to indicate that many hon. Members, especially Opposition Members, appreciate what is happening in the lives of constituents and understand how they are adversely affected by the actions of those whom we wish to pursue by introducing the Bill.
      I appreciate that criminals have rights. I accept that they will want to hire the best lawyers whom they can afford to defend them, and that the job of those lawyers is to find loopholes and tricks to get their clients off, even though they might be as guilty as sin and the lawyers might know that. I recognise that that is all part of the game, but it must also be recognised that my constituents have rights. They have a right to expect criminals to be taken off the streets. There are families in my constituency who never go out together because they are afraid not to leave someone in the house, because they know that if they do so it will be broken into by people looking for something to steal and sell in order to feed their drug habit.
      I know that some of those points are Second or Third Reading issues, but these matters must be seen in context. The Bill must be considered in the context of the perils and difficulties faced by people outside. I am struck constantly—
      Norman Baker rose—
      Mr. Davidson: I am struck constantly by the hon. Gentleman, to whom I shall give way.
      Norman Baker: There are three categories of people involved here. First, there are the criminals who want to hire the best lawyers, as the hon. Gentleman puts it; that is the category that the Government want to pursue. Secondly, there are the hon. Gentleman's constituents, who are entirely innocent and the victims of crime. Thirdly, there are those who may be innocent but who might be swept up by the provisions of the Bill and who may not be able, if the thresholds are set too high, to escape from the one-way street that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield described. That could include some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. That is the category of people about whom we are concerned.
      Mr. Davidson: I understand that, and I have some sympathy for that position. However, given what I have
      662
      heard from Conservative Members in particular, I suspect that they are using that group that they wish to defend to try to weaken the legislation in a way that will benefit them and theirs. They are trying consistently today, as they did in Committee, to water down the Bill and to take out its teeth. On these matters, the Tories are soft on crime and soft on criminals, and that is an issue on which I feel strongly.
      Looking at amendment No. 57 in terms of plain English, it seems to propose—perhaps I am misreading it—that a defence in these circumstances would be to say, "This money was stolen before the Act came into force, so you can't touch it." That might be a good game for lawyers, but people outside in the real world would regard it as ludicrous. Yet that is what the amendment seems to be all about. The Conservatives seem to want to water down the Bill, to weaken it and to try to draw the teeth from it.
      I understand the point about retrospectivity; after all, we must remember that, by his own confession, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield is descended from cattle and sheep thieves and therefore has a vested interest in this matter.[Interruption.] Yes! The other Members on the Conservative Front Bench did not know that, but in his maiden speech he confessed to being descended from cattle and sheep thieves in the Borders. Indeed, as the shadow Home Secretary is here, perhaps I could just mention, Mr. Lord, as it is directly relevant—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. First, the hon. Gentleman must address the Chair correctly. Secondly, I think that he is now in danger of wandering off down—dare I say?—sheep tracks.
      Mr. Davidson: I take that point. Last week or the week before, when I was coming into the House, I passed the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field). He gave me a cheery little wave and said, "I'm off to launder some money." I hope that that will also be taken into account when the future of the said Member is discussed. But it would be irrelevant for me to pursue that matter further, so I shall not do so.
      Much of the discussion that we have heard from lawyers has smacked of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I recognise that the issues are important, but hon. Members ought also to bear in mind the wider circumstances outside. We have a responsibility to ensure that we are not overly self-indulgent, and that we remember the people whom we represent. I am quite clear as to what the people I represent want me to pursue: draconian measures against those who blight their lives.
      I hope that the Under-Secretary, who, along with his colleague, the Minister of State, Scotland Office, has been extremely agreeable during this exercise today as well as in Committee, is not going to be too agreeable in conceding too much ground. The Under-Secretary has, of course, got form, having been a Whip in the past, and I know that he wants to demonstrate that he is not just a mindless thug. He wants to show that there is actually a heart there, but I hope that he will not do that by weakening the legislation.
      It would be entirely out of order for me to observe that SNP Members are at last back in their places here, despite having played absolutely no part in the work of the Committee, because they chose not to apply to the Liberals for a place on it.
      Annabelle Ewing rose—
      Mr. Weir rose—
      Mr. Davidson: I shall give way to the lady first.
      Annabelle Ewing: We have been over that ground and such comments were ruled out of order by the Chair. The hon. Gentleman should respect the wishes of the Chair.
      Mr. Davidson: Well, well, well: trying to get protection from the teacher—that is an old one. The hon. Lady has not answered the point and the fact is that the SNP did not ask for a place on the Committee. The hon. Member for Lewes, with whom I do not always agree, is shaking his head, so it must be true.
      Mr. Weir rose—
      Mr. Davidson: I give way to the other nationalist.
      Mr. Weir: As my hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) pointed out, that matter has been discussed in great detail. I worry about the hon. Gentleman, who seems to have an unhealthy obsession with it. It has been well discussed in the debate and he would do better if he commented on the merits of this matter.
      Mr. Davidson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, but I, of course, have been able to discuss the merits of this and other matters at considerable length, because I was a member of the Committee. I volunteered to serve, as did many of my colleagues here, but, unless I am mistaken, there was no nationalist on the Committee. Indeed, not a single one of them asked to be on the Committee. If those remarks are out of order, the Speaker would point it out to me.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I have just arrived in the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman's remarks are out of order, because he is implying that the Committee of Selection got it wrong, and he would not want to do that. He is questioning the Committee of Selection procedure.
      Mr. Davidson: I certainly would not wish to question the Committee of Selection in any way whatever. Its members are a fine body of men indeed, and women. I was once a member, but my understanding is that the Committee selects only from those who volunteer or are volunteered. As the nationalists were not volunteered—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. Sometimes hon. Members are conscripted. We will now speak to the amendment, and if he does that there is no way he can go wrong.
      Mr. Davidson: I shall conclude. I was tempted to say "finally", but, as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) knows, when a Member uses that word he is often only 40 per cent. through his speech and wants to give the audience hope.
      I hope that the Minister does not weaken on the legislation in any way. There are teeth in it and it is essential that they remain, because there are serious people out there who need to be bitten.
      664
      If people in my community and in the communities represented by many other Members who have considered the Bill are to be safer, action must be taken against the major criminals who curse our society and, indeed, against their collaborators. Those criminals could not survive without the collaboration of some lawyers, accountants, bankers and others in the financial community. The sooner the legislation goes through the House and starts to bite the criminals and their allies, the better.
      Mr. Wilshire: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) and pleased to see that he is back on form. I can only conclude that he has recovered from his beloved Scottish rugby team's defeat at the hands of the English. I am glad that he is better and over it. I am also pleased that he made his little speech about watering down provisions only once, because that means that I have to say only once that the amendment is simply an attempt to make the Bill fair and just and nothing to do with watering it down. I think he understands that, but he prefers to suggest that he does not.
      Mr. Tom Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that amendment No. 57 specifically aims to water down the legislation by ruling out retrospection? It would therefore give any criminals with an eye on the Chamber plenty of notice and allow them to hide their ill-gotten gains if they so wish.
      Mr. Wilshire: I do not agree one little bit. The amendment would introduce fairness and justice, exactly as I suggest, when draconian measures, which are neither fair nor just, are being proposed by the Government. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok made a remark with which I agree: there is a point when a layman's common sense may add to the erudition of the lawyers, who are being technical and wise.
      It is blindingly obvious to me, as a layman, that although what we are discussing is entitled "Civil recovery", it is actually all about criminality. We are discussing confiscation and seizure, which are penalties for criminality. Seizing or confiscating in this context is not a civil matter. It is a penalty, arising in this instance from assets acquired criminally. If such assets are to be seized, sooner or later it must be demonstrated that they were the proceeds of crime. As a layman, I am struggling to understand what civil recovery and civil law have to do with criminality.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) gave another reason for supporting the amendment when he pointed out that, under the Bill as it stands, it would be possible to go back 12 years to seize assets. Even if we accept that retrospection should be possible, that is surely excessive. Anyone seeking to defend himself against the seizure of business assets—the chances are that a business will be involved somewhere, rather than stashes of £5 notes all over the place—is unlikely to have records going back further than six years, because that is the point at which the Inland Revenue says that it is not necessary to keep them.
      I hope the Minister will explain in detail why he and his advisers reached the opposite conclusion from the Joint Committee. We are aware that there is a difference of opinion between two groups who have studied the same

      665
      facts, and I think it entirely proper that Parliament should resolve the issue rather than passing legislation that we know will require judicial sorting out. If we are to sort it out, however, the Minister must give us the facts.
      Amendment No. 60 also strikes me as reasonable. I do not see it as a watering down; I see it as allowing the courts to do what they are good at—using their discretion on the basis of the facts before them in each case. The Government seem to be trying to make the courts into a rubber stamp. They want to say "We, the Government, wish this to happen; you, the court, will do what you are told rather than what you consider to be just and fair."
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield said, there might be grave circumstances in which it would be appropriate to increase the burden of proof. Some of the consequences of action taken under civil recovery provisions may involve the loss of irreplaceable assets. Under the Bill, seized assets can be sold ahead of a resolution of the issue. In that event, assets that could not be replaced because they were unique would disappear.
      Grave consequences could also arise from the seizure of business assets. The owner of the business might lose trade—a part of his livelihood—that could not be recovered later. That would probably mean the closure of the business even if the attempt to confiscate the assets ultimately failed. In those circumstances, too, the burden of proof should be increased.
      In an earlier debate this evening, we discussed the possibility of spouses and children being made homeless. If ever there was something that was grave and serious, it is that. I would argue that the burden of proof in such issues should be higher than is proposed in the Bill.
      9.45 pm
      My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) made the fair point that not all thoughts are factually based. I would go one stage further and say that not all thoughts are of themselves guaranteed to be just and fair—the argument that I have used on the other two amendments. If the director "thinks" unjust or unfair thoughts, he still thinks them. Under the Bill, that gives him the power to act. That cannot be right.
      In Committee, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok asserted that the simple act of carrying £25,000 in cash was almost proof of criminal activity. He felt that that would be proceeds of crime because he could not conceive of anyone under any circumstances carrying such an amount unless they were criminals. In that example, the hon. Gentleman "thinks" that he has the evidence that he needs to take action. What appeal can there be against him, as he has simply asserted that that is what he thinks? There can be no appeal against that, which is why we should introduce some concept of "reasonable grounds".
      I would not wish to test your patience, Mr. Speaker, by rehearsing the debate we had in Committee about why it is possible to carry £25,000 in cash and not be a criminal. It is important that we are allowed to ask whether the agency has reasonable grounds for believing, rather than thinking, something. That is why I believe that amendment No. 59 should be sorted—I mean supported. [Interruption.] Some might think that it also needs to be
      666
      sorted; others may think that I should be sorted. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok has said that more than once in Committee.
      Amendment No. 61 concerns double jeopardy. The highlight of the day for me is to hear two of my expert legal friends offering two different views of what something means. I would not wish to choose between my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough and my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield. Afterwards, they can sort out how the court would act, because that is not as important as the principle that there should not be double jeopardy. For the avoidance of doubt, we should support the amendment to ensure that that cannot happen, whatever the court may or may not do.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) was right to say that amendment No. 62 is also important. The principle of paying compensation when things go wrong is established and accepted by the Government. It is important that that should be fair and just to all those people who are involved. It is perfectly possible to have a partnership of several people where all but one of them are totally innocent and ignorant of what one partner is doing. If action is taken against one of the partners and subsequently fails, that single partner, under the Bill, will have some redress by way of compensation. If the business has been disrupted by seizure and by the failure of that action, all the partners in the business will suffer equally, but the Bill will allow only one to receive compensation.
      A great deal more could be said, and it might be useful to hear the Government's view of their amendments. We may well wish to debate those but, for now, I shall just say that I should like to return to the matter if the Government provoke me on their amendments.
      Mr. Stinchcombe: I speak with some trepidation, standing in front of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson), because I am a lawyer who practised in part in human rights law, and many of my former colleagues are in Matrix chambers. We have to be careful to ensure that the Bill is fully compatible with the European convention and the Human Rights Act 1998, which I spoke in favour of, as did the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), the only difference being that I voted for it and he refused to do so.
      There is a tension between the Bill and some elements of the Human Rights Act, as can clearly be seen in some of the different definitions of unlawful and criminal conduct. Close examination of those provisions shows that the Government are striving to ensure that the hierarchy of procedures and processes that they are setting up is fully compatible with the Act, targeting different remedies at different behaviours in an appropriate way. There is clearly some tension, so we must be especially careful in our scrutiny.
      We must give full credence to the three categories of persons talked about by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker): we want to confiscate unlawful proceeds from the guilty while protecting both the victims—the people who die of drug addiction and those whose property is stolen by drug addicts—and the other innocent people who could get swept up in the process. We must strike that balance.
      Opposition Members say that the amendment does not water down the Bill, but it clearly does. It precisely targets people who are guilty and puts them outside the

      667
      parameters of the legislation. In terms, it targets people who have property that is the proceeds of unlawful conduct and exonerates them from having that property recovered under the civil procedure. That simply cannot be right.
      The hon. Member for Beaconsfield spoke about that part of the Bill being a close from which the innocent should be able to escape, but the amendment would make it a road that the guilty never enter.
      Mr. Ainsworth: I will not be able to go into detail on all the amendments, not because they are not worthy of discussion but because we walked all over most of this ground in Committee at great length. However, I want to deal with the points made by the Human Rights Committee and to go into some detail about the word "thinks", which appears to be exercising Members so greatly.
      On amendments Nos. 57, 58 and 202, both the new civil recovery scheme and the expanded cash forfeiture scheme use the concept of recoverable property. By virtue of clause 316(3), the unlawful conduct that generated the recoverable property is not confined to conduct that took place after the commencement of the Act. That will enable the two schemes to have complete and immediate effect, allowing recovery of property that has already been obtained through unlawful conduct when the Act comes into force. To that extent, it has a retroactive effect.
      The retroactive effect is circumscribed by clause 291, which imposes a limitation of 12 years. When we introduced the Bill, we did so to tackle a problem that we have now. I believe that it is important—and our constituents would consider it important—for the legislation to begin to bite now, rather than biting slowly over the next six, 12 or however many years. The present legislation clearly does not work well. There is abundant evidence that people are enjoying wealth that they have obtained illegally. The Government at least do not want to create what in effect would be an amnesty, which would be the result of stopping the retroactive operation of the Bill. If the amendment were accepted, people would consider what they possessed to be safe. Lawyers would advise clients, in no uncertain terms, to hang on to what they acquired before the Proceeds of Crime Bill became law, as that could not be touched.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) very capably pointed out, that has nothing to do with protecting the innocent. I accept that Opposition Members have made much constructive comment on the Bill, but on this matter, as on some others, the Opposition leave themselves open to the allegation that they are soft on crime. If they continue to push the line that retrospection in any form should not be allowed, that allegation becomes increasingly justified.
      Mr. Grieve: The Minister may be missing the point. I share his desire to seize criminal assets, and to see prosecuted those people who have committed actions that I consider to be reprehensible. However, that does not allow me to pass retrospective criminal legislation. That is a well-established principle, and the Joint Committee on Human Rights has said that it fears that the structure being established by the Bill would do precisely that.
      Mr. Ainsworth: I shall therefore move on to the important point, which is not to do with amendment
      668
      No 57. It was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), who spoke about the definition that applies to this part of the Bill, and its consequences. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) talks about retrospective criminal legislation, and he knows far better than I do that applying that definition to the Bill would cause problems with retrospection.
      We believe that the provisions in the Bill are justified. There is no question that retroactivity will be applied to the definitions of what counts as unlawful conduct. We accept that the retrospective nature of the civil recovery proceedings depends on the fact that civil recovery is not regarded as a criminal penalty, for the purposes of the ECHR. That was the central point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar.
      We note that the Joint Committee on Human Rights has expressed reservations about the view that the Government have taken—that civil recovery does not amount to a criminal penalty. However, we note also that the Committee accepted that the matter has not been decided conclusively, either way, in existing case law. Civil recovery is, of course, a brand new procedure for the United Kingdom. We continue to believe that civil recovery should properly be regarded as a civil procedure.
      Civil recovery is operated successfully in other countries. For example, Ireland, which has accepted the ECHR, has signed up to the same procedures as the United Kingdom. We are not persuaded that the scheme that we have created should be characterised as anything other than civil. As my hon. Friends have said, we have struggled to ensure that we have stayed within that definition and made this part of the Bill appropriate to be classified as civil. We fully understand that these powers are extensive, but we believe that we are on the right side of the line. That is the advice that we have had, and we continue to take that view, notwithstanding the views expressed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
      10 pm
      Norman Baker: I have listened to the Minister carefully. The Human Rights Committee report was published only this month. What steps has the Minister taken to seek legal advice subsequent to the report's publication to check his initial conclusions, which were reached before the report was published?
      Mr. Ainsworth: I am not a lawyer, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and neither is he. I have taken legal advice on the Bill, as appropriate, from when I assumed responsibility for it last summer. I continue to take legal advice on the Bill and anything that has an impact on it, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will continue to do so. He writes me off as a cavalier person who is not the least interested in human rights considerations but wants only to catch criminals, whatever the expense. That is a caricature. I accept that we have a very real problem and that we need to deal with it. The proportionality and need for the legislation are an important part of the argument about whether it is compliant with the European convention on human rights.
      We considered some time ago whether to limit the retrospective nature of the scheme to a defined period of time. Our, preliminary view was that we should not. However, we made it clear in the Command Paper issued earlier this year that we wanted to think about it further.

      669
      We concluded that while we wanted to ensure that civil recovery proceedings will be as effective as possible, the introduction of a limitation period would nevertheless be appropriate. We have therefore specified that it should be 12 years.
      Amendments Nos. 201 and 60 deal with issues that we tramped all over in Committee. We believe that the balance of probabilities is the appropriate test. Amendment No. 201 contains a formulation about giving the benefit of the doubt to the person whose property is subject to these proceedings. Amendment No. 60 calls for the application of the civil standard of proof.
      As we said at length in Committee, the balance of probabilities is the normal standard of proof applicable to civil proceedings. However, some limited civil proceedings attract the criminal standard of proof. Amendment No. 60 would therefore make the position less clear in our view. The wording in the Bill achieves what we intend to do in a way that a reference to the standard applicable to civil proceedings would not. Some civil proceedings, notably the applications for contempt of court, attract the criminal standard of proof.
      In Committee, I quoted from Lord Justice Nicholls' comments that the balance of probabilities is not a rigid but a flexible standard. The burden of proof will be on the director to prove his case on the balance of probabilities. In cash forfeiture proceedings, the burden will be on Customs and Excise or on the police to prove on the balance of probabilities.
      The wording in amendment No. 201 does not, to our knowledge, appear in any other legislation. Therefore, when clarity is important, it would be highly undesirable to introduce anything into the Bill that would prejudice that clarity.
      I want to talk about amendments Nos. 59 and 163 at some length, as there has been considerable discussion about them. Clause 252 gives the enforcement authority the basic power to bring civil recovery proceedings, and it explains what they are for and against whom proceedings may be brought. The person against whom proceedings may be brought is immediately the subject of the obligations imposed on the enforcement authority by clause 252(2)(a). The phrase
      "any person who the authority thinks holds recoverable property"
      therefore explains who the target respondent is, and that civil recovery proceedings are concerned with recovering property from the people holding it.
      That phrase does not do what amendment No. 59 seems to want it to do: it does not introduce a free-standing test that the authority would have to satisfy even to start civil recovery proceedings, and which could be used by a respondent by way of an extra round of challenge to undermine the authority's position at the outset. That is not how civil litigation normally works. A claimant does not need to pass the test of having reasonable grounds before bringing a claim.
      The director cannot begin civil recovery proceedings on a whim, as was suggested by Opposition Members. High Court proceedings are a serious undertaking. The director is under a statutory obligation to exercise his functions efficiently and effectively. He cannot use public money unreasonably, and in any event, as a public
      670
      authority he is bound by public and human rights law. He is not allowed to go on escapades of his own. No purpose is to be served by making unnecessary and disruptive preliminary challenges before a case can be looked at properly.
      There are two paths down which the authority can travel. If an interim receiving order is to be sought, a good arguable case will have to be made, and if the authority proceeds straight to issuing a claim form, the full basis for the claim must be set out. As soon as a civil recovery action begins to affect anyone, mechanisms are in place to allow a respondent to challenge it.
      Amendments Nos. 61 and 164 are unnecessary, because the Bill already provides that a court may not make a recovery order in the circumstances set out in them. Clause 311(9) explicitly provides that property is not recoverable if it has been taken into account in deciding the amount of a person's benefit from criminal conduct for the purpose of making a confiscation order. Clause 282(8) provides that, if property has been taken into account for the purpose of making a confiscation order and the enforcement authority subsequently seeks a recovery order in respect of related property, the confiscation order will be treated as a recovery order for the purposes of the clause. Not only is the original property that was taken into account for confiscation purposes not recoverable; any property that represents the original property is not recoverable either.
      In speaking to amendment No. 61, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield suggested that even property considered in confiscation should not be potentially liable to civil recovery. I do not want to discuss that issue now, but he will recall that I wrote to him and the rest of the Committee, setting out at length the argument that property that is considered part of the confiscation case might nevertheless be brought within the ambit of civil recovery. Those arguments have not been refuted.
      Government amendment No. 133 deals with an issue raised in Committee. It limits the power of entry to premises to which an interim order applies. I agreed in Committee that the power was too widely drawn and the amendment limits it to entering such premises as may be specified by the court in an interim recovery order.
      Government amendments Nos. 114 and 235 provide that any court in which other proceedings are pending in respect of property that is, or may be, subject to an interim receiving order may stay the proceedings or impose its own terms on how they should continue. Before exercising that power, the court must give the enforcement authority and the interim receiver the right to be heard. Amendment No. 114 also requires the court to give any other person who may be affected by the order an opportunity to be heard before it exercises the power, and amendment No. 235 makes equivalent provision for Scotland.
      Government amendment No. 286 applies where an interim administrator is to be independent of both parties. It makes it clear that he must not be a member of staff of the Scottish Administration. Amendment No. 287 is purely a drafting change. Amendments Nos. 116 to 119 are technical.
      Amendment No. 62 would provide an avenue for compensation to a person whose property is not included in an interim receiving or administration order, but who has suffered loss or damage because the receiver or

      671
      administrator reasonably, but mistakenly, dealt with his property. We discussed that point at some length in Committee, and I indicated that I would give it further thought. I understand the concern that has been expressed, but I am not persuaded that there is a case for the sort of change that the amendment would make to compensation provisions.
      I accept that that may leave a category of persons with no avenue for compensation, but I have difficulty in envisaging circumstances in which that might happen without anyone being liable. Exonerating the receiver from liability in circumstances in which his action was based on a reasonable belief and where he was not negligent in causing loss or damage is the normal position in civil law. Liability normally assumes fault, and strict liability is very much the exception. We do not see the point in putting liability on the receiver in the circumstances outlined.
      The question arises of whether we should provide another avenue for compensation. That might happen on the basis that because someone applied for an interim receiving order or administration order, they would be liable if the receiver or administrator dealt with property not covered by the order. The normal position is that a person does not become liable as a result of actions taken in respect of property not subject to proceedings. We would therefore be providing an unusual form of Crown insurance to those affected by the actions of an interim receiver in civil recovery cases if we agreed to the amendment. Compensation provisions in clause 287 mean that civil recovery proceedings follow the normal pattern for civil recovery actions.
      The other Government amendments are minor and allow us to update Scottish legislation by bringing it into line with that which applies in England and Wales. They have no effective policy implications.
      I ask hon. Members to understand that although the Bill contains many powers, those under part 5 are key to it. If we succeed in keeping them within the realms of civil recovery, they will enable us to take effective action against a group of people who for a long period have managed to put their ill-gotten gains beyond the reach of the law. The powers are needed. They are justified and they will do a great deal in respect of our ability to deal with those matters. Hon. Members raise important issues, but I ask them to consider the other side of the argument.
      10.15 pm
      Mr. Grieve: The debate has been interesting and I am grateful to the Minister for taking the time to respond to the concerns that were expressed.
      I share the hon. Gentleman's desire that assets that result from criminal conduct should be confiscated. He put a persuasive argument in relation to amendment No. 57: I would not want to put in jeopardy the possibility of recovering past assets. However, as he is aware, there is a link between all the amendments that we have considered: the hybridity of the system that we are establishing. That system will not be entirely criminal, administrative or civil. Overall, we retain serious reservations about it.
      That is why, in a spirit of co-operation, we shall withdraw amendment No. 57. If the Minister is subject to a retrospective challenge under the Human Rights Act and the whole of part 5 is demolished as a result, we shall be
      672
      able to tell him that we raised concerns about the matter. I hope that does not happen, however, and I understand the hon. Gentleman's arguments why it will not.
      We shall thus ask to withdraw the amendment, but will put amendment No. 59 to the vote. I continue to believe that it is fundamental to the operation of part 5 that the procedure should be seen to be reasonable. Changing the clause by the use of the words "reasonable grounds to believe" is essential both to provide reassurance and to remind the director of the onerous duty placed on him. I ask that amendment No. 59 be put to the vote, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the lead amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 252

      ENFORCEMENT RECEIVERS
      Amendment proposed: No. 59, in page 149, line 30, leave out "thinks" and insert—
      'has reasonable grounds to believe'.—[Mr. Grieve.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 155, Noes 276.

      Division No. 171]

      [10.18 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Flight, Howard

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Flook, Adrian

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Bacon, Richard

      Garnier, Edward

      Baker, Norman

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Baldry, Tony

      Gibb, Nick

      Baron, John

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Barrett, John

      Goodman, Paul

      Berth, Rt Hon A J

      Gray, James

      Bercow, John

      Grayling, Chris

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Boswell, Tim

      Greenway, John

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Brady, Graham

      Hammond, Philip

      Brazier, Julian

      Hancock, Mike

      Breed, Colin

      Harvey, Nick

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Hawkins, Nick

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Hayes, John

      Burnett, John

      Heald, Oliver

      Burnside, David

      Heath, David

      Butterfill, John

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Cameron, David

      Hendry, Charles

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Hoban, Mark

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Holmes, Paul

      Chidgey, David

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Chope, Christopher

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Clappison, James

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Collins, Tim

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Lamb, Norman

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Leigh, Edward

      Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

      Letwin, Oliver

      Evans, Nigel.

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Fabricant, Michael

      Lidington, David

      Fallon, Michael

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      673

      Loughton, Tim

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

      Luff, Peter

      Soames, Nicholas

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Spink, Bob

      Malins, Humfrey

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Steen, Anthony

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Streeter, Gary

      Mercer, Patrick

      Stunell, Andrew

      Moss, Malcolm

      Swayne, Desmond

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Syms, Robert

      Norman, Archie

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Paice, James

      Thurso, John

      Paterson, Owen

      Trend, Michael

      Prisk, Mark

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Pugh, Dr John

      Viggers, Peter

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Waterson, Nigel

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Watkinson, Angela

      Rendel, David

      Whittingdale, John

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Robathan, Andrew

      Wiggin, Bill

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Wilkinson, John

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Willetts, David

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Wilshire, David

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Ruffley, David

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Selous, Andrew

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Shepherd, Richard

      Dr. Julian Lewis and

      Simmonds, Mark

      Mr. John Randall.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Ainger, Nick

      Chaytor, David

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Clapham, Michael

      Allen, Graham

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Clelland, David

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clwyd, Ann

      Bailey, Adrian

      Coaker, Vernon

      Baird, Vera

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Banks, Tony

      Cohen, Harry

      Barron, Kevin

      Colman, Tony

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Cousins, Jim

      Benn, Hilary

      Cranston, Ross

      Bennett, Andrew

      Crausby, David

      Berry, Roger

      Cruddas, Jon

      Betts, Clive

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Blackman, Liz

      Cummings, John

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Borrow, David

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Davidson, Ian

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Browne, Desmond

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Bryant, Chris

      Dawson, Hilton

      Burden, Richard

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Burgon, Colin

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Caplin, Ivor

      Doran, Frank

      Caton, Martin

      Drew, David

      Cawsey, Ian

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      674

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Lucas, Ian

      Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)

      Luke, Iain

      Edwards, Huw

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Efford, Clive

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      MacDonald, Calum

      Ennis, Jeff

      McDonnell, John

      Ewing, Annabelle

      MacDougall, John

      Farrelly, Paul

      McIsaac, Shona

      Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

      McKechin, Ann

      Fisher, Mark

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      McNulty, Tony

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      McWalter, Tony

      Foulkes, George

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Galloway, George

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Gapes, Mike

      Mallaber, Judy

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Mann, John

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Marris, Rob

      Gilroy, Linda

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Goggins, Paul

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Martlew, Eric

      Grogan, John

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Merron, Gillian

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Hanson, David

      Miliband, David

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Havard, Dai

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Healey, John

      Morgan, Julie

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Mudie, George

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Hermon, Lady

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hill, Keith

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Hoey, Kate

      Norris, Dan

      Hope, Phil

      O'Hara, Edward

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Olner, Bill

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Organ, Diana

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Owen, Albert

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Pearson, Ian

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Perham, Linda

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Picking, Anne

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Pickthall, Colin

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Pike, Peter

      Illsley, Eric

      Plaskitt, James

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Pollard, Kerry

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Pond, Chris

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Pope, Greg

      Jenkins, Brian

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Price, Adam

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Joyce, Eric

      Purchase, Ken

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Purnell, James

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Kemp, Fraser

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Khabra, Piara S

      Rapson, Syd

      Kidney, David

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Ross, Ernie

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Roy, Frank

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Ruane, Chris

      Lammy, David

      Ruddock, Joan

      Laxton, Bob

      Salmond, Alex

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Lepper, David

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Leslie, Christopher

      Sawford, Phil

      Levitt, Tom

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Lloyd, Tony

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Sheerman, Barry

      Love, Andrew

      Sheridan, Jim

      675

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Southworth, Helen

      Wareing, Robert N

      Squire, Rachel

      Watson, Tom

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Weir, Michael

      Stevenson, George

      White, Brian

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Stringer, Graham

      Winnick, David

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Wishart, Pete

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Wood, Mike

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Worthington, Tony

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Todd, Mark

      Touhig, Don

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Trickett, Jon

      Mrs. Anne McGuire and

      Truswell, Paul

      Angela Smith.

      Question accordingly negatived

    Schedule 3

      POWERS OF INTERIM RECEIVER OR ADMINISTRATOR
      10.30 pm
      Mr. Bob Ainsworth: I beg to move amendment No. 132, in page 267, line 5, at end insert—
      '(6) This paragraph does not confer power to require a person—

      (a) to produce, or give access to privileged material,

      (b) to answer any privileged question.

      (7) Where a person would be entitled to refuse to produce any material, or to refuse to answer any question—

      (a) in relation to England and Wales and Northern Ireland, on grounds of legal professional privilege in proceedings in the High Court,

      (b) in relation to Scotland, on grounds of legal privilege, within the meaning of Chapter 3 of Part 8,

      the material or (as the case may be) question is privileged.'.

      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 94, 95, 64, 109, 65 and 110.
      Amendment No. 68, in clause 356, page 207, line 31, after "the", insert "current".
      Government amendments Nos. 111, 165 and 113.
      Mr. Ainsworth: Most of our amendments are technical. Amendment No. 132, however, is slightly more than that. It deals with a problem that was raised in Committee. Hon. Members were right to think that there was an infringement on legal professional privilege, and we are putting that right.
      As we have little time, I shall deal with amendment No. 68. It would limit the information that needs to be provided to the current name and address of a client. The amendment is not necessary. Its purpose is achieved in the
      676
      Bill as drafted. It is self-evident in clause 356(1) that only the current name and address of the lawyer's client need to be disclosed, so the amendment would have no effect
      Mr. Hawkins: The Minister says that clause 356 makes it clear that only the current address can be disclosed, but that is not the case. If it did say that, we would not have tabled the amendment, which is, of course, to clause 356.
      Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman is not right. There is no requirement in that clause to disclose anything other than the current name and address. If he can show me, either now or subsequently, that that is not the case, I assure him that I will address the problem because that is not our intention or policy. I hope that my assurance is clear and unambiguous and that he can accept it. I am more than happy to give him further clarification if he needs it. I commend the Government amendment to the House.
      Mr. Hawkins: Opposition Members are genuinely grateful to the Government and the Minister for the series of concessions that they have made. I appreciate that he is being brief because of the time, but it is important to go through some of the important things that the Government are doing. The House will note that, although the Government have put their name to a number of the amendments, the Minister did not say that they were our amendments initially. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and I can happily say, as the Ministers conceded in Committee, that this is another set of Grieve-Hawkins amendments.
      We are pleased, in particular, that the Government have agreed in amendments Nos. 94 and 95 to replace the inelegant drafting of "a view to" with "the intention of'. That is a far better phrase, which is far more familiar to us from other legislation. We made that point in detail in Committee, and we are delighted that the Government have belatedly agreed with us, but however belated their agreement there is more joy in heaven over a sinner that repenteth. We are glad to see that the Bill is being genuinely improved by the Government signing up to amendments suggested by the official Opposition.
      The same thing has happened with amendments Nos. 64, 109, 65 and 110, which make the changes that we wished to make to the provisions on production orders and search and seizure orders. The Government have signed up to our suggested amendments to clause 376 and, in amendment No. 113, made an amendment that, while not one of ours, reflects a view that we expressed in Committee on schedule 8. The amendments relate to the deletion of provisions in clause 376 on names and addresses of clients. For the production order, that matter has been removed; for disclosure orders, it has been left in.
      The one remaining issue, as the Minister rightly says, arises in our amendment No. 68. It was not only my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield and myself who referred to the matter in Committee; the hon. Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), whose contributions to the debate were very welcome, raised the same issues on 29 January when she said:
      "A person is obliged to provide material. Even if it contains only the name and address, the very existence of something called `material', particularly when produced from a particular place, might be important evidentially, and be compellable under the clause. That is not what the Minister wants to get his hands on."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 29 January 2002; c. 1218.]

      677
      There was then quite a lot of discussion about the significance of documents which might or might not be privileged and might contain a defendant's name and address.
      I appreciate that, because amendment No. 68 concerns a later clause in the Bill—clause 356—it will not fall to be voted on tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield and I will, in the hours until tomorrow's proceedings, be considering whether we wish to press the matter. At this stage, however, we say that it is not for us to satisfy the Minister, as he invites us to, that clause 356 could relate only to the current name and address of a client; it is for him to satisfy us. I appreciate that he has, from the Dispatch Box, given a firm indication that only the current name and address is covered and, of course, we will be able to rely on the Hansard record of the debate.
      Mr. Ainsworth indicated assent.
      Mr. Hawkins: I see the Minister nodding. That is very helpful, and it may be that when my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield and I have considered the matter further, we may decide that we do not need to have a separate division on amendment No. 68. However, the Minister should reflect on the fact that my hon. Friend and I, dealing with these matters in our professional careers, and other hon. Members, including some who were members of the Committee and others who took an interest on Second Reading and have done so again tonight, are aware that when documents are being considered in preparing a prosecution case, those relating to the client's history are often regarded as very material. We are therefore concerned to ensure that any chipping away of the important safeguards of legal professional privilege, about which both the Law Society and the Law Society of Scotland are concerned—as the Ministers know, we debated that a lot in Committee—is strictly limited. I accept that the Government are firmly of the view that there will be occasions when certain documents that relate only to a defendant's name and address may be regarded under the legislation as material and disclosable in certain circumstances. I believe that the Minister will confirm that that is only in relation to disclosure orders. However, if disclosure is going to chip away at legal professional privilege, we need to be careful. I hope that, for the avoidance of doubt, the Minister will at least consider, even if he cannot do so at this stage, reinforcing still further his fair concession from the Dispatch Box tonight. Perhaps he would consider introducing a Government amendment in another place to do what amendment No. 68 does, simply inserting the word "current" wherever it sits most elegantly in clause 356, putting the position beyond doubt. There would therefore be something in the Bill. We would not simply have to rely on the Minister's concession at the Dispatch Box, whereby people involved in a case would have to trawl through Hansard to see what was said in the long watches of the night.
      I hope that the Minister will give that further consideration and accept that it is an important issue. However, I am grateful for what he said and, with my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, am particularly grateful that the Government have signed up to a series
      678
      of Opposition amendments, which reflects once again the good and constructive spirit in which the Government and the Opposition have sought to improve the legislation. That spirit has characterised the vast majority of our debates, both tonight and in Committee.
      Mr. Carmichael: May I briefly associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) about the Government amendments on legal privilege? I am delighted that our useful debate on the subject in Committee has borne fruit. It is good that the Government now accept that legal privilege and the important lawyer-client relationship can continue to operate without prejudicing in any way the efficacy of the Bill.
      Liberal Democrat Members are inclined to support amendment No. 68, which was tabled by Conservative Members. The requirement to disclose a name or address that may previously have been used by a client clearly opens up the possibility of further information that would otherwise be privileged having to be disclosed. Now that the Government have accepted the general principle of the importance of legal privilege, I hope that that final aspect receives further mature consideration.
      Mr. Wilshire: I hope that the fact that Opposition Members wish to heap praise on the Minister even at this late hour does not embarrass him too much, as I wish to do the same. It is important to put on record the fact that, during a long Committee stage, a huge number of issues were raised. The Minister suggested that he would go away and think about a range of matters that we brought to his attention. It would be churlish not to appreciate the fact that he has done just that and reported back. Indeed, this group of amendments, as well as others that we have discussed, and some that we will come to later, are a direct result of pressure that we put on a Minister who was willing to listen. That needs to be put firmly on the record.
      As for amendment No. 68, the Minister again indicated—
      It being six hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day] put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Amendment agreed to.
      MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
      Remaining Government amendments agreed to.
      Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered tomorrow.

    ROYAL ASSENT
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

    International Development Act 2002

    Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002

    European Communities (Amendment) Act 2002

    Travel Concessions Eligibility Act 2002

    679

    Civil Defence (Grant) Act 2002

    Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning (Amendment) Act 2002

    Homelessness Act 2002

    British Overseas Territories Act 2002

    Land Registration Act 2002

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

      POLICE
      That the draft Police Act 1997 (Enhanced Criminal Record Certificates)(Protection of Vulnerable Adults) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 7th February, be approved.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
      Question agreed to.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together motions 5 and 6.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation).

      CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
      That the draft Adjacent Waters Boundaries (Northern Ireland)Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 7th February, be approved.

      NORTHERN IRELAND
      That the draft Sea Fisheries (Northern Ireland) 2002, which was laid before this House on 7th February, be approved.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
      Question agreed to.

    DEREGULATION AND REGULATORY REFORM
    Ordered,
    That Mr. David Chaytor be discharged from the Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee and Chris Mole be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

    PROCEDURE
    Ordered,
    That Mr. David Rendel be discharged from the Procedure Committee and Mr. John Burnett be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

    INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Alistair Carmichael be discharged from the International Development Committee and John Barrett be added to the Committee.—[Keith Hill, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

    PETITION

      Car Parks
      10.48 pm
      Bob Spink: The petition has been compiled by Hadleigh residents, the St. James the Lesser church, the Hadleigh Royal British Legion and many Hadleigh small businesses, all of which are deeply concerned about the action of Castle Point borough council in holding secret meetings to plan the sell-off of public assets against the best interests of the communities that the councillors are supposed to represent. I agree entirely with the petition, as does every single constituent to whom I have spoken. We are indebted to the local press and the Yellow Advertiser for bringing these matters to the people's attention.
      The petition states:
      To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament Assembled
      The Humble Petition of Mrs. Susan James, resident, and others of like disposition sheweth
      That residents and others connected with Hadleigh in Castle Point deplore the actions of Castle Point Borough Council in holding secret meetings in order to plan to sell-off car parks and other publicly owned assets when Hadleigh needs more off-road parking and facilities.
      Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House shall urge the DTLR to consider the difficulty that selling-off Hadleigh car parks would cause to residents, businesses and Church attenders in Hadleigh and prevent these asset sell-offs.
      And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
      To lie upon the Table.

South Asia
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
10.50 pm
Mr. Mohammad Sarwar: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate peace in south Asia. This is a timely debate, as events across the region have moved rapidly in recent days. Peace and stability go hand in hand, but where there is no peace, bold leadership is required, not only from the conflicting sides but from the British Government in their role as an honest broker with strong links to nations across the region. We must exert greater pressure on India and Pakistan to restrict their military excesses. Instead of the widespread poverty in India and Pakistan being tackled, there have been steep rises in spending on arms in both countries.
Jane's latest estimates place Indian defence spending at almost $14 billion a year, and Pakistan's at $3.3 billion. With a standing army of well over 1 million in India and one of around 600,000 in Pakistan, this confrontational madness must end for the sake of the security of the whole region. India has also shown an interest in Russian air defence systems while being positive about President Bush's proposals for missile defence—much more so than other nations and many Members of this House, including myself.
Arms spending and military ambitions go way beyond the defence needs of both countries, but the nuclear capability possessed by India and Pakistan threatens us all. Although nuclear tests began four years ago on the sub-continent, there is still no treaty obliging either side to reveal the extent of their arsenal. Jane's experts speculate that India could have as many as 250 missiles, and Pakistan 150. The Centre for Strategic and International Studies estimates that India has about 60 warheads and Pakistan 25, but no one knows exactly how many each country has. Experts are uncertain whether either side even has a warhead able to be delivered by a missile.
This crazy uncertainty is a real threat to peace and stability in the region. Posturing along the border could quickly escalate. This is a crucial time. For more than five decades, Kashmir has experienced persistent conflict. Since partition, India and Pakistan have fought three wars over this disputed land. A nuclear confrontation would destroy both countries with terrible consequences for us all.
The situation has been extremely serious in recent months, and President Musharraf must be praised for taking bold steps to bring us back from the brink. He has made real gestures of friendship, not only with the symbolic handshake with Mr. Vajpayee, the Indian Prime Minister, at the conference of south Asian leaders, but with tough measures to tackle terrorist activity on Pakistani soil.
In recent days, the brutal murder of Daniel Pearl while he was working to expose the truth behind certain groups has only stiffened the resolve of President Musharraf. He is determined to deal with terrorists. I am disappointed that India has so far failed to respond positively. Prime Minister Vajpayee must show statesmanship, and India must negotiate with Pakistan on the issue of Kashmir.
There are currently moves to install India as a member of the United Nations Security Council. How can that be considered when India still fails to observe UN
682
resolutions concerning Kashmir? I am not opposed to India or any other nation seeking membership of such a body, but how can any prospective member of the Security Council be seen openly to flout decisions taken by the United Nations?
Bilateral talks between India and Pakistan have taken place, but they were not successful. There must be a genuine attempt at mediation. In that matter, Britain has a special responsibility. As the colonial power, it created the situation facing Kashmir. Britain has a unique role as a close ally of both India and Pakistan, and it possesses much wider influence on the world stage. Britain is the leading nation in the Commonwealth and has shown itself to be an active and fair-minded member of the UN Security Council.
Mr. Khalid Mahmood: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as British parliamentarians, Members of this place ought to concentrate on human rights and not take sides in any country in south-east Asia or any conflict arising there? We ought to concentrate on the people living in those areas whose human rights are being eroded and what we can do to assist them in restoring those rights so that they can live with respect and dignity.
Mr. Sarwar: My hon. Friend is right. There are gross violations of human rights in occupied Kashmir and we have a responsibility as Members of Parliament to do whatever we can to end such violations in occupied territories
Britain must assume leadership in resolving the situation in Kashmir through mediation. Our Prime Minister should also use his special relationship with President Bush and the USA. There must be a change in priorities for the United States as the world superpower. Instead of making sabre-rattling threats against Iraq, Iran, Syria and North Korea, it must focus clearly and concentrate on outstanding issues such as Kashmir and Palestine. That will bring greater peace and stability not only for the people of those disputed regions but for us all, and build trust among Muslims that the west is even-handed
That will not happen while the US continues to threaten other nations in the ongoing war against terrorism. The people of Kashmir deserve a just and peaceful settlement, and the leaders of Pakistan and India must show commitment to achieve it, bringing peace and stability to the region and enhancing the quality of life of the poor people of those two great countries.
We can take a lead from Sri Lanka. On Saturday, the ceasefire ending 19 years of civil war took effect. After substantial mediation by the Norwegian Government, the Tamil Tigers and the Sri Lankan Government signed a permanent ceasefire, which I am confident will lead to direct peace talks. Measures to build confidence are to be implemented within three months. We know from Northern Ireland the difficulties involved in meeting deadlines, but that is a very positive start. Will the Minister join me in praising the Sri Lankan and Tamil leaderships for reaching agreement to build a better future for all on the island? Will he also join me in congratulating Norway on its pivotal role in bringing the opposing sides together? I am certain that the success in Sri Lanka is a lesson for Britain and the opposing sides in the dispute over Kashmir.

683
We must also remain vigilant over other threats to peace in south Asia. I have real concerns over the escalating crisis in Nepal. The conflict has worsened in recent weeks. Last Thursday, the vast majority of Nepalese MPs extended the state of emergency by a further three months, allowing the army to continue its deployment against the Maoists. A two-day general strike was then called by the rebels to mark the sixth anniversary of their uprising. Most places of work and education were shut and streets in the main towns were almost deserted but for army patrols and guards at Government buildings. The international community is backing Nepal's Government, but I fear that the conflict could extend beyond Nepal's borders. Can the Minister assure me that we will step up our support to tackle the threat, not just for the people of Nepal but for neighbouring areas?
We must also consider Afghanistan. We must work to extend the fragile peace from Kabul across the country. The Afghan people have suffered enough, living in grinding poverty and being bombed back to the stone age during two decades of conflict. I welcome the Government's pledged support, but it will take years of sustained aid to produce any lasting effect.
Major problems highlighted recently will hinder moves towards peace for the whole nation without Britain's leadership and resolve. Last week, a preliminary survey by the United Nations drug control agency found that drug production levels are again high and widespread, particularly where the Interim Administration have little control. Until recently, Afghanistan was the source of 90 per cent. of all heroin in European markets. A drug problem in Afghanistan means a serious drug problem all over Europe: I know that only too well from my constituency. The Turning Point drug crisis centre helps 5,000 hard-drug users every year.
Hamid Karzai has asked for the multinational force in Kabul to be extended to other areas while the Afghan army and police force are being built up. I praise the skill and commitment of the British armed forces leading the 4,000-strong International Security and Assistance Force. Their role will be crucial as more refugees return home in the coming weeks.
Five million Afghans are living in refugee camps and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is preparing for the return home of more than a million refugees, which will begin this Friday. But in northern Afghanistan thousands of minority Pashtuns are still being forced from their homes, with 20,000 stranded on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border trying to flee the country. The UNHCR is calling for international peacekeeping troops to be deployed to parts of Afghanistan where minorities are threatened.
There have been serious human rights violations. Families have been forcibly evicted from their homes, property has been plundered, and there is a very real threat of violence. People are genuinely running for their lives from areas where the Interim Government have little authority over local warlords.
The Prime Minister has put Labour principles at the heart of the international agenda, committing our Government to striving for peace and a better, fairer life for all who are denied it. I hope that Britain will continue to accept its responsibilities as a lead nation in rebuilding Afghanistan. I also hope that our Government will demonstrate bold leadership to bring peace and stability across south Asia.
11.3 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar) for raising the subject of south Asia. I have just returned from a six-day visit to part of the region, so the debate is timely. Let me speak about the United Kingdom's relationship with Pakistan and India, about the relations between the two countries, and about Kashmir before moving to other regional issues.
The events of 11 September and coalition action in Afghanistan threw up new challenges for Pakistan. Domestic tensions increased. The appalling terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament in December raised the temperature further. President Musharraf was faced with difficult choices, and he made the right decisions. His wholehearted support for the international coalition against terrorism was courageous; so was his decision to tackle extremism at home.
Pakistan is a key member of the international coalition, and President Musharraf s efforts have helped to reinvigorate the bilateral relationship. That relationship is founded on a shared history and is bound together by strong links, not least by 750,000 British citizens of Pakistani origin.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's visits to Islamabad in October last year and January this year underline our commitment to supporting Pakistan over the long term. The Department for International Development has committed £11 million to Pakistan to help with the short-term humanitarian and broader economic impact of the Afghanistan crisis. In 2001, DFID's development assistance programme in Pakistan totalled £43 million, and it is now looking to increase that
We are also reassured by President Musharraf's commitment to restore democratic government in Pakistan in line with the "road-map" proposals he announced on 14 August 2001. The restoration of the joint electoral system and more parliamentary seats for women are welcome developments. We have made it clear that the full participation of political parties is essential for free and fair elections in October. DFID is already engaged with the Pakistani electoral commission. We will continue to help in any way we can to ensure a smooth transition to democracy, strong democratic institutions and better human rights guarantees, especially for minorities in Pakistan.
Let me turn now to our relations with India, from where I have just returned. There is real strength and vitality in our bilateral relationship, which is confident and strong. Indian and British Ministers are in regular contact. The deep affection and fascination that the British people have always had for India remains. History, culture and shared interests and values bind us together. There is a genuine sense of shared purpose. We share a global vision and democratic values.
The Prime Minister paid a very successful visit to India in January this year. The vision of both Prime Ministers was set out in the New Delhi declaration of January 2002. We both want to play a positive and proactive role in international affairs. We have a mutual interest in co-operation on the world stage. We both play leading roles in the United Nations and the Commonwealth.

685
The partnership stretches from working to combat international terrorism, Afghanistan and peacekeeping, and on through to trade, investment, the environment, information technology, reforming international finance, development, science, technology and combating international crime
Trade and investment is one of the great success stories of the Indo-British partnership. Bilateral trade between our countries increased by 20 per cent. last year to nearly £5 billion. UK development aid will treble over the forthcoming years.
The terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament outraged world opinion. We in Britain were deeply shocked by the attack on the very centre of Indian democracy. Once again, the destructive influence of terrorism on regional stability has been highlighted. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the resulting military mobilisation on both sides of the border is deeply worrying. Britain urges both India and Pakistan to exercise restraint. We are in close and constant contact with both Governments. The aftermath of 11 September has created a new dynamic in south Asia that we think will help us, and other friends of India and Pakistan, to encourage both countries to find lasting solutions.
Both sides will need to show flexibility and understanding. We were struck by President Musharraf's bold speech of 12 January in which he condemned all forms of sectarianism and religious hatred and made it quite clear that terrorism in the name of Kashmir would not be tolerated. As a friend of Pakistan, we will continue to encourage him to pursue this vision of a modern, tolerant and stable Pakistan; we hope others will do the same.
Terrorism and support for terrorist acts such as those that took place on 1 October in Srinagar and 13 December in Delhi must cease. There must be meaningful dialogue on the issues—all the issues—between India and Pakistan.
It is widely accepted that the long-standing tension between India and Pakistan is one of the most pressing regional security problems. The current military mobilisation on both sides of the border underlines the risks inherent in the continuing stalemate over Kashmir—risks that are all the more serious because of their nuclear dimension.
We remain concerned about the suffering of the ordinary people in Kashmir and militant attacks on civilians and the Indian security forces. Continuing violence in Kashmir has done nothing, and can do nothing, to promote a durable solution. An end to the support that the militants receive from outside Kashmir would greatly assist the search for a solution, as would early steps to improve the human rights performance of the Indian security forces in Jammu and Kashmir. We recognise and welcome the action already taken by the Indian authorities to address the concerns, but we will continue to press them to bring wrongdoers to justice and allow international organisations access to Jammu and Kashmir.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of mediation. Mediation can and does work in some situations, but only when the principals accept it. We and others have a role to play—to press the parties themselves to find a solution
686
with which they can both live. We firmly believe, however, that any solution, if it is to carry with it the people living in Kashmir, must take account of their views; only then will it be accepted as a just and lasting solution.
Britain is playing a leading role in Afghanistan, as my hon. Friend rightly said. Almost an entire generation of Afghans have known nothing but war, poverty, insecurity, terrorism, drugs and refugee movements. Millions of Afghans have suffered appalling privations, but their resilience has been extraordinary, and the Government are determined to help make the future better than the past.
We have a responsibility to help, but we also have a direct national interest in doing so. In the first place, we want the Bonn agreement to succeed. The early signs have been extremely encouraging. In particular, we welcome the way in which Chairman Karzai and his fellow interim Ministers are working energetically to provide effective administration. Over time, the Interim Administration should become increasingly broad-based and representative.
Secondly, we are trying to combat poverty. At the Tokyo conference, we announced an additional pledge of £200 million over five years on top of our earlier commitment of £60 million for humanitarian and emergency aid.
Thirdly, there is the problem of insecurity, which my hon. Friend highlighted extremely well. It is perhaps the most pressing and immediate problem. As is well known, the United Kingdom is leading the International Security and Assistance Force, which comprises more than 4,000 troops from 18 contributor nations, but what is less well known is that we have also begun training the new national army of Afghanistan, and provided communications equipment for use by the Kabul police.
Finally, we are considering ways of enabling Afghan refugees now living in Iran, Pakistan and elsewhere, as well as internally displaced persons, to return to their homes.
My hon. Friend rightly drew attention to the extremely worrying situation in Nepal, which I also visited last week. Britain and Nepal have extremely long-standing ties. The Gurkha relationship, and in particular the exceptionally high standing in which these brave Nepalese soldiers are held in the United Kingdom, is an important mainstay.
Britain supports the democratically elected Government of Nepal and recognises the right and obligation of that Government to provide security for their people. We want to offer our full support to the Government of Nepal in their attempts to find a resolution to the Maoist insurgency, and we are actively considering extra ways in which we can do that. The European Union has condemned the Maoist attacks, which brought a violent return to conflict in Nepal, and expressed concern about possible abuses of human rights in the country, including quite barbaric acts by the insurgents.
We believe that the Nepalese Government went to great lengths to ensure a conducive atmosphere for the three rounds of peace talks last year. We would encourage both sides to make every effort to achieve a solution that will result in the renunciation of violence and bring the Maoists back into the political mainstream; only then will Nepal achieve the prosperity that its people need and deserve.

687
Finally, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan for drawing attention to the welcome news, emerging from Sri Lanka in the last week, that the Sri Lankan Government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam have signed a formal agreement on the cessation of hostilities. We applaud the efforts of all the parties responsible for bringing that about. It is vital that they now build on this agreement and continue to make
688
progress towards a negotiated settlement that meets the aspirations of all communities in Sri Lanka. We fully support the Norwegian facilitation process, and we have made it clear to all concerned that the UK stands ready to help, if asked.
Question put and agreed to
Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Care Homes (Lancashire)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Jacqui Smith.]
9.30 am
Mr. Gordon Prentice: I welcome the fact that I have been given this opportunity to raise a matter of huge interest to my constituents in Pendle and to the wider public in Lancashire. It is the proposed closure of a large number of residential homes run by Lancashire county council. I shall not speak for long because I want to leave time for hon. Members of all parties who represent the other Lancashire constituencies to contribute to the debate. However, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) will have to leave before the end of the debate for an urgent meeting at the Home Office, and he will not be able to contribute as he would have wished.
These are days of tremendous anxiety for the many elderly people in my constituency. They and their relatives are fearful about what is to happen. I have seen nothing quite like it. Action groups have sprung up around the county. The county council's proposals have convulsed the local communities. In public houses, petitions saying, "Sign the petition to keep the old folks' homes open" have been raised spontaneously. On Friday, my constituency Labour party carried a resolution to fight the proposals.
We read in the local press of people's despair about the proposed closures, yet the area has a Labour MP, a Labour Government, a Labour district council and a Labour county council, so no one else's fingerprints are on it. There are no Liberal Democrat or Conservative fingerprints on it. The issue has to be resolved by the Labour party—by the Government and the local authorities.
The sheer scale of the proposal meant that it struck as a shell burst. Residential care homes have been closed before, but the county council proposes reducing the number of homes in the county from 48 to 13, and although the residual 13 homes will still be owned by the county council, they may not be managed by it. The justification for that cataclysm is that the county council, with an annual budget of close to £1 billion, cannot afford to bring the residential care homes up to the standard that has been set by the Government.
The county council talks of its vision for the future and the provision it wants to make for elderly people, but that vision has been obliterated by the headline fact of the closures. That fact dominates, and everything else cascades down from it. We cannot hold a discussion an intelligent conversation about future provisions because of the headline fact that many of the homes will close.
Mr. Hilton Dawson: I agree with my hon. Friend that funding is a headline fact, but
178WH
the substantial issue is not funding but the provision of quality community care in a county that is under special measures—partly as a result of its over-concentration on institutional forms of care.
Mr. Prentice: My hon. Friend will be able to develop that point in his own speech.
People are angry about a consultation exercise that they perceive to be bogus. The county council has presented one option, not a series of alternatives. When people ask what the alternative is to the closure of residential homes, the county council promises consultation with other providers, but there is nothing substantial for people to get a grip on.
Last week I visited the five residential care homes in my constituency—I have visited them many times over the years—because I wanted to see how far they fell below the standards that we hear so much about. I visited Favordale in Colne, the home that has been identified for retention; Pendle Brook in Barrowford, a very popular home; and Wheatley Court in Fence, where the oldest resident is 102, going on 103. We are talking about very elderly, frail people.
I asked the manager of Wheatley Court, a small home with 15 bedrooms, how many bedrooms do not meet the standards. I was told that 14 meet the standards and only one does not. At Cravenside, a larger home in Barnoldswick, where I live, people are bemused. When I asked them the same question, I was told that 44 of 45 bedrooms meet the standards. Cravenside was built 16 years ago, so it is a relatively new home. People there are mystified when they read in the consultation document that homes must close because they cannot be brought up to standard.
Mrs. Joan Humble: Does my hon. Friend agree that much of the debate on standards has centred on the fabric of the buildings and the size of the rooms, whereas to many of the residents and their relatives the standards and quality of care are most important? In fact, they value the quality and the high standard of care in Lancashire county council homes so much that they want to stay in them and want the homes to be retained.
Mr. Prentice: That is true. Many people who have the option want to stay in a county council residential home rather than enter a private home. What really rubbed salt into the wounds in Barnoldswick, which is a town of 12,000 people, was that just after the bombshell was dropped that Cravenside—built 16 years ago and up to standard—was destined for closure, through the letterboxes fluttered a leaflet that said:
"Our home is your home. High quality residential care for the elderly…Thornton Hill"—
That private sector home just outside my constituency is cashing in. People tell me that they have nothing against Thornton Hill or other private homes for the elderly, but they want them elderly relatives to remain in a county home. They do not understand why they should be driven out of the county sector.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) and others may feel that I think that the county council is acting with malign intent, but that is not so. I believe that the chair of social services, the

179WH
leader of the council and my colleagues in Preston are acting with the best intentions. I do not believe that they have it in for the elderly. They have considered the Government's proposals for the future care of elderly people and are trying to tailor their services accordingly, but it has all gone badly wrong. By alleging that it has insufficient money to bring all the homes up to standard, and then compounding it by saying that it is being forced by the Government to close homes, the county council has lost a lot of sympathy.
We are all signed up to the Care Standards Act 2000. We do not want the elderly living in tiny bedrooms in which you cannot swing a cat. I visited the Walverdene home in my constituency and asked the manager to show me some of the rooms that did not meet the standard, and I was quite shocked: Walverdene was built in 1974–75—none of the buildings that we are discussing are Victorian workhouses—but, incredibly, it was not possible to get even an armchair into those rooms; there was room only for the bed and a washbasin in the corner. So cramped were the surroundings that no one should be expected to live in them.
All parties signed up to the Care Standards Act, and we all want to drive up standards. The county council said that meeting the necessary standards would cost more than £14 million, but that is a bogus figure: the true one is a third of that. The county council told us that essential associated remedial renovation work would take the cost to £14 million, but that is not true.
Another claim is also not true—although I say that respectfully, because it was made by a Labour party colleague. On 15 February, the chairman of the social services committee, Councillor Chris Cheetham, told my local paper, the Lancashire Evening Telegraph:
"If we just do nothing"—
about getting homes up to standard—
"then all the homes will close in 2007—simple as that."
Well, it is not as simple as that. I have read the circulars and the Minister's letters to the National Care Standards Commission, which was presumably copied to all the social services authorities. The word that appears over and over again in those documents is flexibility—no one will be driven out of a home for the elderly that marginally failed to meet one standard.
We are all signed up to the vision that the county council paints for us. I am not wedded to a specific sort of institutional care for the elderly, nor do I believe that we must preserve in aspic the form of residential care that we have in Lancashire. Last week, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Health, which deals with social services, reminded me that there is no institutional care for elderly people in Denmark: they are looked after in small sheltered housing units, and that works well. The answer to the question why we cannot have such provision in the UK is that we can, but it will cost money, just as care in the community does.
The county council has discussed bringing in providers from the private and voluntary sectors, but there has been no detailed discussion with them. The consultation document mentions workers' cooperatives, but I cannot get a handle on them; I have asked staff, but no one knows about them. They have
180WH
simply been dropped in to the document, and, like so much else, have not been thought through. The county council has not discussed the options with providers or with the national health service in the north-west. If lots of frail elderly people leave residential care, they may end up bed blocking in our hospitals, and who wants that?
As far as I can gather, there has been no discussion with the district councils or with the housing associations that are flagged up in the consultation document and would be expected to provide sheltered housing for the elderly. I believe—this is a divide between me and the Prime Minister and a few others—that councils that want to be should be in the business of providing residential care services directly to the public. We should not contract out all such services so that we get bargain basement prices for everything.
We should do what works, but not if what works is putting people into the private sector where they are paid the minimum wage and have lousy terms and conditions. I do not want that. If my mother were in residential care, I would not want someone looking after her who was scraping by on the minimum wage with poor terms and conditions. Many people want their relatives to be in a residential care home that is run by the county council, because the staff in such homes are treated well. The council document states that staff in the county homes would have to be paid less to make the homes competitive with the private sector. What state of affairs have we reached when we read that in a Labour council document?
The county council must withdraw the proposals. The sword of Damocles hangs over the homes, their residents and the wider community. The county council should start talking to the other providers in the private and voluntary sectors, and propose a plan for care for the elderly in Lancashire.
I always want something from the Government, and sometimes I am disappointed. I want them to reconsider funding for social care. Many of us received the document from the social policy on ageing information network, which lists the main actors in social policy that have signed up to it, including Age Concern, the Alzheimer's Society, Anchor Trust, Arthritis Care, Carers UK—the list goes on and on. The document states:
"Social services departments routinely budget more than 10% (almost £1 billion) above government guidelines for social services, and even so, they overspend."
On 1 February, my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) gave an interview to The Independent that appeared under the headline "Minister admits more should be spent on care for the elderly". That is common ground between us. It is what I believe.
I grieve that we have got ourselves into a situation in which so many elderly people are wracked with anxiety. We can correct that if the county council can sweep the proposals off the table and have an intelligent conversation with the other providers and the Minister.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. A great many hon. Members—at least eight—applied in writing to speak in the debate. There are 45 minutes available to them. If

181WH
the arrangement is to be consensual, those 45 minutes indicate the length of speech required if everyone is to catch my eye.
9.48 am
Mr. Michael Jack: I congratulate the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on securing the debate. I agree that the council's proposal should be withdrawn. During the constituency break, like other hon. Members, I visited homes that the proposal affects, and I found that people were very emotional. An 86-year-old lady broke down in tears when I talked to her about the proposal, and all the residents at one home said that it was their home and that the care was fantastic. I wonder how Councillor Cheetham would feel if someone walked up to his front door, told him that his home did not meet the required standards, and invited him to move out. I suspect that he would give them short shrift and send them away. That is how many people feel.
Just before Christmas, I wrote to the county council about my concern that because of the many recent closures, there were not enough nursing home or care places in Fylde to enable people to be discharged properly from hospital over Christmas. The council replied that the work was being done. In December, the council did not know the relationship between the capacity of the care sector and the requirements of the hospital sector. Just as I was recovering from that, suddenly, like that Volkswagen commercial where the car arrives out of the blue into the midst of a group of surprised people, so dropped the consultation document.
It is ironic that I received a letter this morning from a Mr. Slater of the county council telling me that the county council is holding a consultation exercise on the closure of old people's homes; he asked me whether I would like a copy of the document and to take part in the consultation. For weeks now, the argument about our old peoples' homes has been raging in Lancashire's newspapers. As the hon. Member for Pendle says, the proposal looks like a fait accompli.
Nobody who knows anything about care for the elderly can be ignorant of the changes that have taken place. The Care Standards Act has been passed and more people are being looked after in their own home, but where is the analysis? How do we know what is happening in our constituencies?
I asked Councillor Joyce Stewart, the Conservative spokesman on social service matters in the county, whether she had seen the consultants' document that had been produced by the county council justifying its policy. She replied that she had not. It had not been shown to county councillors. Why has that document not been made available to us all? We need to know how the decisions are made. Mr. Slater, who describes himself as an "assistant director special projects", wrote to other and me colleagues on 8 February enclosing a document marked "Private and Confidential". I will not reveal all the information in the document, but it purports to tell us how the various sites were selected. There is nothing about occupancy rates or running costs.
I am a veteran fighter for one of two homes in my constituency that have been fingered to have their day care facilities removed. Our campaign to save Milbank
182WH
in Kirkham from closure was based on the fact there was a real need for that type of facility in rural Fylde and the private sector had not fully catered for the demand. We won the argument. I do not know what the reasons now are for taking the day care centre out of Milbank, but I know that an unspecified sum of money is to be spent on making it one of the survivors. That is all well and good—but hang on a minute. What about all the people who are not in rural Fylde who would not find it easy to go to that home? What will happen to the people who use the day care facility at Milbank in Kirkham? I do not know.
Crossacres, which is threatened with total closure, does not look run down inside, although it needs some en-suite facilities. About £250,000 needs to be spent on it. However, one can almost see from the external fabric that the decisions about its future have already been taken: it has been allowed to run down. The county council thought about all of that a long time ago.
The problem is that we do not know or understand what the options are. Take the day care out of Crossacres and where do those people go? There is only one day care centre left in the Fylde constituency—the Church road Methodist day care centre—and it is already chock-a-block. It is basic details like that that are completely lacking from this inhumane method of consulting elderly people.
I saw a copy of a letter dated 31 January from Councillor Cheetham to our elderly people. I asked the staff and the elderly residents whether they understood what was happening. Had anyone sat down with them and gone through it? Yes, there were meetings, but many of the elderly people are frail and confused. They are in their 80s, 90s or bordering on a century and, with no disrespect to them, it is difficult for them to understand and properly contribute to a sophisticated consultation exercise. When I asked them where their loved ones were, the replies were varied, but they included Canada, New Zealand, and the south of England. Those people had no back-up and no one to help them. Some people's relatives were present because they knew I was coming, and they spoke to me, but it is difficult to have a proper consultation in such circumstances.
Where is the imagination in the proposal? All it talks about is closure and sale-of-site values. There was no thought about whether Crossacres could be developed into a more advanced care village. Much about the consultation exercise rings of fait accompli. The facts have not been put before us. I agree with the hon. Member for Pendle that the proposal should be withdrawn straight away. A proper study should be done which takes into account all the needs of the elderly in every part of Lancashire.
9.55 am
Mr. Peter Pike: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on securing the debate on a subject that is important to elderly people living in homes throughout Lancashire, and to their families. The equation proposed by the county council does not consider what will happen to the private sector, which, if it is to meet the Government's requirements, faces major challenges. I have grave fears that there is not enough capital in the

183WH
private sector to bring in the new standards for homes, and many will lose bedrooms, which will make them uneconomical and so likely to close. If that happens, the number of private sector homes in Lancashire will decrease at the same time as the closure of a large number of county care homes is being proposed. It is extremely important to consider that possibility before any closures are agreed.
Sheltered housing has been mentioned. Everyone, including the county council, accepts that normal sheltered housing would not be adequate, and "super-sheltered" housing has been mentioned, but that would need more staff, supervision and care than there are at present. That is another factor in the equation that we must consider more closely before any hasty decision is taken after the consultation.
I was first approached on the matter of the new standards on 4 May 1999, when a Mr. Porter of Jalna, a private home in my constituency, raised the issues with me. I looked into the matter and I have been in correspondence about the size of the rooms with the county council and Ministers for the past two or three years. I accept that the type and size of the rooms described by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle are nonsensical, but one must accept that the old rooms containing four or five beds were also nonsensical, and that Lancashire got rid of them. We must look carefully at room sizes.
I have received letters on the subject of en-suite provision asking how many old people will actually be able to use such provision given the care and assistance that they need. Is it really necessary to incur such capital costs, whether they are met by Lancashire care homes or by the private sector?
In January, I visited all six Lancashire care homes in my constituency, five of which are proposed for closure, which is more than in any other constituency or borough in Lancashire. I have visited the homes every year in January since I became a Member of Parliament. The standard of the care that they provide is excellent. I have also visited some private homes and was present when the unions signed an agreement with the Lancashire Care Association on standards and training for staff. Some of the old arguments used many years ago against the private homes no longer apply, because there is a much greater acceptance that a good standard of care needs good staff.
As I went round the homes, not knowing that the proposal would advance so speedily, it struck me forcefully that most of the people there were in their 80s and 90s, or even more than 100 years old—the number of people there in their 100s is incredible—and that 90 per cent. of them would not be able to go back into the community or back to their own home. They had gone to the residential home because that was the only way in which they could get the care and the lifestyle that they needed and to which they were entitled. I visited one of the homes for which closure is proposed, Ebor House. As Labour party organiser in Burnley, I attended its opening in the mid 1960s. The age profile in the home at that time was different: most residents were in their late 60s and 70s.
184WH
The £4 million that has been mentioned to improve homes to meet the new Government standards, and the £10 million in county council budgets for the period until 2007, are chicken feed. We must ensure that the consultation is genuine. Society as a whole, the Government, county councils, local authorities and all of us in public life are judged by the care and attention that we give our vulnerable people and the elderly.
I have received a mass of letters from my constituents on the subject, as I am sure has every hon. Member. I shall quote a letter from Hazel Harding, the leader of the county council, to my constituent Mr. Beint. She says:
"I would like to assure you that this is a true consultation stretching over many months in which all views will be listened to."
If the county does not withdraw the proposals, I hope that that assurance proves genuine. I also hope that the other parts of the equation to which insufficient consideration have been given—the private sector and the new super-sheltered accommodation—will be taken into account. Whatever changes take place, we will be judged by the care that our elderly people in Lancashire receive.
10.1 am
Mr. Nigel Evans: I congratulate the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on securing the debate. I am sure that we have all been inundated with letters and that we have all been visiting care homes, especially over the past few weeks. I am proud of both my private care homes and my local authority homes, which seem to be of the highest standard.
The so-called consultation has not been properly thought out—indeed, the way in which it has been carried out is tantamount to abuse of the elderly. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) said, we are talking about very vulnerable, confused people, who are now fearful for their futures. Does Councillor Cheetham understand what he has done by initiating the consultation in such a fashion? On page 6 of his consultation document he says:
"Clearly the closure of Local Authority homes is distressing for residents and their relatives and staff."
That is an understatement. In the letter that accompanies it he says:
"I realise that putting the plans into practice will disrupt the lives of many residents."
Of course it will—so why has he embarked on the exercise in such a way? I spoke to Councillor Pat Case, who was unaware of the proposals.
I have visited Castleford in Clitheroe and Fell View in Longridge—two excellent homes. The hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) will know Castleford because there a few years ago she opened the day centre, which receives up to 120 people a week. They get meals there and are properly looked after and monitored, which would not happen if they were living at home. Some of those people live in the most isolated and rural parts of the Ribble Valley and they look forward to coming to the day centre, where they can mix with people of their own age who have the same interests. They are picked up from their home, taken to the day centre, and taken home at the end of the day. They can have two meals and breakfast, which they might not get if they are isolated at home.

185WH
For some of those people, their home can be a prison. If the council thinks that condemning such people to confinement in their home will create no cost, it should think again. It would have huge implications for social care if people had to stay in their homes 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Homes also provide entertainment for the elderly. They can be taken out on day visits to other parts of the country. Rehabilitation is another important part of the day centres' work. Those who have gone into nursing homes from hospitals are taught again how to use kitchen and bathroom facilities. Who will carry out such important work in future? Elderly people who come into day care centres regularly can be properly monitored, weighed and checked to see whether they are eating properly. If they have any ailments or are taking medication, they can be supervised.
Should the proposal go through, the residential part of Castleford would be expanded slightly, but the day centre would go. That would be a cruel policy to people living in that area. I congratulate Eireen McGee and all the staff there on the work that they do. They are dedicated and skilled professionals.
Fell View, which opened in 1967, is in exactly the same position. I was shown around by Margaret Buckingham, who has worked there for 21 years. What price can be put on her skills? I have a letter from the Royal British Legion saying how important the home is to local people. Some of the residents are regularly visited by their spouses who still live in their own home. What would happen to the bathing facilities, rehabilitation and medical supervision if that home closes? We know that if elderly people are confined to their homes they become ill more quickly, are confined to hospitals more regularly and block beds.
When the announcement of proposals to save money was made, the county council published an advertisement that was an insult. "'Dynamic duo' to spin closures tale" was the headline in the local press. The county council seek to spend £50,000 on a couple of spin doctors to try to dress up their policy as humane. They must be joking. The hon. Member for Pendle mentioned that the misinformation is about the cost of bringing care homes up to standard. The council has been giving one set of figures, but the real cost is a fraction of that. It is time that we had some honesty about what the council intend to do and why.
A member of staff at one of the homes told me that she was thinking of putting a poster in the window that says, "They fought for us. It is now time that we fought for them." That is absolutely right. I say to councillor Chris Cheetham, "Think again and ditch these proposals." Let us ensure that we give proper care to the elderly in Lancashire.
10.7 am
Mr. Greg Pope: It is unusual that I agree with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) says, and rare that I agree with everything said by the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), but it is completely unheard of for me to agree with both of them. It is a measure of the seriousness of the issue that there is such consensus among Lancashire Members of Parliament.
186WH
I am a friend of the county council and a personal friend of its leader and deputy leader. Sometimes, it is a friend's duty to let people know when they have got it wrong, when they have made a mistake. Today I say in public what I have already said in private to the leadership of the county council: they have got this matter completely wrong and mishandled it from the beginning. They must take the proposal away and think again.
Like every other Lancashire MP, I have been inundated with letters from constituents and concerned relatives. One said that residents want to be treated
"with respect, not like animals…herded like cattle, placed here and there in an area that they do not"
call their home. Another said that
"they give you tablets to keep you going and then"
when
"they do this to you, I…wish they would give me a tablet to end it all".
One old lady was in tears: she had no family and was not sleeping; she did not know where or when she was going. The letter ends by asking me
"how would you feel if she was your mum"?
I feel pretty unhappy even though she is not my mum. The proposals are completely wrong-headed and must be withdrawn.
We need a mature debate about the future of the sector. That debate should include carers, residents, the private sector and local health trusts. It is shocking that Lancashire has not engaged properly with the local health service, or with the private and voluntary sectors. It would have been sensible to have held the consultation and debate before any concrete proposal was made. However, such a debate is not possible when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle said, certain homes have the sword of Damocles hanging over them. Lancashire must withdraw the hit list—there is no other appropriate term—of 35 homes.
I think that we would all agree that some homes might have to close. The current number of 48 homes may not be right for Lancashire. Demographic trends are changing, and an increasing number of old people do not want to go into a home—they want to remain in their own home and be looked after there. Perhaps 48 is not the right number, but it is impossible to have a proper debate while there is a hit list of homes. I repeat, Lancashire county council should withdraw that list.
Local Labour MPs met the county council a fortnight ago. We had a robust exchange of views. My understanding is that the council refuses to rethink its position. I am sure that we can all think of examples of politicians refusing to withdraw unpopular policies because they think that to do so would be a sign of weakness. It is a sign not of weakness, but of strength to hold up one's hands and say, "I've made a mistake." It is a sign of confidence in one's own politics, and I urge my good friends and colleagues on the county council to take that brave step and admit that they may not have handled the matter terribly well. They should acknowledge that it would be sensible to withdraw the hit list and invite everybody to have a proper debate.
10.11 am
Mrs. Joan Humble: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope), because I want to reinforce some of the points that he made and set our debate in the context of the Community Care (Residential Accommodation) Act 1992, which was passed under the Conservative Government and which received all-party support, as does the current debate on care standards.
The 1992 Act was debated and passed with everybody agreeing that we needed to look after elderly people in a variety of different settings, that residential care was not the right answer for everybody, and that more and more people needed and wanted to be supported in their own home. That legislation placed a burden on local authorities to manage a process of change from residential to domiciliary care. However, in many parts of the country there has been a substantial reduction in the amount of residential care available, which has resulted in problems of bed blocking and elderly people not receiving the support that they should receive.
We in Lancashire are in a fortunate position: we still have both county council care homes and a private care sector. We ought to take advantage of that fact and have a debate about how many care facilities and what sort of increased domiciliary care or day care provision we need. We should ask how we can best use our existing residential provision. We should not lose the opportunity to do that and end up in the same position as many other local authorities, which do not have that sort of provision. Let us have the informed debate for which we have all been asking. Let us examine the needs of our elderly people.
The care homes run by the county council do not provide only residential care and day care. Excellent facilities such as the one referred to by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans)—I remember opening that day centre—also provide respite care. Many people neither need nor want full-time residential care, but need respite care on occasions.
Like other hon. Members, I have taken the opportunity to visit the two homes in my constituency that are involved in this debate. Worsley House is earmarked for closure. The local authority must face up to the fact that an area as large as the district of Wyre contains many towns. Fleetwood has its own identity, and those of its people who use Worsley House do not want to go to the far end of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson)—I hope that he will forgive me—even though it is in the same district. They want to have the choice of a Lancashire county council home or a private home in Fleetwood, and they feel strongly about that.
It is suggested that Thornton House be retained, but its residents would still have to be moved out because an enormous amount of work needs to be done to remodel the home as the county council suggests. There will, therefore, be disruption even in homes that are proposed for retention.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for seeing a delegation from the Lancashire private sector last week. As my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) emphasised, the, proposals would affect the private sector. The number of residential placements has
188WH
decreased. We must take all care providers into consideration. We must value the work that they have done to improve the care that they offer and the buildings in which they offer it.
Let us think about the needs of the people of Lancashire and ensure that they have respite care, nursing care, rehabilitative care and day care when they need them. Domiciliary care, too, is important. Many constituents tell me that they want that to be improved so that they can remain in their own homes for as long as possible, until they really do need residential care.
10.15 am
Mr. Hilton Dawson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) for securing this important debate. We have reached the same conclusions, although by very different routes.
I support change, because there is too much residential care provision in Lancashire. I want facilities to be transformed to provide better day care services, better support in the community, and better support for sheltered housing. The action that Lancashire county council has taken shows that it is trying to work within the framework of the good policies that the Government have laid down. It is trying to work in the serious, stringent context of special measures.
Changes are always difficult, even those that will improve the lives of the current generation of vulnerable people who live in residential care. Those people must have the first call on everyone's support, compassion and assistance. I do not always support the council, but it is only fair to acknowledge its record of helping elderly people through difficult and traumatic changes in compassionate, caring, sensitive and highly professional ways.
I believe that the consultation is genuine, but fatally flawed, and hon. Members have drawn attention to the lack of partnership with health services. The national standards framework for older people requires the council to enter into such a partnership. A couple of weeks ago, I and my colleagues were told that the health service was unable to meet that requirement because it was in a process of transition, but that excuse is unacceptable.
The council needs to enter into a powerful partnership with the private sector. On Friday afternoon, I held a meeting with a couple of representatives from the Lancashire Care Association and with County Councillor Chris Cheetham. It was a good meeting because there was real communication—people said that it was the first time that they had been able to communicate. It is unacceptable that the proposals did not emanate from a robust partnership between social services, health, the private and voluntary sectors and the district councils. That is why the consultation is flawed and must be reconsidered.
There are important issues to tackle in Lancashire, and we desperately need to improve services. The argument is not about money, nor can it be until proper structures, proper communication systems and proper ways of working in partnership are in place. We must get those partnerships going. The county council operates good services and is trying to implement changes in difficult circumstances, but the structures work against

189WH
it. I was told on Friday that there is a structure for consultation with the private sector, but the fact is that there is no substance or content to the process. There is a crying need for a health and social services trust. We need to use the greater flexibility that the current Government have introduced because we need major changes to the way in which services operate.
10.20 am
Mr. David Borrow: Like many hon. Members, I visited the care homes in my constituency last week—Peterfield House in Penwortham, New Manor in Longton and Broadfield House in Leyland. I had constructive meetings with residents and their families at all three homes, but I was unable to reassure residents about their future as they get older.
Figures in the consultation document demonstrate that in December 2001 there were sufficient care home places in the private sector in Lancashire. Under the proposals, 746 places in the county council sector would be closed. At the end of December, there were 1,215 vacancies in the private sector. That would mean that 65 people in South Ribble would have to be moved out of Lancashire care homes. There are currently 82 vacancies in the private sector.
The problem with the document is that the county council has not consulted the health service or the private sector, nor has it analysed probable future need for residential, care. Hon. Members have heard tales of the potential closure of private care homes in the next few years, and it is self-evident that some will decide not to spend their money to bring their care home up to the new standards. The demand that will be placed on the residential care sector is unclear, but in three years' time, I do not want to have to tell a constituent with an elderly relative who visits my surgery that there are no vacancies in South Ribble, and that they must go to Manchester, Yorkshire or Merseyside to find a vacancy.
I want to ensure that there will be vacancies for respite care if people who are caring for elderly relatives need to make use of it. I want to ensure that residential care will be available for people who have been in hospital but are not fit to go straight home, and that that care will be available to them until they are sufficiently recovered. I want to ensure that the right sort of residential care in the right place, which is in people's communities, is retained. That provision might not be in a Lancashire county council care home, but I am not convinced that the county council has a clue about whether there are enough places now and whether there will be enough places in 2007 or 2012. Until it is sure, the document should be withdrawn. The necessary information should be obtained so that we can have a grown-up, constructive discussion about all the issues.
10.23 am
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on enabling us to -lake part in an important debate about the future for old people in Lancashire.
I am one of the first to say that the decision is crass and should never have been taken in such a way. Of the three homes in Chorley, two are to be closed and one is to remain open—what a lottery. Care homes in Lancashire are 98 per cent. full. It is unacceptable that
190WH
a Labour-controlled Lancashire county council should scuttle around Lancashire announcing closures, upsetting some of the most vulnerable people in society, and leaving them with no hope and no future.
People turned to Lancashire county council when they applied to its care homes, which offered provision of which we could all be proud. Two days before Christmas, a private home closed in Chorley. Where was the safety net when emergency beds had to be found? It was with Lancashire county council. That safety net will disappear if we allow the proposals to be implemented.
Lancashire county council must withdraw its proposal immediately and ensure that people have a choice. People should be able to choose to live in private or county homes—or to remain in their own home, with appropriate support. I accept all that, but if our county provision is taken away, there will be nothing left for those who need it. Will we have to tell a 95-year-old, "I am sorry, but this home is down for closure. You will have to find somewhere else"?
People living in the homes have already been told to start looking for private accommodation. Sadly, they are being told that they must look around quickly, because there will not be enough accommodation left if they all look at the same time. The danger is that those vulnerable people will opt for a private home that might close in four or five years' time. That is not acceptable.
There is nothing wrong with the homes in Chorley. I invite the Minister to come to my constituency to see the quality of those homes and to see the damage that is being done by our county council. It should withdraw its proposals now, so that people can feel once again that we have a listening county council.
10.25 am
Geraldine Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on obtaining today's debate. I am saddened and angered by Lancashire county council's proposed closure of 35 care homes. I am saddened because over the years the county council has, by and large, provided good service to the people of Lancashire. I am extremely angry about the acute distress and bewilderment that has already been inflicted upon the elderly residents of those homes as a result of the cavalier and uncaring way in which the proposals were announced.
Three of the care homes threatened with closure are in my constituency—Beaumont View, the Craggs and Slyne House. All have an excellent reputation for providing high quality care. Before travelling to Westminster yesterday, I took the opportunity to visit Slyne House and the Craggs. It was heartbreaking to hear people in their 90s saying that they were being well cared for and looked after, and how much they dreaded being uprooted and moved elsewhere.
One elderly resident had his wartime medals in his bedroom. That an elderly gentleman who had fought in the war should now 'be rewarded in such a way is heartbreaking. Another resident, a wonderful lady, is celebrating her 100th birthday today, but it has been overshadowed by the proposals: she is frightened that she will lose her home. It is not only the elderly residents who will be affected, but also their relatives. I spoke to the sons and daughters and the husbands and wives of

191WH
residents who were distressed and worried about their elderly relatives. That is cruel. Many of the residents were at a loss to understand why their home was going to close. They were desperate to know what was to become of them. I felt ashamed that proposals that have caused such heartache and pain were put forward by a Labour-controlled council.
Of equal concern is the fact that staff and residents of the care homes have been told by Lancashire county council that the closures were being forced upon it by the Government because the homes do not meet best value criteria. They have been told that the homes have to close, and that if the county council will not do it, the Government will step in and do it. I ask the Minister to confirm whether that is true.
I am sure that all hon. Members know that the provision of good quality care such as that provided by Lancashire county council is not cheap, but that care is what the elderly in our communities need and deserve. We should ensure that care in the private sector is raised to the standard of that provided by the county council, not try to round it down to the lowest common denominator. It must be clearly understood that the proposal entails the mass relocation of frail, elderly people. It is our duty to ensure that their interests come first and that they are considered before any decisions are made.
When considering future provision of residential care homes in Lancashire, I am aware that we need to improve and expand other areas of care and support as well as residential care. Yes, people prefer to stay in their own homes if possible, but it is not always an option if they are too frail or require a great deal of care. Regardless of the success of other measures, there will be an ever-increasing need for residential care. People are living much longer and, even though they stay longer in their homes, they still need to go into residential care later in life.
My hon. Friend the Minister will know that Lancashire county council is also cutting back on the number of private sector placements. If we accept its policy and fail to ensure that sufficient residential care places, both public and private, are available to those who want and need them, we will not only fail the elderly in Lancashire, but put an intolerable strain on the health service by causing massive bed blocking.
10.30 am
Mr. Paul Burstow: I congratulate the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on securing the debate, and all those who have taken part. They succinctly stated the serious concerns that hon. Members on both sides of the House have about the proposals for the reduction in public sector care home capacity in Lancashire. I shall address some of the concerns that have been raised in the debate and ask the Minister some questions.
As I listened to the debate, three phrases came to mind: "piecemeal", "ill conceived" and "lacking in vision". That is what strikes me about the proposals about care homes controlled by Lancashire county council that are out for consultation. The fact that the consultation continues until 14 June is no comfort to the
192WH
residents of the care homes that have been nominated for closure, or to their relatives and friends, or to the staff who are affected. I am aware of the trauma and difficulties that accompany the closure of care homes, whether they are in the private, independent or public sectors. It is a sad fact that poorly managed closures can increase the possibility of death among residents who are transferred. That fact must fuel the anxiety of relatives and staff.
Members made several important points that go to the heart of the wider debate about the provision of residential and nursing care in institutional settings. I shall comment on them, but I was very struck by the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) pointing out the feeling of ownership that residents in care homes have. When a well run home is established and doing a good job, it ceases to be an institution and becomes a home. When a resident describes it as "My home," we should listen and take it as a serious sign of that person's feelings about the place.
The hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) referred to the overall context of the community care legislation that set local authorities' responsibilities for managing care home places. That is a fair point, but it is worth bearing in mind that the same legislation placed on local authorities a fairly onerous and difficult gatekeeping role. There is a tension in being both the gatekeeper and the person that commissions care provision for residents on their behalf. That does not sit well in many cases, and I suspect that in Lancashire it has resulted in the introduction of a poor set of options.
I am strongly of the view that although a spectrum of different types of care in different settings—ranging from low intensity domiciliary care packages that enable people to stay independent in their own homes, through to the most intensive home care and residential sector—should be available in this country, and Lancashire in particular, it must not become a matter of dogma that people must stay at home. Any vision must always be built around the needs of the individual and proper analysis of them.
The debate has highlighted an apparent lack of analysis or serious engagement with the other partners and players in the provision of care in the community and residential care. I am shocked to learn from today's debate that Lancashire county council has failed to engage seriously with the NHS about the impact of the proposed reduction in capacity, and that it has also failed to have that dialogue with the independent sector. To remove up to a third of bed capacity simply by removing places from the public sector fails to acknowledge what is happening in the private sector.
All hon. Members know from their mailbags and conversations with care home owners about the pressure in the private and independent sectors in terms of the costs and new standards and how they are making many contemplate leaving the sector altogether. In some parts of the country, many people have already left the sector: they have decided that they could no longer do a decent form of business because they were not getting any return.
As the hon. Member for Pendle said, when the Care Standards Act was passed, Members on both sides of the House were committed to national minimum

193WH
standards to drive up quality in all sectors. It is important to recognise that although there is no straightforward relationship, there is undoubtedly a cost attached to that compliance. I emphasised that several times during the passage of that Act. Today's debate has proved that some statements made in the regulatory impact assessment failed to provide an accurate estimate of the cost of complying with the new standards. That is why local authorities—not only Lancashire—are saying that they plan to close homes: they cannot find the capital to fund the changes. The hon. Gentleman was right to set his remarks in the context of the budgetary pressures that fall on local authorities, particularly social services authorities, when trying to manage such issues.
Physical standards—lifts, doorways and room sizes—present problems: they often carry the greatest capital costs, but they are not the best proxies for quality. That point has been made by hon. Members and was acknowledged by the Government in a letter sent by the Minister to Anne Parker, the chair of the National Care Standards Commission. In it, the Government recognised that the standards in respect of room sizes that are due to come into effect from 2007 must be interpreted flexibly. It would appear that Lancashire county council has ignored that in its calculations and proposals.
I hope that hon. Members will continue to challenge the council about that, and that the Minister can confirm what, she wrote to the chair of the NCSC. The letter makes the specific point that
"For example if it were harmful for a resident to be moved, it would be open to the Commission to decide that a room which falls below the standard nevertheless suits the persons' needs."
That is as clear as possible, and Lancashire county council should take the point into account.
The hon. Member for Pendle mentioned the social policy on ageing information network report. Research into the funding available for social services was conducted by charities and private sector interests. He referred also to the £1 billion above standard spending assessment that social services authorities throughout England spend on providing services for the elderly and children. Interestingly, just two weeks ago, a new survey was published by the Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Social Services. It examined current, not historical, budget pressures and, unsurprisingly, confirmed that there has been no change. In the coming year, councils throughout the country expect to overspend their budgets by more than £218 million. They are already spending dramatically more than the Government think that they need to spend, as reflected in SSAs. Nine of out 10 will overspend their budgets in the coming year, and many forecast further pressures looming in later years.
Everything boils down to capacity and whether it is being planned. In Lancashire, it is not. The Minister should ask the county council, through the social services inspectorate and others, what it is doing to improve its understanding of the knock-on consequences of its proposals on care for the elderly throughout the county. There is no doubt that the proposals will reduce choice and increase pressures elsewhere in the care system.
Hon. Members said that a lack of capacity in the care home sector had a knock-on effect on the NHS in the form of delayed discharges and more people waiting
194WH
longer to leave hospital, with all the attendant consequences for their health. That effect works its way through the system, and ends in people waiting longer on trolleys because there are no beds to which they can be admitted. All that is happening and will continue to happen if there is not a proper dialogue between all the players in Lancashire to address the problem.
The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) mentioned the loss of private sector capacity, and other important points were made, to which I hope the Minister will respond today.
10.40 am
Mr. Oliver Heald: This has been a passionate debate, and rightly so. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) described the proposals as piecemeal, misconceived and showing a lack of vision. Many hon. Members might have gone further and said that the proposals are heartless and cynical in the way that they strip assets from the public sector and shunt costs, and that the county council has been arrogant in not listening to the views of elected Members of Parliament. As the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) said, he and his colleagues approached the county council but it simply did not listen.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on instigating this important debate, because it is clear that the proposals are not acceptable. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said, the idea that the problem can be solved by spending £50,000 on a couple of spin doctors shows the values of Lancashire county council. There is no doubt that this is a tragedy in the making.
The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) touched on what is happening in the private sector as well as the public sector. The Lancashire Care Association was told before Christmas by Lancashire county council that it planned to reduce residential care home placements in the private sector for the frail elderly by two thirds between now and 2007—a decrease of 1,200 places, from 1,880 to 600 a year. At the same time, the council plans to close 35 of the 48 county homes—a loss of 700 places. Two thousand places for frail elderly people in Lancashire are to be stripped out within a very short period.
That is a tragedy for the individuals concerned. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) spoke to a resident who said, "This is my home." The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) said that people involved are in their 80s and 90s, and the hon. Member for Pendle spoke about people being fearful. The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale spoke about wartime medals on their walls, and the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) said that this treatment was being meted out to some of the most vulnerable people in Lancashire.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley said that some of the most frail residents were living in fear of the proposals, and pointed out that day centres were important to people if they were not to be imprisoned in their own home. The hon. Member for Hyndburn said that people were being treated like animals, and the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) pointed out the loss of respite care places. There is no doubt that the effect on individuals who live in homes is dramatic and that the policy is heartless.

195WH
The hon. Member for Burnley also talked about the staff. We should not forget that there are 600 jobs in care homes in the public sector in Lancashire. In an intervention, the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood referred to the standard of care that is so appreciated by residents. That is not an accident: the staff are committed to providing excellent care. Given what all the expert evidence and research shows, it is odd to put their jobs and those of all the caring people in the private sector at risk.
The leading institute that considers demography and projections for the future is the personal social services research unit. Its latest research, published in Health Statistics Quarterly, shows that there will be a huge rise in the number of over-65s in the next 30 years. The Government Actuary's projections show that that number will rise by 60 per cent and that the number of over-85s will increase by almost 90 per cent. It is projected that the number of residential places throughout the country needs to rise by 65 per cent. to meet that demand—in addition to what is needed in domiciliary care, where it is estimated that a 48 per cent. increase will be needed in home care hours provision.
Against that background and the fact that all the evidence is that we need more places and more capacity—the Government say that, too—why on earth is Lancashire county council stripping out places? That goes back to the point made by the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow): the council simply has not done the analysis. This is a national issue because getting rid of places in care homes makes the NHS inefficient. The Government are spending much more money on the NHS but are not getting much more activity out of it, because although elderly people in NHS beds throughout the country want to move into a nursing or residential home, places are not available. Making the situation worse, which is what Lancashire county council suggests, is wrong.
We have to wonder about the reason behind the proposals, and I think it is that the council has problems—indeed, special measures have been mentioned. If it does not provide care home places in the public or private sector, it does not have to pay for them, and other authorities have to pick up the tab. Housing is the district council's responsibility, so it will have to provide more sheltered housing, and the NHS will have to do more work on intermediate care to provide places. The financial burden is thereby shifted from the county council to the district council and the NHS. That may be a good accounting trick, but it takes no account of the costs to the individuals involved—people who will lose their home and be treated like animals. Nor does it pay attention to the loyal staff who have worked for the county council for years.
What is so stupid is that the council has not even troubled itself to consult the NHS or the independent sector before going down this route. I join in the pleas made by hon. Members on both sides of the House for the consultation to end and for the proposals to be taken away and reconsidered. The Minister is reported in the local press in Lancashire as saying that she is "ordering a probe". What does that mean and what action will she take? The situation is intolerable.
10.48 am
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): I join in the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on securing a debate on a matter of considerable importance to Lancashire. I commend all hon. Members who have spoken: they have made good use of their role as constituency Members of Parliament to raise a significant local issue. Even before today's debate, I was well aware of those concerns. The decision is clearly one for Lancashire county council, but as we have heard it has wider implications. I shall state the reality of the Government's policy and its relationship to the activities of Lancashire county council.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) pointed out, Lancashire county council has had a relatively high number of admissions into residential and nursing care. In 1999–2000, it made 182 admissions to residential and nursing care per 1,000 people aged over 65. By 2000–01, that had dropped to 146 per 1,000, but even so, it was still 45 per cent. higher than the average for shire counties.
It is right that Lancashire considers its commissioning strategy. It should assess whether it offers the right balance of care for older people in the county. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) made clear, it is crucial for this type of consideration and planning to take place in the context of consultation with older people themselves, with partners in care provision in both the statutory and independent sector, with other local authorities, with the NHS and with other local representatives, including those who have spoken so ably today.
It is important to understand, as noted by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) and the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), that the proposals could lead to 700 older people having to move from their care homes. Our debate is not merely a theoretical discussion about the design of a system. Many could have lived in their existing homes for many years and the move could entail significant disruption. Any changes should be contemplated only after thorough consultation, up-to-date care assessments and detailed discussions with residents and their families.
A central aim of Government policy is to reduce reliance on long-term institutional solutions to the needs of older people and to encourage the development of services to promote their independence. As right hon. and hon. Members have made clear, provision of services for older people is complex, so we need a range of alternatives to provide an opportunity for older people to exercise choice.
Complex objectives can be achieved only if they are well planned and if change is well managed and accompanied by investment. That has been the Government's national approach to achieving the reconfiguration of services that we all want in the longer term. It is a testament to those measures that we now support more people living at home than in the past: in 1998–99, of every 1,000 older people 82 were supported to live at home; by 2000–01, that number had risen to 84. All sorts of support—home care, community equipment, home adaptations and repairs—are included.

197WH
Also central to the Government's plans to reform the care system is the development of intermediate care services, so that we can prevent avoidable admissions into hospital and allow patients—especially older people—the time and care necessary for rehabilitation. Such services will enable older people to live independently for longer. The NHS plans investment of an extra £900 million to be made available by 2003–04 for new intermediate care and related services. It is already bringing benefits and will be part of the overall reconfiguration of older people's services.
The Government have already provided significant extra support to local authorities engaged in the reconfiguration to ensure that we avoid the problems associated with delayed discharge, to which some hon. Members have referred. From the £300 million made available by the Government last autumn, Lancashire county council received £1.6 million in 2001–02 and will receive a further £3.4 million in 2002–03. That funding will be available for the purchase of nursing home placements, intensive home care packages and disability equipment, and for the expansion of existing intermediate care and rehabilitation schemes.
We need to offer our older people a range of services. Generally, people want to live in their homes as long as they can, but in some cases residential care is the best option and we must provide the necessary capacity to cater for it—either in the statutory or independent sector. My hon. Friends the Members for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) mentioned their concerns about private sector capacity in Lancashire. On that account, last week I met representatives of Lancashire Care Association in a delegation led by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood. They expressed the association's desire to work with Lancashire county council to ensure that residential and other provision is made available to Lancashire people in a planned and strategically managed way.
The Government are committed to working in partnership with the independent sector to use its capacity and resources to achieve the best possible outcome. That is why we established a strategic commissioning group—initially chaired by my fellow Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), and now by me—which published an agreement setting out the responsibilities and expectations for central Government, local government, the NHS and independent providers.
The agreement focuses on councils and the independent sector entering into long-term agreements about placing people into care homes or providing other forms of support. It also highlights the need for fees to reflect the costs incurred. I expect all local authorities to follow the agreement; otherwise we shall be unable to achieve the necessary changes in capacity and the sort of planning which, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) and others pointed out, is missing in Lancashire.
Several hon. Members mentioned national care standards. We are all agreed on the need for uniform standards to cover not just environmental issues, but quality of care, training and the rights of residents. Those standards are being introduced sensibly. The Government have issued statutory guidance to the
198WH
National Care Standards Commission to ensure that the application of new standards does not lead to the closure of good quality homes. The guidance states that the commission should assess whether care homes can fulfil the needs of service users without making environmental changes to meet the standards. It especially covers issues surrounding room sizes, lifts, and baths and shared rooms. To respond to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley, existing homes are not required to provide en-suite bathrooms in future.
Care home representatives have welcomed the guidance. Some people, including hon. Members here today, have raised questions about the public statements made by Lancashire county council about the cost of bringing its in-house provision up to the level of the new care standards. I understand that the publicly stated figure of £14 million is inaccurate and that the real one is nearer to £4 million. Any higher sum would include expenditure on routine maintenance.
I understand the significant concerns expressed in today's debate. The social services inspectorate is already closely monitoring the council in several respects, because it was placed under special measures in February 2000. I also understand the concern about the intention to decrease dramatically the number of nursing and residential placements. That is why the social services inspectorate is following closely the work undertaken by Lancashire county council to assess its current care provision. Consultation on future strategies is taking place with the NHS, local people and other interested parties.
Concerns have been expressed that the local authority is not communicating properly. The social services inspectorate is actively seeking to open lines of constructive communication between the two parties. Today the SSI is holding a regional workshop attended by representatives of the local council and the Lancashire Care Association, and further meetings will follow. I have instructed the SSI to monitor closely the outcome of those discussions. I have also asked to be kept up to date with crucial research on capacity in Lancashire. I shall regularly examine SSI reports to ensure that progress is being made in the areas about which hon. Members have voiced concern today.
The Government's reforms are intended to lead to an evolutionary change in the care sector—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. It is time for the next debate.

