Sitting of 27 February 2002

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

    LONON DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BILL (By ORDER)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Wednesday 6 March.

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

    Violent Crime
    Chris Grayling: What recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales regarding violent crime in Wales. [35106]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with the First Secretary and his Cabinet colleagues about a range of issues, including levels of crime and the measures aimed at combating it. The Government are committed to improving the reporting and detection of violent crime, and to tackling its underlying causes.
    Chris Grayling: I thank the Minister for that response. There has been much in the news of late about violent crime in London, but hon. Members will be concerned about the worrying trends in violent crime in Wales. The Minister will know that there is also considerable concern that county councils in Wales find the process of obtaining antisocial behaviour orders extremely bureaucratic. What steps is he taking to improve that, and to improve the campaign against violent crime in Wales?
    Mr. Touhig: The British crime survey, generally regarded as the most authoritative measure of crime, has noted changes in public attitudes and a greater willingness to report crime. Between 1995 and 1999, there was a 22 per cent. fall in violent crime in England and Wales. Indeed, the detected rate in Wales for violent crime is running at 89 per cent.—nearly nine out of every 10 incidents. I pay tribute to the police for that.
    I share the concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman about the problems of using antisocial behaviour orders. In my constituency, I have encouraged the police and the
    690
    local authority to use them. As he is probably aware, the Police Reform Bill currently before the House contains opportunities for extending the use of ASBOs. I hope that they will be taken up, as I believe that the orders can be used very positively by the police service and local authorities.
    Alan Howarth: My hon. Friend the Minister will certainly have noted that, in Gwent, the numbers of violent crimes against the person, burglaries and thefts from vehicles have fallen by 5.7 per cent. Will he join me in congratulating the Gwent police on that, and in welcoming the 6.7 per cent. increase in the force's budget? That increase amounts to a rise in council tax of just £11.14 for a band D household. Does not he therefore consider that modest increases in council tax represent an excellent insurance policy?
    Mr. Touhig: I recognise my right hon. Friend's point. I know that he has made strong representations about the funding of the Gwent police service. As a Gwent MP, I share his happiness at the success achieved by Gwent police in tackling crime and reducing crime levels. However, it is important that all of us in the wider community realise that we have to develop partnerships with the police service if we are to achieve meaningful and long-term reductions in crime. In the end, that comes to putting in the necessary resources, as the Government are doing. We also have to introduce reforms, and the Government will do that too.
    Lembit Öpik: Is the Minister aware of the organisation Youth at Risk, which has pioneered some ground-breaking work in addressing youth crime? The organisation's work to reduce the underlying causes of young offending has reduced reoffending by as much as 36 per cent.—three times more than similar projects. Is the Minister willing to accept representations from Youth at Risk, and also to support its establishment in Wales?
    Mr. Touhig: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, as it makes an important contribution to the wider debate about tackling crime. I am aware of the Youth at Risk project, and of the initiatives in west Belfast of the Probation Board for Northern Ireland, which have achieved some success. People under the age of 18 commit about 7 million offences a year. It is important that we tackle youth crime and help young people involved in crime. I have been very impressed by the success that appears to have been achieved in west Belfast. I intend to raise the matter with the crime reduction director for Wales at our next meeting, so that we can examine how that success has been achieved in Northern Ireland, and to see whether we can develop such initiatives in Wales.
    Julie Morgan: Is my hon. Friend the Minister aware of the work of the women's safety unit in Cardiff, which aims to help women suffering domestic violence? The project is funded by the Home Office, but for 12 months only. Will he do his utmost to persuade my