MMR Vaccine
11 am
Miss Julie Kirkbride: May I start by saying how grateful I am—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. Will right hon. and hon. Members please leave the Chamber quietly so that we may proceed with our business in proper order?
Miss Kirkbride: I am grateful to the Speaker for agreeing to this morning's one-and-a-half-hour debate on a topical issue that has become heated during the past few months. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say not just on my campaign for single vaccines to be provided by the national health service but on related issues on which the House would like more clarification. No doubt we shall hear a variety of voices from around the Chamber, but the principal point of the debate is to impress on Ministers why they should introduce the right to single vaccinations on the national health service.
Single vaccinations were available under the national health service until the Government came to power in 1997 when the Department of Health changed the guidance and MMR became the only vaccination available against dangerous childhood diseases. It was a fatal mistake to withdraw the right to single vaccinations. The purpose of the exercise is to ensure that the maximum number of children receive important vaccinations against damaging diseases. My purpose in pursuing the campaign is to increase the level of herd immunity, which has fallen to the dangerous level of 85 per cent. and possibly lower. That is not good enough to ensure that we do not have a worrying measles outbreak.
Whatever the Minister says today about restoring public confidence, advertising campaigns and bullying tactics in doctors' surgeries—if we can believe the press—will not persuade parents to do something against their gut instinct. The only way to restore public confidence is to respond to what parents want and 85 per cent. want the right to single vaccinations on the national health service. The Government would be acting in the best interests of children and public health—pregnant women as well as children need to be protected from rubella—if the right to single vaccinations were re-introduced on the NHS.
Dr. Evan Harris: If the hon. Lady's campaign reduced the level of herd immunity because people abandoned immunisation altogether, would she change her view? Is there anything to be learned from the whooping cough vaccination scare, which led to reduced coverage, higher incidence of the illness and deaths?
Miss Kirkbride: We cannot compare different scares. There is worrying evidence concerning the MMR vaccine. It does not prove a link between MMR and autism, but it gives parents cause for concern. I speak as a parent and for many parents who make difficult decisions on behalf of their children. I examined the
200WH
evidence and did not feel entirely comfortable about giving my child the MMR jab. We know from the newspapers that I am not alone in that view and I could name many public figures who agree with me. The uncertainties about whooping cough and MMR vaccinations are not the same. The way to increase the number of children who are vaccinated against measles, mumps and rubella is to give parents the choice they want.
Dr. Harris: I know that the hon. Lady wants to make progress, but this is a key point. If she were persuaded that a change in policy to the one she wants would lead to fewer children being vaccinated—not among the group that may choose single vaccinations, but among those who would simply give up on the whole idea—would she change her view because of the risk of lower coverage resulting in more disease and deaths?
Miss Kirkbride: I do not agree with that hypothesis, so it is difficult to give the hon. Gentleman a relevant answer to his question. If he had been listening, he would know that I believe that the way to boost immunisation levels is to give parents the choice that they want. That is the tenet of my debate so I cannot give him a better answer.
Lynne Jones: The hon. Lady is right to say that measles, mumps and rubella are dangerous. I feel strongly about this because I almost died as a baby from pneumonia associated with a measles infection. The hon. Lady is raising the matter in an irresponsible way. Of course parents are worried—parents are always worried about possible harm to their children—but while a negative can never be proved, the risks associated with not having the MMR vaccination are far greater than the risks of having it.
Miss Kirkbride: The hon. Lady speaks from bitter personal experience, but as parents, we do not consider the risk in the wider context that only a few children are likely to be damaged by the MMR vaccination; we ask whether our child might be damaged. We know that some people believe—and we do not know whether they are right or wrong—that their children were damaged by the MMR vaccine and we ask ourselves whether we could bear it if our child were damaged in the same way. That makes the point for allowing parents the choice of single vaccinations. If they were allowed that choice and if the door had not been closed in 1997–98, the position today would be different because we would not have the present crisis in herd immunity.
Ms Julia Drown: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Miss Kirkbride: I would like to make some progress, but I shall then give way.
One of the Government's reasons for not allowing single vaccinations is that they involve six jabs. However, the manufacturers' packets state that single vaccinations provide 98 per cent. effectiveness, while the MMR jab provides up to 90 per cent. effectiveness, so children have to be inoculated twice for MMR, first

201WH
when they are just over a year old and again just before they are four. The 10 per cent. difference is not sufficient to provide herd immunity.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): Is the hon. Lady aware that the Medicines Control Agency has specifically disputed the claim of 98 per cent. coverage, which is wrong?
Miss Kirkbride: I am aware of what the Medicines Control Agency said and of what the manufacturers state on the packets. Someone is not telling the truth and we must establish who is telling the truth. I am well aware of the point made by the Minister, but we need more clarity instead of the muddled facts that are available at the moment.
Another of the Government's arguments against single vaccinations is the time between each vaccination—it must be at least three months. They say that that is dangerous because more children are liable to get measles in the meantime. That may be true in essence, except that some children are not being vaccinated at all. Given the choice of MMR or nothing, too many parents are choosing nothing. If we compare reality with the Government's comments, we are banging our heads against a brick wall. Parents are told, "If you are not prepared to have MMR, you will have nothing." Ergo, parents are choosing to have nothing, and the risks to the wider community are that much greater. The Minister must let a little daylight into those considerations by accepting life as it is, rather than as she would like it to be.
The Government's rules are one reason why it is more dangerous to proceed on the basis of the single vaccine. Parents can access single vaccinations for their children by having the rubella vaccination, which is licensed in Britain, first. Children are entitled to have it in order to protect unborn children, who may contract rubella.
If the Government changed the rules so that children could have the measles vaccination first, the most dangerous childhood disease would be tackled first. That would mean a longer period of exposure to mumps and rubella, but we must live with life as it really is. Changing the rules would remove a large part of the Government's objections.
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: The hon. Lady raised the issue of rubella and talked about pandering to people's perceptions. Does she realise that one perception in the community is that boys do not need to be immunised against rubella? Given that that is, as she puts it, the reality in the world, how does she expect to get herd immunity to rubella if we provide single vaccines?
Miss Kirkbride: It is a patronising argument used by Labour Members—and it remains to be seen whether it is used by Opposition Members—to claim that parents will not take their children back for the other two inoculations. Parents who want single vaccinations are by definition responsible because they have clearly been thinking about whether that inoculation is right for their children; of course they will go back. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has children, but if he does he will remember that they go for a series of inoculations
202WH
when they are three, six and nine months old. It is wonderful to say that most people take up those inoculations. Of course parents will have their children inoculated against those dangerous diseases, and it is outrageous that people who oppose my point of view suggest otherwise.
Ms Drown: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She talked earlier about her difficulty, which I understand, as a parent thinking about whether her child might be exposed to a possible side effect of the vaccine. As a parent, however, does she not also consider the risk of her child being exposed to one of those diseases? Is that not a difficult choice that all parents have to make?
I should like to hear the hon. Lady's policy on when the single vaccines, which include not only rubella, but also mumps, should be given. Has she taken medical advice on the gap between vaccinations? Why does she think that her particular view is different from that of the stream of medical organisations that have looked at the evidence in detail?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions must be brief and to the point.
Miss Kirkbride: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Lady catches your eye she will be able to expand on those points.
The hon. Lady raised a number of questions, and I have several concerns that the Government should take seriously. Returning to my previous point, I believe the vaccines to be largely safe. Let me put on record that I believe in the childhood immunisation programme, which has done wonders for childhood mortality in the past 10, 20, 30 and 40 years. It has been a fantastic achievement, and I pay tribute to the medical establishment for having achieved wonderful progress. However, the fact that it has achieved wonderful progress in the past does not make it right about absolutely everything. It does not necessarily make it right about MMR and whether there is a problem in a small spectrum of children. The problem for parents is that they do not know whether their child might be susceptible.
On a wider point, the hon. Lady asked about the gap between vaccinations. Private clinics, which offer those vaccinations, start with the rubella vaccine and give the measles vaccine three months later. I think that there is a longer gap after that to the mumps vaccine. The hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) seems surprised, but if she knew more about the subject she would know that the measles vaccine is the most virulent, and therefore the one with which we must be most cautious.
Peter Bradley: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Miss Kirkbride: I have been generous in giving way, and I should like to make my own points rather than dealing with barracking from Labour Members.
The fact is that 2,000 parents are taking the Government to court because, rightly or wrongly—and this will be tested in court—they believe that the MMR

203WH
vaccine has damaged their children. Whatever our views about MMR, our hearts go out to those parents because, according to their stories, their children were developing completely normally until the day on which they had their MMR jab. Those children's personalities changed as they developed regressive autism, which stripped from them the functions that they had previously acquired. Those parents face difficult lives because they have to deal with what has happened to their children. We do not know whether it was caused by MMR, but those parents believe that it was. We all know how intimately we know and understand our children. Those parents' stories deserve a more careful approach than the dismissive attitude we presently have from the Department of Health.
Peter Bradley: I do not want to barrack the hon. Lady, but she seeks certainty; I am not sure that there is certainty in life or, for that matter, in science. Can she be certain that the active measles ingredient in the single measles vaccine, rather than MMR in combination, could not be construed or suggested as a cause of autism?
Miss Kirkbride: The simple answer is no. No medical science can be proved absolutely, and that is why we have to offer parents choice. We have to offer them choice because there is no certainty. At the moment, we cannot prove or disprove any of those things. One cannot disprove a negative.
Parents want choice because they believe that as a result of the three live vaccines, which are stronger, more virulent vaccines in MMR—all other childhood inoculations are not live vaccines—children who have a predisposition to be unable to cope with an attack on their immune systems suffer damage to their guts and bowels, which leads to toxins leaking out and damaging their brains. If that is true, and those parents cannot prove it, it is likely that the measles vaccine is responsible. We know that toxins in the brain are a likely cause of autism, but we do not know how and why it occurs.
The Government know that environmental factors are likely to cause autism. I was pleased to learn that there is going to be more research into the causes of autism because we need to know why we appear to be having an epidemic. I would not suggest that MMR is the reason why there has been a massive increase in autism, but the evidence needs to be examined as it raises fears among parents about whether MMR is a contributory factor.
I draw Members' attention to the work of Dr. Andrew Wakefield, and the more recent research by Professor John O'Leary in Dublin. They looked at cases and examined the parents' story. They brought in parents who believe that their child changed on the day on which they had the MMR vaccine. They investigated whether there could be any truth in the parent's belief that having the MMR vaccine caused their child a problem. They examined 91 children whose parents all told the same story that their children had the MMR vaccine, developed an irritable bowel problem and then showed signs of regressive autism, which is such a dreadful thing to see in one's child. They found measles
204WH
virus in the gut of 75 of the 91 children whom they examined, as compared with a normal cohort of children in which only 6 per cent. had traces of measles virus left in their gut.
That does not prove anything, but it does give me, as a parent, cause for concern. The Minister and the medical establishment seem to have closed ears when it comes to that subject. They want to discredit Dr. Andrew Wakefield, who has been driven out of the Royal Free hospital and is now working in America. Other people have raised the same concerns, and we need to look at the matter.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: Before my hon. Friend concludes, will she consider scientific studies that have examined each hypothesis presented by Andrew Wakefield, and have found no evidence to support them? Will she consider the Finnish study, which is a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind study that provides no evidence to support his conclusions? Has she spoken to those on the Medical Research Council panel, as I have done in my constituency, who listened to Andrew Wakefield, but who found no evidence to support his hypotheses?
Miss Kirkbride: I am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friend in answering his concerns. Andrew Wakefield is not alone in raising the matter; doctors in America and Dublin have questioned whether there is a cause for concern. I have not spoken to the MRC panel, but I would be interested to hear my hon. Friend's remarks should he be lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am grateful that my hon. Friend raised the Finnish study, which looked at 1 million children and claimed that there was no link between MMR and autism. The problem is that it found not a single case of autism, which, in 1 million children, is statistically inconceivable. I am greatly concerned about the veracity of the study and its conclusions. The affliction of autism is so great in our society that to find not a single case is most unlikely; according to the most recent figures the incidence is six in 10,000, so there is likely to be a case of autism in 1 million children.
Another problem with the Government's statistics relates to the Japanese experience, which the Prime Minister raised on the Floor of the House. I am sad to say that when Ministers refer to such a case, it makes one wonder what they have to hide. The Japanese experience is wholly different from that portrayed by Ministers. Japan had a genuine problem with the mumps component—the urabe strain—of MMR, which was causing encephalitis and killing children. That rogue strain was not used elsewhere, so there is no comparison to be made with the strains of MMR used elsewhere in the world. The Japanese Government covered up the problem for a long time, and then introduced single vaccines having withdrawn the MMR vaccine. In those circumstances, it is hardly surprising that the Japanese public said that they would not accept any vaccine because they no longer trusted the Government.
The British Government say that Japan has single vaccinations, some 80-odd children have died of measles there, ergo single vaccines cause a problem for children

205WH
and are dangerous. That is a completely fallacious conclusion. Children are dying of measles in Japan because they are not being vaccinated at all, which has become part of the problem here. When Ministers use that example, I am concerned that they feel the need to misinterpret data. That causes great concern for all of us.
There is a case to be made for single vaccinations. I was grateful to learn a few weeks ago that the Government are to spend more money—an extra £2.5 million—on looking at the causes of autism. That money is welcome. Will the Minister clarify whether any of the money will be used to consider the findings of Dr. Andrew Wakefield and Professor John O'Leary, and to address the issue that is causing public concern? Speculation in the newspapers has been that the ostracism of Dr. Andrew Wakefield will not continue and that greater dialogue may be achieved between him and the Department of Health. That would be welcome, and would give parents less reason for concern.
I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify, openly and honestly, Government plans for the MMRV—measles, mumps, rubella and chicken pox—vaccine to be included in a quadruple jab. When I asked recently, I was told that there were no such plans, but I have seen newspaper speculation that scope may exist for introducing a quadruple jab. If we are to deal straight with parents, we should know whether the Department of Health genuinely has such plans. We need clarity and certainty about what is being considered and what has been ruled out.
Will the Minister comment on allegations in newspapers—I do not know whether they are true—that the reason for the removal of the availability of single vaccinations on the national health service and the introduction of the MMR jab was that the patent on single vaccines was running out? Does the same reason apply to the prospect of introducing MMRV, and the MMR patent? Is that why the new quadruple jab is being introduced? I hope that that is not true, but it has surfaced in newspapers so people would like clarification.
Another allegation that has surfaced in newspapers is that doctors are dropping children from their lists if parents refuse to let them have the MMR jab. Does the Minister have any reason to believe that? If it is true, can she clarify the attitude of the Department of Health towards such doctors, who would be behaving disgracefully by not allowing parents the right to choose what is best for their children?
Lynne Jones: Does the hon. Lady think that parents would conclude that separate jabs would be best for their children if equal prominence were given to the adverse effects associated with not having the triple vaccine as that given to the unquantified and probably unassociated effects of autism?
Miss Kirkbride: The hon. Lady makes a relevant point. However, hon. Members who disagree with me have a problem with the difference between the desirability of achieving wider public health goals and the inevitable feelings that parents have towards their children; they want to do the best for them, and are not
206WH
as worried about the wider public health consequences. That is the inevitable conclusion that most parents rationally reach.
Lynne Jones: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Miss Kirkbride: No. If parents believe that MMR is a problem, but do not have access to single vaccinations, they will make a choice between having MMR with its potential link to autism, or not having it and accepting that their child may get measles. The hon. Lady's experience may be different, but I had measles, as did my brother, sister, mother and father. We have all had it, and for most people the experience is not life-threatening. However, it is for some children, which is why the public health argument is more important. We need to protect those children who are likely to be damaged by measles, which is why we want more parents to give their children measles mumps and rubella vaccinations. However, when one considers one's own child, the considerations are slightly different from those surrounding the wider public health. Labour Members must bear in mind that difference in attitude.
I shall comment on the Prime Minister's refusal to say whether his young child has had the MMR vaccine. It was not an issue of privacy. All parents talk about whether their child is having the MMR vaccine; it is no big deal and much like asking which school a child will attend—it is part of the common currency of conversation between parents. It is also relevant to point out that when there was concern about the whooping cough vaccine, Prince Charles made it known that his children had had the DPT—diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus—vaccine to prevent whooping cough. The Queen also let it be known that Prince Charles and Princess Anne had had the polio vaccine when concern arose about that. The Prime Minister therefore stands somewhat accused of causing the problem.
If we are to believe the story in The Independent at the beginning of February, the Prime Minister had not given his child the MMR vaccine when I asked my question. That is surprising because children are called for vaccination after they are a year old; little Leo was a good 18 months, if not older, by that time. I do not believe that this is a privacy issue, and it is a shame that the Prime Minister sought to make it one. That has not helped his Government's policy on the matter. I know that the Minister and other hon. Members will accuse me of undermining public confidence, but such accusations are wrong and false. The Minister has undermined public confidence by not allowing public choice. Choice is fundamental to people's lives and they are entitled to have it.
We pay for the national health service. Research has left queries in some people's minds about MMR, and rightly or wrongly—we all hope that the research is wrong—they will be swayed by it. No amount of bullying by the Minister's Department and officials will make any difference to public attitude. People want choice and it is about time that the Government gave it them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is an important issue. We normally commence winding-up speeches

207WH
30 minutes before the end of the debate, which would mean that they would start at 12 noon. The three Front-Bench spokespeople have sent me semaphores by various means to say that they want 39 minutes in total. That means that, to get the official responses to a serious issue, it shall be very difficult to fit in everyone. At least six hon. Members indicate that they want to participate, some of who have not taken the trouble to inform the Chair beforehand, which makes it difficult for the Chair. I appeal to all hon. Members to bear in mind the paucity of the time available to us, make their points pertinent and clear and accept as few interventions as possible. So far, there have been far too many.
11.31 am
Peter Bradley: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall do my best to be brief. It is my susceptibility not to measles but to high blood pressure that has put me at risk in recent weeks. Nothing has enraged me more—the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) has done nothing to diminish my outrage—among what passes for news in this place than the so-called controversy about MMR.
What makes this issue different from others, and the reason that I am angry not just as a politician, a Government supporter and a Member of Parliament trying to represent the best interests of my constituents, but above all as a parent desperate to protect my children and those of others from killer diseases, is that this is a matter not so much about choice—as the hon. Lady suggested—as about public health. I believe that, in this important case, some elements of the press and some Opposition Members have lost sight of their responsibilities as shapers of public opinion and the public agenda. They ought to know, if they do not already, that their actions and words in this place and elsewhere have consequences. It is a shame that others might be asked to pay the price for their irresponsibility.
I understand parents' anxieties. We live in an age in which we demand certainty but cannot have it; in which we want to live risk-free lives but cannot do so; in which we expect definitive advice from the experts whom we then distrust, and against whom we reserve the right to litigate when they get it wrong; and in which we are too often unprepared to take decisions for ourselves, or to take responsibility for those decisions when we do. In such circumstances, it is crucial that information on life-and-death issues—that is what we are discussing—such as MMR should be objective, balanced and, far as possible, politics-free.
That has not been the case in the debate. In the face of overwhelming evidence that MMR is safe and that the alternatives are less so, some papers have sensationalised the largely refuted research of just one doctor, and some Opposition Members, I regret to say, have jumped on the bandwagon. Together, they have sought to make political capital out of a public health issue. By design or default, they have collectively undermined confidence in MMR, contributed to a reduction in its uptake and thereby placed children at risk from the diseases that MMR had all but eradicated since its introduction into this country in 1988. The Public Health Laboratory Service now warns of an epidemic among four-year-olds beginning school, as mine will be after Easter.
208WH
What are the facts? I shall abridge them because I am sure that others better qualified will spend more time on them in the debate, but 90 countries, 35 of them in Europe, pursue a policy of MMR vaccination. They include all members of the European Union, Australia, New Zealand and the United States, where some states do not accept admissions to schools of children who have not had MMR and other vaccinations. No country recommends three single vaccines in preference to MMR and 500 million doses have been issued since 1972.
The studies that have been referred to in the United Kingdom, the United States, Sweden and Finland have found no proven link between MMR and autism or Crohn's disease. The British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Community Practitioners and Health Visitors Association, the Faculty of Public Health Medicine, the Royal College of Midwives, Unison, Sense, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, the Public Health Laboratory Service, the Medicines Control Agency and the Department of Health have all advised that MMR is safe.
Where, then, did this controversy come from? There was no new research at the beginning of December, no new evidence to launch the story into the headlines. Someone in a newsroom on a slow day just decided to turn up the heat under a trusted old potboiler—this is not the first time that the controversy has hit the newspapers. There is nothing like a health scare story to bide the press over a slack couple of weeks, not least because, as the hon. Lady conceded, there is no certainty in science. We can spend days, if not weeks, wringing our hands and agonising over what is true and what is not true, what is fact and what is not fact, what is trustworthy advice and what is a conspiracy of silence.
I make one crucial point about press responsibility. It was not what was said about MMR that caused the problem. The fact that the issue had been raised at all precipitated the controversy and, inevitably, parents' anxiety. A Daily Mail headline on 13 December said, "High rate of autism increases fears about jab". There was no report of new evidence, new research or a new study but simply "fears about jab". No attempt was made to link MMR with autism or the identification of autism. Three days later, Lauren Booth, writing in the same newspaper, said that
"the weekly flood of speculation on the subject is making us wary",
thus adding her own bucketful. Nothing was substantiated. The celebrities and influential people to whom the hon. Lady referred—[Interruption].
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Peter Bradley: Some newspapers had an almost dismissive attitude to truth, facts and standards of objective reporting. The Sunday Telegraph on 9 December, referring to a Department of Health report not yet published, headlined its story, "Studies fail to disprove autism link to MMR jab". Three days later, the headline in its sister paper The Daily Telegraph was, "Autism and MMR link not proven, say experts". By that time, the damage was done.

209WH
We then had, as the hon. Lady mentioned, the case of Leo and the relentless crusade of the Daily Mail and other newspapers against an 18-month-old infant. It is as if all the medical evidence to which I have referred should be put aside and the only authority in this crucial public health issue be the man whom the Daily Mail most despises—the Prime Minister. On 23 December, Amanda Craig headlined her article in The Sunday Times, "Privacy be damned, Mr. Blair, parents are afraid."
Who is responsible for that fear and anxiety, and the risk under which they place parents and their children? I suggest that some elements of the press and some hon. Members search their consciences. There have been so many scoops about the incidence of Leo's jabs—the hon. Lady referred to some of them—that the poor child must feel like a pin cushion, if not a political football.
The press has not been the only example of the exercise of freedom without responsibility. The story has been politicised by the press and by some Opposition Members alike. I tabled an early-day motion on MMR on 13 February, which I hoped would be an all-party one. The first signatory was a Conservative, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor). I pay tribute to his courage because so far he is the only Conservative MP to have signed it.
On 30 December, the shadow Health Secretary said that
"all the evidence suggests that it"—
that is, MMR—
"is the safest thing to do."
Unfortunately, by 6 February, he found it expedient to say:
"In the circumstances, I think that reluctantly we have to accept that single jabs may be the only way of giving children protection",
irrespective of the evidence that we have about pertussis, about what happens when children do not have their jabs and about the difficulties of administering six jabs instead of two.
The hon. Member for Bromsgrove said much about choice, which is one of her party's favourite issues. The issue is not about choice but about public health. We have responsibilities to each other in our communities, and the issue goes beyond party political doctrine. We know the risks of single jabs, and we know that we must balance the relative risks of MMR, such as they may be, with the known risks of improper immunisation. Some influential people in the newspapers and in this place have exercised their choice, but they have put children at risk thereby. I deplore that and find it deeply depressing.
Mr. Graham Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Peter Bradley: No, I will not.
I shall finish with an anecdote. A researcher for one of the more influential Radio 4 news programmes phoned me not long ago and asked me to comment on a Standards and Privileges Committee report that I had not seen—nor had the researcher—about my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz). When I declined, the researcher asked me whether I knew of anyone who "hated Keith Vaz" and who would comment. The question was chillingly but refreshingly
210WH
frank, in an ironic way. I then said that I thought I had been phoned about the early-day motion on MMR that I had tabled the day before, and the researcher said that that was yesterday's story. Yesterday's story—until the next time that it is convenient to raise a scare in the media and in this place. I sincerely hope that we can find a way of immunising ourselves against a recklessly irresponsible press and a cynically opportunist Opposition.
11.42 am
Mr. Andrew Lansley: I shall be briefer than the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley). I should hate to be seen as sharing any of his views. I shall make my own arguments and not share any of his, which will ring hollow with the pharmaceutical industry, given the occasions on which he has attacked it.
I understand the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride). However, I have considerable concern about one of them. I believe that previously she had not argued against the effectiveness of the MMR vaccine but had accepted that it was effective for its purpose. I am glad to see that she is nodding, because I would like to put that question to one side. The vaccine is effective: one has only to consider the reduction in measles, mumps and rubella in the population as a consequence of the introduction of the vaccine in 1998 to agree that it is effective for its purpose. The question that all hon. Members and I wrestle with is, what should be our response to concerns that are expressed by parents in our constituencies? What response should we give, not as scientists but as Members of Parliament?
I come from a constituency in which the worth of science is taken to heart, and I have the opportunity to speak to people in my own constituency who have undertaken research in precisely the area that we are discussing. I am convinced that the situation is not like others in which people have doubted the value of science. If one includes the word "Government" as an adjective to describe the scientists, it is even worse. Government scientists and medical advisers are not operating on the basis of supposition or presenting a hypothesis about the effectiveness of MMR or even a hypothesis about the lack of a link between MMR, inflammatory bowel disease and autism. They are working on the basis of substantiated trials and research that sought specifically to identify such a link but did not find one. As such, my conclusion is that a responsible public policy would proceed with, and sustain, MMR as a safe vaccine without proven side effects that question its safety.
The issue that the Government must contend with—perhaps the Minister might consider this briefly, even if he does not refer to it in detail—is that there must come a point at which parents' concerns about MMR reduce compliance with it to the extent that it is not a viable policy. I do not think that we have reached that point in my area, and I shall certainly continue to do everything that I can to sustain the take-up of MMR.
However, the hon. Member for The Wrekin is wrong: the issue is raised with me, as a Member of Parliament, expressly on the basis of choice. Although the great majority are opting for MMR, a small number of

211WH
parents exercise their choice—privately, at present—to opt for the single vaccine. In effect, their children are protected in the intervals between vaccines by the herd immunity that is the result of parents opting for MMR.
That raises a serious issue. How ethical is one's choice if others, by virtue of the choices that they make, provide protection for one's children? The Government would move to difficult ground if they were to decide that, as a matter of public policy, we should make choice available. Such choice may mean that some people gain protection because of the right choices of others or, alternatively, it may lead to a much worse public health outcome. It has been clearly proven many times around the world—it is not a matter of patronising people—that asking parents to comply with six rather than two inoculations for three separate diseases leads to lower compliance than has been the case with the MMR.
There must come a point at which it would be right to make the single vaccine available, but we have not yet reached it. It is responsible of the Government to sustain MMR, and it is responsible of me, as a Member of Parliament, to encourage parents in my constituency to accept it. It is incumbent on all of us to debate these concerns; however, if science points to a conclusive position in support of the MMR vaccine, we have a responsibility to reflect that in what we say and do.
11.47 am
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I will also try to be brief. I believe that I can safely say that, during my work for the all-party parliamentary group on autism, I have met, and discussed the issue with, all the leading experts in this country, corresponded with many of the leading experts around the world, read the vast majority of the research on the subject and given the matter considerable thought. We are not dealing with an open-and-shut case. I would not pretend for one second that we are, because that is not the nature of science. However, I could take hon. Members through the list of evidence that indicates that MMR is the right policy but, as it would probably take much longer than a one-and-a-half-hour Adjournment debate to do so, I shall touch briefly on only a few studies, ones at which hon. Members who have raised the question should take a long, hard look.
One is the Finnish study, rightly challenged by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride). It is only a small piece of the picture, but it provides strong evidence that MMR is safe. There are other studies, such as the one by James Kaye, which was reported in the British Medical Journal last year. It included a time trend analysis that looked for a correlation between the increase in autism and immunisation rates. It found that the levels of autism increased four times in the population during a period when the levels of immunisation with MMR were constant; there was no correlation between MMR and autism. In 1999, The Lancet published a study by Brent Taylor et al, which showed no evidence of temporal clustering in the north-east Thames region.
Each study in itself is not a complete answer. They are not proof positive, but they comprise very strong evidence supporting the case for MMR. Each can be
212WH
taken apart by those campaigning against MMR because such people fundamentally misunderstand the process of science.
The process of science is to set up a hypothesis and test it. It is like building a big jigsaw puzzle: one has a small piece of the jigsaw in the corner and tries to find another piece that will fit. The question that one tries to answer is whether the pieces fit together. Sometimes the answer is yes, sometimes it is no. One cannot predict the shape of the next piece, the piece after that, or the full picture, simply because the answer is occasionally yes. Each study is only a small part of the total package. One cannot criticise individual studies for not being a total answer to the question.
I bring the attention of Opposition Members to two types of study that have produced strong evidence against MMR being the causal agent for most cases of autism. Research was carried out on thalidomide, examining the relationship between thalidomide damage and autism. A strong correlation was shown during the tragic experience of thalidomide. We know that thalidomide acted in the first three months of embryological development. There is strong circumstantial evidence that whatever causes autism happens during those first three months.
Other scientists have been looking for metabolic markers of autism. In the United States, several scientists believe that they have identified potential chemical markers that are present in babies shortly after birth and are a strong indication that that baby is going to develop autism later in life. Those scientists have described the chemical markers as the smoking gun that points to the development of autism. If the chemical markers are there immediately after birth, that child will have autism. Nothing will happen later in that child's life to trigger autism: he or she already has it, but it will take time to develop.
Those are important parts of the total evidence, but no one part is the complete picture. I acknowledge that, based on the evidence of Wakefield and others, a very, very small sub-group of children may get autism as a result of MMR. That cannot be disproved, but it is a long way from being proven. That sub-group consists of a tiny proportion, which did not show up even in the large studies that have been undertaken.
Ms Drown: Will my hon. Friend clarify whether it is the measles component or the MMR that is responsible for the effect on that group?
Dr. Ladyman: Based on Andrew Wakefield's research, if the effect is there at all, it is caused by the measles component. There is no reason to say that a measles vaccination would be any more or less safe than MMR.
However, Andrew Wakefield's research can be explained by other means. The findings of measles virus markers can be explained in some children on the basis of the immunological memory that one would expect immunised children to have. I can tell the hon. Member for Bromsgrove that many of Andrew Wakefield's co-workers do not agree that there is a link with MMR. I have discussed that with them, and they believe that there are other, equally valid, explanations for his findings, distinct from the one the hon. Lady advances.

213WH
Even if we accepted that there was, in a small number of cases, a risk of a link between MMR and autism, I put to the hon. Lady the argument of herd immunity. Herd immunity is, as she knows, the phenomenon whereby one creates resistance to an epidemic throughout a whole community. If an infectious agent of a disease passes it on to another person who is susceptible to that disease, the level of the infection in the community is maintained. If the disease is passed on to more than one person, the level of infection increases towards epidemic proportions. If a high proportion of people are immunised against a disease, the whole population is partially protected. The 10 per cent. of the child population who have an injection but do not develop immunity are protected by herd immunity. When the hon. Member for Bromsgrove makes the choice not to immunise her child, she does not make it just for herself, but for my child also. She is taking away my choice in the matter: my child will lose herd immunity because she made a personal choice. [Interruption.] I shall not give way: the Deputy Speaker has ordered against it.
There is no such thing as choice in matters of public health. Whether we like it or not, we have to weigh the balance of the risks, consider the evidence and take a public health decision for the whole population. On that basis, I say that the Government have struck the right balance and made the right decision. It is inappropriate for the hon. Lady to suggest that we would maintain herd immunity with a single choice immunisation programme. She still questions my analysis, but most parents of boys do not believe that they need the rubella injection, so boys would not receive it under a single choice system. Most parents of daughters do not believe that they need the mumps injection, so girls would not receive it under a single choice system. In both cases, we would lose herd immunity if the single vaccination approach were adopted.
We have the experience of the pertussis events, where we exchanged a multiple injection for a single choice system. We found that the level of immunisation went from 80 to 30 per cent. That is the reality we shall have to deal with if we adopt single vaccines. We would lose herd immunity, and the hon. Member for Bromsgrove, by making a choice for her child, would damage the children of everybody else in this country.
11.56 am
Dr. Evan Harris: Let me start by saying that I do not think that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) is being irresponsible. If she were open-minded, that would be a responsible attitude: I hope that she is. I do not think one should blame Back-Bench politicians for raising concerns on behalf of themselves and their constituents. That is, after all, what this place is for. It is more consistent for her to express doubts about the safety or effectiveness of MMR than for people to profess that they have no doubts about the safety of MMR and call for single vaccination. Conservative Front Benchers have done that, despite knowing that the evidence suggests that that would damage public health. There are people in my party, whom I respect, who take the view of the hon. Lady. I do not think that her scepticism about MMR is unique to her party, but the position of Conservative Front Benchers is harder to sustain.
214WH
Our approach is based on several principles. We believe in sceptical scrutiny of the Government. I am dubious about almost all Government policies, including those in the arena of public health. They have failed on tobacco advertising and delayed and dallied on sexual health strategy. However, after careful scrutiny, we are prepared to back the Government's policy on childhood vaccinations. An approach that we commend to other parties is one of evidence-based policy making. It is hard for an Opposition party to sustain a position that Government should take a view contrary to that recommended by its expert medical and scientific advice. The Conservative party has to defend its view.
One must avoid bandwagon politics while being sensitive to parental concerns, which Conservative Front Benchers have not managed. I recognise that there are genuine parental concerns: I have never told any of my concerned constituents to have the MMR because I say so. I have always told them to talk to their GPs: it is more sensible for people to have a discussion with a doctor or health care professional than with a newspaper editor or a politician. We must be realistic about media behaviour. I agree in broad terms with the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley). Sadly, a story titled "MMR Proved Safe" would merit fewer column inches than "Health Scare on Immunisation". We therefore have to be careful about that.
On reading the evidence—I initially considered it with scepticism—my position is that MMR is safe and the most effective way to protect children from serious diseases. I criticise those who take a different view on some of the issues for being blasé about those diseases. Dr. Carol Vorderman, whom I had previously respected and, dare I say, admired, stated in The Independent that the vaccination
"was introduced only 10 years ago; what happened before? We didn't all die—we had a mumps inoculation, rubella and you just got the measles."
Dead children do not tell anecdotes. Such an approach is highly irresponsible for someone who is perceived to be an oracle on scientific issues, however rightly or wrongly.
The hon. Member for Bromsgrove said that we were concerned about such a full-frontal attack on the immune system, and that we knew or suspected that toxins in the brain were responsible for autism. I would be interested to know whom she meant by "we". Such an approach, with a pseudo-scientific justification for genuine concerns, takes people down an unhelpful avenue. It is almost certain to be a blind avenue unless the approach is based on scientific evidence. It does a disservice to autism, which is a devastating illness that is worrying in its incidence and prevalence. I am concerned that the focus on MMR will detract from other more fruitful and long overdue research into the disease.
Issues have been raised about general practitioners suspending patients from their lists to achieve immunisation targets. Will the Minister now abandon the immunisation target payments for GPs? They corrupt the system, are a conspiracy theorist's paradise and pollute the doctor-patient relationship. How can one have an open approach—how can patients believe that they are to be given independent advice from their GPs—when the spectre of financial incentive hangs over consultations? The Government did not introduce the policy, and they would do well to remove it.

215WH
Similarly, it is wholly unacceptable for GPs to remove or suspend patients from their lists to gain immunisation target payments. While those payments exist, there will always be worry about that. I urge the General Medical Council and primary care trusts, the bodies that control the conduct and contracts of GPs, to clamp down severely on any suggestion that even temporary suspensions with no treatment implications have taken place to remove patients from lists.
It is appropriate to speak about the Prime Minister and his son. I have absolute sympathy with Leo Blair and limited sympathy with the Prime Minister. Politicians must be careful about parading their children in any circumstances and then claiming privacy. I urge all hon. Members to withdraw the subject of their children from the debate, and to stick to the facts and their opinions. Where would it end if practice in relation to our children were to become important in terms of the subject of public health? If there were a contraceptive pill scare, would people be asked what their spouses or young daughters used? I do not think that we want to go down such a path, and I cannot see the ethical difference between the two subjects.
Dr. Andrew Murrison: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that he is being a little hysterical, and that it is incumbent on the Prime Minister to show leadership in this country, as abroad? Had the Prime Minister done so on whether his son had been immunised, we might not face a measles epidemic on the scale that we do.
Dr. Harris: I asked people who are concerned about MMR whether their views would change if they knew that Leo Blair had had the vaccination, and the answer was that they would not. A change is worth making only if it will change one's practice, as I learned from my work in medicine. There is a fatal flaw. When Leo Blair was rumoured to have been vaccinated, the shadow Health Secretary said:
"If the reports are true, it is an astonishingly cynical move designed to deflect criticism from the Government's abject failure of policy".
In some people's eyes, it seems that the Prime Minister cannot win.
The Government have some difficulty on single vaccines and choice, but my view on the subject echoes that of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). They are right to accept that if MMR is the safest and most effective way to protect people from serious diseases in childhood, it is not appropriate to offer on the national health service something that is known to be less effective and could be less safe. Would that be appropriate in the name of choice? I hope that the NHS does not generally offer treatments that we know are dangerous to children simply because patients want the choice. Indeed, we should not offer a treatment that we know is in the worst interests of patients simply because they want it, and there is no ethical duty to do so.
If one knows that the rates of coverage will drop below their already low rates if the policy is changed, one also knows that it will mean more outbreaks of
216WH
serious diseases and more deaths. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove did not have an answer on that. A change in Government policy would make that likely because there would be a loss of confidence in vaccination in general. People who would currently use MMR would abandon vaccination altogether.
Mr. Bill Wiggin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Harris: In a moment.
When I suggested that to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove, she said that the situation was hypothetical. Her whole case is predicated merely on the hypothesis of a link between MMR and autism. At best, it seems inconsistent for her to refuse to engage with hypothetical questions when challenged.
The hon. Lady said that one could not apply the lessons of one vaccination to another when I pointed out that coverage fell by a further 30 per cent. when single vaccinations were offered during a whooping cough scare, and that there were thousands of cases and more than 70 deaths from the disease. However, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) stated in a Conservative press release on 3 March 2001:
"It is therefore vital that we apply the conclusions drawn from the meningitis campaign to boost our MMR programme before unnecessary tragedies occur".
Many of the hon. Lady's colleagues do not seem to be unwilling to accept my proposition.
Mr. Wiggin: I was concerned by the hon. Gentleman's comment that coverage had already fallen. In my constituency in Herefordshire, there has been a 6 per cent. fall in coverage, from 93 to 87 per cent. We are debating not whether MMR is good or bad, but whether we can give people a choice. While coverage continues to fall, lives will be put at risk.
Dr. Harris: That is a fair point, and one that I can answer. The lessons of history advise us that to switch to something that the Government know to be less effective and possibly less safe—there is less evidence of its safety—would make levels fall further. That would expose more children. It would affect not only the children of parents who would currently give their children MMR, as they would lose faith and not vaccinate, but put at risk the babies of parents who still supported MMR but whose children were too young to be vaccinated.
I would not go so far as the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), who said that there was no free choice in public health. It is more reasonable to say that there are limits on choice in public health, and that we should strike a balance. Those on the Conservative Front Bench must explain how the Opposition can be the first in history to urge the Government not only to ignore all their medical and scientific advice, but also to go against it. If the then Government had done so on BSE, we would be in an even worse situation than we are in relation to that disease.
12.8 pm
Tim Loughton: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) on raising the subject,

217WH
which is topical and heated, as she said. The strength of feeling is clear from the number of hon. Members present. She is well known for her personal interest in the subject, as a Back Bencher representing her constituents and as a mother of young children. I disagreed with some of her points, although I respected her for making many of them and agreed with many others. She is right to say that the key issue is one of public confidence, or rather lack of it, and specifically diminishing public confidence in the immunisation programme.
We are short of time today because the Government have not had a debate on MMR in their own time. If they are keen to reassure people, perhaps they should give up some of their own time rather than dealing with the matter at the fag-end of a debate initiated by a private Member.
The comments made by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) were, as usual, extraordinary. I am sure that the Government will be enormously relieved that the Liberals are supporting them on MMR, although, apparently, half the hon. Gentleman's party are not—but that is the usual situation. This is nothing to do with bandwagons. There has been more jumping on bandwagons in Liberal party circles than at the OK corral. It is a matter of public confidence and that is what we should be concerned with. We are all concerned with our children's health and we have a dual responsibility both as parents and as representatives of our constituents.
Let me repeat that the Conservative party remains absolutely confident that MMR is the safest form of vaccination available. It is not 100 per cent. safe—nothing is—but we think that it is the most effective way of vaccinating and protecting our children. However, we are not the ones who need convincing. People have lost confidence and in parts of London, in particular, the vaccination rates have fallen below 70 per cent.
I ask the Minister to give us the latest, up-to-date figures. She keeps telling us that the figure is only 84, 85 or 86 per cent. In a written answer to me yesterday she was unable to give the last quarter figures for 2001. The Government are basing their pronouncements on last September's figures, and a lot has happened since then.
I welcome the study performed by the Royal Free and University College medical school in London, with the Public Health Laboratory Service, which has been publicised by the British Medical Journal. The study followed 473 children with autism born between 1979 and 1998 and found that the proportion who showed decline in intellectual performance at the onset of autism was no higher after the introduction of MMR in 1988 than before. The study concluded:
"These findings provide no support for an MMR associated "new variant" form of autism with developmental regression and bowel problems, and further evidence against involvement of MMR vaccine in the initiation of autism."
As hon. Members have said, the royal colleges, GP organisations and all the other major medical bodies have given their vote of confidence to MMR. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), in a very intelligent and useful contribution, mentioned the Finnish study, which started in 1982. Finland is the only country in the world to be documented as free of indigenous measles, mumps
218WH
and rubella. The United States has been giving MMR vaccines since 1972 and before MMR was introduced in this country in 1988 some 30 different studies took place.
I welcome the extra £2.5 million going into autism research. I speak as vice-chairman of the all-party group on autism, of which the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) is chairman. He made some interesting comments about chemical markers that may affect the onset of autism before birth. However, we do not know for sure, and the public are increasingly sceptical about pronouncements from Ministers and from medical officers acting under instructions from Ministers. The vaccination rate has been falling and continues to fall.
This debate is about choice. The choice between MMR and no vaccine at all is not a choice. It is certainly not a choice that I recommend to any of my constituents, because measles is not a soft option—it is a killer. Getting rubella during pregnancy can lead to deafness, blindness and heart defects. We need more publicity about the deadly effects of catching those diseases, as well as mumps. The lack of confidence has been growing for months.
The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) thinks that the Conservatives, in cahoots with Lauren Booth, the sister-in-law of the Prime Minister, have cooked up the controversy, as if people had not lost confidence until the Conservatives and Lauren Booth started saying things. Coming from a Labour Member, the suggestion that the Conservatives are using Leo as a political football really takes the biscuit.
For all those reasons my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), the shadow Secretary of State for Health, took the right decision earlier this month in saying that, because of the alarming fall in vaccination rates, the Government should now make the choice of single jabs available to those parents who refused MMR for their children.
Ms Drown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Tim Loughton: I do not have time to give way—I was very generous in giving way in a previous debate.
People have been losing confidence. We have all heard anecdotes. We have all been rung up by constituents who say that they are scared stiff about the prospect of MMR. One of my constituents—Mrs. Lewis from Worthing—was quoted in the local paper two weeks ago. She said:
"I think parents should be given the choice".
Her older children were vaccinated 10 years ago. She went on to say:
"At the time, we were just told the vaccines had been combined. As mums we thought it was great because we didn't have to put our kids through three injections. But there has been a lot of data since then."
She criticised the lack of information available to parents about MMR and the possible side effects, and went on to say:
"There will be some parents who don't have their children vaccinated but the majority of parents—99.9 per cent. of parents—just want their kids immunised. That's the most important thing."

219WH
The bottom line is that, if the rate of vaccination falls across the country from the 95 per cent. required to 70 per cent., as it has in parts of London, that could leave 148,000 children without immunisation, out of a total of 591,000. That would have the makings of a grave epidemic. The loss of confidence is desperate. The Minister herself said a week ago in The Guardian:
"The public no longer accepts Government reassurances about health risks."
She is dead right and she must take some of the blame for that. A poll conducted by ICM for The Guardian two weeks ago showed that 75 per cent. of people want the Government to provide free separate jabs. Only 73 per cent. of those with young children would choose MMR and 19 per cent. were so worried that they were prepared to pay for separate injections themselves. Only 20 per cent. said that they trust advice from politicians and officials "a lot". Some 47 per cent. trust such advice "a little" and 30 per cent. disregard it altogether. Unsurprisingly, only 6 per cent. trust "a lot" what journalists have to say, so the Government cannot pin all the blame on what people read in the papers.
A poll published in The Telegraph on 9 February said that four out of 10 parents with small children—this is contrary to the claims of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon—said that the Prime Minister's equivocation about his son's treatment had dented their confidence in MMR. What has been the Government's response? Apparently, they are going to launch an advertising campaign. We would like to see the evidence of its effectiveness, because Roger Hayward, the chairman of the Public Relations Standards Council, warned that such a campaign could backfire. He told the "Today" programme:
"The public are very canny and they know that anyone who is advertising on an issue as significant as this is really admitting, `I'm sorry, we can't convince the journalists, so we are going over their heads to try to reach you directly.'"
There are several important questions with which I hope the Minister will deal. People are choosing single jabs for their children and the Government are doing nothing about monitoring the effectiveness or the regulation of those jabs. One in 70 of the licences for vaccines being imported from France is for a single jab—a ten-fold increase on the previous year, according to the Medicines Control Agency. However, in a written answer to me yesterday the Government revealed that they have no idea how many people are having single jabs.
The Government need to do some research. Are they monitoring who is giving those jabs? A private clinic in Lincolnshire said that it received 10,000 calls a day inquiring about single jabs. Are the Government monitoring charges? We are now hearing stories of people paying anything from £240 to £560 for a set of three single jabs in different parts of the country. Such people are voting with their feet and paying out of their own pocket because they do not trust the advice that the Government have been giving. Are we monitoring those health authorities taking action against individual GPs who want to give single jabs?
220WH
I have also been told that the waiting time for single jabs is going up because of the lack of vaccines. Those are all questions that the Government cannot ignore, because many thousands of parents are opting for that course of action because, for them, MMR or nothing is not a choice. That is what the debate is about.
It was irresponsible of the chief medical officer to say that taking a single jab was like playing Russian roulette. That undermines enormously the confidence of those many thousands of parents who have taken the desperate action of getting single jabs for their children. The debate is not about the Prime Minister and the Government proving that they are right and that the wicked Tories are wrong. It is about treating the genuine fears of ordinary parents with respect and giving them a choice rather than no choice. Concerned parents have now been added to the ranks of "wreckers". However much the Minister may disagree with them, they have genuine fears and are exercising their power to opt out if they see fit. The Government urgently need to restore confidence; until they can take every step to increase coverage, they should offer choice.
12.20 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) on securing this debate. MMR is an extremely important issue which affects the lives of our children even before they are born, and I know that she feels strongly about it. However, I deeply regret the climate in which the debate is taking place and the opportunism that has been shown by some Opposition Members in discussing something that is so important to our children's health.
In the limited time available, I want to deal as fully as possible with the serious issues that have been raised: the safety of MMR, the worth of separate vaccines and the question whether government policy should change.
Concern has been raised about whether MMR causes autism. As my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) has said, it is used in 90 countries. It is recommended not only by the Government, but also by a series of independent bodies including the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of General Practitioners and many of their counterparts in other countries, as well as the World Health Organisation and independent bodies around the world. In this country, the Committee on Safety of Medicines and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation have reviewed all the evidence concerning autism. The Medical Research Council has now reviewed MMR, bowel disease and autism three times. All the organisations that I have mentioned have stated their full support for the present policy and for the overwhelming conclusion that there is no link between MMR and autism.
In the United States, the American Academy of Paediatrics and the Institute of Medicine have also undertaken huge reviews of MMR and have come to the same conclusions. All the expert bodies have been very clear and their advice has been strong: plenty of evidence shows that there is no link between MMR and autism and we should continue with a programme offering MMR, not separate vaccines.

221WH
My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) gave examples of evidence. I should like to highlight further examples of the research that medical experts tell us is so important. For a start, a study of all children in the North Thames area found no impact on levels of autism when MMR was introduced. In 1988–89, most under-fives were vaccinated with the MMR jab. Before 1988 there was no MMR jab; after, it was almost universal. Was there a step increase in autism? No, there was not. No impact on the level of autism could be found, because it had been increasing before 1988, and it continued to do so after 1988. Other studies, both here and abroad, have found similar things.
In addition, there is evidence of regressive autism not having been affected by the introduction of MMR in 1988. Many individual cases have been studied. In 1998, the Committee on Safety of Medicines set up an independent group of experts to examine 110 cases, looking at reports from the families, the GPs, and the specialists looking after the children whose parents feared that their autism might have been brought on by MMR. The written records of nearly 40 per cent. of the children showed that health professionals had already had concerns about their development before they had MMR and nothing in those detailed investigations implicated the MMR vaccine.
The hon. Member for Bromsgrove raised the issue of Dr. Wakefield's research and the recent research statements that he has made. Independent experts have serious doubts about the validity of Dr. Wakefield's methods and his results, as well as about the design of the study. For example, Dr. Bellini, head of the measles laboratory at the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta in the United States, said that there was
"gross overstatement of the results and impossibility of interpretation of their findings."
None of the research by Dr. Wakefield implicates MMR. The latest study does not even mention whether the children studied had had an MMR jab, a single measles jab or any jab at all—or had had measles.
On Radio 5 earlier this month, Dr. Wakefield said that some of the children in his study had had the single vaccine and that the virus was present there. That is one of the key issues that the chief medical officer raised in his letter to Dr. Wakefield, in order to try to ensure that the statements made receive proper academic and public scrutiny. The evidence on MMR is clear. Experts advise us that there is plenty of research that finds no link between MMR and autism.
The hon. Member for Bromsgrove is pushing the view that single jabs are somehow less risky and represent a precautionary approach. All parents want to do what is safest for their children; they want to take the fewest risks. There is no evidence that single jabs are less risky or less likely to cause autism or anything else. Parents have been misled.
Mr. George Osborne: If a parent decides, however irrationally, not to give his child the MMR vaccine, would the Minister recommend that that parent arrange for the child to have three vaccinations or for it to have none at all, leaving the child unprotected?
Yvette Cooper: The clear recommendation of all medical experts in the field is that parents should arrange for the MMR jab. Parents are being misled by statements like that made by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove, about the protection afforded by single jabs, and are led to believe that the single jabs are somehow less risky. That has arisen due to the hon. Lady's confusion over technicalities, which I shall be happy to write to her about. However, she is wrong and is misleading parents as a result. There is extensive evidence about the problems and the risks that would be posed by introducing single vaccines on the NHS.
Andrew Selous: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Yvette Cooper: No, I do not have time. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) clearly stated the problems involved in introducing six separate vaccines. Recent research in Chester has suggested that two thirds of children currently going for separate jabs do not complete their courses. The advice that we have received is clear: coverage would fall if we introduced separate jabs, not only because people would be less likely to complete the course but because children would be unprotected between injections—Dr. Wakefield recommended having a year between them—and because of the impact on confidence of introducing separate jabs.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon mentioned the impact of introducing separate jabs for whooping cough in response to similar anxieties. That led to substantially lower coverage and lower coverage of all other vaccines also. In that case, many thousands were admitted to hospital and around 100 died. The clear conclusion from the medical experts is that introducing separate jabs would make things worse. It would lead to lower coverage than at present, not higher, and would leave many more children exposed to deadly diseases. That would mean more cases of measles and of mumps, more pregnant women exposed to rubella and, ultimately, more children dying as a result.
I do not see how any Government could responsibly listen to all that medical advice—knowing that if we introduced separate jabs we would put the health and lives of more children at risk—and choose to ignore it because it was politically easy to do. Of course it is politically the easy thing to do, but it is morally the wrong thing to do. The advice to us is clear. I do not see how we could look those parents in the face, either. Parents are deeply concerned because they want to do the right thing for their children. Opposition Members are asking us to implement a policy that would put children across the country at risk. What do they say to the royal colleges, to the nation's top children's doctors, to all the medical experts who have told us that that would put the lives of more children at risk? It would be deeply irresponsible to do so. Those on the official Opposition Front Bench hide behind all kinds of weasel words, saying that they have only just called for single jabs and that that is only because the levels of coverage are falling.

223WH
Last year, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said that his party would introduce separate jabs if coverage did not rise. At the time, a parent said, "Well, I saw that Conservative on telly saying that we should have single jabs. He's a doctor; he should know." Yes, he should know. He should know better and he should listen to the medical experts and medical bodies that are advising us that to do that would put children's lives at risk. Parents want information. They have a right to information and they want their questions answered. We must find more ways to give them answers to their questions. We do not want to put their children's lives at risk.

Redundancies (Receivership)
12.30 pm
Mr. David Miliband: Judging by the number of hon. Members who were in the Chamber, I thought that there had been a sudden outbreak of interest in the position of workers who are sacked by companies in receivership. I am sorry to see Opposition Members leaving the debate.
The Government committed themselves in their 1997 manifesto to significant measures to ensure fair treatment at work. I am delighted that, since then, those aspirations have become legislation on the minimum wage, the rights of trade union recognition and more rights for part-time workers. Those measures are an important down payment on our vision of economic renewal that is based on partnership at work.
By contrast, today's debate focuses on a group of workers for whom the burden of insecurity and risk remains unfair. I am talking about employees who are sacked by companies in receivership. I want to stand up—as do my hon. Friends—for that group of workers, draw out the Government's thinking on such an important matter and find out how such an injustice can be remedied. For reasons that I shall explain, 350 sacked workers in south Tyneside have a particular interest in the debate. They are looking to the Government for help. Their cause is just and I look forward to the Minister's comments.
In September last year, 1,150 people producing printed circuit boards for a parent company called ViaSystems Ltd., based in the United States, were told that the company that employed them had gone into receivership. A second plant located north of the river Tyne was closed. The announcement raised a host of difficult issues, not least those concerning the good faith of the parent company and its use of public funds. But that is not my main interest today. The debate is about the human misery that arises from a loophole in the law as it affects sacked workers.
For 11 weeks after the receivership was announced, there followed a tense—not to say hair-raising—period of intensive activity to save the South Shields plant. I am delighted that the management buyout team was given outstanding support by public bodies in the region and, ultimately, by Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry. The employees are highly skilled and the plant had been the subject of enormous investment, which made a new start possible. In early December, I was privileged to help launch a new company, Circatex, with the chief executive, Charles Brooks. We are hopeful that it will become Europe's leading PCB manufacturer.

However, we learn that with every silver lining comes a cloud. Within days of the announcement of the receivership in September, 350 workers had been sacked. They included people such as Selby Armstrong, a chemist with 33 years' service at the plant; Susan Feasey, a production worker with 21 years' service; Marjorie Joseph, a printer with 26 years' service, and Val Smith, a supervisor with 33 years' service. Although the launch of Circatex saved 800 jobs, I am sorry that it could not get their jobs back for them.
I do not need to explain to the Minister what it means to people to lose their jobs in an area of high unemployment. They were committed workers with

225WH
precious manufacturing jobs, who had years of service and genuine skills. Expert and active support from the Employment Service has ensured that about 120 of the sacked workers have now found alternative employment, but for all the workers concerned, the original redundancy announcements were only the beginning of a longer nightmare. Most importantly, key rights—above all, to redundancy pay—lost the vast bulk of their worth.
The legal position for workers in companies that go into receivership is complex. I shall outline it briefly. Payments owed under employees' contracts are treated as unsecured claims. The Insolvency Act 1986 gives employees some preference in the restoration of those claims for back pay up to £800 and for holiday pay, but redundancy pay has never been given that degree of preference, so many employees are left with redundancy entitlements that are not worth the paper on which they are written.
Mr. Bob Blizzard: I wish to bring to my hon. Friend's attention an example from my constituency that supports his argument. I refer to Zephyr Cams, a company in Lowestoft. Its 100 employees knew from the accounts department that any income that the company received was transferred immediately from it. They watched while bailiffs removed machines from its factory to pay off debts. When the company eventually went into receivership, the employees were owed wages and redundancy payments. To their horror, they found that the American owner of the company, Mr. Kenny Joseph, had taken the same action with companies in Weston-super-Mare and has now transferred the assets of Zephyr Cams to a company up the road.
Mr. Miliband: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that example to my attention. I do not know the details of the case to which he referred, but it seems that sacked workers in his constituency have been left with worthless redundancy and contractual entitlements.
The Redundancy Payments Act 1965 tried to plug the gap. Under the Act, the Government offer a safety net for employees. In respect of a maximum of 20 years' service, ex-employees are now entitled to a maximum of £240 for each year worked between the ages of 22 and 40, and £360 for each year worked between 41 and 64. The maximum statutory redundancy payment is £7,200. Thanks to the Employment Relations Act 1999, that figure is uprated annually in line with inflation.
However, the tattered nature of that safety net becomes evident when we consider the contracts that the ex-employees at ViaSystems had signed. The contracts of the most experienced workers, which dated back to when the site was owned by Plessey, guaranteed them four weeks' pay for each year worked. So, instead of my constituents receiving £7,200 from the Government, they should have been entitled to much more. According to his contract, Mr. Armstrong was entitled to £46,000 in redundancy pay, but he received £7,200. Susan Feasey could have expected £25,000, but received £6,500. Marjorie Joseph has lost out to the tune of £32,000 and Val Smith has lost £51,000. That toll of misery goes way beyond the trauma of life without work. It puts at risk a life's work.
226WH
I know of a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) who, according to his contract, should have received £170,000 in redundancy pay for a career of service. He received £7,200 instead.
Mr. Stephen Hepburn: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Miliband) on securing this important debate. It is noticeable that the Tories and Liberal Democrats are not present and I hope that that fact is remembered. I pay my hon. Friend specific tribute for saving hundreds of jobs by launching the firm that has taken over ViaSystems. He should be praised for his great work. I am sure that he agrees that we should applaud the attitude of the work force he represents. They have endured injustice, but they bear no animosity. We have a Government who listen. We have seen that happen in cases that involved miners and in asbestosis cases. My hon. Friend will agree that the Government must listen to the redundant workers.
Mr. Miliband: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. By any standards, what has happened in south Tyneside—an area that covers both our constituencies—is worse than rough justice. Our constituents feel let down by the system. They feel battered through no fault of their own. They have paid into the national insurance fund, but then found that the insurance policy had holes in it. Now they want reform.
We must discuss two aspects of reform: first, the legal position and, secondly, the safety net. The Government recognised some of the legal dilemmas in their White Paper on insolvency entitled "Productivity and Enterprise—Insolvency: A Second Chance", which was published last year. It highlighted the sole accountability of the administrative receiver to its appointer and the desirability of creating a system under which all creditors have a duty owed to them. The White Paper also signalled a willingness to follow Germany and Austria in abolishing Crown preference—to the benefit of unsecured creditors.
However, the White Paper did not consider workers who expected redundancy pay. I hope that the Minister will set out today the Government's thinking on how to treat redundancy pay in the future. Why should it not have the same preferential status as back pay? It is anomalous that employees' rights to redundancy pay are stuck at the back of the queue while holiday entitlements are paid. It is a matter of fairness in the division of spoils from failed companies. I do not envisage public spending implications, and I believe that justice should prevail.
A second aspect goes beyond the legal position. It relates to the operation of the Government redundancy scheme. The latest Library figures, which relate to 1999, suggest a net outlay of some £150 million on the scheme—£170 million paid out, and £20 million received in return. However, if the original maximum compensation of £40, introduced by the 1965 Act, had been uprated in line with inflation since 1965, it would today be worth not £200 or £300 but £460, almost doubling the £7,200 maximum to which former employees are now entitled.

227WH
Similarly, the Government payment was designed originally to equate to a weekly wage but no longer does. The average weekly wage today is slightly more than £400. The Minister may correct me, but I believe that it is about £409—much higher than the £240 currently paid.

In addition to considering increasing what is effectively a flat-rate benefit, we should consider alternative methods of proceeding, such as relating statutory redundancy pay to contractual entitlement and/or length of service. I should like the Government to consider the feasibility of a graduated scheme. Statutory redundancy pay could be linked to contractual entitlement. The fundamental unfairness of the ViaSystems case relates to the gap between expected payments under contract and actual payments under the statutory scheme. It is simply not right that someone with a contractual entitlement to £50,000 receives the same as someone with an entitlement to £10,000. The latter receives 70 per cent. of their contractual entitlement; the former not even 15 per cent. Reform is, therefore, essential.
Entitlement under the statutory scheme could be specified as a percentage of the contractual entitlement, or the state minimum, whichever is higher. That would at least mitigate the catastrophic loss that redundancy currently represents. If it were set at, for example, 50 per cent. of entitlement, my constituents would take a hit from their redundancy, but they would not lose everything, as happens at the moment.
My second idea complements the suggestion that payments should be related to expected entitlement. Redundancy pay should be linked more closely to length of service. The current approach of paying more for years served by older workers is a nod in that direction, but in other countries and parts of the private sector, it is a clear principle that long service should be rewarded. A statutory formula based on length of service is used in Austria, Portugal and Spain; in France, the Netherlands and Germany, social compacts agree payment, and length of service comes into play. The Library reports that, in the private sector, companies as diverse as Lloyds TSB, Johnson Wax and Matushita (UK) relate redundancy payments to length of service. Ideally, those two elements of graduation—relating payments to entitlement and to length of service—could be combined. For example, those with 20 years' service could be guaranteed 50 per cent. of their contractual entitlement; those with 10 years' service 30 per cent., and so on.
Obviously, those ideas need work. I do not expect the Minister to announce today that he has turned Government policy on its head. However, I am hoping for a commitment from the Government to consider the principles underlying a revised scheme, to accept that more work is needed on the subject and a willingness to work with all interested parties for reform. The matter may not be front-page news and may not affect the majority of people. However, I believe that British people have a strong sense of fair play. The scheme currently goes against fair play and should, therefore, be reviewed and reformed.
228WH
The tragedy in my constituents' case is that a change in the law would not help them. Former ViaSystems workers realise that it would not change the position. However, they believe that others should be protected in future, and that is why they came to London to present a petition to the Prime Minister two weeks ago.
The pain of redundancy is harsh enough. It should not be combined with the theft of livelihood. It is time for a change, and I look forward to the Minister's reply.
12.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Miliband) on securing a debate on this important subject and for his efforts in pursuing the interests of his constituents who were formerly employed by ViaSystems Tyneside Ltd. I add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields on his vital role in securing the management buyout of the south Tyneside plant by Circatex Ltd., which meant the continued employment of hundreds of his constituents. For that he deserves the highest praise.
It is always regrettable when employees lose their jobs through no fault of their own, such as through an employer's insolvency. However, such circumstances are commercial matters for the parties involved and are not open to direct Government intervention. Our role is to provide help and support for business when appropriate and to ensure that employees have a framework of minimum safeguards through employment rights legislation.
The DTI has in place a toolkit to help employees of companies that are in difficulty and close. When redundancies are inevitable, we do everything possible to help people find new jobs and, if necessary, acquire new skills. The job transition service can provide an intensive and personalised response to large-scale redundancies and work with local partners, and has a good record of finding new employment for people affected by major job losses.
We actively support manufacturing jobs in the region and the creation of strong regional economies. We pledged £1.2 billion, which will rise to £1.7 billion, to regional development agencies to support innovation and enterprise, and in raising the game in every region RDAs are working in partnership with the public and private sectors, businesses, universities and local authorities.
To summarise employees' statutory entitlements on the insolvency of their employer, the Employment Rights Act 1996, which consolidates earlier legislation and implements the European Union insolvency protection directive, allows for certain debts owed to former employees of an insolvent employer to be met up to statutory limits by the Secretary of State from the national insurance fund. Such debts include not only statutory redundancy payments but also arrears of pay, holiday pay, compensatory notice pay and basic awards of compensation for unfair dismissal. Claims for such payments are processed on the Secretary of State's behalf by the DTI's redundancy payments service. I understand that claims received from former

229WH
employees of ViaSystems Tyneside Ltd. have been processed and paid by the redundancy payments service under those provisions.
Mr. Russell Brown: Matters are often not as clear as the Minister describes. I have some experience, with a knitwear company in my constituency that went into liquidation some 15 months ago. The employees are still awaiting redundancy payments, as the DTI declared, I suspect rightly, that the company re-started five days after the doors closed and was operating again. That is an issue. A safety net is provided, but the matter is never as straightforward as is sometimes portrayed.
Nigel Griffiths: Indeed. My hon. Friend fought hard to raise the issue at the time on behalf of his constituents, for which they were especially grateful.
When the Secretary of State makes payments on an insolvent employer's behalf, she becomes a creditor in the insolvency proceedings in the employees' stead, and the national insurance fund can thus recoup a portion of money paid out. The portion recouped obviously depends on factors such as the value of assets remaining in the insolvent business, the level and type of debts owed to other creditors, and the respective preferences accorded to those debts under insolvency legislation.
Although my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields did not mention it in his speech, I am aware that some comment has been made about the sale of part of the ViaSystems parent company to a new owner registered in the Cayman Islands in 2000. It may be helpful if I explain that that has no bearing on the former employees' entitlements. Their contracts of employment were with the ViaSystems subsidiary in Tyneside not the parent company. In any event, provided that former employees of an insolvent company worked in Britain, it makes no difference to their insolvency payments whether the company has a Britain-based or overseas owner.
Hon. Members may like to know that a proposal to revise the European Union insolvency protection directive is currently under negotiation in Brussels. It is designed to take account of changes in insolvency practice and law that have taken place in member states since the original directive was adopted in 1980, and other factors, such as the dynamism of the internal market and the need for consistency with other Community directives on labour law.
The Government support the Commission's proposals in principle and expect the revised directive to be adopted later this year. That will afford us an opportunity to update our domestic implementing provisions and ensure that they are operating as effectively as possible. We will, of course, carry out full public consultation before making any changes to legislation and I am sure that hon. Friends who take an interest in the issue will want to make their views known at that stage.
On employees' rights on redundancy, in cases in which employers propose to make collective redundancies—20 or more at one establishment within a 90-day period—they are required to inform and consult the affected employees through representatives and notify my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
230WH
Those requirements are contained in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which implements the EU collective redundancies directive and applies to insolvent employers exactly as it does to solvent employers.
The main thrust of the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields concerned redundancy rights of employees, especially the amount of statutory redundancy payment for which they may qualify and which he considers inadequate. Unlike insolvency payments, statutory redundancy payments are not currently covered by European law, nor has any formal proposal yet been made that they should be. The entitlement of employees working in various member states is therefore determined by the law and practice of the country in which they work.
The purpose of the United Kingdom's statutory redundancy payments scheme is, as my hon. Friend suggested, to provide a minimum safety net for compensation for redundant employees for the loss of expected continued employment. It leaves employers and employees or their representatives free to negotiate more favourable severance terms on a contractual basis according to their priorities, needs and circumstances and what the business can afford. In many cases, that is what they do, and the Government welcome that.
My hon. Friend suggested that the amount of redundancy payment payable from the national insurance fund to former employees of an insolvent employer ought to be linked to their contractual entitlement rather than limited to the statutory redundancy payment amount. We do not agree. It would significantly increase the costs falling on the national insurance fund and, ultimately, on the taxpayer. Moreover, it would benefit the relatively well off, with generous terms and conditions, and do nothing for those on lower contractual entitlements.
My hon. Friend suggested that the calculation of statutory redundancy payments ought to take more account of length of service. However, length of service is already an important factor in the calculation. I will explain the formula used in the calculation, which may illustrate the point. The amount of the lump sum statutory redundancy payment depends on three things: how long the employee has been continuously employed by the employer; how the employee's years of continuous service relate to a particular age band; and the rate of weekly pay at the time of dismissal, up to a weekly limit.
For each complete year of continuous service between the ages of 18 and 21, former employees receive half a week's pay. For each complete year of continuous service between the ages of 22 and 40, employees receive one week's pay, and for each complete year of continuous service between the ages of 41 and 65, they receive one and a half weeks' pay. Over the age of 64, the amount is halved and is extinguished at the age of 65—the underlying aim of the scheme is to compensate for the loss of expected continuous employment and, as retirement age is reached, that expectation diminishes.
The maximum number of years' continuous service that can be counted for statutory redundancy payments is 20. The length of continuous service is counted backwards from the relevant date—generally that on which the notice of dismissal given to the employee ends.

231WH
If the employer gives less than the legal minimum notice, the extra notice that should have been given is added. If the employee is entitled to a longer period of notice under the contract of employment, and the employee received the notice but did not work it, the date up to which continuous service is counted may be later still. Certain absences such as sickness, pregnancy or temporary shortage of work can count toward continuous service even if the contract of employment is suspended during that absence.
I hope that hon. Members will agree that length of service is already accorded a great deal of importance in the calculation of statutory redundancy payments. It may also be helpful to mention the statutory limit on a week's pay used for such purposes. As my hon. Friend said, section 34 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 abolished the previous requirement to conduct an annual review of award limits and established a revised mechanism for annual changes in award limits in line with retail prices. The Secretary of State is required to change the limits accordingly by order.
To bring hon. Members up to date, the most recent uprating took place this month, when the limit on a week's pay was raised from the £240 mentioned by my hon. Friend to £250. The Government consider that the mechanism put in place in 1999 constitutes a suitable and effective means of ensuring that the limit on a week's pay remains fair and appropriate. I take my hon. Friend's point that in earlier years the levels of the limits may have been eroded in real terms, but I take no responsibility for the decisions of previous Administrations.
My hon. Friend mentioned the White Paper on insolvency, which will be followed up in our enterprise Bill. The White Paper afforded us the opportunity to undertake a wide-ranging review of corporate and personal insolvency issues. As my hon. Friend suggested, important proposals were put forward, including the abolition of Crown preference, which
232WH
would leave more assets remaining in an insolvent company for distribution to other creditors, including any employees owed money.
We have it in mind to introduce a ring-fence mechanism to ensure that the benefits of abolishing Crown preference flow to unsecured creditors. That will benefit people after payments have been made to preferential creditors and for administration costs. A proportion of the money available for distribution will be ring-fenced for unsecured creditors, and employees may benefit in that capacity for the part of the debt that is not preferential.
I note my hon. Friend's suggestion that redundancy payments should be accorded the same preference as debts such as pay arrears. Although not specifically mentioned in the White Paper, I can confirm that we are giving further thought to that point. However, the preferences set out in the insolvency legislation were carefully considered when they were originally introduced and the need to examine them in the round rather than in a piecemeal way must influence the way in which we approach the issue.
I hope that I have answered my hon. Friend's key questions. I have every sympathy for former employees of ViaSystems Tyneside Ltd.—especially those who have yet to find alternative work—and for redundant employees of the other businesses. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising an important issue. I repeat that thanks are due to him for his sterling efforts to secure employment for those made redundant who are now re-employed. I commend that model to all hon. Members who might be confronted with similar circumstances with regard to companies in their constituencies that face the terrible plight of insolvency. The work of the regional development agencies, and the other mechanisms that the Department of Trade and Industry has established, place us in the forefront of the drive to ensure that employees who lose their jobs have the chance to secure comparable employment and to learn the new skills that they require. I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important matter.

RAF Lyneham
1 pm
Mr. James Gray: I have not secured the debate to seek to discover the outcome of the study that the Ministry of Defence is undertaking, or to hasten its publication. The Department's officials hope to submit the study to their Ministers by 18 April, and the Ministers hope to produce an outcome based on that report by the summer. That timeframe is acceptable to those of us who live near RAF Lyneham and who seek ways of ensuring that the base remains open, and as profitable and active as it is at the moment.
The purpose of the debate is not to hasten the outcome of the study, but to have some input into it. Wiltshire county council, North Wiltshire district council, and local parish councils such as Calne, Lyneham and Wootton Bassett, are keen to play an active part in consultations during the preparation of the report rather than after its publication.
With regard to that matter, I take great encouragement from a written reply that I recently received from the Minister. I asked what discussions the Ministry of Defence has with other Departments when it considers the closure, partial sale or relocation of a military base. He answered:
"Officials are fully aware of the impact of such changes on local communities and it is the MOD's policy to initiate an early and close dialogue with the local authorities and the regional government offices concerned."—[Official Report, 18 December 2001; Vol. 377, c. 175 W.]
So far, that does not seem to have been the case with regard to Wiltshire county council and North Wiltshire district council. A recent meeting that they held at RAF Strike Command led them to form the impression that they would be consulted only after the report had been produced, merely about the effects and consequences of its recommendations.
I wish the Minister to take the opportunity to re-confirm that he will make active use of the expertise of Wiltshire county council and North Wiltshire district council—and of myself—during the remainder of the period for preparing the report, although I accept that that cannot be done with regard to strategic and secret matters. If the Minister states that that will be the case, I will pass on that glad news to my colleagues in Wiltshire.
With the intention of informing the report, an ad hoc committee in my constituency—whose members include several retired RAF officers and representatives of all the local authorities—has composed a detailed and technical report in the past few months. I handed a copy of it to the Minister before the debate. We hope that he will take it fully into consideration when he reaches conclusions on the Department's report.
The ad hoc committee's report sets out the severe economic effects that the closure of RAF Lyneham would have on my constituency; it would do, wouldn't it? There are 2,500 RAF personnel at the base, and 750 civilian employees. Assuming that most of those people have families, it is fair to estimate that about 10,000 people in my constituency owe their livelihoods directly to the RAF—and we must also remember the schools, shops, entertainments, churches and other services and organisations that cater for them.
234WH
Wiltshire county council's economic appraisal study, which is appendix 1 to the report, concludes that the local economy would lose about £75 million per annum if the base were closed. I acknowledge that, if the Hercules fleet were withdrawn, something else of greater economic benefit might replace it. However, one merely needs to glance at similar places where a large military base has closed to see that it might take several years of extreme economic hardship before the area recovers. Corsham in my constituency is a good example of that. After the Army pulled out, it suffered great social deprivation and hardship for approximately 10 years. The economy of the town is now picking up again, partly because the Defence Communications Services Agency is based there. Nobody—including the Minister's hon. Friends who represent the town of Swindon—would want the Corsham experience to be repeated around Lyneham.
We appreciate that, although the Minister wishes to take such economic consequences into account in coming to his conclusions, his role is to address the strategic issues involved in deciding where the plane should be based. The report that I handed to him this morning attempts to do that. There is no point in us simply saying, "If you close our base, it will cost us thousands of jobs," because the response would be, "Well, you would say that, wouldn't you?" Therefore, our report seeks to make a useful and dispassionate contribution to the strategic considerations of the debate.
There are several important strategic issues that the Minister should take into account. He is aware that the airmen and airwomen of RAF Lyneham play an outstanding and crucial role in the defence of the nation. The modern, manoeuvrist expeditionary type of warfare, which was highlighted in the strategic defence review, would not be possible without the unsung heroes of our military transport fleet. They are involved in conflict of every kind, and they pride themselves on being the first in and the last out. We salute them.
We are proud of the eight Hercules planes that are serving in Afghanistan, and I hope that the Minister will ensure that they always have the best possible equipment for such deployments. I am also proud that the first Lyneham airman was recently awarded the DSE for his outstanding heroism.
The new plane—the C130J—is settling in extremely well. Recently, I tried out its simulator. My constituents, including those who live directly under the flight path, are proud of the contribution that they make to the defence of the realm. Every air base is subjected to criticism from a few local people about aircraft noise, but most of my constituents would say, "We are used to the Hercules planes, we are comfortable with the noise that they make, and we are proud that our area is able to make that contribution to the defence of the realm." Remarkably little fuss is made about aircraft noise in the area—even in the village of Bradenstoke, which is directly under the flight path.
Local people would welcome it if the A400M fleet were housed at Lyneham—although that would depend on the German Government being able to sort out the current difficulties about its procurement. We hope that, by the deadline of 31 March, we will hear that we are to buy it—and that the 8,000 or so jobs in the west country that depend upon that are secured.

235WH
If Lyneham were to get the A400M—or whatever might replace it—we would welcome that. We have had detailed consultations with its manufacturers, and other oganisations, and we believe that RAF Lyneham is ideally suited to accommodate the A400M.
Recently, there have been strange briefings that the runways at Lyneham are 10 m or 20 m too short for the A400M. Airbus has assured me that, not only is the main runway entirely suitable for all take-offs and landings under all conditions irrespective of how heavily the plane might be laden, but, crucially, that the second runway at Lyneham is equally strategically usable for the A400M under all circumstances. Lyneham has two runways from which the planes can take off and land, but Brize Norton has only one. Hangar space, married and single accommodation, and other aspects of the infrastructure at Lyneham are also suitable to accommodate the A400M fleet, although they could do with upgrading.
Another strategic consideration is that it would be foolish to locate all our air transport assets at one base. That would present a marvellous target to an enemy state, or to terrorists—about whom we are currently very concerned. If we house all our strategic tanker aircraft, the A400Ms, and the Hercules fleet at Brize Norton, it would become an extraordinarily attractive target. From that point of view, and that of interchangeability with regard to weather conditions, it is sensible to have two transport air bases rather than one.
We are concerned about the environmental impact that would result if Lyneham closed and the planes went to Brize Norton. In recent written answers, the Minister has acknowledged that there is no spare accommodation for either single or married people at Brize Norton. Many Brize Norton airmen are not housed in RAF accommodation. That also applies at Lyneham, where many RAF staff are housed in local private accommodation.
If Lyneham were to close and roughly 10,000 people were redeployed to Brize Norton the effect would be something like a new town being built, presumably on greenfield sites around Brize Norton. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), who is the Member of Parliament for the area, would not be happy with that proposal. There would also be a marked increase in road traffic in the narrow lanes around Brize. Road and rail communications to Lyneham are by comparison very good; it is near not only railways but also the M4. There would also be a huge increase in aircraft noise around Brize, and aircraft movements would more than double. Currently there are about 33,000 air movements a year from Brize, and about 36,000 from Lyneham. That would make a total of 69,000 air movements a year—230 take-offs and landings a day—from Brize Norton. I am certain that the inhabitants of the area would not be happy about that.
On the financial attractions, the only reason for making such a closure—I do not say that it will take place—is for the Treasury to gain financial benefits from it. The operational savings implied in concentrating two bases in one would be relatively marginal and would
236WH
certainly be offset by the huge capital cost of the move. Building the 2,000 or 3,000 houses needed would cost an enormous amount of money, and it would cost a fortune to move Lyneham's five air simulators. The Army might try to take over the redundant RAF base, in which case there would be no capital gain for the Treasury anyway. There would be huge daily costs for the RAF but no gain. We believe that the financial benefits to the Treasury are largely illusory, or at least extremely marginal. The economic and social impact on my constituency would be huge.
We are as dispassionate as we can be in our report, but we believe that there are powerful strategic and environmental reasons for opposing an amalgamation of our transport fleet and the closure of RAF Lyneham. Of course, I do not expect the Minister to give us any assurances today. It would be wrong for him to do so. I am sure that he will be careful in his response and tell us that he is looking into the matter and that it is extremely interesting. That is as it should be; I do not want to force him into a premature announcement.
I hope that the Minister will reflect on our report—a detailed, careful work in which we have tried to avoid special pleading on behalf of RAF Lyneham. It is intended to be a balanced consideration of all the issues that he will have to think about in the next month or two. I hope that he will consider all my points, and take action to ensure that local people, the local councils and I are fully involved in that consideration.
We do not pretend that we do not want the Minister to conclude that the A400M should be based at RAF Lyneham. If he does not come to that conclusion, we hope that he will at the very least decide that the remaining C130J fleet should continue to be based there. We want him to agree that there is strategic importance in having two tactical transport air bases, and that having one would be a huge strategic error. We hope that he will listen to what local people have to say in the report, and that when he considers the matter in the next month or two, he will conclude that, setting aside the economic consequences for my constituency if the base were to close, there are overwhelmingly important strategic reasons for keeping both bases open and basing the A400M at Lyneham. We accept that the strategic tanker aircraft will be based at Brize. We hope that he will decide that the nation should have two transport air bases. By that means, it can avoid setting an obvious target for enemies of the state, including terrorists.
1.14 pm
The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): I congratulate the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) on securing a debate on a matter that is of considerable importance to the community around Lyneham. I welcome the opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the station and to set out in more detail the background to, and the way forward on, the strategic review on the future use of three airfields, RAF Lyneham, RAF Brize Norton and RAF St. Mawgan.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments about RAF Lyneham's current role and join him in paying tribute to the station. RAF Lyneham has a long and illustrious history and was established in May 1940. There is little doubt that the units at RAF Lyneham

237WH
make a considerable contribution today. It is currently home to the entire RAF Hercules force, which presently comprises five squadrons, 54 aircraft and approximately 2,500 service and 760 civilian personnel. Lyneham is also the base of the Hercules reserve aircrew, No. 47 Air Despatch Squadron of the Royal Logistic Corps, the United Kingdom Mobile Air Movements Squadron, No. 4626 Aeromedical Evacuation Royal Auxiliary Squadron, and the tactical medical wing, which provides primary medical and dental care to deployed RAF units.
My colleagues and I are aware of the contribution that the station makes to the defence of the country. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence visited Lyneham last month to meet the personnel who work there. He was impressed by all that he saw. I know that the station is held in high regard by the local community and, in turn, greatly appreciates the support that it receives in the area. However, life moves on, and if we are to deliver the best defence available within our resources we must constantly review and revalidate our assumptions and change when necessary to reflect new situations. The strategic review on the future roles of RAF stations Lyneham, Brize Norton and St. Mawgan, which I announced on 9 November, is one strand of that approach.
The RAF is undergoing its most comprehensive aircraft re-equipment programme for decades. Some 25 Hercules C130J aircraft have been introduced at RAF Lyneham in recent years, and in the next 10 years the future strategic tanker aircraft, the Nimrod MRA4, the Eurofighter Typhoon, airborne stand-off radar—ASTOR—and the A400M, which has already been mentioned, will be introduced into service.
As I announced at the time, the strategic review is driven by the anticipated arrival of new aircraft for the air-to-air refuelling and air transport fleets. At the end of the decade, the VCIO and TriStar based at Brize Norton are due to be replaced by the future strategic tanker aircraft private finance initiative service. The Hercules C130K based at RAF Lyneham and the C17, also based at Brize Norton, are due to be replaced by the A400M. In both cases, the introduction of the new aircraft will result in smaller but more capable fleets, and modern best practice maintenance arrangements mean that fewer ground crew will be required. It makes sense for us to review our present arrangements, given that changing profile. St. Mawgan has been included in the review because it has spare capacity and it is appropriate for us to consider that at the same time.
Let me lay a couple of ghosts to rest. Contrary to what some people may claim, the review is not a Treasury-driven cost-cutting exercise, although I appreciate that that was not the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument; nor are we seeking to identify the most expensive base to close it down. We are ensuring that the basing arrangements for the arrival of the new aircraft make the best and most cost-effective use of available resources. The House would expect no less and all colleagues who have an interest in the delivery of the defence of the realm will recognise that that is the way forward. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman acknowledged the need for that approach.
As I said in November, the strategic review will take into account the decision that I announced earlier this month to base a future strategic tanker aircraft at RAF
238WH
Brize Norton. To put that in context, both bidders for the prospective private finance initiative programme proposed the continued use of RAF Brize Norton as a main operating base for the FSTA. On this occasion, my Department accepts the industry's best commercial judgment. Brize Norton has the appropriate facilities including, uniquely, a fuel hydrant system, which is essential to run an efficient air-to-air refuelling operation, and the appropriate expertise in the field.
The strategic review has a long way to go before any final decisions are reached, probably early in the summer. In that context, it would be helpful if I set out the review's terms of reference, so that they are well understood. The review is being carried out by RAF Strike Command, which is looking at the optimum basing solution for the A400M aircraft and for the Hercules C130J that will remain in service alongside the new transport aircraft. It will examine the provision of collective training for deployed operations currently based at RAF St. Mawgan and the benefits of wider commercialisation at all three stations. It will also look at the best location to base the search and rescue force headquarters, currently sited at RAF St. Mawgan. Finally, following from that work, the review will make a recommendation on whether there is a continuing need for all three stations. I state categorically that it does not follow that RAF Lyneham's future is in doubt just because a decision has been taken to base the future strategic tanker aircraft at Brize Norton.
The review is divided into two phases. The first phase involves collecting information on the current tasks undertaken at each station and their associated costs; establishing the irreducible or other spare capacity that might exist; looking at the current planned future use for each base; identifying the potential commercial interest in each site and establishing the optimum base for the A400M.
Phase two comprises the analysis of the data gathered in phase one, taking into account the decision taken to base the future strategic tanker aircraft at RAF Brize Norton and whatever recommendation the review may reach on the basing of the A400M aircraft. Phase two will seek to identify the most cost-effective basing solution for the Hercules C130J fleet, the benefits of wider commercialisation at each station and the future roles of each unit. The study began on 15 November 2001. I hope that phase one will be completed within the next few weeks, with the final report due in early summer.
To inform the review, full economic and investment appraisals are being undertaken. They will identify the economic situation around the unit, assess, as closely as possible, the amount of income the unit provides to the local economy and, in the case of the investment appraisal, look at the current and probable future costs of the options available. Before the debate, the hon. Gentleman passed me a copy of a detailed report published by local interests, for which I am grateful, as the analysis will help the assessment that is being undertaken.
The three options before the review apply equally to any of the three stations, the first being to maximise the military use of the station. If a station is adjudged to have, or to be likely to have, spare capacity, it would involve the relocation of units from other bases with the possible disposal of all or part of another site. However,

239WH
there is always a case for keeping a judicious amount of spare capacity available somewhere in the defence estate to provide flexibility for contingency operations.
The second option is commercial exploitation. The irreducible spare capacity, essentially the spare capacity to which I referred, can be marketed either by direct contacts with organisations or through a strategic partnership. The aim would be to maximise revenue to the benefit of the public purse while retaining primacy over the airfield, so that civil activity could be suspended to allow full military use if necessary. The third option, which is very much last on the list, is disposal of all parts of a site. Such a move would follow only a full review of the options for the site, including the possibility of use by another service.
I know that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that what I have outlined represents a substantial piece of work. He is right to say that it would be wrong to expect me to give him an answer today; this is not the forum in which that is normally done. It would also be wrong of me to prejudge conclusions on the basis of our short examination of the subject today. However, I want to make it clear that we are a long way from making a decision to close a station. A decision has not yet been taken on where the A400M will be based, but even if that were not RAF Lyneham, it would not automatically follow that Lyneham would close. As I outlined, many other factors would have to come into play before such a conclusion was reached.
Understandably, there has been much public interest in the study that we are undertaking. The report reflects that. That is why the Department is committed to engage stakeholders in the review, including local
240WH
authorities, civilian and military station personnel, and the trade unions that represent civilian personnel at a station. That consultation is well under way. In the past fortnight, personnel from RAF Strike Command who are charged with undertaking the review have visited all three units to talk to station personnel and trade union representatives. Those events were well attended.
The hon. Gentleman talked about consulting wider interests. On 29 January, review team members met local authority and regional development agency representatives from all three areas where the stations are sited. The aim of that consultation was to allow local authorities to highlight any issues or concerns about the review. If authorities have suggestions for a station's future use, including opportunities for commercial exploitation, they will be most welcome with regard to our assessment of the way forward. A further round of consultations with local councils will take place next month.
I was a little perplexed when the hon. Gentleman said that councils and other interests felt that they were out of the loop or pushed aside when it came to the early determinations. I hope that I have reassured him that we are taking a detailed consultative approach. I will take on board his concerns and ensure that what I am saying marries up with what is happening on the ground.
We do not underestimate the review's importance to communities around the stations, including Lyneham. I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that the review will take full account of the representations that have been made, not least those set out in the report that he passed to me. We plan to continue the review in a spirit of openness and in that spirit I am grateful for the opportunity that this debate has afforded me to set out the Department's position. It is a strategic review, which it is right to have at this time.

Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Gateshead
1.28 pm
Joyce Quin: I welcome the opportunity to raise a matter of considerable local interest and concern in my constituency and the surrounding area. It relates to the grave failures and mistakes in the treatment of women over a long time in the gynaecology and obstetrics department of the Queen Elizabeth hospital in my constituency.
My hon. Friends from neighbouring constituencies have taken a great interest in the matter. My hon. Friends the Members for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn), for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) and for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) have represented their constituents' concerns to my hon. Friend the Minister, the hospital and the local health authority.
Before coming to the substance of my remarks, I want to make it clear that I recognise the great improvements that have been made in my local hospital in recent years. Changes in management have been beneficial and the hospital has many excellent consultants who are supported by dedicated staff. The hospital is also a centre of excellence for some women's diseases. It offers screening services and carries out work on breast cancer. There is also a regional gynaecological oncology service. The issues are serious, but I do not want previous appallingly bad practice to undermine or tarnish the excellent work that is being done in many areas, or the progress that has undoubtedly been made.
I am glad that the Minister will reply to the debate and I know that she and the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) took an interest in the petition that I presented to Parliament on behalf of my constituents. My constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow have not had full or proper answers to their many questions over the years. My principal request is for some mechanism—ideally a public inquiry—to tackle those concerns.
As the Minister knows, Dr. Janusz Wszeborowski and Mr. Peter Silverstone have been struck off. Most of my constituents' grievances related to those two consultants. She will also know that the General Medical Council considered three cases, but not those under discussion; nor did it consider the eight illustrative cases that the current management of the Queen Elizabeth hospital submitted to it. I had hoped that the need for an inquiry would be removed if the GMC could consider those cases. The women concerned understandably feel cheated and let down by the fact that the GMC took action against the main doctors concerned, but did not examine their grievances and appalling experiences.
The transcript of the proceedings of the GMC against Mr. Silverstone relates to operations that he carried out in 1995 and 1998. Those operations were not carried out at the Queen Elizabeth hospital. What strikes me about the transcript is that the criticisms about how he carried out the operations are eerily similar to the complaints that my constituents made about operations that were carried out in previous years. That prompts the obvious question: why were the earlier complaints not investigated more fully and why was appropriate disciplinary action not taken then?
242WH
The transcript refers to failures to record adequate medical histories of patients at pre-operative and postoperative stages and to arrange adequate assistance for a complicated operation. It also refers to the failure to provide appropriate medical aftercare and to recognise the limits of Mr. Silverstone's skill and professional competence and work within them. The conclusions show that those failures put patients at risk and justified his being struck off.
The Minister of State stated in a letter to me of 18 February, and in a letter of 29 October 2001 to my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow, that there was a confidential inquiry into the workings of the obstetrics and gynaecology department. In April 1993, that inquiry concluded that there were no clinical issues that warranted formal action. She also stated that five complaints were received about Mr. Silverstone following the inquiry and between 1 April 1993 and 10 December 1993, that all were investigated and that none warranted formal action against him.
Some clear questions arise from those statements. Why was no formal action taken, especially since I understand that specific complaints led to compensatory out-of-court settlements in several cases? Was it not a matter for concern that, no sooner had one confidential inquiry been concluded, the hospital continued to receive similar serious complaints about the department in the months immediately following? I wonder how much compensation has been paid out over the years to women who complained about their treatment. I have a feeling that considerable sums have been involved. It would be good to have an answer to that question.
I could quote many distressing letters that I have received from the women concerned who, obviously, are very keen to ensure their anonymity, which I respect. Not all ' of them refer to treatment at the Queen Elizabeth hospital. Some refer to operations conducted in local private hospitals, and the concerns of those patients should also be addressed in an inquiry. One letter concerned a hysterectomy. The patient said:
"Mr. Silverstone performed a hysterectomy on me…a few days later I noticed a dreadful smell which was subsequently traced to the wound…the contents of my bowel were oozing through the stitches…I had emergency surgery performed by another doctor to repair the damage to the bowel which had happened during the hysterectomy…The resulting scars are horrendous and caused me problems which contributed to the break up of my marriage…I have also had to have subsequent surgery on both my bladder and bowel".
Another extremely distressing case concerned the death of a baby, caused by cerebral birth injury. An investigation was carried out into the case in 1992, a year before the inquiry mentioned in the letters sent by the Minister of State to me and my hon. Friend. Although it declared that the standard of care had fallen short of what was required, once again, astonishingly, no question of serious professional misconduct seemed to arise.
Mr. Stephen Hepburn: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing the debate and taking the lead on a very important subject—gross injustice to people in our area. I support her call for a public inquiry.

243WH
If the Minister put herself in the position of the people in the cases that my right hon. Friend outlines, I am sure that she, too, could do nothing but support that call.
Joyce Quin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I welcome the interest that he has shown in the matter on behalf of his constituents. Like me, he has had many female constituents affected by the problem, going back a number of years.
The numbers involved are considerable. When the trust set up a helpline in the wake of Mr. Silverstone's initial suspension by the GMC, some 85 women contacted the hospital complaining of their treatment. At about that time, several of them organised a support group and held meetings. They were surprised at the large numbers who attended. With the publicity given to the activities of the support group, the presentation of the petition and even to this debate this week, even more women have come forward and contacted me, my colleagues or the support group.
I pay tribute to the support group, its secretary, my constituent Debra Wilson, and her fellow members. Forming a group and putting forward concerns to the authorities has not always been easy. Many group members did not want to be in the public eye and were people not normally keen to complain. However, they have approached their task with purpose and determination and have been prepared to revisit experiences that they would otherwise have wanted to put behind them, to get concerns addressed.
I also recognise the efforts of the local newspaper, the Evening Chronicle, which has consistently backed the support group and its demands. In recent years, changes have taken place in the national health service that I hope will make a recurrence of such a situation. unlikely. The culture in which doctors and consultants are perceived as gods, never to be questioned, has diminished. It is also recognised that whistleblowing is necessary in certain circumstances, and should be welcomed, not condemned. It is accepted that the performance of individual consultants must be properly monitored. The culture of the royal colleges has changed—they perceive themselves less as protectors of members of their clubs and more as protectors of the public, which is what they should be. However, I would welcome comments from the Minister about any further measures to ensure that the failure to deal with such serious issues cannot recur, as well as to explain how the remaining unanswered questions can be properly addressed.
We are talking about a huge degree of physical and emotional pain. We are discussing the cases of women who have lost babies who might otherwise have survived. Some women are unable to have normal, satisfying physical relationships with their husbands and partners because of the physical damage that they have experienced. We are considering appalling mistreatment that should never have occurred, which should have been exposed and stopped much earlier. My constituents want answers and justice. As Members of Parliament, my hon. Friends and I are determined to see justice done, however belatedly. I urge the Minister to respond positively today.
1.41 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) on securing the debate and raising an issue that is important not only to her constituents, although the graphic illustrations of the damage caused are hugely moving, but to everyone who wants to ensure that patients get the highest possible quality of care from the NHS. I also recognise the concern and interest shown by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) on behalf of his constituents. It is important that such matters are raised in Parliament so that they are properly aired and addressed by all of us. They are important to us all.
I am aware of the petition that my right hon. Friend presented to Parliament on 18 December, which highlighted the mistreatment, negligence and misconduct of consultant Peter Silverstone and Dr. Janusz Wszeborowski and alleged a subsequent cover-up by the Queen Elizabeth hospital authorities. Those are very serious matters. I hope that I can deal with them and outline some of the improvements made in my right hon. Friend's local hospital—as she has generously acknowledged—as well as some of the national steps that the Government are taking to ensure that examples of poor practice are caught early and do not recur.
When such events occur, it is crucial that we learn lessons from them. We must ensure that systems are put in place to ensure that other people do not suffer the sort of damage that may have occurred. Although Dr. Wszeborowski was struck off the medical register by the General Medical Council in January 2001 and Mr. Silverstone was struck off in August 2001, the events that led to today's debate go back as far as 1993. The matters in question have been the subject of concern for many years.
Joyce Quin: It is true that inquiries relating to those two doctors took place in 1993, but the Minister should consider that some of the cases brought to my attention go back as far as 1979. We are actually considering a period of about 20 years.
Ms Blears: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for clarifying the matter and illustrating how long it has been causing concern to her constituents and other members of the public. I highlighted the length of time during which it has been investigated to show how long it has taken—in the past rather than now—all the regulatory authorities to deal with it. It is not satisfactory when that takes years and years. Many of our reforms of the way in which the GMC operates are designed to speed up some of the processes so that an inordinate length of time is not taken to deal with poor practice. My right hon. Friend now tells me that the matter goes back even further than 1993, which adds to our concern about the length of time such matters are allowed to drag on.
Mr. Silverstone worked at the Queen Elizabeth hospital as a consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist for 17 years before retiring in 1993. While employed by the trust, he was part of a team of doctors working with Dr. Wszeborowski. The trust received five complaints

245WH
about Mr. Silverstone between 1 April 1993 and 10 December 1993 when he retired and those are some of the complaints to which my right hon. Friend referred. All the complaints were investigated. Two were upheld and related to Mr. Silverstone's rudeness—he was brusque and abrupt with patients. He denied that he had been, but offered personal apologies to the women concerned and also offered to meet them. Those were the sort of complaints involved and it is important that my right hon. Friend is aware that those that were upheld related to his lack of personal skills in dealing with people and his attitude rather than to clinical incidents.
Of the three remaining complaints, two concerned Mr. Silverstone's attitude and one related to treatment he had performed, but they were not upheld. The complaints that were upheld concerned attitude and behaviour rather than treatment, which is why it was decided that none warranted formal action. Like my right hon. Friend, I was concerned that there had been five complaints and no formal action to implement disciplinary procedures. I am informed that the complaints that were upheld concerned rudeness and brusqueness in Mr. Silverstone's attitude rather than treatment.
Joyce Quin: It is true that the complaints that were upheld related to behaviour rather than clinical practice, but other complaints made by women, many of which have been settled out of court, concerned appalling clinical treatment that resulted in physical injury and sometimes the loss of a child's life. Those complaints were also dealt with much later by the GMC and there are serious question marks about the clinical treatment that was administered as well as the behavioural offences to which my hon. Friend referred.
Ms Blears: I am certainly not trying to minimise the impact of the clinical or behavioural incidents on my right hon. Friend's constituents. They are serious and if she wants to raise any matters that remain of concern to her constituents I shall be happy for her to raise them individually with my Department. She has referred to clinical issues that resulted in compensation and it would not be appropriate in this forum to go into the details of legal cases and levels of compensation, but I would be happy for her to contact me about outstanding matters of concern and to provide further information so that we may examine them again.
After the inquiry into the complaints that were made about Mr. Silverstone, he was retired in December 1993. It was only in January 2001 that the GMC's interim orders committee suspended him
"in the interests of public safety"
pending an investigation relating to the circumcision of babies. He had been carrying out that work in a private capacity after his retirement from the Queen Elizabeth hospital and it did not relate to his activities in the trust. He was struck off the medical register by the GMC on 24 August 2001. As the investigation dealt with offences that were committed during his private practice after he had retired from the trust, there was not an opportunity for matters relating to particular women patients to be fully explored and considered.
In 1996, colleagues in the trust's department of obstetrics and gynaecology raised questions about some aspects of Dr. Wszeborowski's work. The investigation
246WH
that followed revealed a history of patient complaints about rough handling during examinations and deliveries. He was suspended from duty in September 1997 pending action by the trust under its disciplinary procedures. He reached retirement age and left the trust's employment in December 1998, but following a referral to the GMC's fitness to practise directorate by the trust, he was also struck off the medical register.
The time that it takes to deal with those matters in disciplinary terms and through GMC procedure is an issue because it allows people to retire from service. It is difficult to explore such people's actions because time, in a sense, overtakes events. In that case, Dr. Wszeborowski left the employment of the trust in December 1998, some years prior to being struck off by the GMC.
Following the GMC's decision to strike Dr. Wszeborowski off the medical register, the Gateshead health trust set up a telephone helpline for patients who were worried about treatment they had received from him. The line was subsequently extended to former patients of Mr. Silverstone after he was suspended by the GMC, to ensure that as many women as possible were contacted and offered support and counselling.
As my right hon. Friend said, 85 women called the helpline to discuss their concerns. After those initial calls, obstetricians, gynaecologists and senior midwives reviewed their cases and every woman was called back within three weeks. Everyone was offered an opportunity to meet with a consultant and a senior midwife, who was the trust's service manager for obstetrics and gynaecology. The consultant and senior midwife met with 36 women, a further 10 women discussed their cases with the consultant over the telephone and three received advice from him by letter. Fast-track appointments were made for 13 women who needed further treatment.
The trust also allowed those women immediate access to their medical records without having to follow the formal process and five women took up that offer. It also offered independent counselling and support to all the women, although in the event only one woman took that up. It took a number of wide-ranging steps to ensure that as soon as it was alerted to the problems that those women had experienced, they were offered not only counselling and support, but the option of further treatment and a proper review by other consultant obstetricians and gynaecologists.
As my right hon. Friend acknowledged, the trust has made substantial improvements in recent years to its obstetrics and gynaecology services. There is a new consultant, Mr. Mani Das, and five more consultants have joined him since he was appointed. A number of new services have also been introduced. Now, a multidisciplinary clinical audit process that involves all staff regularly reviews their practice to ensure that there are no further examples of poor practice. There are new guidelines and protocols for the treatment of all pregnant women, including a fast-track, one-stop service for women with menstrual problems and an early pregnancy unit to deal with any abnormalities. There is also a robust risk management structure. All clinical and non-clinical incidents are thoroughly investigated and any improvements are immediately initiated. Those innovations have been well received by patients. The

247WH
obstetrics and gynaecology department was ranked highly when assessed last year and is an example of good practice.
Teaching and training systems in the hospital were reported to be "excellent" following a visit by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in 1999. That demonstrates that women can be assured that under the new team in the Queen Elizabeth hospital they will receive the best treatment and care during pregnancy and the delivery of their children.
The women who have been affected have been through a distressing time. The vast majority of staff in the NHS do a first-class job and this is a rare case of poor practice. It is vitally important that we have systems to pick up such cases quickly, which can act to stop them from happening. That is why on 1 April 2001 we introduced annual appraisals and work reviews for all doctors. They will ensure that doctors meet the high standards of their profession. The Government have new powers to enable the GMC to suspend doctors immediately when serious concerns arise about their performance. We are also introducing a mandatory reporting system for failures in the NHS, so that lessons are learned and mistakes not repeated.
We want to establish fast, fair and effective procedures to resolve problems of poor or unsafe practice and to avoid situations in which patients are left unprotected because no intervention is made to stop a doctor practising until a case is investigated. In the past, cases dragged on for a long time and doctors were allowed to continue practising while investigations took place. We want to ensure that that does not happen in future. We also want further to reform the way in which the GMC works to ensure that it is fast, fair and effective and puts the interests of patient's first.
We have established the National Clinical Assessment Authority, which is a central element of our work on quality. It will provide advice to employers in cases in which they are concerned about the clinical practice of doctors. It will not be an employer or regulator, but will help employers to assess doctors by
248WH
carrying out an objective assessment of a doctor's performance. That is an innovation to address the performance of doctors. Following such assessments, the NCAA will advise the trust or health authority on appropriate courses of action. That should speed up the system quickly to deal with poor practice.
For the first time, we are involving lay people in such procedures, which will give patients a real voice in ensuring that doctors meet the highest possible standards. We will provide support for doctors who are ill, suffering stress or whose practice has deteriorated owing to the pressures on them. We want to support them to allow them to continue to care, while also protecting the interests of patients.
We are issuing guidelines on gynaecology and obstetrics to ensure that every trust in the country provides high quality services. I acknowledge that those new improvements do not address the deep concerns of the women in the cases that were described by my right hon. and hon. Friends. Those cases, particularly those described in the extracts read by right hon. Friend, are incredibly distressing and moving and indicate her severe concerns and those of other hon. Members.
I have seen no evidence of a cover-up by the trust, however, and have been informed that detailed investigations of complaints and subsequent determinations were made. Steps were taken to ensure that all the women who had been involved in allegedly poor treatment had access to a helpline, counselling and further treatment. If my right hon. and hon. Friends remain concerned, I would welcome further details being sent to my Department, so that we can take another look at the matter. I recognise that the cases are of extreme concern to the women involved.
I emphasise that we are ensuring that doctors provide good quality services throughout the country to all patients. We are determined that the procedures and systems will be fast, fair and effective for everyone. Patients must be protected and I welcome further information from my right hon. Friend.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.

HEALTH

  Dementia
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the level of Government support for research into the causes and treatment of dementia; and if he will make a statement. [23323]

  Jacqui Smith
  The National Service Framework for Older People highlights the development of services for people with dementia as a high priority. As such, future research underpinning the continued development of services for older people will take full account of dementia services.

  We welcomed the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) appraisal of anti dementia drugs in January last year. The widespread availability for the anti dementia drugs appraised will have a profound effect on the quality of life for mental health sufferers; it will tilt the balance of specialist services towards earlier diagnosis and a more clinic-based approach than has been the case to date. With £12 million being made available for the prescribing of these drugs, it is expected that 15,000 people will benefit from NICE's guidance.

  The Medical Research Council (MRC), the main agency through with the Government support research on the causes and treatment of disease and funded via the Department of Trade and Industry, spent approximately £8.2 million on dementia research in 2000–01.

  Ward Refurbishments
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funds have been made available to the Worthing and Southlands hospital trust over the last five years for the refurbishment of wards. [26497]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 11 January 2002 ]: Each year national health service trusts receive an allocation of capital to be spent at the trust's discretion, referred to as block capital.

  The Worthing and Southlands trust's allocations for the last five years were:

  Block capital allocation (£000)

  Increase on previous year

  (£000)

  (Percentage)

  1997–98

  775

  —

  —

  1998–99

  930

  155

  20.5

  1999–2000

  1,589

  659

  70.9

  2000–01

  1,610

  21

  1.3

  2001–02

  1,983

  373

  23.2

  Regarding revenue, in 2000–01 and 2001–02 the trusts received additional ring-fenced ward budgets specifically
  1064W
  available to be spent at the discretion of the ward sister. These were £2,500 per ward in 2000–'01 and £5,000 per ward, £150,000 in total, in 2001–02.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many regulatory impact assessments have been produced by his Department since August 2001; and if he will list those produced(a) following initial consultation with affected parties about the most appropriate methodology for assessing costs and other impacts and (b) which set out full commercial impacts, including profitability, employment, consumer prices and competitiveness, as recommended in Good Policy Making. [28403]

  Ms Blears
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 18 January 2002,Official Report, column 483W.

  Mortality Rate
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the Government are doing to help reduce the UK's seasonal mortality rate. [27183]

  Yvette Cooper
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) on 31 January 2002,Official Report, columns 363-66W.

  Addiction (Young People)
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what amount will be spent in the next financial year to assist(a) pre-teenagers and (b) teenagers in dealing with (i) alcohol and (ii) tobacco addictions. [28113]

  Ms Blears
  The funds spent on the treatment of alcohol and tobacco addiction among children and young people form part of the general budgets allocated to health authorities and local authorities. The amounts devoted to each cannot be separately identified.

  Multiple Sclerosis (Drug Prices)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with pharmaceutical companies which manufacture disease modifying drugs for MS concerning their pricing policy for the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [28582]

  Ms Blears
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on 8 February 2002,Official Report, column 1241W.

  Anorexia
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further action he is taking to improve support to those diagnosed with anorexia. [28821]

  Jacqui Smith
  We want to ensure that all mental health problems are addressed through good quality services which are sensitive to service users needs, gender and ethnicity. That is why we published a National Service Framework (NSF) for mental health, in September 1999. This sets national standards in five key areas with time
  1065W
  scales and targets for achievement. Eating disorders, including anorexia, is one of the common mental health problems, which the framework seeks to address.

  We have made significant additional investment in mental health services—£700 million over three years in addition to the £3 billion already invested. Strong monitoring mechanisms have been introduced to ensure that money for mental health is actually spent on implementing the NSF. It is for health authorities to plan and decide on the level of additional investment locally to meet the standards of NSF in relation to eating disorders.

  Services for people with eating disorders have been defined as specialist mental health services. This means that primary care trusts will be expected to act collaboratively to ensure that the right level and quality of service is available to their populations. The new strategic health authorities will have a role in ensuring that this happens. Consideration is also being given to a means of achieving national oversight of specialised mental health services to ensure that they become increasingly available to the whole population.

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence will be developing a specific guideline on the management of eating disorders and the further development of NHS Direct will mean that eating disorders sufferers will be able to get first-level advice and referral on to specialised helplines or to local services.

  We support a number of charitable organisations in this field, including the Eating Disorders Association and `Weight Concern'.

  Churches Child Protection Advisory Service
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the Churches Child Protection Advisory Service has spent the section 64 funding allocated to it by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [29229]

  Jacqui Smith
  The section 64 scheme core grant of £48,000 per year over the three years from 2000–01 to 2002–03 was awarded to help fund the central administrative costs of the Churches Child Protection Advisory Service. The grant is being used by the Churches Child Protection Advisory Service, among other things, to:Develop programmes to prevent abuse and support families;
  Help churches and other organisations prepare and implement child protection policies;
  Provide advice in individual cases through a telephone helpline and face-to-face contact;
  Provide advice to social services and the police carrying out child protection inquiries in religious communities, and counselling to church leaders, adults and children before, during and after such inquiries;
  Provide advice and support to denominational child protection advisers; and
  Run child protection training events across the country.

  Technology Advisory Group
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the(a) remit and (b) responsibilities of the Technology Advisory Group are; and if he will list (i) the members and (ii) their declared interests. [28813]
  1066W
  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]The Technologies Advisory Group is an internal Department of Health committee, with external advisers, which advises Ministers on topics which might be referred for appraisal by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Members of the group and advisers are asked to declare interests in relation to specific topics under discussion. We will shortly be publishing a consultation paper with proposals to clarify and strengthen the way in which topics are selected for referral to NICE, including proposals for the future composition of the Technologies Advisory Group.

  Perioperative Death
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he knew that the National Confidential Inquiry into Perioperative Death's report, "Changing the Way we Operate", would be published on 4 December 2001; and when he first saw a copy of the report. [29286]

  Yvette Cooper
  The National Confidential Inquiry into Perioperative Death told the Department in August 2001 that it intended to publish its report in December. It confirmed on 30 October that the date would be 4 December. An advance copy of the report was sent to the Department on 21 November.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letters of 14 November and 13 December from the hon. Member for Spelthorne about his constituent J. Packman's letter to him dated 1 October. [28867]

  Ms Blears
  A reply was sent on 24 January 2002.

  Heart Bypass Operations
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average wait for heart bypass operations(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) of patients in Gloucestershire was in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [29317]

  Ms Blears
  Data are not collected on average waiting times for heart bypass operations specifically. Instead, data have been provided for the last 12 months on the average waiting time for in-patient procedures in the cardiothoracic surgery and cardiology specialties in England and in Gloucestershire health authority. Waiting times in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are matters for the devolved Administrations.

  £15 million investment was announced in November 2001 for extra heart operations; the national health service is now working towards a 12-month maximum wait by March, which we are expecting to be achieved in most areas. The waiting and choice initiative from July will give patients who wait more than six months for their operation the choice to move to an alternative provider, which will mean a shorter wait for many.
  1067W

  Average waiting times in cardiothoracic surgery and cardiology in Gloucestershire health authority and in England from the quarters ending March 2001 to December 2001

  HA/quarter

  Total waiting

  Average1 waiting time (months)

  Cardiothoracic surgery

  Gloucestershire HA

  March 2001

  83

  2.8

  June 2001

  44

  2.8

  September 2001

  104

  3.0

  December 2001

  114

  4.7

  England

  March 2001

  14.555

  4.3

  June 2001

  14.230

  4.3

  September 2001

  13.967

  4.4

  December 2001

  13.744

  4.3

  Cardiology

  Gloucestershire HA

  March 2001

  182

  2.1

  June 2001

  125

  2.1

  September 2001

  200

  2.6

  December 2001

  198

  2.4

  England

  March 2001

  23.702

  2.7

  June 2001

  25.402

  2.7

  September 2001

  25.173

  2.7

  December 2001

  26.159

  2.6

  1Median

  Care Homes
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he as made of the numbers of(a) private and (b) local authority homes that (i) have closed and (ii) plan to close due to the higher standards of care set out in the Care Standards Act 2000; [30296]

  (2) what financial assistance he will make available to local authorities to enable them to ensure that their care homes meet the standards set out in the Care Standards Act 2000; [30294]

  (3) what financial assistance he will make available to enable private care homes to meet the standards set out in the Care Standards Act 2000; [30293]

  (4) what date private nursing homes and residential units for the elderly must meet the standards of care stated in the Care Standards Act 2000. [30295]

  Jacqui Smith
  There is no evidence of a direct correlation between the introduction of national minimum standards under the Care Standards Act 2000 and the reduction in numbers of care home beds. Many providers already meet or exceed the standards and will have no reason to be concerned about them.

  We do not consider it appropriate to provide direct financial assistance to care homes who do not meet the standards. However, we are providing significant additional resources for social services. Resources for social services have increased by 20.4 per cent. in real terms between 1996–97 and 2002–03, and average annual increase of 3.1 per cent. This means that local authorities have the resources they need to purchase services at realistic prices. In contracting with care homes we expect local authorities to take into account a range of provider
  1068W
  costs such as implementing national standards. The additional resources include the £300 million that we announced on 9 October for this year and next.

  The standards for care homes for older people will apply from 1 April 2002, unless otherwise stated in any standard. However, this does not mean that homes must meet all the standards immediately. If standards were not being met in a few respects, the National Care Standards Commission would note this in its inspection report and write to the home owner giving reasonable time in which to make the changes. The national minimum standards for care homes for older people were published on 2 March 2001 and a copy placed in the Library. The standards for care homes for younger adults were approved in December 2001 and are available on the Department of Health website (www.doh.gov.uk/ncsc). The final version will be published shortly and placed in the Library.

  We are determined that the standards will be introduced in a way that will ensure that the application of the new standards does not lead to the closure of good quality homes. On 30 January I launched a package of measures to help smooth the introduction of the standards. This included statutory guidance to the Commission. In particular, the guidance says the Commission should consider whether care homes can fulfil the needs of service users without making environmental changes to meet the standards. The guidance particularly covers issues of room size, lifts, baths and shared rooms. The guidance has been welcomed by the major associations representing care homes, the Registered Nursing Homes Association, the National Care Homes Association and the Independent Health Care Association.

  John Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish guidance on those health care items which should be free at the point of delivery to people in care homes; and if he will make a statement. [34697]

  Jacqui Smith
  All items provided to people in care homes by the national health service are free at the point of delivery.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many residential homes have converted to nursing care homes since January 2001. [37606]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on the number of residential care homes that have converted to nursing homes is not available centrally.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients detained under section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983 were detained for the full 28 days without having a mental health review tribunal hearing despite having requested such a hearing within the appropriate period in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [30388]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department does not collect the information required.

  Fireworks
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many firework-related injuries were treated by hospitals during the Christmas and new year period. [30266]
  1069W
  Yvette Cooper
  The latest data available show that, of 127 hospital in-patient episodes' in England in 2000–01 with the cause code "Discharge of Firework"2, seven were admitted in the December/January period. These figures exclude accident and emergency patients who were not admitted as an in-patient.
  1 A finished consultant episode is a period of in-patient care under one consultant within one health care provider. These figures do not represent the number of patients as a person may have more than one episode within the year.
  2ICD10 Cause code W39: Discharge of Firework.

  MS
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the use of Copaxone in the treatment of MS; [30379]

  (2) how long the decision to prescribe beta interferon and Copaxone for MS sufferers has been under review; and what guidance is in place for health authorities in relation to prescribing Copaxone; [30377]

  (3 when he expects to make a final decision on the prescription of beta interferon and Copaxone; [30381]

  (4) if he will list health authority interferon and Copaxone are made patients;

  (5) what recent representations he has received from patients using Copaxone; and if he will make a statement. [30378]

  Ms Blears
  In August 1999, we asked the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) to conduct a detailed appraisal of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of beta interferon and glatiramer acetate (brand name Copaxone). NICE issued its guidance on 4 February 2002. NICE recommends that these products are not cost effective on the current arrangements for supply to the NHS.

  On 5 September 2001, following NICE's recommendation in its Provisional Appraisal Determination, the Department of Health commenced discussions with the manufacturers of beta interferon and glatiramer acetate about the possible provision of these therapies for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) on the national health service in a manner which could be considered to be cost-effective. These discussions are complete and on Monday 4 February we announced details of an innovative scheme to make these products available on the NHS. The scheme starts on 6 May 2002. Details are contained in Health Service Circular 2002/004 which has been issued widely across the NHS.

  We do not hold information centrally on individual health authority policies on treatments for MS.

  According to our records, since 5 September (when the discussions with manufacturers commenced) we have received no written representations from patients using glatiramer acetate.

  Departmental Performance Targets
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the performance against target in replying to letters from members of the public to his Department for each of the last 12 months. [30968]
  1070W
  Ms Blears
  Performance against service first targets is shown in the table.

  Percentage

  January

  78.8

  February

  82.2

  March

  75.9

  April

  79.8

  May

  93.7

  June

  96.2

  July

  88.5

  August

  84.4

  September

  87.7

  October

  90.9

  November

  97.5

  December

  98.7

  Private Hospitals
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the regulatory regime for(a) private sector hospitals,(b) private sector general practitioners and(c) private sector consultants. [30853]

  Jacqui Smith
  Independent hospitals are currently regulated by health authorities under the Registered Homes Act 1984. Private general practitioners are not currently regulated, although those who work in the national health service as well as the independent sector will be subject to inspection by the Commission for Health Improvement.

  Consultant surgeons who are in charge of their own independent clinics are regulated by health authorities, but those who are granted practising privileges in independent hospitals but have no managerial role there, are not.

  On 1 April the national care standards commission will take over from health authorities the regulation of independent hospitals and clinics under the Care Standards Act 2000. From that date, general practitioners who work exclusively in the private sector will be brought under regulation by the national care standards commission for the first time. Private consultants with practising privileges in independent hospitals will, as before, not be required to register personally with the commission. However, the registered providers will be held responsible for the quality of treatment those consultants provide.

  The regulations and national minimum standards for the independent health care sector have been published and are available on the website www.doh.gov.uk/ncsc. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Electronic Medical Equipment
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to introduce national(a) standards and(b) assessments for NHS staff who use electronic medical equipment in the NHS; [29772]

  (2) what work is being carried out by (a) his Department and (b) the NHS Executive to raise the standards of NHS staff who operate electronic medical equipment within the NHS; [29774]
  1071W
  (3) what plans he has to introduce training for NHS staff in the use of electronic medical equipment in the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [29775]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 25 January 2002]: National health service clinicians learn to operate an appropriate range of electronic medical equipment as part of their basic professional education. The Department does not set the curricula for pre-registration and undergraduate health professional education. This is a matter for the professional regulatory bodies.

  Developing and maintaining the standards and skills of NHS staff who use electronic medical equipment is the responsibility of individual local NHS employers working in partnership with regulatory and professional bodies. However, as part of Medical Devices Agency's (MDA's) guidance and leverage programme, the MDA provide information routinely to health care professionals which assists in the training and safe use of electronic medical equipment and devices. This information is in the form of: device safety alerts, covering specific device related problems; technical notes; device bulletins; posters; and other written communications. Device bulletins in particular cover in more detail general device issues and have included training and management guidance.

  The MDA has issued advice on "Medical Devices and Equipment Management for Hospitals and Community-based Organisations" (DB 9801 January 1998). The MDA have also co-operated with professional bodies and training organisations in developing targeted training for health care workers using electronic medical devices and equipment.

  Spongiform EncephalopathyAdvisory Commitee
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact on waiting lists of the implementation of the advice on prion transmission by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee. [32783]

  Yvette Cooper
  The move to single use instruments for tonsil and adenoid surgery in January 2001 was part of the Department's strategy to reduce the theoretical risk of transmitting variant Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease (vCJD) through surgical instruments. The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) advised that single use instruments be considered for tonsil and adenoid surgery as part of this strategy "provided patient safety would not be compromised".

  An initial shortage of single-use instruments led to the number of patients waiting for tonsil and adenoid surgery rising between January and June 2001, however the waiting list has fallen each month since June 2001. The number of patients waiting over 18 months for tonsil and adenoid surgery peaked in July 2001 at 206, but this figure had reduced to eight by November 2001.

  Following the increase in provision of single use instruments in June 2001 the Medical Devices Agency Adverse Incident Centre received reports of adverse events with their use in tonsil and adenoid surgery. This included an increase in primary and secondary bleeding that required re-hospitalisation, return to theatre and blood transfusion. In the interests of patient safety and taking account of the improvement in central sterile services in
  1072W
  hospitals to decontaminate instruments, it was decided to advise surgeons to use reusable instruments. As a result of this action on 14 December 2001, we expect all tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy patients to be treated within the 18 month maximum in-patient waiting time guarantee.

  Retirement Ages
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the retirement ages that apply to the employees of his Department and its agencies, including how many and which categories of employees are affected by each; and if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on flexible retirement. [32826]

  Ms Blears
  Regardless of grade or job title the normal age of retirement for all staff in the Department and its agencies is 60. Some staff who transferred into the Department from the national health service retained the right to retire on NHS terms at the age of 65. The Department is currently involved in taking forward a Cabinet Office led initiative called "Winning The Generation Game" looking at flexible retirement options.

  Prostate Surgery
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the Wyre Forest constituency are waiting for non-urgent prostate surgery; and how long they can expect to wait. [33534]

  Yvette Cooper
  I am advised that there are currently 54 Wyre Forest residents waiting for non-urgent prostate surgery, the majority of which will be treated within 12 months.

  I am further advised by the trust that in cases where the clinical need is judged the greatest, the waiting time will be far shorter. The trust expects that all patients waiting for non-urgent prostate operations will be treated within 15 months, and urgent cases of prostate cancer patients will be treated within two weeks of diagnosis.

  Figures for Wyre Forest residents are in line with non-urgent prostate surgery waiting times in Worcestershire as a whole.

  Care Bed Losses
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nursing home and residential care beds have been lost in the last three years by region; and if he will make a statement. [33594]

  Jacqui Smith
  The numbers of care homes and beds at 31 March each year by national health service region are shown in the tables.

  Table 1: Number of residential and nursing care homes by NHS region, England, 1999 to 2001—at 31 March

  Rounded numbers

  NHS region

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Residential care homes

  Eastern

  2,080

  2,070

  2,040

  London

  2,320

  2,310

  2,330

  North West

  3,580

  3,700

  3,590

  Northern and Yorkshire

  2,990

  3,040

  2,950

  1073W

  Table 1: Number of residential and nursing care homes by NHS region, England, 1999 to 2001—at 31 March

  Rounded numbers

  NHS region

  1999

  2000

  2001

  South East

  5,200

  5,210

  4,950

  South West

  3,870

  3,710

  3,610

  Trent

  2,270

  2,310

  2,230

  West Midlands

  2,490

  2,420

  2,390

  Total

  24,800

  24,770

  24,080

  Nursing care homes1

  Eastern

  460

  440

  420

  London

  550

  550

  550

  North West

  970

  930

  880

  Northern and Yorkshire

  830

  8,010

  780

  South East

  1,070

  1,040

  990

  South West

  880

  840

  810

  Trent

  730

  690

  670

  West Midlands

  610

  600

  580

  Total

  6,110

  5,880

  5,680

  1 Private nursing homes, hospitals and clinics

  Source:

  Department of Health's annual return

  Table 2: Number of residential and nursing care beds by NHS region, England, 1999 to 2001—at 31 March

  Rounded numbers

  NHS region

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Residential care beds

  Eastern

  34,190

  35,070

  35,380

  London

  29,530

  30,140

  29,340

  North West

  50,340

  50,460

  49,760

  Northern and Yorkshire

  45,570

  45,950

  45,340

  South East

  69,290

  69,070

  67,280

  South West

  46,240

  45,760

  44,790

  Trent

  35,550

  36,960

  37,200

  West Midlands

  33,330

  32,500

  32,090

  Total

  344,040

  345,910

  341,180

  Nursing care beds

  Eastern

  15,590

  15,140

  14,770

  London

  18,260

  18,290

  18,080

  North West

  35,190

  33,470

  31,500

  Northern and Yorkshire

  29,620

  27,620

  26,950

  South East

  33,280

  32,360

  31,340

  South West

  25,930

  24,660

  24,070

  Trent

  22,780

  21,380

  20,080

  West Midlands

  21,510

  20,420

  20,040

  Total

  202,150

  193,330

  186,830

  Source:

  Department of Health's annual return

  Thrombolytic Drugs
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the date when paramedics will commence administering thrombolytic drugs to heart attack patients in the Wyre Forest constituency before their journey to hospital in Worcester. [33533]

  Yvette Cooper
  The NHS Plan contained a commitment to improve 'call-to-needle' times for administering thrombolytic drugs for treating heart attack victims.

  I am advised that the Hereford and Worcester Ambulance Service National Health Service Trust are already meeting targets set for ambulance response times.
  1074W
  I understand that the trust, in collaboration with Herefordshire and Worcestershire health authorities, Hereford Hospitals NHS Trust and Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, have initiated procedures laid down in the NHS Plan, published in July 2000, for a three year programme to train and equip ambulance paramedics to provide thrombolysis safely for appropriate patients.

  I am advised that paramedics at Hertfordshire and Worcestershire Ambulance Service will commence administering thrombolytic drugs to heart attack patients in the Wyre Forest constituency in May this year. This is part of an 18 month programme covering all 14 ambulance stations in the area.

  Television Sets
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [33233]

  Ms Blears
  The Department does not record centrally or separately the numbers of televisions, integrated digital or analogue, that it purchases for use within the Department. Specific guidance on the purchase of televisions is not published or disseminated to officials, but buyers are required to follow normal departmental procurement guidance and procedures whenever purchasing such goods.

  Lost/Stolen Property
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [34217]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is as shown.

  Losses and thefts 1997–98

  Item(s)

  NEC Vodaphone mobile phone

  NEC P3 mobile phone

  Nokia 101 mobile phone

  Telephone answering machine

  Ericsson Hotline mobile phone

  Desktop calculator

  Nokia mobile phone

  MS mouse

  Nokia mobile phone

  Microsoft mouse

  Losses and thefts 1998–99

  Item(s)

  Nokia mobile phone

  Motorola D460 mobile phone

  Mobile phone

  Mobile phone

  Nokia 5110 mobile phone

  Nokia mobile phone

  Nokia 232 mobile phone

  Nokia 5110 mobile phone

  1075W

  Nokia 1611 mobile phone

  Motorola d460 mobile phone

  Nokia 2110 mobile phone

  Nokia 3110 mobile phone and charger

  Nokia 5110 mobile phone

  Nokia mobile phone

  Losses and thefts 1999–2000

  Item(s)

  Nokia mobile phone

  Nokia 5110 mobile phone

  Nokia mobile phone

  Nokia mobile phone

  Nokia mobile phone

  Nokia mobile phone

  Nokia mobile phone

  Battery charger for Nokia 1611 mobile phone

  Nokia mobile phone

  Nokia mobile phone

  Nokia 2110 mobile phone

  Nokia 5110 mobile phone

  Nokia 5110 mobile phone

  Nokia 8110 mobile phone

  Charger for a Nokia phone

  Nokia mobile phone

  Charger for a Nokia phone

  Charger for a Nokia phone

  Mobile phone

  Mobile phone

  Mobile phone

  Nokia 5110 mobile phone

  Nokia 5110 mobile phone

  Mobile phone

  16Mb DIMM (computer memory chip)

  Mobile phone

  Mobile phone

  Losses and thefts 2000–01

  Item(s)

  Nokia 5110 mobile phone

  Nokia 5110 mobile phone

  Nokia mobile phone

  Nokia 5110 mobile phone

  Nokia 5110 mobile phone

  Nokia 5110 mobile phone

  Nokia mobile phone

  Nokia mobile phone

  Nokia 5110 mobile phone

  Nokia 5110 mobile phone

  Nokia mobile phone

  Nokia 5110 mobile phone

  Nokia mobile phone

  Nokia mobile phone

  Nokia 5110 mobile phone

  Nokia NHE 4NX mobile phone

  1076W

  Nokia mobile phone

  Nokia mobile phone

  Nokia mobile phone

  Nokia 5110 mobile phone

  Nokia 5110 mobile phone

  Nokia 5110 mobile phone

  Ericsson A1018s mobile phone

  Nokia 5210 mobile phone

  Nokia 8110 mobile phone

  Nokia 5110 mobile phone

  Nokia mobile phone

  Nokia 8210 mobile phone

  Nokia 5110 mobile phone and charger

  Vodaphone mobile phone

  Nokia 8210 mobile phone

  Nokia 5110 mobile phone

  Nokia mobile phone

  Ericsson GA628 mobile phone

  Nokia mobile phone

  Nokia 5110 mobile phone

  Nokia mobile phone

  Losses and thefts 2001–02

  Item(s)

  Ericsson GA318 mobile phone

  Siemens C351 mobile phone

  Nokia mobile phone

  Nokia 5110 mobile phone

  Nokia 5110 mobile phone

  Nokia mobile phone

  Siemens C351 mobile phone

  Nokia 5110 mobile phone

  Nokia 5110 mobile phone

  Nokia mobile phone

  Nokia mobile phone

  Nokia mobile phone

  Siemens C351 mobile phone, battery and charger

  Nokia mobile phone

  Nokia 5100 mobile phone

  Nokia 6210 mobile phone

  Nokia mobile phone

  Nokia 5110 mobile phone

  Nokia 5110 mobile phone

  Siemens C35 mobile phone

  Siemens C35i mobile phone

  Nokia 5110 mobile phone.

  Publications
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the publications issued by his Department in each of the last four years; and what the(a) circulation, (b) cost and (c) purpose of each was. [34191]

  Ms Blears
  The majority of departmental publications issued since 1997 are listed on two departmental databases available on the internet. These are Circulars on the internet (COIN) (www.doh.gov.uk/publications/ coinh.html) and Publications on the internet (POINT) (www.doh.gov.uk/publications/pointh.html).
  1077W
  This information on (a) cost, (b) circulation and (c) purpose of each is not collected centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  MMR Vaccine
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children received the measles vaccine in(a) each county or health authority and (b) England in each of the five years before the introduction of the MMR vaccine; and what proportion those who had received the vaccine represented of the total number of children under five years of age. [34356]

  Yvette Cooper
  Immunisation coverage for the years 1983 to 1988 was measured at two years of age. A table of the available information has been placed in the Library. This shows the proportion of under-twos to have received the vaccine.

  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent guidance his Department has given to nursery schools and other providers of early years education and child care about accepting children who(a) have and (b) have not had the MMR vaccine. [36504]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department has not given guidance to nursery schools and other providers of early years education and child care about accepting children who have or have not had MMR vaccine.

  Migraine
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money the Department has given to(a) research into migraine and (b) care for severe migraine sufferers in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [34634]

  Jacqui Smith
  The main Government agency for research into the causes of and treatments for disease is the Medical Research Council (MRC). The MRC is not currently funding any research into migraine, and has not funded any research in the past five years. The MRC, however, always welcomes high quality applications for support into any aspect of human health and these are judged in open competition with other demands on funding. Awards are made according to their scientific quality and importance.

  The Department funds research to support policy and the delivery of effective practice in the national health service. The Health Technology Assessment Programme is currently supporting a project on "Acupuncture for migraine and headache in primary care: a pragmatic, randomised trial" at a total cost of £161,532. This project started in October 1998 and is due to be completed late in 2002.

  Figures on how much is spent by the national health service to treat and care for patients with particular conditions such as migraine are not collected centrally.

  Funding (Wigan and Bolton Health Authority)
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) increases in funding have been given to the Wigan and Bolton health authority and (b) grants for specific projects have been given to the Wigan Leigh NHS Hospital Trust since May 1997. [32217]
  1078W
  Jacqui Smith
  Wigan and Bolton health authority received the following increases in allocations since May 1997:

  £000

  Percentage

  1997–98

  11,928

  4.62

  1998–99

  14,021

  5.41

  1999–2000

  24,996

  7.18

  2000–01

  35,415

  9.46

  2001–02

  37,252

  9.10

  2002–03

  45,361

  10.17

  The former1 Wigan and Leigh Health Services National Health Service Trust received the following conditional capital allocations during this period:
  1997–98: £1,563,000: Final element of the Phase 3 refurbishment scheme;
  1998–99: £665,000: Mental Health Intensive Care Unit;
  1999–2000: £480,0002: Start of Phase 4 service rationalisation;
  Between 1999–2000 and 2000–01: £1,950,000 in respect of modernisation, waiting list moneys as well as "action on funds"; and
  2001–02: £2,700,000 for accident and emergency reprovision together with £961,000 for a new mortuary.
  1The Wigan and Leigh Health Services NHS Trust merged with the Wrightington Hospital NHS Trust on 1 April 2001 to form the Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Trust. Conditional capital allocations to the Wrightington hospital have not been included in this response.
  2The total value of this scheme is £22,000,000 and is due to be completed in 2004–05.

  Primary Care Trusts
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total cost was for setting up primary care trusts within the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [36304]

  Mr. Hutton
  Approximately £63.1 million of central funding has been made available to support the establishment of primary care trusts.

  £ million

  1999–2000

  6.6

  2000–01

  27.0

  2001–02

  29.5

  Maternity Services
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the £100 million for maternity services has been allocated; and whether it has been spent in the way originally intended. [36418]

  Yvette Cooper
  The £100 million was allocated on the basis of individual bids submitted by maternity units after consultation with local staff and users. The bids were prioritised and allocations recommended by regional offices to target hospitals which were in greatest need. A central panel reviewed the bids to ensure national consistency.

  Over 200 units across the country received a share of this investment. Regional offices are monitoring the expenditure and progress reports will be provided. Plans

  1079W
  are well under way for the refurbishment work, and all projects are due to be completed by the end of March 2003.

  Mixed Sex Wards
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to reduce the use of mixed sex wards in NHS hospitals; and if he will make a statement about the scale of use of such ward. [36452]

  Ms Blears
  Guidance on maintaining privacy and dignity was first issued to the service in 1997 and since then the national health service has been working towards a clear target to eliminate mixed sex accommodation in 95 per cent. of national health service trusts by December 2002.

  Ongoing monitoring of the progress of the project continues and indicates that progress towards the targets is being maintained and work is continuing to ensure that this remains so.

  Additional professional and technical support is being made available to those who are finding meeting the targets particularly challenging.

  It is not possible to provide information at the level of the individual ward. The majority of hospital wards are usually subdivided into bays which are designated as male or female. Depending on the case mix and local need, the exact proportion of male to female bays will vary.

  Dentistry
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the national average has been in the last five years of the numbers of registrations to NHS dental practices. [36398]

  Ms Blears
  The average number of General Dental Service (GDS) registrations in England during the years 1996–97 to 2000–01 is shown in the table.

  Registration numbers were reduced by the shortening of the registration period for new registrations from September 1996. For adults the period fell from 24 to 15 months. Children's registrations used to lapse at the end of the following calendar year; they now last for 24 months. This affected registration numbers between December 1997 and August 1998. Data for 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99 are not comparable with later years.

  Patients who are not registered with a dentist or choose not to register, can obtain treatment on an occasional basis.

  General Dental Service: Average registration list sizes from 1996–97 to 2000–01, England

  Adults

  Children

  Total

  1996–97

  19,582,630

  6,897,598

  26,480,228

  1997–98

  19,082,300

  7,036,038

  26,118,339

  1998–99

  16,945,524

  6,782,506

  23,728,030

  1999–2000

  16,673,848

  6,829,233

  23,503,081

  2000–01

  16,818,256

  6,846,298

  23,664,553

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the future resources that will be made available to NHS dentists. [36396]
  1080W
  Ms Blears
  An estimated £1.2 billion will be spent on the general dental service and in excess of £50 million revenue will be invested in personal dental service pilot schemes in the current financial year. In addition local health authorities invest their own resources in the community dental services (information on the levels of this investment is not held centrally). These levels of expenditure are anticipated to continue in the next financial year.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of people are registered with an NHS dentist in(a) Stoke-on-Trent, North, (b) Staffordshire, (c) Stoke-on-Trent and (d) the United Kingdom. [36395]

  Ms Blears
  The number of people registered with General Dental Services (GDS) dentists as a percentage of the population in North and South Staffordshire health authority areas at 31 December 2001 was 43 per cent. and 46 per cent. respectively. The combined North and South Staffordshire HA registration rate at 31 December 2001 was 44 per cent. The registration rate in the United Kingdom was 48 per cent.

  Patients who are not registered with a GDS dentist, or choose not to, can attend occasionally.

  The numbers of dental registrations for Stoke-on-Trent, North, Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent are not available centrally.

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many residential places were available for the treatment of drug addicts in(a) 1992, (b) 1997 and (c) 2000; and if he will make a statement. [37103]

  Ms Blears
  Statistics are not held centrally for the years requested. However, the Department conducted a survey in 2001 to establish the number of residential places across England for those requiring treatment for substance misuse problems, including drugs and alcohol. The results of this indicate that there are approximately a total of 3,100 residential places covering both adults and young people available within this sector.

  Commission on Health Improvement
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is given to the Commission on Health Improvement on taking evidence from local trade union representatives when they are investigating local health facilities; and if he will make a statement. [36613]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 25 February 2002]: We have given no guidance to the independent Commission for Health Improvement (CHI) on those bodies or individuals from whom it should take evidence when investigating local health facilities.

  However, when carrying out a local review, CHI spends two days meeting with local people and non-statutory organisation with an interest in the national health service trust concerned. Stakeholders may include members of the public, voluntary and non-profit organisations, staff associations and trade union representatives.

  Health Action Zones
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the expenditure in each of the past three years(a) on each health action zone and (b) envisaged for 2002–03. [36612]

  HAZ expenditure 1999–2000 to 2002–03

  £000

  HAZ

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Planned 2002–03

  Grand total

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  4,356

  3,818

  3,808

  3,871

  15,853

  East London

  3,962

  3,152

  3,216

  3,362

  13,692

  Plymouth

  1,545

  1,401

  1,438

  1,301

  5,685

  Luton

  960

  1,580

  1,587

  1,039

  5,166

  Sandwell

  1,617

  1,249

  1,535

  1,634

  6,035

  South Yorkshire Coalfields

  3,821

  3,051

  3,058

  3,188

  13,118

  Manchester, Salford and Trafford

  4,853

  4,080

  4,484

  4,643

  18,060

  Bradford

  2,740

  2,540

  2,538

  2,653

  10,471

  Tyne and Wear

  6,170

  4,564

  4,612

  4,898

  20,244

  Northumberland

  1,771

  1,524

  1,413

  1,299

  6,007

  North Cumbria

  1,670

  1,259

  1,351

  1,363

  5,643

  1 wave total

  33,465

  28,218

  29,040

  29,251

  119,974

  Tees

  1,958

  2,834

  2,932

  2,831

  19,555

  Wakefield

  978

  1,206

  1,296

  1,264

  4,744

  Leeds

  2,040

  2,721

  2,766

  2,726

  10,253

  Hull and East Riding

  1,668

  2,377

  2,415

  2,377

  8,837

  Merseyside

  4,221

  5,794

  5,773

  5,859

  21,647

  Bury and Rochdale

  1,152

  1,558

  1,558

  1,545

  5,813

  Nottingham

  1,768

  2,385

  2,370

  2,355

  8,878

  Sheffield

  1,736

  2,222

  2,041

  2,048

  8,047

  Leicester City

  925

  1,361

  1,467

  1,391

  5,144

  Wolverhampton

  868

  1,247

  1,343

  1,280

  4,738

  Walsall

  845

  1,248

  1,286

  1,245

  4,624

  North Staffordshire

  1,251

  1,581

  1,639

  1,544

  6,015

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  1,369

  1,688

  1,906

  1,902

  6,865

  Camden and Islington

  1,453

  1,893

  1,904

  1,878

  7,128

  Brent

  793

  1,031

  1,039

  982

  3,845

  2 wave total

  23,025

  31,146

  31,735

  31,227

  117,133

  Grand total

  56,490

  59,364

  60,775

  60,478

  237,107

  Note:

  The totals indicated in the table include Smoking Cessation, Drugs Prevention and Innovations Fund Moneys as well as core Programme and Development funding. (There has been no Drugs Prevention funding allocated for 2002–03).

  Health Authority Expenditure
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list health authorities by expenditure per weighted head in the last 12 months. [37378]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 450W.

  HIV
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the oral statement of the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), of 22 January 2002,Official Report, column 732, what his policy is on recruitment of HIV-positive nurses to the NHS; and how many such nurses have been recruited. [30845]

  Yvette Cooper
  The national health service does not target developing countries for recruitment of nurses and no recruitment activity is planned in countries of
  1082W
  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 25 February 2002]: The table lists expenditure for each of the 26 health action zones in the three years from 1999, and that envisaged for 2002–03, some £237 million. In addition, health authorities in HAZ areas have received targeted funding or health inequalities adjustment funding of £305 million in the same period.

  sub-Saharan Africa, which have been hardest hit by the HIV epidemic. However, many developing countries have invited the UK to offer job opportunities to health care professionals, particularly to enhance their clinical practice and to benefit from further education and training in the NHS.

  While the safety of patients is of paramount importance, it should be recognised that the procedures involved in most nursing duties do not pose a risk of HIV infection to patients, provided normal infection control precautions are observed. There have been no reported cases of HIV transmission from infected health care workers to patients in the UK.

  Existing guidelines place health care workers who are or may be HIV infected under ethical and legal duties to protect the health and safety of their patients by seeking counselling and HIV testing if they believe they have been at risk of infection. If infected, they are required to seek and follow confidential occupational health advice about the need to modify or limit their working practices.
  1083W
  Information on the numbers of HIV infected nurses working in the NHS is not held centrally.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on HIV in the west midlands; and what measures are being taken to combat cases in Coventry. [37307]

  Yvette Cooper
  The west midlands regional surveillance system of HIV provides an accurate picture of the epidemiology of HIV infection in the west midlands in order to ensure appropriate targeting of preventative interventions and to monitor progress in tackling the epidemic.

  I am advised that Coventry health authority has highly proactive educational, preventive and support programmes that work with individuals and their families and various target groups. The health authority works closely with national health service providers as well as the Terrence Higgins Trust and has a continuous programme of needs assessment in order to tailor the services to the changing epidemiology. Coventry also has a well established needle and syringe exchange scheme.

  In terms of funding, in 2001–02, the west midlands received £7.7 million for HIV treatment and care and £4.3 million for HIV prevention. During the same period, Coventry health authority received £481,000 for HIV treatment and £268,000 for HIV prevention.

  Hospital Virus Outbreak
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to contain the outbreak of the virus at the Victoria Infirmary and the Southern General Hospital in Glasgow. [31336]

  Ms Blears
  This is a matter for the Scottish Executive. However, infection control is an issue that we take seriously and we are determined to ensure that there are universally robust infection control arrangements in place. This should ensure that all patients receive the level and quality of care they expect. National standards for infection control have been developed to be delivered in all national health service trusts in England. These are independently reviewed and monitored by both the Audit Commission and the Commission for Health Improvement.

  NHS Operations (Europe)
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who pays the fares of patients travelling to Europe for NHS operations. [37939]

  Mr. Hutton
  Regulations have now come into force to amend the National Health Service (Travelling Expenses and Remission of Charges) Regulations 1988 to permit NHS bodies to pay for the travel of NHS patients going overseas for treatment funded by the NHS. Where patients travel abroad for treatment the NHS meets the cost of the patient's travel from the point at which they begin their international journey (the airport, ferry port or international train station) to the foreign provider. Reimbursement of travel expenses between the patient's home to the airport, ferry port or international train station are governed by the same rules that apply to payment of travelling expenses to hospitals in England. This change 1084W
  ensures that patients treated overseas under the auspices of the NHS are not disadvantaged by having to travel further for that treatment.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 6 February 2002,Official Report, column 1046W, what the area in square feet of the property is that has been empty since July 2000. [37895]

  Ms Blears
  The Glenthorne Youth Treatment Centre in Birmingham comprises of 6,954 m2 of building space and 3.2 hectares of open ground.

  NHS Operations (Private Sector)
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the value for money provided by private sector contracts to perform NHS operations. [35527]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 21 January 2002,Official Report, column 686W.

  Unmarried Couples (Adoption)
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received regarding adoption by unmarried couples. [35528]

  Jacqui Smith
  Since the introduction of the Adoption and Children Bill on 19 October 2001, the Department has received representations regarding adoption by unmarried couples from BAAF Adoption and Fostering, three hon. Members and one private individual.

  Road Traffic Incidents
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of visits to accident and emergency departments in the last 12 months for which figures are available were by people injured in a road traffic accident, broken down by health authority; and what estimate he has made of the saving to the NHS which an(a) 5 per cent. (b) 10 per cent. and (c) 20 per cent. reduction in road traffic injury represents. [37461]

  Ms Blears
  The Department does not collect figures relating to accident and emergency department (A&E) attendances as a result of road traffic accidents. However, the number of in-patient admissions for traffic accidents via A&E departments are shown in the table.

  The Department is able to recover the cost of treating those road traffic accident victims who go on to receive personal injury compensation. In 2000–01, hospitals in England recovered £67,001,618.

  Hospital episode statistics: Finished consultant episodes (FCE's) where the cause code is ICD10 codes V01-V89, by health authority of treatment and month of admission, NHS hospital trusts in England, 2000–01

  Code/Health authority

  Number

  QA2 Hillingdon HA

  186

  QA3 Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster HA

  311

  QA4 Enfield and Haringey HA

  104

  QA5 Redbridge and Waltham Forest HA

  364

  QA6 Bedfordshire HA

  344

  1085W

  Hospital episode statistics: Finished consultant episodes (FCE's) where the cause code is ICD10 codes V01-V89, by health authority of treatment and month of admission, NHS hospital trusts in England, 2000–01

  Code/Health authority

  Number

  QA7 Berkshire HA

  589

  QA8 Buckinghamshire HA

  566

  QAA Bexley and Greenwich HA

  278

  QAC Bromley Ha

  150

  QAD Croydon Ha

  187

  QAE East Kent HA

  537

  QAF West Kent Ha

  1,086

  QAG Kingston and Richmond HA

  202

  QAH Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham HA

  641

  QAJ Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth HA

  462

  QAL West Surrey HA

  733

  QAM East Sussex, Brighton and Hove HA

  645

  QAN West Sussex Ha

  895

  QAP Barking and Havering HA

  226

  QAQ Barnet Ha

  275

  QAR Brent and Harrow HA

  24

  QAT Camden and Islington HA

  490

  QAV Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow HA

  278

  QAW East London and The City HA

  444

  QAX North Essex HA

  855

  QAY South Essex HA

  493

  QC I South Lancashire HA

  80

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  506

  QC3 Manchester HA

  422

  QC4 Morecambe Bay HA

  414

  QC5 St. Helens and Knowsley HA

  388

  QC6 Salford and Trafford HA

  288

  QC7 Sefton HA

  350

  QC8 Stockport HA

  223

  QC9 West Pennine HA

  494

  QCC Northamptonshire HA

  425

  QCE Oxfordshire HA

  625

  QCF Suffolk HA

  634

  QCG Barnsley HA

  283

  QCH North Derbyshire HA

  235

  QCJ South Derbyshire HA

  446

  QCK Doncaster HA

  287

  QCL Leicestershire HA

  517

  QCM Lincolnshire HA

  890

  QCN North Nottinghamshire HA

  610

  QCP Nottingham Ha

  852

  QCQ Rotherham HA

  257

  QCR Sheffield HA

  317

  QCT Bury and Rochdale HA

  247

  QCV North Cheshire Ha

  329

  QCW South cheshire Ha

  723

  QCX East Lancashire HA

  416

  QCY North West Lancashire HA

  493

  QD1 North and Mid Hampshire HA

  301

  QD2 Portsmouth and South East Hampshire HA

  594

  QD3 Southampton and South West Hampshire HA

  282

  QD4 Isle of Wight HA

  63

  QD5 Somerset HA

  489

  QD6 South and West Devon HA

  560

  QD7 Wiltshire HA

  548

  QD8 Avon Ha

  1,210

  QD9 Birmingham Ha

  1,347

  QDA Wigan and Bolton HA

  485

  QDC Wirral HA

  182

  QDD Bradford HA

  414

  QDE County Durham HA

  363

  QDF East Riding HA

  472

  QDG Gateshead and South Tyneside HA

  254

  QDH Leeds HA

  741

  QDJ Newcastle and North Tyneside HA

  445

  QDK North Cumbria HA

  240

  QDL South Humber HA

  460

  QDM Northumberland HA

  378

  QDN Sunderland HA

  286

  QDP Tees HA

  647

  1086W

  Hospital episode statistics: Finished consultant episodes (FCE1s) where the cause code is ICD10 codes V01-V89, by health authority of treatment and month of admission, NHS hospital trusts in England, 2000–01

  Code/Health authority

  Number

  QDQ Wakefield HA

  371

  QDR North Yorkshire HA

  808

  QDT Calderdale and Kirklees HA

  404

  QDV Cornwall and Isles of Scilly HA

  417

  QDW Dorset HA

  627

  QDX North and East Devon HA

  493

  QDY Gloucestershire HA

  593

  QEA Coventry HA

  393

  QEC Dudley HA

  309

  QED Herefordshire HA

  250

  QEE Sandwell HA

  148

  QEF Shropshire HA

  554

  QEH North Staffordshire HA

  236

  QEJ South Staffordshire HA

  319

  QEK Walsall HA

  206

  QEL Warwickshire HA

  406

  QEM Wolverhampton HA

  185

  QEN Worcestershire HA

  435

  QEP East and North Hertfordshire HA

  318

  QEQ West Hertfordshire HA

  254

  QER Cambridge HA

  1,046

  QET Norfolk HA

  981

  Total

  43,630

  1An 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.

  Notes:

  1. The cause code is a supplementary code which indicates the nature of the condition.

  2. Figures in this table have not yet been adjusted for shortfalls in data.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health

  NHS Patients (Overseas Treatment)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria he uses to decide on whether to withhold information on the grounds of commercial confidentiality in relation to contracts abroad with foreign companies. [36517]

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish cost details for those NHS patients who have received treatment in continental hospitals; and why this information was not published before treatment was given. [37313]

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his policy on(a) commercial confidentiality and (b) public accountability in contracts made for patients to be treated abroad. [36519]

  Mr. Hutton
  We will not publish details about the cost to the national health service of individual operations carried out on NHS patients treated at particular hospitals in Europe as part of the pilot scheme.

  It would not be possible to publish this information without breaching commercial confidentiality. It would also undermine the negotiating position of the NHS with existing and potential healthcare providers.

  This is consistent with the approach to release of information set out in the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.
  1087W
  Information about overall expenditure on treatment for patients under the pilot scheme will be published in due course.

  Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) facilities and (b) treatments are available in the NHS for sufferers of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. [37126]

  Jacqui Smith
  Patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy can take advantage of the usual primary care/secondary and tertiary services available. Children form a considerable part of the caseload for children's community nursing services and many receive services from children's hospices.

  Clinical and laboratory services for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy are available through existing networks of regional genetics centres. In April 2001 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a £30 million investment aimed at improving NHS genetics services. This should help patients with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy and other genetic diseases.

  There is no specific treatment for any of the forms of muscular dystrophy. Physical therapy and corrective orthopaedic surgery may be needed to improve the quality of life in some cases.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research his Department is funding into Duchenne muscular dystrophy; [37124]

  (2) what support he will give to expanding research into finding a cure for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. [37125]

  Jacqui Smith
  The main Government agency for research into the causes of and treatments for disease is the Medical Research Council (MRC) which receives its funding via the Department of Trade and Industry. In 2000–01 the MRC spent £920,000 on research into Muscular Dystrophy. This included a number of projects and fellowships looking specifically at Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy and a major programme of work on the molecular analysis of Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy at the MRC Functional Genetics unit in Oxford. This work is at a basic level and it is hoped that such research will lead to treatments in the future.

  The MRC always welcomes high quality applications for support into any aspect of human health and these are judged in open competition with other demands on funding. Awards are made according to their scientific quality and importance to human health.

  The Department funds research to support policy and the delivery of effective practice in the national health service. The Department provides support to NHS trusts to allow work funded by others such as the Research Councils and charities to be conducted within the NHS. Details of ongoing and recently completed research projects funded by, or of interest to, the NHS are available on the National Research Register which is available on the internet at http://www.doh.gov.uk/research/nrr.htm.

  The Department has provided support over the last decade to the umbrella charity "The Genetic Interest Group", of which the Duchenne Family Support Group is
  1088W
  a member organisation. This funding has been targeted to a range of initiatives intended to raise awareness of all inherited diseases.

  Pharmacists
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of pharmacists are employed at grades(a) D and (b) E level in (i) hospital pharmacies and (ii) PCG/PCT pharmacies. [37137]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is in the table.

  Percentage of Grade D and E pharmacists employed at trusts

  Grade

  Whole time equivalent

  Headcount

  D

  32

  32

  E

  17

  16

  Notes:

  1. The above information is for a sample of NHS trusts. It shows what percentage grade D and E make up of the total number of pharmacists.

  2. The sample of PCT we have available is too limited to provide meaningful data on this subject.

  3.We do not hold information on PCGs.

  (4.) NHS Earnings Survey 2000. The results are based on a survey at August 2000 covering almost 500 thousand staff, (about 50 per cent. of NHS trusts and health authorities) with pay information taken directly from payroll records.

  Source: Department of Health: 2000 Earnings Survey.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the vacancy rates for hospital pharmacists in each hospital trust in the last 12 months. [37617]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to promote an extended role for pharmacists in performing medication review. [37142]

  Ms Blears
  The NHS Plan set a target for all primary care trusts to have schemes in place so that people get more help from pharmacists in using their medicines by 2004. We have set up a collaborative medicines management programme, hosted by the National Prescribing Centre. The first wave of 26 pilot sites was announced last July and the second wave of 40 sites was announced on 12 February. We are also supporting a trial of structured services based exclusively in community pharmacies for patients with coronary heart disease. These initiatives build on and complement other local initiatives under which pharmacists are involved in reviewing patients' medication.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department is taking to minimise the handling charge imposed by pharmacists dealing with monitored dosage systems. [37127]

  Ms Blears
  Under their national health service terms of service, pharmacies are not required to provide monitored dosage systems. Any charges for the supply of monitored dosage systems are therefore a commercial matter.

  Hospital Readmissions
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the latest available readmission rates to hospitals within two months are for(a) all patients in

  1089W
  England and Wales and (b) each hospital trust in England and Wales; and if he will break down the readmitted patients by age. [37128]

  Jacqui Smith
  We do not have information on readmission rates within two months. Information for England showing emergency readmissions to hospital within 28 days of last previous discharge from hospital by trust and health authority was published on Wednesday 20 February. This information will be placed in the Library and can be found on www.doh.gov.uk/nhsperformanceindicators/index.htm

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the type of home of over 65-year-old patients readmitted to hospitals within two months of discharge, broken down by(a) residential/ nursing home and (b) private home with domiciliary care. [37311]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not available currently.

  MRSA
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many non-fatal cases of the MRSA superbug have been reported in each hospital trust in each of the last five years. [37141]

  Ms Blears
  The data requested are not held centrally. Information about bacteraemias blood stream infections due to MRSA has been collected from all acute trusts as the first stage of a new comprehensive and compulsory surveillance system since 1 April 2001. Early data from this surveillance was published in the 'Public Health Laboratory Service Communicable Disease Report on 8 February 2002', copies of which are available in the Library.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many inpatient deaths have been attributed to MRSA in each of the last five years. [37140]

  Ms Blears
  There are no centrally held statistics on deaths caused by health care associated infections, including Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).

  MRSA infection can take many forms, from trivial skin infection to pneumonia or septicaemia. Often the causative micro-organism is not specified on the death certificate. MRSA does not have a distinct code within the revision of the international classification of diseases used for encoding death registration data at the Office for National Statistics.

  Leonard Cheshire Organisation
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the costs of mandatory care staff training required under the National Care Standards Regulations for the Leonard Cheshire Organisation; [37134]

  (2) what discussions he has had at ministerial level with representatives of the Leonard Cheshire Organisation regarding capital costs involved with improving their properties to meet national care standards; [37138]
  1090W
  (3) what estimate he has made of the conversion costs of residential rooms operated by the Leonard Cheshire Organisation to comply with new national care standards. [37139]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have met with representatives of the Leonard Cheshire Organisation, as have departmental officials, to discuss a range of issues including the costs associated with complying with the new national minimum standards.

  Pharmacies
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those medicines which are now available via pharmacy sale rather than on a doctor prescription only basis; and what PCT areas(a) offer this service and (b) have plans to. [37620]

  Ms Blears
  There are nearly 5,000 medicines which can be sold or supplied by a pharmacy without a prescription. We are aware of a small number of primary care trust areas where some medicines which do not require a prescription are supplied on the national health service, through a pharmacy, without patients needing to see their general practitioner. A larger number of PCT areas are using patient group directions to make a limited range of prescription only medicines available through pharmacies. However, as there are local initiatives, no definitive list of such schemes, nor of PCTs which plan to establish such schemes, is held centrally.

  Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has held with operators of simple hyperbaric oxygen therapy facilities in the community offering treatment for MS sufferers regarding the new requirements under the Care Standards Act 2000. [37608]

  Jacqui Smith
  There have been exchanges of correspondence on the new requirements between the Department and the headquarters of the leading charitable provider of hyperbaric oxygen therapy since November 2000. In July last year the proposed regulations and national minimum standards for independent health care providers were published for consultation. This exercise prompted a good response and the proposed standards were revised in light of the comments made. Consequently, the requirements for hyperbaric facilities for therapeutic use are considerably fewer than for those used to treat patients with acute medical conditions, and proportionate to their simpler operation.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his assessment is of the likely compliance cost of the Care Standards to operators of simple hyperbaric oxygen therapy facilities in the community providing treatment to MS sufferers. [37604]

  Jacqui Smith
  The standards for hyperbaric facilities for therapeutic use are considerably fewer than for those used to treat patients with acute medical conditions, and proportionate to their simpler operation. Consequently, we expect the costs of compliance to be minimal.

  Cancelled Operations
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many operations were cancelled in each region in each of the last three years, broken down into those cancelled(a) once, (b) twice and (c) three times or more before treatment was obtained; and if he will express these figures as a percentage of total operations carried out; [37143]

  (2) if he will give a breakdown of reasons for cancelled operations in the last year in each health authority region that are defined as non-clinical cancellations. [37312]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data are not collected on the number of times operations are cancelled or on the non-clinical reasons for cancelling operations.

  The National Health Service Modernisation Agency is working with a number of trusts in order to optimise theatre utilisation and reduce cancelled operations. The pilot sites involved in the project are identifying good practice arrangements to avoid cancellation of operations. The lessons learned are being shared with the rest of the NHS.

  The nine pilot sites are showing good progress. Six out of nine pilots achieved the NHS Plan cancelled operations guarantee in December 2001, with the other three achieving the guarantee for over 90 per cent. of patients.

  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to reduce the number of cancelled operations; and if he will make a statement. [34731]

  Mr. Hutton
  The NHS Plan sets out our intentions for improving the national health service. From April 2002, if an operation is cancelled on the day of surgery for non-clinical reasons, the hospital will have to offer another binding date within 28 days or fund the patient's treatment at the time and hospital of the patient's choice.

  The NHS Modernisation Agency is looking at optimising theatre utilisation and reducing cancelled operations. The lessons learned are being shared with the rest of the NHS.

  The nine pilot sites involved in this work are showing good progress. Six out of nine pilots achieved the NHS Plan cancelled operations guarantee in December 2001, with the other three achieving the guarantee for over 90 per cent. of patients.

  GPs
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in calculating the ratio of GPs to local populations for qualification to the golden hello scheme, at what dates the relevant figures for GPs and patients in Worthing were taken. [37616]

  Mr. Hutton
  In 2001–02, all newly appointed general practitioners receive a golden hello payment of up to £5,000. If the GP is appointed in an under-doctored primary care group/trust, the GP will receive a further payment of up to £5,000.
  1092W
  The GP and patient figures used to determine qualification for golden hello payments for 2001–02 are as follows:
  GPs are the estimated whole time equivalent unrestricted principals and equivalents taken from the GP census of September 2000.
  PCG/T population data are the GP relevant PCG/T populations taken from the GP registrations system in April 2000. These figures have been reconciled to ONS projections of health authority populations to adjust for list inflation.
  PCGITs have then been ranked by whole time equivalent UPEs per 100,000 weighted population and the bottom 50 per cent. qualify for the additional payment.

  NHS Chief Executives
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those chief executives of hospital trusts awarded a zero star rating who remain in post; and on what criteria they were judged to have made progress. [37123]

  Mr. Hutton
  Eight of the 12 chief executives awarded a zero star rating remain in post.

  Stewart Welling: Brighton Healthcare National Health Service Trust

  Jan Filochowski: The Medway NHS Trust

  Fiona Wise (interim): Stoke Mandeville NHS Trust

  John De Braux: Epsom and St. Helier NHS Trust

  David Highton: Oxford Radcliffe NHS Trust

  Hugh Ross: United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust

  David Loughton: University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust.

  Each of the zero star rated trusts was required to provide an action plan setting out how performance improvement was to be delivered; each action plan was assessed by the Department together with progress made by the trust since the publication of the ratings. Where appropriate the Department additionally used the progress reports provided by the Commission for Health Improvement.

  Elderly People (Care Costs)
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what account is taken of the type of property tenure when calculating care costs for the elderly; [37755]

  (2) whether tenants of leasehold properties are treated differently from residents of freehold properties for the purposes of calculating care costs for the elderly. [37756]

  Jacqui Smith
  In the statutory charging system for residential care the value of a property is generally taken into account when assessing a person's ability to contribute to the cost of their care. Each council will need to establish the amount a property is worth. This is done by referring each case to the district valuer or a professional valuer who will give them the current market price. The value of a property can depend on whether it is freehold or leasehold. Other than this, the tenants of leasehold properties and residents of freehold properties are treated identically when they are financially assessed for residential accommodation.

  A and E Waiting Times
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department is taking to reduce waiting times in hospital accident and emergency departments. [34712]

  Ms Blears
  The NHS Plan set a target to reduce waiting times in accident and emergency departments to a maximum of four hours from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge by 2004.

  The national health service is on track to meet the NHS Plan target with 77 per cent. of all A&E attenders currently spending four hours or less in A&E. And in nearly a third of trusts, at least 90 per cent. of people attending A&E are discharged or admitted within four hours.

  The Government launched the Reforming Emergency Care Strategy last October, supported by investment of £118 million. This is helping hospitals around the country tackle waiting times in accident and emergency departments and meet the NHS Plan target.

  Residential Care (Elderly)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of NHS beds in the north-west of England that are occupied by elderly people who should be in residential care. [34568]

  Jacqui Smith
  In the north-west region, in September 2001, 259 hospital beds were occupied by patients who were awaiting social services funding or waiting for placements in residential care homes. This is the latest information available. It is based on returns from 15 of the 16 health authorities in the region.

  National Care Standards
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the number of additional nursing staff required to comply with the National Care Standards in the(a) voluntary, (b) local authority and (c) NHS sectors. [37136]

  Jacqui Smith
  Guidance to assess the required number of nursing staff is currently being developed.

  In the longer term work force confederations will work with the voluntary and local authority sectors to assess the impact of the guidance on local plans.

  Angiograms
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to reduce the waiting time for angiograms. [34710]

  Mr. Milburn
  Last November I announced funding of £80 million to provide new angiography equipment at 37 hospitals and new laboratory facilities for angiography at 22 hospitals. This first wave of funding will enable the national health service to carry out an extra 14,000 angiograms each year, and so reduce waiting times.

  Mental Health Services
  Mike Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in improving mental health services. [34711]
  1094W
  Jacqui Smith
  The targets set in the Mental Health National Service Framework (NSF) for April 2001 were all achieved on time. These included 170 assertive outreach teams; almost 500 additional secure beds; over 320 additional 24 hour staffed care beds; access to services 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year for all those with complex mental health problems; investment to improve the physical environments in psychiatric wards; and guidance has been issued to ensure the safety, privacy and dignity of mental health patients.

  All other targets set in the NSF and the NHS Plan are all on target to be met.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the role of assertive outreach teams in reducing admissions to mental hospitals; and if he will make a statement. [34715]

  Jacqui Smith
  It is not possible to forecast with precision what the impact on hospital admissions will be once assertive outreach services are provided to all those people who need them. Research to date indicates that significant reductions in admissions can be achieved, and further research on the matter has been commissioned.

  Mr. Lammy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on mental health provision in London. [34737]

  Jacqui Smith
  Mental health services face many challenges in London due to the needs of the population and the complex structure of services. However, good progress is being made in many areas of the implementation of the National Service Framework (NSF) for Mental Health Services in London.

  Key achievements arising from the NSF Implementation and the London Mental Health Strategy—"A Strategy for Action (2000)" include integration of health and social care and the involvement of users/survivors and carers. A new London group has been established to develop the forensic mental health services plan for London. London's 'Invest to Save' project involving social and health care agencies and the police and probation service is testing information-sharing protocols. Virtuall continues to provide resources to support agencies to deliver better mental health for Londoners and has been nominated for a modernisation award. Pilot projects to develop the leadership role of local authorities in improving mental well-being have been established. Also additional capital of £1.6 million was made available in 2001–02 to improve acute adult mental health in-patient services.

  It is recognised that mental health services need to improve their ability to meet the needs of black and minority ethnic groups. Consultation and capacity building is happening across London to support this.

  Care Home Places
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds in care homes there were in Leicestershire in(a) 1997 and (b) at the latest date for which figures are available. [34713]

  Jacqui Smith
  In 1997, there were 8,423 residential and nursing care beds in Leicestershire. By 2001, there were 8,263.
  1095W
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the availability of care home places in south-east England. [34720]

  Jacqui Smith
  Since 1997 the number of residential beds in London and the south-east has decreased by 5 per cent. from 101,960 to 96,620. In the same period the number of nursing care beds has increased by 5 per cent., from 47,080 to 49,420.

  Altogether, since 1997, the total number of care beds in London and the south-east has decreased by 3,000, a loss of just 2 per cent.

  Children's Services
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve children's services in health and social care; and if he will make a statement. [34714]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have already made significant improvements to health and social care services for children. The Quality Protects programme, an £885 million programme running from 1999–2004, has led to demonstrable improvements to the outcomes of some of the most vulnerable children in our society and children are benefiting from our strategy to invest in and transform the national health service.

  But there is much more to do. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced last year the development of a National Service Framework for Children, which will encompass health and social care services for children.

  Health Inequalities (East London)
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in tackling health inequalities in East London. [34716]

  Yvette Cooper
  This Government are taking practical measures to narrow health inequalities across all areas of the country. In East London, additional funding and strong local partnerships, are successfully supporting action to tackle the causes of the widespread inequalities in the area.

  CT Scanners
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish the criteria which will determine the distribution of the new CT scanners. [34717]

  Mr. Hutton
  Consultations regarding criteria for the allocation of 50 additional CT scanners, as outlined in the NHS Cancer Plan, will begin by the end of this month and will involve regions, strategic health authorities and the cancer networks. It is expected that final allocations will be published in the summer.

  One of the factors in establishing criteria for the allocation of additional equipment will be the relative provision of CT services to the population served.

  Delayed Discharges
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to tackle delayed discharges from hospital. [34718]
  1096W
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure closer co-operation between the national health service and social services departments to reduce delayed discharges from hospitals. [34725]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer my hon. Friend and the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State earlier today.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many long-term care beds there were in(a) 1997 and (b) 2001 in the (i) private, (ii) voluntary and (iii) public sectors. [34721]

  Jacqui Smith
  Among private sector care homes there were 407,130 beds in 1997 and 409,800 beds in 2001. Among voluntary sector care homes there were 64,460 beds in 1997 and 67,350 beds in 2001. Among local authority staffed homes there were 65,820 beds in 1997 and 50,860 beds in 2001.

  In addition the average daily number of beds managed by NHS trusts for residential care was 5,420 in 1997–98 and 5,659 in 2000–01.

  Dental Health (Children)
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to improve the dental health of children in those areas where the incidence of dental decay is worst. [34722]

  Ms Blears
  Oral health promotion features in Government initiatives aimed at reducing deprivation and health inequalities including Sure Start, Health Action Zones and Healthy Living Centres. More specifically, our "Brushing for Life" scheme provides free toothbrushes and fluoridated toothpaste to families with young children in the 21 health authorities where dental decay is highest.

  Emergency Acute Services (Rural Areas)
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the requirements for emergency acute services in remote rural areas. [34723]

  Ms Blears
  Each health community is responsible for developing services that meet the needs of the community they serve, taking account of clinical standards and safety and the views of local people.

  The NHS Plan sets out our vision for a health service designed around the patient, with a commitment to provide a comprehensive range of services for everyone, using the guiding principle of providing as much care as possible as close to home as possible.

  Each Primary Care Trust needs to consider how best to plan and commission services to meet local needs, rather than imposing a single model of service from the centre.

  Kent and Canterbury Hospital
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the downgrading of the Kent and Canterbury Hospital. [34724]
  1097W
  Ms Blears
  The proposals for the reconfiguration of acute hospital services in East Kent, which include the future role of Kent and Canterbury Hospital, are currently the subject of a public consultation. The consultation period runs until 28 February, therefore it would not be appropriate for me to pre-empt that exercise by commenting on the future of Kent and Canterbury at this time.

  Consultants (Contracts)
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to conclude negotiations on the national health service consultants' contracts. [34726]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government's proposals for the new consultant contract were published in February 2001 and these, alongside the British Medical Association's own proposals, form the basis of continuing negotiations. We have discussed a range of issues and options in the negotiations and I believe we are making good progress.

  Nurses
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on steps being taken to increase the number of NHS nurses working in Worcester. [34727]

  Yvette Cooper
  Initiatives to increase the number of national health service nurses now working in the Worcester area include the appointment of a recruitment adviser, the provision of additional nursery places, Improving Working Lives initiatives, local, regional and overseas recruitment initiatives and the introduction of comprehensive professional development opportunities for nursing staff.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future supply of nurses. [34728]

  Mr. Hutton
  Figures released on 5 February show that we have met the NHS Plan target for 20,000 more nurses by 2004 well ahead of schedule.

  The NHS Plan also commits us to 5,500 more nurses and midwives entering training each year by 2004. We are on course to achieve this and applications for nurse training are rising. Over the last two years the number of applicants for nursing and midwifery diploma courses has risen by 86 per cent.

  Obesity (Young People)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to reduce the levels of obesity in young people. [34729]

  Yvette Cooper
  We are tackling levels of obesity in young people by improving diet and physical activity. This includes investment from the New Opportunities Fund for a PE and Sports Programme, a National School Fruit Scheme and nutritional standards for school lunches. Local strategies on reducing overweight and obesity are also being developed as part of the National Service Framework for Coronary Heart Disease.

  Acupuncturists
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the number of acupuncturists practising in(a) the NHS and (b) the private sector. [34730]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department does not record the number of people practising complementary medicine in the national health service. However organisations representing NHS professionals that use some acupuncture have over 3,000 members. A further 2,200 acupuncturists who practise mainly in the private sector belong to the British Acupuncture Council.

  NHS Plan (Birmingham)
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the implementation of the NHS Plan in Birmingham. [34732]

  Yvette Cooper
  The NHS Plan is being implemented by the Birmingham health economy in a coherent and strategic way. The strong history of partnership working across Birmingham has allowed the local modernisation review process to continue to modernise and develop services for local people.

  Plans for the development of acute services in the south of the city are well under way, and the emerging primary care trusts will build on the work already undertaken to improve the health and well-being of the people of Birmingham.

  Accident and Emergency Services
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on statistical techniques for measuring waiting times in accident and emergency units. [34733]

  Ms Blears
  The Department requires the national health service to report quarterly on the numbers of patients who are admitted to hospital through accident and emergency and the length of time they waited following the decision to admit.

  The waiting time for an emergency hospital admission is measured from the time when the decision is made to admit or when treatment in accident and emergency is completed, whichever is the latest, to the time when the patient is received into:

  (a) a bed in an appropriate ward (a bed in an accident and emergency observation and assessment ward would count, but a trolley, bed or chair in a corridor would not); or

  (b) an operating theatre; or

  (c) another setting for immediate treatment (for example, an X-ray department) before being received into a bed in an appropriate ward.

  The NHS Plan set a new target for accident and emergency:
  Reduce the maximum wait in accident and emergency from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge to four hours by 2004. With the following interim milestones;
  75 per cent. of patients attending accident and emergency to wait four hours or less from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge by March 2002.
  90 per cent. of patients attending accident and emergency to wait four hours or less from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge by March 2003.
  1099W
  In line with this, from August 2001, the Department has collected data on total time in accident and emergency from arrival to transfer, admission or discharge. Information suggests that the NHS is on track to meet the March 2002 milestone. Currently 77 per cent. of all accident and emergency attenders spend four hours or less in accident and emergency.

  In the majority of NHS trusts, information on waiting times in accident and emergency are extracted from patient records on hospital computer systems. If IT systems are not yet in place, NHS trusts can use sampling methodology to provide the figures. Guidance on sampling is provided in "Patient's Charter monitoring guide".

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to visit the Royal National Hospital in Bath to discuss accident and emergency services. [34736]

  Ms Blears
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to visit the Royal United Hospital Bath National Health Service Trust to discuss accident and emergency services.

  Endometriosis
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on services for sufferers from endometriosis. [34734]

  Total allocation

  Total increase

  Real terms increase

  Health authority

  (£000)

  (£000)

  (Percentage)

  (£000)

  (Percentage)

  East Surrey

  324,719

  27,582

  9.31

  19,686

  6.65

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  666,721

  59,913

  9.89

  43,674

  7.21

  West Surrey

  485,877

  42,183

  9.57

  30,398

  6.89

  West Sussex

  618,829

  53,847

  9.58

  38,824

  6.91

  This represents a substantial increase for all four health economies.

  The 2002–03 allocations for English health authorities represent the biggest average rise for a decade.

  Air Ambulance
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure 24-hour air ambulance cover for emergency journeys from islands to mainland hospitals. [34739]

  Ms Blears
  There are currently 12 charitably funded air ambulance services operating in England. The charities are responsible for the number of aircraft provided. These charitably funded air ambulances are called out to emergencies by national health service ambulance trusts and generally staffed by NHS staff.

  Air ambulances have a role in delivering emergency care especially in rural areas and where road access is a problem. This can be an effective way of getting better and faster access to hospitals and valuable in supporting
  1100W
  Yvette Cooper
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) on 23 April 2001,Official Report, columns 179-80W.

  Poverty (Health Effects)
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of poverty on health; and if he will make a statement. [34735]

  Yvette Cooper
  Poverty has a major impact on health. The independent Acheson inquiry into inequalities in health commissioned by the Government in 1997 concluded that many studies and analyses have demonstrated the association between poor health and increasing material disadvantage.

  Health inequalities is a priority for the whole Government. Two national targets to reduce health inequalities were announced in February 2001. A public consultation on the delivery of the targets was held in autumn 2001. We are currently undertaking a cross-cutting spending review to establish priorities for action to deliver the targets.

  NHS Funding (Surrey and Sussex)
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about funding of the national health service in Surrey and Sussex. [34738]

  Ms Blears
  The 2002–03 allocations for Surrey and Sussex health authorities will be as follows:

  inter-hospital transfers. In 1995, the Department commissioned the Medical Research Unit at Sheffield university to report on air ambulances. The report failed to show benefits that would justify NHS investment.

  In recognition of the growing public interest in air ambulances and the fact that circumstances may have changed since research was last undertaken, the Department has commissioned a wide-ranging piece of primary research that is examining the role and effectiveness of air ambulance services in a modern NHS.

  Sure Start
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the expenditure to date on each Sure Start Scheme in London, broken down by ward and borough. [32293]

  Yvette Cooper
  The table gives information on the expenditure of Sure Start programmes broken down by borough in London for 1999–2000 and 2000–01. Information is not available by ward. Figures for 2001–02 will not be available until after the end of the financial year.
  1101W

  £

  Programme name/borough

  Claimed revenue

  Claimed capital

  Programmes announced in January 1999

  Aylesbury Plus—Southwark

  1,330,847

  89,231

  Central Brent—Brent

  280,284

  0

  Edmonton—Enfield

  844,406

  109,357

  Euston—Camden

  461,512

  110,965

  Greenwich—Greenwich

  370,536

  116,258

  North Canning Town—Newham

  186,791

  0

  Ocean Estate—Tower Hamlets

  272,036

  0

  Queensbridge—Hackney

  435,834

  188,707

  St. James Street—Waltham Forest

  255,988

  0

  Tulse Hill-Lambeth

  452,212

  0

  West Green—Haringey

  675,151

  1,113,647

  Programmes announced in November 1999

  Bellingham—Lewisham

  157,834

  0

  Broad Green—Croydon

  41,580

  0

  Coningham—Hammersmith and Fulham

  186,044

  0

  Copenhagen—Islington

  1,711

  0

  Hounslow—Hounslow

  111,001

  19,418

  North West Kensington—Kensington and Chelsea

  36,129

  0

  Penge—Bromley

  153,668

  0

  South Northolt—Ealing

  93,771

  17,067

  Thames View—Barking and Dagenham

  56,590

  0

  Battersea—Wandsworth

  111,042

  14,210

  Westminster—Westminster

  107,398

  43,400

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Battle of Trafalgar
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to mark the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar; and if she will make a statement. [36555]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department has no plans to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar. However, plans for a series of events to mark

  Film council, Lottery awards to organisations in which board members had an interest since1 April 20011

  Board member/Applicant

  Date of award

  Name of project

  Amount of award (£)

  Fund

  Relevant interest

  Tim Bevan WT2 Ltd.

  15 June 2000

  Long Time Dead

  1,000,000

  Interim arrangements

  Director

  Tim Bevan, Duncan Kenworthy and Stewart Till NSCTP

  1 August 2001

  Project Development Workshops and Train the Trainers

  21,306

  Training

  Governors or Trustees of National Film and Television School: NSCTP is a self-funding Unit of the School and a non-profit organisation

  Parminder Vir Carlton Television

  26 June 2001

  The Prince of Dalston

  8,250

  Development

  Employee of Carlton Television

  Sarah Radclyffe S. Films

  —

  Fever—PILOT

  10,000

  New Cinema fund

  Co-producer on this project

  Paul Webster Century Films

  6 April 2000

  The Tyre

  45,258

  Interim arrangement

  Director of Film Four. Film Four acts as a co-financier on these projects which are also supported by the Film Council. The awards are made to third party organisations and any benefits accruing to Film Four will be derived from its own investment in the projects and not through the Film Council.

  Pipedream Pictures Ltd.

  6 April 2000

  Crush (aka A Certain Age)

  875,000

  Interim arrangement

  —

  Velvet Films

  14 September 2000

  dish

  30,000

  Interim arrangement

  —

  1102W
  the bicentenary of Trafalgar in 2005 and to celebrate Britain's unique relationship with the sea are currently being prepared by the Official Nelson Commemoration Committee. The Committee has been established by the National Maritime Museum, which is funded by my Department, in conjunction with the Royal Naval Museum. The Committee brings together the interests of a wide range of maritime associations connected with the Nelson Heritage and is currently considering a number of events with a special emphasis on ways of involving young people.

  Film Council
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what criteria she uses to determine grants to the Film Council; and what proportion has been allocated to(a) independent film makers and (b) television shows and soap operas. [36923]

  Dr. Howells
  Levels of grant to the Film Council are determined by the Secretary of State, taking account of the overall level of allocation from the Treasury, departmental spending priorities and the Film Council's performance in meeting targets set out in its Funding Agreement. It is not within the Film Council's remit to provide funding for television programmes.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the amount was of each award made by the Film Council since 1 April 2000 to organisations in which members of the Board of the Film Council had an interest. [36965]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 25 February 2002]: The following list details the amount of each Lottery award made by the Film Council between 1 April 2000 to 31 December 2001 to organisations in which members of the Board of the Film Council have an interest.
  1103W

  Film council, Lottery awards to organisations in which board members had an interest since 1 April 20011

  Board member/Applicant

  Date of award

  Name of project

  Amount of award (£)

  Fund

  Relevant interest

  WOW Prod & Trijbits Prod

  18 May 2000

  My Brother Tom (aka My Brother Rob)

  359,989

  Interim arrangement

  —

  Spectre Films Ltd.

  26 September 2000

  The Invasion

  34,100

  Interim arrangement

  —

  Feelgood Films

  31 January 2001

  Miranda (aka Carbon Miranda)

  849,315

  Premiere

  —

  Suspect Device

  20 June 2001

  Straightheads

  8,500

  Development

  (Co-development with Film Four Lab)

  Slat Films

  15 August 2001

  Once upon a time in the Midlands

  690,000

  New cinema Fund

  —

  Hot Property Ltd.

  19 September 2000

  Bodysong

  350,000

  New Cinema Fund

  —

  Total

  4,281,718

  1 To 31 December 2001

  Lottery awards made to the three pre-existing Lottery film franchises in which board members had an interest since 1 April 20001

  Board member/Applicant

  Date of award

  Name of project

  Amount of award (£)

  Fund

  Relevant interest

  Duncan Kenworthy and James Lee

  DNA Films Ltd.

  20 June 2001

  28 Days Later

  3,000,000

  Franchise

  Directors

  DNA Films Ltd.

  10 October 2001

  Heartlands

  1,430,000

  DNA Films Ltd.

  21 March 2000

  The Parole Officer

  2,000,000

  Soft commitment made pre 1 April

  Sarah Radclyffe

  Pathé Pictures Ltd.

  17 August 2000

  A Romantic comedy about Divorce

  38,750

  Franchise

  Former Director. Directorship ceased on 25 April 2001

  Pathé Pictures Ltd.

  17 August 2000

  Agent X

  37,500

  Pathé Pictures Ltd.

  17 August 2000

  Dead Sexy

  45,000

  Pathé Pictures Ltd.

  28 November 2001

  Drunken Monkey

  10,250

  Pathé Pictures Ltd.

  27 July 2000

  Feet Up

  41,750

  Pathé Pictures Ltd.

  21 November 2001

  Hawksmoor

  36,670

  Pathé Pictures Ltd.

  18 May 2000

  It was an Accident

  99,850

  Pathé Pictures Ltd.

  30 August 2001

  Max Hoffman

  1,971,830

  Pathé Pictures Ltd.

  1 March 2000

  Minister of Fund

  47,950

  Soft commitment made pre 1 April

  Pathé Pictures Ltd.

  1 March 2000

  Ode to Pandora

  22,000

  Soft commitment made pre 1 April

  Pathé Pictures Ltd.

  27 July 2000

  The Abduction Club

  1,200,000

  Pathé Pictures Ltd.

  27 July 2000

  The Alchemist

  41,750

  Pathé Pictures Ltd.

  21 November 2001

  The Blitz

  90,734

  Pathé Pictures Ltd.

  6 April 2000

  The Hole

  1,500,000

  Pathé Pictures Ltd.

  14 September 2000

  The Mighty Walzer

  57,000

  Pathé Pictures Ltd.

  20 June 2001

  The Mushroom Prince

  20,900

  Pathé Pictures Ltd.

  4 July 2001

  The Season

  47,515

  Pathé Pictures Ltd.

  27 July 2000

  The Wedding Gift

  41,750

  Pathé Pictures Ltd.

  27 July 2000

  There's Only One Jimmy Grimble

  60,000

  Pathé Pictures Ltd.

  21 February 2001

  Thunderpants

  2,000,000

  Soft commitment made pre 1 April

  Pathé Pictures Ltd.

  21 November 2001

  Thunderpants

  53,867

  Pathé Pictures Ltd.

  5 December 2001

  Tunnel Vision

  36,500

  Pathé Pictures Ltd.

  8 January 2001

  Ugly Streakers

  2,500

  Pathé Pictures Ltd.

  17 August 2000

  Waterloo Sunset

  50,000

  Chris Auty

  The Film consortium Ltd.

  7 November 2001

  24 Hour Party People

  247,842

  Franchise

  (UK TV licence owned by Film Four)

  The Film consortium Ltd.

  26 September 2000

  24 Hour Party People

  2,000,000

  (UK TV licence owned by Film Four)

  The Film consortium Ltd.

  20 June 2001

  A Passionate Woman

  20,000

  The Film consortium Ltd.

  18 May 2000

  Brian Jones Project

  19,000

  The Film consortium Ltd.

  20 December 2000

  Chameleon

  6,000

  The Film consortium Ltd.

  3 October 2001

  Charlies Noads—RIP

  5,597

  The Film consortium Ltd.

  26 September 2000

  Child of Air

  11,500

  Soft commitment made pre 1 April

  The Film consortium Ltd.

  7 November 2001

  Christmas Carol

  425,000

  The Film consortium Ltd.

  3 October 2001

  Dead Souls

  6,000

  The Film consortium Ltd.

  28 March 2001

  Dr. Sleep

  8,500

  The Film consortium Ltd.

  28 March 2001

  Dr. Sleep

  1,375,000

  The Film consortium Ltd.

  26 September 2000

  Dust

  50,000

  (UK TV licence owned by Film Four)

  The Film consortium Ltd.

  7 March 2001

  Dust

  59,410

  (UK TV licence owned by Film Four)

  The Film consortium Ltd.

  26 September 2000

  Fattypuffs and Thinifers

  20,000

  The Film consortium Ltd.

  5 December 2001

  Fourth Wall

  30,000

  The Film consortium Ltd.

  7 November 2001

  Gabriel and Me

  101,243

  The Film consortium Ltd.

  26 September 2000

  Haroun and the Sea of Stories

  60,000

  The Film consortium Ltd.

  17 January 2001

  Innocence

  8,750

  The Film consortium Ltd.

  2 May 2001

  Innocence

  1,150,000

  The Film consortium Ltd.

  15 June 2000

  Innocence

  11,000

  The Film consortium Ltd.

  19 October 1999

  Janice Beard

  85,000

  Soft commitment made pre 1 April

  The Film consortium Ltd.

  26 September 2001

  Large

  80,000

  (UK TV licence owned by Film Four)

  The Film consortium Ltd.

  27 July 2000

  Large

  75,000

  (UK TV licence owned by Film Four)

  The Film consortium Ltd.

  20 December 2000

  Large

  50,000

  (UK TV licence owned by Film Four)

  The Film consortium Ltd.

  27 July 2000

  Quiz Night

  13,600

  The Film consortium Ltd.

  4 July 2001

  Room to Rent

  80,000

  (UK TV licence owned by Film Four)

  The Film consortium Ltd.

  14 September 2000

  Seven Against the West

  34,000

  1104W 1105W

  Lottery awards made to the three pre-existing Lottery film franchises in which board members had an interest since 1 April 20001

  Board member/Applicant

  Date of award

  Name of project

  Amount of award (£)

  Fund

  Relevant interest

  The Film consortium Ltd.

  2 May 2001

  shame

  10,000

  The Film consortium Ltd.

  6 April 2000

  Streets Above Us

  10,000

  The Film consortium Ltd.

  17 August 2000

  The 51st State

  2,000,000

  The Film consortium Ltd.

  1 March 2000

  Transgressions

  15,000

  Soft commitment made pre 1 April

  The Film consortium Ltd.

  20 December 2000

  The Rose of Tralee

  8,500

  The Film consortium Ltd.

  21 March 2001

  Room to Rent

  20,000

  Total Franchises

  22,095,008

  (UK TV licence owned by Film Four)

  1 To 31 December 2001

  Notes:

  1. This list includes sums provided to the three Lottery Film Franchises. The legal contracts committing the Franchise funds were signed in 1997–98 when the Lottery franchises were awarded by the Arts Council of England and are not new awards. The Franchisees are therefore contractually entitled to the funding irrespective of current Board membership.

  2. Awards made to the Franchisees as soft commitments before 1 April 2000 are disclosed here as hard commitments. This disclosure follows the accounting treatment in the 2001 accounts.

  3. Paul Webster is a Director of Film Four. Film Four acts as co-producer or co-funder on a number of projects also supported by the Film Council. However, the awards are made to third party organisations and any benefits accruing to Film Four will be derived from its own investment in the project and not through the Film Council. In the financial year 2000–01 the total amount of awards to such organisations was £4,468,072.

  4. Other applications have been received from organisations in which Board members have an interest which are either pending a decision or have already been rejected.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the practice of the Film Council in relation to awards to organisations in which members of the board of the Film Council had an interest. [36967]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 25 February 2002]: Evaluation of lottery funding applications has been delegated by the Film Council board through the Chief Executive Officer, as Accounting Officer, to fund or scheme managers. This ensures that members of the board do not participate in the discussion or determination of individual awards whether or not individual board members hold an interest in the application.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the awards made by the Film Council since 1 April 2000 to organisations in which members of the board of the Film Council had an interest. [36966]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 25 February 2002]: The Film Council acknowledges that with a board which includes industry practitioners, there will be occasions when board members or organisations employing board members will apply for Film Council funding. The procedures adopted by the council for handling potential conflicts of interest provide that board members do not exert any influence in the determination of applications for lottery awards.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proportion of the awards made by the Film Council since 1 April 2000 were made to organisations in which members of the board of the Film Council had an interest. [36964]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 25 February 2002]: The proportion of new awards made to organisations in which board members have an interest, since 1 April 2000, and where no pre-existing commitments exist, is 9 per cent. However, awards honoured since 1 April 2000, including prior contractual commitments inherited by the Film Council from the Arts Council of England in respect of the three lottery film franchises, increased the proportion to 55 per cent.
  1106W
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much has been paid in awards by the Film Council since 1 April 2000. [36849]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 25 February 2002]: Between 1 April 2000 and 31 December 2001 the Film Council committed new lottery awards for projects to a total of £47.6 million.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will publish the dates of the meetings of the board of the Film Council since 1 April 2000, stating for each meeting the(a) members of the board present and (b) awards agreed on. [36848]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 25 February 2002]: The following list sets out the dates of Film Council board meetings and the members of the board present for each. Minutes of the meetings are publicly available on request or through the library of the British Film Institute. Lottery awards are made outside of Film Council board meetings by fund or scheme managers.

  Film Council board meetings: dates and attendees—April 2000 to present.
  Sir Alan Parker is the chairman of the Film Council.
  Board members are:

  Stewart Till (Deputy chair)

  Dawn Airey

  Joan Bakewell CBE

  Charles Denton

  James Lee

  Colin Leventhal

  Parminder Vir

  lain Smith

  Chris Auty

  Tim Bevan

  John Hill

  Duncan Kenworthy OBE

  Sarah Radclyffe

  Paul Webster

  1107W
  18 April 2000
  Attendees: Alan Parker, Chris Auty, Joan Bakewell, John Hill, James Lee, Colin Leventhal, Sarah Radclyffe, Iain Smith, Stewart Till, Paul Webster.

  30 May 2000
  Attendees: Alan Parker, Joan Bakewell, Tim Bevan, Charles Denton, Duncan Kenworthy, James Lee, Sarah Radclyffe, kin Smith, Parminder Vir, Paul Webster.

  There was no meeting in June 2000.

  25 July 2000
  Attendees: Alan Parker, Dawn Airey, Joan Bakewell, Charles Denton, John Hill, Duncan Kenworthy, James Lee, Sarah Radclyffe, lain Smith, Stewart Till, Parminder Vir, Paul Webster.

  22 August 2000
  Attendees: Alan Parker, Chris Auty, Joan Bakewell, Tim Bevan, Charles Denton, John Hill, James Lee, Sarah Radclyffe, lain Smith, Paul Webster.

  26 September 2000
  Attendees: Alan Parker, Chris Auty, Joan Bakewell, Tim Bevan, Charles Denton, James Lee, Coin Leventhal, Sarah Radclyffe, Stewart Till, Parminder Vir, Paul Webster.

  31 October 2000
  Attendees: Alan Parker, Chris Auty, Joan Bakewell, Tim Bevan, Charles Denton, John Hill, James Lee, Colin Leventhal, Duncan Kenworthy, Sarah Radclyffe, lain Smith, Parminder Vir, Paul Webster.

  28 November 2000
  Attendees: Alan Parker, Chris Auty, Tim Bevan, John Hill, James Lee, Colin Leventhal, Duncan Kenworthy, Sarah Radclyffe, lain Smith, Stewart Till, Parminder Vir.

  19 December 2000
  Attendees: Alan Parker, Chris Auty, Joan Bakewell, Tim Bevan, Charles Denton, John Hill, Duncan Kenworthy, James Lee, Colin Leventhal, Sarah Radclyffe, Parminder Vir, Paul Webster.

  30 January 2001
  Attendees: Alan Parker, Chris Auty, Joan Bakewell, Tim Bevan, Charles Denton, John Hill, James Lee, Colin Leventhal, Duncan Kenworthy, Sarah Radclyffe, lain Smith, Stewart Till, Parminder Vir, Paul Webster.

  27 February 2001
  Attendees: Alan Parker, Chris Auty, Joan Bakewell, Charles Denton, John Hill, James Lee, Colin Leventhal, Duncan Kenworthy, lain Smith, Stewart Till, Parminder Vir, Paul Webster.

  27 March 2001
  Attendees: Stewart Till, Chris Auty, Tim Bevan, Charles Denton, John Hill, Duncan Kenworthy, James Lee, Colin Leventhal, Sarah Radclyffe, lain Smith, Parminder Vir.

  24 April 2001
  Attendees: Alan Parker, Dawn Airey, Chris Auty, Joan Bakewell, Tim Bevan, Charles Denton, John Hill, Duncan Kenworthy, James Lee, Sarah Radclyffe, Stewart Till, Parminder Vir.

  There was no meeting in May 2001.

  26 June 2001
  Attendees: Alan Parker, Chris Auty, Tim Bevan, Charles Denton, John Hill, Duncan Kenworthy, James Lee, Sarah Radclyffe, Jain Smith, Stewart Till, Parminder Vir, Paul Webster.

  31 July 2001
  Attendees: Stewart Till, Charles Denton, John Hill, Duncan Kenworthy, James Lee, Sarah Radclyffe, lain Smith, Parminder Vir, Paul Webster.

  There was no meeting in August 2001.
  1108W
  25 September 2001
  Attendees: Stewart Till, Dawn Airey, Chris Auty, Joan Bakewell, Tim Bevan, Charles Denton, John Hill, Duncan Kenworthy, James Lee, Colin Leventhal, Sarah Radclyffe, lain Smith, Parminder Vir.

  30 October 2001
  Attendees: Stewart Till, Chris Auty, Joan Bakewell, Charles Denton, John Hill, James Lee, Colin Leventhal, Sarah Radclyffe, lain Smith, Parminder Vir, Paul Webster.

  27 November 2001
  Attendees: Stewart Till, Chris Auty, Joan Bakewell, Tim Bevan, Charles Denton, John Hill, Duncan Kenworthy, James Lee, Colin Leventhal, Sarah Radclyffe, kin Smith, Parminder Vir, Paul Webster.

  19 December 2001

  Attendees: Stewart Till, Joan Bakewell, Tim Bevan, Charles Denton, John Hill, Duncan Kenworthy, James Lee, Colin Leventhal, Sarah Radclyffe, lain Smith, Parminder Vir.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the steps taken by the Film Council to ensure that no conflict of interest existed when decisions to make awards to organisations in which members of the board of the Film Council had an interest were taken. [36968]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 25 February 2002]: Decisions on Lottery funding applications have been delegated to individual fund or scheme managers. This ensures that members of the board do not participate in the discussion or determination of matters in which they might have a direct interest. There is an onus on both the board member and on the Film Council to identify at an early stage any new interest a board member, their spouse or close family member or any person with whom they have a close personal relationship, whether or not living in the same household, has in projects or in activities resulting in an application to the Film Council for funding. A register of board members' interests is maintained and is updated annually.

  Independent Film Makers
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received concerning use of tax allowances by(a) independent film makers and (b) television producers. [36922]

  Dr. Howells
  Officials from my department have met a number of independent film producers, television producers, and broadcasters, as well as representatives from industry trade organisations, and the Film Council, to discuss the use of tax allowances. The views expressed were passed to the Inland Revenue as changes to the tax relief are, ultimately, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate she has made of the extent to which tax allowances have been taken up by(a) independent film makers and (b) television shows. [36924]

  Dr. Howells
  About 50 per cent. of the tax relief, by value, goes to film producers, and 50 per cent. to television producers. The vast majority of applications from film makers for a 'British film' certificate to access
  1109W
  the tax relief are from independent film makers, as opposed to the small number of films made each year in the UK by the major Hollywood studios.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many staff left the service of her Department and its agencies in the year ended 31 March 2001; how many left before attaining the formal retirement age of 60 years; and in respect of how many her Department and its agencies assumed responsibilities for making payments until retirement age. [37556]

  Dr. Howells
  The information is set out in the following table:

  DCMS

  RPA

  Left in year to 31 March 2001

  3

  2

  Before retirement age

  3

  1

  Responsibility for payments

  3

  1

  Note:

  This data exclude staff who left to join other Government Departments or to pursue employment elsewhere.

  Refurbishment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to her answer of 18 January 2002,Official Report, column 506W, what the cost of refurbishing each ministerial private office was in each year since May 1997. [37888]

  Mr. Caborn
  The previous answer addressed the cost of refurbishment, which was taken to mean not merely redecoration and/or replacement furnishing but rather extensive building works. The cost of redecoration/ refurnishing of ministerial offices has been £106,382.98 in the period November 1997 to January 1998. A sum of £22,134 in 1999 and £11,200 in late 2001.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to her answer of 30 January 2002,Official Report, column 339W, what the area in square feet of the property referred to is. [37894]

  Mr. Caborn
  The premises referred to were a total of 5,690.94 square feet over three floors.

  Sports Clubs
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans the Government have concerning charitable status for sports clubs. [37883]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Charity Commission announced in November 2001 that certain local amateur sports clubs would be eligible to apply for charitable status on the grounds that such clubs promote healthy recreation. I have recently met the commission's chairman to discuss how best to encourage clubs to apply for charitable status, and to ensure that the widest possible range of sports are eligible. In the light of that meeting, I consider that charitable status will offer a great deal to many clubs.

  That meeting followed detailed discussions with sport and other interested parties since the publication of the Treasury's consultation document, "Promoting Sport in
  1110W
  the Community", on 30 November. These discussions included a consideration of the alternative, non-charitable, proposals included in the Treasury document, and I intend to raise the results of that consideration with Treasury Ministers shortly.

  Handheld Televisions
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her policy is on applying the television licence fee to handheld televisions; and if she will make a statement. [37690]

  Dr. Howells
  A television licence is required to use any television receiver as defined in the Wireless Telegraphy (Television Licence Fees) Regulations 1997. The licence fee does not vary according to the size or portability of a television set. However, a television licence covers the use anywhere in the United Kingdom, by the licensee or a person normally living with the licensee at the licensed address, of a television receiver powered solely by its own internal batteries.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will safeguard the £5 concessionary television licence for those living in schemes with a resident warden when a scheme loses its concessionary licence by accommodating those not of a pensionable age or by the landlord adopting a travelling warden service in place of a resident warden. [37718]

  Dr. Howells
  As announced last year, the Government propose to introduce measures to preserve the rights of beneficiaries of the Accommodation for Residential Care (ARC) concessionary television licence scheme when the social mix or the level of warden cover in their sheltered housing change, so long as they remain in accommodation provided or managed by a local authority, a housing association or a development corporation. Consultations between officials and the BBC about the necessary amendments to the television licence fee regulations are currently under way. We intend to bring forward these amendments as soon as we can but it is important that in doing so we do not create any new anomalies or unnecessary administrative burdens.

  Sport
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what levels of funding have been available for sport in(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland, (d) Northern Ireland and (e) in total in each of the last 10 years from (i) central Government and (ii) the Lottery. [37629]

  Mr. Caborn
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) on 13 February 2002,Official Report, columns 408–09W.

  World Athletics
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she will publish the Government's response to the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee's report, "Unpicking the Lock: the World Athletics Championships in the UK". [38769]
  1111W
  Tessa Jowell
  The Government's response to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee's report "Unpicking the Lock: the World Athletics Championships in the UK" has been laid before both Houses today.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Miliband
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans there are to amend her Department's(a) departmental expenditure limit and (b) administration costs limits for 2001–02. [38913]

  Tessa Jowell
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) for 2001–02 will be increased by £10,211,000 from £1,169,881,000 to £1,180,092,000 and the Department's administration costs limit increased by £3,171,000 from £32,237,000 to £35,408,000.

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

  £000

  Resources

  Change

  10,121

  New DEL

  1,037,374

  of which:

  Voted

  148,247

  Non-voted

  889,127

  Capital

  Change

  90

  New DEL

  142,718

  of which:

  Voted

  101,817

  Non-voted

  40,901

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from the transfer of resources from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of £2,000,000 toward the costs of mounting the 2002 Commonwealth Games in Manchester; the transfer of resources, as part of the machinery of government changes, from the Cabinet Office of £210,000 for the administration costs of the Commonwealth Games Unit; from the Home Office of £2,461,000 for the administration costs of the Golden Jubilee Unit and of the alcohol licensing, gambling, film and video licensing functions, of £1,265,000 for the receipts and £3,680,000 for the expenditure of the Gaming Board of Great Britain, and of £3,000,000 for grants and associated expenditure for the Queen's Golden Jubilee.

  Other changes include the provision of additional resources under the end-year flexibility (EYF) arrangements, as set out in the Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper, 2000–01 (Cm. 5243), of £35,000 for the Government Art Collection and to provide for a transfer of resources of £500,000 from the Department's research to administration costs budgets.

  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from the transfer from the Home Office of £90,000 for the capital expenditure of the Golden Jubilee Unit. The increases will be offset by transfers or charged to the DEL reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Internet Sites
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her policy is on requiring internet service providers to remove access to sites that promote graffiti writing. [36240]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.

  There is no requirement on internet service providers to remove access to such sites, although they remove illegal material of which they become aware, (such as child pornography), from sites they are hosting.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council what the total cost to his Department was for accountancy services in each of the last four years. [34164]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The available information is:

  2000–01: £8,225

  2001–02: £21,532.

  The additional information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council if he will list, for 1997–98 and for each subsequent financial year, the amount spent(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) abroad by (i) his Department, (ii) its agencies and (iii) its non-departmental public bodies on (1) providing mobile telephone equipment, including handsets and other associated equipment, (2) telephone calls made using such equipment and (3) telephone calls made using privately owned mobile telephones but subsequently reclaimed by (x) Ministers and (y) staff. [34393]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  My Department spent a total of £5,589 on these items in financial year 2000–01. The more detailed information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  E-democracy
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the President of the Council what consultation he intends to undertake in introducing e-democracy to Parliament. [34745]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The memorandum I presented to the Modernisation Committee before Christmas set out my desire to improve the way in which new technologies are used at Westminster. I welcome views from all Members on how we might better utilise Information and Communications Technologies in the House of Commons.

  In addition, the Government will publish later this year a consultation paper on e-democracy and online consultation. We hope that this will inform the use of new technologies in Parliament and we will be seeking views from the public and Members of Parliament, including via e-mail, in response to that document.

  Consultants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council what the total cost to his Department was of the use of external consultants in each of the last four years. [35021]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The available information is as follows:

  2000–01 £9,614

  2001–021: £4,994

  1 To end January 2001

  Additional information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Solicitor-General what plans there are to change the Attorney-General's Department's(a) departmental expenditure limit and (b) administration costs limit for 2001–02. [38770]

  The Solicitor-General
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, the Attorney-General's Departments DEL will be increased by £8,681,000 from £451,563,000 to £460,244,000 and the administration costs limits will be increased by £7,731,000 from £322,103,000 to £329,834,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are set out in the following table:

  £000

  Resources

  Change

  6,362

  New DEL

  436,276

  of which:

  Voted

  426,276

  Non-voted

  10,000

  Capital

  Change

  2,319

  New DEL

  23,968

  Of which:

  Voted

  23,968

  Non-voted

  —

  The Crown Prosecution Service's DEL will be increased by £8,286,000 from £414,893,000 to £423,179,000 and the administration costs limit will be increased by £7,267,000 from £296,974,000 to £304,241,000. The increase in the resource element of the DEL arises from speeding up the reform of the CPS to allow it to contribute fully to criminal justice targets, implementation of extended court sitting hours and the provision of resources for the CPS prosecutor recovered assets training project. The decrease in DEL arises from the transfer of £120,000 to the Home Office in respect of the CPS's contribution to CJIU. The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from the take up of £2,000,000 of end year flexibility entitlement and a transfer of resources from the Home Office to support the video recording of police interviews. The decrease in capital arises from the return to the Home Office of £150,000 of Capital Modernisation Fund resources.
  1114W
  HM Procurator General and Treasury Solicitor's Department DEL will be decreased by £105,000 from £15,745,000 to £15,640,000 and the administration costs limits will be decreased by £36,000 from £10,629,000 to £10,593,000. The decrease in the resource element of the DEL is the net effect of a transfer of £106,000 to clients whose work will become chargeable in the current financial year. The decreases in HM Procurator General and Treasury Solicitor's Department DEL will be effected by a £1,000 Token Supplementary Estimate.

  The Serious Fraud Office's DEL will be increased by £500,000 from £20,925,000 to £21,425,000 and the administration costs limit will be increased by £500,000 from £14,415,000 to £14,915,000. The increase in the resource element of the DEL arises from development of the Docman information support system and funding of early retirements in support of restructuring of the Serious Fraud Office to enable it to contribute fully to criminal justice targets.

  The increases will be entirely met by a transfer from the Criminal Justice System reserve, transfers from the Home Office and take up of capital end year flexibility entitlement.

  The additional expenditure will not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will list, for 1997–98 and for each subsequent financial year, the amount spent(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) abroad by (i) her Department, (ii) its agencies and (iii) its non-departmental public bodies on (1) providing mobile telephone equipment, including handsets and other associated equipment, (2) telephone calls made using such equipment and (3) telephone calls made using privately owned mobile telephones but subsequently reclaimed by (x) Ministers and (y) staff. [34408]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: The expenditure by my own Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, is as follows:

  £

  1997–98

  2,667.82

  1998–99

  3,213.09

  1999–2000

  2,843.69

  2000–01

  2,419.43

  Current records do not distinguish the cost of calls made in the United Kingdom and abroad but the latter cost would be de minimis. Current records do not distinguish the cost of equipment and the cost of calls. There is no separate coding for reimbursement of costs of calls made from privately owned equipment but such expenditure would be de minimis.The Crown Prosecution Service has only provided mobile telephones and other associated equipment to its staff in the United Kingdom. The amount spent for 1997–98 and each subsequent financial year is:

  £

  Equipment

  Telephone calls

  1997–98

  —

  —

  1998–99

  1,000

  —

  1999–2000

  96,000

  9,000

  2000–01

  38,000

  30,000

  1115W
  Reclaimed costs for calls made on privately owned mobile telephones are not recorded separately.

  The expenditure on mobile telephone equipment and calls by the Treasury Solicitor's Department and Government property lawyers was as follows:

  £

  TSD

  GPL

  1997–98

  9,605.33

  —

  1998–99

  8,443.21

  2,069.28

  1999–2000

  9,513.81

  720.04

  2000–01

  11,818.41

  14.06

  Current records do not distinguish the cost of equipment and the cost of calls. There is no separate coding for reimbursement of costs of calls made from privately owned equipment but such expenditure would be de minimis.

  No equipment was purchased abroad but the figures given may include call charges incurred abroad.

  The Serious Fraud Office makes available mobile telephone equipment for business use on a loan and permanent allocation basis to SFO staff. Financial information is available on the amounts spent providing this service but not to the level of detail requested. This would be available only at disproportionate cost.

  £

  Equipment

  Calls

  1997–98

  9,258.37

  2,611.92

  1998–99

  3,652.42

  826.31

  1999–2000

  3,559.03

  3,090.59

  2000–01

  3,352.45

  3,889.07

  Information on the split between the United Kingdom and abroad would be available only at disproportionate cost. Information about amounts reclaimed by staff, which is minimal, would be available only at disproportionate cost.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Refurbishment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 17 January 2000,Official Report, column 415W, what the cost of refurbishing each ministerial private office was in each year since May 1997. [37902]

  Clare Short
  The costs of refurbishing the two ministerial private offices were as follows:

  1997: £7,978

  1998: £7,376

  1999: Nil

  2000: Nil

  2001: Approximately £60,000.1

  1This is an estimate of the cost of the works carried out in these areas, as part of the overall refurbishment of the whole of the 1 Palace Street building.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the total area in square feet of all empty properties owned by(a) her Department, (b) her agencies and (c) other public bodies for which she has had responsibility was in each year since May 1997. [37811]

  Clare Short
  My Department has had no empty properties during the specified period. There are no other agencies or public bodies for which we are responsible.

  Global Fund for AIDS, TB and Malaria
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if the global fund for AIDS, TB and malaria will aim to treat those already infected with HIV. [37837]

  Clare Short
  The global fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria (GFATM) is committed to adopting a balanced, integrated approach between treatment and prevention. Moreover, it will work through existing country co-ordination mechanisms wherever possible. These mechanisms will be free to shape any bid for funding around their own assessment and experience of in-country priorities. A decision on which of the first tranche of proposals to support will be made in April by the GFATM board, which has equal representation of donors and developing countries.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what procedures the global fund for AIDS, TB and malaria has in place to ensure that those with specific local knowledge of the regions in need are able to play a full part in the decision-making processes of the fund. [37835]

  Clare Short
  The global fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria (GFATM) has incorporated a number of safeguards to ensure that those with specific local knowledge of the regions in need are able to play a full part in the decision-making process.

  Applications to the fund will use existing country co-ordination mechanisms wherever possible. These mechanisms will be free to shape their applications around their own assessment and experience of in-country priorities.

  The fund is in the process of establishing a technical review panel made up of experts from developed and developing countries and including those with an in-depth knowledge of working in regions in need. The panel will review applications submitted to the board and make recommendations to the board. The board, which itself comprises an equal number of representatives from developed and developing world countries, plus representatives from NGOs and the private sector, will take the final decisions on funding.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether the global fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria has an overall policy to purchase drugs at the lowest possible cost. [37836]

  Clare Short
  Yes. The global fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria (GFATM) has an overall policy to purchase drugs at the lowest possible price consistent with the
  1117W
  trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS) agreement and the Doha ministerial declaration on TRIPS and public health.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development where and how the resources of the global fund for the alleviation of AIDS, TB and Malaria are being disbursed for health systems and treatments; what strategies were decided upon when the fund's management board met on 28 January; and if she will commit additional resources to the fund. [37838]

  Clare Short
  No decisions on disbursements from the global fund to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria (GFATM) will be made until the second board meeting in April. However, the fund does have agreed principles and an operating framework. The UK contributed to the process of agreeing these and was content with the outcome.

  The first board meeting on 28–29 January resulted in the fund being legally established as a foundation in Switzerland. The board approved a call for proposals and finalised a set of guidelines for their submission, which also explain the proposal review process.

  The main challenge for the fund in its first year will be to demonstrate value added and effectiveness in its use of the funds already committed. Donors including the UK will consider the level of future contributions in light of the fund's initial performance.

  Pakistan

  Emergency short-term assistance

  Allocation (£000)

  Spend to 20 February 2002 (£000)

  Advanced or invoiced (£000)

  Total (£000)

  Percentage

  Lady health workers

  5,200

  —

  4,424

  4,424

  85

  NWFP Drugs

  1,000

  —

  592

  592

  59

  Balochistan Drugs

  1,000

  —

  559

  559

  56

  Sarhad rural support

  1,100

  309

  342

  651

  59

  Social marketing of condoms

  2,700

  1,944

  527

  2,471

  92

  Total

  11,000

  2,253

  6,444

  8,697

  79

  Notes:

  Total column reflects expected expenditure in the current financial year, as agreed with Government of Pakistan based on need and absorptive capacity.

  Balance of funds should disburse by end May.

  Sexual/Reproductive Health
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what contributions her Department has made to sexual and reproductive health non-governmental organisations in each of the last three years; and which of these organisations were British based. [37734]

  Clare Short
  This information is not held centrally in the form requested and to provide it would be at disproportionate cost to my department. However, a useful summary of payments made to all UK civil society organisations can be found in "Statistics on International Development 1996/97–2000/01", Table 14, DFID Expenditure through UK CSOs 2000/01, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 4 February 2002,

  Afghanistan
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what proportion of the humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan announced on 19 September 2001 has been disbursed; [37735]

  (2) what proportion of the humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan announced on 12 October 2001 has been disbursed. [37737]

  Clare Short
  On 19 September 2001 I announced £25 million to help meet the immediate humanitarian needs in response to the Afghanistan crisis. On 12 October 2001 I announced a further £15 million of humanitarian assistance. These allocations have been fully disbursed through various United Nations agencies, the Red Cross movement and non-governmental organisations.

  Pakistan
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of the humanitarian assistance to Pakistan announced on 28 September 2001 has been disbursed. [37736]

  Clare Short
  The following table provides the current expenditure and invoiced totals against the individual project allocations.

  Official Report, column 644W, what the total area in square feet of all empty properties owned by (a) her Department, (b) her agencies and (c) other public bodies for which she has had responsibility was in each year since May 1997. [37915]

  Ms Hewitt
  To ascertain the total area in square feet of empty freehold properties owned by the Department of Trade and Industry, her non-departmental public bodies and public corporations would involve disproportionate costs. However, we are able to supply the details for the National Environmental Council and British Nuclear Fuels plc.

  Status

  Year

  Empty freehold properties

  Area per square foot

  NERC

  2000

  5

  37,311.00

  2001

  2

  12,755.00

  BNFL plc

  1999

  2

  72,000.00

  2000

  3

  142,000.00

  2001

  3

  114,000.00

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the(a) percentage and number of rail journeys undertaken on first class tickets, (b) average cost of a first class journey by rail and (c) total cost of rail travel in each of the past four years broken down by grade of civil servant. [37495]

  Ms Hewitt
  (a) The departmental travel agent arranged 16,616 first class rail journeys in 2001. This represents 60 per cent. of the journeys arranged by them. They do not, however, arrange all the department's rail journeys.
  (b) The average cost of those first class journeys, booked as above, was £113.
  (c) The DTI does not record cost of rail travel by grade of civil servant separately from other data on travel expenses paid for staff undertaking departmental business. To provide the information requested would entail disproportionate cost.

  Postal Costs
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what the percentage change in real postage prices is for(a) first and (b) second class letters over the last (i) five, (ii) 10 and (iii) 20 years; and what these prices would be in today's money; [36261]

  (2) what figures she has collated on the cost of sending a first class letter weighing (a) 50 grams and (b) 60 grams in each European Union country. [36256]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 14 February 2002]: I am informed by Consignia that the percentage change in real postage prices is as follows:

  Years

  First class basic weight step percentage

  Second class basic weight step percentage

  0–5

  8.5

  16.3

  0–10

  9.5

  16.3

  0–20

  15.7

  27.8

  First and second basic weight step prices in September 2001 prices are:

  Pence

  Years ago

  First

  Second

  Current

  27.0

  19.0

  5

  29.5

  22.7

  10

  29.8

  22.7

  20

  32.0

  26.3

  Small Businesses (Funding)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the current documents published that present concise details of the sources of funding for small businesses. [37596]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Small Business Service has a brochure, Sources of Finance for your Business, which is aimed at helping small businesses decide what kind of finance is most appropriate to their needs. It contains details about sources of help and advice and contacts for further information. Copies of the booklet have been 1120W
  distributed throughout the Business Link network, and also with Banks, Accountants and a wide variety of other financial institutions and business support organisations.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Competition Commission, as part of its SME banking investigation, is investigating the practice of routinely requiring personal guarantees from the proprietors of small businesses seeking finance. [37597]

  Nigel Griffiths
  As the issue of personal guarantees relates to banking services, and the Government's response to the Competition Commission report into the supply of banking services to small and medium enterprises has not yet been published, it would be inappropriate to comment further at this time.

  Post Offices
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her definition is of(a) the term `rural' defined with respect to rural post offices and (b) the term 'community' defined with respect to community post offices. [37600]

  Mr. Alexander
  A rural post office is defined as one serving a community of up to 10,000 inhabitants. Community offices are post offices which keep shorter hours than usual in response to local conditions.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who is entitled to apply for funds from the fund which has been established to sustain community post offices; what the eligibility criteria are; and what attempts have been made to inform post offices of the fund. [37599]

  Mr. Alexander
  I refer to the answer given to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) of 10 December 2001,Official Report, column 650W.

  The former Minister for Competitiveness wrote to every parish and community council in the UK in March 2001 to announce the fund which is now promoted by rural transfer advisers from Post Office Limited.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what actions have been taken to prevent the avoidable closure of post offices; and what her definition is of the term avoidable closure defined in this context. [37601]

  Mr. Alexander
  Post Office Ltd. has set up a team of rural transfer advisers to explore options for keeping rural sub-post offices open and is administering the £2 million Government fund to assist volunteer and community initiatives to maintain or re-establish post office services in rural communities. Through such measures, Post Office Ltd. is continuing its efforts to reopen sub-post offices where there have been recent closures.

  Consignia define an unavoidable closure of a post office as one where no one suitable is prepared to take over from the departing sub-postmaster, where no suitable premises remain available or can be identified or where an associated retail business is no longer commercially viable.

  Small Business Service
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Small Business Service has published a strategy for(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2002–12, with associated milestones and targets. [36977]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Small Business Service has published a strategy for 2001–04. Milestones and key performance targets are set out in SBS's annual business plan. The annual operational targets for SBS are announced in the House.

  The strategy and business plan are available on www.sbs.gov.uk.