    691
    right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to extend the funding period, so that the unit can continue its valuable work?
    Mr. Touhig: I am aware of my hon. Friend's commitment to domestic violence issues, and of her hard work in that regard. Domestic violence is one of the Government's main priorities for crime reduction, and we have a Minister to co-ordinate action across Government in that respect. Domestic violence accounts for about 25 per cent. of all reported violence. I am aware of the Cardiff women's safety unit. There are eight other projects across Wales, and Government funding amounts to about £750,000. I plan to visit the project in Cardiff shortly, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to join me. I have no doubt that I will receive representations about ongoing funding for the project. I shall listen to them, and pass them on to the appropriate Minister.
    Mr. Greg Knight: Is the Minister aware that in Wales, crimes of violence against the person are out of control and have more than doubled under Labour? They are up from 17,500 in 1997–98 to more than 38,000 last year. Is it not alarming, at a time of soaring violent crime, that the Government have so undermined police morale that the police are staging a demonstration on 13 March? Can the Minister assure the House that there will be adequate police cover in Wales on 13 March? When, at the beginning of his Administration, the Prime Minister said that he would be tough on crime and the causes of crime, what did he mean?
    Mr. Touhig: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has been learning some tactics from the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). When the Government came to power, we looked at the way in which crime was recorded and we found it wanting. Indeed, the House will be interested to know that until the Government came to power, common assault was not counted as violence against the person, and neither were attacks on police officers. We were used to the previous Government doing all sorts of things with figures—we remember what they did with the unemployment figures. We have changed the way in which crime is recorded to make it more transparent. We are making it more accountable. We are putting in the resources and putting in place the reforms to tackle the rise in crime.
    As I have already said, there was a 22 per cent. fall in violent crime in England and Wales between 1995 and 1999. When the police officers are demonstrating in London to advance the cause that they want to get across to the Government, I have no doubt that Gwent police service and the police service throughout Wales will make sure that sufficient officers are on duty, doing their duty as we all expect.

    Shellfish Industry
    Mr. Martin Caton: What recent discussions he has held with the Secretary for Agriculture in the National Assembly for Wales about the Welsh shellfish industry. [35107]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I meet regularly with the Minister
    692
    for Rural Affairs in the National Assembly for Wales to discuss a range of issues, including the Welsh shellfish industry.
    Mr. Caton: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. May I press him to take up with National Assembly Ministers, as well as with his colleagues in the Department of Health and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the desperate plight of cockle gatherers who usually work the Loughor estuary, including many of my constituents? For eight months they have been unable to earn their living because of a series of positive tests for diarrhetic shellfish poisoning. They need financial help and they need their estuary cleaned up. To do that will take action from Government agencies at UK level as well as from the National Assembly.
    Mr. Touhig: Responsibility for the closure of the Burry inlet cockle beds rests with Carmarthen and Swansea county councils, which acted jointly in accordance with regulation 7 of the Food Safety (Fishery Products and Live Shellfish) (Hygiene) Regulations 1998. Having said that, however, I can tell my hon. Friend that on Monday I met representatives of the cockle-gathering industry in his constituency together with the Assembly Member for that constituency, Edwina Hart. I have been made fully aware of the problems that the cockle gatherers face, the difficulties caused by the cockle beds being closed for eight months and the impact that that has had on their industry and livelihood. I will make representations to other ministerial colleagues on their behalf and will happily ensure that my hon. Friend is included in the responses when I get them so that he can be fully in the picture and reassured that I and the Government will do all that we can to help the cockle gatherers in his constituency.

    Foot and Mouth
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: What discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales about producing a Welsh action plan for preventing future outbreaks of foot and mouth. [35108]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I have regular meetings with the First Minister at which a variety of issues relating to foot and mouth are discussed. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State also has regular meetings with the Assembly Minister for Rural Affairs.
    Mr. Bellingham: Does the Secretary of State share the view of the Farmers Union of Wales that the impact of last year's foot and mouth crisis on Wales was devastating and had many ongoing effects? Does he also share the FUW' s view that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food failed to understand the need of Welsh farmers during the crisis? For example, there was a serious breakdown in communication between MAFF and the National Assembly when MAFF culled out border farms and then failed to inform Welsh officials. Surely that is