  Post Office Staff
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average salary of a post office sub-postmaster is in(a) the constituency of the Ribble Valley, and Fulwood, (b) Lancashire, (c) the North West of England, (d) Wales and (e) the United Kingdom, in each year since 1997. [36424]

  Mr. Alexander
  I understand from Post Office Ltd. that the average figures for sub-postmasters' remuneration were:

  £000

  1997

  29.8

  1998

  29.9

  1999

  30.5

  2000

  31.0

  2001

  32.1

  Figures are not kept on parliamentary constituency or regional bases.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many full-time equivalents are employed by Post Office Counters Ltd. in(a) the parliamentary constituency of the Ribble Valley and Fulwood, (b) Lancashire, (c) the North West of England, (d) Wales and (e) the United Kingdom, in each year since 1997. [36423]

  Mr. Alexander
  I understand from Post Office Ltd. that in the United Kingdom, since 1997, the numbers of full-time equivalents employed by Post Office Ltd. (POL) and previously Post Office Network (PON) and Post Office Counters Ltd. (POCL) were:

  As at January

  1997

  POCL

  14,355

  1998

  POCL

  14,157

  1999

  POCL

  14,254

  2000

  PON, Network Banking and Cash Handling and Distribution

  14,391

  2001

  PON, Network Banking

  112,266

  2002

  POL

  211,983

  1 Cash Handling and Distribution reporting as a separate business.

  2 Cash Handling and Distribution not included.

  Note:

  Figures are not kept on constituency or regional bases.

  Belize Dam
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether AMEC has applied for export 1122W
  credit guarantees in connection with the Belize dam project. [36521]

  Ms Hewitt
  We have received no application from AMEC in respect of any Belize dam project.

  Small Enterprises
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the performance of the UK recorded in the European Commission report, Implementation of the European Charter for Small Enterprises; and if she will make a statement. [37490]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The UK is delighted with the European Commission's full report on the implementation of "The European Charter for Small Enterprises". The Commission calls for the European Union to 'Think Small First' when developing enterprise policies—mirroring the approach already adopted by the United Kingdom. In their examination of national enterprise policies, the Commission highlighted the following UK initiatives:the opening of a representative office in Brussels—smallbusinessEurope, a voice by small business for small business-where the UK has been the only member state to take direct action on this element of the charter.
  among the lowest costs and shortest time required to start a business in the EU
  steps introduced to modernise insolvency laws and allow honest failure
  the introduction of scholarships for potential entrepreneurs from deprived areas
  the establishment of a Regulatory Impact Assessment system that analyses alternatives to regulation
  the High Technology Fund which invests in early-stage high-technology focused funds getting businesses to trade online with tough targets
  the introduction of an E-Envoy
  the launching of a programme to promote links between universities and business for the commercial exploitation of university research so we make the most of our innovative potential.

  A copy of the UK's report to the Commission entitled "The European Charter for Small Enterprises—A Review of relevant actions in force in the United Kingdom" was placed in the Libraries of the House in November.

  The UK looks forward to a full evaluation of the report at the spring summit in Barcelona and a clear reaffirmation of the EU to fulfilling all the commitments set out in the charter.

  Late Payment
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her estimate is of the amount of interest that has been paid(a) in total and (b) to SMEs as a result of the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998. [36566]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Department does not hold this information, because there is no requirement for businesses to report such amounts to the Department.

  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact of the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998. [36565]
  1123W
  Nigel Griffiths
  This Act is part of a package of measures that the Government have put in place to change the late payment culture here. The Credit Management Research Centre (CMRC) based at Leeds University has been monitoring late payment activity in England since 1998.

  The CMRC reports show that there has been a fall of almost 7.5 per cent. in the percentage of payments that are reported as being late by the businesses that they survey. This fall relates to the period between their first survey and the survey for the quarter ending June 2001. During the same period the number of debtor days for small businesses has fallen by almost 24 per cent. and the mean number of debtor days for all businesses has fallen by almost 20 per cent.

  Finally, the "European Business Survey" for 2001, produced by the accountants Grant Thornton, shows the UK as having a payment period almost a week (five days) shorter than the EU average (52 days).

  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she plans to introduce further measures to prevent delays in paying commercial debts. [36564]

  Businesses (number)

  Annual change (percentage)

  Size (number of employees)

  1997

  1998

  1999

  1997

  1998

  1999

  North East

  0–49

  95,990

  98,005

  90,160

  1—

  2.1

  -8.0

  50–249

  925

  905

  885

  1—

  -2.2

  -2.2

  250–499

  130

  120

  110

  1—

  -7.7

  -8.3

  500 plus

  105

  110

  100

  1—

  4.8

  -9.1

  North West

  0–49

  380,325

  352,620

  352,740

  1—

  -7.3

  0.0

  50–249

  2,935

  2,845

  2,730

  1—

  -3.1

  -4.0

  250–499

  380

  360

  330

  1—

  -5.3

  -8.3

  500 plus

  355

  365

  375

  1—

  2.8

  2.7

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  0–49

  288,650

  267,275

  256,590

  1—

  -7.4

  -4.0

  50–249

  2,410

  2,120

  2,075

  1—

  -12.0

  -2.1

  250–499

  290

  280

  265

  1—

  -3.4

  -5.4

  500 plus

  315

  285

  300

  1—

  -9.5

  5.3

  East Midlands

  0–49

  237,795

  226,685

  232,540

  1—

  -4.7

  2.6

  50–249

  2,080

  2,010

  1,895

  1—

  -3.4

  -5.7

  250–499

  240

  235

  240

  1—

  -2.1

  2.1

  500 plus

  245

  265

  250

  1—

  8.2

  -5.7

  West Midlands

  0–49

  303,580

  283,865

  285,775

  1—

  -6.5

  0.7

  50–249

  2,515

  2,465

  2,305

  1—

  -2.0

  -6.5

  250–499

  325

  330

  310

  1—

  1.5

  -6.1

  500 plus

  340

  335

  330

  1—

  -1.5

  -1.5

  East of England

  0–49

  376,025

  376,250

  349,390

  1—

  0.1

  -7.1

  50–249

  2,310

  2,300

  2,205

  1—

  -0.4

  -4.1

  250–499

  310

  305

  280

  1—

  -1.6

  -8.2

  500 plus

  320

  310

  325

  1—

  -3.1

  4.8

  London

  0–49

  562,500

  563,145

  660,990

  1—

  0.1

  17.4

  50–249

  3,800

  3,705

  3,465

  1—

  -2.5

  -6.5

  250–499

  605

  590

  565

  1—

  -2.5

  -4.2

  500 plus

  730

  720

  710

  1—

  -1.4

  -1.4

  1124W
  Nigel Griffiths
  We are currently working to give businesses two significant new entitlements; the right to claim reasonable debt-recovery costs without having to go to court; and the ability for grossly unfair terms and conditions that work against the intent of the late payment legislation to be challenged and their continued use prevented.

  The changes will come into effect from 8 August 2002, and from that date the late payment legislation will be available to all businesses and organisations irrespective of their size. Currently only small businesses can use the legislation, although previously this right was to have been extended to all business and organisations from 1 November 2002.

  Employee Statistics
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many enterprises there were with(a) fewer than 50, (b) between 50 and 249, (c) between 250 and 499 and (d) over 500 employees in each nation and region of the UK in each of the last five years; and what the percentage annual change was in each category and for each year. [37565]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Regional data on the number of businesses are available for the years 1997, 1998 and 1999.
  1125W

  Businesses (number)

  Annual change (percentage)

  Size (number of employees)

  1997

  1998

  1999

  1997

  1998

  1999

  South East

  0–49

  608,445

  614,995

  601,610

  1—

  1.1

  -2.2

  50––249

  3,685

  3,580

  3,375

  1—

  -2.8

  -5.7

  250–499

  485

  500

  475

  1—

  3.1

  -5.0

  500 plus

  545

  555

  540

  1—

  1.8

  -2.7

  South West

  0–49

  361,220

  368,955

  358,330

  1—

  2.1

  -2.9

  50–249

  1,880

  1,835

  1,745

  1—

  -2.4

  -4.9

  250–499

  220

  240

  240

  1—

  9.1

  0.0

  500 plus

  215

  225

  215

  1—

  4.7

  -4.4

  England

  0–49

  3,214,530

  3,151,795

  3,188,125

  1—

  -2.0

  1.2

  50–249

  22,540

  21,750

  20,680

  1—

  -3.5

  -4.9

  250–499

  2,985

  2,955

  2,810

  1—

  -1.0

  -4.9

  500 plus

  3,170

  3,175

  3,140

  1—

  0.2

  -1.1

  Wales

  0–49

  156,980

  152,225

  143,080

  1—

  -3.0

  -6.0

  50–249

  910

  890

  845

  1—

  -2.2

  -5.1

  250–499

  125

  125

  115

  1—

  0.0

  -8.0

  500 plus

  90

  95

  95

  1—

  5.6

  0.0

  Scotland

  0–49

  241,480

  244,595

  231,040

  1—

  1.3

  -5.5

  50–249

  2,020

  2,005

  1,935

  1—

  -0.7

  -3.5

  250–499

  240

  235

  220

  1—

  -2.1

  -6.4

  500 plus

  255

  260

  240

  1—

  2.0

  -7.7

  Northern Ireland

  0–49

  83,730

  82,470

  83,785

  1—

  -1.5

  1.6

  50–249

  700

  760

  720

  1—

  8.6

  -5.3

  250–499

  60

  80

  75

  1—

  33.3

  -6.3

  500 plus

  45

  45

  40

  1—

  0.0

  -11.1

  1Not available

  Source:

  SME statistics for the UK 1997, 1998 and 1999

  Exports
  Pete Wishart
  t: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will estimate for each of the last five years and provide forecasts where available for the next two years, the value of exported goods by nation and region of the UK and for the UK in total. [37568]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Statistics on UK trade in goods, analysed by nation and region of the UK, are available from 1999 onwards only. The available information is given in the table:

  Value of Exports

  £ million

  Region

  1999

  2000

  Eastern

  15,511

  18,497

  East Midlands

  10,134

  10,484

  London

  20,553

  23,668

  North East

  5,668

  6,797

  North West

  10,722

  12,574

  South East

  23,865

  27,717

  South West

  8,168

  9,623

  West Midlands

  12,170

  12,857

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  7,634

  8,714

  England

  114,425

  130,931

  Northern Ireland

  2,731

  3,315

  Scotland

  15,649

  18,221

  Wales

  5,918

  6,416

  Total

  138,723

  158,883

  Source:

  HM Customs and Excise News Release 01–2002, 17 January 2002
  1126W
  The Department does not make forecasts for regional exports.

  Telecommunications (Liabilities)
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many companies granted a licence under section 10 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 have complied with the requirement under Condition 16 of Schedule 4 of their licence to have satisfied the Director General of Oftel that they have sufficient funds secured to meet any liabilities arising from their activities. [37202]

  Mr. Alexander
  Two operators, Orange and Vodafone, have satisfied the Director in accordance with condition 16 of their licences. Discussions are taking place between Oftel and two further operators, Energis and Telewest.

  In order to improve this position and to reflect changes in the industry since the original Condition 16 arrangements were established, the Director General has had detailed discussions with both the industry and the Highway Authorities and has now completed a public consultation on proposals to change these arrangements. He hopes to commence a second public consultation shortly on a proposal for a new approach which will be easier to implement and should prove to be less costly for the companies concerned.

  Postal Services
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the implications are for postal services of the judgment in Consignia plc v. Hays plc; and if she will make a statement. [33489]

  Mr. Alexander
  I understand that this matter is still before the courts. It would therefore be inappropriate to make a statement at this time. If the final decision in this case has important implications for postal services these will need to be considered in the first instance by Postcomm.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps the Government will take to safeguard the future of postal services in rural areas. [31275]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 29 January 2002]: Under the Postal Services Act 2000 the postal regulator the Postal Services Commission (Postcomm) has the primary duty to ensure the provision of a universal postal service. The obligation consists of a service provided at an affordable price determined by a public tariff uniform throughout the UK and includes the delivery each working day to the home or premises of every individual in the UK and a collection each working day from access points.

  Subject to this primary responsibility Postcomm is also under a duty to exercise its functions in the manner which it considers is best calculated to further the interests of users of postal services, wherever appropriate by promoting effective competition between postal operators. In performing this secondary duty Postcomm shall have regard to the interests of, amongst others, individuals residing in rural areas.

  Currently Postcomm requires Consignia plc, in the licence to provide a universal postal service. Subject to Consignia's universal service obligations, the number and timing of deliveries is an operational issue for Consignia.

  Broadband
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) whether the Broadband Fund has received clearance from the European Commission as required by the state aid regulations; [33753]

  (2) what (a) technical support and (b) state aid regulations compliance support is being provided to the South West Regional Development Agency by her Department to assist them in the construction of their policy for broadband deployment in the South West. [33743]

  Mr. Alexander
  Although the Broadband Fund has not been notified to the European Commission, any expenditure therefrom, to the extent that it amounts to state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, will have to be in conformity with the block exemption regulations or alternatively notified to, and approved by, the Commission.

  The responsibilities of an RDA Accounting Officer encompass ensuring compliance with the EC rules on state aids. Advice and guidance on compliance is available to all public sector bodies from the State Aid
  1128W
  Policy Unit in the Department. In particular, this Unit publishes "European Community State Aids—Guidance for All Departments and Agencies".

  All projects under the UK Broadband Fund have been developed in consultation with DTI officials, although use of funds is a matter for SWRDA.

  Road Bridges
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with the Ministers in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to ensure that contractors accessing pylons under construction are not endangering road bridges over railways. [37635]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have had no such discussions.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how much caesium-147 is stored in above-ground tanks at the BNFL reprocessing plant at Sellafield; [37701]

  (2) when the tanks used to store high-level radioactive waste at the BNFL B215 facility at Sellafield were constructed; and what projections were made regarding their useful and safe lifespan at the time of construction; [37697]

  (3) if she will make a statement on arrangements for the storage of high-level radioactive waste at the BNFL B215 facility at Sellafield. [37696]

  Mr. Wilson
  The liquid high-level radioactive waste (Highly Active Liquid (HAL)) held at the B215 facility at Sellafield contains essentially all the radioactive isotopes produced in a nuclear reactor. This includes caesium 137 which is estimated to account for approximately a quarter of the total activity contained in the HAL. The total amount of HAL kept in the highly active storage tanks at any one time is related primarily to (1) the total amount of HAL arising from spent fuel reprocessed at Sellafield and (2) the amount of HAL that is converted from liquid form into vitrified form (solid glass blocks).

  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has published a number of detailed reports by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) on the safety of storage of liquid high level waste (HLW) at Sellafield. The report published by HSE in February 2000 assesses the key safety issues associated with HLW storage at Sellafield and the actions to be taken to reduce the stocks of liquid waste contained in the tanks to buffer volumes by the agreed target date of 2015. This report and an addendum to it that was published by HSE in August 2001 are in the Libraries of the House. The February 2000 report includes at appendix B a detailed outline of the history of HLW storage at Sellafield. From this it can be seen that the first eight tanks at B215 were commissioned in 1955 with a further 13 commissioned during the period between 1970 and 1990.

  There is no projected design lifespan for the highly active storage tanks. BNFL and HSE monitor them carefully to ensure that no factors have arisen that might affect their continued safe operation. To ensure defence

  1129W
  in-depth for the continued safe operation of the HASTs, the NII continues to require BNFL to maintain one in four of the tanks in reserve as spares.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations her Department has received concerning the adequacy of current security provision at BNFL's B215 facility at Sellafield, with particular reference to waste storage containers. [37700]

  Mr. Wilson
  I responded on 12 November 2001,Official Report, column 541W to a question on this matter from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) and the Minister for Industry and Energy responded to a question from the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) on 18 January 2002, Official Report, column 511W which concerned intermediate and high level nuclear waste storage facilities. There have also been a number of letters from hon. Members on behalf of their constituents including references to high level waste storage at Sellafield as well as a few letters received direct from the public and one from the Isle of Man Government received in January through the Lord Chancellor's Department.

  Statutory Social and Environmental Guidelines
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when her Department will issue the statutory social and environmental guidelines to the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority. [37699]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department is looking afresh at the draft social and environmental guidance in the light of the Energy Review report published on 14 February by the Performance and Innovation Unit. The report has implications for the guidance, and will need to be considered carefully. Once that process has been undertaken, we will be in a better position to assess the timing for issue of the guidance.

  CHP
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to ensure that the Government's CHP target is reflected in her Department's aims and objectives with particular reference to guidelines on sustainable development; and when she plans to issue them to the non-Ministerial Government departments for which she is responsible. [37703]

  Mr. Wilson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 25 February 2001 to PQ No. 35387.

  Construction Industry Certification Scheme
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if she will encourage the Construction Industry Certification Scheme to recognise the Rolo Scheme launched by the British Association of Landscape Industries; [37623]

  (2) what discussions she has had with the Chairman of the Construction Industry Certification Scheme following their refusal to recognise the Registration of Landbased Operatives Scheme launched by the British Association of Landscape Industries. [37624]
  1130W
  Mr. Wilson
  It is the Construction Skills Certification Scheme (CSCS) and not the Construction Industry Certification Scheme to which I believe the hon. Gentleman is referring. There has been no ministerial contact with the Chairman of CSCS following their refusal to permit the affiliation of the registration of Landbased Operatives Scheme (ROLO) launched by the British Association of Landscape Industries (BALI). Both BALI and CSCS are independent organisations. CSCS has set down affiliation criteria which the ROLO scheme has not satisfied. It would however, be inappropriate for Government to intervene in this matter. However, as Minister for construction, I welcome all initiatives which seek to improve skills competence, training and health and safety.

  Developing Countries
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when and in what format the results of the work by the World Bank on the effects of services liberalisation on developing countries, funded by her Department, will be made available. [37861]

  Ms Hewitt
  World Bank work in this area is being supported with funding by the Department for International Development. The work undertaken as part of the project is continually updated on the World Bank website www.wto.org.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact of TRIPs royalties on developing countries' debt repayments. [37943]

  Ms Hewitt
  Any royalties or licence fees paid in developing countries in respect of intellectual property rights would be commercial matters between private parties and as such should not directly impact on debt repayment by national governments.

  GATS
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether Article VI of the GATS will apply to all service sectors. [37862]

  Ms Hewitt
  This is one of the issues to be resolved in the current WTO services negotiations.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations her Department has made to WTO members on the drafting of a clarification of the GATS exclusion of public services. [37860]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department has met a number of WTO members informally on this issue. In principle the Government are open to clarification of this provision if it can be achieved without creating new areas of uncertainty.

  Domestic Subsidies
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the export and trade-distorting domestic subsidies that were discussed at the Doha ministerial meeting on trade of November 2001. [37857]

  Ms Hewitt
  The reference to export and trade-distorting subsidies can be found in the section of the 5th Ministerial Declaration relating to Agriculture. Without
  1131W
  prejudging the outcome, member Governments have committed themselves to comprehensive negotiations aimed at the reduction, with a view to phasing out, all forms of exports subsidies for agriculture and substantial reductions for domestic supports in agriculture that distort trade.

  It was also agreed at the WTO 5th ministerial meeting in Doha to proceed with negotiations on fisheries subsidies and aimed at clarifying and improving disciplines under the Agreements on Implementation of Art VI GATT and Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.

  WTO
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the mechanisms by which the agreement that the WTO Special and Differential Treatment system should become a more integral part of trade negotiations, reached at the Doha Ministerial meeting on trade of November 2001, will be implemented. [37859]

  Ms Hewitt
  The 'Decision on Implementation Related Issues and Concerns', agreed at Doha, instructed the WTO Committee on Trade and Development to consider the status and effective operation of existing Special and Differential Treatment provisions and to report to the General Council with clear recommendations for a Decision by July 2002 and, within the context of the work programme agreed at Doha, to consider how Special and Differential Treatment may be incorporated into the architecture of WTO rules. Discussions in the Committee on Trade and Development are ongoing.

  As set out in the White Paper, 'Eliminating World Poverty: Making Globalisation Work for the Poor', we will be arguing for the EU to support approaches that recognise even more explicitly than at present that WTO Members are at different stages of development.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the steps necessary for the WTO to be more transparent and open and its rules easier to understand. [37856]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Doha Ministerial Declaration, agreed by all members of the WTO in November 2001, recognised the challenges posed by an expanding membership, and confirmed the need to ensure internal transparency within the organisation and the effective participation of all members in the decision making process. Members also committed themselves to making the WTO' s operations more transparent to outside parties, including through better dissemination of information and improved dialogue with the public.

  I support the need for such measures in order to maintain confidence in the multilateral trading system.

  Offshore Wind Farms (Fishing)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the safety implications for(a) vessels and (b) wind turbines, of fishing within an offshore wind farm; and if she will impose exclusion zones. [37748]
  1132W
  Mr. Wilson
  I have not undertaken a broad safety assessment in relation to windfarms and fishing interests as the implications will vary from site to site. Safety will be a matter that I and other regulators will look at carefully when considering specific proposals which may include exclusion zones, and will of course also be a key consideration by the developers themselves.

  Unified Science Strategy
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will establish a unified science strategy for the UK. [37750]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Science and Innovation White Paper—"Excellence and Opportunity: A science and innovation policy for the 21" century"—was published in July 2000. It set out the Government's strategy for building on the UK's record of scientific excellence, and for ensuring that the outputs from scientific research are harnessed in innovative products and services that will yield economic and social benefits for the people of the UK.

  One of the commitments in the White Paper was that each Government Department should publish a science and innovation strategy setting out the broad framework within which science and technology are used to meet its policy objectives. These science and innovation strategies, with complementary material from the Research Councils and the devolved Administrations, were the theme for "The Forward Look 2001 of Government-funded science, engineering and technology", published in December 2001, which provides an overview of the Government's approach to the use of science and technology and priorities for expenditure.

  The Government have also established a new Cabinet Ministerial Committee on Science Policy, which I chair, to look across the board at the Government's policies in relation to scientific advances and the public's acceptance of them.

  RRS Darwin
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she plans to replace the RRS Darwin; and if she will make a statement. [37749]

  Ms Hewitt
  Following approval by the Natural Environment Research Council of the science and business cases for the replacement of the RRS Charles Darwin, the project will be considered, alongside other research spending priorities, in the context of the present spending review. It is anticipated that the procurement of the new ship would take approximately four years.

  Queen Elizabeth's Foundation
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what representations she has received on the planned closure of the Bradmere house factory in Leatherhead by the Queen Elizabeth's Foundation; [30032]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the reasons for the changes in Government funding for the Queen Elizabeth's Foundation. [30033]

  Maria Eagle
  I have been asked to reply.
  1133W
  We have been in contact with representatives of the Queen Elizabeth's Foundation and have asked to be kept informed of the progress of the consultation they are conducting regarding the future of the Bradmere house factory. We intend to work with the Foundation to consider all the options for securing the future employment of the disabled people who work at the factory.

  The funding arrangements for residential training contracts changed from advance to arrears payments in April 2000. This change was made to bring the funding arrangements in line with Government accounting procedures, which require all activities funded through contracts to be paid in arrears. The system for the arrears payment is much simpler and providers were expected to be able save on administration costs.

  All residential training providers were informed of this change in writing in January 2000 and arrangements were made for advance payments to be reconciled by June
  1134W
  2000. The introduction of the change was staggered through the first quarter of the financial year 2000–01 to ease any short-term difficulties.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Women's Unit
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Minister for Women what budgetary provision there is for the current financial year for the cost of the Women and Equality Unit. [37147]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 25 February 2002]: The budget for the Women's Unit at the start of the year, on 1 April 2001 was £2.2 million.

  Following the general election, in June 2001, the budget increased to £11.4 million when the unit took on new responsibilities for gender equality, co-ordination of sexual orientation policy and sponsorship of the Equal Opportunities Commission.

DEFENCE

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to change the departmental expenditure limits for 2001–02. [38464]

  Mr. Ingram
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the Ministry of Defence Departmental Expenditure Limit will be increased by £813,795,000 from £23,876,578,000 to £24,690,373,000. Within the Departmental Expenditure Limits (DEL) change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  £000

  Resources

  Change

  663,096

  New DEL

  19,034,434

  of which:

  Voted

  18,733,640

  Non-voted

  300,794

  Capital

  Change

  150,699

  New DEL

  5,655,939

  of which:

  Voted

  5,596,969

  Non-voted

  58,970

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from:
  An increase of £356,761,000 for conflict prevention activities in Bosnia, Kosovo, the Gulf, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan.
  Transfers of £261,594,000 from capital to resource DEL.
  A transfer from the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions of £3,435,000 for royal travel.
  A transfer from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of £1,154,000 for the British Defence Staff in Washington.
  A transfer to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of £125,000 for an increase in the MOD's contribution to the running costs on Ascension Island.
  A transfer from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of £12,045,000 for conflict prevention activities.
  A transfer from the Department for International Development of £3,500,000 for conflict prevention activities.
  An increase in cash release from provisions of £25,400,000.

  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from:
  An increase of £47,766,000 for urgent operational requirements for conflict prevention activities.
  An increase of £305,927,000, which is in partial anticipation of a successful PPP for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency.
  A bringing forward from FY 2003–04 of £97,400,000 for the Defence Logistic Organisation Business Change Programme.
  1136W
  A reduction of £38,800,000 in trading fund capital expenditure as a result of the vesting of QinetiQ as a self-financing public corporation on 1 July 2001.
  Transfers to resource DEL of £261,594,000.

  The increase will be offset by inter-department transfers and charges to the DEL reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  The total amount included in spring supplementary estimates for the UK military commitment in Afghanistan is £261,000,000 (Resource DEL £195,000,000, Capital DEL £57,000,000 and Annually Managed Expenditure £9,000,000). This figure includes the cost of munitions consumed and represents the total estimated additional cost of operations in 2001–02 over and above the cost of planned activities.

  Terrorism
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much the Government have made available to his Department for urgent operational requirements for the campaign against international terrorism. [38465]

  Mr. Ingram
  I am pleased to announce that the Treasury has agreed to make available from the Reserve a further £55 million for urgent operational requirements for the campaign against international terrorism. This is in addition to the £100 million that the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on 27 November 2001 in his pre-Budget report.

  The urgent operational requirements that this funding allows us to meet include: equipment to improve our ability to work with the US and other allies, such as additional secure communications equipment; enhancements to our intelligence capabilities; and a range of small but significant enhancements to our forces for operations in the campaign against international terrorism.

  Technology Readiness and Risk Assessment Programme
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library an unclassified summary of the report of the Technology Readiness and Risk Assessment Programme. [38466]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have done so.

  Defence Bills Agency
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what performance targets have been set for the Defence Bills Agency for the financial year 2002–03. [38467]

  Dr. Moonie
  Targets have been set for the Defence Bills Agency for the financial year 2002–03 in accordance with the agency's Service Level Agreement with the Ministry of Defence. The key targets build on the already high standards of service provided by the agency since its formation in 1996 and are as follows:

  (a) To make a progressive reduction in the unit costs of output for bills and invoices of 10 per cent. and 5 per cent. respectively by March 2003 over the target set for 2001–02.

  1137W

  (b) Produce accounting and financial information to the ISO 9001–2000 quality standard and to the times set out at Annexes B and C of the Service Level Agreement.

  (c) To pay 100 per cent. of correctly presented bills within 11 calendar days of receipt as part of the Department's 30-day payment target.

  (d) To raise 97 per cent. of invoices accurately within four days of receipt of a correctly authorised claimable document.

  (e) Within the permitted tolerances, meet the performance targets prescribed at Annexe B of the Service Level Agreement.

  (f) To make a progressive improvement of at least 1 per cent. in the overall level of customer satisfaction over the target set for 2001–02.

  Skynet 5 Programme
  Mr. Patrick Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the Skynet 5 programme. [38468]

  Dr. Moonie
  I am delighted to announce that Paradigm has today been selected as the preferred bidder for the Skynet 5 project. This is the largest Ministry of Defence Private Finance Initiative project to have reached the preferred bidder stage, and will deliver the next generation of satellite communications services for Britain's armed forces. The Skynet 5 solution will be based on a constellation of at least two satellites, which will be owned and operated by Paradigm. We expect to place a contract with Paradigm later this year, with an initial service being provided from 2005. In preparation for this, Paradigm will take over responsibility in 2003 for the existing Skynet 4 capability. The PFI approach offers significantly better value for money when compared to

  Officers

  Other Ranks

  Type

  I1

  II

  III

  IV

  V

  Total

  D1

  C

  B

  A

  Total

  Grand Total

  UK Mainland

  69

  370

  1,920

  3,949

  5,119

  11,427

  3,640

  25,530

  13,897

  —

  43,067

  54,494

  Northern Ireland

  1

  20

  69

  124

  207

  421

  207

  1,751

  851

  14

  2,823

  3,244

  Gibraltar

  0

  4

  13

  54

  67

  138

  0

  195

  227

  39

  461

  599

  Falkland Island2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  36

  Germany3

  7

  11

  514

  1,223

  990

  2,745

  805

  571

  4,777

  78

  6,231

  8,976

  Cyprus3

  1

  4

  67

  172

  256

  500

  40

  203

  653

  —

  896

  1,396

  Belize

  —

  —

  —

  3

  4

  7

  —

  14

  —

  —

  14

  21

  Brunei2,3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  24

  —

  —

  —

  —

  425

  449

  Canada3

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  3

  9

  65

  57

  —

  131

  134

  Total

  9

  39

  664

  1,577

  1,525

  3,838

  1,061

  2,799

  6,565

  131

  10,981

  14,855

  1 Largest

  2 Not assessed by type

  3 Includes hirings

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much expenditure earmarked for single living accommodation maintenance was diverted to high priority items in the last financial year. [36823]

  Dr. Moonie
  Responsibility for the allocation of maintenance expenditure is delegated to top level budget holders, though they are guided by the high priority we attach to improving single living accommodation, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence in March last year. The nature of property maintenance expenditure means that it is difficult in practice to attribute it precisely between single living accommodation and other areas. This information could therefore be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  1138W
  the whole life costs of a conventional acquisition. The Skynet 5 project will provide UK industry with valuable high technology work, and we expect that around 1,500 jobs will be created or sustained.

  Service Accommodation
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many married quarters in each grade (1) in the UK are available to the Defence Housing Executive; and how many service families are entitled to quarters in each grade; [35645]

  (2) overseas are available to the Defence Housing Executive; and how many service families are entitled to quarters in each grade. [35646]

  Dr. Moonie
  Married personnel in the armed forces are entitled to a quarter. The type of quarter (i.e. its size, design and number of rooms) to which a married service person is entitled is determined mainly by rank for officers and mainly by family size for other ranks. Family housing in mainland UK is managed by the Defence Housing Executive (DHE) whereas that in Northern Ireland and overseas is managed by the relevant service authorities. A breakdown by Type of the family housing stock is shown in the table.

  Figures for numbers of entitled service families are not readily available in the form requested. However, many personnel do not take up their entitlement to family housing, preferring to buy their own. The DHE does not normally house entitled personnel in houses of a type below their entitlement: instead, additional houses are rented by the Ministry of Defence on an ad hoc basis where necessary to meet entitlement.

  Service Attributable Pensions
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many Army service personnel have been granted service attributable pensions under the armed forces pension scheme since 1973; [32682]

  (2) how many Army (a) war disablement pensions and (b) service attributable pensions were correctly treated for tax purposes since (i) 1973 and (ii) the earliest point for which he has recently examined the records; [32681]

  (3) how many service personnel records remain to be examined in the effort to identify Army (a) war disablement pensions and (b) service attributable pensions which have been incorrectly treated for tax purposes; [32680]
  1139W
  (4) what estimate he has made of the number of identified cases where tax has been incorrectly deducted from war disablement pensions and service attributable pensions; and if he will make a statement. [32679]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: War Disablement Pensions (WDP) were recognised as being tax-free both before 1973 and since. As WDPs are exempt from tax, the War Pensions Agency has no mechanism to deduct tax and no record of any deductions. There may have been occasional individual problems with regard to tax affecting WDPs but we are aware of none.

  We would need to conduct a manual search of current and closed pension files in order to identify the number of Army Service Attributable Pensions (SAP) correctly treated for tax purposes since 1973. The current problem has arisen principally with respect to Service Invaliding Pensions (SIP). It is possible, however, that in a small number of Army cases an error may have arisen for SAPs in those cases where the scheme rules require the SAP to be paid at the SIP rate where the latter is higher. This is because the pension will have been recorded as a SIP within our computer systems and Inland Revenue may have been advised of eligibility for tax on that basis.

  The number of SIP cases identified as a result of our review of the some 20,000 relevant live Army pension files, following recognition of the error in 1998, is as set out.

  Pre-1973

  Post-1973

  Totals

  Pensioners

  182

  795

  977

  Widow(er)s

  24

  2

  26

  Estates

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Totals

  206

  797

  1,003

  We do not consider it practicable to conduct a search of the very large number of Army pension files where the recipient is now deceased. We are in the process of conducting a sample search of those files dating from the 1940s where we have been able to establish that a SIP might have been in payment and might therefore have been incorrectly taxed. This work should be completed shortly and should provide a clearer perspective on the scope of the problem. It has not so far proved practicable to, similarly, identify 'at risk' cases before this period.

  For those cases where the pensioner is deceased, as well as for any other cases where a pensioner or spouse considers that his/her pension was incorrectly taxed, we have invited claims support by basic service identification. We will consider these claims as quickly as possible.

  We expect the numbers of outstanding cases where SIPs/SAPs were wrongly taxed to be small as, to qualify for such a pension, personnel had to serve 14 years before 1945, 12 years before 1973 and 5 years before 1988. This would exclude those who only served as conscripts, volunteers or national servicemen, as well as many regulars.

  Unmanned Aircraft
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what involvement his Department has had with the development of unmanned aircraft; with which partner 1140W
  countries; how much has been spent in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [36952]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Phoenix system, the Ministry of Defence only in-service unmanned air vehicle (UAV), entered service in 1998. Development of future UAV capability is being pursued through two projects: "Watchkeeper", which is planned to deliver a tactical UAV towards the end of this decade; and the Future Offensive Air System (FOAS) programme, where we are assessing the feasiblity of UAVs contributing to our future strike capability from about 2020 onwards.

  The MOD's expenditure on UAV development over the last three years was approximately £9 million in 1999–2000, £17 million in 2000–01, and £18 million in 2001–02. This does not include the cost of broader-based research, which could bring benefit in due course to a range of capability areas including UAVs.

  To date, our UAV development work has been conducted on a national basis. However, we have recently initiated information exchanges with the USA, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Norway and Australia in order to support our mutual interests in UAV development, acquisition, and operation.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department has spent on the(a) organic air vehicle and (b) micro air vehicle development in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [36951]

  Dr. Moonie
  I assume the hon. Member is referring to unmanned aerial vehicles and that the term organic air vehicles relates to small UAVs developed as an integral part of a military platform. Against this common understanding, there has been no expenditure by the Ministry of Defence specifically on the development of organic or micro air vehicles in the last three years. There are elements of the research programme that may in the longer term prove applicable to organic or micro air vehicles but no specific apportionment of expenditure is possible.

  Private Military Companies
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many private military companies have been employed by the Government since 1997; and in what capacity. [37172]

  Mr. Ingram
  Ministry of Defence records do not separately identify contracts with "private military companies". As the Command Paper "Private Military Companies: Options for Regulation" published by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 12 February makes clear, the term "private military company" covers a wide range of people, corporations and activities. The MOD has and continues to seek the involvement of private sector companies who can provide assistance with military support activities, for example maintenance and training. Types of activity where the MOD is involving the private sector in public-private partnerships were listed in my answer to the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) on 7 February 2002,Official Report, columns 1082–84W.

  Armed Forces Personnel (Northern Ireland)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers there were in Northern Ireland, excluding those troops under the command of the GOC NI that were based in Great Britain, at 31 December in each of the last five years. [37689]

  Mr. Ingram
  The number of armed forces personnel (Army, Navy and RAF), under the command of the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland (GOC NI), stationed in Northern Ireland for the last five years are set out in the table:

  As at 31 December

  Number of armed force personnel

  1997

  16,082

  1998

  14,983

  1999

  14,319

  2000

  13,763

  2001

  13,595

  As already explained on 6 February 2002, Official Report, column 995W, the GOC NI also has under his command troops that are rear based in Great Britain that can be called forward to the Province as and when required. In addition other troops can be made available to the GOC NI from Land Command if required, for example during the marching season.

  Missiles
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when(a) ASRAAM, (b) Storm Shadow and (c) Brimstone missiles will be available for operational service. [35650]

  Dr. Moonie
  ASRAAM is in service and is available for use now if need but safety, training, integration and other clearance activities mean that we are unlikely to deploy the missile before this summer.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to purchase upgraded Tomahawk cruise missiles from the US Administration. [36553]

  Dr. Moonie
  The United Kingdom has already purchased some remanufactured Tomahawk land attack missiles to replace those used during the Kosovo campaign. A contract for a further purchase has recently been signed. No decision has yet been taken on whether the UK should purchase the next generation, Tactical Tomahawk, missile.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the RAF will take delivery of its Eurofighter aircraft. [35647]

  Dr. Moonie
  The RAF is expecting to receive its first Eurofighter aircraft in June this year. Given the inherent risks in a programme of this size and complexity, we have sought confirmation from industry that the programme remains achievable.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects training of pilots and ground crew to fly and service the Eurofighter to begin; and if he will make a statement. [37660]
  1142W
  Dr. Moonie
  On current plans ground crew training will begin in September 2002. Aircrew ground-based training will commence in May 2002. Flying training in Eurofighter will commence when aircraft are available. Deliveries are due to commence in June but we recognise the risks to this date and our planning is sufficiently flexible to accommodate delay if necessary.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the estimated final cost is of the 232 Eurofighters that have been ordered; and if he will make a statement. [37666]

  Dr. Moonie
  The estimated final cost of the Eurofighter procurement programme for the Royal Air Force, based on 232 aircraft, is £18,869 million. This figure excludes initial in-service support. Fifty-five aircraft have so far been ordered for the RAF. Detailed costings are provided in the National Audit Office's Major Project Report 2001, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much is being withheld on the Eurofighter contract; when his Department expects the money to be released to the contractor; and if he will make a statement. [37667]

  Dr. Moonie
  Payments on Eurofighter contracts are made when milestones are achieved. Some milestones are overdue, but the value of payments relating to those milestones is commercially sensitive. Therefore, I am withholding this information in accordance with Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information that relates to third party commercial confidences.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Eurofighter programme agreed milestones, from development to in-service at full squadron strength; and if he will make a statement. [37668]

  Dr. Moonie
  The main development contracts were placed in 1988 and the first development aircraft flight took place in 1994. In 1995, the contracts were re-orientated following the end of the Cold War, and the production contracts were awarded in 1998. The next major milestone will be the first flight of an instrumented production aircraft, trials of which will permit acceptance into service of series production aircraft. Royal Air Force Eurofighters will initially operate from the BAES site at Warton before the first squadron forms at RAF Coningsby in 2004. Full operational capability is expected to be achieved during the second half of the decade.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when Ministers were first informed of problems relating to foreign suppliers with regard to the Eurofighter programme; what action was taken; and if he will make a statement. [37659]

  Dr. Moonie
  Eurofighter is a collaborative project involving many companies from all four partner nations. The Eurofighter prime contracts are with international industrial consortiums based in Germany. In working with the prime contractors to resolve problems we do not distinguish between UK and non-UK suppliers.
  1143W
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the contract penalties to the prime contractor are relating to the missing of development and contractual milestones in respect of the Eurofighter programme; and if he will make a statement. [37665]

  Dr. Moonie
  Eurofighter contract payments are subject to the achievement of milestones, and liquidated damages apply if aircraft deliveries are delayed. The amounts involved are commercially sensitive and I am withholdng this information in accordance with Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information that relates to third party commercial confidences.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contingency plans he has made in the event that the Eurofighter programme is delayed; and if he will make a statement. [37664]

  Dr. Moonie
  Eurofighter is not expected to begin displacing existing front line aircraft for some time. If the build-up of Eurofighter capability is delayed, there is scope for existing aircraft to continue in service.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what briefings by his Department's staff have been given to hon. Members on the Eurofighter programme in the last six months; which hon. Members have been sent briefings; when the briefings were sent out; and if he will make a statement. [37670]

  Dr. Moonie
  The hon. Members for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) and for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) received oral briefings as part of a visit to the Royal Air Force at High Wycombe on 13 December 2001. The briefings were wide ranging and included references to Eurofighter.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when his Department was first informed of delays to the Eurofighter programme; and if he will make a statement; [37661]

  (2) what ministerial action was taken once his Department was informed of the delays to the Eurofighter programme; when it was taken; and if he will make a statement. [37662]

  Dr. Moonie
  The prime contractors have not formally advised the Ministry of Defence that delivery of the first Eurofighter to the Royal Air Force will be delayed. Nevertheless, we know through our continuous monitoring of industry's progress that achieving the June in-service date is becoming increasingly challenging. The risk of delay is not unusual in a project of this size and complexity, but we have made it clear that we expect the prime contractors to take all necessary action to mitigate this risk.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total cost to his Department of expenditure on the Eurofighter programme has been to date; and if he will make a statement. [37663]

  Dr. Moonie
  Expenditure to the end of January 2002 totalled £6,300 million.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what variations have been made since the contract for the Eurofighter programme was first signed; and if he will make a statement. [37669]
  1144W
  Dr. Moonie
  There have been no significant variations to the Eurofighter aircraft specification or contracts since re-orientation of the programme in 1995 to take account of the changed strategic context following the end of the cold war.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if BAE Systems face penalty payments in connection with the Eurofighter programme. [37167]

  Dr. Moonie
  The prime contract for Eurofighter, which is with Eurofighter GmbH of which BAE Systems own 33 per cent., includes provision for liquidated damages to be paid in the event that deliveries are delayed. In addition, payments on the contract are made only when milestones and deliveries are achieved.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what arrangements will be followed to introduce the Eurofighter into RAF service; and if he will make a statement; [37164]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the timetable of events which will lead to the introduction into service of the Eurofighter Typhoon. [37165]

  Dr. Moonie
  Instrumented production aircraft flights, which provide technical information on performance and safety, are expected to commence in March and will allow the first series production aircraft to be accepted and operated by the Royal Air Force. Arrangements for the introduction to service include the setting up of facilities at BAES's Warton site to support operation of the aircraft during its initial months in service, and the establishment of a Royal Air Force unit at Warton for initial training and operational evaluation. Thereafter, Royal Air Force units will be established at Coningsby in 2004, followed by Leeming and Leuchars. Full operational employment of the aircraft is planned to take place during the second half of the decade.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if the projected in-service dates for the Eurofighter will be achieved; [37166]

  (2) if he expects delays to the in-service date for the Eurofighter; and if he will make a statement. [37168]

  Dr. Moonie
  Industry is working hard to achieve the June 2002 delivery date called for in the contract, and we continue to emphasise its importance. Nevertheless, we know through our continuous monitoring of industry's progress that achieving the June in-service date is becoming increasingly challenging.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons the cost of Eurofighter has increased; and if he will make a statement. [37691]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the detailed explanation of cost changes on the Eurofighter programme that was included in the National Audit Office's Major Project Report 2001, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Fair Trade Goods
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 19 November 2001,Official Report,column 13W, on Fair Trade goods, if he will increase the amount of fairly traded goods used in his Department.[35459]
  1145W
  Dr. Moonie
  My answer of 19 November remains extant because EU rules dictate that we seek the best price in the open market, consistent with our quality standard. If Fair Trade goods meet the necessary criteria, they will be considered in competition with similar products from other countries.

  Type 45 Destroyer
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the armament of the Type 45 Destroyer will be; and what plans there are for a land attack capability for surface warships. [35719]

  Dr. Moonie
  With reference to the Type 45's armament, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 24 April 2001,Official Report, column 232W to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies).

  We are considering whether a contribution to land attack capability is required from the Type 45 Anti-Air Warfare Destroyer (which might be provided through a larger calibre gun or land attack missiles), and in the longer term from the Future Surface Combatant. This is in the context of the land attack capability of our submarines, and the marked increase in maritime offensive air power planned with the introduction of the Future Aircraft Carrier and Future Joint Combat Aircraft.

  RAF Chilmark
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost of(a) decontamination and (b) other identified works at the site of former RAF Chilmark. [36154]

  Dr. Moonie
  The cost of clearing explosive ordnance over five years since the closure of the former RAF Chilmark is approximately £1.7 million. The average annual cost of providing maintenance works and upkeep to those parts of the former RAF Chilmark still owned by the Ministry of Defence is £100,000.

  Directed Energy Weapons
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evaluation has been made of directed energy weapons; what joint studies on the development of such weapons have taken place; and if he will make a statement. [36953]

  Dr. Moonie
  The importance of utilising technology to create battle winning forces is a key theme of the Strategic Defence Review. Directed Energy Technology offers a potentially significant military enhancement to our forces but it is just one area of technology development currently being assessed.

  This assessment is taking place within the boundaries laid down by conventions and international law.

  The MOD investigate Directed Energy Weapons in order to identify potential technologies that may meet joint capability requirements. Details of programmes are classified and I am therefore withholding disclosure of this information under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Floor Covering Contracts (Military Installations)
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what tendering process was employed prior to the award of contracts to supply floor coverings to military facilities with effect from the end of 2001. [36765]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has used OGCbuying.solutions as its contracting agent for a range of stores including floor coverings since 1991. OGCbuying.solutions (formerly The Buying Agency) awards all its contracts on the basis of rigorous competitive tendering which is compliant with legislative requirements, fitness for purpose, defined performance standards and best value for money.

  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason a single contract for the provision of carpeting to all military installations in the United Kingdom and overseas was awarded. [36766]

  Dr. Moonie
  There is no single contract for the provision of carpeting to all military installations in the UK and overseas.

  Future Command and Liaison Vehicle
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in introducing the Army's Future Command and Liaison Vehicle; and if he will make a statement. [36552]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Future Command and Liaison Vehicle is in its assessment phase. Work is continuing, in conjunction with industry, to identify and reduce areas of risk, and to finalise the requirement. Once the trials are complete and the results have been assessed, we plan to issue an Invitation to Tender later this year.

  Post-combat Trauma
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the paper published in the British Medical Journal of 8 February concerning post-conflict trauma. [36467]

  Dr. Moonie
  The paper "Post-combat Syndromes from the Boer War to the Gulf War: A Cluster Analysis of their Nature and Attribution" is a valuable contribution to understanding post-combat health. The researchers concluded that all modern conflicts have been associated with post-combat disorders characterised by unexplained medical symptoms and that the form that these assume, the terms used to describe them and the explanations offered, seem to be influenced by advances in medical science, changes in the nature of warfare and underlying cultural forces. These findings will be taken into account as we continue to evolve our policies, procedures and practices for managing health issues in the armed forces.

  Heavy Lift Aircraft
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether heavy lift aircraft in use by the RAF are equipped with defensive aids and counter measures; and whether he intends that heavy lift aircraft(a) leased and (b) purchased for the RAF in future programmes will be equipped with defensive aids and counter measures. [37289]
  1147W
  Mr. Ingram
  Aircraft are equipped with a defensive capability commensurate with the assessed level of threat of the environment in which they are expected to operate. However, disclosure of detailed information about the defensive capabilities of aircraft would be operationally sensitive. I am therefore withholding this information in accordance with Exemption 1 a of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which relates to national security and defence.

  Territorial Army (Scotland)
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the Territorial Army reside in Scotland; and what the equivalent figure was in each of the last five years. [37387]

  Dr. Moonie
  The number of Territorial Army personnel currently residing in Scotland as at 1 January 2002 is shown in the table.

  Officers

  Soldiers

  Total

  565

  4,178

  4,743

  I regret that the Ministry of Defence does not hold equivalent historical data in the form required by the hon. Member.

  Low Flying (Wind Farms)
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions his Department was notified of wind-power developments proposed within low-flying training areas; and on how many occasions his Department(a) took no action and (b) prevented the proposal proceeding in the last five years. [37255]

  Dr. Moonie
  During the last five years the Ministry of Defence have been consulted on a total of 44 windfarm proposals within tactical training areas (where military fast jet and Hercules transport aircraft may fly down to 100 ft minimum separation distance from the ground or any other object). A full appraisal has always been carried out on each proposal. Of the 44 proposals submitted we have had no objections to 10 and have objected to 34.

  Firing Range Safety
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on the minimum safe distance between a live firing range and a public road. [37385]

  Mr. Ingram
  The minimum safe distance between a live firing range and a public road is determined by the type of live firing activity on the range.

  A safe distance between a live firing range and a public road is maintained by applying the appropriate danger area for the live firing activity and ensuring that any hazard is contained well within the range boundary. If there is a public road within a range boundary, it is closed to the public for the duration of any hazard caused by the live firing.

  Surplus Equipment
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what surplus military equipment the UK has 1148W
  (a) given and (b) sold at discount values to (i) Estonia and (ii) Slovenia in the last three years; at what cost; and if he will make a statement. [37120]

  Dr. Moonie
  No surplus military equipment has been given or sold at discount values by the United Kingdom to either Estonia or Slovenia during the past three years.

  Faslane
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many police officers were deployed at Faslane on(a) 8, (b) 11, (c) 12 and (d) 13 February; and how many MOD Police officers have been deployed at the Faslane base in each of the last 12 months. [37256]

  Dr. Moonie
  I am withholding details of the number of Ministry of Defence Police officers deployed at HMNB Clyde in accordance with Exemption 1 (defence, security and international relations) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. I can confirm, however, that additional MDP officers were deployed on 11, 12 and 13 February 2002 at HMNB Clyde in response to planned demonstrator activity.

  Inflight Refuelling Services
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to outsource the inflight refuelling services of the Royal Air Force; how many(a) aircraft and (b) service personnel are involved with that outsourcing; and which (i) companies and (ii) consortiums are involved in bidding for such services. [37827]

  Dr. Moonie
  The future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) is planned to replace our VC10 and TriStar air to air refuelling/air transport aircraft from around 2007. Two consortiums have submitted bids for this prospective PFI programme. They are AirTanker Ltd., comprising Rolls Royce, Cobham, Halliburton, EADS and Thales; and the Tanker Transport Service Company Ltd., which comprises BAE Systems, Boeing, Serco and Spectrum Capital. A mix of Regular RAF, Sponsored Reservist and civilian personnel are expected to operate and support the FSTA service. We are currently engaged in preliminary negotiations with both consortiums and 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. It is too early to say how many Service personnel and aircraft will be involved.

  Offset Agreements
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many offset agreements have been negotiated in Government to Government defence export contracts and MOUs in the last three years; and what the total value of such offset arrangements is estimated to be in the last three years. [37830]

  Dr. Moonie
  No offset agreements have been negotiated in Government to Government defence exports contracts or Memorandums of Understanding in the last three years.

  QinetiQ
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the United States companies purchased by QinetiQ; at what cost; and if he will make a statement. [37169]
  1149W
  Mr. Hoon
  Since its creation as a company on 1 July 2001, QinetiQ has not purchased any United States companies. However, QinetiQ did form a US subsidiary last year, QinetiQ, Inc, with the aim of enhancing the growth of QinetiQ's business with government and commercial customers in the US market. In addition, QinetiQ has recently re-formed a new US company, QinetiQ Trusted Information Management, Inc, as a wholly owned subsidiary of QinetiQ, Inc.

  A400M
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what meetings have been scheduled between Ministers in his Department and their German counterparts prior to 31 March in order to discuss the A400M strategic transport aircraft programme. [37834]

  Dr. Moonie
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has discussed this issue with his German counterpart on several occasions. No further meetings between Ministers are currently scheduled. Senior officials however are in regular contact with their counterparts in the other participating nations.

  Chinook Helicopter Crash
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will make a statement on the findings of the House of Lords Select Committee on the accident to RAF Chinook HC2 ZD576. [37833]

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to issue his response to the report of the House of Lords Committee inquiry into the Chinook helicopter crash in 1994. [37758]

  Mr. Ingram
  Work is already under way to consider the findings of the Select Committee. When this is completed a formal response will be made to the Chairman of the Committee, Lord Jauncey, and to the House of Lords.

  Deployments (Central and Eastern Europe)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many(a) MOD staff and (b) non-military staff have been involved in deployments to (i) Estonia, (ii) Lithuania and (iii) Latvia in the last three years; at what cost; and if he will make a statement; [36940]

  (2) how many (a) MOD staff and (b) non-military MOD staff have been involved in deployments to (i) Albania, (ii) Romania and (iii) Slovenia in the last three years; at what cost; and if he will make a statement. [37121]

  Mr. Ingram
  Numbers of military and Ministry of Defence civilian personnel deployed to Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovenia, Albania and Romania during the last three years are given in the table. The figures for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 were previously published in MOD Performance Reports (Cm5000 Annexe G and Cm5920 Annexe H). They include members of visiting training and advisory teams and resident in-country advisers. The costs shown are approximate.
  1150W

  Military

  Cost £000

  Civilian

  Cost £000

  1999–2000

  Estonia

  13

  87

  1

  18

  Lithuania

  21

  230

  1

  72

  Latvia

  19

  121

  1

  36

  Slovenia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Albania

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Romania

  6

  404

  1

  72

  2000–01

  Estonia

  10

  72

  —

  —

  Lithuania

  12

  250

  1

  75

  Latvia

  13

  116

  1

  75

  Slovenia

  —

  —

  1

  75

  Albania

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Romania

  2

  230

  1

  75

  2001–02

  Estonia

  17

  213

  —

  —

  Lithuania

  22

  108

  2

  80

  Latvia

  23

  107

  4

  84

  Slovenia

  1

  2.5

  2

  80

  Albania

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Romania

  2

  240

  1

  78

  These deployments form part of the Outreach programme in central and eastern Europe which, in turn, is part of the wider Defence Diplomacy mission. Outreach contributes to international stability by assisting countries in the region to establish democratically accountable, cost-effective armed forces capable of contributing both to national and regional security and, increasingly, to international security through participation in peace support operations.

  Not all personnel taking part in Outreach activities are captured in the annually published figures. The inclusion of personnel engaged in one-off, short duration activities would distort the overall picture.

  There are Defence Attaches in the British embassies in Latvia, Lithuania, Albania, Slovenia and Romania, each of which has a military assistant. They are not included in the statistics as their role is diplomatic, facilitating military assistance rather than providing it directly.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Consultants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the total cost to his Department was of the use of external consultants in each of the last four years. [35016]

  Mr. MacShane
  The cost of external consultants was:

  £ million

  1997–1998

  15.8

  1998–1999

  14.5

  1999–2000

  14.0

  2000–2001

  17.9

  Accountancy Contracts
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish
  1151W
  the (a) number and (b) value of contracts awarded by his Department to (i) Arthur Andersen, (ii) Deloitte Touche, (ii) Ernst and Young, (iv) KPMG and (v) PricewaterhouseCoopers accountants in each year since 1997. [34987]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. D. Foster) on 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 717–18W.

  Arms Dealing (Mr. John Bredenkamp)
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has collated on the arms dealing activities of Mr. John Bredenkamp and companies associated with him in(a) Zimbabwe and (b) the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [34903]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are aware of past arms dealing activities by Mr. Bredenkamp. If any person has any information about sanctions breaking, they should inform the relevant UK authorities. I am unable to provide the information requested by my hon. Friend under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Working Conditions and Practices
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [35925]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Information on cases of work-related stress is not held and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost. No compensation has been paid to employees as a result of work-related stress.

  As part of the Government's Revitalising Health and Safety initiative, the FCO commissioned a stress audit by external consultants, who reported in 2001. An action plan was subsequently produced to implement the consultant's recommendations. Under the direction of an action group, management courses are now being redesigned to ensure that staff are better trained to recognise and deal with work-related stress; health promotion activities have been enhanced; and ways of improving existing access to confidential advice and support are being investigated. Since these activities form part of the ongoing work of the FCO's Administration, it is impossible to identify the costs involved separately.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [35887]
  1152W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  The FCO is committed to reducing the number of its employees working long hours. In order to balance this commitment with the requirements of running a round-the-clock business world-wide, we have concluded an agreement on Working Time with the Trades Unions representing our employees.

  Secondments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [35837]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: We cannot divulge the exact details requested by the hon. Member without the permission of the seconding organisations. Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice to Government Information applies.

  However, since May 1997 there have been 63 members of the private sector seconded into the FCO, 46 of whom did so under the Short-Term Business Attachment Scheme (STBAS). These secondees have all been appointed into middle management range posts (i. e. DS5, D6, C4). As for most forms of interchange, departments have borne their own staff's salary costs. The duration of each of these appointments has varied, from six months to four years (with the exception of STBAS which have varied from 3-12 months). The figures can be further broken down as follows:

  Staff seconded to the FCO from the private sector:

  April 1997–1998

  17

  April 1998–1999

  12

  April 1999–2000

  17

  April 2000–2001

  7

  April 2001—to date

  10

  As part of a wider Government initiative that promotes and encourages the exchange of people and good practice between the Public and Private sectors, British Trade International actively seeks interchange partners. Interchange is very flexible, offering a range of activities that allow people from different organisations to share good practice, ideas and experience. There are real personnel development benefits as well as a strong business case for this type of activity. Before an interchange can occur all parties must be satisfied that no conflict of interest arises.

  Industrial Action
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many days have been lost owing to industrial action by staff in his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies in each of the last four years. [36180]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  There has been no industrial action by staff in this department in the UK, or in the NDPBs for which it is responsible, over the last four years.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the statutory instruments issued by his Department in the last 12 months, indicating(a) the purpose of each and (b) the cost

  S.I. title

  Number

  Purpose

  The Iraq (United Nations Sanctions)(Overseas Territories)(Amendment) 2001

  2001/395

  This instrument corrects an error in The Iraq (United Nations Sanctions)(Overseas Territories) 2000.

  The Afghanistan (United Nations Sanctions) Order 2001

  2001/396

  Implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1333, which came into force on 19 January 2001.

  The United Nations (International Tribunals)(Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda)(Amendment) Order 2001

  2001/412

  To assist the International Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Rwanda (ICTR) in trying large numbers of accused within a reasonable time, by establishing a pool of "ad litem" judges in addition to the 14 permanent judges of the Tribunal.

  The Liberia (United Nations Sanctions)(Overseas Territories) Order 2001

  2001/946

  The UN Security Council Resolution 1344 imposed sanctions against Liberia. This order gives effect in the Overseas Territories to the arms embargo and the ban on provision of related technical assistance and training.

  The Liberia (United Nations Sanctions) Order 2001

  2001/947

  The UN Security Council Resolution 1344 imposed sanctions against Liberia. This order gives effect to the arms embargo and the ban on provision of related technical assistance and training.

  Civil Aviation Act 1982 (Overseas Territories) Order 2001

  2001/1452

  To allow for an increase in the penalties that may be imposed for offences under the air navigation legislation in the Overseas Territories and to allow for regulations to be made governing the investigation of aircraft accidents. It also makes consequential amendment to the Civil Aviation Act 1949(Overseas Territories) Order 1969.

  The Liberia (United Nations Sanctions)(Overseas Territories) (No. 2) Order 2001

  2001/1867

  The order gives effect to the ban on the import of rough diamonds in the Overseas Territories.

  The Advisory Centre on WTO Law(Immunities and Privileges) Order 2001

  2001/1868

  This order confers the legal capacities of a body corporate on the Advisory Centre for WTO Law. This legal capacity is conferred in accordance with Article 10(1) of the agreement establishing the Advisory Centre on WTO Law (cm.4721). The order will enable Her Majesty's Government to give effect to Article 10(1) of the agreement, and will come into force on the date on which the agreement enters into force in respect of the United Kingdom.

  The International Criminal Court Act 2001 (Commencement) Order 2001

  2001/2161

  The ICC Act contains powers enabling orders to be made which supplement the provisions of the Act, which will allow secondary legislation to come into force on 1 September 2001.

  The Air Navigation (Overseas Territories) Order 2001

  2001/2128

  Regulation of aviation activity in the Overseas Territories.

  The International Criminal Court Act 2001 (Commencement) (Amendment) Order 2001

  2001/2304

  Corrects a defect in S.I. 2001/2161.

  The International Criminal Court Act 2001 (Elements of Crimes) Regulations 2001

  2001/2505

  To enable the UK courts to take Elements of Crimes into account in a domestic trial.

  The Afghanistan (United Nations Sanctions) (Amendment) Order 2001

  2001/2557

  This order was made under the United Nations Act 1946 to amend the Afghanistan (United Nations Sanctions) Order 2001 to enhance the financial sanctions regime imposed against the Taliban.

  The Afghanistan (United Nations Sanctions) (Amendment) (Overseas Territories) Order 2001

  2001/2558

  This order was made under the United Nations Act 1946 to amend the Afghanistan (United Nations Sanctions) Order 2001 to enhance the financial sanctions regime imposed against the Taliban.

  The International Criminal Court Act 2001 (Reservations and Declarations) Order 2001

  2001/2559

  This order was made under the International Criminal Court Act 2001 and sets out the relevant reservations and declarations made by the United Kingdom when ratifying various treaties.

  The Specialized Agencies of the United Nations (Immunities and Privileges of UNESCO) Order 2001

  2001/2560

  The United Kingdom rejoined UNESCO on 1 July 1997. This order restores the privileges and immunities previously enjoyed by UNESCO and persons connected with it by re-applying the 1974 order to them.

  1154W
  of each to (i) public funds, (ii) businesses and (iii) individuals.[36233]

  Mr. Straw
  A list of instruments issued or originated by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the purpose of each instrument is attached. To provide an assessment would incur disproportionate costs.
  1155W

  S.I. title

  Number

  Purpose

  The Bermuda Constitution (Amendment) Order 2001

  2001/2579

  To enable the Bermuda Constituency Boundaries Commission to make recommendations on the establishment of single-member constituencies for elections to the House of Assembly and to make some unrelated and uncontroversial amendments to the Constitution of Bermuda.

  The Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2001

  2001/3365

  This order was made to enforce the prohibition of fundraising for terrorism purposes and restrict the making available of funds and financial services to terrorists and provides powers to freeze accounts of suspected terrorists pursuant to a decision of the Security Council of the United Nations in its resolution 1373 of 28 September 2001.

  The Terrorism (United Nations Measures) (Overseas Territories) Order 2001

  2001/3366

  This order was made for the same purpose as S.I. 2001/3365 above, for application in the Overseas Territories.

  The Civil Aviation Act 1982 (Overseas Territories) (No. 2) Order 2001

  2001/3367

  This order extends, with modifications, section 76(4) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 to the Territories listed in Schedule 2 to the order.

  The British Nationality Act 1981 (Amendment of Schedule 6) Order 2001

  2001/3497

  The order updates the list of British dependent territories in Schedule 6 to the British National Act 1981.

  The Consular Fees (Amendment) Order 2001

  2001/3498

  To implement the increase in passport fees on passports issued by the United Kingdom Passport Service.

  The Landmines Act 1998 (Overseas Territories) Order 2001

  2001/3499

  This order was made to extend the provisions of the Act.

  The Continental Shelf (Designation of Areas) Order 2001

  2001/3670

  To ensure that the legislation of either Ireland or the United Kingdom applies to the entire length of the pipeline. The order implements the agreement contained in the exchange of letters dated 31 October 2001. The order also corrects an error in the Continental Shelf (Designation of Areas)(Consolidation) Order 2000.

  The European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (European School) Order 2001

  2001/3671

  This order declares the Exchange of Notes dated 20 December 2000 and 12 January 2001 between Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Board of Governors of the European School amending the agreement between the Government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Board of Governors of the European School at Culham to be a Community Treaty as defined in section (2) of the European Communities Act 1972.

  The European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization) Order 2001

  2001/3672

  This order declares the Exchange of Notes dated 20 December 2000 and 4 January 2001 between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation to be a Community Treaty as defined in section 1(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.

  The European Communities (Immunities and Privileges of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization) Order 2001

  2001/3673

  To enable the granting of relief from Insurance Premium Tax and Air Passenger Duty to NASCO.

  The European Communities (Privileges of the European School) Order 2001

  2001/3674

  To enable the granting of relief from Insurance Premium Tax and Air Passenger Duty to NASCO.

  The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2001

  2001/3921

  This order confers privileges and immunities upon the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, on representatives of its members, its officials and experts.

  The Visiting Forces Act (Application to Bermuda) Order 2001

  2001/3922

  The order extends to Bermuda the Visiting Forces Act 1952. This allows most of the provisions of the 1951 NATO Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) to be implemented in Bermuda, once that agreement is extended to Bermuda.

  Children and Young Persons: The Child Abduction and Custody (Parties to Conventions) (Amendment) Order 2001

  2001/3923

  The order amends Schedule 1 to the Child Abduction (Parties to Conventions) Order 1986.

  The al-Qaeda and Taliban (United Nations Measures) Order 2002

  2002/111

  This order was made to impose sanctions on Osama bin Laden, the Taliban and the territory of Afghanistan.

  The al-Qaeda and Taliban (United Nations Measures) (Overseas Territories) Order 2002

  2002/112

  This order was made to impose sanctions on Osama bin Laden, the Taliban and the territory of Afghanistan extending to the territories listed in Schedule 1.

  1156W

  Departmental Website
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the total cost of his Department's website was in real terms in each of the last four years; and how many hits it received in each of those years. [36141]

  Mr. MacShane
  The costs (excluding staff) of the FCO website (www.fco.gov.uk) over the past four years are as follows:

  £

  1997

  Initial set up and design costs

  53,490

  1998

  Technical support and running costs

  47,000

  1999

  Technical support and running costs

  47,000

  2000

  Design enhancement, technical support and running costs

  118,970

  2001

  Design enhancement, technical support and running costs

  135,856

  Total page impressions for each year are:

  Number

  1998

  5,863,634

  1999

  10,522,512

  2000

  24,733,818

  2001

  27,000,000

  Saudi Arabia
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Saudi Arabia about allegations of torture in Saudi police stations, detention centres and jails. [36046]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government are concerned about the allegations of torture in Saudi Arabia in the Amnesty International "Rights at Risk" publication. Saudi Arabia acceded to the UN Convention against Torture in October 1997. We continue to encourage the Saudis to fully implement the convention. We raise our concerns with the Saudis about human rights at all levels.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Saudi Arabia about recent allegations of torture of British nationals in Saudi Arabia; and what investigations have been launched on the basis of such allegations. [36047]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government have made representations at the highest levels to the Saudi Government about those British nationals detained following a series of bombings. We continue to do so. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, other Ministers and I have raised these cases in our contact with the Saudi Government.

  Prisoners (Afghanistan)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assurances the UK Government have received from the US Administration about the treatment of prisoners transferred from UK forces to US forces in Afghanistan. [36045]
  1158W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  The issue has not arisen since we have not transferred any prisoners between UK and US forces in Afghanistan.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) when the European Union observing team will publish its final report on the election process in Zimbabwe [36370]

  (2) what plans there are for the European Union observing team to publish interim reports on the election process in Zimbabwe; [36375]

  (3) what access the European Union observers are guaranteed to ballot stations during the voting process in Zimbabwe's presidential elections under the terms outlined in the letter of invitation sent by the Government of Zimbabwe to the European Union; [36374]

  (4) how many election observers the European Union will send to Zimbabwe to monitor the election process; what the nationality is of each of these observers; in which of the eight provinces of Zimbabwe the observers will be deployed; and how many observers will be deployed in each province; [36373]

  (5) which members of the European Union may send observers to monitor the Presidential election in Zimbabwe under the terms outlined in the letter of invitation sent by the Government of Zimbabwe to the European Union; [36372]

  (6) how many election observers the European Union may send to Zimbabwe under the terms outlined in the letter of invitation sent by the Government of Zimbabwe to the European Union. [36371]

  Mr. Straw
  The EU tried for eight months to engage Zimbabwe in constructive consultation, under the Cotonou agreement. President Mugabe refused to engage. The EU accordingly moved to Article 96 consultations in October 2001. This was a final opportunity for the Government of Zimbabwe to engage positively. Again, they did not.

  As a consequence, at the General Affairs council on 28 January the EU decided it would close Article 96 Consultations and implement targeted sanctions if the Government of Zimbabwe prevented the deployment of an EU observer mission, or impeded its effective operation; if they prevented the international media from having free access to cover the election; if there was a serious deterioration in the human rights situation, or attacks on the opposition; or if the election was assessed as not being free and fair.

  On 4 February the Zimbabwean Government sent a letter to the European Union, inviting it to send observers to cover the election. The letter specifically excluded the United Kingdom, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany and Finland from sending observers. It did not specify how many could be sent, (the EU had intended to send a total of 150). The letter did not specify either what access they would have to voting stations.

  On 16 February, the Government of Zimbabwe expelled the Swedish leader of the EU observer team, Pierre Schori.
  1159W
  Mr. Schori reported to the General Affairs Council (GAC) on 18 February that an EU election observation mission was untenable because the Zimbabwe Government was obstructing the deployment of observers and because of the unremitting violence and restrictions on the media. The GAC therefore decided to impose targeted sanctions (asset freeze, travel ban and arms embargo) against 20 senior members of the Zimbabwe Government. The vote was unanimous. A copy of these conclusions has been placed in the Library.

  The GAC conclusions note that the EU reserves the right to take additional targeted restrictive measures, at a later date, if the situation deteriorates further.

  Commercial Contracts(Ministerial Endorsement)
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British embassies have submitted requests for(a) prime ministerial and (b) other ministerial endorsement of commercial contracts in their respective countries in the last three years, broken down by (i) UK companies and (ii) other companies, indicating in each case the value of contracts concerned and the outcome of each of the endorsements. [36703]

  Mr. Straw
  Ministers write frequently in support of UK commercial interests in overseas markets. The information is not, however, available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Indonesia
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Indonesian Government following the establishment of a National Investigation Commission (KPN) to investigate the killing of Papuan pro-independence leader, Theys Eluay; and what assessment he has made of the composition of the investigation team. [36929]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  On 29 November, the day after the establishment of a National Investigation Commission, the Chargé d'Affaires in Jakarta raised our concerns about this case with Manuel Kaisiepo, the Minister for the Development of Eastern Indonesia. On 5 February Foreign Office officials raised the issue of the National Investigation Commission with the Indonesian Ambassador in London. They reiterated the need for an independent investigation and for any findings to be made public.

  The UK Government are aware of widespread concern over the composition of the National Investigation Commission, and the presence of the separate Indonesian armed forces investigation team. The Indonesian Government must now show they are able to investigate the case objectively and transparently, and subsequently apply the law appropriately.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the prospect of the alleged perpetrators of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in East Timor being brought to justice in Indonesia in 1160W
  proceedings which meet international human rights standards before the Ad Hoc Human Rights Court established for that purpose. [36927]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  While there has been good progress in East Timor in bringing to account those who committed crimes in 1999, progress in Jakarta has been disappointingly slow. However, judges and prosecutors for the Ad Hoc Tribunal have now been appointed and the tribunal is expected to begin hearing cases in March.

  While it is important for the tribunal to begin as soon as possible, we will continue to raise our concerns about the jurisdictional limitations of the tribunal with the Indonesian authorities. The question of retroactive prosecutions will be for the tribunal to determine. The judges and prosecutors appointed to the tribunal are professional lawyers.

  There is currently no provision for victim/witness protection under Indonesian law. However, it is expected that this will be included in forthcoming legislation.

  The embassy in Jakarta will monitor the proceedings of thet tribunal closely.

  The Indonesian Government and representatives from the UN Transitional Administration to East Timor (UNTAET) and the East Timorese leadership meet regularly to discuss a range of bilateral issues.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a substantive reply will be given to Captain Alan Croft's letter of 30 October 2001, concerning Mr. Shwe Tun Aung. [36836]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I am sorry that, due to an administrative error, the hon. Member did not receive a reply to his letter of 30 October 2001.

  The matter will be investigated and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as I am able.

  Gibraltar
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Spanish Government since 1 January on the right of self-determination for the people of Gibraltar. [36536]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral answer given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), on 5 February 2002,Official Report, columns 738-39.

  Taiwan
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Chinese Government concerning its policy towards Taiwan; and if he will make a statement. [36482]

  Mr. MacShane
  In my meeting with the Chinese Ambassador on 19 December, I urged China to rule out the rule of force against Taiwan and pursue a peaceful resolution through negotiation. We believe that the future of Taiwan is a matter to be settled by the Chinese people on both sides of the Taiwan Straits.

  Vietnam
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Government of Vietnam on persecution of Christians. [37938]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Promotion of human rights, including freedom of thought, conscience and religion, is at the heart of our foreign policy. Whenever the opportunity arises we condemn instances where individuals are persecuted because of their faith or belief, in Vietnam and elsewhere, and whatever the religion of the individual or group concerned.

  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised human rights issues in general when he met the Vietnamese Foreign Minister, Mr. Nien, in London in September 2001. When my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister visited Vietnam in December 2001, he raised the treatment of the ethnic minorities in the Central Highlands with the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, Nong Duc Manh. The EU Human Rights Working Group in Hanoi, in which our Embassy plays a leading role, has also raised the treatment of religious believers on several occasions during its regular dialogue with the Vietnamese authorities.

  Biological Weapons Convention
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will publish a paper making suggestions on methods of strengthening the biological weapons convention; and if he will make a statement. [36749]

  Mr. Straw
  I intend to publish a Green Paper in April setting out a range of possible measures to deal with the threat from biological weapons. These measures will include ways of strengthening the Biological Weapons Convention.

  LNM Holdings
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), during his term of office as Minister for Europe, met(a) Mr. Mittal of LNM Holdings and (b) other employees of that company; and what was discussed. [37153]

  Peter Hain
  In his official capacity of Minister for Europe my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East met Mr. Mittal of LNM Holdings at a lunch for the President of Kazakhstan on 17 November 2000 where UK/Kazakhstan relations were discussed. There are no meetings recorded between my hon. Friend as Minister for Europe and other employees of LNM Holdings.

  Private Military Companies
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures are in place to ensure that a British mercenary is unable to be employed in activity against British interests. [37173]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 makes it an offence for a British subject without licence from Her Majesty to enlist in the armed forces of a foreign 1162W
  state at war with another foreign state which is at peace with the UK. However, no successful prosecutions have been brought under the Act.

  The FCO published on 12 February a consultation paper entitled "Private Military Companies: Options for Regulation", which examines the involvement of the private sector in military and security activity and outlines options for regulation. The FCO welcomes comments on this issue prior to the ministerial decisions.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what regulations are in place to ensure that private military companies based in the UK are held accountable for their actions. [37171]

  Mr. MacShane
  No regulations specifically directed towards the activities of private military companies are presently in place.

  That is why, in its Paper entitled "Private Military Companies: Options for Regulation" which was published on 12 February, the FCO outlined options for regulating the activities of private military companies. The Government will make final decisions after the six-month consultation period.

  EU-USA Productivity Gap
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures the Government will be proposing at the European Council in Barcelona to close the productivity gap between the European Union and the United States of America. [37180]

  Peter Hain
  One of the key objectives of the Lisbon economic and social reform strategy is to make the EU the most dynamic and competitive economy in the world. Improving EU productivity levels is central to achieving that aim. At the second annual review of the Lisbon strategy, in Barcelona, the Spanish Presidency is proposing to concentrate on five priority areas: transport and communication networks; energy; education and training; financial services; labour markets. The Government fully support this approach. All five areas have a key role to play in improving EU productivity. Better interconnection between transport and communication networks will improve physical and virtual mobility and delivery; more energy liberalisation and interconnection will improve competition and lower prices; the right approach to education and training will deliver the skills and adaptability required by the 21 Century workplace; integrated financial markets will lower the cost of capital and increase consumer and business choice; more flexible and dynamic labour markets will facilitate job creation and labour mobility.

PRIME MINISTER

  Business Contacts
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) on how many occasions in the last 12 months he has written to
  1163W
  heads of state or Government of other countries on behalf of companies with fewer than 150 employees in the UK; [37160]

  (2) what briefing papers he received concerning LNM Holdings prior to his signing the July 2001 letter he sent concerning the company to his Romanian counterpart; and which department sent them; [37159]

  (3) on how many occasions in the last 12 months he has written to the Romanian Prime Minister; and if he will list the date of each letter; [37162]

  (4) on how many occasions in the last 12 months he has written to heads of state or Government on behalf of individual companies; [37161]

  (5) if he will publish the criteria by which he decides whether it is appropriate for him to write to a foreign Government on behalf of an individual company. [37155]

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will name the companies on whose behalf he has signed letters in support of(a) export and (b) other business interests since I May 1997. [37688]

  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of benefit for the British economy of the awarding of a contract to LNM Holdings to build a steel plant in Romania. [37816]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave the hon. Members for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) and for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on 14 February 2002,Official Report, columns 610-11W.

  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Prime Minister if the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) has written to him within the last two years concerning(a) Mr. Mittal of LNM Holdings and (b) that company. [37154]

  The Prime Minister
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East did not write to me concerning these matters.

  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions he has met Mr. Mittal of LNM Holdings. [37156]

  The Prime Minister
  As my official spokesman has already confirmed, I have not had any bilateral meetings with Mr. Mittal.

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

  Adam Price
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) when he was informed of the attempt by the LNM Group to acquire Sidex; [37931]

  (2) how many letters of congratulations he has sent to heads of foreign Governments for allowing the acquisition of assets by companies or individuals which are supported by the British Government; and what were the (a) days on which the letters were sent and (b) foreign countries concerned. [37930]
  1164W
  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on 14 February 2002,Official Report, columns 610-11W.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT ANDTHE REGIONS

  London Underground
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many changes to the requirements have been notified to bidders for the London Underground PPP since the original invitation to bid. [22705]

  Mr. Spellar
  London Underground is responsible for managing the competition for the contracts to modernise the Tube infrastructure. I understand that London Underground has made a number of changes to the contractual requirements as it has developed is plans.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many(a) full-time drivers, (b) full-time guards and (c) full-time station staff were employed by London Underground in each of the last 10 years. [37241]

  Mr. Spellar
  London Underground has provided the information in the following table:

  Number of full-time train operators

  Number of full-time guards

  Number of full-time station staff

  1991–92

  2,645

  838

  4,430

  1992–93

  1,924

  842

  4,038

  1993–94

  2,016

  779

  4,207

  1994–95

  2,079

  612

  4,204

  1995–96

  2,225

  459

  4,078

  1996–97

  2,384

  508

  4,123

  1997–98

  2,560

  525

  4,095

  1998–99

  2,638

  594

  4,182

  1999–2000

  2,908

  7

  4,966

  2000–01

  3,005

  4

  5,145

  Note:

  For years 1993–94 to 1997–98 inclusive, the figures represent the average number of staff over the whole year. Figures for other years represent staff numbers at the end of the financial year.

  The large drop in the number of guards in 1999–2000 was due to the introduction of new Northern Line trains, which do not require guards.

  Affordable Housing
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many affordable housing units have been built in each year since 1997(a) with social housing grant, (b) with local authority social housing grant and (c) with no public funding (i) in England and (ii) in rural districts. [35160]

  Ms Keeble
  Information on points(a) and (b) is given in the following table. Provisional data on point (c) were collected for the first time covering last year, but returns were incomplete. We have made changes to this year's return to encourage more complete reporting.
  1165W

  Affordable housing units build in England

  Units funded through Social Housing Grant:

  (a) Housing Corporation

  (b) Local Authority

  1997–98

  Deep rural

  1,128

  894

  Mixed rural

  4,172

  2,427

  All rural authorities

  5,300

  3,321

  All authorities

  29,551

  10,161

  1998–99

  Deep rural

  823

  718

  Mixed rural

  4,181

  1,764

  All rural authorities

  5,004

  2,482

  All authorities

  28,207

  9,714

  1999–2000

  Deep rural

  734

  728

  Mixed rural

  3,197

  1,652

  All rural authorities

  3,931

  2,380

  All authorities

  23,568

  8,396

  2000–01

  Deep rural

  802

  478

  Mixed rural

  3,190

  1,532

  All rural authorities

  3,992

  2,010

  All authorities

  20,867

  8,081

  Note:

  1. Completions in respect of any schemes originally approved prior to 1996–97. Involving both Housing Corporation and Local Authority Social Housing Grant Support will be counted under both headings, but cannot be distinguished.

  2. Affordable housing schemes comprise those for rent (including tariff and mixed funded schemes); temporary social housing schemes (including MiniHag, and short-life housing); and shared or outright ownership schemes (including leasehold for the elderly).

  Source:

  Housing Corporation returns

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he is taking to increase the availability of affordable housing. [37177]

  Ms Keeble
  The Government recognise the pressures on affordable housing in many parts of the country. We are taking a number of steps to address this.

  We are significantly increasing the resources available for the provision of additional affordable housing. By 2003–04, funding for the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme will be almost double last year's level, at £1.2 billion.

  We are also providing £250 million through the Starter Home Initiative to help some 10,000 key workers in high demand areas to purchase a home.

  In addition, we are consulting on proposals to replace the present system of negotiated planning obligations with a tariff-based approach. We expect this to increase the provision of affordable housing through the planning process.

  We have also established the Affordable Housing Unit to work closely with partners and stakeholders to improve delivery of affordable housing over the next three years. This work will concentrate on expanding development opportunity, speeding up negotiation and approval of schemes, increased funding, and making better use of the existing housing stock.
  1166W
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has for the(a) provision and (b) development of affordable housing in the Greater London area. [37109]

  Ms Keeble
  Over the next two years we are making available an additional £300 million above current levels for the provision of affordable housing in London. In 2001–02 the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme will invest £338 million in London, rising to £411 million in 2002–03 and £545 million in 2003–04.

  We are also providing £146 million through the Starter Home Initiative to help key workers in London to purchase a home. We expect about 2,300 nurses and other health workers, 1,600 teachers, 550 police and 200 other key workers to benefit, mainly through shared ownership or equity loans. In addition, 4,000 units of affordable rental accommodation for health staff are being provided by the NHS's Housing Co-ordinator, mainly in London and the South East.

  We have also established the Affordable Housing Unit to work closely with partners and stakeholders to improve delivery of affordable housing over the next three years, particularly in areas of acute pressure on housing such as London. This work will concentrate on expanding development opportunity, speeding up negotiation and approval of schemes, increased funding, and making better use of the existing housing stock.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the accuracy of his Department's figures for annual provision of new affordable housing units; and what representations he has received on them from interested organisations. [37082]

  Ms Keeble
  The Housing Corporation monitors Approved Development Programme and Local Authority Social Housing Grant scheme approvals and completions. We are satisfied with the accuracy of these figures.

  Local authorities are now asked to provide summary information on all affordable housing activity as part of their annual Housing Investment Programme returns and we are dependent on the accuracy of the figures they supply. On the basis of their first responses on last year's return, we believe that there may have been under-reporting of Registered Social Landlord provision, and there are changes to this year's return with the aim of improving the accuracy.

  Over the past three months, Ministers have replied to 26 letters and five parliamentary questions on the provision of affordable housing units. Over the same period, Lord Falconer, Minister for Housing, has discussed rural affordable housing in several meetings with the Countryside Agency. He has also discussed affordable housing with the National Housing Forum, and visited the Priory Heights Community Housing Project in London. In addition, I attended a debate on affordable housing in South Gloucestershire.

  Special Purpose Vehicles
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what advice he has
  1167W
  received from Arthur Andersen on establishing special purpose vehicles. [34828]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 8 February 2002]: None.

  Railtrack
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions who will make the final decision on which owner takes over Railtrack; and what criteria will be used. [36725]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Section 59 and Schedule 7 of the Railways Act 1993 provide for the Special Railway Administrator to submit a transfer scheme to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for approval. My right hon. Friend set out the principal issues upon which he will need to be satisfied before approving a scheme in his reply of 31 October 2001,Official Report, columns 669-71W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker).

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has had with Treasury Ministers on the definition of his proposed company limited by guarantee as a replacement for Railtrack and the PSBR. [37240]

  Mr. Byers
  DTLR Ministers and officials have discussions with colleagues in other Departments on a range of subjects on a regular basis.

  Rough Sleepers
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what time of day on average rough sleeping head counts supervised by the Rough Sleepers Unit took place during the last year. [36986]

  Ms Keeble
  The DTLR's guidance "Evaluating the Extent of Rough Sleeping" states that rough sleeper counts should take place on a single night and should take place between midnight and 6am.

  The guidance contains the methodology for carrying out a count of rough sleepers. This methodology was developed by voluntary sector agencies including Shelter in the early 1990s and has been tested and developed through independent research. The methodology has remained unchanged and has been used nationally for over five years.

  Rough sleeping counts are arranged and supervised by staff from voluntary agencies and local authorities. Members of the Rough Sleepers Unit assist local authority and voluntary agencies in a voluntary capacity in carrying out street counts.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what payments the Rough Sleepers Unit have made in the last year to house rough sleepers in temporary accommodation; and if he will publish a breakdown of expenditure. [36987]

  Ms Keeble
  The Rough Sleepers Unit funds a range of housing associations and voluntary organisations in England to provide temporary accommodation, including hostels and rolling shelters, for rough sleepers. In financial year 2001–02, this amounted to £8,193,000.
  1168W
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps are taken during rough sleeping counts supervised by the Rough Sleepers Unit to ensure the personal safety of those conducting the count. [36985]

  Ms Keeble
  Rough sleeping counts are arranged and supervised by staff from voluntary agencies and local authorities. Guidance issued to local authorities highlights that the safety of counters should be the overriding priority when carrying out a count and that safety is discussed before a count takes place.

  Counters work in pairs for safety reasons and to verify the accuracy of the records made. In some cases voluntary organisations have drawn up additional safety and good practice guidelines to ensure the well being of their staff and volunteers who help out with counts.

  Arrangements should also be made in advance by local authorities or the voluntary agencies for the safe transport home of counters, by taxi if necessary.

  Housing Stock Transfers
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what guidance he gives to local authorities regarding information in publicity material about stock transfer of local authority homes; and what advice he gives to tenants questioning the accuracy of such information. [36600]

  Ms Keeble
  Guidance on publicity material is contained in the Department's "Housing Transfer Guidance—2002 Programme" which includes a Good Practice Guide on consultation material. A copy of this document is in the Library of the House. If tenants have any concerns they should raise them with the local authority or the Independent Tenants Adviser.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much was spent in 2001 and what budget is allocated for(a) 2002 and (b) 2003 for early debt redemption costs of housing stock transfers in England and Wales. [37645]

  Ms Keeble
  The Department currently has no budget for this purpose because local authorities in England are required to meet the early debt redemption premiums that may be incurred when authorities repay housing debt at the time of a housing stock transfer. Responsibility for housing in Wales is a devolved issue and is now a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Transport Capacity Studies
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when work will begin on the Greater Manchester capacity study. [37238]

  Mr. Spellar
  A high level strategic study was carried out last year jointly funded by the Strategic Rail Authority, Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive, Manchester Airport, Railtrack and the Highways Agency.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on when work will begin on the West Midlands capacity study. [37231]
  1169W
  Mr. Spellar
  The West Midlands capacity study was completed last year. Railtrack is undertaking further development work to refine the proposals.

  Nottingham Express Transit
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Nottingham Express Transit Light Rail scheme; and when he expects it to open. [37254]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Nottingham Express Transit is a 14km light rail line running from Hucknall, north of Nottingham, through other former mining communities and disadvantaged inner city areas before reaching the city centre and terminating at Nottingham railway station. The scheme will promote regeneration and ease congestion by providing better transport choices in the area and easy interchange with local and national rail services. The line is under construction and scheduled to open in November 2003.

  Train Operating Companies (Fines)
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what responsibilities(a) the Strategic Rail Authority and (b) the Office of the Rail Regulator have in levying fines on train operating companies. [37233]

  Mr. Spellar
  Section 55 of the Railways Act 1993 (as amended by section 225 of the Transport Act 2000) established an enforcement regime in the hands of the appropriate authority which permits it to impose a monetary penalty for contraventions of (a) licence conditions, franchise agreements and certain obligations concerning closures of railway facilities and (b) enforcement orders made to secure compliance with any such obligation. The Rail Regulator is the appropriate authority for licences. The SRA is the appropriate authority for franchises and closure obligations.

  Social Housing
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many council dwellings were built in each of the past 10 years for which figures are available. [37299]

  Ms Keeble
  The figures for the number of council dwellings built over the past 10 years are given in the table together with the new build in the first nine months of 2001–02.

  Local authority new building: England

  Year

  Number of dwellings

  1991–92

  7,001

  1992–93

  2,381

  1993–94

  1,431

  1994–95

  853

  1995–96

  752

  1996–97

  451

  1997–98

  323

  1998–99

  194

  1999–2000

  102

  2000–01

  717

  2001–021

  94

  1 Provisional estimate for April 2001 to December 2002.

  1170W
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions further to his answer of 29 January 2002,Official Report, column 140, on housing associations, if he will publish his assessment of the value for money of house construction by housing associations and councils, indicating in both cases the allowance made for housing benefit and other associated benefit costs. [37738]

  Ms Keeble
  We generally expect house construction by housing associations to offer better value for money for the taxpayer than construction by councils, owing to the greater ability of housing associations to draw on private sources of funding.

  Council Tax (Sussex Police Authority)
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the average amount of council tax is, based on the average band D dwelling, that tax-payers in East Sussex(a) contribute towards policing through the Sussex Police Authority and (b) contributed towards policing in tax-year 1996–97; and what the English shire average for these periods was. [37904]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The table shows the band D council tax set by Sussex police authority in financial years 1996–97 and 2001–02. This is the amount of council tax per band D property in East Sussex that was contributed towards the cost of policing in Sussex. The average band D figures for the English shire police authorities are also provided.

  £

  1996–97

  2001–02

  Band D council tax for Sussex police authority

  46

  59

  Average Band D council tax for English shire police authorities

  47

  72

  Rail Safety
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what progress has been made on implementing the recommendations of red/green zone working—A report on the progress with maximisation of green zone working on Railtrack infrastructure. [37723]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have asked the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) for a written progress report on each of the ten recommendations in the Railway Inspectorate's report "Red/Green Zone working—A report on the progress with maximisation of green zone working on Railtrack infrastructure". I will write to my hon. Friend shortly with the HSE's response and place copies in the House Libraries.

  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many (1) employees of railway companies and their contractors successfully completed safety training courses in each year since 1990; [37724]
  1171W
  (2) hours of safety training were provided to employees of railway companies and their contractors in each year since 1990. [37716]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Neither the Health and Safety Executive nor the individual railway companies hold this information in the form requested.

  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many(a) fatal and (b) major injuries there were to (i) railway staff and (ii) their contractors in each year since 1990. [37714]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Health and Safety Executive do not record separate figures for railway and contractor staff. The table therefore shows the number of fatal and major injuries to railway and contractor staff combined.

  Comprehensive statistics and information on accidents to railway employees and contractors can be found in the Chief Inspector of Railways' Annual Report on railway safety, copies of which are available in both House Libraries.

  Fatalities

  Major injuries

  1990

  22

  306

  19911

  5

  76

  1991–92

  17

  278

  1992–93

  11

  284

  1993–94

  8

  262

  1994–95

  9

  252

  1995–96

  5

  225

  1996–97

  2

  310

  1997–98

  3

  351

  1998–99

  4

  376

  1999–2000

  5

  340

  2000–01

  8

  300

  1 The figures for 1991 cover 1 January 1991–31 March 1991.

  Passenger Fatalities
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the average number of people per 100 million passenger journeys who were(a) killed and (b) seriously injured by each major mode of transport was in each of the last three years. [37725]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The number of passengers(a) killed and (b) seriously injured per 100 million passenger journeys by each major mode of transport in each of the last three years in Great Britain are given in the tables.

  Number of passengers1 killed per 100 million passenger journeys (GB)

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Rail2

  1

  2

  1

  Water3

  3

  2

  3

  Air4

  0

  6

  4

  Car

  4

  4

  4

  Van

  1

  1

  1

  Bus and coach

  0.3

  0.2

  0.3

  Two-wheeled motor vehicle

  180

  174

  194

  Pedal cycle

  15

  16

  12

  Pedestrian

  4

  4

  4

  1172W

  Number of passengers1 seriously injured per 100 million passenger journeys (GB)

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Rail2,5

  n/a

  n/a

  NA

  Water3

  201

  150

  232

  Air4

  1

  4

  6

  Car

  45

  42

  41

  Van

  18

  16

  15

  Bus and coach

  11

  11

  10

  Two-wheeled motor vehicle

  2,151

  2,026

  2,172

  Pedal cycle

  301

  274

  247

  Pedestrian

  44

  40

  39

  1 Staff and crew are not included for rail, water and air. Drivers are not included for bus and coach but are included for car, van,two-wheeled motor vehicle and pedal cycle.

  2 Financial years.

  3 World passenger services of UK registered vehicles.

  4 World passenger services of UK airlines.

  5 Since 1996, rail passenger injury figures have been collected under different definitions.

  Empty Properties (Departmental Estate)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the total area in square feet of all empty properties owned by(a) his Department, (b) his agencies and (c) other public bodies for which he has had responsibility was in each year since May 1997. [37810]

  Dr. Whitehead
  We do not hold this information centrally, and obtaining this data, covering a period of four years, from approaching a hundred different property centres which manage the Department's administrative and operational estate, would involve disproportionate cost.

  Cycle Safety
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to set requirements for(a) the level of brightness and (b) the size of cycle lamps. [38089]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 require cycle lamps to comply with the British Standard BS 6102 and be marked accordingly. This includes a requirement for minimum intensity at various positions and angles from the lens.

  There is no requirement for the size of the illuminated area of cycle lamps. There are currently no plans to introduce such a requirement.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to make the wearing of cycle helmets by cyclists a statutory requirement. [38090]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We will continue to monitor wearing rates and review the option of compulsory wearing from time to time.

  Asylum Seekers (Housing)
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which housing authority will have responsibility for housing applicants for asylum approved for indefinite leave to remain under the proposals in the White Paper, Asylum Law. [37275]
  1173W
  Ms Keeble
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) on 15 January 2002,Official Report, column 181W. Under the proposals in the White Paper, asylum seekers granted refugee status would, as now, be granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK.

  Malicious Fires
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many malicious dwelling fires there were in each region and nation of the United Kingdom in each year since 1997; and how many fires there were per(a) dwelling and (b) capita in each region in each year since 1997. [37832]

  Dr. Whitehead
  A table showing the number of malicious dwelling fires attended by local authority fire brigades in the UK for the period 1997 to 2000 has today been placed in the Libraries of the House. These figures are also expressed as a rate per million of the population (PMP) and per 10,000 dwellings.

  Housing
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what regulations are in place on minimum standards for the size and quality of housing. [37176]

  Ms Keeble
  There are a number of regulations in place in relation to the size and quality of housing.

  Under the housing fitness standard, set out in section 604 in the Housing Act 1985, as amended by the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, a dwelling is unfit if, in the opinion of the local authority, it fails to meet one of nine specified requirements and, by reason of that failure, is not reasonably suitable for occupation. The requirements constitute the minimum deemed necessary for a dwelling house to be fit for human habitation. They include that a dwelling house should be free from serious disrepair, that it should be structurally safe, and that it should be free from dampness prejudicial to the health of the occupants.

  When parliamentary time allows, the Government intend to replace the housing fitness standard with a new risk-based assessment procedure—the Housing Health and Safety Rating System. This will improve upon the existing standard by covering all the important health and safety risks in the home.

  Local authorities have a range of powers to improve standards in houses in multiple occupation (HMOs)—primarily through section 352 of the Housing Act 1985, as amended. This power enables a local authority to serve a notice requiring a landlord to carry out works to ensure the physical condition of the property is adequate for the number of occupants. The Government are also committed to introducing a mandatory licensing scheme for HMOs which will operate closely alongside the proposed Housing Health and Safety Rating System.
  1174W
  In addition, the Government have set a target to bring all social homes up to set standards of decency by 2010, and to reduce the number of social tenants living in non-decent homes by one-third by April 2004, with most of this reduction taking place in deprived areas.

  A decent home must:

  be above the current statutory minimum standard for housing;

  be in a reasonable state of repair;

  have reasonably modern facilities and services; and

  provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort.

  The decent home standard is not set down in statute.

  The Government have also developed with the Housing Corporation the Housing Quality Indicator (HQI) system, which is a measurement and assessment tool designed to allow housing schemes to be evaluated on the basis of quality rather than simply of cost. The HQI assesses the quality of a housing project using three main categories: location, design and performance. These three categories produce 10 "Quality Indicators", which include an assessment of unit size. An HQI assessment generates separate scores for each indicator, producing a profile of the scheme and an overall HQI score. From April 1 2001 the Housing Corporation Scheme Development Standards require HQIs to be used on all new developments utilising social housing grant. In addition, as part of the process of completing the HQI assessment, potential developers and architects should also be able to make design decisions which result in higher quality housing with minimal cost implications.

  Overcrowding standards are set out in Part X of the Housing Act 1985. The room standard is breached if two people of opposite sexes, who are not living together as husband and wife, must sleep in the same room. The space standard specifies the number of people who may sleep in a dwelling according to the number of rooms.

  Building work, which includes the erection or extension of a house, is subject to the Building Regulations which set out the requirements to ensure the health and safety of people in and around buildings, energy efficiency, and access and facilities for disabled people. They make no requirements for size, but in respect of quality, it is stipulated that the work shall be carried out with adequate and proper materials and in a workmanlike manner.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many houses were built in each region by housing associations in each of the last five years. [37465]

  Ms Keeble
  The number of dwellings built by registered social landlords for the last five financial years are given in the table, together with the first nine months data of the latest year. The figures do not include those dwellings bought by registered social landlords, or dwellings provided by converting existing dwellings or other buildings such as offices.
  1175W

  Housebuilding by registered social landlords—number of completions by Government office region

  Region

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  North East

  1,036

  900

  667

  803

  636

  439

  North West

  3,590

  2,661

  2,284

  2,884

  3,226

  2,221

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  2,709

  1,540

  1,586

  1,195

  917

  670

  East Midlands

  1,149

  1,361

  1,295

  1,172

  898

  411

  West Midlands

  2,179

  1,855

  2,152

  2,184

  1,713

  859

  East

  2,903

  2,436

  2,480

  1,718

  1,678

  1,192

  London

  4,858

  4,329

  3,198

  2,934

  3,710

  2,434

  South East

  3,634

  4,069

  3,643

  2,884

  2,716

  2,035

  South West

  2,477

  2,246

  1,615

  1,589

  1,788

  1,111

  England

  24,535

  21,397

  18,920

  17,363

  17,282

  11,372

  1 April-December only. Figures for this period are provisional and subject to change.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what measures he plans to put into place to encourage greater co-operation between planning and housing officers of local authorities. [37467]

  Ms Keeble
  We have set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 3, "Housing", our expectation that planning and housing departments should work together to assess the housing needs of their communities. In the good practice guides we have published to support PPG3 we have underlined the value of close co-operation between planning and housing officers and have highlighted those areas where maximum benefit is to be gained.

  Local Government Funding
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what increases in resources have been given to local government since 1997; what additional resources have been given to local government for personal social services; and if he will make a statement. [37179]

  Dr. Whitehead
  For the period from 1997–98 to 2002–03, the actual increase on a like-for-like basis in Government grant to local authorities is £11.3 billion. The actual increase on a like-for-like basis in personal social services provision (standard spending assessment increase plus earmarked grant increase) over the same period is £2.7 billion. These levels of increase are enough that all authorities should be able to deliver improvements to public services while sticking to reasonable council tax increases.

  Exmoor National Park Authority
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the decision of the Exmoor National Park Authority not to pursue its policy of restricting ownership, with particular reference to second home owners. [37469]

  Ms Keeble
  Last year, Exmoor National Park Authority (ENPA) put forward proposals in the context of the National Park local plan review to tackle a shortage of affordable houses for the park community and what it perceived as excessive numbers of second homes.

  The Government believed such local policies would give rise to serious problems of definition and enforcement. We therefore objected to the proposed plan policy.
  1176W
  I understand that ENPA are still considering representations made on their deposited local plan and have not made any new decisions about policies, including those on second homes. The Government's position remains unchanged.

  Mobile Telephone Masts
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what advice is given to local planning authorities about the distance that Tetra masts should be sited from residential properties. [37742]

  Ms Keeble
  Current Government planning policy for telecommunications is set out in Planning Policy Guidance note 8 (revised): Telecommunications. The guidance advises that all telecommunications operators have a duty under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and the Management of the Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 to ensure that so far as is reasonably practicable, their work activities—which would include the installation and operation of their equipment—do not expose people to risks to their health and safety.

  Following publication of the Stewart report on mobile phones and health in May 2000, the Government accepted that, as a precautionary measure, the emissions from mobile phone base stations should meet the more restrictive International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines for public exposure (as expressed in the EU Council Recommendation of 12 July 1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300GHz)). Most base stations already meet the ICNIRP guidelines and all new base stations will do so.

  The Stewart report recommended the establishment of clearly defined physical exclusion zones around base station antennas, which delineate areas within which exposure guidelines may be exceeded, to prevent the public from exposure radio frequency radiation above the ICNIRP guidelines. These exclusion zones relate to an area directly in front of and at the height of the antenna. The report did not recommend the introduction of a minimum distance between masts and existing development and we have no plans to introduce such a requirement.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what landscape criteria are considered in applications to site Tetra masts. [37743]
  1177W
  Ms Keeble
  TETRA mast development is subject to the normal telecommunications planning arrangements in place throughout England. Our revised Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 'Telecommunications' (PPG8) states the Government's policy on telecommunications development.

  In particular, we attach great importance to minimising the impact of telecommunications development on the environment. Our policy is to encourage mast and site sharing and to make good use of existing buildings and other structures for the siting of antennas. We also encourage the use of sympathetic design and camouflage. Particularly in designated areas, the aim should be for apparatus to blend into the landscape.

  It is for operators and local authorities to consider together what might be the best location and design solution for an individual mast.

  Fishing Industry Accidents
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many fishermen who have lost their lives at sea in UK waters in each of the past five years were(a) UK citizens, (b) crew of a UK-registered flag of convenience vessel and (c) crew of foreign vessels. [37951]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The numbers of fishermen who have lost their lives in the United Kingdom's 12-mile territorial waters are recorded in the database of the Marine Accidents Investigation Branch. The record refers to the lives lost from UK and non-UK registered vessels and does not identify citizenship details of fatalities nor the nationality of the beneficial ownership of a fishing vessel.

  Details of the beneficial ownership of a fishing vessel have been obtained from the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

  The figures are produced in tabular form.

  Deaths from UK registered vessels

  Number of which are from vessels beneficially owned by foreign interests

  Deaths from non-UK registered vessels

  1997

  9

  0

  3

  1998

  13

  0

  1

  1999

  6

  0

  1

  2000

  8

  1

  2

  2001

  6

  0

  0

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many(a) accidents at sea, (b) fishing vessels lost and (c) lives lost there were in the UK fishing industry during 2001. [37950]
  1178W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Provisional figures for UK fishing industry accidents reported to the Marine Accident Investigation Branch during 2001 are:

  (a) Fishing vessel accidents at sea 312;

  (b) Fishing vessel losses 33; and

  (c) Lives lost from fishing vessels 9.

  Road Haulage
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the total number and value of grants made under the Road Haulage Modernisation Fund is, broken down by nation or region. [37717]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Decisions on spending in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are matters for the appropriate devolved Administration.

  DTLR manages £81.2 million of the £100 million Road Haulage Modernisation fund in England, and £2.9 million for increased enforcement effort in Great Britain.

  In England £52 million has been allocated in the first two years of the fund to four areas; retrofitting vehicles through the Clean Up scheme, fuel efficiency advice, driver training initiatives and a self help pilot scheme.

  Starter Home Initiative (Worthing and Adur)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what bids for starter home initiative funding have been received from organisations in Worthing and Adur since the start of the scheme. [37131]

  Ms Keeble
  Two bids were submitted to help key workers in Worthing and Adur in response to the first bidding round for Starter Home Initiative funding. The bids proposed to help five key workers in Worthing and five in Adur and Horsham. Both bids were unsuccessful.

  The Round 2 bidding guidance issued on 16 January invites bids by 14 March 2002 to administer the Starter Home Initiative equity loan scheme to help key workers in a number of high demand areas. Adur and Worthing are not specifically targeted, but bids are sought to help 33 police in Sussex.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for what reason no starter home initiative bids from organisations within Worthing and Adur were successful in the recent round. [37132]

  Ms Keeble
  Since the value of Round 1 bids far outweighed the available Starter Home Initiative (SHI) funding it was necessary to concentrate resources on the most cost effective bids in those areas where the need for the scheme was greatest. The main factors taken into account in making allocations were: the relative need for SHI based on house prices, incomes and assessments of recruitment and retention difficulties for key worker groups in different areas; and the cost effectiveness of competing bids. Taking into account all these factors, the two bids submitted for Worthing and Adur were unsuccessful.

  Asbestos
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what clinical evidence his Department has evaluated regarding mortality resulting from exposure to asbestos. [37588]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Over the five years from 1996 to 2000 specialist chest and occupational physicians participating in the Surveillance of Work-related and Occupational Respiratory Disease (SWORD) and the Occupational Physicians Reporting Activity (OPRA) schemes for the surveillance of occupational respiratory diseases have seen an estimated 4,046 cases of mesothelioma and 434 of lung cancer which they attributed to asbestos exposure, virtually all occupational. Nearly all these cases will eventually have been fatal.

  Not all such cases are seen by the SWORD/OPRA network, and the mesothelioma register records that a total of 7,123 people have died from this cause over the five years from 1995 to 1999 (data for 2000 not yet available). The epidemiological evidence suggests that almost all these will have been caused by asbestos

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the Health and Safety Executive will produce confirmed pathology of mortality from handling asbestos cement in the UK in the last 30 years. [37610]

  Dr. Whitehead
  It is not possible to confirm the source of asbestos leading to individual cases of asbestos-related disease.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent estimate he has made of the likely cost involved in compliance with the EU ban on white asbestos. [37611]

  Dr. Whitehead
  When the Health and Safety Commission consulted in 1998 on draft regulations planned to implement the European Commission Directive banning the marketing and use of all types of asbestos, it carried out a regulatory impact assessment of the costs and benefits entailed.

  This assessment estimated that the total costs of regulation in the UK over 10 years would be between £191 million and £241 million. No more recent estimate of cost has been carried out.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the Health and Safety Executive will produce confirmed pathology for cases of mesotheliomas linked to white asbestos for persons aged(a) under and (b) over 60 years of age. [37609]

  Dr. Whitehead
  It is not possible to link individual cases reliably to particular types of asbestos.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what independent scientific reports have been used by the Health and Safety Executive in formulating their policy toward white asbestos; and which independent scientists have advised the Health and Safety Executive about the dangers of white asbestos. [37587]
  1180W
  Dr. Whitehead
  The Health and Safety Executive has over the years taken advice and commissioned research from a wide range of scientists working in this area. It has also kept the relevant scientific literature under review. In this context it has taken account of the conclusions of the following more recent key reports; Asbestos, Effects on Health of Exposure to Asbestos (Doll and Peto) 1995; Fibrous Materials in the Environment (Institute for Environment and Health) 1997; the 1998 World Health Organisation report on white asbestos; and the 2000 Hodgson and Darnton paper on the quantitative risks of mesothelioma and lung cancer in relation to asbestos exposure. All are published and copies of the report are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Firefighters (Vacancies)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish a list of vacancies for retained firefighters at each(a) fire station in West Sussex and East Sussex and (b) fire brigade area in England and Wales. [37133]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The establishment and strength figures for retained firefighters are in the following table.

  Establishment1

  Strength1

  Station

  (a) East Sussex Fire Brigade2

  Lewes

  20

  12

  Barcombe

  12

  11

  Newhaven

  20

  12

  Seaford

  18

  18

  The Ridge

  12

  9

  Forest Row

  12

  7

  Uckfield

  20

  16

  Crowborough

  20

  15

  Mayfield

  12

  7

  Wadhurst

  18

  11

  Burwash

  12

  10

  Battle

  20

  14

  Broad Oak

  12

  13

  Rye

  18

  16

  Heathfield

  18

  18

  Bexhill

  20

  16

  Pevensey

  12

  10

  Herstmonceux

  12

  9

  Hailsham

  12

  13

  Total

  300

  237

  West Sussex Fire Brigade2

  Worthing

  19

  10.75

  East Preston

  20

  10

  Lancing

  20

  11.5

  Findon

  12

  7.25

  Shoreham

  17

  6

  Arundel

  12

  8.75

  Littlehampton

  20

  17.25

  Crawley

  13

  12.25

  Partridge Green

  12

  6.25

  Steyning

  12

  10

  Horsham

  13

  12

  Billingshurst

  12

  7.5

  Storrington

  20

  12.5

  Selsey

  12

  8.5

  East Wittering

  12

  7.25

  Chichester

  13

  8.5

  Bosham

  12

  7.75

  Midhurst

  16

  12.75

  Bognor Regis

  19

  10.5

  1181W

  Establishment1

  Strength1

  Petworth

  20

  13.25

  Turners Hill

  12

  6.5

  East Grinstead

  12

  7.75

  Haywards Heath

  12

  7.5

  Burgess Hill

  20

  14.5

  Henfield

  12

  9.25

  Keymer

  12

  9

  Hirstpierpoint

  12

  7.25

  Total

  398

  262.25

  Brigade name

  (b) Retained Establishment & Strength in England & Wales3

  Avon

  212

  159.50

  Bedfordshire and Luton

  161

  114.50

  Buckinghamshire

  226

  151.75

  Cambridgeshire

  380

  294.75

  Cheshire

  182

  146.00

  Cleveland

  72

  62.00

  Cornwall

  425

  406.50

  County Durham and Darlington

  168

  118.75

  Cumbria

  474

  369.75

  Derbyshire

  360

  231.25

  Devon

  756

  647.75

  Dorset

  356

  287.75

  East Sussex

  300

  200.50

  Essex

  430

  372.75

  Gloucestershire

  306

  257.00

  Greater Manchester

  64

  26.20

  Hampshire

  616

  545.75

  Hereford and Worcester

  369

  294.00

  Hertfordshire

  276

  212.25

  Humberside

  328

  275.75

  Isle of Wight

  168

  152.00

  Isles of Scilly

  34

  34.00

  Kent

  714

  494.23

  Lancashire

  374

  285.00

  Leicestershire

  216

  143.50

  Lincolnshire

  495

  412.50

  London

  0

  0.00

  Meseyside

  0

  0.00

  Mid and West Wales

  713

  659.75

  Norfolk

  512

  424.25

  North Wales

  553

  483.00

  North Yorkshire

  368

  331.25

  Northamptonshire

  235

  182.25

  Northumberland

  155

  151.75

  Nottinghamshire

  252

  202.25

  Oxfordshire

  336

  237.00

  Royal Berkshire

  156

  122.00

  Shropshire

  284

  249.25

  Somerset

  390

  350.75

  South Wales

  447

  252.40

  South Yorkshire

  80

  38.83

  Staffordshire

  376

  304.25

  Suffolk

  426

  351.50

  Surrey

  144

  103.25

  Tyne and Wear

  24

  17.50

  Warwickshire

  166

  148.75

  West Midlands

  12

  8.00

  West Sussex

  398

  271.75

  West Yorkshire

  148

  165.50

  Wiltshire

  303

  271.50

  Total

  14,940

  12,022.41

  1 In 24 hour units of cover (e.g. a firefighter contracted to provide 24 hour cover in any 24 hour period = one unit; or giving 12 hours = 0.50)

  2 At 31 January 2002

  3 At 31 March 2001

  Flooding
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will introduce proposals to make(a) the developer and (b) the planning authority responsible for (i) flood defences and (ii) buildings on flood plains which are subsequently flooded. [37632]

  Ms Keeble
  No. Planning Policy Guidance Note 25 issued in July 2001 already advises that flooding is a material planning consideration and that, where flood defences are needed because of a development, their provision and maintenance should be fully funded as part of the development. The report by the steering group for "The flood defence funding review" published on 13 February by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs concluded that it is difficult to justify replacing these arrangements before they have a chance to demonstrate their value.

  Developers are advised to carry out an assessment of the risk of flooding to their proposed development and its impact on flooding elsewhere and to submit this with the application for planning permission. Advised as necessary by the Environment Agency, a local planning authority should consider that assessment alongside other material planning considerations in determining whether permission should be granted. It is for purchasers to make such inquiries as they consider necessary to determine whether a property they are considering purchasing is at risk of flooding.

  Road Detrunking Programme
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions who will monitor maintenance levels of local authority roads following the completion of the detrunking programme. [37807]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Maintenance levels of local authority roads are monitored by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. This will continue to be the case after the completion of the detrunking programme.

  Coalfield Regeneration Programme
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the future of English Partnerships and their responsibility for the coalfield regeneration programme. [37653]

  Ms Keeble
  EPs' role and responsibility for the coalfields site programme is being considered along with their other functions as part of the review. An announcement will be made on the outcome of stage one of the review in the near future. However, there is no question of abandoning the proposed remediation of the 86 sites within the existing programme.

  Housebuilding Targets
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact on travel patterns of the housebuilding targets. [37276]
  1183W
  Mr. Byers
  It is not this Government's policy to set housebuilding targets. The new annual rates of regional housing provision and their distribution are set through Regional Planning Guidance. These are kept under regular review by the regional planning bodies.

  The analysis carried out for the 10-year plan for transport included an adjustment to traffic levels, to reflect the expected impact of planning policies which aim to locate new development so as to reduce the need to travel.

  The model we are now developing will be able to estimate more accurately the travel impacts of different geographical patterns of household location.

  Voting Systems
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the timing and structure of the proposed review of the new voting systems for the devolved administrations and the European Parliament and the report of the Jenkins Commission. [37644]

  Dr. Whitehead
  In our manifesto, which sets out our intentions for this Parliament, we said we would review our experience of the new voting systems for the devolved Administrations, the European Parliament, and the London Assembly along with the recommendations of the Jenkins report to assess whether changes might be made to the electoral system for the House of Commons. That remains our intention. The timing and structure of any review has yet to be decided.

  Housing Revenue Accounts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what the annual level of national housing revenue accounts load debt was in each year from 1997–98 to date; and what the capital financing costs of that debt were; [37648]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the cost of paying off all local authority historic housing debt. [37649]

  Ms Keeble
  Local authority debt is held and managed centrally within each authority. For the purposes of determining the Housing Revenue Account's (HRA) contribution to the cost of overall debt, a notional level of HRA indebtedness is calculated each financial year. This is known as the HRA credit ceiling. The table sets out the HRA credit ceiling at the start of each financial year, together with the associated capital financing costs, for financial years 1997–98 to 2001–02:

  £ million

  HRA credit ceiling

  Capital financing costs

  2001–02

  17,894

  —1

  2000–01

  18,426

  1,894

  1999–2000

  19,161

  2,013

  1998–99

  19,620

  2,149

  1997–98

  20,121

  2,231

  1 No data available for 2001–02 at present, it is estimated to be £1,793 million.

  Repayment of an amount equivalent to the HRA credit ceiling will give rise to additional liabilities in respect of
  1184W
  early redemption premiums, which will depend on the profile of each authority's own debt portfolio. It is therefore not possible to estimate the cost of repaying this debt.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the level of capital receipts from the sale of housing and other housing revenue assets was in(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000 and (c) 2000–01. [37647]

  Ms Keeble
  The available information reported by local authorities is as set out:

  Gross housing capital receipts of local authorities: England

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–011

  Sale of Fixed Assets

  1,514,214

  2,133,840

  2,310,956

  Repayments of grants and advances

  106,966

  97,187

  94,964

  Leasing disposals

  9,208

  17,840

  27,144

  Total

  1,630,387

  2,248,867

  2,433,065

  1 Figures for 2000–01 are provisional

  Note:

  Fixed Asset sales include housing stock sold under Right to Buy, and through Large Scale Voluntary Transfers (LSVTs).

  Source: DTLR Capital Outturn Return (COR) forms.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to permit local authorities to redirect funds originating in their housing revenue accounts to(a) set up arm's length housing management organisations and (b) direct investment in municipally owned housing. [37646]

  Ms Keeble
  It is a matter for authorities to determine how to use the resources available to them in their housing revenue account. Authorities which are proposing to establish an arm's length organisation (ALMO) to manage their stock may apply for additional resources. If they are successful and meet the necessary standard, those resources are expected to be targeted on investment in the authority's stock. We have provided resources to enable additional investment of £460 million by ALMOs over the next two years.

  Political Parties (Policy Development Grants)
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will estimate the amount of state funding the Labour Party will receive from the policy development grant in the next four years; [37852]

  (2) how much each political party in receipt of policy development grant is projected to receive in the forthcoming year. [37850]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The calculation of the amount of policy development grant to be allocated in any one year to eligible parties, including the Labour Party, as provided for by the Scheme set out in the Schedule to The Elections (Policy Development Grants Scheme) Order 2002, is a matter for the Electoral Commission.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many press notices his Department has issued mentioning policy development grant since his Department received responsibility for electoral and political party regulation. [37853]

  Dr. Whitehead
  None.

  Transport Multi-Modal Studies
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what transport multi-modal studies are (a) completed, (b) in progress and

  Multi-modal study and location

  Reported

  Access to Hastings

  Reported December 2000. Decision announced in July 2001

  Cambridge to Huntingdon (A14)

  Reported 20 August 2001. Decision announced in December 2001

  South east Manchester (Stockport, Manchester airport link west, Poynton)

  Reported September 2001

  West midlands area (M5/M6 and M42 between M40 and M6)

  Reported October 2001

  The following multi-modal studies are currently in progress:

  Multi-modal study and location

  Recommendations/report to RPB

  West midlands to north west (M6)

  January 2002—recommendations to RPB. Final report due

  March 2002

  Hull (east/west) corridor (A63 and A1033 to port of Hull)

  End April 2002

  London to south west and south Wales (A303, M4)

  May 2002

  A1 (north of Newcastle)

  May 2002

  Tyneside area (A1/A19)

  May 2002

  South and west Yorkshire motorway box (M1 J30 to A1 west Yorkshire/Ml8/M62 and A1(M)

  June 2002

  A453 (M1 to J24 (Nottingham)

  April 2002

  North/south movements in the east midlands (M1 junctions 21 to 30)

  March 2002

  South coast (Southampton to Folkestone coastal corridor)—(M27, A27 and A259)

  Spring/summer 2002

  Thames valley (London to Reading—M4)

  Summer/autumn 2002

  M60 junction 12-18 (west to north Manchester)

  Summer 2002

  ORBIT—Transport Solutions Around London (M25)

  Autumn 2002

  London to Ipswich (A 12)

  July 2002

  London to south midlands (A1, M1, M11, A5 and A421)

  December 2002

  Norwich to Peterborough (A47)

  February 2003

  West midlands to east midlands (A42/M42 to M6 corridor and M69 and A38)

  April 2003

  The final two multi-modal studies have yet to commence. Dates have yet to be confirmed although we would expect these to report by end of 2003/early 2004:
  Multi-modal study and location

  A52 (Clifton bridge to Bingham, Nottinghamshire)

  A34 (North from Southampton).

  Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) Regulations
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for what reason he used his powers under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and the Local Government Act 1992 to introduce the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) Regulations 2001; and whether the regulations could have been enacted under the powers granted to him by the Local Government Act 2000. [37854]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Secretary of State used the powers in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and the Local Government Act 1992 to make the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) Regulations 2001 (the 2001 Regulations) because they were specific powers that enabled him to achieve what was needed. The powers in the Local Government Act 2000 are more general powers but they are not wide enough to enable the making of all the provisions which are included in the 2001 Regulations.

  KCC Speed Interactive
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant
  1186W
  (c) planned; what their (i) expected publication date and (ii) location is; and which he has (1) accepted and (2) rejected. [37868]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The multi-modal studies that have reported are as follows:

  to the answer of 7 February 2002, Official Report, column 1111W, on KCC speed interactive signs, if he will indicate when later in the year might be. [37308]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We cannot say when until the analysis has been completed and conclusions drawn.

  Road Traffic Accidents (Mud)
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what guidance is issued by his Department to farmers and landowners regarding their duty of care relating to mud on road surfaces; what plans he has to publish a code of practice for farmers and landowners clarifying their liability in road traffic accidents where mud is cited as a contributory factor to the hazardous road condition; and if he will make a statement. [37918]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The National Farmers Union already issues guidance to farmers and landowners about preventing the dropping of mud onto the road surface which they are currently in the process of updating. I have no plans for my Department to duplicate this guidance.

  There are specific regulations aimed against mud being dropped onto the highway. Sections 148 and 161(1) of the Highways Act 1980 make it an offence to deposit anything, including mud and manure, on roads. Section 149 of the Highways Act 1980 enables highway authorities to take action against anyone who deposits anything on the highway that constitutes a nuisance or danger. Section 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 makes it

  1187W
  an offence to cause anything to be left on the road if it would be obvious to a reasonable person that to do so would be dangerous.

  High Hedges
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 15 October 2001,Official Report, column 884W, on high hedges, when he estimates there will be space in the parliamentary timetable for such legislation. [37855]

  Ms Keeble
  The Government's legislative programme is set out in each successive Queen's Speech. I cannot therefore anticipate the timing of Government legislation on high hedges.

  Business Tenancies (Reform)
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will announce his conclusions on his Department's consultation paper on the reform of business tenancies in England and Wales. [38634]

  Ms Keeble
  I have placed a paper setting out our conclusions on the consultation exercise in the Library of the House. We are also making it available on my Department's website.

  We are still considering issues raised from the separate consultation of section 57 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, and will make a further announcement in due course.

  Emergency Planning
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions since 11 September 2001, what assessments have taken place on the capability of regional and city disaster plans and the engagement of the(a) emergency planning committees, (b) police service, (c) fire brigade, (d) ambulance service, (e) hospitals and NHS trusts, (f) St. John Ambulance, (g) British Red Cross, (h) Territorial Army, (i) armed forces and (j) local authorities in these plans. [36721]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  As the Prime Minister told the House on 8 October, since the terrible events of 11 September every one or our arrangements has been under scrutiny. For security reasons the Government do not publish contingency plans or the operational and procedural matters relating to them.

  Local authorities have a power to plan and work together with other local agencies to formulate locally based, multi-agency emergency planning arrangements. Mutual aid arrangements will draw resources from further afield if necessary. Although the process started before 11 September, the Government are reviewing the Future of Emergency Planning in England and Wales. A summary of the responses to this consultation has been placed in the Library and on the Cabinet Office website (www.ukresilience).
  1188W
  The Civil Contingencies Secretariat in the Cabinet Office maintains regular contact with local authority representatives, the emergency services, emergency planning officers and others involved in handling civil emergencies.

  Indonesia
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what information she has received concerning the deployment of British-made Stormer armoured vehicles to Aceh, Indonesia; and what representations on that subject he has made to the Indonesian Government. [36930]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I have been asked to reply.

  The British Embassy in Jakarta received information that three Stormer armoured personnel carriers were being used to provide protective transport for visitors to the Indonesian Army Headquarters in Lhokseumawe, Aceh. Our Defence Attaché in Jakarta took the matter up immediately with the Indonesian authorities. He expressed concern that this was in breach of Indonesian Government assurances that British built equipment would not be used in Aceh. They admitted that a mistake had been made and offered renewed assurances about the use of British built equipment in Indonesia. The Defence Attaché later confirmed that the Stormer vehicles had been removed from Aceh.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  IRA (Police Investigations)
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what police investigations are in progress into alleged criminal activities and murders by the Provisional IRA in 1972 in County Londonderry. [34973]

  Jane Kennedy
  The police investigations into serious crimes in County Londonderry in 1972 where no persons have been prosecuted remain open. The investigations are constantly reviewed and, should any evidence or information come to light, appropriate action will be taken to apprehend the suspects.

  Criminal Damage
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many incidents of criminal damage against(a) police stations and (b) police vehicles in Northern Ireland were reported in 2000. [35337]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Chief Constable has advised me that the number of attacks on police stations and mobile patrols, as a result of terrorism or public disorder, in 2000 was(a) police stations: eight (b) police vehicles: 1,339.

  Criminal Assault (Fireworks)
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many incidents of criminal assault were recorded in each year since 1997 in Northern Ireland relating to the use of fireworks. [35335]
  1189W
  Jane Kennedy
  The statistics requested are not readily available and could be produced only at disproportionate cost. The misuse of fireworks in such circumstances is one of the areas of concern being addressed in the fireworks review, which I announced on 12 October 2001.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Bland Judgment
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in how many cases the courts have(a) considered and (b) agreed to the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration for patients in a persistent vegetative state since the Bland judgment. [34095]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply.

  The courts have, since the Bland judgment in 1993, considered 29 such cases in respect of people in a permanent vegetative state, and on each occasion have issued a declaration authorising the withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration.

  Civilian Court Staff
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whether civilian enforcement officers employed by magistrates courts committees have direct access to the police national computer for the purposes of(a) entering and (b) reading data; and if he will make a statement. [37674]

  Mr. Wills
  Civilian Enforcement Officers do not have direct access to the Police National Computer (PNC) for purposes of either entering or reading data.

  The Lord Chancellor's officials, in consultation with representatives from magistrates courts committees, are currently preparing an application to the Police Information Technology Organisation to enable court staff to have direct access to PNC for enforcement purposes.

  Court Orders
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whether targets are set in respect of the time taken to execute warrants on individuals who have not complied with criminal court orders; and if he will make a statement. [37675]

  Mr. Wills
  Lead responsibility of the execution of financial warrants and community breach warrants was transferred from the police to the magistrates courts committees on 1 April 2001. No targets were set for execution of these warrants during the first year of operation to enable baseline data to be collected. I will shortly be announcing targets for execution of both financial and non-financial warrants for 2002–03.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what procedures exist for dealing with the execution of a warrant in respect of an individual who has breached a community court order if that individual is deemed to be a high risk to the public; and if he will make a statement. [37677]

  Mr. Wills
  Warrants issued in respect of an individual who has breached a community penalty order may be executed by civilian enforcement officers employed by 1190W
  magistrates courts committees, by staff of approved enforcement agencies working under contract to magistrates courts committees or by the police. The National Framework Agreement agreed between the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Home Office, sets out the arrangements for execution of warrants in respect of individuals who have breached a community court order. Where there is a risk of violence or disorder, the person executing the warrant may request police assistance. If the probation service or youth offending team identifies an individual as high risk to the public they would normally ask the police or the enforcement officer or agency to give execution of the warrant a high priority.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whether magistrates courts committees can execute warrants in respect of non-compliance of criminal court order if the individual concerned moves to Scotland. [37676]

  Mr. Wills
  Where an offender has moved to Scotland, the execution of warrants in respect of non-compliance with a criminal court order is the responsibility of the police in Scotland.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 29 January 2002,Official Report, column 255W, what the total area in square feet of all empty properties owned by (a) his Department, (b) his agencies and (c) other public bodies for which he has had responsibility was in each year since May 1997. [37912]

  Mr. Wills
  In the written answer that I gave to the hon. Member on 29 January 2002,Official Report, column 255W, I confirmed that the Lord Chancellor's Department has owned no empty properties in the last four years. The Court Service and the Northern Ireland Court Service have owned a total of 17 properties which have empty at some point over the last four years. In all cases these buildings were empty only while being marketed for sale, except in one case where the building was empty prior to conversion. The total area in square feet of the empty properties in each of the last four financial years is shown in the table:

  Period

  Total area (square feet)

  1997–98

  38,929.07

  1998–99

  45,841.95

  1999–2000

  51,526.82

  2000–01

  61,108.90

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans there are to change the(a) departmental expenditure limit and (b) administration costs limits for 2001–02. [38914]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the Lord Chancellor's Departments (including Northern Ireland Court Service and Public Records Office) DEL will be increased by £89,792,000 from £2,871,573,000 to £2,961,365,000 and the administration costs limit will be
  1191W
  increased by £31,308,000 from £684,425,000 to £715,733,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  £000

  LCD

  NICtS

  PRO

  Total

  Resources

  Change

  85,181

  -3,378

  4,750

  86,553

  New DEL

  2,798,549

  78,622

  32,345

  2,909,516

  of which:

  Voted

  2,709,690

  73,082

  32,345

  2,815,117

  Non-voted

  88,859

  5,540

  0

  94,399

  Capital

  Change

  -3,672

  6,561

  350

  3,239

  New DEL

  37,894

  12,561

  1,394

  51,849

  of which:

  Voted

  30,094

  12,561

  1,394

  49,049

  Non-voted

  7,800

  —

  —

  7,800

  The change in the resource element of the DEL is the net effect of take-up of £60,000,000 from the Asylum Reserve; draw-down of £226,000 administration costs from the Invest to Save Budget; transfer of £7,000,000 (administration costs) from Northern Ireland Court Service; reduction of Departmental Unallocated Provision of £12,208,000, of which £4,674,000 is administration costs; transfers from the Home Office in respect of: Machinery of Government changes, £2,371,000, of which £121,000 is administration costs; CJS Reserve entitlement, £1,241,000 administration costs, and other projects, £207,000 of which £83,000 is administration costs; a total transfer from the Department of Health in respect of various projects in the sum of £164,000 of which £123,000 is administration costs; transfer to the Department of Trade and Industry of £50,000; transfers from the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions of £512,000 administration costs; transfer to the Public Record Office of £300,000 administration costs; a reduction of £436,000 administration costs arising from an adjustment of incorrect recording of NAO fees; take-up of £27,000,000 from the Reserve of which £5,000,000 is administration costs to the Public Guardianship Office; a transfer of £10,000,000 to LCDHQ administration costs in accordance with the Chief Secretary of the Treasury's letter to the Lord Chancellor of 14 February 2002; and a transfer of £5,100,000 administration costs from capital.

  The decrease in the Northern Ireland Court Service's resource element of DEL is the net effect of a transfer of £7,000,000 of RfR1 administration costs to the LCD; a transfer from the Northern Ireland Office of £2,200,000 into RfR1 administration and End Year Flexibility draw-down of £1,442,000.

  The change in the Public Record Office resource element of DEL arises from the take-up of £4,200,000 End Year Flexibility, £250,000 in respect of the Modernising Government initiative and a transfer of £300,000 administration costs from LCD.

  The change in the capital element of the DEL is the net effect of a transfer from the Home Office of £307,000 in respect of the Capital Modernisation Fund; drawdown of £65,000 from the Invest to Save Budget; a transfer of £5,000,000 to the Northern Ireland Court Service; and a transfer of £5,100,000 to LCDHQ administration costs.
  1192W
  The change in the Northern Ireland Court Service's capital element of DEL arises from take-up of End Year Flexibility entitlement of £1,561,000 and a transfer of £5,000,000 from LCD.

  The change in the Public Record Office capital element of DEL arises from the take-up of £350,000 End Year Flexibility entitlement.

  The increases will be offset by inter-departmental transfers, increases to Appropriations in Aid, take-up of End Year Flexibility entitlements and a charge to the DEL Reserve and will therefore not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  CAP Payments (North Yorkshire)
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much her Department expects to contribute to farmers in North Yorkshire this year in CAP payments; and how many farms will receive payments. [34682]

  Mr. Morley
  The latest available CAP scheme payments made to farmers in North Yorkshire, and the number of farms paid under each scheme are:

  CAP scheme and year1

  Amount paid (£)

  Number of farms paid

  Arable Area Payment Scheme (2001)

  246,821,495

  2,897

  Beef Special Premium Scheme (2001)

  34,584,681

  2,791

  Veal and Calf Slaughter Premium Scheme (2000)

  53.25

  3

  Slaughter Premium Scheme (2000)

  2,292,063

  2,135

  Suckler Cow Premium Scheme (2000)

  4,439,554

  1,304

  Extensification Payment Scheme (2000)

  3,343,953

  1,495

  Sheep Annual Premium Scheme (2000)

  I2,046,965

  1,658

  Hill Farm Allowance (2001)

  6,607,832

  1,894

  1Figures from latest available scheme year

  2After modulation

  3Before modulation

  The total number of farms paid cannot be provided as the same farm may be covered by more than one of the CAP schemes.

  Regional Food
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 11 February 2002,Official Report, column 90W, ref. 32897, if she will list the activities being pursued in the eastern region. [36480]

  Mr. Morley
  We do not hold centrally information on all the regional food chain supply and marketing initiatives carried out by Government and Government funded organisations in the eastern region. However, through 'Food From Britain' and the Countryside Agency, the Government have contributed to the funding of the Regional Food Group, 'Taste of Anglia'. These funds have been used to provide various business support and promotional activities including, "Meet the Buyer" events, the publication of regional food and drink guides, attendance at local, regional and national shows, the holding of workshops and seminars and the promotion of farmers markets.
  1193W
  A number of projects in the eastern region involving the processing and marketing of food have been awarded grants under the rural enterprise scheme and the processing and marketing grant scheme which form part of the England rural development programme. Producers and processors in the eastern region may also benefit from some of the national projects funded under the agricultural development scheme.

  Waste Disposal
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will take action to make doorstep recycling available throughout the United Kingdom. [37271]

  Mr. Meacher
  Recycling is a matter for the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In England, approximately 43 per cent. of households receive this service and we expect the number to increase greatly. The Government have set statutory performance standards for all local authorities, which will triple the recycling and composting of household waste in the five years to 2005–06. Each authority will decide how best to meet these targets, taking into account local circumstances, but the Government encourage them to introduce or extend kerbside collection of recyclable waste, where this is environmentally and economically the best option.

  The Government also found significant new resources for English local authorities in the last spending review, both in the general settlement and a separate fund of £140 million for the waste minimisation and recycling fund. The Scottish Executive and Welsh Assembly Government have also found extra resources for recycling.

  The New Opportunities Fund has also identified £50 million for the UK to support community sector waste minimisation, re-use and recycling schemes, which may include kerbside schemes.

  Industrial Action
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many days have been lost owing to industrial action by staff in her Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies in each of the last four years. [36192]

  Mr. Morley
  During 2001–02, 16,201 days were lost owing to industrial action by PCS staff in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and its agencies.

  During 1998–99, 1999–2000, and 2000–01, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the agencies which are now part of DEFRA did not lose any days owing to industrial action by staff.

  In the time available and given the number of NDPBs for which DEFRA is responsible, it is not possible to confirm the position for all NDPBs at reasonable cost.

  Health and Safety (Computers)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many employees in her Department who regularly use 1194W
  computers have taken up the provision of a free eye test; and how this service is advertised to (a) current and (b) new staff. [36699]

  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA was created in June 2001. Statistics covering staff currently in DEFRA but previously in the DETR or the Home Office are not available prior to that date. Under the current contract arrangements—which have been in place since 1 May 2000–1,399 members of staff to date have taken up the provision of a free eye test.

  Full scheme details are accessible via the Department's intranet Health and Safety website. The service is advertised using a variety of office notice systems (electronic and hard-copy), regular reminders on the intranet, and is also detailed in a variety of departmental health and safety booklets which are given to new entrants by personnel and line managers.

  Future of Farming and Food
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what was the cost of printing and publishing the report of the Policy Commission on the future of farming and food; how many copies have been printed; what arrangements have been made for distribution of hard copies of the report to the public; what is the ISBN number of the report; and if she will make a statement. [35291]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: I understand that the cost of printing and publishing the report of the independent Policy Commission on the future of farming and food, was £5,650. This was for the initial printing of 2,500 copies. To meet demand, a further 2,000 copies are being printed at a cost of £3,995. The report does not have an ISBN number. Though the Commission's report was to the Government, the Commission sent copies of the report to all those involved in the consultation exercise, and have made it publicly available on their website www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/ farming. Copies are available free of charge from my Department.

  Copies of the report have also been placed in the House Libraries and the Vote Office.

  Nitrate Vulnerable Zones
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what reasons underlie the differences in the percentage levels of designations to Nitrate Vulnerable Zones in England, Scotland and Wales; for what reason the criteria used for the designation of rivers has changed since 1996; what consultation there was with the agricultural sector on this change; what representations she has received on the financial impact on farmers who are to implement this directive; and if she will give financial assistance to enable them to do so. [34492]

  Mr. Meacher
  The difference in the scale of Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZs) proposed in England, Scotland and Wales are due mainly to differences in rainfall, the pattern and intensity of agricultural activity, and the nature of the soil and geology.
  1195W
  Changes have been made to the criteria for identifying nitrate polluted rivers and other waters, so as to protect the water environment and not just drinking water supplies. These changes, and changes to the methodology used to identify areas for designation as NVZs, are based on legal advice about the requirements of the Nitrates Directive following a European Court of Justice decision in December 2000 that the UK had failed to implement the directive properly.

  DEFRA is currently consulting on proposals to implement the Nitrates Directive, through the consultation document "How should England implement the 1991 Nitrates Directive" published on 20 December 2001. One of the options is to designate new NVZs, and the new methodology on which this option is based is set out in the consultation document.

  Representations about the financial impact on farmers are being received in response to the consultation and are being collated and analysed at the moment. It is intended to extend the farm waste grant scheme to the new areas where farmers will be required to implement measures to tackle nitrate pollution under the directive. This will make financial assistance available to those farmers facing the most significant compliance costs, in particular for the construction of new slurry storage. The grant rate is currently 40 per cent. (the EU State Aid Rules maximum) for construction or upgrade of storage facilities up to an investment ceiling of £85,000. We are currently considering offering 50 per cent. in less favoured areas, as permitted by the EU State Aid Rules. From experience in current NVZs, the average cost of new slurry storage construction to comply with Action Programme measures is between £30,000 and £40,000.

  Farm Business Statistics
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the proportion of registered holdings which are farmed by people other than the owner or tenant under(a) contract farming, (b) share farming and (c) similar arrangements; and what the proportion was (i) five and (ii) 10 years ago. [36586]

  Mr. Morley
  We have no reliable data to show the proportion of registered holdings which are farmed by people other than the owner or tenant under contract farming arrangements.

  So far as share farming is concerned the Farm Business Survey for 2000–01 showed that 35 of the 2,183 'full-time' farm businesses surveyed in England were involved in share farming. This is equivalent to 1.6 per cent. of the farm businesses in the survey.

  Results from the June 2000 census (which included full and part-time holdings) in England showed that 0.7 per cent. of respondents were involved in share farming, and the total area share farmed was 1.0 per cent. of the respondents' total area. No data on share farming are available for five or 10 years ago.

  We have no data for holdings farmed under similar arrangements.

  Farm Practices (Archaeological Sites)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to protect buried archaeological treasures from farming practices which might disturb them. [36483]

  Mr. Morley
  The objectives of our agri-environment schemes include conserving areas which demonstrate their history and to protect important features and major earthworks by measures such as low intensity grazing, scrub control and by converting cultivated land to pasture. A number of scheme options support those objectives.

  In recognition of the threat to archaeological sites in intensively farmed landscapes, DEFRA has commissioned a research project from the Oxford Archaeological Unit to investigate the impact of arable management on buried archaeological sites. Their report, which is expected in the next few months, will contribute to the development of best practice guidelines for managing archaeological features in arable landscapes, while retaining land, where possible, in production.

  These initiatives add to the existing legal protection for archaeological features that are formally recognised. Steps have also been taken to encourage the voluntary reporting of all archaeological finds.

  Environment Agency Committees
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total cost was of the advertisements for the chairmen of the Environment Agency Regional Fisheries, Ecology and Recreation Advisory Committee; and in which publications advertisements were placed. [34929]

  Mr. Morley
  In total advertising costs for the most recent Regional Fisheries, Ecology and Recreation Advisory Committee Chair appointment exercise was £10,200. Advertisements were placed in The Times, The Sunday Times and The Anglers Mail and also appeared on the Department's website.

  Farm Subsidy Claims
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 29 January 2002,Official Report, columns 249-50W, on farm subsidy claims, how the Government intend to implement the new penalty structure; and what progress the RPA has made in amending its policy to reflect this change in the regulations. [34687]

  Mr. Morley
  The new penalty structure for IACS is set out in detail in Commission Regulation No. 2419/2001, which came into force on 1 January and is directly applicable in the UK. IACS claims made during the course of this scheme year will be dealt with in accordance with the new penalty provisions.

  The RPA is in the process of finalising scheme literature for distribution to claimants explaining the new penalty provisions in respect of the various IACS schemes. A supplement to the IACS Booklet will be issued in late March and the other specific scheme literature will be updated and issued at the usual times during the course of the year.

  Departmental Retirement Ages
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the retirement ages that apply to the employees of her Department and its agencies, including how many and which categories of employees are affected by each; and if she will make a statement on her Department's policy on flexible retirement. [32822]

  Mr. Morley
  As at 1 January, there were 13,990 permanent, casual and fixed-term contract staff employed by the Department and the agencies. Of these, 7,384 staff were of Executive Officer (or equivalent grade) and above. These grades normally retire at age 60. There were 6,606 staff in Administrative Officer, Administrative Assistant and Support grades. These staff are subject to a maximum retirement age of 65.

  Staff may be retained beyond normal retirement age for short periods where there is a specific business need (this might, for example, be to complete a particular task or to cover the time until a replacement arrives). Flexible early retirement may be offered if the Department needs to resolve a structural problem.

  Correspondence
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) when she will reply to the letters from the hon. Member for West Derbyshire dated 18 March and 18 June, concerning Mr. A. Tabbenor of Brooklands, Barnes Lane, Youlgrave, Derbyshire, and his suckler cow premium; [5881]

  (2) when she will reply to the letters dated 18 March and 18 June from the hon. Member for West Derbyshire concerning Mr. A. Tabbenor of Brooklands, Youlgrave, in Derbyshire and his suckler cow premium. [21002]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: A response to the hon. Member's letters of 18 March and 18 June 2001 was sent on 10 February 2002.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 22 January 2002,Official Report, column 801W, when she will reply to the letter from the Surrey County Agricultural Society dated 16 January regarding the showing of animals at the county show that will take place on 3 June. [31461]

  Mr. Morley
  We have no record of having received the letter from the Surrey County Agricultural Society dated 17 January referred to by the hon. Member.

  Recreational Craft Directive
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what agreement was reached at the Council of Ministers' meeting on 29 October on amendments to the recreational craft directive, with particular reference to exhaust noise emissions levels. [12311]

  Mr. Meacher
  At the Council of Ministers' meeting on 29 October, political agreement on a common position was reached on the amendment to Directive 94/25/EC laying down limit values for exhaust and noise emissions from new recreational craft placed on the Community market. The Council agreed limit values at the levels 1198W
  proposed by the European Commission in COM(2000) 639 dated 12 October 2000. Particularly in relation to noise emissions, agreement was reached on less costly methods of demonstrating compliance. Overall the agreement represented a reasonable balance between achieving challenging environmental objectives while minimising the cost to small and medium-sized business and individuals.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much was spent on administering the Common Agricultural Policy in the United Kingdom, and what proportion of total CAP spending in the UK was paid to farmers in each of the last five years. [33101]

  Mr. Morley
  We estimate the cost of administering CAP market support measures throughout the UK to have been £78 million in the financial year 2000–01. We estimate the cost of administering direct support measures in England in that year to have been £52 million. The administration of direct payments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is the responsibility of the devolved Ministers.

  The following table gives estimates of (a) expenditure on CAP market support measures and (b) direct payments to the agriculture sector under the CAP in the UK in the last five years. It is not possible to calculate how much of the expenditure on market support was paid to farmers, as traders can also be eligible. Almost all the direct payments will have gone to farmers.

  £ million

  Total expenditure under the CAP

  Expenditure on CAP market support measures

  Of which: Expenditure on CAP direct payments to the agriculture sector

  1996–97

  4,278

  1,621

  2,657

  1997–98

  3,546

  1,281

  2,265

  1998–99

  3,455

  1,013

  2,443

  1999–2000

  3,131

  710

  2,421

  2000–01

  2,977

  665

  2,312

  Note:

  The final column includes expenditure on HLCAs and LFAs.

  Animal Movements (Restrictions)
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her estimate is of the financial losses incurred by UK farmers through animal movement restrictions preventing transport to market until after stock had passed 30 months of age. [27028]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 15 February 2002]: It is not possible to make a reliable estimate of these losses. There are no statistics available to identify the number of cattle that entered the over thirty months scheme as a result of the movement restrictions introduced to control the spread of foot and mouth disease.

  Departmental Payments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the
  1199W
  instances in which her Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies failed to pay valid invoices within 30 days or after the agreed credit period in the financial year 2000–01. [32036]

  Mr. Morley
  All departments are committed to pay 100 per cent. of correctly presented invoices on time, however payment terms may vary between departments and suppliers. For the financial year 2000–01 DEFRA and its agencies paid 93.9 per cent. of invoices on time. The failure has been cut by 4.4 per cent. since 1999–00.

  Note:

  248,083 invoices were paid in 2000–01 of which 15,054 were paid late. These are not readily presentable in a list without disproportionate cost.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many press releases were issued about foot and mouth disease between 19 February and 18 March 2001; and how many refer to an epidemic. [33711]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 February 2002]: Between 19 February and 18 March 2001, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food issued 17 press releases. The word epidemic was not used in any of them.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what samples were kept for further investigation of those animals slaughtered on suspicion during the recent foot and mouth outbreak. [37475]

  Mr. Morley
  As at 19 February 2002, samples had been taken on 331 Slaughter on Suspicion (SOS) premises to investigate the presence of foot and mouth virus.

  Sample types included the following material:

  epithelium from the feet and mouth

  blood

  Probang samples.

  Many samples used for diagnosis during the outbreak remain in storage at the Institute of Animal Health at Pirbright, but we are informed that to identify how many of these samples were originally from SOS premises would be possible only at disproportionate cost.

  New Potatoes
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the derivation, by country, of UK cultivated new potatoes; and what measures are in place to ensure the accurate labelling of early new potatoes entering the retail chain. [35880]

  Mr. Morley
  Only those seed potatoes which have been produced in EU member states or in Switzerland are permitted to enter the UK and be planted here. These measures are laid down in the Plant Health (Great Britain) Order 1993 (as amended) and in the Plant Health Order (Northern Ireland) 1993 (as amended). However, information on the seed varieties imported is not available so it is not possible to distinguish between those destined for early and ware production.
  1200W
  As far as labelling is concerned, the Food Labelling Regulations 1996 require only the variety of potato to be mentioned on the label.

  Rural Land Register
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made on data gathering and database design for the Rural Land Register; and if she will make a statement. [35276]

  Mr. Morley
  A contract was awarded on 8 November 2001 to a consortium to capture and digitise all land parcels registered under the Integrated Administration and Control System. The work is in progress and is due to be completed by December 2003. A prototype of the database to hold the digitised field data has been prepared and will be further developed over the coming months.

  Cameraria Ohridella
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 31 January 2002,Official Report, column 477W, on cameraria ohridella, if she will state (a) how close cameraria ohridella has spread towards the UK and on what date this was, (b) what the rate of spread towards the United Kingdom is and (c) what action the Government plan to take to prevent transmission across the channel; and whether she estimates that the disease is likely to have spread to the UK by the spring. [35820]

  Mr. Morley
  Since it was first detected in Macedonia in 1985, cameraria ohridella has spread rapidly across Europe and is now present in the Netherlands where it was found in 1999 and in France and Belgium where it was found in 2000.

  Although the natural rate of spread of the moth is quite low, passive carriage on vehicles from infested areas is a highly effective and speedy means of dispersal, which explains the recent expansion of range across Europe. Because of this, it is not considered practicable to try to prevent its spread through the imposition of phytosanitary controls. Transmission to Britain is considered highly likely, although it is not possible at this stage to estimate when this might happen.

  As I indicated previously, in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) on 25 October 2001, Official Report, column 362W, the Forestry Commission will shortly publish an exotic pest alert which will be sent to foresters, local authority tree experts and others. In addition to providing a colour-illustrated guide to the biology and symptoms of the moth, it will ask readers to report any sightings so that these can be investigated without delay.

  May I also draw the hon. Member's attention to the Forest Research Annual Report for 2000–01 (HC 247), copies of which are in the Library of the House. The report gives a detailed account of the information known to date about this pest, an assessment of the level of threat posed to this country and the control options that have been assessed.

  Union Duties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many staff in her Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies receive paid leave to undertake union duties; how many days they are allocated; and what has been the cost to public funds in each of the last four years. [36216]

  Mr. Morley
  In the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and its agencies, 378 staff have received paid leave to undertake union duties throughout 2001–02. During 1998–99, 1999–2000, and 2000–01, the figures for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food totalled 230, 364 and 389 respectively.

  During each of these years, up to 25 days was available to each union representative to undertake trade union activities although the average claimed was less.

  UK quota 1998–2002 by species

  Stock

  1998 UK quota

  1999 U quota

  2000 UK quota

  2001 UK quota

  2002 UK quota

  Sandeel IIa North Sea

  20,000

  20,000

  20,000

  20,000

  17,794

  Herring I, II

  113,000

  25,190

  24,210

  16,460

  16,460

  Herring IVa,b

  38,910

  40,570

  40,570

  40,570

  38,169

  Herring IVc, VIId

  1,700

  1,693

  1,693

  1,693

  4,094

  Herring Vb, VIaN, VIb

  46,360

  39,240

  24,990

  21,570

  21,571

  Herring VIa (Clyde)

  1,000

  1,000

  1,000

  1,000

  1,000

  Herring VIIa

  6,660

  4,880

  3,960

  5,100

  3,550

  Herring VIIe,f

  500

  500

  500

  500

  500

  Herring VIIg-k

  30

  30

  30

  30

  10

  Herring IIa North Sea industrial by-catch

  —

  550

  660

  660

  660

  Cod I, lib

  2,789

  2,034

  1,650

  —

  —

  Cod IIa, IV

  58,740

  56,260

  34,360

  18,930

  19,397

  Cod Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  5,520

  5,960

  3,530

  2,222

  2,960

  Cod VIIa

  2,045

  1,585

  605

  895

  1,378

  Cod VIIb-k, VIII, IX, X

  1,660

  1,570

  1,330

  870

  712

  Megrim IIa North Sea

  —

  2,880

  2,880

  2,600

  2,599

  Megrim Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  1,520

  1,520

  1,520

  1,370

  1,367

  Megrim VII

  3,210

  3,210

  2,570

  2,150

  1,874

  Dab and Flounder IIa North Sea

  —

  2,590

  2,590

  2,330

  2,331

  Anglers IIa North Sea

  —

  17,960

  14,370

  11,495

  8,545

  Anglers Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  2,650

  2,650

  2,460

  1,975

  1,513

  Anglers VII

  4,800

  4,800

  4,140

  3,870

  3,295

  Haddock IIa, IV

  66,000

  57,045

  53,045

  41,780

  59,805

  Haddock Vb, CI, XII, XIV

  20,710

  15,110

  15,110

  10,820

  10,992

  Haddock VII, VIII, IX, X

  2,000

  2,200

  1,320

  1,200

  830

  Haddock VIIa (additional to haddock VII)

  —

  2,390

  1,629

  1,293

  622

  Whiting IIa, IV

  27,415

  24,590

  19,470

  13,335

  18,853

  Whiting Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  5,805

  4,060

  2,775

  2,580

  2,157

  Whiting VIIa

  1,930

  1,720

  1,020

  685

  443

  Whiting VIIb-k

  2,900

  2,680

  2,410

  2,250

  3,402

  Hake IIa, IV

  370

  350

  270

  160

  170

  Hake Vb, VI, VII, XII, XIV

  5,960

  5,550

  4,240

  2,500

  2,662

  Blue whiting IIa, IV

  1,070

  1,070

  1,070

  1,070

  592

  Blue whiting Vb, VI, VII, XII, XIV

  —

  35,000

  38,030

  45,350

  25,032

  Blue whiting VIIIabde

  —

  7,241

  7,241

  7,241

  4,004

  Lemon sole IIa North Sea

  —

  7,330

  7,330

  6,580

  5,937

  Nephrops IIa, IV

  13,165

  13,165

  14,895

  13,380

  14,398

  Nephrops Vb, VI

  12,305

  12,305

  12,305

  11,070

  11,072

  Nephrops VII

  7,545

  7,545

  6,885

  6,200

  5,856

  Northern prawn IIa, IV

  —

  1,948

  1,948

  1,778

  1,074

  Plaice IIa, IV

  23,880

  28,070

  26,810

  21,780

  20,808

  Plaice Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  1,450

  1,450

  1,450

  1,170

  1,050

  Plaice VIIa

  885

  885

  885

  835

  1,223

  Plaice VIId,e

  1,660

  2,150

  1,890

  1,750

  1,946

  Plaice VIIf,g

  250

  205

  185

  180

  119

  Plaice VIIh,j,k

  170

  170

  170

  150

  146

  Pollack Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  400

  400

  400

  400

  403

  Pollack VII

  2,960

  2,960

  2,960

  2,960

  2,964

  Saithe IIa, III, IV

  7,790

  8,830

  6,820

  6,980

  10,838

  1202W
  From the information received annually over the 1 April to 30 March period, the cost to public funds has been £431,990 during 1998–99; £438,753 during 1999–2000, and £439,130 during 2000–01 based on full salary cost. Figures for the 2001–02 financial year are not yet available.

  In the time available and given the number of NDPBs for which DEFRA is responsible, it is not possible to confirm the position for all NDPBs at reasonable cost.

  Fish Quotas
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the(a) overall and (b) cumulative change in fish quotas available to UK regional fishing vessels for the past five years has been according to (i) sector and (ii) species. [37949]

  Mr. Morley
  The following table gives the UK quota figures for the past five years organised by species and ICES fishing areas:
  1203W

  UK quota 1998–2002 by species

  Stock

  1998 UK quota

  1999 U quota

  2000 UK quota

  2001 UK quota

  2002 UK quota

  Saithe Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  3,425

  3,125

  3,080

  3,255

  3,211

  Saithe VII, VIII, IX, X

  1,350

  1,350

  970

  805

  1,340

  Turbot and brill IIa North Sea

  —

  1,390

  1,390

  1,110

  1,042

  Skates and rays IIa North Sea

  —

  3,920

  3,920

  3,128

  3,136

  Mackerel IIa (EC), III, IV

  1,390

  1,390

  1,540

  1,580

  1,611

  Mackerel IIa (non-EC), Vb, VI, VII, VIIIabde, XII,XIV

  179,590

  165,480

  193,240

  197,069

  201,647

  Sole II, IV

  820

  945

  945

  815

  686

  Sole Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  30

  30

  30

  30

  25

  Sole VIIa

  200

  200

  240

  240

  244

  Sole VIId

  1,005

  905

  790

  885

  1,000

  Sole VIIe

  395

  410

  385

  355

  309

  Sole VIIf,g

  240

  270

  325

  285

  301

  Sole VIIh,j,k

  120

  120

  120

  110

  138

  Sprat II, IV

  4,950

  5,900

  8,350

  8,350

  8,348

  Sprat VIId,e

  6,300

  6,300

  6,300

  6,300

  6,300

  Spurdog IIa, IV

  —

  7,177

  7,177

  7,177

  5,745

  Horse mackerel IIa North Sea

  5,530

  5,840

  4,960

  4,960

  4,960

  Horse mackerel Vb, VI, VII, VIIIabde, XII, XIV

  30,700

  25,310

  22,850

  22,850

  14,026

  Veterinary Service
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will extend the role of the temporary veterinary inspector towards a territorial army of vets. [37477]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department is currently evaluating future arrangements for the engagement of temporary veterinary resources. This will, among other issues, encompass an examination of the current terms and conditions for the engagement of temporary veterinary inspectors (TVIs).

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what Government-funded training is available for private veterinary surgeons to ensure that they have access to knowledge about animal disease. [37478]

  Mr. Morley
  Private veterinarians are appointed as local veterinary inspectors (LVIs) by the Department in order to carry out specific functions.

  Part of the appointment process involves departmental training in those areas to which the appointment relates. The objectives of such training are to improve the ability and performance of the LVI in carrying out work for the Department and to provide motivation to achieve and maintain satisfactory standards.

  Following a successful assessment of the trainee's suitability a temporary appointment of six months will be established. During this period an assessment of the officer's competence will be made. Satisfactory assessment leads to a full appointment.

  It is the responsibility of the Department to maintain a level of training suitable for the LVI to perform his or her functions. Training is complemented with written instructions, newsletters and practice liaison meetings during which new issues and instructions are discussed. The Departments official journal of the SVS—State Veterinary Journal—is published and distributed to LVI practices bi-annually. These publications have included a series of articles on notifiable diseases. All LVIs have access to a departmental veterinary officer 24 hours a day 365 days a year.

  Woodland
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment is being made of the value of woodland in urban areas. [37145]

  Mr. Morley
  The Forestry Commission has a programme of social research to assess the value of woodland in urban areas. A number of projects are being conducted under this programme including investigating how woodlands enhance communities, and the value of woodlands in relation to recreation, social inclusion, land regeneration and economic development. The links between access to the natural environment and improved physical and mental health will also be investigated.

  The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions also plans to commission research into the feasibility of developing a tool for putting an economic value on the benefits derived from the provision and maintenance of street trees. This is likely to build on the study currently being carried out by the National Urban Forestry Unit into the impact of street trees on residential property values.

  In addition, the urban green spaces taskforce, chaired by the Minister responsible for regeneration, the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), is developing proposals for improving the quality of green spaces, through better design, planning and management. As part of this work, the taskforce has been reviewing current evidence on the state of parks and green spaces, including any wider benefits to people's quality of life in the urban environment. Their thinking has been informed by research carried out by the University of Sheffield, the results of which we expect to publish alongside the taskforce's final report in April.

  Private Sewers
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research has been undertaken by her Department in respect of private sewers; and if she will make a statement. [37875]
  1205W
  Mr. Meacher
  We have appointed outside consultants to undertake research into existing private sewers, the main objective of which is to establish their extent, identify and examine the problems associated with them and to produce workable solutions. The research began in December and is due to last 18 months. Further details will be provided in an announcement that I will be making at the end of this month.

  Food Supplements
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the impact of European directives on the supply of health supplements. [35661]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply.

  A common position on a draft European Union Directive on Food Supplements was agreed by the Council of Ministers on 3 December and is currently at second reading stage in the European Parliament. The proposed directive would establish a framework for harmonised controls on vitamin and mineral content of food supplements and introduce a number of useful labelling measures.

  The impact of this directive on consumer choice and the specialist food supplement sector will depend on future developments on maximum limits and lists of permitted nutrients. We are firmly committed to the view that, in the interests of consumer choice, the law should allow food supplements which are safe and properly labelled to be freely marketed.

  Shellfish Poisoning
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the incidents of diarrhetic shellfish poisoning in the UK the past five years, and their impact on the shellfish industry. [34537]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply.

  The last year for which figures on the number of incidents of diarrhetic shellfish poisoning are readily available is 2000. In this year there were approximately 60 closures of shellfish beds due to the presence of this poison, lasting from a few weeks to several months. Closures are put in place in order to protect public health, the beds reopening when further testing indicates that the poison is absent. This Department has no information on the impact of such closures on the shellfish industry.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research her Department has commissioned into the causes of diarrhetic shellfish poisoning. [34536]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Food Standards Agency has an extensive on-going programme of research on shellfish poisoning. This contains a specific project that seeks to understand more about the relationship between the source of the toxins,
  1206W
  microscopic algae in the water that shellfish feed on, and the presence of toxin in the shellfish. Diarrhetic shellfish poisoning is included in this work.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether diarrhetic shellfish poisoning is classified as being caused by a pest. [34534]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply.

  Diarrhetic Shellfish Poisoning occurs when shellfish ingest toxins present in certain types of the microscopic algae on which they feed. These algae occur naturally in the waters in which shellfish are grown and are not classified as being a pest in the context of the Food Safety (Fishery Products and Live Shellfish) (Hygiene) Regulations 1998.

  Urban Green Spaces
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to receive the final report of the Urban Green Spaces Task Force. [37146]

  Ms Keeble
  I have been asked to reply.

  The final report of the Urban Green Spaces Taskforce will be published in April.

  Rural Postal Services
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what plans she has to carry out a rural-proofing analysis of Postcomm's proposals to reform the postal industry; and if she will make a statement; [34854]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the impact on rural communities of Postcomm's proposals to reform the postal industry; and if she will make a statement. [34855]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today to PQ No. 31275 from my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart), at column 1126W.

  Postcomm's document "Proposals for effective competition in UK postal services", published on Thursday 31 January, is a public consultation. I understand that the Countryside Agency, the Government's statutory adviser on rural issues, intends to respond to Postcomm on the proposals put forward in that document and will include in that response an analysis of the impact of the proposals on rural areas which it will also make public.

TREASURY

  Entrust
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what Entrust's expenditure was in(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000 and (c) 2000–01 for (i) the UK and (ii) Scotland. [36450]
  1207W
  Mr. Boateng
  Expenditure by environmental bodies under the environment bodies landfill tax credit scheme is:

  £

  (i) for the UK

  1998–99

  46,835,182

  1999–2000

  82,040,006

  2001–01

  117,659,08

  (ii) for Scotland

  1998–99

  5,475,538

  1999–2000

  9,904,464

  2000–01

  2,670,705

  Income Tax
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out for each of the last five years, in total, for employment income and self-employed income, for income ranges(a) £5,000, (b) £5,000-£10,000, (c) £10,000-£15,000, (d) £15,000-£20,000, (e) £20,000-£30,000, (f) £30,000-£50,000 and (g) £50,000 plus, the number of people paying income tax, the total amount raised and proportion of UK totals in each nation and region of the UK; and if he will provide estimates for 2002–03 where available. [37567]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Tax Returns
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 4 February 2002,Official Report, column 693W, if he will update his reply to take account of the advice on the Inland Revenue website (at www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/workingtogether/tax-net-prov-figs.htm) under the heading, Tax Returns and Provisional Figures Update; and if he will make a statement. [35105]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 14 February 2002]: Based on earlier legal advice and understanding of the law the Inland Revenue's practice was to reject as unsatisfactory any return that contained a provisional or estimated figure that did not have an adequate explanation or indication of when a final figure would be supplied.

  Following an appeal against a late filing penalty the Inland Revenue sought fresh legal advice. From 23 October 2001, because of this new advice, the Inland Revenue now accept that a customer has made a return which contains an unexplained estimated or provisional figure and does not indicate when the final figure will be supplied.

  A detailed explanation of the new position was published on the Inland Revenue's internet site and in their Tax Bulletin 57 published in January 2002.

  Consumer Debt Advice
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce financial advice bureaux to provide consumer debt advice and counselling. [37473]

  Ruth Kelly
  Good consumer debt advice and counselling can be vital to individuals with serious financial difficulties. That is why we welcome it being 1208W
  widely available though Citizens Advice Bureaux, National Debtline, other independent advice centres, the Consumer Credit Counselling Service (CCCS) and local authority advice centres, all of which provide free help to those in difficulties. These are already funded by a combination of central and local government, and industry support channelled through the Money Advice Trust and CCCS.

  In addition recent reports by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and the Consumer Policy Institute, as well as proposals from the Financial Services Authority in their Consultation Paper 121, focus attention on the way financial advice is delivered and funded. We are following the debate that has accompanied those initiatives closely.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the role of the Financial Services Authority in consumer debt advice and counselling. [37474]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Financial Services and Markets Act 2001 gives the Financial Services Authority (FSA) specific objectives:to promote public understanding of the financial system, including promoting awareness of the benefits and risks of investments and other financial dealing, and the provision of appropriate information and advice, and
  to secure the appropriate degree of protection for consumers.

  In addition the FSA has powers to challenge terms in financial services consumer contracts that are unfair.

  In the future a new FSA mortgage regime will regulate advice on the largest debt most people are ever likely to enter into.

  The FSA seeks to ensure consumers are better able to make informed choices and achieve fair deals. An understanding of credit and debt and the role they play in financial planning is an essential part of this. To help ordinary consumers understand and use their rights the FSA operates a dedicated consumer website including a section on credit and debt, produces publications dealing, for example, with mortgages and unfair contract terms, and has developed materials to support work in schools. The latter includes material aimed at developing financial capability for pupils aged 14 to 19 that specifically addresses credit and debt.

  The FSA does not duplicate the work done by others. Instead it provides links where appropriate to the more detailed specialist information provided by agencies such as the Citizens Advice Bureaux and other local government and voluntary initiatives.

  Where the FSA is contacted by people with debt problems it refers them to the appropriate agency such as their local CAB or the National Debtline.

  Railtrack
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidance he has received from the ONS on the definition of a company limited by guarantee as a replacement for Railtrack in the national accounts. [37274]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.
  1209W
  Letter from Len Cook to Mrs. Theresa May, dated 26 February 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question on what guidance has been received from the ONS on the definition of a company limited by guarantee as a replacement for Railtrack in the national accounts. (37274)
  In October 2001 ONS provided provisional statistical classification advice on plans for a company limited by guarantee. This provisional advice was that the company would be classified as a private non-financial corporation, if the detailed plans were developed as discussed. ONS will update this advice when detailed plans for the company have been finalised.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the impact of Railtrack in administration will be on the PSBR. [37277]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I refer the hon. Lady to the answer given to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on 4 December 2001,Official Report, column 202W.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 4 February 2002,Official Report, column 702W, on Railtrack, in what way the disclosure of information on the consultations on draft legislation would harm the frankness and candour of internal discussions. [37759]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave her on 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 1052W.

  National Savings
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a breakdown of the main components of the cost of re-branding National Savings; and what the cost was of advertising the name change in national newspapers. [37170]

  Ruth Kelly
  As a key part of its marketing strategy, all costs associated with the re-positioning have been met from National Savings and Investments' existing marketing and running costs budgets. The costs of communicating the name change and a new 24 hour, seven days a week telephone service in the national newspapers is £430,000. A breakdown of the main components of the re-positioning of National Savings and Investments is as follows:

  £ million

  Promotion to current and potential customers

  1.1

  Programme of cross business/internal communication, training and implementation to staff of National Savings and Investments (120 staff), Siemens Business Services (2,000 staff), and Post Office Ltd. (17,500 branches).

  0.4

  Development and design fees for corporate identity and advertising and media fees.

  0.6

  Total

  2.1

  Film and TV Industry
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning use of tax allowances by(a) independent film makers and (b) television producers. [36108]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Chancellor receives numerous budget representations from various sources. All taxes are kept under review and decisions are made as part of the normal Budget process.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria he uses when determining tax allowances for(a) independent film makers and (b) television shows and soap operas. [36109]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are three main measures providing enhanced tax relief for the production or acquisition of film, Sections 40A to D of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1992, Section 42 of the same Act, and Section 48 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1997. The measures are designed to promote growth, employment, investment and opportunities in the British film industry.

  Transport 10-Year Plan
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 12 February 2002,Official Report, column 243W, on funding for the 10-year transport plan, whether there will be a decrease of £1.962 billion for payment over the years 2006–07 to 2011–12. [37227]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Of the £1.962 billion figure, £1.5 billion reflected the advancement of direct grants due to Railtrack in future control periods. The long-term savings resulting from this advancement of grant will be one of a number of factors to be taken into account in this year's review of the Ten Year Plan.

  Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer with which British overseas and dependent territories the United States of America has exchange of information agreements for tax purposes. [37825]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The United States of America has a Tax Information Exchange Agreement with the Cayman Islands.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions in each of the last three years British regulators and official investigators have requested information from the regulatory authorities of the British overseas territories and Crown dependencies. [37826]

  Ruth Kelly
  Records of requests for information made to the regulatory authorities of the British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies are not maintained centrally. The Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies have powers to provide information to overseas regulators, law enforcement authorities and judicial authorities and powers to obtain the necessary information including, if necessary, by using compulsory powers.

  Carter Report
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the submissions to the Carter report on payroll burdens; and if he will make a statement on the report. [37803]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Over 50 responses have been received from a wide range of interested parties, including most of the main bodies representing employers. Responses are still being received and are being reviewed.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) complaints he has received and (b) errors he has detected in connection with the Inland Revenue's electronic lodgement service in each year since it began; and in how many cases each year breaches of security have been established. [37829]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information is as follows:(a) The Chancellor of the Exchequer has received one complaint in connection with the Inland Revenue's Electronic Lodgement Service. This was in the tax year 2000–01.

  (b) The Inland Revenue is constantly reviewing, updating and improving the Electronic Lodgement Service following feedback from customers, software developers and Inland Revenue staff. The Inland Revenue is not aware of any instances where tax return information has been recorded against the wrong taxpayer.

  (b) The Inland Revenue takes security very seriously. All possible security measures are taken to ensure the Electronic Lodgement Service is secure. It is also constantly monitored for any potential security breaches. The Inland Revenue has no reported incidents of unauthorised access to the Electronic Lodgement Service.

  VAT
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much VAT revenue the Treasury has received in each of the last five years from the sale of(a) audio-visual equipment and (b) consumer electronics. [38128]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information is not available.

  Tax Evasion
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what systems exist to enable members of the public to inform the Inland Revenue of cases of tax evasion. [38196]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Anyone who suspects someone of evading tax can report that suspicion in confidence to any local tax office. Alternatively, they can call the Inland Revenue's anti-fraud helpline on 0800 788887.

  Refurbishment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 6 February 2002,Official Report, column 957W, what the cost of refurbishing each ministerial private office was in each year since May 1997. [37900]
  1212W
  Ruth Kelly
  Information at this level of detail is not available. Expenditure on all Treasury offices since May 1997 has been limited to maintenance works pending the move to new accommodation.

  Treasury Building
  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 5 February 2002,Official Report, column 841W, on the Treasury Building PFI deal, what further operating costs there are for the Treasury Building under the Treasury PFI deal, other than those specified as hard services and soft services. [38031]

  Ruth Kelly
  None.

  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer using the Treasury's inflation assumptions for the Treasury Building PFI deal, what he estimates the total amount of cash paid by the Treasury to Exchequer Partnership will be for service costs over the lifetime of the Treasury Building PFI deal. [37866]

  Ruth Kelly
  As I told the hon. Member on 5 February 2002,Official Report, column 844W, the total amount of cash paid over the operating period, using HMT's inflation assumptions, will be £838.154 million. This equates to £169.3 million in net present cost terms, discounted at 6 per cent. in real terms and assuming 2.5 per cent. inflation. On the same basis, the services element would amount to £212.48 million over the operating period. This equates to £50.864 million in net present cost terms, discounted at 6 per cent. in real terms and assuming 2.5 per cent inflation. However, as its name implies, there is a single unitary payment for the provision of serviced accommodation so there is no services payment by HMT to Exchequer Partnership.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 29 January 2002,Official Report, column 228W, what is the total area in square feet of all empty properties referred to. [37893]

  Ruth Kelly
  The total number of empty properties for the year 2000–01 was 30 and the total area for these was 693,531 sq ft.

  Eight were disposed of during the year and these had an area of 322,110 sq ft.

  This left 22 properties with an area of 371,421 sq ft. empty for the full year.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the recent financial action task force plenary meeting on terrorist financing, money laundering and non-cooperative jurisdictions held in Hong Kong. [37651]

  Ruth Kelly
  At the financial action task force plenary meeting in Hong Kong, China made good progress in taking forward the FATF's work on terrorist financing.

  The FATF plenary was followed by a successful global terrorist financing forum, attended by almost 60 jurisdictions from FATF, FATF-style regional bodies and the OGBS, as well as nine international organisations. The

  1213W
  forum stressed the importance of all jurisdictions adopting and implementing the eight special recommendations on terrorist financing issued by the FATF in October 2001. The forum called on all jurisdictions in the world to participate in a self-assessment exercise against the special recommendations on the same terms as FATF members.

  The FATF confirmed that in June 2002, it will initiate a process to identify jurisdictions that lack appropriate measures to combat terrorist financing. FATF members reiterated their commitment of members to assist non-members, as appropriate, to comply with the special recommendations.

  The FATF also reviewed its list of non-co-operative countries and territories (NCCTs) in the fight against money laundering, and welcomed the additional progress made by a number of the 19 jurisdictions on the list. The FATF will consider progress made by NCCT countries at its next meeting in June 2002, and will consider taking counter-measures against jurisdictions that have not made adequate progress in addressing deficiencies.

  Debt Rescheduling
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the obstacles are which stand in the way of debt rescheduling that he refers to on page 40 of the Treasury document "Tackling Poverty, A Global New Deal". [37942]

  Mr. Boateng
  Over the past three years the international community has been working hard to develop a new framework of partnership between the

  Suicides1 by English counties2 and former counties, years of occurrence 1998 to 2000

  1998

  1999

  2000

  1998–2000

  England

  4,815

  4,828

  4,598

  14,241

  Bedfordshire, former county of

  43

  60

  41

  144

  Berkshire, former county of

  76

  72

  75

  223

  Bristol/Bath area

  82

  82

  76

  240

  Buckinghamshire, former county of

  62

  54

  67

  183

  Cambridgeshire, former county of

  55

  57

  65

  177

  Cheshire, former county of

  102

  97

  95

  294

  Cornwall (and Isle of Scilly)

  59

  63

  63

  185

  Cumbria

  68

  63

  50

  181

  Derbyshire, former county of

  75

  96

  90

  261

  Devon, former county of

  119

  137

  134

  390

  Dorset, former county of

  67

  83

  71

  221

  Durham, former county of

  60

  62

  54

  176

  East Sussex, former county of

  90

  94

  103

  287

  Essex, former county of

  153

  127

  136

  416

  Gloucestershire

  56

  60

  57

  173

  Greater London (Metropolitan County)

  734

  685

  616

  2,035

  Greater Manchester (Metropolitan County)

  297

  263

  266

  826

  Hampshire, former county of

  157

  167

  148

  472

  Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  70

  91

  80

  241

  Hertfordshire

  72

  61

  65

  198

  Isle of Wight, former county of

  20

  17

  15

  52

  Kent, former county of

  150

  124

  147

  421

  Lancashire, former county of

  181

  170

  162

  513

  Leicestershire, former county of

  77

  92

  91

  260

  Lincolnshire

  70

  68

  62

  200

  Merseyside (Metropolitan County)

  141

  140

  130

  411

  Norfolk

  92

  75

  74

  241

  North Yorkshire, former county of

  86

  61

  73

  220

  Northamptonshire

  54

  63

  43

  160

  Northumberland

  28

  34

  25

  87

  Nottinghamshire, former county of

  99

  101

  109

  309

  Oxfordshire

  52

  53

  54

  159

  Shropshire, former county of

  28

  54

  43

  125

  Somerset

  43

  41

  55

  139

  1214W
  public and private sectors for preventing and managing balance of payments problems so that all parties that benefit from the international financial system play their part in maintaining stability.

  However, the ability of minority creditors to litigate successfully against sovereigns in default is a serious obstacle to debt restructuring, and can exacerbate creditor co-ordination problems. Thus some form of international bankruptcy procedure may be necessary to prevent disruptive litigation by minority credits.

  More generally, there is a need to clarify the roles of debtors, creditors and the official sector within the crisis resolution framework, in order to provide the right incentives for creditors to co-ordinate effectively during debt restructuring negotiations.

  Suicide
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many deaths have occurred on average each year over the last three years in(a) England and (b) each county owing to suicide. [37733]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Mark Simmonds, dated 26 February 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your question asking how many deaths have occurred on average each year over the last 3 years in England and each county owing to suicide. (37733).
  The figures requested are given in the table below.
  1215W

  Suicides1 by English counties2 and former counties, years of occurrence 1998 to 2000

  1998

  1999

  2000

  1998–2000

  South Yorkshire (Metropolitan County)

  129

  117

  120

  366

  Staffordshire, former county of

  107

  103

  88

  298

  Suffolk

  60

  52

  60

  172

  Surrey

  85

  72

  85

  242

  Tees Valley less Darlington

  51

  46

  44

  141

  The Humber

  86

  94

  85

  265

  Tyne and Wear (Metropolitan County)

  109

  120

  114

  343

  Warwickshire

  45

  50

  44

  139

  West Midlands (Metropolitan County)

  219

  245

  245

  709

  West Sussex

  59

  81

  73

  213

  West Yorkshire (Metropolitan County)

  199

  235

  158

  592

  Wiltshire, former county of

  48

  46

  47

  141

  1 Suicide is defined by ONS using the following codes from the International Classification of Diseases Ninth Revision: E950-E959, E980-E989, excluding E988.8

  2 Data are presented for English counties in 1998 to 2000, based on their boundaries in those years, and for former counties (based on the equivalent areas covered by current authorities.)

  Pensions
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many self-invested pension plans there were at the most recent available date; and what their total value was. [37713]

  Ruth Kelly
  Information on the total number of self-invested personal pension plans and value of their funds is not available.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the changes in tax revenues if tax relief for pension contributions were(a) limited to the standard rate, (b) limited to the standard rate for contributions in excess of £5,000 per annum and (c) abolished for contributions in excess of (i) £5,000 per annum and (ii) £10,000 per annum. [37863]

  Ruth Kelly
  The estimated full year yields from restricting income tax relief on pension contributions by employees and the self-employed in 2001–02 are detailed in the table.

  £ billion

  Full year yield

  Contributions restricted to basic rate on:

  all contributions

  1.7

  contributions in excess of £5,000

  0.5

  All relief abolished on contributions:

  in excess of £5,000

  1.1

  in excess of £10,000

  0.5

  These estimates take no account of the impact on employer contributions, neither do they take account of the behavioural effects that are likely to result from such a change.

  Population Trends (Lincolnshire)
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the population was of(a) Humberside, (b) North East Lincolnshire and (c) North Lincolnshire, in each year from 1990 to 2001; and what predictions have been made of the population trends in each of these areas in the next 10 years. [37753]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.
  1216W
  Letter from Len Cook to Shona McIsaac, dated 26 February 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your question concerning the population of Humberside, North East Lincolnshire and North Lincolnshire from 1990–2011. (37753)
  The attached table shows the estimated mid year population from 1990 to 2000 and the projected mid-year population from 2001 to 2011 for these areas. The projections are based on the mid-1996 subnational population estimates and use assumptions on future levels of births, deaths and migration. There is some discontinuity between the estimates and projections because the estimates for 1997 to 2000 are based on actual births, deaths and migration. These differed from the assumptions used when producing the projections. However, the projections are the best available information on the likely future population in the period 2001 to 2011.

  Table 1: Population of Humberside, North East Lincolnshire and North Lincolnshire, 1990–2011

  Mid-year population (thousands)

  Humberside 1

  North East Lincolnshire UA

  North Lincolnshire UA

  19902

  872.5

  161.4

  152.5

  19912

  877.3

  161.7

  153.6

  19922

  881.4

  161.6

  153.5

  19932

  884.4

  162.0

  152.6

  19942

  889.5

  161.4

  153.2

  19952

  889.2

  160.1

  152.1

  19962

  886.7

  158.6

  152.4

  19972

  884.7

  157.6

  152.4

  19982

  883.1

  156.2

  152.3

  19992

  881.6

  156.0

  152.0

  20002

  881.0

  155.2

  152.5

  20013

  983.8

  153.7

  151.1

  20023

  894.8

  152.7

  150.7

  20033

  895.8

  151.6

  150.4

  20043

  896.8

  150.5

  150.0

  20053

  897.8

  149.4

  149.7

  20063

  898.7

  148.3

  149.4

  20073

  899.8

  147.3

  149.1

  20083

  900.8

  146.2

  148.8

  20093

  901.9

  145.1

  148.5

  20103

  903.0

  144.1

  148.3

  20113

  904.2

  143.1

  148.0

  1 The are described as Humberside refers to the four unitary authorities of East Riding of Yorkshire, City of Kingston upon Hull, North East Lincolnshire and North Lincolnshire which replaced the former administrative county on 1 April 1996.

  2 Estimated mid-year population.

  3 1996-based projected mid-year population.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics, Crown Copyright 2001

  Departmental Organogram
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place an organogram of HM Treasury in the Library. [37683]

  Ruth Kelly
  An organogram of HM Treasury was placed in the Library on 12 April 2001 in HM Treasury's departmental report, "Chancellor of the Exchequer's Departments: The Government's Expenditure Plans 2001–02 to 2003–04 and Main Estimates 2001–02" (Cm 5116). This is also available on the Treasury website at www.hm-treasury.gov.uk.

  Customs and Excise (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of people promoted in Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in Northern Ireland in each of the past five years had served at their previous grade for more than one year.[37757]

  Mr. Boateng
  In the calendar year 2001, 81.6 per cent. of people promoted in HM Customs and Excise in Northern Ireland had been in their previous job band (grade) for more than one year.

  This percentage is based on people still in the Department, and excludes people who may have been promoted again in 2002. Earlier figures are unavailable because the datafields on the system do not lend themselves to historical interrogation of this type.

  Disabled Person's Tax Credit (Tooting)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in the Tooting constituency have been awarded the disabled person's tax credit in each of the last three years. [38204]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The disabled person's tax credit was introduced in October 1999. The number of recipients in each constituency appear in the DPTC Quarterly Enquiries from April 2000, copies of which are in the Library.

  Secondments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [35900]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]Thirty-nine people have been seconded from the private sector to the Treasury since 1997, and four are currently serving.

  Details of current secondees from all sectors outside central Government can be found on the Treasury website.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many regulatory impact assessments have been produced by his Department since August 2001; and if he will list those produced(a) following initial consultation with
  1218W
  affected parties about the most appropriate methodology for assessing costs and other impacts and (b) which set out full commercial impacts, including profitability, employment, consumer prices and competitiveness, as recommended in Good Policy Making.[28412]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Chancellor's Departments have completed 12 Final Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs) since August 2001:

  HM Treasury
  The Protection of the Euro against Counterfeiting Regulations 2001; The Money Laundering Regulations; The Insurance Fees Regulation; The Credit Unions Regulations (Increase in limits on deposits by persons too young to be members and of periods for repayment of loans); The Financial Services and Markets Act 2001 (Promotion of collective investment schemes); The Open Ended Investment Companies Regulations; The Money Laundering Regulations.

  HM Customs and Excise
  European Community Legislation: Proposal for a Council Directive Amending the Sixth VAT Directive (77/388/EEC), to simplify, modernise and harmonise the conditions laid down for VAT Invoicing; New VAT Registration Forms.

  HM Inland Revenue
  Life Insurance Polices, etc.—Information duties of Insurers; CIS: Issue of CIS5 (Partner) Certificates; New Tax Credits.

  For additional information relating to costing methodology I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to him by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 17 January 2002, Official Report, column 483W.

  European Investment Bank
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the timetable and process will be for deciding on the UK's contribution to the next replenishment of the European investment bank.[37804]

  Ruth Kelly
  Capital increases to the European investment bank have to be agreed by the bank's board of governors, acting unanimously. There are 15 such governors, representing the 15 member state shareholders of the bank. The UK governor is the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  The EIB is currently nearing its maximum permitted level of exposure (for 100 billion euros of subscribed capital, 6 per cent. of which is paid in, it may have up to 250 billion euros of outstanding liabilities, ie a gearing ratio of 1:2.5). Unless the bank dramatically curtails its lending activities, there will therefore need to be a capital increase agreed this year, to take effect from 1 January 2003. Proposals put forward by the bank's staff and management committee envisage a capital increase paid for from the bank's own funds. There will therefore be no requirement for any further paid in contribution from the UK or other shareholders. This principle (that capital increases should be met from reserves) will be entrenched for future capital increases too. Nevertheless, there are implications for the UK's contingent liability, the volume of which increases in proportion to the size of the bank's exposure.

  The decision on the capital increase will be taken at the annual board of governors meeting, which takes place this year on 4 June. Proposals are currently being considered by the board of directors, which has three UK members.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will answer the question of 18 January 2002 from the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell concerning the distribution of benefits from personal allowances; and if he will make a statement. [38298]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury has no record of the question to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will answer the question of 2 February 2002 from the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell concerning fees; and if he will make a statement. [38300]

  Ruth Kelly
  I assume the hon. Gentleman is referring to his questions 33457 and 33464, which the Chief Secretary answered on 7 February 2002,Official Report, columns 1148-52W, along with other related questions.

  Special Advisers
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 31 October 2001,Official Report, column 741W, on special advisers, for what reason such records of contacts with the media are for internal purposes only. [38309]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) on 11 December 2001,Official Report, column 766.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Sure Start
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many full-time day-care places are available through the Sure Start initiative; and how many children are within reach of the programme. [33014]

  Yvette Cooper
  The first 260 Sure Start programmes will have created 10,000 new full-time child care places by 2003–2004, including full-time daycare, full-time child minder places and wraparound care places.

  Sure Start will reach approximately 400,000 children under four living in areas of disadvantage by 2003–04. There are 190,000 children under four living in the 252 Sure Start programmes currently operational.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much was budgeted and what was the(a) outturn and (b) planned outturn for Sure Start in (i) 1998–99, (ii) 1999–2000, (iii) 2000–01 and (iv) 2001–02. [36018]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 13 February 2002]: Sure Start was launched in 1998 with a budget of £84 million for 1999–2000, £184 million for 2000–01 and £184 million for 2001–02, with £100 million for end year flexibility also available in 2001–02. Final outturn information is available for 1999–2000 when the outturn was £7 million and for 2000–01 when the outturn was £43 million.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list, for 1997–98 and for each subsequent financial year, the amount spent(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) abroad by (i) her Department, (ii) its agencies and (iii) its non-departmental public bodies on (1) providing mobile telephone equipment, including handsets and other associated equipment, (2) telephone calls made using such equipment and (3) telephone calls made using privately owned mobile telephones but subsequently reclaimed by (x) Ministers and (y) staff. [34410]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The available information, as contained in the following table, cannot be broken down by amount spent in the UK and abroad, as our payments systems do not enable this. Information on agencies and NDPBs is not collected centrally.

  £

  Year

  Line rental/Other expenditure

  Calls

  Total

  1997–98

  117,693.37

  52,352.41

  170,045.78

  1998–99

  117,339.61

  50,959.11

  168,298.72

  1999–2000

  160,410.62

  58,478.47

  218,889.09

  2000–01

  237,861.51

  91,335.48

  329,196.99

  The "Other" expenditure includes the purchase of new handsets, personal hands-free kits, carry cases etc, but it is not possible to provide separate totals for line rental and hardware costs.

  Information on calls made from privately owned phones by Ministers and staff could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Government Initiatives
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list for(a) Sure Start and (b) employment zones (i) the amount budgeted and (ii) the total expended in each financial year for the planned lifetime of each initiative. [35281]

  Yvette Cooper
  For Sure Start, the budgeted expenditure for 1999–2000 to 2003–04 is as follows:

  £ million

  Budget

  1999–2000

  84

  2000–01

  184

  2001–02

  1184

  2002–03

  449

  2003–04

  499

  1 £100 million of end year flexibility also available

  Sure Start's budget for 2004–05 and beyond is currently under consideration as part of Spending Review 2002. Final outturn figures are available for 1999–2000, when the total outturn was £7 million and for 2000–01, when the total outturn was £43 million. Employment Zones are the responsibility of the Department for Work and Pensions; I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 23 November 2001, Official Report, column 538W.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how the teachers' pay initiative is distributed among teaching staff; and which guidelines direct this distribution. [36134]

  Margaret Hodge
  Each college receives a teaching pay initiative allocation calculated each year in proportion to its main funding allocation from the Learning and Skills Council and the Higher Education Funding Council for England. Allocations to individual teaching staff are based on the national principles and criteria set out in "The Teaching Pay Initiative Guidance", for general further education colleges, and "The Professional Standards Payment Guidance" for sixth form colleges. This guidance was produced by the Association of Colleges and the Sixth Form Colleges' Employers' Forum, respectively, in consultation with college practitioners, college representative bodies and the Department for Education and Skills. A copy of the guidance will be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Numbers of day care facilities and places for children, by category of provider, in North East Lincolnshire local authority: 1997–2001

  Day nurseries1

  Child minders1

  Playgroups and pre-schools1

  Out of school clubs2

  Holiday schemes2,3

  Position as at 31 March

  Providers

  Places

  Providers

  Places

  Providers

  Places

  Providers

  Places

  Providers

  Places

  2001

  14

  488

  84

  311

  34

  720

  13

  297

  5

  215

  2000

  11

  361

  82

  300

  36

  811

  8

  186

  5

  215

  1999

  10

  327

  91

  339

  42

  965

  10

  210

  4—

  4—

  1998

  9

  300

  92

  341

  45

  1,028

  7

  166

  5

  161

  1997

  10

  187

  107

  473

  48

  912

  2

  40

  0

  0

  1 Provision for children under eight.

  2 Provision for children aged five to seven years.

  3 Additional guidelines were given to Providers in 1999.

  4 The information supplied by the local authority was incomplete and is therefore excluded from the time series.

  Numbers of day care facilities and Places for children, by category of provider, in North East Lincolnshire local authority: 1997–2001

  Day nurseries1

  Child minders1

  Playgroups and pre-schools1

  Out of school clubs2

  Holiday schemes2,3

  Position as at 31 March

  Providers

  Places

  Providers

  Places

  Providers

  Places

  Providers

  Places

  Providers

  Places

  2001

  14

  454

  123

  493

  44

  1,097

  14

  330

  414

  15,028

  2000

  12

  403

  124

  491

  48

  1,174

  13

  316

  451

  16,428

  1999

  12

  411

  146

  756

  54

  1,259

  13

  278

  405

  16,049

  1998

  11

  364

  144

  562

  54

  1,259

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  1997

  27

  872

  4—

  627

  64

  1,216

  8

  160

  2

  60

  1 Provision for children under eight.

  2 Provision for children aged five to seven years.

  3 Additional guidelines were given to providers in 1999.

  4 Not available.

  Sector Skills Councils
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what research within the Sector Skills Development Agency has been undertaken which reviews the occupational synergy between the gas, water, electricity and telecommunications industries;

  (2) if she intends to establish a sector skills council which represents all the utilities;

  (3) how she defines utilities with reference to the sector skills council. [37024]

  John Healey
  Sector skills councils (SSCs) will be licensed in sectors where employers want one and the SSC standard is met. The licensing standard is contained in a development guide published in November 2001. A key criterion is for SSCs to have an employment base of economic or strategic significance. The Sector Skills Development Agency (SSDA) will begin work in April

  Children's Day Care Facilities(Lincolnshire)
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many day care providers, broken down by type of provider, there were in(a) north-east Lincolnshire and (b) north Lincolnshire in each year from 1997 to 2001; [35317]

  (2) how many day care places broken down by type of providers there were in (a) north-east Lincolnshire and (b) north Lincolnshire in each year from 1997 to 2001. [35318]

  Margaret Hodge
  The available information is shown in the tables.

  Latest figures on day care facilities in England were published by my Department in the Statistical Bulletin "Children's Day Care facilities at 31 March 2001 (08/01)" in October 2001, a copy of which is available from the Library. An electronic copy of this publication is also available on my Department's website (www.dfes.gov.uk/ statistics).

  2002 and therefore has not undertaken any reviews of industry sectors. My Department has not defined the "utilities sector" and is looking to employers to bring forward proposals for sectors that meet the licensing standard and make sense to their industries. A Business Adviser has been allocated to work closely with interested employers to develop their proposals. Any formal expression of interest by employers to form an SSC in the utilities sector will be considered by the SSDA.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the implementation of sector skills councils and the arrangements to secure comprehensive coverage of all industrial, commercial, public and voluntary sectors of employment. [37303]

  John Healey
  Following our announcement of Sector Skills Councils (SSCs) in October 2001 we have made good progress in implementing this important UK skills
  1223W
  and productivity initiative. A development guide was published in November 2001 that sets out the licensing standard for an SSC. Five Trailblazer SSCs have been selected and will be licensed very shortly. The Chair of the Sector Skills Development Agency (SSDA) has been appointed. Other key appointments will be made in the next few weeks. The SSDA will begin work in April 2002 and will consider further proposals from employers to form SSCs.

  Sector coverage of the SSC network will depend on employers coming forward with proposals that meet the licensing standard. A fundamental principle is that SSCs will be licensed only in sectors where employers come forward to provide influential leadership to significantly improve skills and productivity performance. The SSDA will be responsible for ensuring that essential industry, business and occupational sector-related work is delivered in support of employers and individuals in sectors without an SSC.

  Education and Youth Council
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the outcome was of the Education and Youth Council held in Brussels on 14 February; what the Government's position was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if she will make a statement. [37298]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I represented the UK at the Education and Youth Council on 14 February.

  The Council adopted a detailed work programme, setting out priority areas in educational policy for exchanging good practice and co-operative working between member states. The priorities follow on from the report on "Concrete Future Objectives of Education and Training Systems" presented to the Stockholm European Council in March 2001. The detailed work programme was adopted with little debate, and will be presented to the Barcelona European Council in March 2002.

  The Council received information from the Commission on: its communication to the Barcelona European Council `The Lisbon Strategy—making change happen'; its newly-published action plan on skills and mobility; and its proposal to extend the TEMPUS programme to include countries that border the Mediterranean.

  The Council discussed the Commission's communication on "Making a European Area of Lifelong Learning". The UK supported the communication's practical proposals, and its commitment to maintaining the focus on the goals agreed at the Lisbon European Council in March 2000. I stressed the need to ensure coherence between the various strands of European level work in this area in order to support member states effectively in developing their lifelong learning policies.

  The Council debated the Commission's white paper "A new impetus for European Youth" and adopted conclusions that stress the need to include the youth dimension in national and European policies, the need to reach out and include young people, and the need to ensure that co-operation at European level is flexible and respects national diversity. The UK emphasised the need to clarify the processes for taking forward this work at European level. We recognise the benefits of learning from other countries in this area and the need to include
  1224W
  and consult all young people, including the most disengaged, to ensure that relevant policies meet their needs and aspirations as far as possible.

  A copy of the council minutes will be placed in the Library in due course.

  Skills Shortages
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will provide a breakdown of skills shortages in each region of the UK. [37592]

  John Healey
  The collection of such data in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales is a matter for the respective devolved administrations. The Employer Skills Survey 2001, commissioned by the Department shows that, on average, 3.6 per cent. of employers in England reported skills shortage vacancies', whilst the figures for employers in each region were as follows:

  East Midlands 2.2 per cent.

  Eastern 4.6 per cent.

  London 4.2 per cent.

  North East 2.9 per cent.

  North West 3.5 per cent.

  South East 3.7 per cent.

  South West 4.4 per cent.

  West Midlands 3.4 per cent.

  Yorkshire and the Humber 2.2 per cent.

  1 Skills shortage vacancies are hard-to-fill vacancies caused by a lack of suitably skilled, qualified or experienced applicants, as defined by the National Skills Task Force.

  Business Skills
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what training provision is made to meet the needs of small and medium enterprises. [37593]

  John Healey
  Much of the support for small and medium sized enterprises is provided through the Learning and Skills Council, which has an overall budget this year of 7.3 billion. Local LSCs will contract with small business service franchisees to provide advice to small and medium sized enterprises on workforce development services including support for Investors in People, access to Modern Apprenticeships and management development. In addition, the Department has provided the Learning and Skills Council with a specific workforce development budget of £48 million in the current financial year.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will take steps to incorporate entrepreneurship and business skills as an integral part of the curriculum from primary school through secondary, further and higher education. [37591]

  John Healey
  We are already taking steps to ensure that young people gain a knowledge and understanding of entrepreneurship and business skills.

  Since assuming responsibility in April 2001, the Learning and Skills Council has, through education business links consortiums, formed partnerships with businesses and schools to help pupils gain key skills that prepare them for the world of work.
  1225W
  Entrepreneurship and business skills are already promoted via a range of subjects in schools—including mathematics, science, design and technology, citizenship and personal, social and health education.

  We recently published the Green Paper "14–19: extending opportunities and raising standards". Our proposals will deliver a range of high quality, high status academic, vocational/technical and mixed options, covering entrepreneurship and business skills among others.

  The independent Review of Enterprise and the Economy in Education, chaired by Sir Howard Davies whose report was published on 14 February, made a series of recommendations about how to promote understanding of the economy and enterprise throughout the school and further education system. We are considering the recommendations within the broader outcome of the spending review process and our other priorities in the education system, not least the 14–19 Green Paper.

  We announced in November 2001 that the Department would be providing £1 million over 2002–04 to put in place arrangements with the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the Learning and Teaching Support Network for the embedding of work-related skills more widely in HE provision. Negotiations are at an early stage but the work will include the embedding of entrepreneurial skills as well as other generic and vocational skills.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will introduce company learning accounts alongside individual learning accounts. [37589]

  John Healey
  It is too early to say exactly what form a replacement ILA-style scheme will take or what other arrangements may be introduced alongside the new scheme. Representatives of companies both large and small are being interviewed as part of the current stakeholder consultation exercise, which will report in April.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will introduce fiscal incentives to encourage small businesses to invest in training. [37595]

  John Healey
  Fiscal incentives are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  The Chancellor announced in his pre-Budget report in November pilot activity to test how financial incentives can support employers and individuals to tackle the problem of poor basic skills and attainment to an initial level 2 qualification.

  The pilots will test out provision of free tuition, offering compensation to employers for releasing employees for training. The pilots will use a grant-based system and employers will be asked to volunteer to take part.

  Local Learning and Skills Councils will run the pilots and we expect to announce the pilot areas in April 2002, with learning opportunities beginning in September.

  Training Loans
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will take steps to increase the flexibility of soft loans to small businesses for training through changes to the restrictions on the achievement of whole National Vocational Qualifications. [37594]

  John Healey
  The Department for Education and Skills is responsible for the Small Firms Training Loan Programme. There are no qualification restrictions which apply to Small Firms Training Loans.

  Teachers
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 7 February 2002,Official Report, column 984W, on teachers, how many teachers will reach the age of 60 in each of the next five school years. [37063]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 7 February 2002,Official Report, column 984W.

  Consultants
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the(a) amount and (b) date of the sponsorship of Government Department events by (a) Capita, (b) PricewaterhouseCoopers, (c) W.S. Atkins, (d) Nord Anglia, (e) Cambridge Education Associates, (f) KPMG and (g) Ernst and Young; and if she will place related documents in the Library; and if she will make a statement. [36851]

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

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the occasions on which her Department has held meetings since May 1997 with representatives from (a) Capita,(b) PricewaterhouseCoopers, (c) W.S. Atkins, (d) Nord Anglia, (e) Cambridge Education Associates, (f) KPMG and (g) Ernst and Young; if she will state the purpose of each meeting; and if she will make a statement on agreements reached as a result. [36850]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Each of the organisations listed in the question is active in the education field and officials from my Department meet organisations' representatives frequently in the course of education related conferences and events, procurement processes, consultation exercises and the like. Information about the many occasions since May 1997 on which officials have met representatives from the named organisations, and the purpose of those meetings, could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Overseas Teachers
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what mechanisms her Department has in place to ensure that appropriate checks on overseas teachers are made prior to overseas teachers beginning work in the UK; and what agencies carry out such checks on behalf of her Department. [37152]

  Mr. Timms
  Vetting of teachers and other staff, including those from overseas, is the responsibility of employers and employment agencies.
  1227W
  My Department gives guidance about the checks that need to be made in Circular 9/93: "Protection of Children: Disclosure Of Criminal Background Of Those With Access To Children" and Circular 7/96: "Use of Supply Teachers", issued to local education authorities and schools, and in Notes of Guidance to Teacher Employment Agencies and Businesses. All the guidance emphasises that no teacher should be placed in employment until satisfactory references have been obtained. Copies of the circulars are available in the Libraries.

  The guidance lists a number of checks that are considered essential before any teacher, including a supply teacher, is employed to work in a school. The list includes: identity, qualifications, health, references, my Department's List 99 and, where possible, a police check. In the case of people from overseas, employers and agencies must also ensure that the person has permission to work in the UK.

  There are no formal arrangements for employers to obtain checks of criminal records in countries outside the UK. However, some countries are able to provide individuals with official statements, which give details of convictions or confirm a clean record. The circulars and notes of guidance include information about these statements, and emphasise that, where such a statement is not available, particular care should be taken with other checks, such as references.

WALES

  Theft and Fraud
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what additional security measures are planned by his Department to deter and detect theft and fraud. [31789]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I expect all my staff, and my Department's auditors, to remain vigilant and conscientiously to implement the financial and security controls which are intended to prevent fraud.

  Ministerial Transport
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what his estimate is of the cost of(a) ministerial cars and drivers and (b) taxis for his Department in each of the last four years. [27899]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  In respect of part(a) of his question I refer the hon. Member to the answer he has received from the Cabinet Office on 30 January 2002, Official Report, column 406W.

  In respect of part (b), expenditure has been incurred partly through department-wide taxi contracts, partly through local arrangements, and partly through individuals' travel and subsistence claims and it is not possible to provide aggregated figures.

  Lost/Stolen Property
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those items valued at more than £50 which have been stolen or lost from his Department in each of the last four years. [28003]
  1228W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  In 1997–98 a camera worth £200 and laptop accessories worth £107 were stolen from the former Welsh Office. I am not aware of any subsequent thefts from either the Welsh Office or the Wales Office.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [34222]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  No such thefts or losses have been recorded.

  Television Sets
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [33237]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: My Department has bought three analogue television sets in the last 24 months.

  As with all procurement decisions, officials are expected to find the most cost-effective solution to meet the expressed need.

  Industrial Action
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many days have been lost owing to industrial action by staff in his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies in each of the last four years. [36185]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  No days have been lost owing to industrial action by staff at this Department or its predecessor, the Welsh Office, in the last four years.

  The Wales Office does not have any agencies or non-departmental public bodies. Information on the Welsh Office's agencies and non-departmental public bodies, for the period prior to July 1999, is not held centrally.

  Job Losses
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many job losses there were in Wales, broken down by the lowest regional level for which data are available, in each of the last five years. [32231]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information requested is not collected centrally from employers. Information on redundancies is collected in the UK Labour Force Survey but the sample size is not large enough to make reliable estimates for Wales.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Burkina Faso
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action she is taking to improve human rights in Burkina Faso. [34652]

  Mr. MacShane
  I have been asked to reply.
  1229W
  Our ambassador to Burkina Faso raised a number of our concerns when he met President Compaore in September 2001. We reiterated these to the Burkinabe Ambassador to the EU in November 2001. We continue to lobby in the EU and the UN to encourage Burkina Faso to abide by international conventions they have ratified. These include core UN human rights treaties and ILO fundamental conventions (on Forced Labour, freedom of association, discrimination and child labour), we will maintain pressure on Burkina Faso to implement them fully.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her assessment of the levels of(a) child labour and (b) child trafficking in Burkina Faso. [34950]

  Mr. MacShane
  I have been asked to reply.

  There is strong evidence that Burkinabe children are trafficked to neighbouring countries. We encourage regional efforts to prevent child trafficking and welcome Burkina Faso's ratification in July 2001 of ILO Convention 182 on the Worst Forms of Child Labour. We also welcome efforts by both international and local NGOs and others to combat child trafficking, including the recent adoption of the Global Industry Protocol on addressing the worst forms of child labour in the cocoa industry, signed in Washington. Through the United Nations and European Union, we also contribute to reducing poverty, the root cause of child trafficking and exploitation.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Violent Crime (Wales)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of(a) rape,(b) assault, (c) murder,(d) violent theft and(e) armed robbery there were in Wales in each year since 1997. [36422]

  Mr. Denham
  The available details from recorded crime data are given in the table. For assault, the total of offences of assault on a constable, common assault and racially aggravated common assault has been used; the former two categories were introduced as recorded crimes on 1 April 1998, and the latter was counted separately from 1 April 1999. The total for all homicides is given, and for violent theft, the robbery total is given. Armed robbery includes offences where air weapons were used.

  Also, the British Crime Survey has shown that, in England and Wales as a whole, the number of violent crimes recorded in the survey decreased by 19 per cent. between the 1999 and 2000 calendar years, whereas violent crime recorded by the police increased by an estimated five per cent. Violent crime recorded by the police may therefore not necessarily be a reflection of real changes in the level of violent crime.
  1230W
  The annual risk of being a victim once or more of violent crime in Wales was 2.4 per cent, this being based on results for 1999 and 2000 from the British Crime Survey. This was lower than for any English region with the England and Wales average risk being 3.9 per cent.

  There was a change in counting rules for recorded crime on 1 April 1998, which expanded the offences covered, and placed a greater emphasis on counting crimes in terms of numbers of victims. Numbers of recorded crimes after this date are therefore not directly comparable with previous years.

  Recorded crimes in Wales

  Year

  Rape

  Assaults

  Homicide

  Robbery

  Robbery using a firearm

  19971

  374

  n/a

  43

  811

  25

  1998–992

  376

  8,222

  32

  853

  27

  1999–20002

  387

  11,508

  35

  909

  22

  2000–012

  360

  12,496

  40

  890

  39

  1 Calendar year

  2 Year ending March

  It should be noted that recorded violent crime is subject to changes in reporting and recording. For example, the 2001 British Crime Survey found that, over England and Wales as a whole, reporting to the police of common assault rose from 29 per cent. in 1999 to 39 per cent. in the year 2000.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the publications issued by his Department in each of the last four years; and what the(a) circulation,(b) cost and(c) purpose of each was. [34188]

  Angela Eagle
  Details of the titles and costs of all the applications produced by the Home Office from 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2001 have been placed in the Library. Prior to 1 April 1999, the production of printed material was not centralised and no records exist.

  Documents distribution is largely carried out by the commissioning client and no central circulation records are held. The purpose of printed material is to communicate Home Office policies to a wide range of target audiences including the general public and stakeholders, such as the police, courts and criminal justice system, and crime reduction organisations.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many new entrants to the civil service employed in his Department in each of the last five years were aged 50 and over. [32886]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 6 February 2002]: Information on the number of new entrants to the civil service aged 50 and over who joined the Home Office and its agencies is set out in the table. It has increased substantially since 1997 and the Home Office has recently changed its aged retirement policy to allow staff below the senior civil service to remain in work beyond the age of 60.
  1231W

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Home Office

  28

  35

  109

  244

  204

  Forensic Science Service

  4

  8

  11

  7

  21

  United Kingdom Passport Service

  4

  32

  34

  73

  54

  Prison Service

  382

  502

  481

  480

  577

  Fire Service College1

  2

  7

  2

  2

  4

  Total

  420

  584

  637

  806

  860

  1 Responsibility for the Fire Service College transferred to Department for Transport, London and the Regions (DTLR) in June 2001.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer of 29 January 2002,Official Report, column 302W, if he will place in the Library the two recent letters received from Merseyside police in relation to the use of Landmark and Inn on the Park to house asylum seekers. [33598]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 5 February 2002]: I am making arrangements for copies of these letters to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has had with groups representing the interests of asylum seekers about the location of the proposed asylum accommodation centres; and if he will make a statement. [34482]

  Angela Eagle
  We have not had any consultation specifically about the location of accommodation centres with groups representing the interests of asylum seekers. My officials have had general discussions about accommodation centres with a number of groups representing the interests of asylum seekers. In addition, the White Paper "Secure Borders, Safe Haven: Integration With Diversity in Modern Britain" sets out our proposals for accommodation centres and we would welcome comments in response to that. Officials are discussing with relevant planning authorities the best way of consulting the public and other interested parties in the areas identified as having potential accommodation centre sites.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he collates on the(a) number,(b) source,(c) destination and(d) place of residence in the United Kingdom of (i) asylum seekers and (ii) other immigrants without leave to remain. [34677]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 8 February 2002]: The Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate (RDS) collates information on the number of asylum applications in the United Kingdom lodged both at port and in country, as well as information on the nationality of the principal applicants, and the numbers of asylum seekers removed. These data are published quarterly on the RDS website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html.

  Figures detailing the number of persons against whom enforcement action has been initiated—illegal entrants detected and persons issued with a notice of intention to deport, recommended for deportation by a court or proceeded against under Section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999—are published annually in the Command Paper "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom", a copy of which is also available in the Libraries and on the RDS website.
  1232W
  Reliable information is not available on the number of illegal entrants resident in the United Kingdom. However, the Home Office has commissioned a study which will consider methods of estimating the size and characteristics of the illegal population.

  Information on the entry routes of asylum seekers from their country of origin to the United Kingdom and the destination of persons ho are removed from the United Kingdom is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only by examining individual case files at disproportionate cost.

  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the cost of building and running asylum seeker accommodation centres will be met by local authorities in the localities proposed for such centres. [34581]

  Angela Eagle
  None

  The costs of building and running the trial accommodation centres will be met by the Home Office.

  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of asylum seeker accommodation centres in the Netherlands. [34586]

  Angela Eagle
  Home Office officials are having regard to information about accommodation centres in the Netherlands as they develop policy. In addition, the Home Office has recently commissioned research on the reception policies and practice of four European countries including the Netherlands. The research has two main objectives:(i) to examine in detail the reception policies and practices of the European countries chosen as case studies (the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark and Sweden); and,
  (ii) to investigate the intended and unintended impacts (both long and short term) of different reception policies and practices within the European countries chosen as case studies.

  This research will provide valuable primary data on asylum and reception processes in other European countries and analyse alternative models of reception and accommodation systems for asylum seekers.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the application of human rights legislation to illegal immigrants and asylum seekers. [34149]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 7 February 2002]: There has been no formal assessment of the application of the Human Rights Act 1998 to illegal immigrants and asylum seekers.

  Any individual subject to immigration control who makes an application to remain in the United Kingdom on human rights grounds will have those grounds considered. There is no opportunity to appeal to the Immigration Appellate Authority against an adverse decision.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if the reference to a 3,000 total capacity in asylum accommodation centres in paragraph 4.30 of "Secure Borders, Safe Haven" refers to the total capacity the Government intends to provide; and if he will make a statement; [36708]
  1233W
  (2) over what period the effectiveness of the proposed asylum accommodation centres will be assessed; if the effectiveness of every trial centre will be assessed before conclusions are reached; and if the establishment of additional centres will be considered. [36709]

  Angela Eagle
  We intend to provide 3,000 accommodation centre places on a trial basis. Decisions on any expansion of accommodation centres beyond those 3,000 places will be taken in the light of emerging evidence, here and abroad, about what works. Subject to that, our aim is to phase out the current system of support and dispersal.

  We are still considering the details of the evaluation process for accommodation centres.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if sites under consideration for an asylum accommodation centre which are not selected for one of the trial centres will be considered for later asylum accommodation centres. [36711]

  Angela Eagle
  It is possible that we may wish to consider sites identified as potential locations for trial centres for any future expansion of the accommodation centre programme.

  Firearms
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) killings and(b) crimes causing personal injury involving all types of firearms there were in each of the last six years for which records exist. [36152]

  Mr. Denham
  The requested details for homicides and injuries caused by use of firearms, injuries caused by the use of handguns, and offences involving handguns and firearms in general in England and Wales are given in

  Chairs of Non-Departmental Public Bodies

  Name

  Term

  Salary

  Advisory Board on Restricted Patients:

  Judge Valerie Pearlman*

  3 months from 1 December 1997

  Nil

  Judge Elizabeth Fisher

  3 years from 2 March 1998

  Nil

  Judge Elizabeth Fisher*

  3 years from March 2001

  Nil

  Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs:

  Prof. David Grahame-Smith

  1 year from 1 November 1997

  Nil

  Prof. Michael Rawlins

  4 years from 1 November 1998

  Nil

  Alcohol Education and Research Centre:

  Baroness Shreela Flather*

  3 years from February 1999

  Nil

  Animal Procedures Committee:

  Rev. Prof. Michael Banner

  4 years from 1 February 1998

  £200 per day

  Rev. Prof. Michael Banner*

  4 years from 1 February 2002

  £206 per day

  Commission for Racial Equality:

  Sir Herman Ouseley*

  2 years from 1 April 1998

  £83,957pa

  Gurbux Singh

  4 years from May 2000

  £111,755pa

  Community Development Foundation:

  Eddie O'Hara MP

  3 years from 1 January 1998

  Nil

  Eddie O'Hara MP

  3 years from January 2001

  Nil

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel:

  Michael Lewer*

  4 years from 1 April 1998

  £57,728pa

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board:

  Right hon. Lord Carlisle of Bucklow*

  2 years from 1 April 1998

  £38,486pa

  Firearms Consultative Committee:

  Lord Shrewsbury"

  11 year from 16 December 98

  Nil

  David Penn

  6 months from August 1999

  Nil

  David Penn*

  2 years from February 2000

  Nil

  Gaming Board for Great Britain:

  Peter Dean

  3 years from 1 July 1998

  £39,922pa

  Peter Dean*

  5 years from June 2001

  £39,922pa

  1234W
  tables 3.1, 3.3 and 3.7 of 'Criminal Statistics England and Wales 2000', which was published in December 2001 and is available in the Library. The numbers of homicides in which a handgun was used are as follows:

  Number of homicides using a handgun in England and Wales

  Year

  19951

  39

  19961

  30

  19971

  39

  1998–992

  32

  1999–20002

  42

  2000–012

  47

  1 Calendar years

  2 Years ending March

  Police Cells
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cells there were in police stations in England and Wales in 1999. [R] [34852]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on the number of cells in police stations is not held centrally.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the appointments made by his Department since 1 May 1997 of chairmen of(a) non-departmental public bodies,(b) commissions,(c) inquiries,(d) agencies and(e) task forces; and if he will list their (i) term of office, (ii) salary and (iii) known political affiliation (A) past and (B) present. [33883]

  Angela Eagle
  The information requested is as set out. However, public appointees are not required to declare any political affiliation as this is a matter on which all citizens have the right to privacy.
  1235W

  Chairs of Non-Departmental Public Bodies

  Name

  Term

  Salary

  Horserace Betting Levy Appeals Tribunal:

  Thomas Brudenell*

  3 years from 1 June 1998

  £265 per day

  (Appointed by the Lord Chancellor)

  Horserace Betting Levy Board:

  Robert Hughes

  3 years from 1 September 1998

  £48,250pa

  Horserace Totaliser Board:

  Lord Wyatt of Weeford*

  1 May 1997 to 30 June 1997

  £103,108pa

  Lord Wyatt of Weeford*

  1 July 1997 to 31 July 1997

  £103,108pa

  Peter Jones

  3 years from 1 August 1997

  £81,119pa

  Peter Jones*

  3 years from August 2000

  £83,552pa

  Misuse of Drugs Advisory Body:

  Jean Southworth*

  April 1999 to 20 April 2001

  £363 per day

  (Appointed by the Lord Chancellor)

  Misuse of Drugs Advisory Tribunal:

  Helen Sarkany*

  3 years from 1 July 1997

  £422 per day

  Helen Sarkany*

  3 years from 1 July 2000

  £452 per day

  (Appointed by the Lord Chancellor)

  Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner:

  John Scampion

  5 years from May 2000

  £91,670pa

  (Immigration Services Commissioner)

  Parole Board:

  Usha Prashar

  8 October 1997 to October 2000

  £58,524pa

  David Hatch

  3 years from November 2000

  £55, 000pa

  Police Discipline Appeals Tribunal:

  Louise Godfey

  May 1997 for an unspecified term

  £417 per day

  Police Information Technology Organisation

  Lt. Gen. Sir Edmund Burton

  2 years from January 2001

  £120,000pa

  Prison/Probation Accreditation Panel:

  Sir Duncan Nichol

  3 years from May 1999

  £500 per day

  Sentencing Advisory Panel:

  Prof. Martin Wasik

  3 years from July 1999

  £250 per day

  (Appointed by the Lord Chancellor)

  Youth Justice Board for England and Wales

  Lord Warner of Brockley

  5 years from 30 September 1998

  £85, 000pa

  Chairs of Commissions:

  Charity Commission:

  John Stoker (Chief Charity Commissioner)

  5 years from July 1999

  £92,112pa

  Commission for Racial Equality:

  See above.