    693
    yet another reason to have a full public inquiry into the foot and mouth crisis, and will the Secretary of State support it?
    Mr. Murphy: I do not share those views. As a result of the relationship between the National Assembly for Wales and the Government, we have introduced a considerable number of packages and measures to help Welsh farming and the Welsh rural economy. It is not always enough, but we are trying to deal with what was, of course, a devastating blow for rural Wales—I agree with the hon. Gentleman about that. The Assembly put £65 million into a rural recovery plan. The actions of a Labour-led Assembly and a Labour Government were absolutely right. We did what we could to put right a very difficult situation for Welsh farmers and the Welsh rural economy.
    Mr. Huw Edwards: Will my right hon. Friend join me in commending the distinct approach to agriculture that is being developed by the Welsh Assembly's Minister for Rural Affairs, Carwyn Jones? Does he believe that the priorities of the new action plan should include support for organic farming, expansion of the Tir Gofal agri-environmental scheme and greater support for Farming Connect? Will he join me in congratulating all the people at Usk agricultural college who put on the Farming Connect roadshow last Saturday, which attracted many farmers from Monmouthshire?
    Mr. Murphy: I agree with my hon. Friend's comments about Usk agricultural college, which I know well. It has done a marvellous job in the past few months in ensuring that farmers in Monmouthshire are well catered for. I also agree—I think that the people of Wales, including the farming community, would agree too—that the Welsh Minister for Rural Affairs has done an excellent job during the past 12 months. There is no doubt about that. He is working together with the Government to ensure that we do all that we can to help rural Wales.
    Mr. Roger Williams: Given the support of the Welsh farming community and the farming unions for the devolution of animal health functions to the Assembly, what discussions has the Secretary of State had with Assembly Ministers to introduce the secondary legislation that will enable that to happen?
    Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman refers to an area in which during the past 12 months the Assembly has, de facto, done a great deal on behalf of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—before that, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—in terms of what happens in Wales. That is because it is much closer to the ground.
    Several matters remain to be dealt with in devolving any animal health functions to the Assembly. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that I have already had discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and with Ministers in the Assembly.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: When will the Secretary of State come off it? He knows that the handling of foot and mouth was botched. It cost £500 million and
    694
    35,184 cattle, 304,847 sheep and 5,941 pigs were slaughtered. Does he agree that the agriculture and tourism industries could not withstand another outbreak of foot and mouth? Does he agree with Bob Parry of the Farmers Union of Wales that one measure that would help Welsh and other British farmers would be to ban any substandard meat from coming into this country?
    Mr. Murphy: I agree that we must ensure that we are vigilant about the importation of illegal meat. The hon. Gentleman is right about that. However, he is wrong in one respect. His comments come badly from a member of the party that dealt so poorly with the BSE crisis not many years ago. If his party was in government, it would have done nothing different from what the Government have done over the past 12 months. Millions and millions of pounds have been paid out in compensation to the farming community, and millions more have been paid in Wales for a rural recovery plan.
    As regards tourism, the Assembly and the Government jointly are doing a great deal to bring tourists back to Wales, both from this country and abroad.
    Mr. Evans: It is amazing, is it not, Mr. Speaker? The Secretary of State admits that we want to stop the importation of substandard meat, but the Government do nothing about it. When will they bring forward proposals to ensure that substandard meat is banned from entering this country, and when will the Secretary of State ensure that there are proper lines of communication? Last night was a warning shot across everybody's bows. We all feared that there would be another outbreak of foot and mouth. When will he ensure that cheap imports of food into Britain are banned?
    Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is right about last night and we should remain vigilant in rural areas about foot and mouth. On meat imports, we recognise the genuine concerns of the farming community. That is why the Government, the Assembly, local authorities and Customs and Excise are working together to ensure that there is much greater vigilance and much greater public information. There is a tremendous amount of activity within government to ensure that we alert people to the dangers of illegally imported food. I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman on that. However, he is wrong to say that the Government do not recognise the problems because we certainly do.

    Farming and Food
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: What discussions he has had with (a) ministerial colleagues and (b) the National Assembly for Wales on the implementation of the report "Farming and Food: A Sustainable Future", with particular reference to modulation; and if he will make a statement. [35109]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I have regular meetings with ministerial colleagues and the National Assembly for Wales in which a wide range of farming issues are discussed.
    Mr. Llwyd: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply which, bearing in mind the fact that he had a month's notice of the specific question, is rather pathetic.

    695
    Does he agree with the Farmers Union of Wales and the National Farmers Union Wales that flat-rate modulation would be ruinous for the smaller and medium-sector Welsh farmer? It is included in the report on England, which also says that it should happen in Wales. If the right hon. Gentleman is truly batting for Wales, when will he stand by the crease?
    Mr. Murphy: I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree in principle with modulation. After all, his party voted in favour of it in the National Assembly not so long ago. I am sure that he would also agree with what his colleagues in the European Parliament say as members of the European group. They want a
    "step-by-step reallocation of the European Union budget for the CAP from surplus management to an integrated rural development policy".
    That is all about modulation. The hon. Gentleman's party in Europe and the Assembly wants modulation.
    The hon. Gentleman is right that discussions on the details are still taking place between the National Assembly and the Government. Of course we will look carefully at those. He knows that there is a distinction between the Welsh farming community and the farming community in England, and we will consider those issues. However, his party is in favour of modulation in principle, and so is mine.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a shame that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) introduces a critical and sallow note to the farming debate, especially as there is general agreement throughout Wales and in the hon. Gentleman's party that my Assembly Member, Carwyn Jones, has done a great job in leading the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Department? Is it not good that "Farming and Food: A Sustainable Future" contains a blueprint that all people from rural communities in Wales fully support so that we can develop the food industry in Wales to maximise profits for our rural communities?
    Mr. Murphy: I agree with my hon. Friend. Although I expect ignorant criticism of the Welsh Minister for Rural Affairs from Members who represent English constituencies, I would not expect it from a Welsh Member of Parliament.