  —

  —

  Chairs of Inquiries:

  Lawrence Inquiry:

  Sir William Macpherson of Cluny

  31 July 1997 to 15 February 1999

  —

  * Reappointment

  Chairs of Agencies:
  None of the Agencies sponsored by the Home Office is headed by a Chair.

  Chairs of Task Forces:
  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 31 April 2000. A third report was published on 13 December 2000 covering the period 1 May 2000 to 31 October 2000. The most recent report: "Task Forces, Ad Hoc Advisory Groups and Reviews", was issued in October 2001, covers the period of the financial year 2000–01. Copies of these reports have been placed in the Libraries.

  Entry Clearance Refusals
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people from(a) the European Union, (b) the Commonwealth and (c) other countries were refused entry in the UK during 2001. [35996]

  Angela Eagle
  I regret that the information requested is not currently available.
  1236W
  Statistics on the number of persons refused entry and subsequently removed by nationality are due to be published in the Command Paper "Control of Immigration Statistics 2001" later this year.

  Police Complaints Authority
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discretion the Police Complaints Authority has to publish information to inform the public of the outcome of its investigations. [35975]

  Mr. Denham
  Section 80 of the Police Act 1996 allows the Police Complaints Authority to publish summary or other general statements which do not identify the person from whom the information is received or any person to whom it relates.

  In accordance with section 79 of the 1996 Act, the Authority also publishes an annual report on the discharge of its functions, which includes statistical data on outcomes.

  Labour Party Conference (Policing)
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what representations he received urging him to make available additional resources to South Wales police to deal with the costs associated with the Labour Party's spring conference; and what they requested; [36245]

  (2) what additional funding he made available to South Wales police to deal with the costs associated with the Labour Party's spring conference in Cardiff. [36244]

  Mr. Denham
  Representations were received from the Chief Constable of South Wales about the cost of policing in Labour Party spring conference. The additional costs were estimated at£ 406,000.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has decided to exceptionally make a special grant to the South Wales police of £ 275,000.

  Industrial Action
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many days have been lost owing to industrial action by staff in his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies in each of the last four years. [36176]

  Angela Eagle
  No days were lost to industrial action in the Home Office and its agencies during 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001.

  Bogus Callers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department will organise a national campaign to alert people, especially the elderly, to the dangers of bogus callers to their homes; and if he will make a statement. [36291]

  Mr. Denham
  Bogus caller crime is nasty and pernicious because it is targeted at the most vulnerable in our community—the elderly. In April 2000 the Home Department launched a campaign, the National Distraction Burglary Task Force, in partnership with utility companies, voluntary groups, local authorities and the police. So far, Good Practice Guides and Toolkits have been produced. Campaigns are now under way in all regions across England and Wales to alert older people and their families to the problem. The Task Force also raises awareness among workers who call at older people's homes. The advice being given to older people is to remember the doorstep etiquette "Stop, Chain, Check", and not let anyone whom they do not know into their homes without a prearranged appointment. I believe that the work of the Task Force is an excellent example of central and local government co-operating with the private and voluntary sectors to combat crime.

  Car Theft
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will issue guidance to prevent police forces charging victims of car theft the cost of garaging their vehicles while forensic tests are carried out; and if he will make a statement. [36241]
  1238W
  Mr. Denham
  The police have a power under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to remove a vehicle that has been left or parked illegally, obstructively or dangerously, or that has been abandoned or broken down. This may include vehicles that have been stolen. Where a vehicle is so removed, the police have a power to require the owner to meet the costs associated with that removal and subsequent storage. The police do not charge for the storage of vehicles that they retain as evidence or for forensic examination.

  Removal and storage costs have to be met, but we are very sympathetic to the sense of injustice that a person may feel in having to meet these costs in order to recover his or her vehicle after it has been stolen. We are considering whether there are any changes to the current position that might be both possible and appropriate, taking into account all the relevant considerations.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter dated 19 December 2001 from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan regarding his constituent Mr. N. Koudreiko of Fraserburgh. [36059]

  Angela Eagle
  My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Rooker wrote to the hon. Member on 12 February 2002. I am sorry for the delay in replying.

  Sentencing
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase powers of courts to issue custodial sentences for(a) mobile phone theft, (b) car-jacking and (c) possession of drugs with intent to supply. [34777]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answer 8 February 2002]: The courts already have very extensive sentencing powers to deal with this kind of offending. The circumstances of the offence will determine whether a person stealing a mobile phone is convicted of theft or robbery. The latter is the more serious offence because it necessarily involves force or the threat of force. The maximum penalty for theft is seven years imprisonment and the maximum penalty for robbery is life imprisonment. Car-jacking is charged as robbery. Moreover, section 109 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 provides for an automatic life sentence for a second serious sexual or violent offence. The offence of robbery is a qualifying offence under section 109.

  Similarly, extensive sentencing powers are available in order to provide public protection in respect of supply of drugs. The maximum penalty for possessing class A drugs with the intent to supply is life imprisonment. The maximum penalty for possessing class B drugs with intent to supply is 14 years and the maximum penalty for possessing class C drugs with intent to supply is five years imprisonment. Section 110 of the Powers of the Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 provides for a mandatory minimum sentence of seven years for a third class A drug trafficking offence.

  The Government share public concern about the increasing prevalence of mobile phone robbery and car-jacking and about the continuing threats posed by

  1239W
  drug offending. We need to protect the public from the harm that this kind of offending can inflict upon our communities. It is important that the courts treat these offences with the seriousness they deserve.

  We are committed to making sense of sentencing. We need a new sentencing framework which will do more to support crime reduction and reparation, while meeting the needs of punishment, through the introduction of more flexible sentencing options such as a new generic community sentence and a new suspended sentence. We need to be better able to exploit the developing opportunities to work with offenders to reduce re-offending and in the new approaches to restorative justice and reparation.

  Immigration Detainees
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were held, by venue, under immigration law, at the latest available date. [36629]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 25 February 2002]: The latest available information on the number of persons detained under Immigration Act powers by place of detention relates to 30 September 2001 and is given in the table.

  P8/10/2006lace of detention1

  Immigration Act detainees as at 30 September 20012

  Oakington Reception Centre

  195

  Immigration detention centres

  Tinsley House

  125

  Harmondsworth

  100

  Campsfield House

  80

  Dover Harbour

  20

  Dungavel

  20

  Manchester Airport

  10

  Dedicated Immigration Service wings

  Rochester

  180

  Haslar

  150

  Lindholme

  105

  Prison establishments

  Liverpool

  95

  Wandsworth

  65

  Holme House

  45

  High Down

  45

  Cardiff

  40

  Gateside

  40

  Wormwood Scrubs

  30

  Manchester

  20

  Brixton

  15

  The Verne

  15

  Winchester

  15

  Belmarsh

  10

  The Mount

  10

  Craiginches

  10

  Pentonville

  10

  Leeds

  10

  Blakenhurst

  10

  Bullingdon

  10

  Other prison establishments3

  150

  Total

  1,620

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest five, and exclude persons detained in police cells.

  2 Figures include 260 persons detained in prison establishments under dual immigration and other powers.

  3 Other prison establishments with five or fewer detainees.

  1240W
  The temporary use of spaces in a number of local prisons ended in mid-January 2002, as did the use of the accommodation at Her Majesty's Prison (HMP) Rochester.

  Information on Immigration Act detainees as at 29 December 2001 will be published on 28 February 2002 on the Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/ immigrationl.html.

  Family Visitor Appeals
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was(a) the gross and (b) the net income for (i) oral and (ii) paper appeals during the first year of operation of family visitor appeals; and what were the administrative costs of the scheme. [32997]

  Angela Eagle
  The figures requested by my hon. Friend are as follows:

  £

  Net income

  Gross income

  paper

  58,900

  100,500

  Ora

  45,125

  160,625

  Note:

  Net figures exclude refund payments made by the Home Office.

  The Joint Entry Clearance Unit estimate Foreign and Commonwealth Office costs for the scheme as a whole at about £1.4 million in the first year, including set-up costs. The Lord Chancellor's Department spent £883,000 on the administration of appeals in the six months April to September 2001. Home Office administrative costs for the first year reached around £4,200.

  Police Expenditure (East Sussex)
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the per capita expenditure on police in East Sussex was in(a) 1997 and (b) 2001; and what the national average was in those years. [34089]

  Mr. Denham
  Figures are not available separately for East Sussex. The gross cost per capita for Sussex in 1997–98 was £117.8 and in 2001–02 it is estimated at £132.5. The gross cost on an average per capita basis in England and Wales was £138.4 in 1997–98 and estimated at £165.5 in 2001–02.Explanatory Note: All figures are from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy Police statistics: 1997–98 Actuals and 2001–02 Estimates.

  West Mercia Police
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government have to increase the numbers of police officers in West Mercia by the number needed for it to reach the average of the 35 English and Welsh forces. [33733]

  Mr. Denham
  I understand that, subject to available funding being raised through the council tax, the authority has plans to increase the force's budgeted strength by 300 officers over the next three years to a total of 2,424. Based on current population estimates, this would take the force to a ratio of 212 officers per 100,000 population.

  Police Officers (Public Health Care)
  Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which police authorities provide private healthcare for their officers; and if he will make a statement. [36911]

  Mr. Denham
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Cyclists
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he issues to police forces on penalising cyclists who(a) advance over the stop line and (b) ride without rear lights. [36461]

  Mr. Denham
  Police officers take appropriate action against cyclists who break road traffic laws in this way and who are a hazard to themselves and to other road users when they do so. We see no need for central guidance to police forces on this issue. Chief officers of police are best placed to decide the level of priority given to such offences in the light of local circumstances and other demands on police time and resources.

  Drug Addicts
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners who were addicts of(a) heroin and (b) cocaine continued their habits after serving their sentences in each of the last five years; and what proportion died from drug misuse in the 12 month period after leaving prison. [36562]

  Beverley Hughes
  There are currently no figures available on how many inmates coming into prison addicted to heroin or cocaine resume their habit after serving their sentences. However, the Home Office is currently conducting research in this area and aims to publish a report on the findings in the summer.

  Similarly, there are currently no figures available on drug-related deaths among ex-prisoners. The Home Office is currently conducting research in this area and aims to publish a report on the findings in May.

  Copies of both reports will be placed in the Library.

  Detainee Deaths
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy in relation to all deaths in police custody, prisons and immigration detention centres, to provide the family of the deceased person with a copy of any investigation carried out into his or her death. [36948]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government recognise the frustration and sadness that can be caused through any lack of communication and information in these cases.

  Police investigating officers' reports form a class which the courts have ruled is entitled to public interest immunity.

  Current Home Office guidance to the police on pre-inquest disclosure states that
  "disclosure of the investigating officer's report will not normally be expected to form part of the pre-inquest disclosure. That does not mean, however, that it is impossible for such a report to be disclosed where a chief officer considers that it would be right to do so".
  1242W
  There is no existing legal obligation on the police to make such a disclosure unless directed to do so by a court. However, the Police Reform Bill currently before Parliament includes a presumption in favour of the disclosure of information. The Bill expressly allows this duty to be fulfilled through the provision of a copy of the investigation report subject to a statutory test that will ensure no information that has the potential for causing harm is released.

  Since 1999 the Prison Service has operated a policy of disclosure of investigation reports into deaths in prison custody to the family of the deceased. The Immigration Service would also disclose their investigation reports into deaths in immigration detention centres to the family of the deceased.

  Prison Hospital Suicides
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what(a) assessment he has made of and (b) steps he has taken to ascertain the accuracy of record keeping about the monitoring of suicide risks in prison hospitals. [36877]

  Beverley Hughes
  Those prisoners judged at risk of suicide or self-harm, whether in health care centres or other parts of prisons, are the subject of the "caring for prisoners at risk procedures" (the F2052SH system). Suicide prevention teams in each establishment examine this work and the quality of the procedures. The system is being reviewed as part of the Prison Service's three year suicide prevention strategy with the aim of improving the identification of those at risk and the subsequent care provided.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the process is to ensure that tetra base stations comply with relevant guidelines on limits of exposure to the public. [36594]

  Mr. Denham
  Terrestrial Trunked Radio System (TETRA) base stations for the police service are installed by the telecommunications operator for Airwave, mm02 which must comply with planning regulations and health and safety guidelines.

  The Radiocommunications Agency (RA) of the Department for Trade and Industry (DTI) is currently conducting a programme of checks on airwave base stations to ensure that the guidelines on limits of exposure are being met. The RA currently expect to publish the results obtained from the first six base stations tested on their website in mid June 2002. The extent of further work will be determined once the data obtained from these tests have been fully analysed.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what targets are set for replying to correspondence from members of the public to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate; and what the level of performance is. [36769]

  Angela Eagle
  One million pieces of correspondence were received by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) post room in Croydon, during the last
  1243W
  12 months. The targets in the Public Service Agreement 2000–01 to 2003–04 commits all Home Office Directorates, including IND, to replying to 95 per cent. of public correspondence within 20 working days. Figures are not currently available for IND's present performance against the standards relating to public correspondence, but we aim to send a substantive reply to all letters as soon as possible.

  Improving performance against published targets for dealing with correspondence is recognised as a priority for IND as part of the wider Home Office programme to modernise business processes and information management.

  Prison Capacity (Wymott and Garth)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to(a) increase the prison population and (b) extend the site at (i) HMP Wymott and (ii) HMP Garth; and what recent discussions his Department has had with the (A) governor and (B) Prison Officers' Association on plans to extend (x) HMP Wymott and (y) HMP Garth. [36458]

  Beverley Hughes
  In order to meet possible need for extra capacity, the Prison Service has an overall strategy of applying for planning consent at prison sites where building more accommodation is a viable option.

  Wymott and Garth prisons are two such sites. Planning consent has been in place to build an extra houseblock at each site since 1996. Applications have recently been made to extend this consent before it expires in order to keep all options open.

  While the governor and Prison Officers' Association at each prison may be aware of the existing planning consent, no discussions have taken place as there are no

  Number of persons aged 10–17 sentenced to custodial sentences in the Metropolitan police area shown by magistrates court (the committing court in Crown court cases) England and Wales 20001

  Custodial sentence

  Young offender institution

  Detention and training order

  Secure training order

  Sentencing court (Committing court in Crown court cases)

  Under 1 year

  1year and up to 2 years

  Total

  Under 1 year

  1year and up to 2 years

  Total

  Under 1 year

  1 year and up to 2 years

  Total

  Inner London magistrates courts2

  Bow Street

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Camberwell Green/Tower Bridge

  1

  4

  5

  1

  6

  7

  0

  0

  0

  Greenwich/Woolwich

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  1

  0

  1

  Highbury Corner

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Horseferry Road

  0

  1

  1

  1

  2

  3

  0

  0

  0

  Marylebone

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  South Western

  0

  1

  1

  5

  0

  5

  0

  0

  0

  Thames

  4

  2

  6

  5

  3

  8

  0

  0

  0

  West London

  1

  1

  2

  5

  5

  10

  0

  0

  0

  Camberwell Youth court

  24

  4

  28

  78

  13

  91

  1

  0

  1

  South Western Youth court

  0

  1

  1

  33

  6

  39

  0

  0

  0

  Thames Youth court

  12

  6

  18

  57

  31

  88

  0

  0

  0

  West London Youth court

  27

  3

  30

  59

  8

  67

  0

  0

  0

  Outer London boroughs

  Barking and Dagenham

  5

  0

  5

  17

  4

  21

  0

  0

  0

  Havering

  2

  1

  3

  12

  1

  13

  0

  0

  0

  Redbridge

  2

  1

  3

  6

  3

  9

  0

  0

  0

  Newham

  4

  3

  7

  51

  7

  58

  0

  0

  0

  Waltham Forest

  8

  1

  9

  23

  3

  26

  0

  0

  0

  Bexley

  3

  0

  3

  11

  1

  12

  0

  0

  0

  Bromley

  2

  0

  2

  6

  3

  9

  0

  0

  0

  Croydon

  8

  2

  10

  21

  15

  36

  0

  0

  0

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  4

  0

  4

  10

  0

  10

  0

  0

  0

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  4

  0

  4

  4

  1

  5

  0

  0

  0

  Sutton

  3

  0

  3

  16

  1

  17

  0

  0

  0

  1244W
  plans to build at either prison in the near future. If the situation should change there will be the usual full and frank discussion.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Lammy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young offenders (1) from each parliamentary constituency in the Greater London area were sentenced to custodial sentences in young offenders institutions in 2001; [37008]

  (2) within each Metropolitan police divisional borough were sentenced to custodial sentences in young offenders institutions in 2001; [37007]

  (3) within each parliamentary constituency in the Greater London area were sentenced to serve (a) less than one year, (b) one to three years and (c) three or more years in a young offenders institution in 2001; [37010]

  (4) within each Metropolitan police divisional borough were sentenced to serve (a) less than one year, (b) one to three years and (c) three or more years in a young offenders institution in 2001. [37009]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Information collected centrally does not allow a breakdown by parliamentary constituency in the Greater London area.

  The available, information, from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database, relating to England and Wales 2000 is shown in the table. These data give offenders aged 10–17 sentenced to custodial sentences within the Metropolitan police area for (a) under one year, (b) one year and under three years and (c) over three years.

  Information on court proceedings for 2001 will be available in the autumn.
  1245W

  Number of persons aged 10–17 sentenced to custodial sentences in the Metropolitan police area shown by magistrates court (the committing court in Crown court cases) England and Wales 20001

  Custodial sentence

  Young offender institution

  Detention and training order

  Secure training order

  Sentencing court (Committing court in Crown court cases)

  Under 1 year

  1year and up to 2 years

  Total

  Under 1 year

  1year and up to 2 years

  Total

  Under 1 year

  1 year and up to 2 years

  Total

  Merton

  0

  0

  0

  13

  3

  16

  0

  0

  0

  Ealing

  5

  2

  7

  14

  4

  18

  1

  0

  1

  Barnet

  3

  5

  8

  18

  10

  28

  0

  0

  0

  Brent

  3

  2

  5

  13

  8

  21

  0

  0

  0

  Enfield

  6

  1

  7

  10

  8

  18

  0

  0

  0

  Harringey

  1

  7

  8

  28

  4

  32

  0

  0

  0

  Harrow

  2

  0

  2

  8

  2

  10

  0

  0

  0

  Hillingdon

  6

  1

  7

  25

  6

  31

  0

  0

  0

  Hounslow

  4

  2

  6

  17

  1

  18

  0

  0

  0

  Other (not recorded)

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  144

  53

  197

  574

  160

  734

  3

  0

  3

  Custodial sentence Section 90–923

  Total immediate custody

  Sentencing court (Committing court in Crown court cases

  Under 1 year

  1 year and under 3 years

  3 years and over

  Total

  Under 1 year

  1 year and under 3 years

  3 years and over

  Total

  Inner London magistrates courts2

  Bow Street

  0

  0

  4

  4

  1

  1

  4

  6

  Camberwell Green/Tower Bridge

  0

  0

  5

  5

  2

  10

  5

  17

  Greenwich/Woolwich

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  1

  1

  4

  Highbury Corner

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  3

  Horseferry Road

  0

  0

  2

  2

  1

  3

  2

  6

  Marylebone

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  2

  South Western

  0

  1

  2

  3

  5

  2

  2

  9

  Thames

  0

  2

  1

  3

  9

  7

  1

  17

  West London

  0

  0

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  18

  Camberwell Youth court

  0

  4

  12

  16

  103

  21

  12

  136

  South Western Youth court

  0

  1

  8

  9

  33

  8

  8

  49

  Thames Youth court

  0

  5

  13

  18

  69

  42

  13

  124

  West London Youth court

  0

  4

  4

  8

  86

  15

  4

  105

  Outer London boroughs

  Barking and Dagenham

  0

  0

  1

  1

  22

  4

  1

  27

  Havering

  0

  0

  1

  1

  14

  2

  1

  17

  Redbridge

  0

  0

  0

  0

  8

  4

  0

  12

  Newham

  0

  0

  5

  5

  55

  10

  5

  70

  Waltham Forest

  0

  0

  6

  6

  31

  4

  6

  41

  Bexley

  0

  0

  1

  1

  14

  1

  1

  16

  Bromley

  0

  0

  1

  1

  8

  3

  1

  12

  Croydon

  0

  2

  4

  6

  29

  19

  4

  52

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  0

  0

  4

  4

  14

  0

  4

  18

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  0

  1

  1

  2

  8

  2

  1

  11

  Sutton

  0

  0

  2

  2

  19

  1

  2

  22

  Merton

  0

  2

  0

  2

  13

  5

  0

  18

  Ealing

  0

  0

  1

  1

  20

  6

  1

  27

  Barnet

  1

  2

  0

  3

  22

  17

  0

  39

  Brent

  0

  1

  2

  3

  16

  11

  2

  29

  Enfield

  0

  1

  0

  1

  16

  10

  0

  26

  Harringey

  0

  0

  6

  6

  29

  11

  6

  46

  Harrow

  0

  0

  0

  0

  10

  2

  0

  12

  Hillingdon

  0

  1

  1

  2

  31

  8

  1

  40

  Hounslow

  0

  0

  2

  2

  21

  3

  2

  26

  Other (not recorded)

  1

  3

  5

  9

  4

  3

  5

  12

  Total

  2

  30

  103

  135

  723

  243

  103

  1,069

  1 These data are on the principal offence basis

  2 Information held centrally does not allow a breakdown of cases by borough in the Inner London area

  3 Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (previously section 53(1) and (2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933)

  Mr. Lammy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how (1) many young offenders within each Metropolitan police divisional borough are serving custodial sentences in young offenders institutions; [37005]
  1246W
  (2) how many young offenders from each parliamentary constituency in the Greater London area are serving custodial sentences in young offenders institutions. [37006]
  1247W
  Beverley Hughes
  The data show young offenders who were serving custodial sentences on 31 January 2002 and were first committed in a Greater London court. Addresses of inmates prior to custody are not held centrally. Attempting to break these figures down by constituency or Metropolitan police divisional borough would not be accurate, as young offenders are not always committed at a court within the constituency where they live.

  Number

  Acton/Harrow

  84

  Barking

  20

  Barnet

  4

  Bexley

  12

  Bow

  4

  Brent

  7

  Bromley

  12

  Camberwell Green

  41

  Central Criminal Court

  182

  Croydon

  154

  Ealing

  4

  Enfield

  7

  Family Proceedings Courts (Inner London)

  2

  Feltham

  9

  Greenwich

  9

  Haringey

  21

  Harrow

  9

  Havering

  11

  Hendon

  4

  Highbury

  15

  Horseferry road

  11

  Inner London Session House

  169

  Isleworth

  117

  Kingston-Upon-Thames

  96

  Knightsbridge

  63

  Middlesex Guildhall

  48

  Redbridge

  1

  Snaresbrook

  140

  South Western

  22

  Southwark

  91

  Stratford

  13

  Sutton

  3

  Thames

  36

  Tower Bridge

  4

  Uxbridge

  14

  Waltham Forest

  13

  West London

  17

  Wimbledon

  6

  Wood Green

  69

  Woolwich

  44

  All

  1,588

  Long Lartin Prison
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on recruitment and retention of prison officers and other staff at Long Lartin prison. [36767]

  Beverley Hughes
  As at January 2002 Long Lartin prison had a total number of 514.5 unified staff against a target of 517 and 140.5 non-unified staff against a target of 141.5. The small number of vacancies will be filled shortly.

  Long Lartin is located in a low unemployment area and while housing costs are rising this has not caused any significant problems with recruitment. Equally there is no difficulty recruiting other members of staff, with the possible exception of civilian works staff.

  Arrests
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the time taken by police officers to complete the paperwork and processes necessary after arresting an individual; and what estimate he has made of the changes in that time associated with new(a) legislation, (b) regulations and (c) Government guidance since 1997 [36582]

  Mr. Denham
  On 1 November 2001, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary published PA Consulting's study "Diary of a Police Officer" which had considered what more could be done to free police officers from unnecessary paperwork and other obstacles which prevent them from spending more time in public. The study found that officers were spending 43.1 per cent. of their time in the police station.

  In the White Paper "Policing a New Century" (CM 5326), published on 5 December 2001, my right hon. Friend announced that he was setting up a task force, chaired by Sir David O'Dowd, to consider how to take forward the recommendations in this, and other, relevant reports, in order to reduce unnecessary administrative burdens on the police.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individual arrests were carried out by police forces in England and Wales during each of the last three years for which records are available. [36581]

  Mr. Denham
  Information given in the table is for arrests for notifiable offences within the financial years 1999–2000 and 2000–01. Information for earlier years is not available on a consistent basis.

  Persons arrested for notifiable offences recorded by the police by police force area, 1999–00 and 2000/01 England and Wales

  Police force area

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Avon and Somerset

  21,856

  27,156

  Bedfordshire

  13,011

  14,541

  Cambridgeshire

  12,418

  12,153

  Cheshire

  18,202

  16,959

  Cleveland

  20,521

  18,019

  Cumbria

  15,568

  13,226

  Derbyshire

  18,499

  17,848

  Devon and Cornwall

  24,609

  25,658

  Dorset

  12,471

  11,002

  Durham

  1—

  1—

  Essex

  24,405

  26,581

  Gloucestershire

  11,352

  11,155

  Greater Manchester

  73,366

  68,803

  Hampshire

  42,598

  39,420

  Hertfordshire

  14,115

  15,749

  Humberside

  1—

  26,766

  Kent

  34,684

  30,360

  Lancashire

  37,535

  36,998

  Leicestershire

  17,999

  17,800

  Lincolnshire

  20,700

  16,618

  London, City of

  1—

  4,286

  Merseyside

  44,315

  45,598

  Metropolitan police

  202,218

  180,634

  Norfolk

  16,313

  15,461

  Northamptonshire

  12,730

  11,598

  Northumbria

  47,295

  41,150

  North Yorkshire

  20,353

  18,319

  Nottinghamshire

  33,001

  32,707

  South Yorkshire

  34,727

  33,573

  Staffordshire

  1—

  1—

  Suffolk

  10,787

  10,706

  Surrey

  12,993

  15,590

  Sussex

  24,183

  30,302

  1249W

  Persons arrested for notifiable offences recorded by the police by police force area, 1999–00 and 2000/01 England and Wales

  Police force area

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Thames Valley

  43,738

  44,575

  Warwickshire

  8,377

  7,073

  West Mercia

  21,172

  18,235

  West Midlands

  78,592

  91,685

  West Yorkshire

  44,800

  62,410

  Wiltshire

  10,498

  10,031

  Dyfed-Powys

  14,057

  13,036

  Gwent

  27,829

  24,642

  North Wales

  12,653

  14,843

  South Wales

  1—

  34,838

  England and Wales2

  1,277,900

  1,264,200

  1 Not available

  2 Estimated

  Volunteering
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made following the announcement in January 2001 of a package to develop volunteering; and if he will make a statement. [36382]

  Angela Eagle
  As part of the 2000 spending review settlement, the Government announced an extra £300 million for volunteering initiatives over three years, 2001–02 to 2003–04. £60 million was available to other Government Departments for match funding in supporting the use of volunteers in public sector services. The funding is worth a total of £120 million over three years when matched. 24 proposals were approved and are currently on course to involve an additional 290,000 volunteers in public service delivery by the end of March 2004.

  Proposals for a second round of funding will be taken forward shortly.

  A Mentoring Programme has been established which is providing: funding to develop the mentoring infrastructure; more money for mentoring already going on in local communities; and seven one-stop-shops for mentoring to be known as Mentor Points.

  In addition, the Experience Corps Company has been established which, with funding of some £20 million, has started the roll-out (in November 2001) of an initiative aimed at encouraging a quarter of a million people aged 50 and over to become or remain active in their communities.

  Working Conditions and Practices
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [35929]

  Angela Eagle
  Information on sickness absence and compensation payments due to 'work-related' stress are not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  1250W
  The Department, however, monitors through its staff surveys factors relating to work place stress including work load and working conditions. The Department has taken action to address some of the main identified factors, including improving communication arrangements and filling vacancies. The Home Office is committed to supporting staff in achieving a balance between their work and home responsibilities and has a range of flexible working patterns to help staff achieve this.

  A welfare service is available and offers personal support for staff suffering from any form of stress. In addition, stress awareness workshops are available to staff and managers. Information on how to recognise stress and suggested coping strategies, is accessible via the Home Office Intranet; leaflets entitled "Stress and You", are also available.

  The Department is aware of its obligations to provide a safe working environment and takes steps to ensure that it meets the requirements of health and safety legislation.

  Youth Offending Teams
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who inspects the functioning of youth offending teams; and if he will make a statement. [35532]

  Beverley Hughes
  The operation of youth offending teams and the programmes they run are subject to a range of independent evaluation and monitoring commissioned and operated by the Youth Justice Board. The Board is also developing a tool to help them measure the effectiveness of youth offending teams' services. Evaluation of the pilot youth offending teams and the new final warnings scheme has been published by Sheffield university, and are available in the Library. Evaluations of the new intervention programmes will be published this spring.

  Two youth offending team inspections have been carried out by multi-disciplinary inspection teams. The Home Office, in consultation with the Youth Justice Board, is developing a strategy for new independent inspection arrangements.

  City of London Corporation (Events)
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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 [35703]

  Angela Eagle
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Immigration
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people, broken down by nationality, on(a) temporary admission and (b) temporary release, applied for leave to enter on the grounds of marriage in each year from 1995 to the latest convenient date in 2001; and how many such applications in each year were (i) granted and (ii) refused. [35548]
  1251W
  Angela Eagle
  The available information is given in the table.

  The information relates to decisions on applications for leave to remain on the basis of marriage, by main nationality for 1995 to 2000, the latest year available.

  Grants and refusal of extensions of leave to remain1 in the United Kingdom on the basis of marriage2 by nationality, excluding EEA Nationals, 1995–2000

  1995

  1996

  Grants

  Refusals

  Total decisions

  Grants

  Refusals

  Total decisions

  All nationalities

  17,560

  1,590

  19,150

  17,060

  1,410

  18,470

  Europe (excluding EEA)

  Bulgaria

  60

  7—

  60

  70

  7—

  80

  Cyprus

  120

  7—

  120

  150

  7—

  150

  Former Czechoslovakia

  150

  7—

  150

  200

  7—

  200

  of which:

  Czech Republic3

  8—

  8—

  8—

  8—

  8—

  8—

  Slovakia

  8—

  8—

  8—

  8—

  8—

  8—

  Hungary

  100

  7—

  100

  90

  —

  90

  Malta

  30

  —

  30

  20

  —

  20

  Poland

  360

  10

  370

  370

  20

  400

  Romania

  150

  7—

  150

  140

  7—

  140

  Switzerland

  80

  —

  80

  90

  7—

  90

  Turkey

  550

  40

  590

  570

  30

  600

  Former USSR

  370

  10

  380

  440

  10

  460

  of which:

  Estonia

  8—

  8—

  8—

  8—

  8—

  8—

  Latvia

  8—

  8—

  8—

  8—

  8—

  8—

  Lithuania

  8—

  8—

  8—

  8—

  8—

  8—

  Russia4

  8—

  8—

  8—

  8—

  8—

  8—

  Ukraine

  8—

  8—

  8—

  8—

  8—

  8—

  Other Former USSR

  8—

  8—

  8—

  8—

  8—

  8—

  Former Yugoslavia

  500

  10

  510

  410

  20

  430

  of which:

  8—

  8—

  8—

  8—

  8—

  8—

  Croatia

  8—

  8—

  8—

  8—

  8—

  8—

  Slovenia

  8—

  8—

  8—

  8—

  8—

  8—

  Yugoslavia5

  8—

  8—

  8—

  8—

  8—

  8—

  Other Former Yugoslavia

  8—

  8—

  8—

  8—

  8—

  8—

  Other Europe

  20

  —

  20

  20

  —

  20

  Europe (excluding EEA)

  2,500

  80

  2,580

  2,580

  90

  2,670

  Americas

  Argentina

  40

  7—

  40

  30

  —

  30

  Barbados

  40

  —

  40

  40

  7—

  40

  Brazil

  400

  10

  410

  360

  7—

  370

  Canada

  280

  10

  290

  370

  7—

  370

  Chile

  30

  —

  30

  30

  7—

  30

  Colombia

  130

  10

  140

  150

  10

  160

  Guyana

  100

  10

  110

  80

  10

  100

  Jamaica

  790

  160

  950

  660

  110

  770

  Mexico

  70

  7—

  70

  60

  —

  60

  Peru

  50

  7—

  50

  70

  7—

  70

  Trinidad and Tobago

  120

  10

  130

  120

  7—

  130

  USA

  1,340

  10

  1,350

  1,320

  10

  1,330

  Venezuela

  40

  7—

  40

  40

  —

  40

  Other Americas

  220

  7—

  220

  190

  7—

  190

  Americas

  3,650

  220

  3,870

  3,520

  160

  3,680

  Africa

  Algeria

  410

  30

  440

  430

  30

  460

  Angola

  20

  7—

  20

  7—

  7—

  10

  Congo (Dem. Rep.)6

  20

  7—

  20

  120

  —

  120

  Egypt

  110

  10

  120

  60

  10

  60

  Ethiopia

  40

  —

  40

  700

  7—

  700

  Ghana

  870

  200

  1,070

  210

  180

  390

  Kenya

  250

  30

  280

  30

  20

  50

  Libya

  20

  —

  20

  180

  7—

  180

  Mauritius

  210

  20

  230

  250

  20

  270

  Morocco

  240

  40

  280

  1,170

  30

  1,200

  Nigeria

  1,350

  390

  1,740

  300

  310

  620

  Sierra Leone

  320

  100

  420

  30

  120

  140

  Somalia

  20

  7—

  20

  590

  7—

  600

  South Africa

  420

  10

  430

  40

  10

  50

  Sudan

  60

  7—

  60

  110

  7—

  110

  Tanzania

  100

  7—

  100

  40

  10

  50

  1252W
  Data for 2001 are due to be published in the summer this year.

  is not possible to identify how many of the decisions were made in cases were the applicant was on temporary admission or release.
  1253W

  Grants and refusal of extensions of leave to remain1 in the United Kingdom on the basis of marriage2 by nationality, excluding EEA Nationals, 1995–2000

  1995

  1996

  Grants

  Refusals

  Total decisions

  Grants

  Refusals

  Total decisions

  Tunisia

  50

  7—

  50

  40

  —

  40

  Uganda

  40

  10

  50

  20

  7—

  20

  Zambia

  80

  10

  90

  70

  10

  80

  Zimbabwe

  120

  20

  140

  120

  20

  130

  Other Africa

  300

  40

  340

  310

  50

  360

  Africa

  5,030

  910

  5,940

  4,820

  840

  5,660

  Asia

  Indian sub-continent

  Bangladesh

  380

  30

  410

  370

  30

  410

  India

  1,150

  60

  1,220

  1,110

  60

  1,170

  Pakistan

  1,070

  150

  1,220

  970

  120

  1,090

  Indian sub-continent

  2,610

  250

  2,860

  2,450

  210

  2,660

  Middle East

  Iran

  140

  10

  150

  130

  7—

  130

  Iraq

  50

  7—

  50

  40

  7—

  50

  Israel

  140

  7—

  140

  130

  —

  130

  Jordan

  40

  —

  40

  40

  7—

  40

  Kuwait

  7—

  —

  7—

  7—

  —

  7—

  Lebanon

  80

  7—

  80

  90

  10

  100

  Saudi Arabia

  10

  —

  10

  10

  —

  10

  Syria

  40

  7—

  40

  40

  7—

  40

  Yemen

  30

  7—

  30

  30

  7—

  30

  Other Middle East

  20

  —

  20

  20

  7—

  30

  Middle East

  560

  20

  580

  540

  20

  560

  Remainder of Asia

  China

  220

  7—

  220

  190

  7—

  200

  Hong Kong

  290

  10

  300

  260

  10

  270

  Indonesia

  40

  —

  40

  30

  —

  30

  Japan

  300

  10

  310

  360

  7—

  360

  Malaysia

  260

  20

  280

  210

  10

  220

  Philippines

  360

  10

  370

  330

  10

  340

  Singapore

  70

  7—

  70

  50

  7—

  50

  South Korea

  30

  7—

  30

  40

  —

  40

  Sri Lanka

  120

  20

  140

  170

  10

  180

  Taiwan

  20

  —

  20

  30

  7—

  30

  Thailand

  210

  10

  220

  210

  10

  220

  Other Asia

  60

  7—

  60

  70

  7—

  70

  Remainder of Asia

  1,990

  90

  2,080

  1,970

  60

  2,030

  Asia

  5,150

  350

  5,500

  4,960

  300

  5,260

  Oceania

  Australia

  70

  10

  710

  670

  10

  680

  New Zealand

  330

  10

  340

  340

  7—

  350

  Other Oceania

  10

  7—

  10

  10

  7—

  10

  Oceania

  1,040

  20

  1,060

  1,020

  10

  1,030

  British Overseas citizens

  40

  7—

  40

  60

  7—

  60

  Nationality unknown

  150

  10

  160

  100

  10

  110

  All nationalities (excluding EEA)

  17,560

  1,590

  19,150

  17,060

  1,410

  18,470

  1 Excludes dependants of principal applicants, the outcome of appeals and withdrawn applications.

  2 Includes unmarried partners from 1997.

  3 Includes Czechoslovak passport holders.

  4 Includes Soviet Union passport holders.

  5 Includes holders of passports of the former Yugoslavia.

  6 The Democratic Republic of the Congo, formerly known as Zaire.

  Note:

  Data rounded to the nearest 10 with 7 — = 5 or fewer

  8 — not available

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many nationals of(a) India, (b) Pakistan, (c) Bangladesh, (d) Ghana, (e) Nigeria, (f) Malaysia, (g) Jamaica, (h) Zimbabwe and (j) Kenya, (i) applied for, (ii) were granted and (iii) were refused leave to remain in the UK on the ground of marriage in (A) 2000 and (B) 2001 to the latest convenient date; and how many people of each nationality applied (1) within
  1254W
  their permitted leave and (2) after their leave had expired. [35547]

  Angela Eagle
  The available information is given in the table.

  The information relates to decisions on applications for leave to remain in the United Kingdom on the basis of marriage. The latest available data are for the period January to December 2000.
  1255W
  It is not possible to identify how many of the decisions were made in cases where that applicant did not have current leave to remain at the time of application.

  Grants and refusals of extensions of leave to remain1 in the United Kingdom on the basis of marriage2, excluding European Economic Area (EEA) nationals, 2000

  Number of decisions

  Grants

  Refusals

  Total

  India

  1,640

  40

  1,680

  Pakistan

  1,380

  60

  1,440

  Bangladesh

  380

  20

  400

  Ghana

  700

  60

  760

  Nigeria

  1,520

  300

  1,820

  Malaysia

  370

  10

  380

  Jamaica

  2,200

  130

  2,330

  Zimbabwe

  270

  10

  280

  Kenya

  370

  20

  390

  Total

  8,830

  640

  9,470

  1 Excludes dependants of principal applicants, the outcome of appeals and withdrawn applications.

  2 Includes unmarried partners.

  Notes:

  1. Totals may not sum due to rounding. This is because all calculations are based on unrounded figures to ensure accuracy.

  2. Data rounded to nearest 10

  Youth Forums
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many youth fora have been set up; and at what cost. [35810]

  Mr. Denham
  There are many different types of youth forum established by local authorities, statutory agencies and voluntary organisations in order to ensure that young people are involved and consulted over policies and services relevant to them. The Government maintain no records of the numbers and costs of youth fora.

  Prison Service
  Colin Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for the use of the private sector in the Prison Service. [38401]

  Beverley Hughes
  I am placing in the Library today a report of a review which the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), asked Patrick Carter, a non-executive member of the Strategy Board for Correctional Services, to carry out on the future role of the private sector in the prison system.

  We believe that a mixed economy of provision is essential in achieving a modern, dynamic Prison Service.

  I am most grateful to Patrick Carter for his report, which shows how much the private sector has achieved to date providing high quality prison services at lower cost. The report also shows how well the public sector prison service has responded to the challenge of private sector competition.

  Both the public and the private sectors are important to the future of the Prison Service. Both can show big successes that benefit prisoners and the public. I want to create conditions in which both can flourish, but in which both have to continually prove themselves. I believe the overall thrust of the recommendations of the report will achieve this. Some can be implemented straight away, but
  1256W
  others need further work or will have to be subject to discussions in the current spending review and our wider vision for modernising the Prison Service.

  The proposal that under-performing prisons should be required to show how they will meet tough benchmarked standards, or face contracting out or closure, offers the potential for big improvements in performance and value for money. I announced on 19 December 2001 the first scheme of this kind, at Her Majesty's Prison Leicester and Her Majesty's Young Offender Institution and Remand Centre Reading.

  The report also provides a welcome contribution to finding ways of bringing the aging prison estate into the 21st century. I will consider this as part of our current assessment of the options for providing a range of carefully targeted new approaches to dealing with offenders, and the spending review.

  I note the recommendation for a limited programme of market testing. For the moment, I believe the performance testing process I have announced offers a better, faster and cheaper means of improvement. But I do not rule out using market testing again in the future.

  The private sector has demonstrated that it can make a valuable contribution to the delivery of a high quality service by prisons. This report outlines a way ahead for their continued involvement.

  Justice and Home Affairs Council
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a Scottish Executive Minister will be a member of the UK delegation to the Justice and Home Affairs European Union Council of Ministers meeting on 28 February; and what information is being provided by his Department to permit pre-council scrutiny by the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament. [[38035]

  Angela Eagle
  Arrangements for co-ordination of European Union policy issues between Scottish Executive Ministers and the United Kingdom (UK) Government are set out in the Corcordat on coordination of European Union Policy issues, which supplements the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the devolved administrations and the UK Government. The Concordat states that decisions on Ministerial attendance at Council meetings will be taken on a case-by-case basis by the lead UK Minister, which in the case of the Justice and Home Affairs Council is my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

  Scottish Executive Ministers participate in the Justice and Home Affairs Council from time to time, when issues of particular interest to Scotland are on the agenda. They are not expected to attend on 28 February 2002. The Home Office is in frequent contact with the Scottish Executive Justice Department on European issues.

  With regard to pre-Council scrutiny of European Union proposals, Explanatory Memoranda are circulated to the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament at the same time as they are deposited in the UK Parliament.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 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 years; and in respect of how many his Department and its agencies assumed responsibilities for making payments until retirement age. [37542]

  Mr. McCartney
  A total of 15,804 people left the ex-DSS and ex-ES areas, which now make up the Department of Work and Pensions, during the year ending 31 March 2001.

  Of that number 15,287 were under the formal retirement age of 60 years.

  Of those leaving under the age of 60 years, 296 were entitled to receive either a severance payment or early retirement benefits from the Department.

  Disability Living Allowance (Scotland)
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many persons in(a) the Angus constituency and (b) Scotland have been awarded a reduced level of DLA when applying for a further award. [R] [37205]

  Maria Eagle
  The information is not available for Scotland or for individual constituencies. In 2000–01 about 17,900 people in Great Britain were awarded a lower amount of disability living allowance when they renewed their claims.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many persons in(a) the Angus constituency and (b) Scotland are in receipt of the mobility element of DLA at the (i) higher, (ii) middle and (iii) lower rate; and what the figures are in each of the last five years. [R] [37208]

  Maria Eagle
  The information is in the table. There is no middle rate of the disability living allowance mobility component.

  Numbers of disability living allowance mobility component recipients in the Angus constituency and Scotland

  Angus

  Scotland

  Higher rate

  Lower rate

  Higher rate

  Lower rate

  1997

  1,500

  500

  152,600

  42,100

  1998

  1,600

  600

  155,900

  46,700

  1999

  1,600

  600

  156,500

  50,500

  2000

  1,700

  700

  159,700

  54,600

  2001

  1,900

  800

  166,100

  60,600

  Notes:

  1. Scotland figures and 1997 constituency figures are from 5 per cent. sample and rounded to the nearest 100.

  2. Constituency figures from 1998 onwards are from 100 per cent. extract and rounded to the nearest 1000.

  3. Figures are at 31 May each year.

  Source:

  ASD Information Centre

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many persons in(a) the Angus constituency and (b) Scotland are in receipt of disability living allowance; and what the figures are for each of the last five years. [R] [37207]
  1258W
  Maria Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Numbers of disability living allowance recipients in the Angus constituency and Scotland

  Angus

  Scotland

  1997

  2,300

  214,200

  1998

  2,500

  224,900

  1999

  2,600

  230,600

  2000

  2,800

  237,300

  2001

  3,000

  249,600

  Notes:

  1. Scotland figures and 1997 constituency figure from 5 per cent. sample and rounded to the nearest 100.

  2. Constituency figures for 1998 onwards from 100 per cent. extract and rounded to the nearest 100.

  3. Figures are at 31 May each year.

  Source:

  ASD Information Centre

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many persons in(a) the Angus constituency and (b) Scotland have been refused DLA when applying for a further award. [R] [37206]

  Maria Eagle
  This information is not available for Scotland or for individual constituencies. In 2000–01 about 36,600 people in Great Britain made unsuccessful renewal claims for disability living allowance.

  Visual and Aural Impairment
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to ensure that those from the deaf and blind communities are able to contact their hon. Member through the provision of Braille translation and typing facilities and in lip speaking and lip reading training. [37090]

  Maria Eagle
  Hon. Members have duties as service providers under the Disability Discrimination Act to make reasonable adjustments so that their disabled constituents can access their services. In October, I wrote to all hon. Members reminding them of their duties under the Act and enclosing some guidance to help them. Hon. Members may also wish to refer to a revised Code of Practice on Rights of Access which was published by the Disability Rights Commission today. The new Code explains the law and provides practical guidance for service providers.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent discussions he has had with(a) the RNIB about the use of Braille by public services and (b) the RNID about the use of (i) text phones, (ii) lip speaking and (iii) sign language by public services. [31244]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department is committed to providing services that are accessible to people with hearing or visual impairments. For example, Benefits Agency leaflets are available in Braille, large print and audio cassette; the Child Support Agency widely advertises its text phone service; and the Employment Service has regular contacts with the RNIB and the RNID about accessibility issues. Last February, the then Department for Education and Employment arranged for guidance, known as "Let's Make it Accessible", to be distributed to other Government Departments. It explains how to adopt a good practice approach in providing information to disabled people.
  1259W
  I regularly meet representatives of the major disability charities including the RNIB and the RNID. Most recently I have had discussions with the Chief Executive of the RNID about a videotelephony project to allow a remote British Sign Language interpreter service.

  Fraud
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent discussions he has had with the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux on its implementation of fraud prevention methods, with particular regard to local authorities. [37463]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department has consulted with the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux during the development of performance standards for housing benefit. The standards set out the requirements for providing secure and effective housing benefit and council tax benefit administration and counter-fraud activity.

  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate will be consulting the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux in the near future over the revision of the model claim form for housing benefit and council tax benefit. A revised version of the form will be issued to all local authorities in April this year.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of claimants found to have made fraudulent social security claims were prosecuted in (a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01. [31151]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate his Department has made of the cost to its budget since 1 May 1997 of fraud; and if he will make a statement. [27301]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We are taking determined steps to combat internal fraud. We have published an internal fraud policy that sets out staff responsibilities, and appointed a senior accountable officer and a supporting central probity team. There are also security specialists and staff to investigate suspected internal fraud vigorously when it arises. We know that the overwhelming majority of staff are completely honest and trustworthy, and instances of internal fraud are not common, but we remain vigilant.

  The Department for Work and Pensions was formed in the current financial year.

  The available information for the Employment Service, as recorded by the former Department for Education and Employment, and for the former Department of Social Security is in the tables.

  Internal and contractor fraud in the Employment Service by financial year

  £

  1997–98

  972,42.00

  1998–99

  54,107.01

  1999–2000

  45,621.83

  2000–01

  3,023.20

  1260W

  Internal fraud in the former Department of Social Security by financial year

  £

  1997–98

  942,378.74

  1998–99

  443,964.03

  1999–2000

  416,967.11

  2000–01

  71,112.34

  Local Exchange Trading Schemes
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what advice his Department is giving to local offices on the subject of local exchange trading schemes. [37464]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 3 July 2001,Official Report, column 135W.

  Secondments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 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. [35843]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: Secondments are part of the Interchange Initiative which promotes the exchange of people and good practice between the civil service and other organisations. All sectors of the economy are involved: Voluntary, Education, Health, Public and Private. Interchange is a key component of the civil service reform agenda. The Modernising Government White Paper committed us to increasing interchange, in particular by bringing in more people on secondment and sending more of our people out.

  I have placed a table in the Library which sets out the number of staff recorded as having been seconded in to the Department (including Employment Service and the former Department of Social Security) from May 1997 to the present date. Other inward secondments of three months or more recorded centrally were from the voluntary sector, local government and other parts of the public sector. Each of the entries relates to a single person.

  For reasons of confidentiality names of individuals have not been given.

  Ministerial Boxes
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions by what means ministerial boxes are conveyed from private offices in his Department to(a) himself and (b) his Ministers; how frequently and at what expense private courier firms are employed for such a task; and which courier firms have been used for such duties. [36284]

  Maria Eagle
  In accordance with central guidance on security, ministerial boxes originating from this Department are transported to Minister's homes either by Government car or by a service provided by the Royal Mail.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many letters the Minister for Disabled People has received at her Department's address in the last 12 months; and how many have been passed to other Ministers for answer. [32923]

  Maria Eagle
  Since becoming Minister for Disabled People at the start of this Parliament I have received 636 letters for ministerial reply. I have replied personally to 354 of these that were about matters within my responsibilities. The others were passed to ministerial colleagues. I have also replied to a further 507 letters that were addressed to ministerial colleagues.

  Minimum Income Guarantee Helpline
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people staff the minimum income guarantee helpline; and if he will make a statement. [33923]

  Mr. McCartney
  The minimum income guarantee claim line currently employs 75 staff, of which 51 are employed as claim line operators. The MIG claim line is open from 7am to 7pm Monday to Friday. There are three daily shift patterns to ensure that most of the operators are available at peak hours.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much the minimum income guarantee helpline cost in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [33925]

  Mr. McCartney
  The total running cost for the minimum income guarantee claim line for the 12 month period ending 31 December 2001 was £1.63 million.

  Heating Allowance
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent representations he has received from organisations representing disabled citizens seeking the extension of heating allowance paid to senior citizens and to all housebound disabled persons. [35408]

  Mr. McCartney
  From time to time, we have discussions with, or correspondence from, a variety of organisations representing disabled people. These can cover a range of issues which are of concern to them, which includes the eligibility criteria for Winter Fuel Payments.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will extend the heating allowance paid to senior citizens and to housebound disabled people. [35409]

  Mr. McCartney
  Help is already available, through disability benefits and the disability premium in Income Support, in recognition of the extra costs, including heating, which disabled people may have. There are no plans to extend the Winter Fuel Payment scheme to disabled people under age 60.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many changes of circumstances affecting pensioners must be reported to his Department;
  1262W
  how many cases of each are so reported each year; and what penalties are attached to failure to report without good reason. [35572]

  Mr. McCartney
  This is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Tim Boswell, dated 13 February 2002:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has asked me to respond to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking how many changes of circumstances affecting pensioners must be report to his Department; how many cases of each are so reported each year; and what penalties are attached to failure to report without good reason.
  The change of circumstances that pensioners should report vary according to the benefit. These are made clear to recipients of each benefit. Examples of changes of circumstances are changes to capital, occupational pensions or hospitalisation. Certain changes may not need to be reported for Retirement Pension but must be reported for Minimum Income Guarantee purposes. Details are not available about how many changes of circumstances are not reported.
  Information available over the last two years shows that in 1999/2000 there were 6,270,268 changes of circumstances processed affecting pensioners. In 2000/2001 there were 6,527,051 changes of circumstances processed.
  The penalties considered by the Department are prosecution, administrative penalties or formal caution.

  Union Duties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many staff in his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies receive paid leave to undertake union duties; how many days they are allocated; and what has been the cost to public funds in each of the last four years. [36198]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available, for the financial year 2001–02, is in the table:

  Department for Work and Pensions

  Agency/body

  Full-time post allocation1

  Approximate cost2 £

  Headquarters

  5.94

  114,9003

  Benefits Agency

  207.76

  4,017,100

  Child Support Agency

  28.50

  551,100

  Employment Service

  45.00

  538,500

  Other

  27.25

  526,900

  Total

  314.45

  5,748,500

  1 This is not necessarily equivalent to the number of union officials because (i) some officials are part-time; (ii) some union posts are not filled.

  2 The figures have been calculated using average, not actual, salaries.

  3 Amounts are rounded to the nearest one hundred pounds.

  Departmental Website
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the total cost of his Department's website was in real terms in each of the last four years; and how many hits it received in each of those years. [36138]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information on the annual cost of the DWP website www.dwp.gov.uk formerly the DSS website www.dss.gov.uk is not available throughout the last four years.
  1263W
  A new DSS website was launched in August 2000 at a production cost of £183,650 for the research, design and building of the site. In December 2001 the site was rebranded for DWP and broadened to include information for the new Department at a cost of £48,193.

  In-house internet staff maintain the site and we would be unable to break these costs down without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Web hosting and provision of web services is provided by the Department's IT contractor. However, internet services are not accounted for separately and it is not possible to disentangle the costs from overall IT services.

  Hits received in each of the last four years are available from statistical records and are in the table:

  No of hits received on DSS/DWP website

  2000–01

  36,415,365

  1999–2000

  32,487,969

  1998–99

  21,980,416

  1997–98

  8,986,375

  Working Conditions and Practices
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 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. [35937]

  Mr. McCartney
  We do not record details of absences specifically related to work-related stress or details of compensation payments by the alleged cause of the injury.

  We have procedures in place in each of its businesses to enable managers and individuals to identify and report those issues which are causing uncomfortable pressure at work. The detail of the procedures differs across the businesses, but the Department is confident that each procedure follows the good practice recommended by the Health and Safety Executive. The cost of operating these procedures includes variable amounts of management and staff time, plus the costs of implementing changes and adjustments to control any identified risks. These costs are not quantifiable.

  The Department intends, in the summer, to review the procedures in place across its businesses to ensure a continuum of best practice.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 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. [35893]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Department for Work and Pensions is committed to improving the work-life balance of all staff, and is fully committed to implementing the provisions of the Working Time Directive. With this in mind, we are currently negotiating the detailed provisions of a collective agreement which includes measures aimed 1264W
  at minimising the numbers of staff working in excess of 48 hours per week, while maintaining operational effectiveness.
  Departmental records show that in 1999, 54 staff had signed a waiver to say they were working in excess of 48 hours.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 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. [35354]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  10 people are employed on a formal job share basis. However, over 30,000 people work part-time, including some who are employed on an informal job share basis.

  Our equal opportunities statement actively promotes and supports the use of flexible working patterns to enable those working for us to balance home and work responsibilities. Vacancies are open to people with different working patterns unless real operational needs preclude it.

  Consultants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the total cost to his Department was of the use of external consultants in each of the last four years. [35015]

  Mr. McCartney
  The average total cost to the Department of external consultations for the last four financial years was £27.85 million. This compares with an average of £41.65 million for the four years prior to that (1993–94 to 1996–97).

  The information requested is set out for each of the last four financial years in the table:

  Cost at April 2002 prices £million

  2000–01

  32.3

  1999–2000

  28.9

  1998–99

  27.5

  1997–98

  21.9

  Figures relate to contracts awarded by the ex-Department of Social Security. Costs for the Department for Work and Pensions for the current financial year are not yet available.

  Figures shown included costs for management consultants and IT consultants but exclude costs for contractors and professional services (accountancy, legal advice, etc.).

  Housing Benefit
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the target time is for housing benefit appeals to be heard by the Appeals Tribunal, from the date of application for appeal; and what the average length of time has been for appeals to be heard by the Tribunal. [34548]
  1265W
  Malcolm Wicks
  The target for hearing housing benefit appeals is for the average waiting time from receipt by the Appeals Service to first hearing to be no more than 14 weeks. No target exists for the time taken prior to receipt of the appeal by the Appeals Service for local authorities to prepare the schedule of evidence and to forward the appeal to the Appeals Service.

  For housing benefit appeals, the average time taken from receipt at the Appeals Service and the first hearing is 8.0 weeks. The average time between being lodged at a local authority and the first hearing is 30.2 weeks.

  Notes:

  1. All figures are subject to change as more up to date data become available.

  2. Figures are rounded to one decimal place.

  3. All figures are provisional and based on the period 1 July 2001 to 30 October 2001.

  Source: 100 per cent. download of the Generic Appeals Processing System.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many appeals against local authority housing benefit decisions have been(a) lodged and (b) heard since the introduction of the new appeals system in July 2001. [34549]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information is as follows:

  Housing benefit and housing/council tax benefit (combined) Total case load, appeals lodged and number of first hearings: 1 July 2001 to 31 October 2001

  Housing benefit

  Housing/council tax benefit (combined)

  Total case load (August 2001)1

  3,854,000

  Not available

  Lodged at a local authority2

  925

  870

  Number of first hearings2

  260

  190

  1 The data refer to benefit units, which may be a single person or a couple; the figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand; figures for any non-responding authorities have been estimated; housing benefit figures exclude and extended payment cases; approximately 80 per cent, of housing benefit recipients also receive council tax benefit.

  Source: Housing Benefit Management Information System Quarterly 100 per cent, case load stock count taken in August 2001.

  2 All figures are subject to change as more up to date data become available; figures are rounded to the nearest five; all figures are provisional.

  Source 100 per cent, download of the Generic Appeals Processing System.

  Benefit Payment Methods
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of benefits claimants have moved to a system of(a) automated credit transfer and (b) direct payment of benefits into a bank account since this service has been available. [34795]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Over 40 per cent. of benefit claimants are already paid by ACT directly into a bank or other account. The number is rising by two to three percentage points every year, showing that the status quo is not an option, because people are already voting with their feet.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many jobseeker's allowance claimants have had their benefit reduced as result of non-compliance in basic skills courses. [30344]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Six sanctions have been applied in the JSA basic skills pilots areas testing mandatory attendance on basic skills provision.

  Community Sentence Orders
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions which areas are piloting the provision in the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 to reduce benefit for claimants who breach community service orders; and how many claimants in each area have been sanctioned since the pilots began. [27767]

  Malcolm Wicks
  There are four probation service areas piloting the provisions of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 relating to the reduction of benefit for people who breach community sentence orders. The four areas are Derbyshire, Hertfordshire, Teesside and West Midlands (as detailed in SI 2001 No. 2619 (C.86)).

  The pilot began on 15 October 2001. As at 1 February 2002, a total of 272 warning letters had been issued to those referred to court for breach proceedings. On 1 February 2002 four claimants had been sanctioned: three were from the Teesside pilot area and one from West Midlands. A slow start was expected because the measures do not apply retrospectively to breaches occurring before that date.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Emergency Planning
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will introduce(a) a programme of emergency loans for businesses affected by disaster and (b) a disaster-planning unit to produce disaster plans for foreseeable disasters. [37590]

  Mr. Leslie
  Advice to businesses on handling emergencies and planning for business continuity is available on the website www.ukresilience.info. The Government advice is that individual businesses should ensure that they are adequately insured.

  In addition, the Government have asked the Small Business Service (SBS) to undertake an analysis of the existing financial support from the public and private sector for small businesses affected by disaster. Working with HM Treasury the SBS are identifying current market provision and will report back to Government with its findings and recommendations.

  The Civil Contingencies Secretariat in the Cabinet Office is co-ordinating the work being done in support of the Civil Contingencies Committee's current comprehensive review of the country's plans for dealing with emergencies.

  Central Office of Information
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to revise and publish the guidelines governing the political impartiality of the Central Office of Information. [37157]

  Mr. Leslie
  None. As with all civil servants, staff in the Central Office of Information are required to conduct themselves in accordance with the requirements of the Civil Service Code. The Guidance on the Work of the Government Information also applies.

  Union Duties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many staff in his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies receive paid leave to undertake union duties; how many days they are allocated; and what has been the cost to public funds in each of the last four years. [36203]

  Mr. Leslie
  The information is as follows:Cabinet Office: one full time local union representative.

  Cabinet Office agencies: two officers who spend part of their time undertaking union duties on an ad hoc basis, but do not have time formally allocated to them for this work.
  Cabinet Office non-departmental public bodies: 14 staff who receive a total 367 days paid leave for union rates.

  Arthur Andersen

  Deloitte and Touche

  Ernst and Young

  KPMG

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  1997–98

  2

  1

  1

  1

  9

  1998–99

  3

  1

  2

  1

  3

  1999–2000

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  2000–01

  1

  1

  6

  2

  4

  Energy Industry
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the value was of each sponsorship of Government(a) Departments and (b) events there has been by (i) BP, (ii) Shell, (iii) Exxon-Mobil, (iv) Enron, (v) Conoco, (vi) Texaco and (vii) TotaFinaElf (viii) in the last five years; when each occurred; if he will place related documentation in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [33220]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: In line with the Government's commitment in their response to the sixth report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, details of individual amounts of sponsorship valued at more than £5,000 will be disclosed in Departmental Annual Reports.

  Advertising
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what has been the expenditure of his(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies on newspaper advertising by title in each year since 1997. [26992]

  Mr. Leslie
  Expenditure on newspaper advertising since 1997 is as follows.
  1268W
  Cost to public funds

  1998: £55,375

  1999: £60,850

  2000: £59,235

  2001: £61,700.

  Accountancy (Secondments)
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will publish a list of the employees of(a) Arthur Andersen, (b) Deloitte and Touche, (c) Ernst and Young, (d) KPMG and (e) PricewaterhouseCoopers accountants who have been seconded to work for the Government in each year since 1997. [33416]

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many staff were seconded between(a) PWC Consulting and PricewaterhouseCoopers, (b) Ernst and Young, (c) Deloitte and Touche, (d) KPMG and (e) Andersen and his Department in (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) April 2001 to the latest date for which figures are available. [33862]

  Mr. Leslie
  The information provided has been collected from Government Departments. Departments provided details of when any secondment started, to avoid double counting. A secondment covers all periods from three months to three years or more. When any secondment is set up great care is taken to ensure that no conflict of interest issues arise.

  £000

  Department

  Agencies

  1997–98

  237

  —

  1998–99

  242

  —

  1999–2000

  552

  14

  2000–01

  697

  11

  Expenditure for non-departmental public bodies is included within the Department figures and could be separately identified only at disproportionate cost.

  The vast majority of the increase in advertising and spend between 1998–99 and 2000–01 was for recruitment advertising for open competition posts.

  Each campaign may use national and regional media. The target audience/message to be conveyed influences our choice of media. For national advertising, a mix of broadsheets and tabloids have been used frequently. For regional advertising, space has been taken in many prominent regional newspapers as well as hundreds of more local papers.

  A breakdown of their expenditure on newspaper advertising by title could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Hereford.

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 make an official visit to Brussels on Monday 4th March and Tuesday 5th March, when the House will sit. I shall be holding meetings with members of the European Commission, the European Parliament and the European Court of Justice. I am also attending a meeting of the Cabinet on Friday 8th March, when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting
Lord Blaker Lord Blaker asked Her Majesty's Government:
What results they hope to see from the forthcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government hope that the results of the forthcoming meeting will include, among other issues: the launch of the High Level Review Group's report on modernising the Commonwealth; the Commonwealth's response to international terrorism; the Commonwealth's support in preparing for the world summit on sustainable development; the celebration of 50 years of dedicated service by Her Majesty the Queen; and the support of the 17th Commonwealth Games in Manchester later this year. Zimbabwe will also be discussed.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I am grateful for that full reply. I hope that the outcome of some of the proposals mentioned by the Minister will be fruitful. It is clear that the election in Zimbabwe in 11 days' time cannot possibly be free and fair. If the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting does not take stern measures against Mr Mugabe, will not the influence and value of the Commonwealth suffer a crippling blow?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, let me make it clear that Her Majesty's Government will continue to press for the suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth, as we did at the CMAG meeting a couple of weeks or so ago. That will continue to be our position. However, consensus will be needed in order to achieve it. In my initial Answer, I said that
1310
one of the issues on which we hoped to make progress was the High Level Review Group report. That includes clarifying the remit of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group. We hope to expand that remit in order to allow the CMAG to be able to take decisions which are currently only in the purview of heads of government. I hope that that gives the noble Lord some indication that we are preparing the ground for the kind of eventuality that he fears.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, in her initial response the Minister referred to discussions on international terrorism. Could the Commonwealth steal a march on the United Nations by utilising similar Commonwealth-wide legal traditions to adopt the spirit of UN Resolution 3173 on terrorism, following the ironically named 1986 Harare scheme on money flows, extradition and confiscation?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we are not about "stealing a march" on the United Nations; we are about complementing the very useful work that the United Nations has undertaken. The Commonwealth plan of action on terrorism already includes a recommendation that the Harare scheme for mutual assistance in criminal matters should be reviewed and that it should be updated and fully implemented.
Our aims for the Heads of Government Meeting are focused in areas where we can add value and avoid duplication of the counter-terrorism work being undertaken elsewhere—not only in the UN but also in the G8. That is also one of the thrusts of the high level review. I hope that the points mentioned by the noble Viscount will also be covered.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, is it not the case that the general parroting that there cannot be a free and fair election in Zimbabwe actually undermines those in Zimbabwe who are contesting the elections? Is it not the case that the continued demand for sanctions on Zimbabwe has led to the withdrawal of the EU observers, which people are now saying is a bad thing? Should we not be trying to encourage all those people in Zimbabwe who have the courage to stand up for freedom and democracy to go out and vote? Then, if President Mugabe does not win the election, we shall not continue saying that it was not free and fair—that is what he will say if he loses.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that it is enormously important that everyone in Zimbabwe is encouraged to go out and cast his or her vote on a free and fair basis, having found out as much as they can in these difficult times about the candidates for whom they could vote. I cannot agree with my noble friend if he is suggesting that the EU should not have withdrawn its observers. I do not believe that the EU had any choice in the matter given that the Government of Zimbabwe chose to try to dictate to the European Union exactly who should be on the EU team. There will be election observers. The Commonwealth will have observers

1311
there. So will the SADC, and South Africa is deploying quite a substantial team. So I can agree that we want everyone to go out and cast their vote on a free and fair basis.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, how many Commonwealth observers will there be? Zimbabwe is a huge country, and I understand that the number is a rather miserable 40. Now that the EU has withdrawn its observers—we should not discuss now who is to blame—is there not a case for Her Majesty's Government to finance a substantial increase in the number of observers so as to provide some hope of rescuing people from the fiasco and horror of Zimbabwe and having something approaching free and fair elections?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am happy to be able to tell the noble Lord that that is exactly what we have done. Concerns were voiced by the noble Baroness, Lady Park—who is not in her place today—when we last discussed the issue. The noble Lord is right that there is currently a team of only 39 or so Commonwealth observers, although I believe that more will be brought in before the election takes place. The SADC has a team of 37 and South Africa is deploying a team of 57 observers and a 20-strong delegation of parliamentarians. We increased the budget on 22nd February. Initially we had pledged £130,000 to the Commonwealth election observer mission. We have expanded that by £120,000, which we pledged a few days ago, as I said. I hope that that highlights the importance that we place on the issue and the recognition that we have given to the points raised on it.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, will the Minister consider a different result in the Zimbabwe election—the possibility that Morgan Tsvangirai will win? In those circumstances, should not the Commonwealth be planning now for positive action and assistance to give those brave leaders and their people a fresh start in democracy and with their economy?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course we should not assume the outcome of the election, although we should not deceive ourselves, because the situation is very heavily weighted against the opposition. We have discussed in your Lordships' House how difficult it has been for the opposition to operate. I am afraid that we saw another example of that only yesterday. Of course it is possible that the opposition could win. I hope that the work that is being put in place by the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group and the work that will be taken forward at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting will allow that expanded remit for the CMAG to be able to take the sort of helpful action that the noble Lord indicates may just be necessary if the free and fair election that many of your Lordships would like takes place.

Particulate Emissions
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Gale Baroness Gale asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their estimate of the effect on life expectancy in the United Kingdom if particulate emissions were to be reduced by one-third.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, reducing particulate emissions by a third is possible and can be estimated to increase life expectancy by one to six weeks on average, although it is likely that some people may benefit much more than that.
Baroness Gale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that there is still much more to be done to prevent global warming? Is the Minister aware of the recent research carried out by Professor Mark Jacobson of Stanford University? He says that diesel soot is a major contributor to global warming and that reducing the amount of diesel soot in the atmosphere would have a great effect on global warming. Diesel soot has a short life-span of about two to three weeks, whereas carbon dioxide has a life-span of 50 to 1,000 years.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Gale: My Lords, those are the figures.
Is the Minister also aware of recent research by Nottingham University that shows that children living near main roads have a greater incidence of asthma because of exhaust fumes? Again, that has been linked with small soot particles.
Will the Government take that recent research on board and take any action needed to investigate further the effects of diesel soot? Will the Minister—
Noble Lords Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Gale: My Lords, I have just about finished now, I think. Will the Minister give an undertaking that the Government will take that action and, in doing so, will improve the situation on global warming and improve the health of the nation, especially of our children?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I was rather hoping that my noble friend would not ask such a short Question and therefore I would have been out of time. But I shall have a go at a couple of the specifics. The Government are aware of the Stanford University report and of the argument that diesel soot affects health and has an impact on global warming. Expert opinion suggests that carbon dioxide is by far the most important contributor towards global warming simply because it persists for so long. Therefore, carbon dioxide will be around for 100 years, affecting ozone.
I am sure that the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants will look at the recent Nottingham University study to see whether it runs counter to the experience to date that there is no strong or clear

1313
correlation between exhaust fumes and the incidence of asthma. If so, we shall be keen to study it further, no doubt with more research.
Lord Astor of Hever:My Lords, what proposals do the Government have to reduce the high level of fine particulates on public transport? According to the National Asthma Campaign, passengers on the London Underground are subjected to seven times as much pollution as those on other forms of commuter transport and a 40-minute journey on the Tube is as had as smoking two cigarettes.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Lord will be well aware of the Government's central air quality strategy to make a significant further reduction in air particulates generally. He will be aware of the considerable progress that has been made over recent years. Our air is substantially cleaner than it was some years ago. That came as a slight surprise to me when I was briefed for the Question.
With regard to the future, we are currently consulting on targets to reduce by a half the standard that should be aimed at from 40 micrograms per cubic metre to 20 micrograms per cubic metre. That is a severe reduction in the overall target, including a reduction in the London target. Broadly speaking, London Underground will have responsibility, as will others, for contributing towards that significant reduction and improving air quality in the capital. The possibility of further specific issues is an interesting and important question. If there is further information, I shall be pleased to correspond further.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, the Government have recently published regulations giving environmental health officers the power to stop vehicles at the roadside to test for emissions. Is the Minister aware that, in the pilot areas, it has been shown that fines meet only 60 per cent of the costs incurred by local authorities in setting up the tests? Will he please consider ensuring that local authorities are able at least to meet their costs?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, unfortunately, no public policy principle automatically provides that fines must cover detection and enforcement costs. If it did, the treasurer might be a happier chap in the circumstances. Pilots are, however, for exactly that purpose—to see what we can learn from them. If the LGA and local authorities made representations on the issue, I am sure that they would be given appropriate consideration.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a dramatic reduction in particulate emissions in built-up areas could be achieved if buses, taxis and public vehicles generally were to convert from petroleum and diesel engines to alternatives such as biofuels, LPG, natural gas and electric power? Is he aware that that is being done with very positive advantages in other countries?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Lord is broadly right: if all heavy public transport vehicles operated on
1314
LPG or other fuel sources, particulate emissions would be reduced. However, the Government are not issuing enforcement notices saying that everyone must do that. We are seeking through the tax and !fuel regime to provide incentives for vehicle owners and operators to move to types of transport and fuel that are more efficient and emit lower levels of particulates. There is some early evidence that that is bearing good fruit.

Sterling Exchange Rate
2.52 p.m.
Lord Tebbit Lord Tebbit asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they regard the present level of sterling as stable and competitive.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government do not comment on day-to-day movements in the foreign exchange market. While the Government do not have a specific: exchange rate target, a stable and competitive pound is sought over the medium term.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the Minister's Answer comes as no surprise. Does he recollect that on the two occasions when this Question was previously asked, the Government confirmed that although an object of their policy is indeed to have a stable and competitive rate for sterling, they do not know whether the current rate is either stable or competitive? How will the Government know when this desirable. optimal position is reached?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have had the privilege of answering the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, once on this matter. My noble friend Lord Davies had the privilege on an earlier occasion. The answer, as the noble Lord knows very well, is the same. We talk about a stable and competitive pound over the medium term because we should not be answering questions about the current exchange rate or about daily changes. As he also knows very well, if certain Ministers—not myself, but perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer—were to comment daily on the exchange rate, it might affect that exchange rate. That would not be very desirable.
Lord Peston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the exchange rate has been extraordinarily stable for at least the past two years? The question about a stable exchange rate answers itself: we have one.
Lord Tebbit: That is not what the Minister said.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the Minister assumes that the noble Lord can do what I do and look up the data in various government publications.
Is it not also the case that, although the exchange rate is not very competitive for some sectors of the economy—manufacturing is under pressure—it is

1315
extremely competitive for the service sector? Overall, the economy is extremely competitive, as one can tell from the fact that we have no difficulty in financing our overseas borrowing in any manner we wish. The answer to the Question is therefore pretty self-evident.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Peston, I can read the figures, and I am certainly happy to observe what they show. He is entirely right. On the whole, the exchange rate has been pretty stable over a recent period. However, that implies no judgment as to whether it is competitive, which is what the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, asked. Exchange rates are the result, rather than the cause, of other economic policies. They are the result of low and stable inflation, which this Government have achieved, and the result of stable and sound public finances, which, again, we have achieved.
Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, as the United Kingdom trades more in dollars than in euros, and as the United Kingdom has a greater percentage of its trade in dollars than has the euro zone, is not the sterling-dollar exchange rate more important to United Kingdom business and trade than the sterling-euro exchange rate?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Bank of England basket of currencies and exchange rates calculated on that basis shows that the euro is more significant than either the dollar or the yen and represents more than half of our trade. I am therefore afraid that the noble Lord is not correct in his initial premise.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, surely my noble friend the Minister will be surprised that, given his vast experience of macroeconomic and financial matters, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, does not recognise that the best way of achieving currency stability would be to be inside a single currency, namely the euro. Will my noble friend try to explain that point to the noble Lord?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I speak for the Government and not for the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. Indeed, I did not gather from his question even whether he was in favour of a stable and competitive pound.
Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister agree—
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, the Minister—
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that it is the turn of the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the best way of achieving both a stable and competitive exchange rate is to be within the euro zone? Does he therefore agree that it would be sensible for the
1316
Government to announce now the date on which a referendum on the issue will take place? If he finds that an unpalatable thought, will he at the very least announce the date on which the Government's assessment of the five economic tests is to be published?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no thoughts are unpalatable—it would just be a bad thing to do. What we have to do now is to carry out our assessment of the five economic tests, which is what the Treasury is going to do. When and if we reach the conclusion that the five economic tests have been met, the issue will then be decided by government, by Parliament and by the people of this country. There is no point in rushing decisions of that sort.
Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the remarks made yesterday at Chatham House by Mr Ed Balls? It would certainly dispel some of the confusion if he could say clearly that he does. In particular, does he agree that sterling's current rate is not opportune if one is thinking of joining the euro? Equally, does he agree that it would be wholly wrong to massage down the rate in order to seek to join?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am afraid that I have not had the advantage of reading the remarks by the economic adviser to the Treasury. Although I shall do so with great interest, I am unable to comment on them at the moment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and others suggest that the best way of achieving a stable currency is to join the euro. However, is it not a fact that, in the past four years, the most unstable currency in the world has been the euro? In fact, the euro has depreciated against every other major currency, including our own, by at least 15 per cent and against the American dollar by much more.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it certainly was the case that, in the initial months or so following the euro's introduction, there was a decline in its value. However, the figures for the period show that variations in the euro-sterling exchange rate and in the Bank of England's effective exchange rate against all currencies very closely follow the same pattern. I do not think that that leads us to the conclusion that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, would wish us to reach.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, as always the Minister is very relaxed about the sterling exchange rate. Is he equally unconcerned about the position of Britain's balance of payments, perhaps the acid test of our competitiveness? Last year it fell into an all-time record deficit of £33 billion, a staggering sum which amounts to nearly 8 per cent of our GDP.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, wishes to table a Question on the balance of payments he is entirely free to do so.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, the Minister may not have read Mr Balls's remarks, but can he repeat the

1317
assurances he has previously given the House that the Government will not intervene to attempt to change the exchange rate, and in particular the sterling-euro exchange rate, prior to a referendum?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have always said, when answering questions such as this, that if we allow for the fact that the size of our reserves, both those held by the Treasury and by the Bank of England, are equal to approximately one day's trading on foreign exchange markets, the opportunities for intervention are extremely modest. Any intervention that took place would have to be by common agreement among the major economies of the world. I can probably go so far as to say that that is unlikely to be achieved.

Public Processions: Policing
3.1 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath Lord Hardy of Wath asked Her Majesty's Government:
What guidance has been given to police forces in regard to the holding of traditional and peaceful parades and ceremonial events by veterans' associations or voluntary uniformed youth organisations.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, the Association of Chief Police Officers has issued guidance to police forces on the policing of public processions and events. The Government fully support ACPO in its view that events of national significance, such as Armistice Day parades and services, should be allowed to proceed. Such events, including those involving scouts and guides, should also be supported by local government, by which we mean that they should not be a means of raising revenue.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, which suggests that the Government are as well disposed to these events as they are to the work of the organisations concerned. In view of that, will Her Majesty's Government ensure that both local authorities and police forces are advised that it is in the interests of the community for these organisations to prosper and for their activities to continue to command public support and helpfulness?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I have always taken the view that that is what people pay their local taxes for and therefore it would be quite wrong for these ex-service veterans and uniformed youth, most of which, though not all, are charitable groups—they are not commercial undertakings—to be prevented from holding traditional parades by excessive charging for road closing. That is a matter for local authorities and not the police. To that extent the ACPO advice is useful. It has not yet been ratified by the Local Government Association. I hope that it will be.
1318
However, the position stands that these events should be supported and should not be snuffed out by excessive charges for closing roads.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I echo the thanks of the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, for the Minister's helpful response. Can the Minister confirm that ACPO will not set a prescriptive list in stone? Many new organisations are springing up which give sustained and devoted public service and may well he the boy scouts of the future. Can the Minister assure the House that ACPO guidelines will allow for developments to include such organisations in the future?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I certainly hope so. I declare an interest in that I was in the BB rather than the scouts. When we paraded on a Sunday around Birmingham as the ninth company in the 1950s the roads were a lot safer. That is a crucial point for the youth organisations; the roads must be safe. Tragedies have occurred in the past.
Many groups exist throughout the country which are not necessarily national. Many are youth groups. They organise annual customary events and they should be allowed to flower in the future. They should not be prevented from doing so by excessive bureaucracy and over-charging by local authorities. In respect of ACPO, the police would not charge anyway. They would not be involved in the policing of such events.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, would not have had to ask this Question if it had not been for the officious application of regulations by a particular person in a particular place. We must therefore acknowledge that a form of regulation exists.
Can the Minister assure the House that there is sufficient discretion within the regulations to ensure that this situation need not arise again? If he cannot give that assurance, can he assure the House that he will take the matter away and look at it to ensure that sufficient discretion is introduced in the future?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is quite right. It is not for me to speak for my noble friend. But I suspect the Question was prompted by an event last year involving girl guides in the Rotherham area. They did not proceed with their parade because of a £500 charge for road closing for 30 minutes. I might add that it was not a small group; it involved 1,000 girl guides.
But that is not the point. We are coming up to the summer and the Golden Jubilee. Many such events will be planned. We do not want them snuffed out because of excessive bureaucracy or because some hard-pressed treasurers from local government see it as a revenue-raising operation. That is neither the intention of the Government nor of ACPO,and should not be the intention of local government. I have already gone much further than I should have gone in my response today. But I have made it abundantly clear that I fully support the thrust behind my noble friend's Question.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister mentioned ACPO guidance. Does he agree that there may be a problem with ACPO guidance in that police chiefs do not have to accept it? There may be a case for strengthening the backbone of ACPO in that type of situation.
I suggest it is wrong in principle that people in different areas should receive different treatment according to where they live simply because the chief constables are different. I hope the Minister agrees with me that ACPO guidance should carry more weight.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is up to police chiefs. The decision to charge for services is a matter for the chief constable. But the ACPO policy encourages the police to support the events we have been discussing which are of national and local significance—scouts and guides, armistice and ex-service veterans—without charge. But normally the police would not be involved. Road closures are a matter for local authorities and not the police. In fact, the police do not have any legal power to stand at road junctions to prevent traffic as a march goes past. These issues are totally different from public order issues where notice is required to be given. I have no knowledge of different chief constables operating the policy differently. I certainly hope that the ACPO guidance will be accepted and ratified by the Local Government Association.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement being made in another place on the resignation of Mr Martin Sixsmith. It is hoped that the Statement will be repeated after the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, and before the speech of my noble friend Lord Borrie in the Employment Bill debate.

London Local Authorities Bill [H.L.]
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 committed to a Select Committee.

British Overseas Territories Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Amos, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Grocott.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill 40 as first printed for the Commons.]
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
1 After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
"The Ilois: citizenship

(1) A person shall become a British citizen on the commencement of this section if—

(a) he was born on or after 26 April 1969 and before 1 January 1983,

(b) he was born to a woman who at the time was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of her birth in the British Indian Ocean Territory, and

(c) immediately before the commencement of this section he was neither a British citizen nor a British overseas territories citizen.

(2) A person who is a British citizen by virtue of subsection (1) is a British citizen by descent for the purposes of the British Nationality Act 1981 (c. 61).

(3) A person shall become a British overseas territories citizen on the commencement of this section if —

(a) subsection (1)(a) and (b) apply in relation to him, and

(b) immediately before the commencement of this section he was not a British overseas territories citizen.

(4) A person who is a British overseas territories citizen by virtue of subsection (3) is such a citizen by descent for the purposes of the British Nationality Act 1981 (c. 61)."

2 Clause 7, page 3, line 12, after "Schedule I". "insert—
"(aa) section (The Ilois: Citizenship)"
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. These amendments were tabled in another place. I speak in place of my noble friend Lady Amos who is en route to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Australia.
Noble Lords will be aware that the British Overseas Territories Bill passed unamended last year through all its stages in this House. Since then a government amendment was made in Committee in another place to bring within the scope of the Bill a specific group of people connected with the British Indian Ocean Territory who, without that amendment, would, through no fault of their own, have been excluded from the benefits of the legislation.
Under present nationality law first-generation children born outside an overseas territory to at least one parent with British Dependent Territories citizenship inherit that citizenship automatically. But before 1983, British nationality law prevented the inheritance of British nationality by children born outside the territories to a British Dependent Territories citizen mother.
The Government took the view that, in respect of the British Indian Ocean Territory, it was unfair to exclude from the citizenship provisions of this Bill a small number of first-generation children born to mothers who were British Dependent Territories citizens but whose fathers were not. These people had, if you like, been doubly disadvantaged not only by their parents' exclusion from the British Indian Ocean

1321
Territory with effect from 26th April 1969 but also by the fact that the correction to the earlier gender discrimination which was made in the British Nationality Act 1981, and took effect in 1983, was not retrospective. The Commons amendments which we are considering today would put right that unfairness.
Throughout the parliamentary process this Bill has been warmly and widely welcomed by all parties in both Houses. I believe that the government amendments agreed in another place further strengthen what is already a good Bill. I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 and 2.—(Lord Grocott.)
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I raised this issue at Second Reading. Unfortunately, I asked rather too many questions and the noble Baroness was unable to reply at that point. The issue, which we on these Benches warmly support, was not raised again until it arose in the Commons. It has been outstanding for some time. However, I have a couple of questions on the amendments. Now that citizenship has been granted to those who have been disadvantaged, how will that affect their present nationality? Will they have to give up the passports they hold currently or will they be given joint citizenship? On a point of clarification, why was the date of 1st January 1983 chosen as a cut-off point?
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, we welcome the new clause as it closes an important loophole in the Bill and goes some way to rectify the sense of injustice felt by the islanders at their treatment by Britain in the 1960s. The arrangements made by the British and United States Governments saw the people of the Chagos Islands removed from their homes and conveyed to other Indian Ocean islands. It is faintly disappointing that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office forgot those worthy people. One hopes that there are no other parts of the world of overseas territories that have been mislaid.
I pay tribute to the honourable Member for Islington North for raising the issue at Second Reading and, with the honourable Member for Linlithgow, for bringing the matter to the attention of honourable Members in another place. I believe that many Members of your Lordships' House were also unaware of the islanders' plight. As we are now aware, the islanders feel dispossessed of what was their homeland and feel too that they have been shabbily treated by Britain.
The recent case in the High Court won them the right to return, but no date was set for it to be effective. The question remains whether it applies now or in 2016 when the lease expires. The judgment appears to contain no qualifications. The Bill would have excluded those born while the Ilois were in exile from their islands from qualifying for British citizenship. That would have been unfair and unreasonable. We welcome the resolution of this matter this afternoon. The amendments are welcomed. We on these Benches fully support them, as we have the Bill throughout its progress.
1322
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 the 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 and welcome this final stage.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I am grateful indeed to both the noble Lord. Lord Redesdale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, who have given warm support to the legislation throughout its passage. I am also grateful for the support they gave to the Commons amendments. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, that the generosity of her comments is much appreciated in respect of my honourable friends the Members for Linlithgow and for Islington North who, as she rightly said, have pursued the issue, as I am sure it has been pursued by Members of this House before I arrived here.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked about the effect the legislation's coming into force would have on the citizenship of the people who are covered by the amendments. So far as UK law is concerned, those people can have British and Mauritian citizenship. The noble Lord asked specifically about the dates involved. The two crucial dates in relation to the group of people we are discussing are 1969, or more specifically, as I mentioned earlier, 26th April 1969, which was the date when the people of these territories lost the right to reside in the territories; and 1983, which was the date when the British Nationality Act came into force. Those are the precise reasons for those two dates. If any further clarification is needed, I am sure that it can be dealt with in correspondence. I note the warm support for the measure. At least, I take silence to he warm support. I commend the amendments to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Land Registration Bill [H.L.]
3.17 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments he now considered.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill 48 as first printed for the Commons.]
1 Clause 69, page 25, line 10, at end insert—

"(3) The registrar may—

(a) arrange for the provision of information about the history of registered titles, and

1323

(b) authorise anyone who has the function of providing information under paragraph (a) to have access on such terms as the registrar thinks fit to any relevant information kept by him."

2 After Clause 93, insert the following new clause—
"Electronic settlement
The registrar may take such steps as it thinks fit for the purpose of securing the provision of a system of electronic settlement in relation to transactions involving registration."
3 Clause 101, page 36, line 27, after "section" insert "69(3)(b) or"
4 Clause 104, page 37, line 2, after "provide" insert ", or arrange for the provision of,"
5 Page 37, line 4, after "section" insert "by the registrar"
6 Page 37, line 5, leave out "the registrar" and insert "he"
7 After Clause 104, insert the following new clause—
"Incidental powers: companies

(1) If the registrar considers it expedient to do so in connection with his functions under section 69(3)(a), 92(1), (Electronic settlement) or 104(1) or paragraph 10 of Schedule 5, he may—

(a) form, or participate in the formation of, a company, or

(b) purchase, or invest in, a company.

(2) In this section—

"company" means a company within the meaning of the Companies Act 1985;

"invest" means invest in any way (whether by acquiring assets, securities or rights or otherwise).

(3) This section is without prejudice to any powers of the registrar exercisable otherwise than by virtue of this section."

8 Clause 134, page 45, line 17, leave out subsection (5)

9 Schedule 5, page 55, line 9, after "provide" insert ", or arrange for the provision of,"

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 9 en bloc. These are all technical amendments. In general terms they make clear that the Chief Land Registrar may secure the provision of an electronic settlement system in connection with electronic conveyancing and that the Chief Land Registrar may delegate this and certain other functions to third parties, including a company in which he is involved.
I shall briefly describe the effect of each amendment. Amendment No. 1 clarifies the power of the Chief Land Registrar to delegate the provision of historical information. Amendment No. 3 is consequential on Amendment No. 1. The Lord Chancellor will not prescribe the fees to be charged by third parties for historical information. Amendment No. 2 introduces a new clause enabling the Chief Land Registrar to secure the provision of an electronic settlement system for electronic conveyancing.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 9 make clear that the Chief Land Registrar may delegate both the provision of consultancy and advisory services and the provision of education and training in connection with the Land Registry network. Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are consequential on Amendment No. 4.
1324
Amendment No. 7 inserts a new clause clarifying the power of the Chief Land Registrar to form, or participate in the formation of, or purchase, or invest in, a company in connection with the provision of: historical information (Clause 69(3)(a)); the Land Registry network (Clause 92(1)); an electronic settlements system (Amendment No. 2); consultancy and advisory services (Clause 104(1)) and education and training in relation to the use of the Land Registry network (paragraph 10 of Schedule 5).
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 9 en bloc.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I have tried as hard as I can to find some way of objecting to the amendments but, at the end of the day, I have found myself unable to do so. They are all fairly minor amendments but they appear to add some improvement to the Bill. In particular, it is plainly desirable that the registrar should be able to take steps to facilitate electronic completion of the electronic settlement, which is clearly an integral part of electronic conveyancing. For that reason, I am happy with the amendments. It seems to me that this is a highly useful Bill which will do much to improve and simplify the system of conveyancing. To a limited degree, the amendments enhance it further.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation of the Commons amendments. I have only two points to make. The first is in relation to Amendment No. 2 concerning the electronic settlement system. We also agree that this is a very good idea. It all seems to make good sense in principle and, indeed, we hope very much that the system will do so in practice.
However, with regard to piloting the system, we suggest that it may make sense to pilot, first, the e-conveyance system. Once that is shown to be working, we should allow it to come into full operation before piloting separately the electronic settlement system. Electronic conveyancing is an enormous leap forward and one which we welcome. However, a number of variables can go wrong. In that sense, we believe that it would be advisable to take a step at a time in order to minimise error.
My second point is in relation to Amendment No. 7. That amendment seeks to empower the registrar, if he considers it expedient to do so in connection with his functions, to form, or participate in the formation of, a company or purchase or invest in a company. Again, in principle we do not have a problem with the registrar forming a company in order to expedite his functions in relation to electronic settlement, the collection and dissemination of historical material, the provision of consultancy or advisory services and the provision of education and training in relation to the registry network. We consider that to be a very good idea.
However, while we can see the practical advantages of setting up separate, institutionally distinct operations, we question, particularly in relation to the

1325
electronic settlement system, what would happen in, we hope, the remote event that the company found itself in financial difficulty. Can the Minister reassure us that in such a situation the Government would be required to bail out that company?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, first, I thank both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for responding in the way that they have. I thank in particular the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for finding no error. I should like that noted for the record; it must be a first.
In relation to the question posed by the noble Baroness as to whether electronic settlement must be carried out at the outset, the answer is: no. The existing system will suffice but a settlement would obviously improve operations. We hear what she says in relation to roll-out. The noble Baroness will know that it is our intention to pilot the electronic conveyancing system with great care in order to ensure that the mechanics of the system work very well.
In relation to the noble Baroness's second point concerning the financial system and what would happen if a difficulty arose, I am not in a position to make a commitment. Of course, at present it is a wholly hypothetical issue. However, we hope that the system will work primarily for financial institutions and that it will work well. We shall obviously keep the matter under review, but we note what the noble Baroness said in relation to such a situation.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Employment Bill
3.25 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I am very pleased to have the opportunity to introduce this Bill to the House. I believe that it is an extremely important piece of legislation and one which will make a significant contribution to our economic and social well-being. Perhaps I may explain, first, why I believe that to be so.
I shall start by putting the Bill into the context of the Government's overall strategy. We all agree, I am sure, that one role of government, and in particular of my department, is to do all that we can to increase the productivity of British businesses and in that way strengthen UK competitiveness. Many factors, of course, influence productivity. But a crucial factor, and one where this country has not always been successful, is that of the relationship between the management and the workforce.
The purpose of the Employment Bill is to ensure that this country has a modern labour market fit for the 21st century. The labour market operates, like all markets, in a regulatory framework. It is the job of government to create the right framework. That is one of the things that the Bill is about.
1326
In addition to the right regulatory framework, we also need to ensure that incentives exist to get people into the labour market in the first place. We need to ensure that people have the skills that they need to add real value, that those skills keep pace with the ever-changing world, and that people with skills stay in the labour market. We need to ensure that the market is flexible so that businesses can respond quickly and effectively to changing consumer demand and to the challenges of competitors. Most of all, as I have already mentioned, we need to encourage effective work organisation and good employment relations between employers and their employees.
Those are critical issues and the gains that we have already made since 1997 are very real. The national minimum wage, the New Deal and the working families' tax credit are proving to be very effective incentives in getting people into the labour market. Our focus on education and training and the reforms that we are making in those areas are helping to address the skills problem. The same is true of the family-friendly policies that we have introduced, especially those aimed at making it easier for mothers to come back to work if they choose to do so, thus ensuring that valuable skills do not disappear from the labour market. We have the most flexible labour market in Europe and this is paying off with our higher employment rates.
The minimum standards that we have introduced to protect the most vulnerable workers have helped to get us out of the downward spiral of low wages and long hours and to foster instead a workplace culture of high commitment and high trust, where skilled and motivated employees help their companies to compete on the basis of quality of output rather than purely on cost of input. The minimum wage, the working time regulations and the Employment Relations Act have all helped businesses down the path of more effective work organisation.
But significant problems remain. The Bill which I present to your Lordships today builds on our achievements and addresses the problems. It does so in specific ways which I shall now outline to the House. I begin, if I may, with Part 3 of the Bill, which deals with dispute resolution. This is probably the most contentious part of the Bill and addresses the historic UK problem of poor workplace relations.
We estimate that nearly 6 million ernployees do not have access to adequate grievance procedures at work and that around 3 million have no workplace procedures at all. Inevitably that means worse industrial relations and more employment tribunal hearings. Your Lordships have seen the results of the Survey of Employment Tribunal Applications. There may be some disagreement over the exact interpretation of the figures, but it is clear that a significant proportion of cases that come before tribunals—more than a third of cases in the period covered—are cases where no attempt has been made to resolve the dispute in the workplace before recourse to the tribunals. This must be wrong. It is in everyone's interest to try, where possible, to get these problems resolved at as early a stage as possible.

1327
Protracted disputes which end up at a tribunal are bad for the employee; they are stressful; the settlement is seldom particularly large; and statistics show that the person involved is likely to end up in a lower paid job or without a job as a result, regardless of whether the case was won or lost. They are also bad for the employer. The average cost of responding to a tribunal application is estimated at £2,000. A rough estimate of the total cost to business last year, when there were 130,000 tribunal cases, was about a quarter of a billion pounds.
Of course, there is a cost to the economy as a whole; not just the cost to the taxpayer of coping with the rapid increase in numbers of tribunals, but, more importantly, the cost to our productivity and competitiveness of a complete breakdown of the employment relationship from what may start off as a relatively minor in-work dispute. In such circumstances, recourse to a tribunal or court should be a last resort, something to be turned to only when there is no other way of solving the problem. That is what the Bill aims to achieve by introducing a statutory basic minimum procedure to be followed in grievance and discipline cases.
The impact of our new procedures on the outcome of cases—the balance, if you like, between the two sides in each case—should be neutral. By legislating for statutory workplace procedures, we are not making it easier or harder for workers or employers to win cases when they go to a tribunal. We are saying, rather, that there should be fewer cases altogether that need outside intervention, and that the way to achieve that is to follow three simple steps: first, to explain the matter in writing; secondly, to hold a meeting to discuss the matter; and, thirdly, to offer a further meeting on appeal.
That will work in a balanced way. An employee has a right to that procedure, but he or she also has a duty to use it. Employees will not be allowed to lodge certain cases with a tribunal—with some important exceptions—until they have followed at least the initial step. If at a tribunal either side is found to have failed to follow the procedures properly, either side can see the award adjusted by up to 50 per cent. I want to stress that that approach is not at the expense of one interest group over another. It is about more efficient work organisation and a reduction in litigation. That is why both the business community and the trade unions have welcomed the statutory basic procedures that we are introducing through Part 3 of this Bill.
I should mention the changes that we are making in Part 3 to unfair dismissal rules. They are important, but again I want to stress that they are balanced. On the one hand, we are making it automatically unfair to dismiss a worker if the employer has not followed the new statutory procedures. On the other hand, we are allowing tribunals to ignore procedural irregularities, over and above the statutory procedures, if it can be shown that they make no difference to the decision to dismiss, provided, of course, that the dismissal was fair
1328
in all other respects. Those are complex matters and I am sure that noble Lords will want to scrutinise them carefully during the Committee stage.
Of course, there will be cases that cannot be resolved in the workplace. For those cases the Government are determined to provide a modern, fair and efficient tribunal system. Tribunal reforms are dealt with in Part 2 of the Bill. The Government believe that while in recent times the tribunal system has coped admirably with a large increase in the number of cases, it needs to change to meet new demands and to reflect how much the world and especially the labour market are in a constant process of change.
For example, the Bill puts a new focus on settling cases amicably. It introduces a fixed period of conciliation during which parties can concentrate on trying to find a solution to their problem on which they can both agree with the expert help of ACAS. That will cut down on prolonged negotiations that do not get resolved until, sometimes quite literally, the parties are on the steps of the tribunal. We hope that that will allow ACAS to concentrate on claims that need the most help and that it will help to reduce wasted administrative effort by the Employment Tribunals Service.
The Bill also places a new focus on consistency. Over time the tribunal system has grown and changed, and those who work in it and use it are unanimous in supporting the new powers in the Bill for the presidents of the employment tribunals to issue practice directions.
There are minor changes to the costs regime in the employment tribunals. An award of costs is a very rare event in such tribunals. There are no provisions, as in the courts, for the loser to pay the costs of the winner. Employment tribunal costs awards can be made only when a party has brought a hopeless case that has no prospect of success. Equally, that applies to the claim that an applicant has brought and to the defence that a respondent makes to it, or where a party has behaved abusively or unreasonably in bringing or conducting a case.
Last year 130,000 claims were made and there were 247 awards of costs. All agree that such claims do not belong in the system and that the people who have had their time and effort wasted in fighting them deserve compensation. At the moment costs awards primarily cover legal fees, but we know that many parties, particularly many applicants, do not use legal help. The Bill changes the rules for awarding costs so that compensation can be paid for the time a party has spent on such cases. It will also allow costs orders to be made against a paid representative, which includes lawyers and employment consultants who charge for their services, but excludes trade union representatives, CAB and legal advice centre staff and other not-for-profit advisers.
The Bill makes similar changes regarding wasted costs in the Employment Appeals Tribunal. It gives the Secretary of State the power to prescribe a form to be used in instituting and responding to employment tribunal claims and allows tribunal claims to be

1329
determined in writing where both parties and the tribunal consider that that is right. It also clarifies the legislation governing pre-hearing reviews to allow for the striking out of weak cases at a pre-hearing stage.
These are not radical provisions. They will not change the world overnight. But we believe that they are sensible and modest proposals which will ensure that we have the right regulatory and enforcement framework to support our other changes. As with other provisions in the Bill, we have consulted widely on the proposals. We have listened to the views of the judiciary, user groups, trade unions, advisory bodies, employers, ACAS and others.
I should also mention the important work of the Employment Tribunals Systems Taskforce, chaired by Janet Gaymer. The taskforce is currently looking at how the employment tribunal system can be made more efficient and cost-effective for users and at the need for new investment against the background of sharply rising demand for their services. The taskforce will report in the spring.
I turn to Part 1 of the Bill, which introduces new rights for parents that will ensure that they can spend time with their children when it is most valuable, which is when they are young. We are fulfilling our commitment to introduce for the first time pay and leave rights for fathers and for adopting parents. In addition, the Government are extending maternity leave and simplifying the rules governing maternity leave and pay.
At this stage it makes sense also to mention Clause 47 on flexible working. That clause, the result of the valuable work of Professor Sir George Bain's taskforce on flexible working, gives employees the right to apply for flexible hours if they have children under six or disabled children under eighteen, and puts a duty on employers to consider such requests seriously. Of course, employers may turn down such requests, but the onus will be on them to explain clearly, in writing, why they are doing so. We want to get away from the knee-jerk reaction that says, "We cannot accommodate anything that deviates from our standard hours", without even thinking about why not. We want businesses to understand that they also have much to gain from more flexible working patterns for their employees.
It should, I trust, be self-evident that these new family-friendly measures will have a positive effect. Most obviously, they will be beneficial to working parents who are struggling to balance their work and family commitments. For the first time, fathers can take paid time off to be with their new-born children, over and above their contractual rights to paid holidays. Because the pay will be statutory, the cost will be borne principally by the state rather than by the employer. Adopters will at last have the right to paid time off, with adoption leave and pay available for the same periods as maternity leave and pay: 26 weeks' paid leave followed by 26 weeks' unpaid leave. Where couples adopt, one partner will also have the same right to paid paternity leave as other new parents.
1330
I think we would all agree that such recognition of the valuable role played by adoptive parents is long overdue.
So these measures benefit employees in a very direct way. But they will also benefit business and the labour market as a whole. To return to the themes I outlined at the start of this speech, these new family-friendly rights provide incentives for people to return to the labour market if they wish to do so, thus helping to retain skills in the labour market, and will encourage businesses to look at more flexible and more efficient ways of organising their work.
Finally, Part 4 also contains important new rights. It comprises a group of related but separate provisions which all contribute in their different ways to the overall objectives which I outlined at the start of my speech.
The introduction of an equal pay questionnaire will enable the facts of a case to be established early. It will encourage not only the collection of evidence but also the settlement of cases before they proceed to tribunal. This is about a basic issue of social justice. The absence of transparency on pay information contributes to, and perpetuates, the gender pay gap. It is also of course about creating a modern labour market—one where people are rewarded on the basis of the job that they do, not their gender.
Another long-standing problem in the workplace, as I mentioned, is the skill level of those in work. The Bill introduces a right to time off for union learning representatives. That will ensure that vulnerable groups of workers such as older men, people from ethnic minorities and part-timers who, at the moment, often miss out on training and development opportunities, are given support and encouragement from their representatives, who are very skilled at reaching precisely these groups.
Of course there is more than one way to address the problem of getting people into the labour market. The Bill also attacks the problem through the benefits system. This is not entirely a DTI Bill; it also contains provisions which are the responsibility of the Department for Work and Pensions. I have already mentioned statutory maternity pay in. Part I. In Part 4 we have included measures which ensure that partners of people receiving working age benefits will receive advice about finding work through work-focused interviews.
We have taken powers to allow us to use information collected by the Inland Revenue to help us evaluate the effectiveness of employment and training initiatives in moving people into sustainable work. That information will also be used in relation to paying and rewarding providers of employment training initiatives.
Finally, Part 4 also contains the important provisions on equal treatment for fixed-term employees. We are ensuring that people on fixed-term contracts cannot be treated less favourably than their colleagues on permanent contracts. We are outlawing the abusive use of consecutive fixed-term contracts. Fixed-term contracts have a legitimate and important

1331
role to play in a modern, flexible labour market. We want to ensure that they are used fairly to meet the needs of business and employees and not as a way of cutting costs to the detriment of the employee.
We have consulted widely on the provisions in the Bill. We have listened and we have responded to what we have heard. For example, we have designed the new paternity and adoption rights to mirror the simplified maternity provisions. Business representatives asked for that in their responses to our consultation and we listened to them.
This approach has allowed us to bring forward a Bill which has the broad support of both sides of industry. There are, of course, some dissenting voices, as with all legislation. But the range of organisations which support these measures is impressive and ranges right across the spectrum.
On the new statutory procedure for all employers, the British Chambers of Commerce said:
"It is in the best interests of employers to embrace these procedures, as it is they who often lose unfair dismissal cases because they have no procedures in place".
The TUC said in its press notice that it,
"welcomes the Employment Bill plan for grievance and disciplinary procedures".
John Monks went on to say that,
"much of this Bill can be warmly welcomed".
The CBI spoke of its belief that,
"good internal procedures are important in the workplace and that all workplaces should be encouraged to have a basic minimum set of procedures for dealing with a disciplinary matter or employee complaints".
Unison said:
"We welcome the announcement of the extension of maternity leave and pay. We also welcome the majority of proposals in this framework for simplifying maternity rights".
I could give other examples, but I hope that these limited extracts are sufficient to show that this Bill is indeed a balanced package which is built on a general consensus about the right way to go forward.
I look forward to hearing noble Lords' thoughts and comments on the Bill. I am sure that when we come to scrutinise it in Committee there will be many valuable contributions made. I know that there are issues in this Bill which are of great concern to some Members, and that an enormous amount of expertise on these matters resides in this House. We have consulted widely on the Bill. We shall listen very carefully to any arguments put forward for change. The Bill is not a radical one but it has, I believe, the potential to have a significant and beneficial impact on employment relations in this country. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
3.46 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, here we go again. This is the third major Bill directly affecting employment that this Government have introduced in a period of less than five years in power, an average of one every 18 months. That is to say nothing of the
1332
hundreds of statutory instruments, orders and EU directives, often extra gold plated by Whitehall, that have descended on the shoulders of British industry and commerce.
However, I thank the Minister for his very full, clear and detailed explanation of the latest 60 pages, 55 clauses and 8 schedules of employment legislation, not a single hint of which was given in the Queen's Speech.
The Bill covers a wide range of issues that in many respects are unrelated. A number of them have important practical implications for all employers, large and small. But there is little in the Bill that could not have been included in the 1999 Employment Relations Bill. I suspect that we are being subjected to a kind of "salami" tactic whereby, drip by drip—or rather slice by slice—our employment law is being moulded into conformity with large parts of the EU. Indeed, the Minister for Employment Relations and the Regions admitted that even more employment legislation was in the pipeline when he told the other place on Report that,
"we are committed to reviewing the whole of the Employment Relations Act".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/2/02; col. 155.]
At an earlier stage the Minister said that,
"we can use a provision in the Employment Relations Act 1999 to review the complicated worker-employee issue".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/11/01; col. 928.]
I should be most grateful if the Minister could explain to me the difference between a worker and an employee. I remember very well, when we dealt with the National Minimum Wage Act, the Government refused to accept the word "employee" and insisted on the word "worker". In this Bill we also have the word "staf".
The Bill contains a plethora of new regulations which cover paternity, maternity and adoption rights and, of course, still more trade union rights. Many of those burdens on commerce start in Brussels. In the past few days we have seen a large kite flying over that city in the form of further so-called rights to be accorded temporary workers.
It is fair to say that we give a general welcome to Parts 1, 2 and 3 of the Bill, including the "family friendly" policies in the workplace. But we have some problems with Part 4. We are concerned that we know so little about the final shape of the legislation due to so much of it being contained in regulations yet to be published.
As my honourable friend the Member for Maldon and Chelmsford East said in response to the Government's task force report:
"We welcome measures to enable parents to maintain their place in employment … while spending time with their family…. It is also good news that the Government has ruled out an automatic right to work flexible hours which could have significantly added to the burdens on employers, particularly those in small firms".
Since those remarks about flexible working hours were made by my honourable friend, the Government have introduced in the other place the new Clause 47 which contains 195 lines of legislation on this subject. There is also the wide-ranging regulation which proposed

1333
new Sections 80F, 80G and 801 to the Employment Rights Act 1996 authorise the Secretary of State to make. I venture to suggest that employers and employees, especially small employers and individual employees alike, will find the rules an administrative nightmare to understand and a fruitful field for litigation before tribunals, as well as a potential cause of jealousy and dissension among employees in the same workplace.
We support the requirement that employees should use internal grievance procedures before resorting to litigation. Let us not mince words, that is what is involved in employment tribunals. However, we are concerned that some of the new arrangements will create confusion and uncertainty for employers. That is because a number of workplace issues, such as ill-health and redundancy, fit neither the proposed grievance nor the disciplinary statutory procedures. I suspect that the complex procedures of Schedule 2 were introduced only after the Government decided to drop the idea of a deposit as an alternative means to inhibit frivolous claims. The procedure, having been somewhat hastily prepared, is also vague and may need better definition, especially as there is no guarantee that the employer will be all right, even if he follows procedure to the letter.
I am also given to understand that the proposed new ways of handling disputes, which may inhibit access to tribunals, causes concern to some Law Lords. I shall be interested to hear their views to discover whether that is the case during our consideration of the Bill. It is significant that the Government have watered down their initial proposals in that regard in the face of pressure from their own Back-Benchers and the unions. Not the least of those reversals is their backing off from the proposal to require applicants to industrial tribunals to pay a refundable deposit as a means of inhibiting hopeless or vindictive claims or those launched in the hope of persuading the employer to pay something because of their nuisance value.
The Government gave as the reason for changing their mind that the proposal,
"did not have widespread support".
That was despite the fact that it was supported by the Federation of Small Businesses, the Institute of Directors and 80 per cent of those who responded to a Forum Business Survey. We may return to that question later, especially as the Government believe that dispute resolution will cost commerce up to £94 million a year in running costs alone.
Your Lordships may be interested to know that the growing number and cost of employment tribunal claims has been of concern to employers for a long time. The number of claims has risen from more than 29,000 in 1988–89 to more than 130,000 in 2000–01. That is due to changes in employment law introduced by the Government which have contributed to a compensation culture. It is not just the increase in workers' rights but the reduction in the qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims and the significant increase in compensation levels that lead employees to
1334
launch speculative claims, relying on the fact that, at the least, they have a nuisance value and, without the deposit to which I referred, they have nothing to lose.
It is surprising that, while Clause 22 provides for the Secretary of State to enable tribunals to make awards of costs and expenses against a party's representative because of the way in which the representative has conducted proceedings, the Government have set their face against penalising an unreasonable claimant for launching a wholly untenable claim. That may be an attempt to intimidate employers from being legally represented and to inhibit their representative's conduct of a case. In the High Court, an award by a trained and experienced judge of costs against lawyers is an absolute rarity.
The Government have stated that the aim of the Bill is,
"to deliver a balanced package of support for working parents at the same time as reducing red tape for employers and makmg it easier to settle disputes in the workplace".
Well, if that balancing act can indeed be achieved, it will be a miracle. I am not sure that the Government think that we will achieve exactly that. I am glad to note that the two weeks' paternity leave will have to be taken in one block and around the time of the birth. because that entitlement will bear especially hard on small firms with only a few employees.
The Bill demonstrates some of the Government's weak submission to union demands to "gold plate" the already oppressive EU directives by giving identical pay and pension rights for employees on short and fixed-term contracts as are enjoyed by permanent workers. Let us consider what the honourable Member for Twickenham described in the other place as,
"the classic example of bad regulation".
He was referring to the working time directive and pointed out that neither trade unions nor employers were consulted before the Department of Trade and Industry rushed in to produce what he rightly called,
"an enormously convoluted set of detailed regulations running to some 80 pages",
whereas, as he rightly pointed out, in Holland one page had sufficed. In a phrase that I wish that I had thought of, he said that that was,
"gold plating on an epic scale".—[Official Report. Commons, 27/11/01; col. 885.]
That sort of thing makes those of us on these Benches worry where the Bill, and especially the as yet unpublished secondary legislation, will lead us. We can find the threat of the Government's intention to indulge in ultra-gold plating in the note to Clause 45, where they admit their intention,
"to prevent pay and pensions discrimination against fixed term employees, in addition to implementing directive 1999/70/EC".
That is in addition to the directive, so we get the directive and a little more as well. None of our EU competitors will be so burdened; we shall be alone.
The Bill requires that fixed term workers shall not be treated less favourably than other etnployees. There are several ways in which any disadvantage can be made up without the over-prescriptive regulations

1335
threatened by the Government. Why do they not say specifically what they intend in the Bill, rather than tucking away proposed secondary legislation in a note? We do not know what that legislation will provide.
The introduction of flexi-working has many advantages for individual employees but, as with everything, there is a downside. The burden of providing that facility to workers with children will fall on those workers in small businesses who do not have small children but who may care for others such as elderly parents. However, like the Confederation of British Industry, we are relieved that there will not be an automatic right to flexi-time and that the matter should be properly considered.
Every measure in the Bill will add to employers' costs. None will do major damage on its own, but cumulatively they may be devastating. Apart from the cost of running dispute resolution, to which I referred, flexible working is estimated to cost £286 million a year. I shall not take up your Lordships' time by detailing the almost £248 million that the Government admit could be the cost of implementing the Bill's other measures.
Our major objection to the Bill is that, not for the first time during the regime of this Government, we are presented with what is largely an enabling Bill. I know that I say that every time I come to the Dispatch Box. We will have to await the detail in the form of ministerial decrees—euphemistically called statutory instruments—which parliamentary procedure affords only minimal opportunity to scrutinise and, in practice, none to modify.
We shall wish to examine closely the provisions of Clause 42, which introduces the concept of equal pay questionnaires, as the Minister mentioned. They should not be used as fishing expeditions to obtain information not directly linked to an employee's pay claim. In addition, confidentiality and privacy issues are associated with disclosing information about the terms and conditions of employment of individual employees that should be dealt with in primary legislation, not left to regulations, especially as the human right to respect for that privacy will be breached.
I must also mention Clause 43, which introduces rights for what are called union learning representatives, the number of whom can be determined by the union without the employer's agreement, despite the fact that the employer must bear the cost of the time off. I can hope only that the learning representatives will not be a means for unions further to infiltrate the workplace. The present state of industrial relations, as most people probably realise, is rapidly accelerating back to how it was in the 1970s and early 1980s. I notice that noble Lords on the Benches opposite are smiling or even laughing at me: I am used to it, for they do it so often. I still say what I believe in and what I think is right.
1336
I can hope only that the learning representatives will not be a means for unions further—I beg your Lordships' pardon, I got so confused that I was going to repeat the same paragraph. I made my point sufficiently the first time, so I shall move on.
It is only right for me to mention that there are already 3,000 learning representatives. Where they have been established on a voluntary basis, there appears to be no problem, and they are welcome. However, the Bill would change a voluntary arrangement to a compulsory one. When my honourable friend asked the Secretary of State whether any employers' organisations supported the concept of learning representatives, the quick and simple answer was, "The Confederation of British Industry".
That was not correct. In fact, the CBI said:
"The CBI supports the concept of learning representatives—but the right to appoint union learning representatives without the employer's agreement is unacceptable—In particular, the CBI opposes the right for unions to determine the number of union learning representatives without the employer's agreement".
Perhaps, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, will now be able to answer that same question, but this time correctly. Have any employers' organisations unequivocally supported the concept of compulsory learning representatives, as set out in the Bill?
Mr John Monks, the general secretary of the TUC, recently said:
"The unions are back in business".
There is nothing at all wrong with strong unions, except when their agenda is still the them-and-us approach of the bad old days. We have hatched a new brood of militant trade union leaders, such as those in the rail unions. The RMT has recently chosen Mr Bob Crow, an ex-communist and a disciple of Arthur Scargill. The present agenda of his union is not to secure better pay and conditions for his members but to obtain the immediate reinstatement of a comrade from the hard Left Socialist Alliance who, as a train driver, has been disciplined for a breach of safety requirements.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, can the noble Baroness inform the House whether the words "social partnership" have ever passed her lips?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, they have indeed. I believe in social partnership; I do not believe in it when it has gone wrong.
Mr Crow's avowed long-term objective is to secure the re-nationalisation of the railways. Some unions have still to learn that their members' prosperity and job security depends on the prosperity and competitiveness in the world marketplace of their employers. That is the truth: they must work together. If one does not work with the other, it is no good.
We must also examine the rather curious provisions of Clause 49, which relates to work-focused interviews for partners. The Explanatory Notes tell us that,
"Partners of working age benefit claimants who are themselves of working age will be required to take part in a work-focused interview".

1337
I see the hand of the Treasury in that, as it seeks to cut down benefit entitlements by trying to coerce the other partner into work. I am relieved—the noble Lord may agree with me—that the Conservative Party did not come up with that concept. The howls emanating from the other side of the House would have been deafening, and I would have been in more trouble than,it seems, I sometimes am.
What a badly drafted clause it is. A "partner" is a person who is a member of the same "couple" as the claimant. A "couple" is then defined as having,
"the same meaning as in the Contributions and Benefits Act".
Apart from putting a lay claimant to the trouble of looking at another Act, instead of simply repeating the definition, the draftsman may well have got the name of the Act wrong. I hope that the Minister will put that right at the next stage.
What, in fact, is a partner if the couple are not married? The 1992 Act refers to an unmarried couple as a man and a woman living together. Will the Benefits Agency demand the right to review couples' sleeping arrangements? If the provision does not apply to same-sex couples who do not have to submit to the interview, there would seem to be some discrimination against heterosexual couples. Perhaps the Minister will consider inserting a clause with a clearer definition, entirely self-contained within the Bill, so that every claimant and his or her partner will know their obligation without reference to a law library or a lawyer.
What is the whole purpose of the exercise when, as the notes make clear,
"The measure will not place any requirement on partners beyond taking part in interviews. (For example, they will not be required to attend training courses or seek work)"?
We know that the work-focused interviews will require the Government to take on up to 650 extra civil servants at a cost of about £35 million, and even the Treasury will not give an estimate of the savings—if any—that it will make as a result of that piece of job creation.
Before leaving Clause 49, which is in the "Miscellaneous and General" part of the Bill, I ask the Minister to confirm whether it is part of—or, indeed, instead of—the welfare Bill, which was mentioned in the Queen's Speech, as distinct from this Bill, which, as I have already said, was not.
Schedule 7 contains what are called "minor and consequential amendments". I give the Minister advance notice that I shall introduce one of my own to clear up an ambiguity in the 1999 Act, which he and I have discussed verbally and in correspondence.
It is difficult for me to come to a conclusion about the Bill. Like the proverbial curate's egg, it is certainly good in parts. On the other hand, there are parts where it is clear that the Government are working to a different agenda. There are also parts in which the Government want to regulate strictly the purely personal working relationship between small employers and their staff. There is even an agenda of creating a working environment in the United Kingdom equal to the rigid practices applicable on
1338
mainland Europe, ignoring, say, Germany which must now re-think the social costs that have left 4 million people unemployed. Perhaps the view of those of us on these Benches can best be summarised by a quotation from the amendment to the Second Reading Motion in the other place:
"although it contains welcome measures which promote family friendly practices … and which seek to improve dispute resolution procedures, it depends excessively on secondary legislation which is likely to impose significant extra burdens on business, especially small businesses; and … will impose extra costs on business, further damaging British competitiveness at a time when manufacturing industry is already in a fourth successive quarter of recession".
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree with me that when her party—and the party of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who is sitting behind her—was in power, there were just as many regulations as we have? Is the noble Baroness telling us that, if her party ever got into government again, it would have no regulations?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, 1 shall say nothing of the kind. I would never commit myself or my party—which will be in government—to that. Since the Labour Government took us into the social chapter, the number of directives has grown enormously.
4.9 p.m.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, as the Minister will be aware, we on these Benches have, unlike those on the Conservative Benches, consistently supported the Government on the three major pieces of employment legislation that they have brought in since taking office in 1997. That has been our position, and we welcome the provisions of the Bill in so far as they introduce maternity, paternity and adoption leave, and we also welcome the introduction of flexible working practices.
However, we are concerned that a Bill which we would have assumed was designed to deal with those matters, providing continuity to the previous three pieces of legislation brought in by the Government, has had added to it a number of provisions that are worrying. Our concerns may not be for the same reasons as those of the noble Baroness who has just spoken, but rather for a number of reasons which I shall try to summarise in the course of my remarks.
First, I turn to Parts 2 and 3 of the legislation dealing with reforms to employment tribunals and dispute resolution procedures. In his opening remarks, the Minister referred to the Employment Tribunal System Taskforce, recently set up by the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to consider how the employment tribunal system could be made more efficient and cost effective for users. As the Minister indicated in his opening remarks, the taskforce is due to report in the spring of this year. However, notwithstanding the report of the taskforce, which was commended by the Minister in his opening speech, we find that the Government and, presumably, the Department of Trade and Industry have taken the

1339
view that they will not wait for that report, but rather they will put their imprimatur on the Bill with regard to what they already believe employment tribunal reform should be. The Bill must be brought forward now in order to secure the worthwhile alterations on maternity leave, paternity leave and so forth.
On reading the debate held in another place, it appears that that has been based on an assumption made and voiced, I think, by one of the Government Ministers in another place, Alan Johnson, that the DTI believes that 62 per cent of all cases that come before employment tribunals in this country are brought forward in a form that could have been resolved by grievance or dispute procedures. Despite considerable attempts made over the past few months by the noble friends of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, to establish where that figure came from, we have not yet received a satisfactory answer.
I am sure that noble Lords will be disturbed by the significant concerns expressed by the president of the Employment Tribunals for England and Wales. He is of the view that those figures are incorrect—
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I rise briefly to point out to the noble Lord that, as has been debated in this House, we have brought forward the two reports and they have been deposited in the Library of the House.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I accept the point made by the Minister. However, I am sure that he is aware that Judge Prophet, the president of the Employment Tribunals for England and Wales, takes the view that the figure cannot be correct because a large proportion of those who come before employment tribunals have already left employment as a result of alleged dismissal, redundancy or whatever it might be. Therefore he finds it difficult to accept the figure used by the DTI in its dispute resolution document; that is, that 62 per cent of all cases are brought by those who ought to have gone through the grievance procedures.
However, in a sense that is by the way because the significant point here, and to which I shall return, is that the Employment Tribunal System Taskforce was set up precisely to look at these issues. When the Minister responds to our debate, I should like him to justify why, at a point before the taskforce has reported, Her Majesty's Government have felt it necessary to implement the provisions of Part 2 and, to some extent, Part 3. The assumption being made by many working in the employment tribunals field is that this has happened because the DTI has an agenda with which they disagree. It may well be that the DTI is correct in its assumption on the agenda, but bearing in mind the strong representations that have been made by the president of the Employment Tribunals for England and Wales, and bearing in mind the Government's welcome commitment to consultation in relation to such issues, I think that the Government do need to justify why at this stage they are tacking on these measures to such a worthwhile Bill. I mention that in particular because, as was indicated both by the
1340
noble Baroness and by the Minister, we can anticipate further employment legislation from the Government into which the measures could have been fitted perfectly easily once the taskforce has reported.
Significant issues need to be discussed in relation to Part 3, many of which we shall wish to probe in Committee. In general terms, concerns have been expressed in a number of quarters to the effect that the Bill's proposed dispute resolution procedures will undermine ACAS. Noble Lords will be aware that the ACAS Code of Practice on Discipline and Grievance is widely adhered to and respected. Ministers in another place have admitted that there is no doubt that, if the Bill is passed in its current form, significant alterations will have to be made to the ACAS code of practice. Concerns have been expressed that the code will be watered down rather than strengthened, as it were, in the light of the provisions of the Bill. We would have assumed that the code should have been strengthened. Furthermore, it has been implied that best practice, as set out by ACAS, is not suitable for small employers. That, I think, is an assumption that this House should make at its peril.
A number of specific clauses in the area of dispute resolution have given cause for concern and will need to be dealt with in Committee and perhaps on Report. I turn first to Clause 34(2) which will amend Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Noble Lords will know that this provides that dismissal will not be unfair for the reason only that a procedure has not been followed. From these Benches we take the view that this subsection provides rather a blunderbuss approach to overturn a decision reached by the House of Lords in 1988 which will be familiar to all practitioners in the area. However, in Committee we shall want to probe whether it will be more difficult to persuade human resources managers to follow a procedure if they think that they can get away with not following it simply by arguing that the employee would have been dismissed anyway. Serious concerns have been expressed about the "blunderbuss effect" caused by the drafting of this clause.
The second point that I wish to highlight in my remarks on Second Reading with regard to dispute resolution concern the modified procedures provided in Schedule 2. Concerns have been expressed with regard to the use of the modified procedures in cases of gross misconduct. We understand clearly the intention of the legislation, but it is possible that rogue employers will seek to use the modified procedures set out in this schedule in an abusive manner. In Committee we shall need to look carefully at those issues.
As I said earlier, we welcome Clause 45 and the introduction of the provisions on fixed term work. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, will know that these provide for the implementation of European Council Directive 1999/70/EC. However, we should like to ask why the Government have chosen to limit the provisions to employees only rather than to apply them to all workers. Certain categories of workers

1341
such as agency staff and casual workers are to be excluded from these welcome provisions. We shall seek to probe that area in Committee.
Clause 49 is a cause of considerable concern because apparently it would give JobCentre staff full discretion in deciding whether or not the partner of someone claiming benefit should be called for interview. Such a measure clearly requires primary legislation. The benefits in question include not only income support and jobseeker's allowance but incapacity benefit, severe disablement allowance and invalid care allowance—which suggests that some partners of people in receipt of benefits payable to carers and disabled people would be expected to attend an interview or face one at home. They may come under pressure at an interview—on the assumption that if they can turn up for one, they can turn up for a job interview and take a job. The Government need to look seriously at the implications of Clause 49—particularly for disabled persons and their partners.
Having expressed some of our reservations albout the Bill, I welcome the provisions in respect of maternity, paternity and adoption leave, and flexible working Lime. We regret, however, that the Government have chosen to add a hotchpotch of measures—many of which are ill thought out and ought to be subject to separate legislation.

Martin Sixsmith
4.22 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in another place. The Statement is as follows:

"With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the circumstances surrounding the resignation of Mr Martin Sixsmith from the post of Director of Communications in my department.

"On 14th February the Daily Express and the Daily Mirror reported that my special adviser Jo Moore had sought to schedule an announcement on the day of the funeral of Princess Margaret.

"Both papers reported that an e-mail had been sent from Martin Sixsmith to Jo Moore in the following terms: 'Dear Jo, there is no way I will allow this Department to make any substantive announcements next Friday. Princess Margaret is being buried on that day. I will absolutely not allow anything else to be.'

"In fact no such e-mail was sent from Martin Sixsmith to Jo Moore. Nevertheless the Daily Mirror reported yesterday Martin Sixsmith apparently told the reporter concerned on 14th February 'every aspect of your story is correct. I'm happy with it.'

1342

"On the morning of 14th February the Prime Minister's official spokesman briefed the Lobby on the allegations contained in the Express and the Mirror using an explanation that had been agreed with Martin Sixsmith.

"Subsequently that lunchtime and into the afternoon it seems that one or more officials from my department began to brief the press that the line used by the Prime Minister's official spokesman was incorrect. At least one official appears to have spoken on this basis saying he was ringing on behalf of Martin Sixsmith.

"So what we had was a concerted attempt by a very small number of civil servants in the press office to undermine the department. I should stress that only a very small number were involved and their actions are being investigated. The vast majority work in a very good, committed and dedicated manner.

"On the morning of Friday 15th February I met with my Permanent Secretary, Sir Richard Mottram, to discuss the situation. Sir Richard told me that in his view the positions of both Martin Sixsmith and Jo Moore had become untenable. He felt that the best thing for the department would be if they both left their posts because relationships within the department and with its Ministers had broken down. He recommended that we should seek their resignations. I agreed with Sir Richard's recommendation. I said that I would talk to Jo Moore and Sir Richard said he would talk to Martin Sixsmith.

"We were clear that the department could not carry on with the communications department in the state that it was. As I made clear on the Dimbleby programme at the weekend, I believed both should go.

"Jo Moore agreed to resign. Mr Sixsmith agreed to resign. I announced the resignations. The details of the events that day are set out by Sir Richard Mottram in his statement of yesterday.

"Since then, there have been a number of meetings and discussions involving Mr Sixsmith in an attempt to resolve the detailed terms of his departure. I have not been directly involved in those negotiations. I have not met or spoken to Mr Sixsmith since his resignation and the detail of these discussions has been conducted by Sir Richard Mottram.

"I made it clear to Sir Richard Mottram, however, that in my view, and this view is strengthened by the events of recent days, Mr Sixsmith should not be given a job elsewhere in government. Ultimately, I was not in a position to block any arrangement about his future employment elsewhere in the Civil Service, and I accepted that discussions between Sir Richard Mottram and Mr Sixsmith would continue. Those discussions focused on him either getting another job in government or being compensated according to the terms of his contract.

1343

"It was because in the end this decision about his future, beyond leaving my department, was not for me to take that I sought to make clear on the Dimbleby programme that I was not personally involved in the discussions with Mr Sixsmith on an alternative Civil Service job. But if my answers on the programme gave the impression that I did not put forward a view, or make clear my views to others inside and outside the department, that is obviously something I regret and I welcome this opportunity in the House to clarify matters.

"It is true that I was not personally involved in the negotiations. It is also true, however, that I believed Mr Sixsmith should not be given another job. I did not see the Dimbleby programme as the suitable place for detailed discussion about a personnel issue. Indeed, it is with some regret that I stand here now, making clear what my views of Mr Sixsmith are.

"I should emphasise that this is not an argument between elected politicians and civil servants. As the Prime Minister has repeatedly made clear the dedication, professionalism and political impartiality of the British Civil Service is one of the country's greatest assets. I wholly endorse that view.

"My department, like every other, is staffed by dedicated and hardworking people who impartially serve governments of any colour. What is at issue here is whether one or two unnamed officials, acting quite contrary to the traditions and ethos of the Civil Service, can be allowed to disrupt and undermine the vital work of a Department of State. I do not believe they can.

"I will not allow this issue to distract myself, my ministerial team or the department from delivering on the challenging agenda ahead of us. Long after this issue is forgotten people will judge us by what really matters. I will not shy away from taking the tough decisions—whether in relation to Railtrack, reforming local government finance or making sure none of our regions is left behind.

"What matters to the people of our country is seeing improvements to our transport system; once again valuing local government; providing decent homes for our people; regeneration of our communities. That is what we are committed to do as a Government. And that is what I am delivering and will continue to deliver as Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.19 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, throughout the country passengers are waiting for trains on the railways and the Tube, planes are diverted because of the inadequacy of the half-privatised air traffic control system, and motorists are stuck in ever-longer traffic jams. That is the daily reality of the Government's total failure with transport after five years in office.
1344
I must of course thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for repeating the Statement. Is he not ashamed and embarrassed to come to the House with a Statement about the office politics of the department that is supposed to be sorting on that mess? So much for an integrated transport policy. The Secretary of State cannot even run an integrated private office.
To restore morale in the department, will the Minister express full confidence in Sir Richard Mottram and in the career civil servants in the department? Will he accept publicly that it was a gross error not to have dismissed Jo Moore after her appalling behaviour on 11th September? In view of the comments about Mr. Sixsmith, can the Minister assure the House that Ms Moore will never again be appointed to any public post in this Government?
I wish to ask the noble and learned Lord six questions. Who took the decision to remove Mr Sixsmith from his post? Who decided, at what time, and by what means, that the announcement of the resignations would be made? Can the noble and learned Lord tell the House what Mr Sixsmith did wrong to be sacked from the Department of Transport?
On Sunday, the Secretary of State said:
"I had absolutely nothing to do with and no discussions about Mr Sixsmith's departure. Personnel matters are dealt with not by me but by the permanent secretary".
How does the Minister square the apparent contradiction between this claim and the Permanent Secretary's statement yesterday when he said:
"It was clear to me that this situation could not continue and that Jo Moore and Martin Sixsmith should both leave their posts, because relationships within the department and with its Ministers had broken down. I discussed this with Mr Byers. He agreed with my proposal"?
How does the Minister square that?
Why did the Secretary of State say on 15th February that Mr Sixsmith had resigned when it is quite clear that he had not resigned? Was he misled by the Permanent Secretary? How did he get it wrong? Mr Martin Sixsmith said again today that he did not resign. If he is not telling the truth, where is the letter of resignation? Are the Government and the noble and learned Lord saying that Mr Sixsmith is now not telling the truth?
In the Statement, the Secretary of State says that Mr Sixsmith should not be given a job elsewhere in government. The Secretary of State has sought to end a civil servant's career. He denied it originally but has now admitted it. Is not this gross interference in the management of the Civil Service and, indeed, all the codes that go with it?
Too often the Government seem to believe that if the cause is just or a Minister needs a boost, any spin will do. They cannot conceive that it may be time to apologise or that they may be wrong. The reality is that there is now a shadow over the reputation and the functioning of the department that cannot be removed until the Secretary of State shows the sense of honour that he has so far not shown and steps down. We have been led too often into his world of half truths and

1345
conflicting statements. Remember Rover and BMW; Railtrack and the chairman's meeting; the rail regulator; Mr Bob Kiley, the London Transport commissioner; and now Mr Sixsmith and Sir Richard Mottram. Is it not astonishing how many people the Secretary of State meets who seem to misrepresent afterwards what he says to them? He is obsessed with spin and presentation. Indeed, two years ago he was reprimanded by the Trade and Industry Select Committee for this very thing.
The Secretary of State has become incapable any longer of effective management or of carrying the loyalty of his department. He is now part of the problem; he cannot be the solution. If the Secretary of State, Stephen Byers, stays, who will invest in London Underground? Who will finance rail investment? Who will lend more money to NATS? Would he not be more respected if he stepped aside and gave the country what it needs—a new Minister to work with the Civil Service and to deliver results on our roads and railways?
4.33 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, has raised a number of detailed questions about the minutiae of this affair. In some ways, this may well play into the Government's hands because they would like to ring-fence this issue in the minutiae of who said what to whom. I should like to go further and probe the Minister about the Government's views on a wider philosophy.
In the Statement, the Secretary of State says that,
"people will judge us by what really matters".
In another place, he has been well supported by honourable Members, who have spoken about transport, roads and so on and have said that those are the things That really matter. However, I put it to the Minister that—especially in this House—as well as those things really mattering, so does the principle of an independent Civil Service, selected and promoted on merit. So, too, do the standards of public administration. I should like to use this opportunity to probe the Government about how they are approaching those responsibilities—the ones that really matter.
Before I do so, I should like to question a point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. It is extraordinary that in his Statement the Secretary of State confirmed that he gave the view that Mr Sixsmith was not suitable for transfer to another department. That surely is outside the code of conduct for Ministers and is not proper behaviour. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can confirm that Ministers are not expected to interfere in personnel matters in that direct way.
The Secretary of State also said that, as well as Mr Sixsmith, there were at work in the department,
"unnamed officials, acting quite contrary to the traditions and ethos of the Civil Service".
These are extremely serious charges. Can the Minister say whether the specific civil servants are under inquiry at this moment and whether they will be named and
1346
disciplined? Or will this charge be left hanging in the air as another part of the smokescreen surrounding the Government's explanation?
Is the Minister aware that outside the Downing Street bunker—if he is, he must be the only one everyone now believes that the department needs a fresh start under a fresh Minister? The Government can send Mr Byers wherever they like, but that department needs a new start.
Does the Minister agree that this is not only a matter of a single Minister and an individual civil servant? The Labour Party had 18 years to think about it, and has had five years to practise it. Yet it has got its relationship with the career Civil Service into a terrible mess. There is something about this present mess that goes to the very heart of government—for instance. the way in which the Prime Minister handles his Cabinet and his special advisers in No. 10; the way in which he lets loose the Downing Street press machine and the lack of guidance to the press offices in individual departments. There is a need for the Government to clearly state, and underpin with action. the NorthcoteTrevelyan principles which have stood us in good stead for 150 years.
Do the Government believe that there is a genuine conflict between the purely information role of press officers and their wider political propaganda role? What does the Minister think of Mr Charlie Whelan's suggestion that all press officer posts should be political appointments so that the role they play within government is clear? Will the Government introduce a Civil Service Bill? If not, what is the reason for delay?
Does the Minister agree that in these past four or five years, by the way they have allowed their special advisers to act the Government have missed a wonderful opportunity to reform our system of administration to enable us to bring in outside experience—including outside political experience—to the betterment of government?
Does he agree that there is also a responsibility on the senior civil servants—the so-called mandarins—to protect the Northcote—Trevelyan principles? They should be able to say, "No, Minister" as well as. "Yes, Minister". If a Minister and a government go beyond those principles, they should have the courage to resign.
In some ways it is not appropriate that a transport Minister should be answering these questions because this is not about transport policy but about governance and probity in government. We are lucky in this House because the Minister responding is well known not only as a departmental Minister but as one of the Prime Minister's close confidants, a man to whom he listens. Will he tell the Prime Minister that this is not a matter to be dealt with by bluster and braggadocio, but by looking at the crisis of confidence that really and genuinely exists in our Civil Service at the moment and acting on it? If the Prime Minister

1347
does not, he will deserve the contempt, and ultimately the punishment, of the electorate for failing in one of his most fundamental duties.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, that what people are most concerned about in this country are the problems of transport and that we should be concentrating on seeking to resolve them. That is what my right honourable friend in another place is seeking to do. He asked me to express full confidence in Sir Richard Mottram and I do so without hesitation. He asked me to express full confidence in the Civil Service in my department and I do so without hesitation. Speaking personally, as regards the particular areas with which I am concerned in my department, which are housing, planning regeneration and other matters, the quality of service I have been provided with from the Civil Service has been second to none and the relationship between Ministers and the Civil Service has also been second to none. I believe that we should get this matter into perspective.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked six questions, which I shall try to answer. I did not quite get down the sixth because he veered between question and abuse. It was quite difficult to determine what was the question and what was the abuse. The first question was: who took the decision that Martin Sixsmith should resign? Perhaps I may read from the personal statement made by Sir Richard Mottram yesterday. He said,
"On Friday, February 15, it was clear to me that this situation could not continue and that Jo Moore and Martin Sixsmith should both leave their posts, because relationships within the department and with its ministers had broken down. I discussed this with Mr Byers. He agreed with my proposal. We agreed he would talk to Jo Moore and I would talk to Mr Sixsmith".
He then describes his discussion with Mr Sixsmith and the statement continues:
"He"—
that is Mr Sixsmith—
"agreed that he was willing to resign on three conditions: that Jo Moore should also resign; that he and I agreed the terms in which his resignation would be presented in a manner which did not blame him; and that he needed to understand the financial terms under which he would leave, although he said these were unlikely to be a difficulty for him."
Sir Richard then describes Mr Sixsmith going to the hospital appointment and said,
"I agreed that he would take up his hospital appointment, which he told me he could do and return to the department by 3.30 pm. At this stage"—
and these are the words of Sir Richard Mottram—
"I informed the Secretary of State and the Cabinet Secretary that Mr Sixsmith had agreed to resign".
My right honourable friend in the other place agreed with the contents of the statement in his Statement in the other place. Sir Richard continued:
"Because he failed to return to the department for some two hours after the time we had agreed, the detailed terms of his resignation had not been finalised nor put in writing by the time it was announced together with that of Jo Moore—earlier than had been planned because of a leak— at 4.45 p.m. on the Friday. The
1348
terms of the Secretary of State's announcement were discussed with me. They did not attribute any blame to Mr Sixsmith and were consistent with the discussion I had had with Mr Sixsmith on his second condition".
Those are the circumstances of Mr Sixsmith's resignation, as set out by Sir Richard Mottram. The statement sets out clearly how the decision was taken.
The second question from the noble Viscount was: who took the decision on the timing when the resignation was announced? The announcement was made by the Secretary of State at 4.45 p.m., as Sir Richard Mottram's statement makes clear. That was discussed with Sir Richard. The third question was: as it has been said that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has nothing to do with personnel, why did he get involved in the decision about Martin Sixsmith going? Again, I refer to the statement made by Sir Richard Mottram. It was he who came to the conclusion that,
"the situation could not continue".
He discussed it with Mr Byers and,
"He agreed with my proposal".
That is how the Minister became involved, and it was made absolutely clear at all stages by Mr Byers that that was his involvement.
The fourth question was: was the Secretary of State misled by the Permanent Secretary? What the Secretary of State announced at 4.45 p.m. was that Mr Sixsmith and Ms Moore had resigned. Sir Richard Mottram says in his statement,
"At this stage"—
which is 3.30 in the afternoon of Friday—
"I informed the Secretary of State and the Cabinet Secretary that Mr Sixsmith had agreed to resign".
It was on that basis that the Secretary of State made his Statement at 4.45 p.m.
The fifth question was: where is the letter of resignation? As Sir Richard Mottram's statement makes clear, there is no letter of resignation because there were still three issues to be resolved. As I say, I could not grasp the sixth question because of the mixture of abuse and question. If the noble Viscount would like to repeat it, I shall be more than happy to try to answer it.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has offered me the opportunity to repeat the question and I am grateful. Mr Sixsmith has repeatedly said, and said today, that he did not resign. Is the Minister saying that Mr Sixsmith is not telling the truth?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I believe that that is a slightly disingenuous question, if I may say so with the greatest respect.
Sir Richard Mottram's statement makes it absolutely clear that there was a discussion about resignation. Noble Lords must draw their own conclusions as lawyers as regards this matter. The detail has been set out of all the facts; namely—and I quote,
"He agreed that he was willing to resign on three conditions".

1349
Then Sir Richard sets them out. Those are the facts.
As regards the noble Lord, Lord McNally, he, perhaps with some sense, moves away from the minutiae of the issue and asks whether it does not indicate a malaise. The malaise that he seeks to identify is the relationship between Ministers and the special advisers on the one hand, and the Civil Service on the other. I most emphatically reject the suggestion that it is indicative of any sort of generalised malaise. Of course, it is plain from these events that there has been a problem in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in relation to the press office, but that is not a problem that spreads across to Ministers and their special advisers and their relationship with civil servants.
My own personal experience has been that relationships between civil servants and Ministers have been good. In the vast majority of cases, special advisers also get on well with civil servants and that can be demonstrated by my own department where the two remaining special advisers have a good relationship with civil servants.
The noble Lord asked whether all press officers should be politicised, as Charlie Whelan suggests. Most emphatically not. The vast majority of government press officers should continue to do their jobs in the best traditions of the British Civil Service.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord make it clear that Martin Sixsmith did not resign and has not resigned? It is clear from the statement from Sir Richard Mottram that Mr Sixsmith said that he was willing to resign on three conditions, which were to be discussed on his return from hospital. They have never been discussed or clarified and therefore there is no evidence of resignation. Can the Minister confirm that that is so?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, noble Lords can continue pressing me as much as they like on this matter. The facts are set out very clearly. If it is the noble Lord's conclusion that Mr Sixsmith has not resigned, then so be it.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend confirm that it is his view that the Secretary of State for Transport will be judged, not on this transient issue which the Opposition are using as a sledgehammer, but on the important issues of whether the ideas on transport which he substantially and effectively follows, and which largely he inherited from the Opposition, will be dealt with? Can my noble and learned friend say whether the letter of resignation, which the Opposition continually refer to, is as illusory as the case proposed today?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree entirely with the first part of the question. My right honourable friend in another place will be judged on his success or failure in relation to transport and other issues which are his responsibility and not, as my noble
1350
friend said, on these transient issues which the noble Viscount described as "office politics". As I have made absolutely clear, my right honourable friend said that there was no letter of resignation.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, is not this extraordinary intervention merely the latest phase of a deplorable situation that we have seen developing in a major government department? Is it not high time that the position of special advisers was reviewed, with civil servants being restored to the position that they have enjoyed, to the general admiration of the public, of giving the decisive advice to Ministers, as has been the case since the Trevellyn-Northcote Report, and also of ensuring that information is given impartially?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, from my experience, the Civil Service has continued fearlessly, as always, throughout the time of this Government to give impartial advice in the best interests of the state, whether or not Ministers want to hear it. In the vast majority of cases, I do not believe that special advisers hinder or damage that process; indeed, far from it, they make it easier. As many civil servants recognise, Ministers are frequently unavailable and it is useful to have special advisers who can reflect their views to civil servants. It is not a bad development: it is one that began under previous governments, as they would acknowledge. Where the arrangement works well, as it does in the vast majority of cases, it is beneficial both to the Minister and to the Civil Service.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, in a spirit of, I hope, non-partisanship, I ask the Minister to look at the broader context of today's announcement. Whatever we may say in this House, I believe he will agree that the British public is fed up to the back teeth with the manner in which much of the press relations of the present Government—and, indeed. of the previous government—have been conducted. There is a real breakdown of trust between the public, the Government and Whitehall that is damaging politics and democracy.
I fully accept that the press are involved in this state of affairs, as well as the Government, but can the Minister say whether there are any means of having less partisanship and manipulativeness on the part of government press departments, and more frankness and fairness? Unless we manage to introduce a new way to deal with press relations, I believe that the whole of politics will continue seriously to suffer.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is obvious to all of us that the standing in which politicians are held by the public generally, and right across parties, is not high. We must ask ourselves what form of conversation should politicians have with the electorate in order to seek to increase the standing of politicians. I believe that the standing of politicians with the nation is most important. For example, in my job as Minister responsible for regeneration, I notice that, in some cases, there are now more people voting for members of the boards for New Deal for

1351
Communities than there are in local authority elections. What does that say about the standing of politicians? Perhaps it indicates that in some cases it is those on the ground who might affect people's lives who are regarded as more important than elected politicians.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, does not the noble and learned Lord find it rather strange that in his Statement the Secretary of State seems to be trying to create the impression that there was no e-mail at all? Is it not agreed that there was an e-mail, albeit to the Secretary of State rather than to Jo Moore, about the subject of whether it was right to make an announcement on the day of Princess Margaret's funeral? Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can tell us why the Secretary of State appears to be dissimulating in this way in an effort to disguise the fact that there was such an e-mail? When Mr Byers announced on 15th February that Mr Sixsmith had resigned, do the Government now accept that no resignation by Mr Sixsmith had been finalised? Will they further accept that there is no earthly reason why Mr Sixsmith should have made a firm commitment to resign at that stage when there was no firm agreement on the terms of his resignation and the amount of compensation to which he is undoubtedly entitled?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there was an e-mail from Mr Martin Sixsmith to the Secretary of State concerning the events of Friday, and the announcement. In his Statement, the Secretary of State referred to a purported e-mail—
Lord Waddington Lord Waddington: That is playing with words!
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No, my Lords. The Secretary of State set out in detail the words of a purported e-mail published by the Daily Mirror and the Daily Express. They were not the terms of any email sent from Mr Sixsmith to the Secretary of State: it was in different terms. The Statement notes that such an e-mail was sent from Martin Sixsmith to Jo Moore. That is a reference to the e-mail wrongly quoted by the Daily Mirror and the Daily Express. I have set out the circumstances of what happened between Mr Sixsmith and Sir Richard Mottram. Noble Lords must draw their own conclusions in that respect.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, is not the underlying injustice in this whole affair the fact that a decent, honest and honourable man, Mr Byers, who some of us know very well—someone who is capable and who knows how to take real decisions in his department, as happened once in my former constituency when an important decision was quickly taken by him—has been totally undermined by perhaps two (certainly by one) as yet unidentified officials in his own department whose identity we shall need to know in the end? Further, he has been undermined by unreliable tittle-tattle and a frenzy of irresponsible activity in the national media.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is obviously not professional for someone in the department of Mr Byers to express unfavourable views about him to the newspapers. However, Mr Byers does not seek to defend himself. He simply seeks to say, "Give me the opportunity to get on with the job that I have been given. That is what the British people want me to do".
Lord Butler of Brockwell: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by warmly welcoming the reference in the Statement, and in the Minister's response, to the dedication of the Civil Service in helping the elected Government to carry out their aims. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that the relationship between Ministers, civil servants and special advisers is generally very productive. But when it breaks down, as it clearly has on this occasion—and, indeed, has done sometimes in the past—embarrassment and failure invariably follow.
I return to two questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that I do not believe the Minister has answered. First, allegations were made in the Statement about other civil servants. Those allegations should not have been made unless, as a matter of fair process, there has been an inquiry that has established those involved and through which the civil servants have had a chance to reply. Can the Minister tell us whether such an inquiry has taken place and been completed? Secondly, can the Minister answer the point about the preparation of the Government's promised Civil Service Bill, which is awaited?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right to point out that I failed to answer the question put by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I apologise to the noble Lord, and to the House, for that omission. I quote from the Statement. When talking about a very small number of civil servants in the press office seeking to undermine the department, the Secretary of State said:
"I should stress that only a very small number were involved and their actions are being investigated".
So an investigation is in progress, but not yet completed.
I turn to the question regarding a Civil Service Act. As the Government have made clear—indeed, I believe that this was made clear when the noble Lord was the Cabinet Secretary—there will be legislation to cover the Civil Service. We have made a commitment in that respect and the legislation will be introduced as soon as legislative time allows. As the noble Lord will know, that is a matter of judging priorities at the time of the Queen's Speech.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I return to the points made by my noble friends Lord Boardman and Lord Waddington. I rely entirely on the Statement by the Secretary of State and on what the noble and learned Lord has said. There was an agreement to resign, subject to three conditions. Two of those conditions were ones mentioned by my noble friend Lord Waddington. There was no agreement on whether Mr Sixsmith would get another job or whether he

1353
would receive compensation. Those are two vital points. It is perfectly understandable that the agreement was not complete when Mr Sixsmith left for the hospital. It is, therefore, not surprising that he was astonished when he heard on the radio after leaving hospital the news of his resignation. Could the explanation simply have been that the Secretary of State was in a hurry?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the explanation as given by Sir Richard Mottram in his statement again I apologise for repeating myself —is that,
"At this stage"—
that is, at 3.30,
"I informed the Secretary of State and the Cabinet Secretary that Mr Sixsmith had agreed to resign".
That is what Sir Richard told Sir Richard Wilson, the Cabinet Secretary, and Mr Stephen Byers, and on that basis the Statement was made. As to whether or not there is in law a resignation, I have set out the facts and noble Lords must draw their own conclusions.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, will the Minister pursue more urgently the possibility of the legislation relating to the Civil Service mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and by my noble friend Lord Butler? Is not the truth that the Government have acted to take administrative decisions in the area of the hitherto unwritten constitution? It would seem that we are getting into some difficulties in the absence of any agreed framework of law as opposed to previously agreed unwritten conventions. Would not the Government be wise to bring this matter forward rather more urgently than they have apparently considered hitherto?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I have indicated, we have committed ourselves to such a Bill and we shall bring it forward as soon as legislative time permits.
Perhaps I may take up the noble Lord's point and refer back to a comment by the noble Lord, Lord Butler. By and large, the relationships between special advisers and civil servants work well. There is no legislation in the world that will make relations good. One should be realistic about that.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord deal with the other question put by my noble friend Lord McNally, which he has so far not answered; namely, what was the propriety of the Secretary of State expressing the opinion that Mr Sixsmith should not be employed in any other government department, and how was that compatible with the ministerial code of conduct?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, my right honourable friend made it clear in his Statement:
"Ultimately, I was not in a position to block any arrangement about his future employment elsewhere in the Civil Service".
1354
That is the important point. He makes it absolutely clear in his Statement that he is not in a position to do anything to block any arrangement about Mr Sixsmith's future employment. As to expressing views, I do not think that it is improper for a Minister to express views.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch: My Lords—
Noble Lords Noble Lords: Order!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, perhaps we should hear the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, first and then the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Waddington, I believe that there has been a gratuitous omission from the Statement by the Secretary of State. He said that no e-mail was received by Jo Moore. That is true. But there was an e-mail, and the terms of e-mail related to the inadvisability of news being released on the day of Princess Margaret's funeral. Therefore, they were very similar in nature. Does the Minister agree that, not only was it sensitive of Martin Sixsmith, but it was entirely responsible, in the light of what happened after the events of I 11th September, to give such a warning?
Secondly, on television on Sunday the Secretary of State said unequivocally:
"I had absolutely nothing to do with, and no discussions about, Mr Sixsmith's departure".
In the light of what the Minister has said today, and what the Secretary of State has said, and in the light of the statement by Sir Richard Mottram, it is the case that discussions did take place about Mr Sixsmith's departure; therefore, there has been an untruth spoken by somebody.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, first, as to the e-mail, I hope I made it clear in answering the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, that there was indeed an e-mail—not in the terms set out in the Statement by my right honourable friend. I also made it clear that it was sent by Martin Sixsmith to the Secretary of State. I did not say, "but it was copied to Jo Moore as well". The question that the noble Baroness is asking is: do you agree that the actual, real e-mail was an appropriate e-mail to send? I have absolutely no complaint about the real e-mail that was sent. Perhaps I may make it clear that what my right honourable friend is saying in his Statement is that the e-mail that was not sent was the e-mail purported to be quoted by the Daily Mirror and the Daily Express.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the Minister is not giving any explanation as to why the Secretary of State is concealing in his Statement that there was an e-mail

1355
in almost identical terms which was quite properly sent by Mr Sixsmith, and very appropriately sent by him to the Secretary of State.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not think for one moment that the Secretary of State is seeking to conceal the existence of that other e-mail, which is well known. As to the second question, I think have already answered it.
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is the turn of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord McNally relating to the accusation against a small group of civil servants undermining and disrupting the work of the department. I have been around these premises for 32 years. Never before have I heard such an accusation made by any Minister against any group of civil servants or any individual civil servant. It is a very serious accusation and an allegation against individuals who do not yet have any opportunity to reply for themselves. I understand from the Minister's remarks that an inquiry will take place. When it is complete, will those civil servants be named outside the protection of parliamentary privilege so that they will have some redress?
Does the Minister agree that, if what the Secretary of State for Transport said is true, it constitutes in reality a conspiracy—I use the word advisedly—by a group of employees in a department of state against that department and against one of Her Majesty's Ministers? That is a very serious matter. I hope that it will be treated as such by the Government.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Statement said:
"one or more officials from my department began to brief the press that the line used by the Prime Minister's official spokesman was incorrect … So what we had was a concerted attempt by a very small number of civil servants in the Press Office to undermine the department. I should stress that only a very small number were involved and their actions are being investigated".
I am not in a position—nor do I think it remotely appropriate—to give any kind of assurance as to what the results of the investigation will be. Whether it is appropriate to publish the results will depend on the results.
Lord Borrie Lord Borrie: My Lords, may I seek to—
Lord Lawson of Blaby Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we have taken the 20 minutes allowed. However, this is an important
1356
matter and I have the sense that the House would like to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Lawson. That must then be the last speaker. We are expending the time.
Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, and I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for coming in as the 12th man in place of him.
Is the Minister aware that I entirely agree with the general issues of grave concern voiced by the noble Lord, Lord McNally? No Civil Service Act, however desirable, will make up for the determination of Ministers to maintain standards of integrity and acceptance of the ethos of public service as Ministers in previous governments have done, and which, I am afraid, are slipping today.
The Statement is about Mr Sixsmith. May I ask a simple question? If Mr Sixsmith did nothing wrong, why was he asked to resign?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am sorry to keep coming back to the view of Sir Richard Mottram, but—
Lord Lawson of Blaby Lord Lawson of Blaby: You are sheltering behind it.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No, my Lords, I am not sheltering behind it. Sir Richard Mottram is a civil servant respected on all sides of the House. He said:
"It was clear to me that the situation could not continue and that Jo Moore and Martin Sixsmith should both leave their posts, because relationships within the department and with its Ministers had broken down".
It is not good enough for the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, simply to sweep aside what Sir Richard Mottram has said, because it is the ethos of men such as Sir Richard Mottram that we all wish to uphold.

Employment Bill
Second Reading debate resumed.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I shall try to bring your Lordships' minds back to the Second Reading of the Employment Bill, after the exciting minutes that we have spent on the other matter. For those of your Lordships who would like to remain, my contribution will focus mainly on Parts 2 and 3.
I recall giving evidence in the 1950s with others from the Society of Labour Lawyers to the Franks committee on tribunals and inquiries. I was then—and still to a degree am—an enthusiast for tribunals as an alternative to the ordinary courts in settling disputes, especially in specialised areas such as social security and employment.
In 1957, the Franks report accepted that tribunals were likely to be cheaper than the courts, more readily accessible, more expeditious and freer from technicality. That probably sounds a bit idealistic today. Over the intervening 40 to 50 years tribunals have tended to become ever more like the ordinary

1357
courts, with their formalities and detailed procedures and, above all, because to a large extent they have, to put it crudely, been taken over by lawyers. When employers at employment tribunals are represented by a lawyer. it is natural that the employee feels disadvantaged if he is not represented by a lawyer as well, even though tribunal chairmen invariably try to assist the unrepresented employee to put his case.
In view of that, it is not surprising that the Government are rightly concerned at the growing numbers and consequent cost to everybody concerned of employment tribunal cases. Indeed the issue might have been dealt with a few years ago in earlier legislation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, suggested. Parts 2 and 3 have been designed to increase the cost disincentives on those who bring broadly unjustified claims and to require internal procedures to be used fully before an approach may be made to a tribunal. I am aware of the argument—which we shall no doubt hear deployed in due course by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn of Charlton—that the Government may have exaggerated the case for the changes by talking up abuse by employees of the employment tribunal system—
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, would my noble friend like to wait and see what I say about that`?
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I was anticipating a little because I have read some of what my noble friend has written, but I am happy to say no more about it at this stage.
My view—and it is natural that I should give my view rather than that of my noble friend—is that there is every reason in principle for legislating to ensure that internal dismissal and grievance procedures in the workplace are created where they do not currently exist and that their use is fully encouraged. I am told that most larger employers have such procedures, but far too many smaller and medium-sized employers have no internal procedures. I favour the requirement and the no contracting out provisions in Clause 30.
In parentheses, I may want to raise in Committee the question of whether Clause 30 affects the disclosure of wrongdoing regime in the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. I hope that it does not. Clause 30 may need to be amended to make it clear on the face of the Bill that an employee may properly make appropriate disclosures of wrongdoing in the workplace to regulators such as the Financial Services Authority without first having to raise the matter internally.
While I favour the concept of Clause 30, I have serious doubts about Clause 31, which requires tribunals to vary compensatory awards for failure to use internal procedures before approaching a tribunal. The Government will know that Judge Prophet, the president of the employment tribunals, has published a paper that is highly critical of Parts 2 and 3 of the Bill. He asks why an employee dismissed for redundancy should risk having to lose part of his redundancy payment, to which he seems to be fully entitled under law, because he has not used to the full his former employer's internal procedures. Similarly, on the other
1358
side of the argument, why should an employer have to pay an employee or former employee up to 50 per cent more than the employee's actual loss for failure to use his own internal procedures? Judge Prophet suggests that the Bill seems to mix up compensation assessment and a penalty.
Of course, there must be some enforcement procedure if parties are to be encouraged sufficiently and effectively to use internal procedures before going to a tribunal. Judge Prophet reminds us that a tribunal can always stay proceedings that have been launched at the request of an employer who has proper grievance procedures, pending the completion of the internal processes using those procedures. Tribunal proceedings may then be unnecessary because the parties have resolved their differences through those internal procedures. The Bill could require tribunal proceedings to be stayed pending the outcome of internal procedures. That would be a more straightforward and fairer sanction than attacking the amounts of compensation to which someone is entitled.
Part 2 introduces tougher cost disincentives to discourage abuse of the tribunal system. I see value in the Bill's proposals to award costs against paid representatives and to extend costs to cover lost management or preparation time. However. existing regulations already give tribunals the power to impose costs on any party who behaves,
"vexatiously, abusively, disruptively, or otherwise unreasonably".
Tribunals can even award costs against a party who has brought proceedings that are misconceived—that is, those that have no reasonable prospect of success.
According to paragraph 58 of the Explanatory Notes, the Government want to widen the powers because existing regulations,
"do not give tribunals a general power to award costs against the losing party, in the absence of these factors"—
that is, the factors that I have just mentioned. Why should the Government want a more general power? The clue seems to be in paragraph 60 of the Explanatory Notes. They want a general power to award costs for "time wasting". I am not exaggerating. One cannot even be more precise than to say "time wasting". Currently, that is all that is being said in the proposals. What the term means, or may mean, will he known only if the Government choose to make the appropriate regulations. There is nothing in the Bill to help us with the meaning of time wasting.
I would suggest that an employee or employee's representative who seeks to make an effective application may often seem to a tribunal to he time wasting, especially if that tribunal subsequently refuses the application. If the tribunal does not feel that my application is justified, it may well feel that I have wasted time. However, if the time wasting does not amount to vexatious or unreasonable conduct—which is already covered by costs regulations—why should it be condemned in costs? Clause 22. which is what I am talking about, is much too broad and could,

1359
on the Government's own explanation of their intentions, be a serious and unjust disincentive to bringing what may be—or may not be—a valid claim.
Your Lordships may be surprised to hear me say that I commend the Bill, which I largely do. I commend the parts of it about which I have not spoken. For the sake of time, I have chosen to concentrate on the provisions about which I have serious reservations.
5.21 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I should first apologise to noble Lords who remain in the House for not being in my place when the Minister began his introduction, surprised as I was by the speed with which we have reached this item of business. Noble Lords had the same experience yesterday evening. I hope that the Minister will accept my apology.
I shall speak very briefly, and very differently from recent speeches by noble Lords, about Part 1—the provisions relating to parental leave—and the implications of those provisions for childcare, good family life and a stable society.
The Church of England Board for Social Responsibility responded in detail to the Government Green Paper, Work and Parents: Competitiveness and Choice, which was published just over a year ago. We recognised the radical change that has occurred in the past 20 or 30 years in the part played by women in the world of work. That is much to be welcomed, although of course it has enormous implications for childcare and for family life. It is good that there is an increasing recognition of the vital part that fathers play in the care and nurture of children, not least in their very early years. The emergence of the "new father", with his nappy-changing skills, is a very important and welcome development. On reflection, however, I think that it is not all that new: I was a pretty dab hand at nappies myself 38 years ago.
We therefore warmly support the Bill's proposals on paid parental leave for fathers. Childbirth is an amazing and wonderful experience, and any father who is present at the birth of his child will know how profoundly moving it is—although fathers do well to be properly modest about their part in the process. Childbirth is also a time of radical change in the relationship between mother and father, a change that can make the man feel distinctly vulnerable as love and loyalty have to begin to be shared in new ways. It is a very good use of public money to enable fathers to spend more time at home after the birth of a child and to become used to being almost equal partners in childcare.
The same warm welcome applies to the provision on adoption leave. For children to remain in care must be the policy of last resort. But adoption is not easy however confidently and knowledgeably it is approached and however wise and careful the support given to adoptive parents. I declare an interest as an adoptive parent; there has been plenty of grief and bewilderment as well as delight and happiness and fulfilment. It is excellent that adoption leave is being introduced.
1360
We should, however, like to urge that adoption leave be extended in certain cases to extended family adoption; not of course to step family adoption or to adoption by existing foster parents, who will already have established a very close relationship with a foster child. However, there are not infrequent cases in which a member of the extended family adopts a child, which is often the option that is in the child's best interests and most likely to lead to a stable long-term future. The Bill currently makes no provision for such leave. It may be, for example, that grandparents are the best people to adopt, but that may be at considerable cost in terms of income forgone. They should be able to qualify for any help that is available.
The Government rightly attach very great importance to encouraging people into work, which is fulfilling in itself and the best remedy for poverty and for deprivation. However, the emphasis on work as the answer to these social problems raises considerable issues about family life. How can we strike the right balance between work and family care? The ecumenical Church report Unemployment and the Future of Work, published five years ago, contains some very wise insights into these issues. They bear repetition and careful study. How can the participation of both parents in the labour force be reconciled with the stability of marriage and the upbringing of children? If I use the word marriage, it is not because I want to exclude or denigrate other forms of stable partnership which are so widely found in society today. Seven years ago, the Church published a report entitled Something to Celebrate that looked sympathetically and realistically at various forms of partnership, although of course we believe that marriage is the ideal relationship, and certainly the ideal relationship for the bringing up of children.
Do the Government's proposals recognise the reality of unstable, casual, low-paid work in which there is very little commitment on the part of employers to their employees? The provisions concerning qualification for enhanced maternity pay and leave are still strict, and this part of the Bill is fearsomely complex. If the Bill's provisions do not always fit patterns of low-paid employment, there would be grounds for real concern about whether, even with the provisions, women in low-income families will have enough money to eat properly during pregnancy and be able to make real choices between hanging on to desperately needed paid work, however poorly paid, and staying at home to look after children.
There are serious issues surrounding overwork and the rhythm of work. Looking at society as a whole, it is extraordinary how some have managed to secure significantly reduced hours of work, to well below 40 hours a week for many people, whereas many others have come to accept—even, I fear, to expect—hours of work and a pace of work that would have been regarded as intolerable 20 or 30 years ago. These changes—this workaholic lifestyle—are especially evident among high-flyers in the City, for example, at

1361
one end of the spectrum, and among the lowest paid at the other; freely chosen by the former, but forced by circumstances on the latter.
The changes raise serious questions about the balance between work and family life and make one wonder whether the Government's emphasis on raising skills levels and on competitiveness, as understandable and desirable as those things may be, may not be ignoring the fundamental need of human beings for rest and for rhythm and for families to have time off together, not simply round childbirth but at other times as well. The Sabbath principle is one which we need to recapture and to treasure.
There is much in the Bill to be welcomed most warmly. The Churches will be glad to celebrate in particular paid paternity leave and adoption leave and the provisions on flexible working. However, we have to signal the urgent importance of the needs of the poorest members of society, and the need of all human beings, especially families with young children, for a rhythm of regular alteration between work and recreation—a rhythm that the 24-hours-a-day, sevendays-a-week society has already done much to compromise if not in some cases to destroy. The crown of creation, in the profound and picturesque account of the book of Genesis, is not the creation of humanity, but the day of God's rest.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, like John Monks, the General Secretary of the TUC, I believe that much of this Bill is to be welcomed. I certainly do not see it in the extreme terms as described by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon. Nevertheless, a number of questions need to be raised on the Bill, particularly in relation to Parts 2 and 3 on dispute resolution and employment tribunals. However, this afternoon, very much like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, I shall draw attention to some of the terms in Part I.
I should like to raise the issue of payment during paternity and adoption leave for those earning less than the national insurance lower earnings limit, currently standing at £72 a week. That is an issue affecting millions. Around 2.5 million people work for less than that amount every single week. This issue was raised in the other place during both First and Second Reading and the Committee stage. I am pleased to see that since the original drafting of the Bill, which excluded this large group of workers from any entitlement to payment during paternity or adoption leave, a system of reimbursement similar to that for maternity allowance will be set up for low-paid parents on adoption leave. That will help both the low paid and those with breaks in their employment to qualify for payment during adoption leave.
However, I am less supportive of the proposals to help low-paid parents during paternity leave. While the Government recognise that those earning below the lower earnings limit would need some financial recompense to enable parents to take any time off work when a baby is horn, the benefits system is a very
1362
cumbersome means of obtaining financial support for a two-week period. It is not geared to accommodate those needing benefits for a short period with little or no notice of a start date.
There are 600,000 men who earn less than the lower earnings limit and the Government estimate that. of those, around 5,000 per year will wish to take paternity leave. That is a substantial number of people who will be affected. Often the lowest paid families are those in most need of support and the opportunity for a father to bond with a new baby and to support his partner during and after the birth will be the most valuable help to hold that family together.
There are many reasons why it is impractical for people on low earnings to claim benefits for a short time, however much they may wish to spend those important times with their families. Fathers will not know for certain exactly when the baby will be born and when they will need to take paternity leave, so it will be extremely difficult for them to apply for benefits appropriately. Even if it proves possible to improve the system to help prospective fathers to claim early, all experience of the benefits System indicates that it would be impossible for fathers to receive benefits immediately they went off work on paternity leave.
People who earn under £72 a week do not have savings. Nor do they tend to have access to any credit. They are unable to do without payment for two weeks, especially at such an expensive time as the birth of a baby. The Minister will be aware that claims for income support, for housing benefit and council tax benefit have to be made to different agencies and take several weeks to process. Problems with the housing benefit system have been well documented. People on very low incomes have no savings and simply cannot afford to wait for the benefit payment to come through, especially at such an expensive time as the birth of a new baby.
Under the current rules, claims cannot be made until the period of claim is known. The sad Fact is that, even if they could receive benefits several weeks later to make up for the lack of wages during paternity leave, for low-paid fathers that is not an option. They will therefore be unable to take their paternity leave.
In Committee in the other place the Government argued that keeping the necessary payroll records for those earning under the lower earnings level would be disproportionately burdensome for employers. However, employers have to keep payroll records already for many purposes, such as ensuring that people are paid correctly and receive at least the national minimum wage; to prove to Inland Revenue auditors that those people should not be subject to PAYE or national insurance contributions; P60s have to be provided for those who have more than one job so that their income tax can be calculated, based on their total earnings from all sources.
At the time that paternity leave is introduced, many of those earning less than the lower earnings limit will also qualify for the new working tax credit and, once they have children, for the children's tax credit as well.

1363
Records of their pay throughout the year will need to be kept for those purposes. It would seem to me that the simplest method for reimbursing those people earning less than £72 a week would be for them to receive paternity pay at 90 per cent of the average weekly pay. That calculation is the same as that to be used for those earning between £75 and £111 per week, so it will be known to employers.
I sincerely hope that this issue will be looked at further. I hope too that, on reflection, the Minister will agree that the only disproportionate burdens that are being proposed are those to be imposed on low-paid fathers wishing to take paternity leave. Therefore I hope that he will bring forward amendments in Committee in line with the view I have expressed.
5.36 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, this is a complex Bill—really it is two Bills. The first section, dealing with maternity, paternity and adoption, is quite different from the second part and might almost be an entirely separate Bill. It is family friendly. It has rightly been welcomed by trade unions and even, although with some reservations, by the CBI. It is a great advance and although there are some issues—like affordable childcare and some of the issues referred to by my noble friend Lord Davies of Coity—that still present problems for some families, the Government are to be congratulated on having responded to widespread concerns about these matters and to have done so in so positive a manner.
I do however have some worries about the second part of the Bill dealing with conflict resolution. Like most former trade union officials in this House, I have considerable experience of dealing with employment tribunals. In my day we called them "industrial tribunals" and I am old enough to remember when they were first introduced. I believe that their existence has made an enormous difference to working lives. Once they were introduced, employers could no longer deal as they wished with individual work people; work people had rights and the means to enforce them.
The Government seem to have accepted complaints from employers' organisations that there has been an escalation in claims before tribunals and that a "compensation culture" has emerged with work people going to ETs without attempting to resolve issues internally—so there is a huge number of cases. The figure of 130,000 for last year was mentioned by the Minister and by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. But out of a workforce of around 25 million that is surely not huge. Moreover, in recent years there have been quite valid reasons for the increase.
There has been a decline in manufacturing industry with large numbers of dismissals. There has, unfortunately, been a decline in union membership—hopefully now being reversed. If the CBI is anxious, as it says it is, to ensure that issues are resolved through internal procedures, it could do more to urge its members to recognise and negotiate with independent trade unions. ACAS has asserted that where there is
1364
union involvement and union-negotiated procedures, it is much easier to resolve issues internally, and I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, will take note of that. There has been an increase in discrimination cases, perhaps due to the increased number of women in the workforce.
The proposals in this Bill, if passed unamended, will undoubtedly result in fewer cases before employment tribunals. The Government have said that there could be between 20 and 30 per cent fewer cases. and that bothers me. The percentage of vexatious or frivolous cases before ETs has been stated as being as low as 0.2 per cent. That must mean, therefore, that numbers of valid cases simply will not reach tribunals at all.
I shall now deal with the parts of the Bill which I feel could be reconsidered or amended. As I understand it, access to tribunals could in future be denied to an employee who has not complied with the statutory internal procedure or the compensation that he or she receives could be much reduced. That could be very unfair in the case of an individual who is no longer in employment, who has been dismissed or has made allegations of discrimination or harassment. I understand that it is intended that such employees would not have to comply with internal procedures before getting to an ET, but, so far as I can see, that is not on the face of the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will explain to the House how that is to he achieved. Incidentally, as I think my noble friend Lord Borrie mentioned, there is already provision for conciliation by ACAS before cases come before an ET. Frequently nowadays cases are resolved at conciliation. The statutory procedures make no requirement for the employer actually to investigate; nor is there any provision for the employee concerned to be accompanied. Both provisions are desirable in any fair procedure.
Several unions have raised with me what appears to be a reversal of the so-called Polkey judgment of the House of Lords. Under current law if an employer fails to follow appropriate disciplinary procedures before dismissal the dismissal may still be unfair even if the employer had some substantive basis for dismissal. It would appear that Clause 34 reverses that despite the fact that ETs accept that minor procedural lapses by employers do not necessarily cause a dismissal to be unfair. It is felt that a reversal of the Polkey judgment would have the opposite effect from that intended by the Government in that employers will not feel bound to follow internal procedures negotiated with unions.
Then there is the provision in Clause 22 which gives the Secretary of State powers to authorise tribunals to order that one party makes payments to the other in respect of time taken in preparing his or her case. Clearly, employers are much more likely to spend more defending a case than an applicant making it. Employers are likely to have personnel and other senior staff whose time could be costed and claimed as the cost of preparation. The measure also introduces the idea of double recovery as parties could get back their legal costs plus preparation costs. That could be substantial. It will be difficult for ETs to apply such an

1365
arrangement in a fair and equitable way and may well serve as a further deterrent to applicants considering taking a case.
A further cause for concern arises from Clause 25. It would appear that the Secretary of State may redesign the form of application to a tribunal. When tribunals were first introduced the idea was that they would be easy of access for people who would often be unrepresented and would therefore try to represent themselves. The form was intended to be simple to complete even for those with language difficulties. I am afraid that if it is left to government departments to draw up forms, they will resemble some of those to which I have objected in the realm of social insurance, or else tax forms which are many pages long and difficult to complete except by the educated and literate. I hope that failure to complete the form appropriately will not be another reason for denying or delaying access to a tribunal.
I turn to Part 4. Clause 43 gives union learning representatives statutory rights in all workplaces where independent trade unions are recognised by their employers for collective bargaining purposes. The unions will have to give the employer notice in writing that the employee is a learning representative of the union. but the measure does not give unions any new collective rights to bargain over training. There appears to have been some employer lobbying against that clause. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, also expressed her disagreement with it. I believe that she is profoundly mistaken and that the lobbying is also wrong. Everyone now agrees that training and retraining are important. Arranging for employees to have information and encouragement to train is vitally important. The clause provides the basis for a sensible and constructive partnership between employers and recognised trade unions. The Government are to be congratulated on bringing that forward. I hope to persuade the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, of that during the course of discussion on the Bill.
Clause 45 refers to fixed-term work and seeks to implement the EU fixed-term work directive. This seeks to improve the quality of fixed-term working by ensuring equal treatment with comparable permanent workers and preventing abuse arising from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships. I understand that draft regulations were issued by the DTI in January and that these are now the subject of consultation.
I have been approached by the Association of University Teachers which is concerned about certain aspects of the clause and the regulations. Generally speaking the AUT welcomes the regulations but points out that the use of fixed-term contracts in higher education has risen to a high level. The draft regulations propose that the maximum duration of FTCs should be four years. The AUT believes that it should he two years and that service prior to implementation of the regulations should be counted. It says that many employees in higher education have suffered years of employment on successive fixed-term contracts and for them to wait another four years after the implementation of the regulations to be able to
1366
claim their right to equality of treatment with permanent employees would be unfair. I was surprised to learn that 84,000 workers in higher education are employed on FTCs and that most had accepted an FTC only because contract work was the only form of work that was offered or was available. I hope that the Minister will say that these legitimate concerns will receive attention.
Other issues may well arise during the course of discussion in Committee and there are certainly some areas where I believe that the Bill could be improved by appropriate amendments. However. I welcome the Bill. As I indicated earlier, there is a great deal in it which is thoroughly to be welcomed. I congratulate the Government on introducing it.
5.46 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I begin by following my noble friend Lady Miller in offering my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, on his lucid and clear introduction of this fairly complicated Bill which, as all speakers have pointed out, covers a number of subjects. I am sure that the noble Lord will enjoy this Second Reading more than he did yesterday's debate tilting at windmills in Wales when he seemed to have considerably less support from his own Back Benches, these Benches or, for that matter, any Benches at all.
When my noble friend Lady Miller sat down, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, made an intervention to the effect that when this party was in government we regulated a lot. He referred to me as one of the regulating Ministers. I fully accept that we regulated and I fully accept that all governments have to regulate. The question is how much they regulate. I think that even the noble Lord would accept that there has been a great increase in regulation over the past four or five years. The important thing is to get the regulation right and to regulate at the right times.
I give an example from social security. When one has a Bill dealing with a new benefit it is right that there should be regulations in that Bill to allow that new benefit to be increased as time goes by. No one would think it right that those kind of things should be left to primary legislation. However, what is wrong is when the Bill itself merely acts as a framework for the regulation provided by the Secretary of State and it is then left to the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations creating the benefit. The benefit itself should be set out by the legislation but one can leave the increases to the annual uprating and all those processes which are quite right and proper matters for regulation.
Further, as regards the noble Lord's accusations that we over regulated, while we were in office we made great efforts to deregulate. As the noble Lord will remember, within this House we introduced a special committee to look at all delegated powers. While we were in government there was not one recommendation of that deregulation committee that we did not accept in its entirety.

1367
I return to the Bill and the general attitude of the Government to their legislation. I refer to a briefing sent to me by the Engineering Employers' Federation which states:
"The Bill is largely enabling legislation that provides the Secretary of State with extensive powers to introduce secondary legislation through Regulations or Orders. This approach to legislation inevitably prevents detailed Parliamentary scrutiny of these important areas of new legislation".
I agree wholeheartedly with that. That is why I wanted to make the point that one should regulate on some occasions but not on others.
During the passage of the Bill I also look forward very much to the Government tabling further amendments, as I believe they indicated in another place that they might do, in order to put more flesh on to the Bill and to take out some regulations relating to matters which quite properly should be dealt with in primary legislation. No doubt we shall be able to pursue those matters in due course as the Bill passes through Committee and later stages.
I now move on to the subject of paternity leave and associated measures. Perhaps I may refer back to 11 years ago this day when I introduced the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, took part in that debate. It was precisely 11 years ago today. I remember it well because I was extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter—now the Government Chief Whip—who was then acting as social security spokesman for the Opposition. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, and no doubt the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and others all kept their speeches admirably short. We finished the Second Reading in record time, allowing me to go across the road to St Thomas' where my only daughter was born later that evening. Therefore, as a result of actions by the now Government, I experienced a degree of paternity leave—albeit a very brief period—some 11 years ago.
Having mentioned that, I want to turn to the issue of the introduction of paternity leave. I want to ask why on earth it is being introduced at all. What is the point? Who is clamouring out for it? Who needs it and, if it is needed, why should the leave be for only two weeks? The right reverend Prelate referred to the importance in the brave new world in which we live of fathers being at home learning how to change nappies. I am sure that for many that will take considerably longer than two weeks. He also referred to the vital importance of fathers being with their families. I fully agree with that. But is two weeks right at the beginning of a child's life necessarily the right way of going about this matter? Are there not far more important times in a child's life when some form of paternity leave should be on offer?
I also have considerable concerns that when a benefit such as this is introduced, there is the likelihood that, like Topsy, it will grow and grow. We are told that in this case the benefit will last for only two weeks more or less immediately following the birth of a child. I believe that we can all make a fairly strong prediction
1368
that over the years there will be greater and greater pressure to increase the rates and the times, all in the name of equality.
One should also refer, as I believe my noble friend Lady Miller did, to the effect of such a benefit on employers and, in particular, on small employers. We all know that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, has great experience of large employers. We all know that his own family firm is well able to cope with the type of benefit that we have. Whenever a new benefit is introduced, we always hear many large employers or their representatives making the perfectly valid point that any good employer will introduce that benefit anyway and that any good employer can cope with such a benefit.
However, even with the allowance that is to be built in for the small employer—I understand that it is to be 105 per cent compensation—the benefit will not be that easy. Such an employer might easily be able to carry it but, in the event, it may be a key worker who is being lost, perhaps at a bad time. That is not a situation with which any good employer can cope. I suspect that it is far better to leave large employers to introduce the benefit if they so wish or small employers to introduce if they can. Why do we not leave it to the market?
I now turn to the issue of maternity leave. I have no objection to maternity leave. It is right and proper that we make appropriate provision for mothers to take leave at the time of a child's birth. But here we also see a further major increase. We are told that ordinary maternity leave will be increased to 26 weeks followed by an additional 26 weeks of unpaid maternity leave. Employers—again, small employers will find this particularly difficult—will have to keep jobs open in effect for a year, often with the added complexity of finding a replacement who, at the end of that year, may or may not have to be kept on, depending on whether the employee taking maternity leave decides to come back.
Again, when he comes to reply, perhaps the Minister can tell us approximately what proportion of those within his own department or within the department of the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, who take maternity leave return to work at the end of that leave. On anecdotal evidence, and certainly in my own experience, not all those who take maternity leave and say that they will return to work do so. It would be interesting to know what evidence the department has of the numbers who do or do not return.
That brings me to the subject of the rebate. I mentioned that I had noted that it was to be repaid for some small employers at 105 per cent. However, I understand that for the vast majority of employers the amount of rebate for both paternity and maternity leave will be only 92 per cent. Surely it should be 100 per cent with, in addition, some compensation for the costs that the employers incur in administering what is essentially a state social security benefit.
I turn to what I believe is Part 4—it may be Part 3— of the Bill concerning tribunal reform and the resolution of disputes. We all know that there has been

1369
an extraordinary rise in the number of applications to industrial relations tribunals. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm the figures that I have; that is, that in the year 2000 there were some 130,000 applications. That represents a 25 per cent increase on the previous year and almost a 300 per cent increase over the past decade. According to CBI estimates, such applications bring an annual cost to business of some £630 million per annum in terms of management and legal and recruitment costs alone. I should be grateful for the Government's comments on the CBI figures as well as confirmation of the other figures.
With that in mind, I am very sympathetic to the Government's desire to reduce this burden and to try to ensure that disputes are resolved at an earlier stage. I noted the Minister's confirmation that more than a third of cases come to tribunals without any earlier in-house attempt to resolve the dispute. But, while I share the Government's aim, I am certainly concerned that the complexity of some of the proposed new arrangements will create only further confusion and uncertainty for employers. For example, a number of workplace issues, such as ill health and redundancy, do not fit neatly into either the proposed grievance or disciplinary statutory procedures. There is also likely to be uncertainty about the inter-relationship between the proposed new statutory procedures and the ACAS code of practice on that subject. As I said, I hope that we can pursue those matters in greater detail in Committee.
I end by saying that much of the Bill—certainly parts of it—is admired in different parts of the House. However, I believe that there is much in the Bill to provide us with a busy Committee stage and, I hope, later, a fairly busy Report stage and Third Reading as we try to add flesh to the Bill. I certainly hope that the Government will be prepared to add a degree of flesh to their own skeleton in due course.
5.58 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I want to make wo preliminary points in order to explain the attitude which my noble friends and I adopt towards this Bill. As my noble friend Lady Turner said, and as she demonstrated in the points that she made, we intend to be constructive in relation to the Bill. We intend to be helpful. You may be awkward; others may be wreckers; but we shall be as constructive as we can.
Secondly, although I do not intend to say much about these matters tonight for obvious reasons, we do not deny that parts of the Bill are excellent. It is not so much a curate's egg; it is more a manky meat sandwich. Parts 1 and 4 are first class, but Parts 2 and 3 leave a great deal to be desired. The Bill goes wrong in the middle.
The Government make no attempt to disguise what they are trying to do, although they appear to be moving away from that a little. It is there in Routes to Resolution. The middle part of the Bill is intended to force a reduction in the number of applications by between 23 per cent and 31 per cent, or by between 30,000 and 40,000 cases. Perhaps the Minister can tell
1370
the House whether that is to be achieved in a year, in 18 months, and whether the effect will be cumulative, so that in three or four years' time there might not be any cases at all.
The main objective of Parts 2 and 3 of the Bill is to bring about a significant reduction—about a third—in the number of hearings and, therefore, the number of applications. It is also clear why we must have such a reduction in applications. It is because there has been an unprecedented increase in litigation. The British worker is mad about litigation. He or she wants his or her day in court. Because of the unprecedented rise in litigation there has to be some way of stopping the flood. And the flood will be brought under control by the tough provisions in Parts 2 and 3.
We have four objections to that argument. First, there is no evidence whatever—not one scruffy piece of data—to support a rise in the propensity to litigate. Secondly, we can explain, with good reasons, the increase in hearings and the increase in applications that have taken place, for example, since 1990. There are good explanations for the rise. Moreover, applications will continue whether this Bill is enacted or not. They are inevitable. I shall say why that is the case in a moment, but it has nothing to do with an increased propensity for litigation. This Bill directs itself at the wrong objective.
Thirdly, the detail of the Bill, on which more will he said in Committee, will actually generate hearings and applications. That is what Judge Prophet said. In sc. far as it will have an impact, the Bill will add to disputes rather than reduce them. Fourthly, it will put the heaviest burden on the weakest, unsupported applicants.
I shall deal first in detail with the fact that there has been a 300 per cent increase in the number of applications since the early 1990s. In relation to what has been claimed from the Benches opposite, it is important to realise that there is nothing unusual about that. In some years, the figure falls: in some years, it rises. But it is swings and roundabouts. In the long term, there is a more or less steady rise in applications.
The reason the Government felt justified in introducing barriers to access was not the rise in the number of applications over the past 20 or 30 years but the fact that they have taken on board the argument that there has been a rapid increase in the propensity to litigate and that they have as evidence for that the survey, Findings from the 1998 Survey of Employment Tribunal Applications. I make it clear to the House that the survey has not yet been published. The report has not been professionally proof read. Last week, as a result of letters and parliamentary Questions, a few copies were placed in the Library of this House, but it is not available to the press and it has not been published. However, parts of it have been selectively quoted by Ministers. That is the problem.
For example, in Routes to Resolution, it is said:
"There is worrying evidence that employees are increasingly resorting to litigation to sort out work-based disputes".

1371
It is then claimed that,
"64 per cent of applications to employment tribunals come from employees who have not attempted to resolve the problem directly with their employer in the first instance".
But those words are not in the survey. To this day, we do not know where they came from. The survey poses the quite different question of.
"whether or not there had been a meeting to try to resolve the dispute before the application was made".
That is in the survey. I am quite sure that that is what the Minister now uses, but to this day where the mysterious business about going directly, not going past go and not collecting £200 came from, we do not know. Perhaps the Minister will tell the House.
Over the past few days I have noticed that the Government do not like the figure of 64 per cent—they make it 62 per cent—and now they have changed it to 37 per cent. The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, in an intervention to a Question that I asked a week or so ago, talked about the 62 per cent and the 64 per cent. On 5th February the Minister did not refer to 62 per cent or to 64 per cent, although it was actually 60 per cent as far as the applicants were concerned. He said that what was,
"absolutely clear was that in 37 per cent"—
it has now gone down to 37 per cent—
"of cases there was no communication whatever".
But noble Lords will not find that in the survey either. I do not say that there was an intention to mislead the House, but they never read the survey. That is not what the survey says. What the survey says is that in 37 per cent of cases the question asked was whether there was a meeting to resolve the dispute.
When one considers that question, one can see that any applicant could believe that there was a meeting but that it was not to resolve the dispute. The applicant could have thought that the meeting made matters worse. The employer could have refused to have a meeting. We cannot use such evidence—particularly when it is 37 per cent—as an indication of a rise in the propensity to litigate.
I do not apologise for making this point. But the Government should have advisers who tell them such matters. A trend cannot be taken from a single survey. After three or four surveys over a period of 10 or 15 years, one can then say that the figure is rising or decreasing. We do not know what people would have said if that question had been asked in the previous two surveys. So we have no trend.
However, we have some trends that can be used to see what is happening. For example, if there had been a move away from the use of conciliation so that the proportion of disputes settled by conciliation had fallen and the number of people who pressed themselves forward for a hearing had gone up—if it
1372
was 50:50 and not two-thirds—we could say that there was an increase in the propensity to litigate. But there is no sign of that.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, on the contrary.
Lord McCarthy: On the contrary, as my noble friend says. If there had been an increase in frivolous cases, in vexatious cases, and it was not 0.4 per cent, but 5 per cent, 10 per cent or 15 per cent, we could say, "Ah, they are bringing bad cases, they are litigating more and more and they are getting worked up". There is no change whatever. One could say that more cases were being lost and that thousands of cases are being brought, but they keep losing them because they like their day in court, but the contrary is the case. In so far as there is a trend, they are winning more cases, which may be one of the reasons why the CBI is so exercised.
So there is no evidence of an increased propensity to litigate. It follows that there is no justification for an attempt to turn down the capacity of tribunals by at least a third over an immeasurable period of time.
I turn to the second case against the Bill. There is a considerable volume of respectable research, much of it paid for by the department, and much of it published since the survey and contradicting the survey. The survey was, of course, years and years in the wilderness. People carried out this telephone survey about four years ago. Somehow it never got published. Even now Ministers have not read it.
But Burgess, Propper and Wilson published a survey entitled, Explaining the growth in the number of applications to industrial tribunals 1972–1997. That survey covered a much longer period. It had a trend, of course. I think that my noble friend Lady Turner was referring to some of the evidence in that survey. I do not want to repeat that evidence because the House will know about it now. The weakness of the survey was that it did not really weight the various causes; it simply listed them.
My opinion is that there are two main reasons for the rate of increase over the past 25 years. The first is the increase in jurisdiction. Even when the Conservatives were in office, they could not stop having to implement all kinds of EU directives. Therefore, the jurisdiction and numbers of the tribunals went up. One can put a very close line between the spread of jurisdictions and the waxing and waning of tribunal cases. That is the fundamental relationship. Of course we shall get a lot more in the next few years or so when further directives come in.
The second reason is in some ways far more significant, because we can do something about it. It is the collapse of an alternative means of independently deciding a case. At the moment, outside small parts of the public sector there is no alternative for a worker to the employer's last word other than going to a tribunal. There is nothing else. The overwhelming majority of disputes procedures have no independent element. One has to take what the employer says. Even if one thinks that the employer is not giving one one's

1373
legal rights, one has nowhere to go except to a tribunal. That is the result of the collapse of collective bargaining and the decline in trade union organisation.
When I came into the business, large parts of the private sector had systems of arbitration, mediation and independent assessment which gave male manual workers, for the most part, some form of independent assessment which did mean that in the end they did not have to take the employer's last offer. But the only alternative now to the employer's last offer is to go to the tribunal.
While that remains the case, unless one can find a way of giving workers an alternative to the employer's offer without going to a tribunal, the number of cases will continue to increase. Of course one could make the way in which one restricts access to the tribunals absolutely lethal, but I do not suggest that the Bill does that.
So I come to my third argument. That is with regard to the statutory procedure. I should say that I am not against a statutory procedure. I think that it is a knacky little wheeze, but it depends what it says. The statutory procedure that we have, and the way that it is written in this Bill adds to the issues in dispute. We shall go into this matter much more in Committee. Judge Prophet is most persuasive on the issue. But then the TUC, the Law Society and Judge Prophet make the same argument. In writing to the Minister, Judge Prophet said:
"The Tribunal would be forced into considering whether or not internal strategy procedures have been completed. If not why not? And further forced into a straitjacket of having to find an automatic unfair dismissal when that is not based on a just assessment of the merits of the case. At every hearing where any right is being considered a formula must be applied, so complicated that even the judiciary who have looked at the clause are uncertain what it reads. Pity the ordinary employee and the small business. Even longer and longer hearings are inevitable".
That is the case the way the Bill is framed. We should advance reasoned amendments in Committee to try to change that because it is not inevitable.
I come to my fourth and final argument. It is the possible consequences of Clause 25. The problem with Clause 25 is that it is a pig in a poke. No one knows what the Government will put into Clause 25. This clause enables them to rewrite dear old ET1. There never was a form so sweet, simple and straightforward as ET1. The only thing that one could get wrong was one's date of birth. It is a form which anyone can fill in, as my noble friend Lady Turner said. Compare it to those terrible income tax forms that we have to struggle with or to the social security forms that people have to fill in. ET1 should be preserved in aspic. But it will not be preserved in aspic; it will be rewritten. We have asked but we are not told what will be put into the new ET1. Anything could go in.
I could write such an ETI. I do not suggest that the Minister is going to do so. But no one would apply. It would be elaborate and it would be plausible. One could say, "Well, we are going to have a statutory procedure so of course you have to make sure that this statutory procedure has been complied with". One
1374
would not just say, "Have you complied with a statutory procedure?" One would say, "Describe it. Tell me about it." Then one would say, rather like the Conservatives did about the strike clause, that people should know what the penalties were. They should know that they could be fined. Put that all in, and you could write a new ET1 which would cut applications by 50 per cent or more because no one would understand what it required. I would like to know—the Minister can tell me tonight—whether it is the case that ET1 is to be rewritten. The Law Society is very worried. If there is the intention to rewrite it, how will that be done?
The final point I make is that those of us who dislike the meat in the sandwich do not deny that the Government have a problem—the real long-term problem of the perception of rights of work inevitably expanding. All the time people are thinking of new rights at work that they should have. There are all kinds of forces out there in society, not merely in British society but in Europe and elsewhere, which are bringing new worker rights across the agenda.
If we are soon to have protection against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, religion, faith, age and so on—all of which I suppor—there will inevitably also be a demand for a rise in the adequacy of the procedures and arrangements for dealing with those rights. That is why it is ridiculous to talk about cutting tribunals down by 30 per cent. We are in it, and it will get bigger. There is only way that one can stop it or reverse it fairly, decently and properly, apart from suddenly reviving the trade union movement so that it can do everything that it did in the past. Even then, it did not do sex very well. It would not have done race very well, and it might not have done gay rights very well, but it was all right on unfair dismissal.
So some legal form of worker rights has to continue. But people must have real rights within a statutory procedure so that they are induced to move into a voluntary system of independent mediation and arbitration which gives them back what they have lost. If the Government are prepared to do that, then this Bill could be a first-class Bill. In Committee and on Report, we hope to offer a more civilised and more practical way out of the Government's problem.
6.19 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I certainly agree with what my noble friend the Minister said about productivity. During a recent stay in the United States, I became more aware than ever of how increased productivity leads to increased prosperity for all. What will the Bill do for productivity in British industry? The answer is that no one really knows. As my noble friend the Minister pointed out, productivity does not depend only on industrial relations—letting people go does not improve productivity unless there is investment and change. Restrictive practices at work and restricted employers' rights to hire and fire do riot improve productivity. They probably increase costs and hence reduce wages to cover those costs.

1375
Most people in industry instinctively feel that decent standards at work, a mechanism for resolving disputes, a procedure for airing grievances, protection for employers and employees taking lawful action and family-friendly flexibility at work must make some contribution towards improving productivity. Economists may not be able to measure it but people at work feel it.
That is why the Bill is helpful. It is helpful because it helps industrial relations move with the times. It brings them into line with modern thinking—especially thinking about the balance between work and family life. It reinforces the cultural changes that are taking place—perhaps the new rights of which my noble friend Lord McCarthy spoke. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford explained how over the years we have become more aware of the needs of parents when children are born, and the Bill moves with the times in trying to satisfy those needs. Flexibility in hours worked, especially when children are young, is an important aspect of that modern thinking. Chapters 1 and 2 of the Bill acknowledge that.
The Bill also acknowledges that nowadays we understand that it is better to resolve disputes at the workplace than to let them become grievances at an industrial tribunal. The Bill encourages employers to use best practice in resolving disputes and employees not to pursue frivolous cases. Of course, good employers already have much of that good practice in place. A greater problem lies in the insistence by many financial institutions that shareholder value takes priority. Experienced managers balance the interests of staff, shareholders and customers equally. It is inexperienced managers who interpret family-friendly policies as weakness, as diminishing shareholder value, and are thus reluctant to introduce them. The Bill and the guidance in it should help to overcome that.
The Bill introduces union learning representatives. I agree with my noble friend Lady Turner that that must help productivity by addressing the shortage of skills. Surely, no one can object to that as long as it is effective. I welcome the proposed safeguard that the representative must be experienced and knowledgeable about skills, training and continuous professional development.
Of course, there is a lot of detailed provision about the workings of industrial tribunals and discipline and grievance procedures that may well benefit from the knowledge and experience of experts. We can certainly question whether eight weeks is a reasonable time for it to be unlawful to sack workers in the course of a dispute or whether two weeks of paternity leave is reasonable—as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, asked. But such matters are essentially a matter of compromise. No hard and fast rule can be laid down. Of course, there are those who will abuse the system. Industrial relations depend on a modicum of trust, but we cannot legislate for that. What is important is that the Bill recognises that it is wrong and impossible for the Government to impose unreasonable settlements.
1376
That is all very well, but what impact will Bill have on small and medium-sized companies? Does it mean more red tape? After all, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, reminded us, small companies have had to absorb the social chapter, the Human Rights Act 1998, all the tax credits introduced by the Chancellor, the Employment Relations Act 1999 and now face the Bill. One can argue that the Bill will act as yet one more disincentive. I do not agree. I see in the Bill not a lot of meaningless regulation but a fair bit of guidance and best practice about what one has to do to be a good employer in a modern business. Most people want to be good employers because that is how they keep their best staff and their business thrives. It probably helps productivity, too.
The Bill provides guidance about what procedures work in modern industrial relations management. Many small companies welcome such guidance because not every employer has the time, expertise or experience to work it all out for himself. So if six months' maternity leave is being family friendly, fair enough. If a woman's skills are so valuable that a business cannot cope with her absence for six months, small company managers will find a way. They are used to wheeling and dealing. They will come to some sort of arrangement with her to come back part time, to do some work from home, or whatever.
Incidentally, it is a welcome gesture from the Government that Clause 21 says that they will pay maternity benefits in advance to small companies. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can tell me whether that is a precedent and whether we can look forward to other payments in advance to benefit small companies.
Small companies know that it is good practice to have a procedure for resolving disputes. It saves a lot of pointless argument and discussion. I agree with my noble friend Lord Borrie that having to formalise procedure, as the Bill requires, and giving guidance as to what it should provide should be no real burden. Many companies which have not got round to doing that will welcome it. That should avoid disputes and grievances going to an industrial tribunal because of ignorance or omission. Any sensible employer or employee will prefer discussion to the cost of going to industrial tribunal, the stress and the cost of finding and recruiting new staff or of finding a new job. Of course, there is more to come in secondary legislation, but I hope that the government will frame it in the same helpful manner, encouraging progressive, modern management thinking.
My noble friend the Minister spoke about the work of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. The Bill should not diminish the importance of ACAS. It is a valuable resource for resolving disputes and getting people back to work. The real cost to the economy of disputes is not so much the lost time but the lost opportunities and output. So I hope that the Government will not use the Bill as a reason to cut back ACAS. ACAS does a wonderful job for small and medium-sized companies. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, that its code of practice is sensible and balanced and acts as a valuable benchmark in disputes.

1377
As my noble friend said, the Bill is an attempt to balance the rights and responsibilities of employers and employees. It tries to move with the times and put the point of balance where contemporary society thinks that it should be. I think that that judgment is fairly accurate; in fact, I think that it veers toward the more progressive side of the balance and I welcome that. The fact that our economic situation is reasonably sound demonstrates that we are moving in the right direction and at about the right speed with progressive employment policies. That is why I welcome the Bill.
6.28 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I asked to speak in this debate because I am interested in two fairly narrow aspects of the Bill. The first concerns Clause 43 and the introduction of statutory learning representatives; the second concerns Clause 45 and the issue of fixed-term contracts. As always when speaking in a Second Reading debate in this House, one learns a great deal and I must say that I found the speech of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, extremely forceful and shall in future regard the Bill as, as he said, a manky meat sandwich, with the central part revamping employment tribunals being the suspicious part.
However, my real interest lies in those two more specific aspects: first, Clause 43 and the appointment of statutory learning representatives, which set an interesting precedent for the Government. I pick up the point that the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, made: it is about productivity. In his introduction, the Minister made it clear that that was what he was concerned about with regard to the appointment of the representatives. The whole issue of Britain's underlying productivity, the productivity gap and the need to improve workforce training underlies a great deal of the Government's present programme.
I shall remind the House of the wording used in the Pre-Budget Report. I do not know how many noble Lords read it in detail. There was much consideration of the issue of workforce training. Paragraph 3.98 reads:
"In Budget 2001, the Government also said: 'the current voluntary approach has secured increased participation in workplace training since 1995, but this is not enough—.
In paragraph 3.102, it says:
"Level 2"—
that is, the equivalent of five grades A to C at GCSE—
"is effectively the minimum standard that 19 year-olds are now expected to have acquired. The Government wants those in the adult workforce who, possibly through no fault of their own, have not attained level 2 qualifications to have the opportunity to do so".
The following paragraph reads:
"The Government is already looking at possible fiscal measures to improve UK skills. The PIU set out a range of options to overcome harriers to training, one of which is a statutory right to time off for training and development. The Government is considering this suggestion as one of the possible ways of taking forward the commitment made in Budget 2001 and will carry out a full regulatory impact assessment and wide consultation on the development and implementation of any new policy".
1378
The Pre-Budget Report then proposes four specific suggestions as to how the matter might he taken forward. First, there is,
"financial support for employers whose staff take time off to train".
Secondly, there is,
"free learning provision and accreditation for employees without level 2 qualifications".
We saw that in the Learning and Skills Bill, when those aged under 19 were given the right to free tuition up to level 2. There is also reference to,
"some form of arrangement for individuals to take up training—such as a minimum entitlement for all employees who have not attained basic skills or level 2 qualifications to paid time off each year to train towards the standard".
Finally, the report refers to,
"extended information, guidance and support. for employers and individuals … these could include arrangements along the lines of Union Learning Representatives".
So, the Pre-Budget Report went a great deal further than the Bill.
Why have the Government backed off from including in the Bill possible time off for learning. up to level 2? When it exists for statutory learning representatives, why not carry it that bit further? I can immediately hear the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, exploding at the idea. She was already somewhat unhappy at the idea of statutory learning representatives and thought that people might abuse that position.
Clearly, there is a genuine problem for small and medium-sized businesses—and other employers—with the potential avalanche of time off that might he given, but the Bill gives us one or two interesting precedents. First, we are already looking at payment for paternity and maternity leave and government compensation for small firms, in particular. Secondly, there might be a way forward by adopting the approach proposed in the Bill towards flexible working time. Should not employees who wish to take time off to study for a relevant level 2 qualification—I stress that level 2 is not high—have the right to ask their employers for such time off, as with the provisions on flexible working time in Clause 47? Employers should have a duty to consider such requests for time off and the right to refuse them if t hey can demonstrate that it would cause positive harm to business.
In their manifesto, the Government also suggested, alongside the commitment to introduce statutory learning representatives, that there should be: a commitment to introduce statutory training levies where agreement was reached between the social partners. A short while ago, we approved the Construction Industry Training Board and the Construction Engineering Industry Training Board orders. At that time, I asked the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, was answering for the Government—what had happened to that commitment. He did not really give me a satisfactory answer.

1379
I recognise that the issue of skills crosses boundaries between departments. It is partly the responsibility of the Department for Education and Skills, as well as of the Department of Trade and Industry. In these days of joined-up government, we need an answer to that question. I reiterate it: what has happened to the commitment? It was a manifesto commitment on the part of the Government, why do we see nothing of it?
The other issue is fixed-term contracts, which have already been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden. Several times, I have spoken about the use of fixed-term contracts in higher education. There are something like 84,000 workers in higher education on fixed-term contracts. That is 42 per cent of the workforce in higher education and over 50 per cent of those working in what are called the pre-1992 universities—our research universities. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, knows well the problems posed by fixed-term contracts. In 1999, the Bett report highlighted the considerable abuse of such contracts by some in the university sector and especially the degree to which women were found to be disproportionately numerous among those working on fixed-term contracts and on lower pay than other staff.
The European directive that is incorporated in Clause 45 offers us an opportunity to put such poor labour relations in universities behind us. Regulations have been published but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, said, there are two fields of particular worry to the Association of University Teachers. First, although the regulations ban the use of fixed-term contracts for more than two consecutive spells of two years—four years in all—prior service on fixed-term contracts is not taken into account. Therefore, when the regulations come into effect in 2002, somebody who has already done something like 10 years on a short-term contract will still have to work out another four years. That is not fair. Secondly, as my noble friend Lord Razzall said, we are concerned that certain classes of employment may be exempted and that employers may seek sector specific exclusions on the grounds of what is called objective justifications. On what grounds would such an objective justification for an exclusion be made? Could it be challenged?
I have had a specific interest in the Bill. There are wider implications, and there is much in the Bill relating particularly to maternity and paternity leave, family-friendly policies, flexible working time and fixed-term contracts that I welcome. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, I now have great doubts about the middle part of the Bill.
6.38 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, if any more noble Lords start their speeches by citing John Monks's agreement that the Bill has many positive features, I shall start to feel uneasy about the parallel with Mark Antony's funeral oration: they are "all honourable men".
1380
I begin by accentuating the positive. There are many European influences, including the provisions on paternity leave and pay, adoption leave, improvements in maternity provision and, most recently, the provisions in Part 4 outlawing consecutive fixed-term contracts.
All of those, interestingly, are the consequences of and show the great benefits of social partner agreement. I am glad that those words have escaped the mouth of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon. I hope that there will be other occasions when she will make that reference. They reflect a great deal of hard work on such issues as the gender pay gap and flexible working. In my judgment, union training representatives will mark an extremely welcome innovation, even though the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, may think that they could reflect a contradiction in terms.
Rights for fixed term contract workers mark a major reform, combined as they are with parallel rights for part-time workers. These kinds of workers form an increasing proportion of the workforce. If it is the case that the next reform for agency workers has been remarked on by some employers to be a bridge too far, then let me point out that that is what they always say about any reform. However, as a result, in the future, some employers may well wish to employ people on a regular basis, not on a fixed-term contract, a short-term or part-time basis or on an agency basis. They may wish to employ people on a proper, regular basis, which is all to the good. Indeed, a short visit to a pub these days is all that is needed to overhear someone saying, "I think that, for the first time, I am going to get a regular job in the construction industry. I am to have four weeks' paid holiday". Millions of workers have never had such rights. The reforms mark one of the incoming tides of history to which my noble friend Lord McCarthy eloquently referred.
I turn to a more general point about employment rights. Either Jung or Freud—I do not know which said that work is central to people's lives, both men and women. That is true of the membership of this House. Over the past 40 years, the tribunal system has considerably enhanced the quality of working life. It has de facto enhanced the quality of contracts of employment, a point to which my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden has attested.
We have to calibrate these points, as it were, but it is true to say that some of the recent increase in tribunal activity has been due to a reduction in the base of collective bargaining, a point made by my noble friend Lord McCarthy. It would be a logical desire on the part of Her Majesty's Government to reverse that process. I hope that it will be a moral that my noble friend on the Front Bench will underline.
The introduction of pro rata rights for so-called atypical workers—who have started to become rather less atypical and more typical—has marked a major reform under the Social Chapter which was and remains a very popular part of Labour's 1997 election manifesto. I recall vividly that it was also popular in

1381
the preceding campaign for the European elections. "Vote for the Social Chapter" proved to be a popular slogan.
Perhaps I may turn to the aspect of the Bill which has generated the most discussion; namely, the default procedure for dispute and grievance resolution. Those noble Lords with a background in the trade union movement—we should declare our interests; I do so all the time—believe that the extension of rights to which I have referred will create a larger workload for employment tribunals. Many of these new rights are to he accorded to workers who have not previously enjoyed them. As a result, and as a consequence of European legislation under the Single European Act signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, and under the Social Chapter, we shall see an increase in the workload. I mention this because I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will comment on it. Whatever the percentage, such cases will not be of the kind often characterised as the modern "rush to litigation" or the rush to statutory procedures on the ground that individuals have suddenly become more litigious. Perhaps my noble friend will confirm that that is a point which may properly be made.
My noble friend Lady Turner also drew attention to a point to which I attach the greatest importance and believe is the main strategic question. Those of us with experience of industrial relations would, I believe, all agree on one thing: that if procedures could be satisfactorily agreed within a company or place of employment, settled there and the procedure taken forward and then finished on a basis agreed by both sides as the finishing point, that would require joint ownership of the procedures and thus fewer cases would be taken to tribunals. That is logical and correct. But that does not arise and is quite different from the scenario where an additional hurdle has been placed in front of issues going there, because it is quite different in terms of confidence in and the credibility of the procedure. I was very pleased to hear my noble friend Lord McCarthy make that crucial a nd fundamental distinction.
It is in this respect that some of us feel that the Bill has not got it quite right. I want to put forward a suggestion as to how to improve the sense of engagement of the workforce with the default procedure in the Bill as and when it is translated into action in the workplace. I suggest that if the criterion is that the procedure has to win the confidence of all those concerned, that will mean that, through the voice of their representatives—and they will have to invent some if they do not have them; how otherwise can they respond?—the workers will agree that they can settle matters through the internal procedure. The question I wish to put to my noble friend on the Front Bench is this: is that what the Government want? I think that they do want that, but I should like to hear it confirmed. Do they wish to see a procedure which will be capable of settling many matters in the workplace?
If the answer is in the affirmative, what will be conducive to achieving that? After all, we already have it in firms which recognise trade unions. Indeed, it is
1382
almost a definition of trade union recognition that there is a procedure agreement covering individual grievances, properly negotiated, just as is the case with regard to substantive terms such as pay, holidays, hours and pension arrangements. So the Bill sets out a benchmark procedure which in all cases will apply as a floor. Leaving aside whether trade union agreements are in place, what about the other 50 per cent or so of cases where the default procedure will be freestanding? Exactly how will it be introduced?
The role of ACAS has been cited, and rightly so, in a number of contributions made both here and. in the other place. What will be the relationship between the ACAS code and the default procedure set out in the Bill? I think that the Government intend to ask ACAS to revise the code in due course in order to ensure that it recognises the new statutory procedures. But there is a danger of best practice being driven out by the minimum terms. I do not say that; it is a point which has been forcefully made in today's briefing from the Industrial Society. I shall quote one paragraph:
"The Bill's dispute resolution provisions will undermine ACAS. The ACAS Code of Practice on Discipline and Grievance is widely adhered to and respected, but we fear that the lesser procedures in the Bill will instead become the norm amongst employers. The Minister's statement at Commons Committee stage, that ACAS will be asked to produce a new, in effect, lower level code, is shocking. Admitting it will be necessary as a result of the Bill is an admission that the procedure requirements are being downgraded".
We need, as a minimum, to consider strengthening the Bill to provide for workplace consultation on the application of the default procedure, in the circumstances of each individual workplace. It should be made available in draft form to the entire workforce and an opportunity given to submit any feedback within, say, one month. Employees could then agree a reaction even if the trade union is riot recognised, which—to cheer up the noble Baroness, Lady Miller—is in the spirit of the information and consultation provisions agreed by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. If agreement is reached. that is fine. That is the trade-off. There is no way around it, quick fix or short cut.
One issue of practical application is the sense in which a grievance has been properly investigated—rungs one and two of the individual's right to a voice. There will be much greater acceptance of the procedure's validity if that feedback is taken into account from the start. If, for example, feedback included the request for every issue to be investigated at a certain level, that would lead to a more acceptable result. That also ties in with the right of a worker to be accompanied in a grievance by a legally qualified person, lay union representative or something in between. That also links to the need to retain the word "hearing" from the 1999 Act in place of "meeting", to avoid ambiguity in tribunals on the right to be accompanied. On that point, will my noble friend make a statement that would be seen in the courts as definitive?

1383
On the Polkey principle, and despite the slight adjustment made in the other place, I will quote not the TUC but today's briefing from the Industrial Society, which advocates removing Clause 34(2)(2):
"This Clause provides that a dismissal will not be unfair for the reason only that a procedure has not been followed. It is inconsistent with strengthening the adherence to procedures and reverses the House of Lords decision in Polkey v. AE Dayton Services 1988. HR managers have told us that it will be even more difficult to persuade managers to follow a procedure if they think they can get away with it by arguing that the employee would have been dismissed anyway. Nor is it clear when Polkey will not apply nor the weight of the burden of proof. If this is to be left to the tribunals, then it can only result in more claims to clarify the uncertainty.
"Clause 34(2)(2) should be removed altogether. Failing that, it should be altered so as to limit its effect to the 100 per cent contribution cases—where the employee gets no compensation:
"Delete: 'if he shows that he would have decided to dismiss the employee if he had followed the procedure'.
"Insert: 'if he shows that the fairness of the dismissal was not affected by his failure to follow the procedure.'".
I will mention some of the other questions that I shall be raising so that my noble friend the Minister can consider where some of us are coming from before the Committee stage.
One area of concern is the new power to award costs in relation to the time and resources committed by the parties in preparing a case. We must avoid the problem of double recovery. If we are to achieve a level playing field, we should not include a whole army of employer representatives ticking up costs, which would scare off the applicant if only on the issue of costs. Employers' costs are much easier to quantify, as they are likely to have human resources directors and other senior staff whose time and salary can be taken into account. I draw attention also to the opposition of the Law Society to Clause 28, which gives tribunals powers to strike out cases at preliminary hearings, before any evidence is heard.
Irreversible trends in society create a demand for the exercise of rights. Unlike King Canute, we ought to recognise those trends.
6.54 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I congratulate my right honourable friends and my noble friends on bringing forward proposals in the Bill on family-friendly leave, equal pay questionnaires, which is a most important issue, and the implementation, albeit the rather inadequate implementation, of the directive on fixed-term work. I say that not because the fixed-term work directive is European. I never understand why just legislation cannot be passed by this Parliament, leaving aside the problems of the European Parliament, to which my noble friend referred.
I congratulate my right honourable friends and my noble friends also on the important provisions for union learning representatives. The Conservative Opposition in another place, in a rare Division in Committee, voted against statutory rights for learning representatives in Part 4. They see that as some sort of
1384
promotion of the emergence or infiltration, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, of a gang of Jacobins coming through the tunnel, with whom an employer might one day be forced to discuss training and further education for workers.
Those are all prudent and admirable provisions but I have a large number of doubts about others. I add my voice in support of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity. The provisions for low-paid workers to which he referred are quite inadequate and must be looked at again. I share the doubts of some noble friends, the Law Society, the Industrial Society, the TUC and a number of trade unions, in respect of Parts 2 and 3 and the crucial Schedule 2, which has been widely sensed as the price of acceptance by employer organisations of the Bill's welcome features.
Some of us will want to test Parts 2 and 3 in Committee, which unhappily will not take place in this Chamber, not least because those parts were not tested in another place. The Government's objective, as stated in their response to consultation, is,
"an estimated reduction of between 30,000 or 40,000 applications compared with current levels".
Those are not vexatious or unreasonable applications, of which 247 were penalised last year. Forty thousand cases must go.
The Government's overall objective is to settle industrial problems and grievances at the level of the workplace, without litigation. No one with any sense of adequate industrial relations could oppose that objective but the key issue is how that should be done fairly and sensibly. Small employers should be compelled to have grievance procedures but that reform should have been enacted years ago. Should that aim be pursued by attempting, as the Bill does, to ban workers even from applying to tribunals and penalising those who dare to apply contrary to new and unfair conditions? The Bill's method of restricting access to justice must be unjustified, unless it can be shown that workers are abusing access to enforce their rights and that the conditions imposed are fair. The case has not been proved on either limb.
Since the publication of the surveys that I shall mention later, the case has become more tenuous. I have never believed that employment tribunals and litigation should be or can be a substitute for proper negotiation in the workplace and a strong trade union movement to represent work people. But the provision of a backstop legal process in the form of tribunals for individual grievances had become, one thought, a bipartisan policy since 1970. It is now central to the culture of our working life. It was not possible for another place to debate the proposed restrictions on workers' access to justice, even though some probing amendments were eventually tabled. The information was not available, so Members of another place had not read it—like the Opposition. I understand that the noble Baroness has not seen the SETA survey which is in the Library. She will correct me if I am wrong. Secondly, the Government's guillotine fell upon the few amendments that were put down on Report. In the light of those two features, the responsibility of this House is to look again at Parts 2 and 3 of the Bill.

1385
Since September 2001, my noble friend Lord McCarthy and I have asked for discovery and publication of two full reports—first, the Survey of Employment Tribunals, or SETA, and, secondly, the Awareness of Employment Tribunal Rights survey carried out slightly before it. Both were available to the department early in 2001. Last Monday, in the depths of the Recess—and it gives me no pleasure to say this, but it is not a day when facts should be obscured—the SETA report was deposited in the Library of the House. The "awareness report", as I shall call it, was, I understand, deposited at five o'clock on Friday. That is not the way in which policy should be made.
Little snippets from these reports were quoted again and again in another place, but no one could refer to them to see whether the quotes were correct. I add my voice to that of my noble friend Lord McCarthy in saying that not even what has now been published shows that the Government's figures are right or even sustainable. Indeed, a social scientist in higher education who used the statistics as they have been given would really have to reconsider his position.
I turn now to my objections to Parts 2 and 3 of the Bill. I appreciate that the Opposition are making some play of this, but I am not sure that they have much standing to do so in view of their record. My first objection is to the wide regulation power in the Bill. There is far more than is needed to meet the stated objectives and assurances given by my honourable friend the Minister in another place.
My second objection is to the unfair and uncertain set of conditions which will operate as implied terms and will be imposed on all workers employed under the 25 million contracts of employment in the land, banning them from applying to tribunals or penalising them for doing so under new admissibility criteria—even when they have been treated illegally by an employer—unless certain unreasonable conditions are completed. The unreasonable conditions are contained, of course, in Schedule 2, to which so many people have now objected.
I pause to say that anyone familiar with tribunal work knows very well that disputes about whether these conditions have been fulfilled may well increase by thousands in pre-hearing reviews, if people get the opportunity. The president of the Employment Tribunals Service, who, contrary to the letter distributed to Members of the House from the Minister in another place, has maintained full consultation with the Secretary of State and Ministers on this matter, said that these conditions are,
"frankly absurd and will be a nightmare to administer".
These unfair provisions respond to years of pressure by the CBI, the chambers of commerce, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Institute of Directors. There is no supportable reason for this change of policy—it is a radical change of policy—icon the Government's part.
As to the first objection—the width of the regulation-making power for secondary legislation—I must admit that I rather expected my noble friend the Minister to introduce these parts of the Bill with a
1386
spirited rendering of "I'm Henery the Eighth I am" because so many clauses give the Secretary of State power to interpret them. In the new Clause 33, which was inserted at the last moment in another place, there is a provision that it will not be the courts which will decide whether there has been compliance with the new unreasonable conditions but the Secretary of State. He will say whether there has been compliance with the provisions set out in the Bill.
I leave it there because that leads on to Committee points and I want to restrict myself today to Second Reading points. But they are points that must be put on the record at this stage. We shall certainly press the Government to be rather more exact and to give the Bill—which is at the moment, in many ways, a skeleton—a rather more respectable physiognomy and add some flesh to the bones.
I repeat, the Bill's method of promoting workplace settlement by means of restricting access to justice can be justified only if it can be shown that workers are abusing access to justice in the tribunals. That is the key issue. That is why the Minister in another place constantly referred to these figures.
In 1968, the Donovan report—which is a better starting point than Franks—made quite clear the principles which were to be observed, not only in this country but in many European countries. Tribunals must be easy to access, cheap, not subject to the usual regime of costs and sensibly run—that is, informal. Unhappily, the Bill threatens a host of those principles.
It threatens a new cost regime—we do not quite know what—even though the Leggatt report said that nothing should be changed until more research was done. It proposes new awards for management's estimated "preparation" time—a proposal obscure in its terms which we shall have to amend. This is an opening which will clearly be used to intimidate workers with a good case who want to take action against illegal management acts, making them fearful of approaching the tribunal. Imagine if your case had crossed the desk of the noble Lord, Lord Simpson, at Marconi, and you were told that you had to pay for his preparation time. That would cost you a pretty penny. This provision must be looked at.
The provision in the Bill to abolish the principle adopted by the courts—the Polkey rule—that employers must observe all relevant contractual procedures before the dismissal of a worker could be fair must be jettisoned.
Of all things, the Bill aims to cut down the duties of conciliation officers from ACAS. Why? As my noble friend said, conciliation has increased faster than applications. The Bill will impose new rules whereby a worker with a good prima facie case will never even get to a tribunal or could be penalised for doing so. Most of the new rules are based on the statutory grievance and discipline procedures in Schedule 2 and are implied in every contract in the land. They are unfair and not, as the TUC wanted and made clear, based on the more fair procedures of the ACAS code, which is not perfect but is obviously more fair. Indeed, the

1387
ACAS code will not survive. It was made clear by the Minister in another place that it will have to be rewritten after this Bill.
It is admirable that the Bill will compel small employers to adopt grievance and disciplinary procedures, but the new rules are not even handed. They give the employer the last word in every dispute; they do not even require investigation before a dismissal; and they tell a worker who is thrown out of the works, told to clear his desk and go, that he must come back and use the procedure. It is a fantasy land. I agree with my noble friend—I doubt whether the Bill will save 40,000 cases. But the Government are determined on this matter; otherwise they would not include it in the Bill.
How did this sorry story come about? It is necessary to say a word about how this has happened because it is so unlikely, especially for my Government. How did it come about? We know that the CBI and employers' organisations have been grumbling since 1980 about the cost to business of workers enforcing their individual rights at work. They complain of the cost of tribunals enforcing workers' rights. They spent years demanding more law in industrial relations and now they have it they do not like it being enforced. A right which is not enforceable is an exercise in frustrated rhetoric. It is not surprising that the claim about costs does not take account of the justification of the claims.
Let us be clear. British employers are not alone. The French employers' organisation, MEDEF, has now launched a campaign to cut down the jurisdiction of the Conseils de Prud'hommes in France and the Italian employers have convinced the Berlusconi government to accept demands to slash employment protection rights. It is a fairly general phenomenon. Yet research shows that of the applications made in this country, those that succeed at a hearing have remained at a fairly steady rate since 1988. I thank the Minister who not only sent me by post a copy of the SETA survey, which saved me half a day, but also for sending me in the middle of this debate a reply to a Parliamentary Question which shows that since 1986 the proportion of successful applications has scarcely varied. Indeed, it increased again last year.
So where are the indefensible demands by applications to tribunals launched in a frenzy of litigious fever? As my noble friend has said, they do not exist. Employees' applications for remedies in the employment tribunals have been steadily increasing for two decades. Of course, one can gain a percentage increase according to where one starts. The Government are right that between 1990 and 2000 the number has tripled, but if one starts in 1990 and goes to 1996, the figure is multiplied by 2.5. If one considers the years from 1996 to 2001, the increase is by a factor of 1.3. There has been no marked recent increase.
Here I depart slightly from my noble friend Lord McCarthy. The research by Dr Earnshaw and her colleagues in 1998 and by Dr Burgess and his colleagues published shortly thereafter, have given us five factors which are the reason for the steady increase
1388
in applications to tribunals and which the Government actually recognise in one of their documents. The five factors are these. First, discrimination cases increasing related to increasing female participation in the workforce. Secondly, unfair dismissal cases increasing because of growing employment in small enterprises, where there are inadequate or no procedures. Thirdly, redundancy cases related to the decline in manufacturing employment. Fourthly, cases related to the decline in trade union membership. Fifthly, the steady extension in the jurisdictions of the tribunals over the years. That is important.
But in 2001, the leading scholars in the subject, Professors Deakin and Morris, concluded:
"The perception that the system is being abused by unmeritorious applicants is based on anecdote rather than research".
They knew very well what the research said. Why did the Government change it? Why did they begin by saying 64 per cent, which was subsequently revised to 62 per cent on a reworking of the data lost or unavailable for a long period? The Government said:
"Sixty four per cent of applications to the employment tribunals come from employees who have not attempted to solve the problem with their employer directly in the first instance".
One should read the SETA document which I see that my noble friends on the Front Bench have been doing assiduously throughout the debate. They will not find it there because that is not what it says. We have been able to study this document for eight days in the Recess, but it is not there. It states:
"When combined, these findings suggest that, in 62 per cent of cases, the applicant did not meet with the employers to try to resolve the dispute. These findings have to be interpreted with some care".
In some cases, contact may have been made in writing or by telephone. In other instances a representative might have intervened on the applicant's behalf. Alternatively, the grievance may have only arisen after the employment relationship had been terminated, when the applicant did not have access to the use of an internal procedure. Alternatively again, the applicant may have felt the internal procedure was not a suitable mechanism. We all know of those cases, which are cases of sexual and racial harassment and so forth, where the applicant would have to approach the same manager.
But the Minister in Committee in the other place— this is crucial to the issue—returned again and again, like a dog with a bone, to the evils of the 62 per cent and 64 per cent of applicants who had done nothing to try to solve the dispute. Noble Lords may wish to refer the reports of 11th December and 18th December and to many other parts of the proceedings. But suddenly, after the Bill had been published and long after the new policy on access to justice had been formulated, the Minister suddenly produced another figure. He said,
"In 37 per cent of applications there was no attempt to resolve the problem before the application was made".

1389
Even on what we knew then, that seemed very strange because the Government themselves had quoted from the Awareness Survey:
"Around 7 per cent of people who have experienced problems (with employers) did not seek advice or make contact with their employer to resolve the problem—The remaining 93 per cent of employees who had experienced a problem said that they had tried to resolve the problem".
For the convenience of my noble friends on the Front Bench, that is from page two of the background paper.
There appears to be something very odd about the ministerial arithmetic: 37 per cent had not tried to resolve the problem, but 93 per cent had. That was enough to make one search the published evidence, when it was made available, and to look very carefully at what was said at page 24, where three sets of questions and answers are combined. My noble friend on the Front Bench shakes his head, but if he looks at that page he will find—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was not shaking my head as the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, believes. I was shaking my head al the suggestion from the Opposition Front Bench that the noble Lord's speech was too long.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I am sorry if the Opposition or anyone else believes that my speech is too long to set out the facts. These are not Committee points. I use Second Reading for Second Reading points. Noble Lords will find on page 24 of the report that three sets of questions and answers are combined uniquely in the report, without there being a table giving the individual questions and answers. That is unique.
The re-worked answers are combined to show that no attempt to try to resolve the dispute took place between the parties. What do the researchers say? They do not say that the employees failed to try to resolve the dispute, but that:
"This is probably the most comprehensive indicator of lack of dialogue available from the data".
I agree that there is a lack of dialogue. Small employers should be made to have procedures. But that is no reason whatever to impose a prohibition on access to justice to a worker who is told by his employer, "Clear your desk. I am not having a meeting with you".
That case falls within the statistics. Yet it is on the misinterpretation of these two re-worked statistics that public policy has been reversed. Access to justice will be denied to workers if the Bill goes through. I beg the Government to think seriously about what we shall press for in Committee and on Report—that Parts 2 and 3 of the Bill must be revised and reconstructed. I beg the Government to think again and give us a Bill all parts of which we can support.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I have a number of substantive points on the Bill that I should like to make. I should also like to make a few general points about employment legislation. However, I should, first, declare my interests, which are threefold: I am
1390
both an employee/employer with Consort Resources Ltd, and a parent. Therefore, the changes proposed in the Bill will affect me on all three counts.
The Government have said that the aim of the legislation is to,
"deliver a balanced package of support for working parents, at the same time as reducing red tape for employers and making it easier to settle disputes in the workplace".
It is against that bench-mark, as the noble Lord, Lord, McCarthy, rightly implied, that the Bill must be judged. On a practical day-to-day level we have come a long way since I studied McCarthy texts in detail and the days of belligerent industrial relations. Yet today there are still two interests and often two agendas at stake.
On this day-to-day level, as we know, the interests of employers and those of employees do not always coincide. When it comes to employment legislation, a fine line must be negotiated between them to achieve best practice results. This line is the difference between what must be enforced by regulation and what is best left to a voluntary approach, though accept that that is a hard one to tread. Sensible measures to raise standards in the workplace are always welcome. While governments can have a role to play in that respect, it must be remembered when drafting legislation that there is a very strong link between good employment relations and success in the market-place. After all, productivity depends on employers and employees working together in an effective partnership. Regulation is rarely the best way to achieve that partnership.
The Bill before us is no exception. From the effective reversal of the Polkey decision to the right for parents to request flexible working, it is a delicately balanced package. The stakes are high, especially for a Bill whose impact will be felt at the same time as the cold shadow of darkening economic skies. A harsher climate is facing British businesses today. Get it wrong, ignore the gloomier economic forecast, allow the sharp edge of Britain's competitiveness to be blunted and not only employer and employee, but every British citizen, will be the loser. Get it right and we will have equipped our workforce—employer and employee alike—with the tools to ride out economic downturns.
Businesses are increasingly concerned about the growth and complexity of new employment rights and about the rise of what has been termed "the compensation culture". In that context, regulation does carry a health warning with it, and that is particularly so with over-prescriptive regulation. That is why I advocate a light touch approach, working with the grain of existing best practice, regulating where unavoidable and taking particular account of the needs of small firms. All of those measures are necessary.
That is the context in which I have considered Part 1 of the Bill, which concerns statutory leave and pay. I should like to place on record my unreserved support for family-friendly working—a point eloquently summarised by the right reverend Prelate. Family-friendly working practices make sound business sense

1391
when it comes to retaining skilled staff. On that basis, I do not believe that they are an optional extra for the majority of employers. A seismic shift has taken place in our society. The workplace has lagged behind; but, like other areas of our national life, it, too, must adapt to the reality of the modern family.
However, in offering that support for the Government for many aspects of Part 1, I hope that I shall not inject too much of a controversial note into today's debate when I raise two reservations that also emerge from this part of the Bill. The first is with regard to ensuring that these measures have the desired effect in improving the position of women in the workplace; and the second is with regard to the effect that they will have on small businesses.
The provisions of the Bill will give mothers a choice on how to combine their work and family responsibilities. It will allow them to fulfil their role as parents without compromising their role as employees, and vice versa. Any measure that increases the supply of skilled workers by making it easier for women to return to work should be welcome. However, it is very important that this provision does not backfire and have the negative and unlooked-for effect of discriminating against the very group that it is intended to help. I hope to explore that point further during detailed discussion in Committee.
In particular, small businesses will find it difficult to comply with the Bill's provisions. It will be genuinely difficult for some of them to keep jobs open for up a year and to train temporary staff, with no guarantee that their employees will return. I must emphasise that I am not arguing against these measures in the Bill, but I believe that employment legislation must, above all, be realistic and not idealistic.
I take further the points made during this debate on small businesses. I believe that it is important to acknowledge that the Bill's provisions affecting small businesses are not cost free. That does not mean that those costs are not worth paying; and, indeed, that the long-term gains from them will not benefit society far more than the short-term costs. However, all regulations in the workplace impose costs, both direct and indirect, on employers, other employees and society as a whole. It does not mean that regulation is wrong, but it means that choices and priorities will sometimes have to be made. Businesses are not infinite shock absorbers. They can only absorb so much in the way of cost burdens.
At this point in my remarks it is sensible to say a few words about flexible working, although, as we know, this proposal appears later in the Bill. In principle, I support the moves to implement the recommendations of the Work and Parents Taskforce, so that parents of young children are given the right to ask for serious consideration of flexible working arrangements. Employers will have a duty to find a solution, wherever possible, that suits both the worker and the business.
1392
Clause 47 was originally tabled under a schedule of "minor and consequential amendments" in another place. However, there is nothing minor about it. It is perhaps one of the most significant clauses in the entire Bill. As has been pointed out, the drafting of this new clause has caused concern. Some of the language in it is very odd, and that is a matter that must be addressed in Committee.
I should also like to make a few comments on Parts 2 and 3 of the Bill, especially with regard to employment tribunal reform and dispute resolution. There has been a general welcome for the measure to modernise the employment tribunal system, particularly outside the Chamber and this evening's debate, and to encourage dispute resolution in the workplace through dialogue rather than litigation. I, too, share that welcome. There is no doubt that it is a step forward for employees to use internal grievance procedures to resolve disputes in the workplace without going to tribunals. Any measures that help to deter trivial or vexatious applications are both necessary and desirable.
I have a number of major reservations about Part 4 of the Bill. The clause to place trade union learning representatives on a statutory footing, which the CBI has called a "step in the wrong direction", falls into that category. The idea of increasing the amount of training in the workplace is a good one, but the mandatory requirement imposed by the Bill for employers to recognise and provide time off to an unlimited number of union learning representatives, without having any say in their appointment or selection, is not. Indeed, although the proposal could have benefits, which I certainly recognise, compulsion sends all the wrong signals. The point about compulsion should be at the centre of our debates. Learning representatives will add value only when they work in partnership with employers. Compulsion is only likely to add to costs.
The proposals on fixed-term working are also an area of concern. Here I should like to echo the words of the noble Baronesses, Lady Turner of Camden and Lady Sharp. They will have far-reaching implications for university teachers, given the endemic use of FTCs in higher education. It is clear from this evening's debate that we shall be returning to that point in Committee. I welcome that clear consequence demonstrated by the speeches that focused on the issue.
However, the Bill will also give fixed-term employees equivalent rights, including rights involving pay and pensions, which were not covered by the original EU directive on which this part of the Bill is based. As my noble friend Lady Miller mentioned, there was considerable debate in Committee in another place on this "gold-plating"—to use her words—of the EU directive. Moreover, these regulations can be brought in at a later date. The point about introducing the regulations at a later date by statutory instrument causes me concern. It means that they are unlikely to be subjected to widespread debate or consultation.

1393
In that context, does the Minister accept the CBI's belief that the introduction of pensions under the fixed term regulations will be extremely complex and costly to administer? How will the proposed new rights for employees on fixed term contracts be implemented in a way that imposes minimal burdens on businesses?
Finally, I want to refer briefly to the use of information for or relating to employment and training, which is dealt with in Clause 50 and in Schedule 6. This raises some important issues of confidentiality—even perhaps of human rights—which I should like to flag now as matters to be raised in Committee. I should like to know whether such confidential information will be shared with the private sector contractors who do the work. If it is not, they will have no way of validating the assessment by the Department for Work and Pensions of how much money is owed to them. If that is the case, anyone who has contact with the department will have to accept that their earnings patterns thereafter will become something of an open hook. I understand the underlying need for the provision, but I consider it to be a drastic step and one which smacks of a Big Brother state tracking private citizens as a result of engaging with the Department for Work and Pensions or one of its contractors.
The Bill was described earlier as a "curate's egg"—good in parts, and I agree with that assessment. It is a well-intentioned Bill. Although its individual parts may not appear to impose an onerous load, taken as a whole its cumulative effect will be to add to the burden of new regulatory compliance, administrative obligations and organisational flexibility.
Moreover—this is a key point—the Bill depends greatly on enabling secondary legislation for its effect. As has been mentioned, again eloquently, before us we have a skeleton the bare bones of which have yet to be fleshed out. Such leap in the dark legislation only contributes to my concerns.
At the beginning of my remarks, I made it clear that employmenl legislation must tread a very fine line. The Bill is in danger of crossing that line. I do not believe that it does so yet, but any further concessions risk destabilising the employer-employee relationship, to no one's advantage and at the expense of our economy as a whole.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: My Lords, at this time of night when you are the last man in, you become aware of two things. One is that most of the things that you want to say have been said. The other is that the Chamber is usually peopled by Members who have already made their speeches and are anxious to hear the Minister's reply and get on with the next business. I have been crossing out large chunks of my remarks so I shall detain the House for only a few moments.
I declare an interest. I was formerly an official of the GMB trade union and spent 30 years infiltrating British industry—in most cases, I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, at the invitation of the
1394
employer. My experience which is more germane to this debate is that I have been a member of two employment tribunals and am currently a member of the Employment Appeals Tribunal—which experience brings me directly to those parts of the Bill that give me and many others cause for concern.
I firmly believe that all employers should have in place a fair procedure for resolving disputes in the workplace. Unfortunately, as the Minister in another place remarked, there are 600,000 workplaces where no such procedure exists. That is why I welcome the proposal in the Bill to require employers to adopt such procedures. However, these statutory requirements are skeletal—a word used by a number of speakers.
Frankly, if the Government wanted to increase the number of workers covered by in-house grievance and disciplinary procedures, all they had to do was to make the ACAS code of practice the statutory requirement. The Minister in another place said that the jump from having no grievance and disciplinary procedure to being legally required to observe the provisions of the ACAS code of practice would be too much for many small employers. If that represents some of the pressure being exerted on the department, why not do it in a staged way, according to the number of employees—requiring the large employers to apply the ACAS code immediately, which most follow anyway, but allowing smaller and medium-sized employers to follow suit at a later date?
We have considerable experience of staged legislation being introduced in order that employers can catch up with the requirements. That proposal was suggested in debate in the other place. Perhaps I may be forgiven if I am wrong, but I believe it was supported by the leading spokesman for the Conservative Opposition, Mr Philip Hammond, and also by members of the Labour Party. The suggestion was turned down by my honourable friend Alan Johnson—but not in a very convincing way. Noble Lords have only to read the Committee stage proceedings to see the point I am making.
The problem with the proposals in the Bill are, as I have said, skeletal. For example, there is no requirement for an employer to carry out a proper investigation before proceeding to discipline or dismiss an employee. Such a procedure would in itself be unfair. Another example is the absence of any reference to the right of a worker with a grievance or of a worker facing possible disciplinary action by the employer to be accompanied at the meetings referred to in the statutory procedure. The third example is the use of the word "meeting" in the three-step procedure. The final stage is an appeal and should, therefore, be described as a "hearing". That is a point to which we shall return in Committee. The details of the interpretations of the clauses will, as I understand it be set out in regulations, but the three examples I have given are important omissions which should he remedied and set out on the face of the Bill.

1395
I have two further concerns on which I should welcome comments from my noble friend. The first relates to cases of alleged gross misconduct where the employer can use the modified procedure set out in Schedule 2 to the Bill. But again there is no requirement for an investigation before dismissal. In these circumstances the sacked worker is appealing from outside the workplace. In my experience that rarely, if ever, leads to reinstatement if the appeal is successful. My worry is that some rogue employers will see the modified procedure as a way of sacking people and thinking afterwards; and that we shall see an increase in unfair dismissal claims coming before tribunals.
At this point I must declare a further interest. I am a member of the council of Public Concern at Work. My final concern is the impact of the Bill, particularly Clause 30, on the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, referred to the issue, and I shall not repeat his remarks. However, I ask the Minister for an assurance that there will be no conflict between the statutory procedures for dispute resolution set out in the Bill and the safeguards for whistle-blowers in the Public Interest Disclosure Act.
7.39 p.m.
Lord Sharman: My Lords, in the spirit of the noble
Lord, Lord Gladwin, I shall endeavour not to detain your Lordships too long in winding up. It is difficult to disagree with the stated objectives behind the Bill. Patricia Hewitt, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, said that the Government's priority was,
"to deliver a high-skill, high-productivity economy".
She went on to say:
"Productivity is not about working people into the ground; it is about skilled people in high-performance workplaces, where employers and employees work together in an effective partnership".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/11/01; col. 864.]
The question is whether the Bill takes us down the road towards achieving that stated objective, with which, as I have said, it is difficult to disagree.
I welcome in particular the family-friendly provisions in Part I. It is generally accepted that the modern British economy faces some potential longterm problems of increasing the supply of skilled and unskilled workers. Much of that supply will have to come from older workers who have retired prematurely or from women, who traditionally have taken long and often involuntary absences from employment. Any provisions, such as maternity or paternity rights, that make it more comfortable for women to return to work should be welcomed and encouraged, as long as they are properly balanced. The provisions in Part 1 go a long way towards achieving that objective.
However, as the Law Society's commentary on the Bill says,
"the Bill is a wasted opportunity to clarify the existing problems of definitions in maternity provisions, such as the right to accrue holiday entitlements under the Working Time Regulations during periods of statutory leave, or the haphazard and unfair treatment of bonus payments".
1396
Those problems of definition will now be replicated in paternity and adoption situations, when the Bill could have provided clarity across the board. I ask the Minister to consider introducing amendments in Committee to clear up some of those problems.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, rightly said, that brings us to the end of what could have been a nice separate Bill, which I am sure that my party would have worked diligently to help the Government pass through this House at record speed. However, we then come to what the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, referred to as the "manky meat"—Part 2 on tribunal reform. Why the provisions have been introduced in this Bill at this time is puzzling at best and incomprehensible at worst, when the Leggatt report is sitting on the table. I am not a lawyer, but I understand that the report applies to all tribunals, with the stated aim of simplifying their processes. Why could we not wait until some of that was implemented?
Secondly, as my noble friend Lord Razzall remarked, we have an Employment Tribunal System Taskforce which is also studying the problem. Why not wait until it has reported? I shall not go on about the problem of tribunal reform. Many people who are much better equipped to comment on those provisions have done so. However, it seems to me that the provisions will not achieve what is stated in the priorities. They will not make things better between employers and employees. I entirely endorse the contention that any procedure that requires the filling in of a form—even a simple form—immediately puts people in the hands of lawyers and the legal process. I have grave reservations about that.
Part 3 deals with dispute resolution. The noble Lords, Lord Lea and Lord Razzall, have referred to the grave concern expressed by the Industrial Society that the process of ACAS will be undermined by the procedures. My party has some significant reservations about Schedule 2. The absence of any requirement for employers to investigate before decisions are taken is incomprehensible. Good management would always want to find out the facts. An overall requirement that any hearing should be conducted fairly would be an added benefit.
I can think of some genuine reasons why employers might have to dismiss employees without a hearing. In such circumstances, they should not be penalised. However, the provisions as drafted might well encourage employers to dismiss employees for gross misconduct even if it is not appropriate. We shall need to look at that carefully in Committee.
Clauses 33 and 34, which deal with the failure of applicants and employers to follow procedures. need fundamental re-examination. In both cases they may well achieve the opposite of what is intended.
We then come to Part 4, on which my noble friend Lord Razzall has already expressed our concern that the flexible arrangements envisaged in Clause 45 should apply to all workers, including agency workers and others. We shall need to look at that in some depth.

1397
Finally, 1 repeat my party's opposition to Clause 49. Dr Vincent Cable, the Liberal Democrat spokesman on trade and industry in another place, said on Second Reading:
"the provisions are not only inappropriate, but extremely reactionary…
The clause will mean that, in future, the partners of disabled people in receipt of a variety of disability benefits will be required to submit to the work test. If they fail that test, as currently defined, benefit sanctions will ensue.
That worries us deeply, because there is no evidence that the process will encourage disabled people's partners to work. However, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that many such partners, although they are not being paid, are working, in the sense that they are carers. Driving those people into work would be inhuman in some cases, and enormously costly to the state, which would have to fulfil the caring responsibilities".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/11/01; cols. 886–87.]
I am not sure whether the Bill is a curate's egg or a manky meat sandwich, but I am sure that we have enough to get our teeth into in Committee.
7.49 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I declare an interest in that I run a small business and also own and manage office accommodation that is home to a number of small firms. Oxfordshire is one of the most successful counties for small businesses in Great Britain. I also declare that my wife and I have a 15 month-old baby. I am not sure that I would like to be thought of as a new father with nappy-changing abilities, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford said, but over the past 15 months I have become only too aware of the importance of paternity leave and the challenges that parenthood imposes on a husband and wife.
I therefore consider the Bill with a balanced mind, both as husband to a mother who is a key worker in an IT industry and requires maternity leave to nurture a newly born child and as an employer concerned about the Bill's impact. I should also say that I hope that a few noble Lords will agree with me that it is disappointing to see that the Bill does not deal with the paternity leave of Whips in your Lordships' House.
As the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, said, this is a mishmash of a Bill that has a number of aims, some of which we can accept, some of which we have reservations about and some of which we cannot accept. My honourable friend in another place, Mr Hammond, said:
"It is largely an empty box—a skeleton of primary legislation—the full impact and effect of which we shall not be able to judge until we see the regulations that should accompany it".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/11/01; col. 921]
My noble friend Lord Moynihan also alluded to that point.
It should also be said, on a brighter note, that the accompanying Explanatory Notes are exemplary in their clarity. Sadly, they will have no impact on interpretation of the Bill once it becomes law.
We hope that when the Bill becomes law, our businesses, especially small businesses, do not lose too much of their competitiveness in relation to their world competitors. Undoubtedly some groups, including the trade unions, would wish the Bill to go
1398
further. Employers may be anxious to give less away. Trade unions have done much good, but businesses must be competitive to continue to employ and expand. We must not go back to the old days of the state continually being required to hail out failing businesses that have become uncompetitive due to had work practices.
As my noble friend Lady Miller said, the Government state that the Bill's aim is to,
"deliver a balanced package of support for working parents, at the same time as reducing red tape for employers and making it easier to settle disputes in the work place".
Those are admirable aims. However, no matter how worthy the Government's aims in reducing red tape, their rhetoric does not reflect their action.
It may be of interest to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, to hear that there has been a torrent of legislation in this area. Indeed, there have been more than 3,856 new directives this year alone—the highest number ever. It must come as no surprise to the Government that—although the move was popular, as the noble Lord, Lord Lea, said—since they signed up to the social chapter, Britain has fallen from ninth to 19th in the world competitiveness league. More worryingly, our productivity growth has gone from being above the G7 average to below it.
We should always remember that small businesses comprise 99 per cent of all businesses in this country, employ 44 per cent of the private sector workforce and generate 37 per cent of the output. They also create almost all new jobs in the economy. If British industry is to live successfully in an ever-changing economic environment, there must be a cessation of the indirect costs on business that the Government have created in successive waves of regulation. Those regulations impose both direct and indirect costs on business. We may not have gone as far as some of the countries in the European Union in creating disincentives to job creation, but it is important that we strike a fine balance between employees' rights and a loss of competitiveness in Britain's firms.
As a Fellow of the Industry and Parliamentary Trust, I have spent a number of days with BAE Systems. In those days I have become more aware than ever before of the importance to a firm of being able to recruit, train and retain skilled workers. Employees tend to be dedicated to the firm they work for not only because they enjoy the working environment and the challenges of the workplace, but because the firm recognises the employee's requirements to have a fulfilling family life as well. Families that have time to nurture their children give their children a good start in life and offer them the best chance of growing up to be contributors to society.
It is clear that the proposed extension of rights to paid and unpaid leave for maternity, paternity and adoption will increase the opportunity for families to create a caring and secure environment for children. The higher rates of statutory pay and longer periods of entitlement will help employees who are fortunate enough to benefit. Time will tell, however, whether the

1399
legislation has over-egged the pudding and whether in times of economic downturn firms will find these rights to be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
Professor George Bain—who is much quoted by Labour Members in another place, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury—said that,
"very often it is a case of employee versus employee because one person's flexible working is quite often someone else's inflexible working".
Last November, we saw a high-profile tribunal case in which WPC Michelle Chew of Avon and Somerset Police was refused permission to work the same days each week so that she could take her children to nursery school. Avon and Somerset Police said that all officers had to work varied shifts, while critics believe that special treatment would lead to a backlash against working mothers by men and childless couples. The tribunal ruled that the force had breached the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. One should obviously consider the effects of giving benefits to one section of society that might have negative implications for another section of society. Why should one section of society shoulder the burdens created by the flexibility requirements of another section of society?
We are glad to be able to welcome the Bill's other main strand—proposals to improve disputes, resolutions and tribunal procedures. It must be right to have as much clarity as possible in this sphere, thus one hopes improving the number of disputes resolved in the workplace. Can the Minister tell us whether ACAS will receive further resources to ensure that it can provide a more comprehensive and more effective service?
As my noble friends Lady Miller and Lord Moynihan outlined in their speeches, in Part 4 the Government propose to impose on employers a requirement to recognise and provide time off to unlimited numbers of union learning representatives without giving them any say in their selection or appointment. Like my noble friends, I am concerned about this part of the Bill. One wonders whether it is simply a pay-off to the Government's union paymasters. Although we believe that union learning representatives can play a valuable role in the workplace, it is respect for them by their employers that will make their roles worth while.
We accept the Bill's broad objectives, which are most well intentioned. Taken individually, the objectives may not seem to constitute an unacceptable burden. However, given all the other new burdens of regulatory compliance, administrative obligation and organisational inflexibility that the Government have imposed, we must take the utmost care in placing further burdens on our businesses. We should also put the debate in context. The Government's proposals are being presented after three successive quarters of manufacturing recession, and businesses across all sectors are reeling under the seemingly unstoppable flow of new regulation. At a time when the global economy is heading towards a sharp downturn and jobs are being lost at an accelerating rate across the
1400
UK, we must ask whether this is the time to impose new burdens which will make Britain's economy less competitive.
8 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may take the analogy of my noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall and say that I do not believe I have heard so many Mark Anthonys in the course of an afternoon and evening in any debate in this House before. I rather liked the formulation of my noble friend Lord McCarthy, which he did not quite finish. He is not in his place! I have pages of reply I am not supposed to give.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, perhaps I may suggest that the Minister omit those pages of reply.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am supposed to omit them.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, if my noble friend will allow me to intervene, I understand that my noble friend Lord McCarthy was urgently summoned by Hansard.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not criticising him in any way. I see he is back in his place and that has added five minutes to my speech!
I wanted to say that his formulation was rather apposite and which I can paraphrase as being: I engage in constructive criticism; you are critical and he is a wrecker. There were not quite any wreckers here, or at least not in the open. So it becomes particularly complicated to respond to the variety of interesting and well thought-out points that have been made.
Let me start by referring to what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said in relation to small employers. There was an implied criticism of my noble friend Lord Sainsbury for being a large employer. The noble Lord. Lord Henley, should know that we have divided the work between us. I spent 30 years as a small employer, starting with no employees at all and ending up with only around 35.
Lord Henley: My Lords, if the noble Lord will give way, there was no criticism whatever of the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, for having been a large employer in the past. I have every admiration for large employers. I just think that their interests are different from those of small employers.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, they may well be, which is why we have representatives of both kinds of employer on the Government Front Bench on this occasion.
However, leaving the personal qualifications on one side, let me immediately turn to the open criticism expressed particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady

1401
Miller, about the ethos of the Bill, which she described as being the ethos of a compensation culture. That is far from the analysis that we make of the Bill.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I thought I made it perfectly clear that we welcomed Parts 1, 2 and 3 of the Bill. We had some problems with Part 4. When the noble Lord reads Hansard he will see that I was talking about the number of tribunals. I referred in part to compensation and in part to the shortening of the qualifying period. I did not describe the Bill in that. way at all.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, indeed I accept that entirely. I noted with great pleasure that the noble Baroness was supporting Parts 1, 2 and 3, though not all of her colleagues were quite as favourable to significant parts of the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked specifically about the development of the tribunal system. She was worried about the tribunal system being over-loaded and its capacity being increased by the size of the claims. But the median award for unfair dismissal, for example, was only £2,700 in the last full year. When we consider that the average week's pay is £450, the noble Baroness will agree that that is a very low figure. If anybody is tempted to go to a tribunal on the basis of the possibility of large profits, they will be sadly disappointed. I do not believe that that is a significant basis for people going to tribunals.
A number of noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and my noble friend Lord McCarthy from a rather different point of view—commented on the increase in the numbers of tribunal cases and their costs. I can confirm the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in relation to the increase and my noble friends Lord Wedderburn and Lord McCarthy spelt them out. But that is not the Government's fundamental concern in putting this legislation forward. That is not the reason why we are doing it. That is not the way in which we understand the increase in tribunals' business and I shall be coming to that point in more detail later.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. Can he explain why in Routes to Resolution it says it is?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall spend a good deal of time discussing exactly that matter. I am introducing it only in the context of the burdens on business which was the starting point of the first speeches.
I shall move on immediately—clearly noble Lords are impatient for later parts of my speech—and deal with the family-friendly aspect of the Bill. It is good to say that that achieved wide support from virtually everybody in the House, with the exception of the noble Lord. Lord Henley, who appears to be opposed to the paternity leave provisions. I notice that his opposition is not shared by his own Front Bench and I take some comfort from that.
1402
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford made some particularly welcome remarks in relation to paternity and adoption leave. He made an interesting point about the possibility of an extension to extended family adoption. I can see there may be difficulty in the definition of that. But he will know that in November last year the Government announced an examination of civil partnerships—what the French call "pacs". Clearly there are wider implications, not just for the issues covered in this Bill, but also for issues such as benefits and pensions. It is better that that review takes place and he taken into account.
I understand the concern of the right reverend Prelate about both parents working and the consequent effect on family life. But there is considerable misunderstanding on this shared by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharman. Alan Johnson made it clear at Second Reading in another place that there is nothing here which will force anybody into work. When the work focus interviews include partners, they are designed to improve the match between the potential labour force and jobs available. There is no element in the Bill of what the Americans call "work fare".
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, made a point about the contributions and benefits Act. That is the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. It is spelt out in full in the previous clause in the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Davies made some interesting points about the issue of payment during paternity and adoption leave for those earning below the lower earnings limit. He suggested that there should be a percentage of average weekly pay. It is not possible to deal with that problem in the Bill, but we believe that the solution is an amendment to the existing benefits system. We will amend the income support regulations for those entitled to paternity leave but riot to statutory paternity pay. In relation to the problem of speed of settlement, the target for the Benefits Agency is 12 days, though their average is actually better than that.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharman, wanted us to take the opportunity to clear up anomalies in the maternity regulations. The working time regulations apply to all of those situations—maternity leave, paternity leave and adoption leave—and in particular they provide for the accrual of holiday entitlement, which was one of the issues with which he was concerned.
I turn to what is the major area—justifiably so—of controversy in the Bill. I was asked by my noble friends Lord Lea, Lord McCarthy and others whether we want fewer cases going to tribunals. We do. But we do not want that at the price of anybody's individual rights nor at the risk of employees not being able to make valid and reasonable claims. We do not want the reduction because we feel that there is a large number of vexatious claims. The figures are well known on that. Nowhere in the Bill is there a proposal that there should be a denial of the right to go to employment tribunals. We do however think that where possible—I stress the words "where possible"—there should be

1403
settlement by agreement. We believe that that is to the benefit of both employers and employees. To that extent I hope that our intentions are the same as those of the noble Lords, Lord Wedderburn, Lord McCarthy, and others who have spoken. But I must emphasise in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Lea, that resolution by agreement in the workplace does not prevent a tribunal claim. He used the phrase "prohibition on access to justice" and the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, talked about unmeritorious applicants. Unmeritorious applicants do not, and never have, constituted a significant feature in our thinking. What we want is off-line settlement of as many disputes and claims as possible, as I say, for the benefit of both employers and employees.
There has been—
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt at this point and I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. However, when he says that there will be an emphasis on making provision for agreement, will he not reflect that that may well require some amendment to the Bill as it stands at the moment?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not believe so but we shall study with great care any amendments that are tabled, as we do with any subject. I ought now to turn to something which exercises the minds of a number of noble Lords; that is, the evidence on which it is claimed we are putting forward this legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, said that we had claimed that 62 per cent of cases could have been resolved outside tribunals.
The noble Lords, Lord McCarthy and Lord Wedderburn, both gave considerable expositions of the survey of employment tribunal applications as if that was the fundamental reason and justification put forward by the Government for this legislation. I am a survey researcher by trade and I read the survey with some care. I do not believe that the interpretations which have been put on the survey by noble Lords this afternoon stand up or are justified. Some other interpretations may have been made in public which are not justified, but my noble friend Lord Sainsbury made it clear on 5th February in response to a Starred Question just what that survey does and does not say. The survey is a survey of applicants to employment tribunals. It says nothing, because it knows nothing, about cases which have not gone to industrial tribunals. If I were to make decisions about industrial tribunals, I should want to know about the cases which did not get there. The survey is not adequate for that purpose.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell me then which survey he is using? He is making policy. He says that the surveys to which we have been given access are not a basis for policy so he must have some other secret surveys that we still do not know about.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a conspiratorial view of history which is not worthy.
1404
I said no such thing. I propose now to say what that survey says. The survey comprised interviews with applicants to employment tribunals, both employees and employers. It asked what happened before the relevant case came before the tribunal. Some 62 per cent said that there had been no meeting. The survey did not say why that was. That question was not asked. As I say, 62 per cent said that there had been no meeting and 37 per cent said that there had been neither a meeting nor a written communication nor any other form of communication between the employee and the employer. That is all it says. It makes no further claim than that.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, does my noble friend therefore not agree with the proposition—as I take it he does not—that over three in five of the applications to tribunals come from applicants who have not attempted to resolve the problem directly with their employer in the first instance? Those are not my words but those of the Minister in another place who introduced the Bill as a central reason for stopping these applications.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I challenge the view that it is a central reason for stopping the applications. As regards the word "attempted", I cannot tell from the wording of the survey whether such attempts took place or not. I imagine that in a large number of cases if a meeting had been attempted it would have been achieved, or certainly if written communication had been attempted it would have been achieved. I do not believe that significant numbers are involved in that regard. This is a distinction without a difference. Frankly, the issue of this survey has been taken as far as it can be taken. It has little significance in policy making terms and I do not think that we should spend any more time on it.
Of course, there are all kinds of reasons why there should be no communication between employees and employers. As Judge Prophet said, that could be because some people left employment before they had an opportunity to start any communication. That is a legitimate reason for not entering communication. I am not saying, and the Government are not saying, and have never said, as the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, claimed we had said, that 62 per cent of cases could have been resolved outside tribunals. That is not the case that we are making. We are making the case that communication between employees and employers is greatly lacking and that if we could find ways to encourage communication between employees and employers that would be to the benefit of employees and employers and may also have the effect of influencing the number of cases which come before tribunals.
I turn to a matter where I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and I will be more in agreement. He gave a number of reasons for the increase in tribunal activity, in particular the increase in the jurisdiction of tribunals and the fact that there is no alternative to tribunals with what he described as the collapse of collective bargaining. The noble

1405
Lord, Lord Lea, referred to the new rights which employees have which can be put before tribunals. The noble Lord, Lord Lea, also referred to the Deakin and Morris research. All of those are good reasons—which are not and cannot be influenced by this Bill—why there has been an increase in tribunal activity. However, that is not a reason for our failing to do what we can—that is what we are trying to do in the Bill—to achieve ettlement outside tribunals. I believe that any fair and objective judge of this debate will also come to that conclusion. I am not saying—
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, will my noble friend allow me to make a legal point?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that I may be allowed to finish this point. I am not saying that there are not possibilities of amending the legislation in Committee which may make a difference to its effectiveness. However, I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Wedderburn, Lord McCarthy and Lord Lea, will agree that what we are trying to do is the right thing,
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I am most grateful for those last few words on which we shall ponder deeply. I interrupted my noble friend only to be quite sure about the position. Does he accept that now still, as the Government accepted in their Routes to Resolution document and in the background paper which preceded it, the five reasons given by Dr Burgess in his research carried out for the department are still the five reasons which basically are the cause of the steady and regular increase of applications to tribunals? I accept that and I am sure that my noble friend should. I hope that he does.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are many reasons why there have been increases in applications to the tribunals. I have no doubt that the research of Dr Burgess and the Deakin and Morris research and the Earnshaw research and all of the other research which has been carried out have made positive contributions to that. My point about all of those is that the object of this exercise is not to impose any restrictions on access to justice through the tribunal system. That is the fundamental principle which must be accepted here. We are trying, first, to improve what happens between employees and employers. If we are doing it in the wrong way, I have no doubt that my noble friends Lord Wedderburn and Lord McCarthy will seek to show us how to do it better. We shall listen with respect, as we always do, and we shall seek to come to a proper judgment.
It was also claimed—by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, in the first instance—that we are jumping the gun with regard to the taskforce. The noble Lord, Lord Sharman, claimed that we are jumping the gun in relation to the Leggatt report. The taskforce simply does not have those terms of reference. It is concerned with the operational efficiency of the tribunal system and, therefore, could not deal with the matters dealt
1406
with in the Bill. The Leggatt report—the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, had to wait a year for a response to his own report; therefore he knows what I am talking about—concerns unifying all the tribunals, and it may take a considerable time to come to fruition. I do not believe that he would wish that to happen.
Lord Sharman: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. Is he aware that I have not yet received a reply to my report?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords. I saw it a month ago. I am completely astonished. I believed that it came through on a normal public mailing. I apologise to the noble Lord. Certainly a late draft is available and I shall inquire into its status.
I wanted to say a brief word to my noble friend Lord McCarthy about ETI. I believe that he would also wish me to say a word about ET3. We have no objection to the wording of ETI and no particular objection to the wording of ET3. There is no desire to make any of them more complicated. But ETI and ET3 are usually in application at present and we believe that, by prescribing them, we can bring them into use in every case. We consider that to be an advantage. A minor problem in relation to Eli is that it is not available by electronic means, but I am sure that that can be overcome without major difficulty. In any event, the task force is looking at the application form. Thus, a further stage is taking place in relation to that.
I turn now to the issue of ACAS. A number of noble Lords believe that there is somehow a diminution of ACAS's powers, influence and contribution in what is proposed in the Bill. Certainly the statutory three steps do not comprise competition to the ACAS code. They are not intended to do so. They do not replace the ACAS code; they simply provide a bedrock. They provide what can be provided within the context of legislation. Legislation must be considerably more precise, more definitive and more unchallengeable in the courts than a code of practice.
We have the greatest respect for the code of practice but it does contain a very large number of words such as "reasonable" and "normal". We need both the code of practice and the statutory bedrock. There is no intention whatever by either ACAS or the Government to weaken the ACAS code—I say that to my noble friend Lord Lea—or certainly—I say to my noble friend Lord Gladwin—to make the ACAS code statutory. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, that the ACAS funding is not at issue in this Bill. If more funding is required, no doubt that can be discussed.
I shall say a brief word about unfair dismissal. Again, I disagree with those who claim that the Bill brings about a reversal of the Polkey judgment. I disagree with the noble Lords, Lord Razzall and Lord Moynihan, on that point. The "no difference" defence does not guarantee that an employer acted reasonably. Dismissal will still be unfair if an employer behaves unreasonably.

1407
My noble friend Lady Turner raised the valid and interesting point about harassment and violence. She is, of course, right to say that it would be wrong for us to demand a complaint to employers in harassment or violence cases. Those will be dealt with in regulations under Clauses 30, 31 and 33.
My noble friend Lord Borrie brought up the issues raised by Judge Prophet about staying the tribunal rather than changing the penalty. We want these procedural changes to take place before a matter comes to a tribunal rather than when it is at the tribunal. What happens at the tribunal is, indeed, a matter for the taskforce. But the point here is that we are not requiring applicants to take up their grievances first.
The only changes that are being made—I say this to my noble friend Lady Turner in particular—are not a widening in the cost regime in general but changes to particular aspects of paid representatives and case preparation. My honourable friend Alan Johnson made it clear that he will consider a limit on compensation for case preparation if that is necessary. I believe that that should answer the claim in relation to double recovery.
I turn to the issue of gross misconduct and the modified procedures on gross misconduct. My noble friend Lord Gladwin and the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, both want investigation to be carried out before a dismissal takes place. I have had to dismiss people for gross misconduct by saying, "Just go. Get out. Clear your desk and be out in half an hour", because the situation was desperate and staff morale would have been destroyed if I had not done so. But, of course, not all gross misconduct results in instant dismissal. Clearly when it does not, it is desirable and necessary that an investigation takes place.
I believe that I can give my noble friends Lord Borrie and Lord Gladwin the assurances that they want on the matter of public interest disclosure. First, most whistle-blowing, as the Public Interest Disclosure Act provides for, is not in the form of a grievance between an employee and an employer. Nevertheless, the Bill and the accompanying regulations will ensure that there is no conflict with the Public Interest Disclosure Act.
With regard to the issue of "employees" versus "workers", the definitions of both those are in the Employment Rights Act 1996. There is a government review of employment status in process. Meanwhile, we did not consider it advisable to use the concept of "workers" here rather than "employees" as we are, for example, trying to match paternity regulations, which are based on employees, with maternity regulations, which are also based on employees. We should encounter problems if a different definition were used.
With regard to equal pay questionnaires, the issues raised were those of confidentiality. I do not deny that they are significant issues but they are no different from those which have already been raised in race
1408
discrimination, sex discrimination and, above all, disability discrimination regulations. I do not believe that there is any new cause for concern.
I was astonished by some of the things that were said from the Opposition Benches about union learning representatives. I believed that we had all agreed that the improvement of skills in the workplace was a priority for improving productivity in this country. The offer of trade unions to participate in that by providing, as they already have done. 3,000 union learning representatives, even when they do not get time off from work, seems to me to be an offer which should not be looked at askance. The Bill only says that the time off should be compulsory; it does not say that trade unions must provide union learning representatives. Of course, none of the employer organisations is unequivocally in favour of the representatives, but nor are the trade unions. This is a perfectly reasonable compromise.
I do not disagree with what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, with regard to what is provided for in last year's Pre-Budget Report. Clearly we shall continue to pursue those matters. They were pursued in the November PIU report on training and learning and they were in our election manifesto. We shall not let them drop. The advantage of pursuing them here and now is that consultation was carried out by the Department for Education and Skills in May last year and we have an opportunity to bring the measures into force.
On fixed-term working, it is claimed that we have here gold-plating in the sense that we include pay and pensions. I agree that including pay and pensions is not in the directive, but in doing so we shall not be alone in Europe. Clearly, it is important that we should provide equal treatment for fixed-term employees as is provided for in the directive, not just for those in universities, but also for those in all sectors of employment. I understand the concerns about successive contracts, but surely the most important point is equal treatment. which is provided.
I am sorry that I have broken all the rules, but with interruptions, I have tried to answer questions. I look forward not to a two-sided debate, but a multi-sided debate in Committee and at later stages of the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Grand Committee.

Royal Assent
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Lockwood): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

International Development Act,

Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act, European Communities (Amendment) Act, Travel Concessions Eligibility Act,

Civil Defence (Grant) Act,

1409

Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning (Amendment) Act,

Homelessness Act,

British Overseas Territories Act,

Land Registration Act.

Adjacent Waters Boundaries (Northern Ireland) Order 2002
8.32 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th February be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Williams of Mostyn and, with the leave of the House, I shall speak also to the Sea Fisheries (Northern Ireland) Order 2002.
The effect of the first order is to determine the Northern Ireland zone for the purposes of Section 98 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. In doing so it establishes the boundary between the parts of the sea within sea fishery limits which are to be treated as adjacent to Northern Ireland and those parts which are not to be so treated. The order mirrors the boundary with the Scottish zone created under the Scottish Adjacent Boundaries Order 1999.
Within the Northern Ireland zone the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development will exercise the powers relating to fisheries to be devolved to it from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland under the Sea Fisheries (Northern Ireland) Order 2002, to which I shall come in a few minutes. I commend the order to the House.
The second order essentially transfers functions relating to sea fisheries from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in Northern Ireland.
Hitherto, while most fisheries matters were devolved to the Northern Ireland Administration, the responsibility for making some subordinate legislation remained with the fisheries Ministers in the UK acting jointly. For example, we intend to devolve the ability to make subordinate legislation such as the licensing of Northern Ireland fishing vessels and rules governing their operation; the ability to legislate for technical conservation matters such as defining the mesh size of fishing nets that may be used by Northern Ireland fishing vessels; and the minimum landing size of a variety of fish species. The list is intended to be illustrative and is by no means exhaustive. Under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 there is provision to devolve that function. By amending certain statutes, that is all that this draft order achieves. I emphasise that no new powers will be created.
Noble Lords may also wish to note that the equivalent powers in respect of the Secretary of State for Scotland were transferred to the Scottish Executive under the Scotland Act 1998.
Article 3 of the order sets out the main pieces of primary legislation to be amended; namely, the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967, the Fisheries Act 1981 and a number of other enactments relating to sea fisheries. Schedules 1 to 3 set out in detail how those enactments are to be amended and the powers transferred from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. In broad terms the order transfers to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development functions relating to sea fishing in the Northern Ireland zone; sea fishing by Northern Ireland fishing boats; and various statutory provisions relating to sea fisheries as amended by Articles 6 and 7.
I stress again that this is a purely technical provision, transferring functions so far as they relate to sea fisheries and no new powers are being created. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th February be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for moving the order. It is one more step on the road to full devolution for Northern Ireland, which has to be good.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness for moving the order. I believe that this is a further step to devolved government in Northern Ireland. From these Benches, we give it our blessing.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sea Fisheries (Northern Ireland) Order 2002
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th February be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Stadium
8.37 p.m.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale Lord Corbett of Castle Vale rose to ask Her Majesty's Government where they consider that the national stadium should be sited.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this debate concerns the question of where Her Majesty's Government consider that the national stadium should be sited. If the Minister were to say Solihull, Birmingham, I would be perfectly willing to sit down and we could all go home! It was worth a shot.
Plans for an English national stadium for football, rugby and athletics are already four years behind schedule and up to £300 million beyond the original

1411
budget. As things stand, six years after Sport England selected Wembley as the preferred site for the stadium and put £120 million of lottery money behind it, not one brick has been laid upon another.
It is to no one's credit that there have been six years of dithering. It is bound to lead to the question: if the FA has got nowhere in six years, what real prospect is there that it can get all the finance, procurement and planning permission in place by April, the deadline, or perhaps I should say more accurately, the new deadline, set by the Government? Only yesterday the Secretary of State insisted that,
"by the end of April we [shall] know once and for all whether the national stadium will be built at Wembley".—[0fficia/ Report, Commons, 25/2/02; col. 428.]
Those are no doubt words that all noble Lords will recall.
The Government claim that they are neutral over the stadium's location. The Secretary of State in her Statement of 19th December last year, at col. 302 of the Official Report, spoke of "government support" for the stadium and, at col. 308, she described the Government's role as that of a "facilitator". I welcome that in the sense that it leaves the Government free to support the Birmingham-Solihull bid if Wembley cannot get its act together and meet the new deadline. But, more widely, I do not believe that the Government will be seen by the public as neutral, any more than the last Conservative government were over the siting of the Dome. The people of Birmingham and the West Midlands remember how they were cheated out of the national millennium exhibition by that government fraudulently altering the wording of the bid document after the tenders were in. Their claimed neutrality was no more than a mask.
I take the view that government have a right and a duty to act in the national interest to decide upon the best location for the stadium in consultation with the FA and others and then to give their support as a willing facilitator.
The development of major sports facilities is a matter of legitimate interest to the Government. The choice of site for this stadium involves judgments about the value of the regions and how it can assist regional development, investment and employment and ensure that London and the South East do not automatically get every plum that is going.
I can tell the Minister that if either the Government or the FA think that a new Wembley would assist a London Olympic bid, they are wrong. Mr Simon Clegg, chief executive of the British Olympic Association, was quoted in the Guardian on 9th February this year as saying:
"The focus for any British Olympic bid is very much on the east end of London. The Mayor of London has made it clear that he would not allow the bid to go ahead unless it were centred on the East End".
The requirement that major Olympic venues are within 30 minutes travelling time of any Olympic village would rule out Wembley anyway.
1412
The International Olympic Committee did not insist on the capital hosting the last Olympics in Australia. Nor did it do so when they were last held in America. It has no right to try to dictate which cities should be able to bid for the games. In the United Kingdom there is every good reason why the games—like the World Indoor Athletics Championships scheduled for Birmingham next year—should not take place in this overcrowded capital.
I believe that the FA's preference for Wembley is based on a single fallacious financial claim. That is set out in the Carter review, at page 13. It states that,
"the FA's view [is] that premium seat income will be significantly lower in Birmingham than Wembley".
This is crucial because premium seat income—that is, corporate hospitality, parking, private boxes, restaurants and income from television rights—accounts for £70 in every £100 of stadium income. It is only the other £30 in every —100 that comes through the sale of tickets, in other words through the turnstile.
Given a theoretical choice between Wembley and Birmingham-Solihull, it is no surprise that the premium seat income is assessed as potentially higher at Wembley. But that is not the choice. Mr Doug Ellis. the energetic chairman of Aston Villa FC, tells me that Bastion, the company that specialises in corporate sales for stadia world-wide, is confident that once a Birmingham-Solihull stadium is standing there, the premium seat income will equal that expected by a Wembley site.
In any event, looking at the designs for both stadiums, as Mr Ellis points out, corporate facilities at Birmingham-Solihull are far superior to those envisaged at Wembley. There is just one example that I should like to give. A 12-seater box at Wembley would come with just one reserved parking space. That means that the other eight clients would have to rely on very inadequate, tatty public transport serving the stadium. There is no guarantee of transport improvement since the Government have neatly passed that burden on to the Mayor. At Birmingham there is room for four reserved parking spaces for each 12-seater box. These matters are extremely important, given the money that rides on the back of the sale of boxes.
There are other strong arguments why the Government should get behind the Birmingham-Solihull bid. First, the project is cheaper and needs no government or lottery money. Secondly, it will be managed by the NEC Group which welcomes 5.5 million visitors a year to more than a thousand events at five of Europe's leading venues in the area. Thirdly, Birmingham and the region have a track record for developing major capital projects and events on time and on budget, such as the Millennium Point, the project which is leading the regeneration of Birmingham's east side. Fourthly, the site is at the heart of the country's transport network —motorways, a mainline railway station and an international airport, none of which applies to Wembley. Fifthly, and most importantly, the Birmingham-Solihull stadium is backed in a survey by 69 out of every 100 football fans and 55 out of 64 premier and league football club chairmen.

1413
At the very least I should like the Minister to repeat the undertaking given by the Secretary of State in December that, should the Wembley bid fail by the end of April,
"the strong proposals from Birmingham should be taken forward".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/12/01; col. 302.1]
I also want the Government to insist on a stadium which can host national and international athletics. The technology now exists to achieve that without the need to erect and dismantle an elevated track.
This is not being anti-London. It is a plea to site the English national stadium where the fans and the clubs want it and where access is easiest from all parts of the country. I want the Government now to listen to fans and clubs and to support a home for the game at the heart of the nation to be located at the heart of the nation—al Birmingham-Solihull.
8.46 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, for giving us another opportunity to discuss and debate this very thorny problem.
With noble Lords' agreement, I should like to take a few seconds out to pass on the congratulations of this House to all those medal winners in the recent Winter Olympic Games and to all those coaches, leaders and managers of a super performing team.
I return to the subject. We now have the third Minister for Sport since 1997 and the second Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in the same period. The national stadium concept was started by my party in 1996. So far as I can see, the only significant happenings since have been a grant by Sport England of £120 million to the FA and the closure of the Wembley Stadium by the FA. If anyone thinks that the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, and I have colluded on this matter, please be assured that we have not. This is a sad and sorry story as told in the standing committee's report, The unpicking of Pickett's Lock, to which I referred when last we debated this topic, and also of course in some detail in the excellent report recently produced by Patrick Carter.
The national stadium project is for a national stadium for Association Football only, as stated yesterday in another place by Mr Olner and not corrected by the Secretary of State. In the light of this, a number of alternatives have to be re-examined: first, and in particular, the need for a national stadium at all; and, secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, has already saidl, its location.
The alternatives basically are four. These are analysed very clearly in the excellent report by Patrick Carter. They revolve around Wembley, Birmingham, Coventry and the no stadium option. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, that I, as a Millennium commissioner, was a supporter of Birmingham.
Let us look at the no stadium option first. The no stadium option, or "England on the road", has many good facets. It is economical; it puts lumps of money into a number of clubs around the country; it does not have a residential overhead cost for the FA, the
1414
Government or for anyone else; and, perhaps most importantly of all, it spreads the opportunity for that huge band of supporters of English football to get first-class viewing of British internationals in different parts of the kingdom without having to travel from, for example, the North East to London.
However, there are also countries in Europe that do the same thing—Germany, Italy and Spain—none ofwhich have national stadiums; all of which have seriously high-level international football teams. But there is one major difference—the size of the stadiums currently available in this country, excluding Twickenham, which has severe planning limitations, and the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff, which is of course in Wales. England's six largest stadiums are all in or north of Manchester and hold only between 40,000 at Everton and 67,000 at Newcastle. That compares with Italy's four largest stadiums in Rome, Milan, Naples and Turin—arguably, spread well around the country's major population zones—which hold between 69,000 in the smallest and 86,000 in the largest.
So if the no national stadium option is to be chosen, funding will clearly be needed significantly to enlarge the nation's top stadiums and we will need to find one suitable club or location in the South and one in the South West—which are not obvious.
Perhaps the way forward is a national stadium. but where and how should it be funded? An athletics stadium incorporated within the Football Association's national football stadium is unrealistic. If that fact is accepted, Sport England's lottery grant should be returned forthwith. That grant of £120 million was arguably given to the FA before there was any certainty of a financially viable project. It was spent on purchasing the land at Wembley and, we are told, various design fees. The money is secured on the land value, which Mr Carter now tells us in his report is likely to be only £30 million. It is time to examine in some detail how Sport England came to allow that grant to the FA in the first place, how the procurement procedures have been followed and how the money will be repaid should it be found that the grant agreement and financial directives have not been fulfilled.
I declare an interest—as perhaps I should have done earlier—as a Millennium commissioner, which I have been since the commission's inception in 1994. During that time, I have had considerable experience of the funding of and the necessary business plans for projects worth £100 million-plus, including the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff, Scotland's Hampden Park of Dreams and the Dome, among others. As has been pointed out by both Patrick Carter and Gerald Kaufman and his committee—albeit in different contexts£government should not interfere in the management of such projects or the decision-making process.
If government money is to be used—and in the case of a national football stadium it should not be—it should not be committed until all matching funding is secure and a robust business plan has been submitted

1415
and tested by the relevant professionals. That was my case when supporting Birmingham for the Dome—the economics seemed more easily to be met. The business plan and the inherent debt management will obviously relate directly to the overall capital cost and the income streams when in operation.
The Millennium Stadium in Cardiff was completed for less than £150 million, as I discussed with the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, at the weekend. It holds 73,500 people. It has the versatility of an opening and closing roof. It is used as a national stadium not only for football but for rugby—which is not available for our national football stadium because the Rugby Football Union will not get out of Twickenham. At present, for five years it has the benefit of hosting the major events of the FA and the Football League, such as that of last weekend. However, Cardiff is still finding it difficult to pay off its debts and pay its way, despite holding 73,500 people, costing only —150 million and having a really full programme.
This is a project for the FA and the FA alone. Rebuilding Wembley at a cost of £600 million to £700 million as an Association Football stadium only will make no difference to our ability to attract world-class sporting events other than football. If we were at some time to attract the Olympic Games to London, the money would become available to convert a rebuilt Wembley, or to allow for the use of Twickenham over a very restricted timescale for sport other than football or rugby. I listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, said about half an hour's travel ride. I have competed in three Olympic Games and can assure him that I have certainly travelled for considerably longer than half an hour between venues. I suspect that my noble friend Lord Coe will support me in that assertion.
From all the £100 million-plus projects that I have seen I find it impossible to believe that a national stadium without a permanent tenant and costing more than £500 million could ever be viable. However, the Government appear to have got themselves well and truly committed to that course. If that is the case, they should get off the fence, decide on the place and say so.
8.56 p.m.
Lord Fowler: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, on raising the issue this evening. I was a neighbour of his for more than 20 years when we had adjoining constituencies in Birmingham. We battled against governments of both colours; all that unites us even more is that we have both been unsuccessful in our battles. Nevertheless, what the noble Lord said this evening had force. Of course, I join in my noble friend's congratulation of our medal winners in the winter Olympics. I also agree that there are some fundamental questions to be answered about the financing of the national stadium project and the pledges that have been given. What my noble friend said went to the heart of one of the central issues.
1416
I should like to take a rather different course from that of my noble friend. I remember with some pain, as does the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, the history of the Millennium Dome. I remember the mistakes that were made in financing the project and the fundamental mistake of siting the exhibition in Greenwich. Above all, I remember listening to the barely disguised and rather patronising message that, in contrast to Greenwich, the Midlands was incapable of organising and hosting such a national exhibition. It was suggested that such national events could take place only in London; London was the only choice.
Of course, the Dome was a fiasco; there is no question about that. It was a very public failure. Most of those who advocated the Greenwich site as the automatic and only choice have now mysteriously melted away. The so-called obvious site became a music-hall joke, with few public friends left.
If I may put it this way, the danger for the Government is that, unless they are lucky, the Wembley project will go the same way. So far, it has been characterised by dispute and argument, by an inquiry into procurement and by all kinds of questions about the financial arrangements. A so-called troubleshooter has already been imported to try to sort out the mess and we have not yet laid a single brick—the project has not yet got under way.
If I may put this gently to the Minister, that hardly bodes well. Through its constant change of Ministers, the Government are hardly helping the process. Indeed, the latest ministerial intervention, that of the Secretary of State yesterday during Questions in another place, trying, as she put it, to clarify the position in relation to athletics, succeeded only in further obscuring the position. If that was clarification, I should hate to see her in a deliberately obscuring mood.
There are many negative things that can be said about the planning of the Wembley stadium, but that is not the fundamental point that I want to make this evening. My central point is that, in planning on Wembley—going for the Wembley option—we are losing an enormous opportunity to have a stadium that would be better in every respect. The country would do better. It is worth remembering how much lottery money is pledged and how much taxpayers' money could go in. There are national issues involved, and there are certainly governmental issues. The national stadium should be sited next to the National Exhibition Centre on the outskirts of Birmingham.
I say that for several reasons. First, there is a greenfield site that would be substantially easier and cheaper to develop. That would have the undoubted support of the public in the Midlands and, I suggest, the public further afield. It would also have the support of a formidable number of dedicated people in the Midlands, including people such as Doug Ellis, who has already been mentioned. Secondly, the site in the Midlands already has excellent communications by rail and motorway. The contrast is stark: Wembley has always been a nightmare to get to and to get away from.

1417
I shall point out just one deficiency with Wembley: it needs a new Underground station at Wembley Park. There is no conceivable question about that, but it is anything but clear that that is on offer. In fact, there is the prospect of a planning dispute involving Brent council and possible further delay in the whole process. In contrast, the basic communications infrastructure in Birmingham is already there; the facilities already exist.
The opportunity to go to Birmingham should be taken for those reasons, but from the point of view of the public—perhaps the most important—it is the most convenient and accessible venue. Wembley is not the middle of the country: no doubt, it has many advantages. but it cannot claim that. Birmingham is. That is why, as the noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, said, all the surveys that have been carried out show that opinion is heavily in favour of Birmingham and the Midlands. By any objective analysis, the figures are overwhelming.
My last point is that, apart from those practical reasons and arguments—which I think are overwhelming—a decision to move to the Midlands would have enormous symbolic importance. It would mean that, as a nation, we were saying that important national meeting places could be sited successfully outside London and that there is no reason why they must be in the capital and many reasons, given the congestion, why they should be moved outside. London is not the automatic first choice. Over the past 20 years we have seen the renewal of our big regional cities. That is one of the most dramatic things that have taken place in this country. The big regional cities outside London have come back into their own, and we have seen a marvellous regeneration in cities such as Leeds, Manchester and, of course, Birmingham.
I fear that the signal that we will give if we persist with Wembley is that we intend to continue with the same old tired and often unsuccessful policies that we followed in the past. That is the signal that we will give if we go the Wembley way. There is an opportunity to move away from that, and we are likely to be more successful. I hope that we will take that opportunity.
9.4 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I declare a non-remunerated interest as a non-executive director of the Cardiff Millennium Stadium, nominated by Cardiff County Council. Like other noble Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Corbett of Castle Vale on initiating the debate and on the vigour with which he has put the case for Birmingham. It is a pleasure to find myself a sandwich between two distinguished Olympic gold medal winners on the other side of the House, the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Coe.
The debate over the siting of the national stadium has not, so far, reflected well on some of the individuals and organisations that have taken part in it. It contributed to the premature ending of ministerial careers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and to the removal from office of
1418
people in the sporting and business worlds who used to be part of the process. The "Now you see it. now you don't, now you see it again" approach to the inclusion of athletics in the Wembley design lay at the heart of the problem. Most people assumed that, if Wembley were to be a genuine national arena, as opposed to simply a football and rugby stadium. it had to include a provision for athletics and, ideally, be suitable for at least the opening and closing ceremonies or an Olympic Games.
A further difficulty was that the earlier designs for Wembley were far too grandiose and contained provision for an hotel and office block. The business plan that contained those did not work, and the FA—in desperation, I suspect—asked the Government to join it as partners in the project, just before last year's election. Ministers refused to do that and. instead, commissioned the review chaired by Mr Patrick Carter, to which noble Lords have referred. The interim report was published on 19th December, and it is a model of good sense and clarity. It pulls no punches on why the original project failed and offers a logical way forward.
Mr Carter did, however, draw attention to several concerns relating to corporate governance, the earlier procurement process and potential conflicts of interest. In his covering letter to the Secretary of State, Tessa Jowell, he said that she should satisfy herself,
"as to the achievement of Government value for money in procurement standards and any associated accounting issues".
The Secretary of State accepted that advice and refused to give the green light to Wembley when she made her statement in another place on 19th December. The final decision will now be taken in April.
The Football Association is devoting all its attention to establishing whether Wernhley can work. For the moment, it assures me that Birmingham has been put on the back burner, as indeed is the option of having no national stadium. That is an interesting thought, to which the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, referred. I have a great deal of sympathy with what he said. That is because we have the best range and the largest number of modern, safe, top-class football grounds in Europe. The practice of "England on tour", necessitated by the closure of Wembley, has worked well with fans in all parts of the country enjoying the experience of seeing England play in their home city.
However, there has been the problem that we do not have sufficient club grounds with a big enough capacity, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. I am told that tickets for recent England matches played out of London have tended to sell out in only four hours. A beneficial side-effect of this has been an improvement in the standards of crowd behaviour at England matches, with fewer displays of xenophobia and racism from sections of the England crowd, which many of us always found so unpleasant at Wembley.
Let us assume that what one might call the historical issues relating to the choice of Wembley—matters of corporate governance, procurement practices and the

1419
like—referred to in the Carter report and described by the Secretary of State in her statement on 19th December, are satisfactorily resolved and that Wembley and Birmingham are judged together on a fair basis. Which of the two projects is likely to produce the best outcome for football? I shall deal first with football.
I am concerned that, wherever it is sited, the national stadium does not become a drain on the finances of the game as a whole. As the governing body, the Football Association has a responsibility for football at every level. Its commercial activities should be sufficiently successful to allow it to support and subsidise the game at the grass roots. Noble Lords will have heard me point out on previous occasions that the task would be easier if the wealth generated at the very top via the Premier League was to be redistributed more generously. But I fear that every urge to redistribute is then subsumed in the Premier League by an obsession to avoid relegation, which leads to players being bought for ridiculous transfer fees and often paid obscene salaries to be in the squads.
Meanwhile, although such wealth exists in the Premier League, seven Football League clubs are now up for sale, a number are on the brink of administration or are already in administration, and a few could collapse at any moment. Against that background, it is vital that the Football Association does not threaten its viability and hence its capacity to help the game's development by pouring money into a national stadium and receiving no return from it. I am assured by the FA that it would not allow that to happen. That is obviously an important part of the deliberations it is conducting at the moment.
The Carter report makes it clear that a critical element in the funding projections is premium income, to which my noble friend Lord Corbett referred. At Wembley, 70 per cent of the income would come from only 15,000 premium seat holders. What is more, according to the Carter report, some £50 million of that premium income could be underwritten and paid up front. I have no difficulty in the principle of encouraging people with money effectively to subsidise the less well-off in the crowd. Indeed, that was a recommendation made in the final report of the Football Task Force. There we considered that at club level the income generated from what one might call the high rollers should keep down the prices for other fans.
I was interested in the comments made by my noble friend with regard to Birmingham and premium income, but we have to acknowledge, as does the Carter report, that there is nothing like the same prospect that Birmingham could attract the same amount of premium income as could a successful Wembley. A further factor—I accept that this is hardly Birmingham's fault—is that if a choice is made anywhere other than Wembley, the —120 million worth of lottery money paid by Sport England will have to be repaid. Mr Carter reckons that the Wembley land value is only about —30 million, so that the FA would lose £90 million on that basis.
1420
I will support the Wembley decision if it is possible to prove that the athletics element in it can be retained. Noble Lords have referred to the Questions put yesterday in another place when the Secretary of State stated that:
"If athletics events are not to be hosted at the stadium, the money—as the FA has always made clear—would be returned".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/2/02; col. 428.]
I made some inquiries of the DCMS via the Library of this House. The department has been informed that the Secretary of State has asked Sport England to examine and evaluate the revised proposals for the national stadium, and that both the IAAF and UK Athletics must have the power to insist that their technical requirements in terms of athletics facilities will be taken into account. If that is so and it is possible for athletics to be accommodated in a new design, I am willing to support Wembley—perhaps the only person in this debate to do so.
The Secretary of State said yesterday that there is no question of further Government money being put towards the stadium, apart from £20 million for transport infrastructure. However, I understand that there may be £21 million available from a London development agency. When my noble friend replies, perhaps he can give some indication of where that money will be spent. If those amounts are spent, the public commitment to Wembley would be £161 million, out of the £835 million that the stadium will cost—including the £120 million lottery grant to buy the site.
As the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran said, that contrasts with a lottery grant of just £46 million from the Millennium Commission towards the cost of the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff, plus relatively minor contributions from the county council and the Welsh National Assembly. Even if the cost of the land is removed from the Wembley total, the resulting £715 million construction cost for a stadium with a 90,000 capacity is more than five times that of Cardiff. I wonder whether an additional 16,500 seats can account for a difference of £575 million.
I commented in the exchanges on 19th December that this match had gone into extra time. I was wrong. It looks to me as though we are having a replay. We all hope that the match will soon come to an end and that we will have a decision.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Coe: My Lords, I declare an interest as the president of the Amateur Athletic Association of England.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, on instigating this debate. He was a doughty fighter and advocate for his constituents when he was in another place and no less doughty when fighting on behalf of sport in numerous Select Committees. His case tonight—elegantly made, together with that of my noble friend Lord Fowler—is that our national stadium should be sited in Birmingham. After the past seven years of muddle and confusion bordering on farce, I am tempted simply to settle for a stadium anywhere.

1421
I do not wish in this short debate to enter too deeply into the arguments for location, important though they are, but to examine the dilemma that faces. UK athletics wherever the national stadium is built. I wish that its location were the only issue in this sorry saga that is still to be settled.
Your Lordships will need no reminding that the original proposals for a national stadium were for three sports—football, rugby league and athletics. My noble friend Lord Glentoran was right that those proposals were clear that the stadium was supposed to meet the standards necessary for international events without unacceptable compromise by any of the three sports. The lottery funding agreement that paved the way for the use of £120 million of public money by Sport England for the stadium was given to protect the status of all three sports. It is clear that that has not been the case.
Rugby league has made its arguments. I will speak about athletics, which have emerged as the losing triplet in the relationship. It is now clear that UK athletics were from the outset never fully involved in the project. Key decisions were often made with little or no reference to athletics. There have been examples of changes of plan, design and strategy that left athletics with little more than 24 hours to respond before public announcements were made.
The lack of a viable athletics component within the national stadium proposals set off a trail of events that led to the embarrassment of losing for London the World Athletics Championships in 2005 and the equally embarrassing search for an alternative—that included, for a year or two, Pickett's Lock. It also left the Government with a dilemma over the status of the £120 million of lottery money that was given to the project.
I find it surprising and more than slightly alarming that lottery funding was granted to a project that had demonstrated neither viability nor planning consent. The Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee described the premature grant by Sport England as a cavalier and egregious use of public funds—and 1 agree. Now the Government propose that Wembley will revert to the 1999 plans for a football stadium that would he athletics compliant at additional cost, by way of a demountable athletics platform. Upon that compliance rests the destiny of £20 million that the Football Association agreed to repay Sport England if athletics could not be accommodated.
Upon that compliance rests too the destiny of the £120 million lottery grant made available to the Football Association and the £40 million that has so loosely been talked about by Tessa Jowell as a legacy for British athletics and compensation for losing a world athletics championship as a result of the muddle.
Three questions need answering. I am sure that the Minister will address them in his concluding remarks. First, why have athletics, the prime loser, been consistently marginalised in so many of the decisions—including key discussions in 1998 and 1999 and about the repayment of the —20 million of lottery
1422
funding to Sport England? Secondly, Sport England committed itself to build an athletics compliant stadium. An athletics compliant stadium and a stadium capable of staging major track and field events are two very different things. I could spend a large part of the Summer Recess making my garden athletics compliant. But I doubt whether I could pull the wool over the eyes of the International Association of Athletics Federation sufficiently for it to have confidence in my claim to send the stars of track and field to Dorking for a world championships.
If a national stadium is to meet full compliance without compromise, we need to be able to examine the proposals for essential ingredients such as warm-up tracks, jump areas and throwing areas. Without them, the stadium may still be described as compliant but the UK would not realistically be in a position to hid for and host major championships.
Will Wembley have these ingredients? Only yesterday, Tessa Jowell, when asked about these matters in the other place, said that,
"there is a difference between being athletics capable and actually being able to host athletics events".—[Offlcia' Reporl, Commons, 25/2/02; col. 428.]
Thirdly, the erection of an athletics platform will be a major effort, both physically and financially. For both these reasons, there would seem to be little incentive for the stadium owners to bid for events that will cost them millions of pounds and put the stadium out of use for lengthy periods in order to stage an athletics meeting.
The debate is about more than the location of a stadium. We have already lost a world athletics championship and, with it, much international credibility.
An athletics compliant stadium is not enough. If the selective use of the word "compliant" is simply a way for the FA to hold on to public money by appearing to fulfil its lottery agreement but with no real intention of creating a stadium fully capable of and owners fully committed to holding major events, then once again athletics and the public are losers.
Ministers should be open about this. I am sure that noble Lords would be very grateful for a reaffirmation from the Minister today that any national stadium will have an athletics track and will be designed in a way genuinely to afford athletics the opportunity to mend some of its bridges internationally and stage leading events. But I fear that he cannot give that.
Of course the location of any stadium is important and every major population centre will have just cause to make a claim. I hope that over the next few years the UK can find a political and sporting unanimity of purpose to forge a successful Olympics bid. I have to say—probably to the dismay of the noble Lord, Lord Corbett—that experience tells me that for a bid to be successful the games will have to be in London and, as the noble Lord said, probably to the east of London. If that is the case, it would seem appropriate for a national stadium to be sited in our capital city.
9.23 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, for allowing us to discuss this subject today. I am particularly grateful to the usual channels, which have placed me in my traditional position of tail-end Charlie at the back, with what I call the tin medals among our golden gods, whom I admire greatly. I am pleased that my noble friend Lord Glentoran has spoken. I used to know him as "Mr Dixon" at school 50 years ago. I remember being in the students bar in Glasgow University in 1964 and watching him. He may be amazed that last week, at home, I was drinking a toast to Mr Alain Baxter, who trains not in a huge stadium but in a wild area of the Cairngorms. He at least won a medal, which was particularly welcome for those of us who ski throughout the winter with the parliamentarians, and drew admiration from the champion couch potatoes of your Lordships' House.
To me, the national stadium at Wembley means two words—"Empire Stadium". I believe that the existing site was prepared around 1923. I am just old enough to remember the 1948 Olympics, where a splendid lady from the Netherlands called Fanny Blankers Koen won a number of medals. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Coe will be able to enlighten me on that.
To me, Wembley as a national stadium should be "compliant", as my noble friend put it. When the Minister winds up I hope that he will he able to explain to me and my noble friend why it is that in Italy, Roma and Lazio play at the Stadio Olimpico and Bayern Munich play at the Olympic stadium. I am not too sure about the Stade de France, and whether that is athletics compliant. Why is it that England and the Football Association, which wishes to hold the Government to ransom as we have been hearing this evening, say that the stadium must be for Association Football only?
If the stadium is used for other purposes, then one will have serious problems. I recall that in 1970 the Cup Final at Wembley was almost dragged down to becoming a shambles in that divots were coming off after five minutes since the stadium had been used for equestrianism and horse jumping just one week before that game. No doubt that situation was assisted by financial demands and problems, but that can be taken into account if a stadium has to meet costs. The point of premium income was raised very forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, and the money needed for the upkeep of the stadium. That comes very much into play.
As regards pure geography, I speak as a Scot who spends a good deal of his time in England. I believe that I have paid twice to go to Wembley. On the last occasion I was a guest of the Swiss to watch the opening game of the European Championships, 1996. I went with a police escort in the Swiss ambassador's car. It took one and a half hours to get there and another hour to get back. I believe that the road and railway system will get better. Then one will be able to get to Birmingham. The point was raised very forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, about a
1424
premium box, which I believe we call an executive suite in football. To have one box with one parking space is ludicrous. As the noble Lord pointed out, one box with four or five car parking spaces and room for plenty of visitors, plus the station at the National Exhibition Centre, are very big pluses.
I begin to worry about what happens when the lights go out. I think of the great amounts of money and the hype about 25 years ago in Montreal. It was a wonderful stadium. I understand that the liability has been paid off. Is it ever used? I suspect that it is a mere ghost.
As regards Sydney 2000, I have been reading of rumours already that there are problems and that the financial clouds are just beginning to appear on the horizon concerning the upkeep of that marvellous stadium. That can be done during an Olympic year and during major events, but the stadium is there for life.
I shall be impudent tonight and ask your Lordships to look at what a tiny nation like Scotland can do. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, raised the point about the enormous value for money which has been achieved in the Millennium Stadium at Cardiff. We have our own opinions about a purely football stadium in Glasgow. There is a national football stadium at Hampden Park which meets the five-star UEFA standard. I am not quite sure whether it is dancing girl compliant or for all kinds of other sports. It will seat 52,000 persons and the total cost was £74 million.
That shows what can be achieved with value for money for one sport. For Wembley the figure is —835 million and rising. Can one compare any other nation with England—or, in the case of my noble friend Lord Coe, it will be the United Kingdom—for athletics, but also for football and rugby? What else is going to be performed at this national stadium? I can see exactly what is going to happen. There will be pop concerts and all kinds of other events because the overheads are fairly fierce and the costs will have to be met.
I do not believe that there is a limitless pool of people who will be prepared to scatter money around for these premium and directors' boxes. I find that very hard to believe. Perhaps noble Lords have observed that I have two letters after my name—CA. I also have two others; namely, CB, which stand for "cynical so-and-so". I am afraid that I am beginning to worry about this whole affair.
I was most interested to hear the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner. I agree with him. Since the demise of Wembley, the England football team has gone around the nation. I agree with him about loutish behaviour. I have visited Wembley when the England team has been playing, not necessarily when they have been playing Scotland. What upset me, and, interestingly enough, very many other people—not just foreign visitors, but more percipient English commentators—was the booing and appalling racket and cacophony that arose when the visiting team's national anthem was played. I am sure that that did not happen at Newcastle, Manchester, or at any other of these stadia.

1425
It is not necessary to draw the biggest crowds, particularly with Association Football, if the event is played in the capital city. As far as concerns Scotland—if I am treading on some corns I do so ever so lightly—we have our own national stadium. But 10 years ago, thanks to Hampden being redeveloped, international matches were played in Aberdeen. I remember going to Aberdeen one evening where I watched an under-21 match featuring Scotland versus Germany. Normally, all over Europe, such a match would attract 3,000 to 4,000 people; but, in Aberdeen, 28,000 bodies were present. It was a full house, completely sold out. Why? Everyone was proud of his team and got a chance to see them play. Above all, the result went very well for Scotland. I am given to understand that the new Scottish coach still remembers that result. It shows what can happen. It is not necessary to have a national stadium: all that is needed is the chance for all people in the nation to see their boys—perhaps girls—playing in a stadium elsewhere around the country.
I begin to worry when I hear talk of these enormous sums of taxpayers' and of lottery money being spent on developments that seem to be a little like some of the foundations that might he around Wembley; in other words. on shifting sands. Therefore, I await with interest—indeed, with hated breath—to hear the noble Lord's response.
9.32 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, advertised this debate, it seemed to me that the time-scale between 19th December, when the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, repeated a Statement made by the Secretary of State in response to a Private Notice Question, and tonight was a little too short. However, I am very grateful to him for having introduced the debate because we have been able to address a number of issues that we were not able to cover on the previous occasion. It has concentrated our minds marvellously.
On the previous occasion, the noble Baroness arid I handed words about definitions as regards what was a "national stadium". My view—one that I still hold—is that it is necessary to be quite precise in that respect. We are not talking about a national stadium; we are talking about a national football stadium. The noble Baroness disagreed with that view, but, judging by his remarks, I believe that I have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Coe, correctly said, the basis of the funding put in by Sport England (—120 million of lottery money) was that a national stadium was one that could accommodate the national game of football, rugby league and athletics.
I absolutely agree with the view expressed about the rapidity with which Sport England was prepared to grant this money, which has been described—and repeated, again, by the noble Lord, Lord Coe, in words that I like because they have a good ring to them—as being a "cavalier and egregious" use of public funds. It is a lesson for the future and one that I hope will not be repeated.
1426
The pro-Birmingham lobby has come on a good deal since 19th December. I congratulate those who are totally committed to that on the way in which they have "honed their weapon". I am now almost convinced that they are right—certainly as regards a national football stadium. Time is short and I shall not repeat the reasons why I thought that Wembley was not a starter—not least because of the difficulty of access. Even with the moneys pledged by the mayor to increase the transport links, the situation at Wembley was unsuitable. I believe even more so now that it is unsuitable, either for a national football stadium or for a national stadium.
I do not know whether Birmingham is the answer, but I am very much persuaded by what the noble Lord said, particularly in relation to what he described as the premium seat income position. I do not think that he entirely convinced the noble Lord. Lord Faulkner, if I understood his remarks correctly. but these are interesting points. We are now getting to the nitty-gritty of the problem—the way in which people see their investment being returned. We look forward to further debate on the matter and possibly to an answer from the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench when he replies to the debate.
A number of questions were raised on 19th December which, although only a short time has elapsed, need an answer. What is happening consequent on the interim report of the Patrick Carter review of the English national stadium? Has anything happened since 19th December? Wishes were repeated on 19th December for firm proposals—which are eagerly awaited—from the promoters of the world stadium team, and that they should come within a reasonable time-scale. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked quite correctly: what is a reasonable time-scale? Perhaps the noble Lord will he able to tell us in his reply. Are we in the middle of that time-scale? Are we at the beginning of it? Birmingham's interest must be becoming even more lively—which is why the noble Lord has honed his arguments. It was stated that if it was not done in that time-scale Birmingham must be considered as a possible alternative.
There is a great deal of talk about government standards of propriety and so on, and a lot of high-flown language is used. Perhaps the noble Lord can tell us precisely what "propriety" and "irregularity" mean in relation to this project. "Best procurement practices" were talked about, as were "corporate government arrangements". What is more appropriate at this time is for the noble Lord to answer one simple question. He need not worry about "corporate government arrangements" and all the high-flown terms—which I believe are a bit of a smokescreen for government confusion about where they should go next. The question to answer is: are the Government happy about the way in which the Football Association is leading the project? I think we should know that.
We are all concerned about the £120 million of lottery money, and the Government must be concerned about it. Very good arguments have been made in the debate as to how the money was granted,

1427
and also for its return if the criteria are not met. What is the reaction to that? What about the independent value-for-money assessment that was mentioned? Has too short a time elapsed to deal with it? I repeated a number of semi jocular comments that were made in the newspapers about the contractor, Multiplex, and received quite persuasive letters from the construction company saying that I should certainly not believe what I read in the newspapers as most of it was incorrect. The company said that it was absolutely guiltless of the charges made in certain newspapers. What has the Comptroller and Auditor-General said? He was mentioned on 19th December. Has he had time to consider these matters?
I dare say the Minister does not have time to deal with those issues tonight, but I expect that we shall address the subject again and again. I hope that it does not become what the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has already described as a sad and sorry story. The project shows all the signs that should make us nervous. We need some firm leadership and reassurance tonight from the Government. We did not get that on 19th December, but I hope that we can be at least partly satisfied tonight.
The noble Lord, Lord Coe, obviously knows all about the technology involved in the proposed alteration of the plans to produce a platform for athletics, but it sounds a very Lego-like solution to me and hardly one that stands up against international comment and criticism of what we should do. Somebody asked whether the Stade de France is athletics-compliant. Of course it is athletics-compliant; it is compliant with everything. It is compliant to the extent that it can hold concerts by Celine Dion for 80,000 people. Johnny Hallyday—for those who are familiar with that old-time singer—has also attracted huge numbers to that stadium. It is compliant with everything and it cost only £240 million. The estimate for Wembley is more than £700 million. I would not bet on that being the final figure. I would bet on at least a 25 per cent escalation.
I see the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, laughing. I am glad that what I am saying is not a message of sorrow and anguish. I hope that the Minister can reinforce that sentiment.
9.42 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, for giving us the opportunity to return to the important subject of the national stadium. The Government's Statement in December should have lifted the veil on the future of the national stadium. However, if, before it, the Minister might have been wearing seven veils, Salome-like, afterwards the number had gone up to 70 veils. I hope tonight that he will take the opportunity to be more transparent.
In December, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said that the question of where the stadium was to be sited could be resolved only if the FA met the four criteria set by the Carter report. By saying that, the
1428
Government made clear that they had a vital role to play in the siting of the stadium because they are setting the standard. It is therefore right that they should be asked to make a progress report. The Minister has been asked some specific questions that could be answered tonight. Even if we are told that we have to wait until April for the final score, extra time or a replay, there are some questions that should be answered tonight, which is perhaps half time.
It is already more than 500 days since the last ball was kicked at Wembley. We have heard many reminiscences tonight about the historic stadium. As a young person—far too many years ago to recall—I saw Wembley stadium almost empty as I watched schoolgirls play hockey. Even then it was not easy to get there and back, and I only lived north of London.
Returning to the important issues raised in the Statement on 19th December, can the Minister assure the House tonight that the scheme is now on time and that all the details will finally be resolved in April? If the Government's timetable for finalising the project is not met, of course supporters of other bids, which naturally include Birmingham, have a right to expect that their proposals will be considered. As ever, I listened with great interest to the forceful, eloquent and definitely consistent advocacy of my noble friend Lord Fowler and the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, on those matters. Birmingham certainly has good advocates in this House.
One has to recall that, in the past five years, the Government have done their level best to distance themselves in Parliament from taking responsibility for decisions on the national stadium. They said that the decision about whether there was a national stadium at all and where it was to be built was for the FA and the FA alone. For example, on 19th December 2001, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said that,
"it is for the Football Association to take the project forward and … the Government's role is to act as a facilitator".—[0fficia/ Report, 19/12/01; col. 308.]
As noble Lords have pointed out today, so far the story has been one of too much meddling by the Government and not enough leadership. Indeed, Patrick Carter, in the foreword to his interim report, stated that,
"the Government was perceived as interfering in the project to its detriment and the very public difference of opinion between Government and the FA led to a loss of confidence on the part of potential lenders"
to the Wembley project.
First, the Government decided that there should be a national stadium at Wembley with athletics. The stadium concept was launched on 29th July 1999. That design was presented in November of that year, at the same time as planning permission was sought. Then, the right honourable Chris Smith decided that there should be a national stadium at Wembley without athletics. Noble Lords will remember that that decision was branded by the Select Committee of another place, at paragraph 23 of its report, as one that was beyond the proper responsibilities of the Secretary of State and taken in a hurry on flimsy and subjective grounds.

1429
Then—as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said—in a case of, "Now you see it, now you don't". the Government decided that they could not decide what to do. They could not decide whether there should be a national stadium, or whether athletics should be a part of it anyway. So, in December, in another place, the Secretary of State made that memorable statement—if she ever writes a dictionary, heaven help us all—that the stadium must be "athletics capable". My noble friend Lord Coe rightly pointed out that saying that something is athletics capable is not the same as saying that it is capable of hosting athletics events; otherwise, just about anywhere could be athletics capable. I suppose that even your Lordships' Chamber could be used for a steeplechase. I am not volunteering, by the way.
It is important for noble Lords to be told by the Government just how far they have progressed in obtaining from the FA assurances that the plans for Wembley will ensure that the stadium can be used to host national and international athletics events. If not, as my noble friends Lord Coe and Lord Glentoran have pointed out, a series of pertinent and serious questions must be asked about the £120 million grant made by Sport England. I certainly look forward to the Minister's response to the searching questions asked by my noble friends on the lottery financing.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, recalled, in December, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said that it was up to the FA to come up with a timetable. I was therefore keen to find out just what kind of timetable we are talking about—this year, next year, sometime or whenever. In December, the noble Baroness said that she had,
"every expectation that it will do so quite soon".—[Official Report, 19/12/01; col. 308]
One might expect "quite soon" to mean two months. Has it happened yet? Are the Government still waiting?
On 19th December 2001, the Minister told the House that the Government had told the FA and Wembley National Stadium Limited that if they were to continue with the Multiplex contract, they must set in train an independent assessment of the value for money which it represented, and that they must ensure that corporate governance and procurement arrangements hereafter represented best practice before the Government would proceed any further with support for the project. I thought that my noble friend Lord Lyell made some interesting and valid points about value for money from the Scottish experience in Glasgow.
Are the Government now satisfied that all aspects of the stadium procurement meet government standards of propriety and regularity? Has that independent value for money assessment been commissioned in relation to the proposed contracts with Multiplex? If so, which company has been commissioned to carry it out'? Does it meet the standards set out by the Minister in December? Can the Minister assure the House that the company has no previous or likely future involvement in the project?
1430
I turn to a matter reported in the Daily Telegraph of 16th January—I do not know whether the Minister is aware of the report—which stated that,
"The Government will now play a more direct role in the running of the Wembley project with ministers approving those who will form a new board for Wembley National Stadium Ltd".
That has serious implications. Is it true that the Government have been involved in scrutinising, along with Sport England and the FA, the list of possible candidates of those who will serve on the board in the future?
Serious problems have been raised by all noble Lords tonight with regard to the issue of the siting of the national stadium and whether there will be a national stadium at all. It is a matter of great national interest and pride. It is vital for the future of our sporting reputation and for our sportswomen and sportsmen that the Government show leadership—not meddling—and ensure that the question of where the national stadium is sited is resolved, and resolved now.
9.51 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, this is the first debate since the conclusion of the Winter Olympics. As the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, indicated, our successful competitors in those Olympics are to he congratulated and it is only right that a former gold medal winner should have led the way in offering those congratulations this evening. I take pleasure in joining with him.
The second group of congratulations is to my noble friend Lord Corbett on introducing the debate with his characteristic vigour and also with his innate sense of timing. As was indicated from the nature of the debate this evening, this is an extremely live issue. We are on the point of important questions being resolved and it is vital that the House has this opportunity of contributing to the debate and eliciting further information, which I hope to be able to provide to reassure noble Lords on a number of issues.
I praise my noble friend's contribution and the contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. on the Birmingham proposal but should perhaps make this point. The Government are neutral in this sense: should the FA make the decision that it does riot intend to go forward with the Wembley project, Birmingham has put forward a most coherent and persuasive viewpoint which ought to be looked at with the greatest seriousness. We expect that to be the course followed if the FA decides not to pursue the Wembley project. Of course, at this point the FA has still to make that decision.
This House is rightly concerned about the Government's responsibility for aspects of public money with regard to the proposal. I hasten to add that we are predominantly talking about lottery money and not about taxpayers' money, though of course there is an element of taxpayers' money with regard to aspects of infrastructure. Nevertheless, the Government's interest in this debate relates to the fact that the prime mover is the Football Association and it is the Football Association which will take the

1431
decision. The Government have made absolutely clear that that decision will be backed by the support of public funds only if it meets the proper criteria.
The reason the FA must take the lead is that there is no question of public money guaranteeing the future viability of the stadium. It must be run as a commercial development in terms of the football fixtures, possibly rugby league fixtures and athletic fixtures which it merits and which produce revenue for the stadium. After all, it is a commercial venture and it is only right that the Football Association should address itself to the issue of what it regards as the most viable financial proposal.
The Carter report, to which several noble Lords referred, reflected the fact that the likely revenues from Wembley were greater on the premium seat issue than those likely to emerge from Birmingham. But, of course, as my noble friend indicated this evening, Birmingham has fought back by indicating that there are arguments to suggest that a stadium in Birmingham could guarantee high levels of premium seat returns. At the end of the day that is a matter that the Football Association must take into account. The Government are neutral on the issue of location. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, mentioned, we are massively concerned about the viability of any proposal and, therefore, the appropriateness of the allocation of moneys from the lottery which have been identified up to now—hence the four conditions established on 19th December in the Statement made in the other place and repeated in this House.
I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, that considerable progress has been made. An exchange of letters has occurred between the Secretary of State and the chairman of Wembley National Stadium Limited which indicate just what the four criteria establish and make absolutely clear that the Government's interest will be sustained by ensuring that those criteria are met. It is the responsibility of the Football Association to ensure that those criteria are met. I say as categorically as possible that there is no question of fudge and potential delay. As regards the timescale for the operation, there is a deadline of the end of April. If the Government are not assured of the viability of the Wembley proposal and the Government's criteria have not been met, we shall have to consider whether or not to invest lottery money in the project.
I indicate clearly and straightforwardly that a decision will be taken in the fairly near future. I reassure my noble friend and his supporters who advocate Birmingham's case that, should the Football Association reject Wembley and if it wants to attract public moneys to the venture—everyone can see that the viability of the project depends upon a certain contribution of lottery money and support for the infrastructure—it would need to consider the Birmingham proposal, which has been formally presented and carefully considered, as an alternative.
1432
The debate was bound to focus on the crucial issue to which, as we would expect, the noble Lord, Lord Coe, referred; namely, athletics. It has been suggested that perhaps the Government have not been entirely clear about what they expect from Wembley in terms of athletics and in terms of that part of the lottery grant which relates to athletics. The noble Lord clarified all our minds when he indicated that the stadium is not conceived as the basis for an Olympic Games bid. It is clear that the structure of the stadium and the multiple role that it will play will not meet the criteria of international athletics. If we are to make a bid for the Olympic Games in the future—I for one, as a keen enthusiast of sport, hope that we do—we shall need another stadium specifically for athletics. I reassure the noble Lord that that concept still needs to be realised.
I refer to the moneys that were potentially to be devoted to Pickett's Lock. However, that stadium was not constructed. It is for the athletics authorities to decide whether that concept is to be realised in terms of a whole range of support for our future athletes or whether a stadium suitable for an Olympic bid should be constructed elsewhere.
But Wembley must have athletics capacity if it is to meet the requirements of the moneys allocated to it against the expectation of such capacity. The difference is straightforward. The facilities which are needed to host a major athletics event over a series of days will be beyond the capacity of Wembley. However, the project clearly can envisage athletics events which will bring in considerable revenue and it will provide a focal point for significant events in this country. But the hosting of those events will be different from the hosting of events as significant as the World Athletics Championships or the Olympic Games.
I am eager to emphasise—reference has been made to the fact—that the Government are working closely with the National Audit Office and the Office of Government Commerce to ensure that all due issues of propriety relate to this commercial project. Clearly we have an obligation to do so. Public moneys are being allied to a predominantly commercial venture and it is only right that the correct processes are followed.
On 19th December considerable anxiety, reflected in a Statement on that occasion, was expressed about the progress that had been made at that point with regard to the stadium. There will be no question of the project being viable in terms of claiming public funds unless it meets the criteria. As I said, the deadline is 30th April. Therefore, I believe that we are in a position to respond to the anxieties which were clearly expressed in this House in December.
All those who hold sport dear have expressed considerable anxieties over a number of years about the delay in relation to this project. My fondest memory of the old Wembley was when I had the fortune of attending a Cup Final with a ticket which cost 50p—such were the glories of pre-inflationary

1433
days a long time back. One cannot get away from sentiment with regard to the twin towers if one was present at the World Cup Final.
Having said that, we all recognise that the new Wembley must be a commercially viable project. It has received a significant allocation of public money. If it does not meet the criteria, then the issue of the return of the public money becomes a very live matter. I am sure that all noble Lords expect and hope that, with the judicious application of public money from the National Lottery, we shall in due course see a national stadium which will greatly enhance our sporting capacity in this country. On that basis, I commend the processes which are being pursued by the Government. Although my noble friend has used the occasion of this evening's debate to stress the claims of Birmingham, I believe that he and I share a
1434
commitment to the development of a national stadium, whether it is at Wembley, in Birmingham or elsewhere.

HSBC Investment Banking Bill [H.L.]
The Examiner's certificate that the further Standing Orders had been complied with was ordered to lie on the Table and the Bill was committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Homelessness Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at four minutes past ten o'clock.

  Heavily Indebted Poorer Countries
  Heavily Indebted Poorer Countries
  Public Service Agreements: Opportunity for All
  Public Service Agreements: Opportunity for All
  Lord Chancellor's Department DEL
  Lord Chancellor's Department DEL
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office DEL
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office DEL
  Sierra Leone: UN Sanctions
  Sierra Leone: UN Sanctions
  Antiquities of National Importance
  Antiquities of National Importance
  Free Television Licences
  Free Television Licences
  BBC's Digital Channels for Children
  BBC's Digital Channels for Children
  Export of Cultural Goods
  Export of Cultural Goods
  National Museums and Galleries: Items on Overseas Loan
  National Museums and Galleries: Items on Overseas Loan
  Immigration Staff
  Immigration Staff
  Definition of "Britain"
  Definition of "Britain"
  Asylum Seekers: Voluntary Departure
  Asylum Seekers: Voluntary Departure
  Immigration Removal Centres
  Immigration Removal Centres
  HM Prison Maghaberry: Detention of Asylum Seekers
  HM Prison Maghaberry: Detention of Asylum Seekers
  Prison Service and the Private Sector
  Prison Service and the Private Sector
  Attorney-General's Department DEL
  Attorney-General's Department DEL
  Statins
  Statins
  Digital Hearing Aids
  Digital Hearing Aids
  Health Improvement Commission Report
  Health Improvement Commission Report
  Prime Minister's Visit to Africa
  Prime Minister's Visit to Africa
  Northern Ireland Bill of Rights
  Northern Ireland Bill of Rights
  IRA-attributed Murders
  IRA-attributed Murders
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission: Staffing
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission: Staffing
  Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman
  Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman
  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Rother District Council: Benefit Fraud Inspectorate Report
  Rother District Council: Benefit Fraud Inspectorate Report
  Southampton City Council: Benefit Fraud Inspectorate Report
  Southampton City Council: Benefit Fraud Inspectorate Report