    Training
    Albert Owen (Ynys Môn): What discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues and the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales about the Government's steps to improve the training skills of the Welsh work force. [35110]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): Increasing skills is vital to raising productivity in all parts of Britain. Skills measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his pre-Budget statement will result in consequential
    696
    allocations to the Welsh block, but it will be for the Assembly to decide how those funds are allocated among Welsh programmes.
    Albert Owen: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. Does he agree that there should be greater co-operation between schools, training providers and the business community to match training to the needs of industry? Does he also agree that there should be a skills audit in areas of high unemployment, such as my constituency, to identify deficiencies in skills to ensure that we have even economic development throughout Wales?
    Mr. Murphy: Yes, of course I agree with my hon. Friend. Only this morning, the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning in Wales introduced a document on skills and employment action that outlines no fewer than 50 actions to improve training and education among the work force in Wales. I also agree that that should start in schools, which is why the Assembly is introducing in Wales, as we are in England, vocational GCSEs in schools from September 2002. In many ways, Wales leads the United Kingdom in training and skills for young people.
    Chris Ruane: Is my right hon. Friend aware that more than 1,000 jobs have been created on the St. Asaph business park, which is in my constituency, but that only 100 such jobs were created under the Tories? However, if that growth is to continue, my community needs skilled workers. That is the No. 1 issue. What representations is he making to the National Assembly on that important issue?
    Mr. Murphy: I have visited my hon. Friend's constituency and St. Asaph, and as he knows, ELWa has recently given some £3 million to colleges in north Wales to support development of its manufacturing base. He asks what the Assembly and I are doing to improve training in Wales. The most important thing that the Government and the Assembly are doing is funding new training and new skills. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's pre-Budget report makes clear, some £40 million extra was given to Wales for training. As a result of that and other measures, Wales leads the way in training in the United Kingdom.

    North Wales Police
    Ian Lucas: If he will discuss with the Home Secretary the level of funding for North Wales police. [35112]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend and I have regular contact with colleagues about issues affecting Wales. Under the police settlement announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 30 January, the North Wales police authority is set to receive a grant of £41.1 million, together with an additional £300,000 to bring the authority's grant increase up to 2.3 per cent. In 2002–03, it will also receive £28.7 million from the Assembly as part of the local government settlement. Together with the assumed 5 per cent. increase in the precept, that will constitute a budget

    697
    increase for this year of 4.8 per cent., although I understand that the precept may be further increased by the police authority.
    Ian Lucas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that response. Is he also aware of the excellent way in which Wrexham county borough council is securing additional funding for closed circuit television schemes in north Wales? I recently met two contented police officers who administer a £150,000 CCTV scheme on the Wrexham industrial estate. Will my hon. Friend please encourage other local authorities across Wales to apply for more money to fight crime?
    Mr. Touhig: I agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, in his constituency £525,000 has been made available for CCTV in the period 1999 to 2002. The Government have made available £9 million for CCTV in town centres and car parks throughout Wales. That is having a positive impact on crime and crime reduction. It reassures the public and gives a warning to those out to commit crime that they will be detected.
    Hywel Williams: Given that the majority of police funding in Wales comes from within that country, is it not high time that responsibility for the police was devolved to Cardiff?
    Mr. Touhig: The Government have no plans to do that.

    Tourism
    Michael Fabricant: When he next plans to meet the National Assembly secretaries to discuss tourism into Wales from the rest of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [35114]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): I have regular discussions with the First Minister and other Assembly members on a range of issues, including tourism in Wales.
    The year 2001 was a challenging one for Welsh tourism, given the foot and mouth epidemic and the tragic events of 11 September. I therefore welcome the Wales tourist board's new £10 million advertising campaign, which will have a big impact on bringing tourists back to Wales.
    Michael Fabricant: Does the Minister agree that people such as Mrs. Pugh of Dolfanog Fach, are adopting the right attitude by approaching people to visit their guest houses? Does he also agree that mid-Wales has much to offer? What steps can the Government take to ensure that too many burdens are not placed on small businesses such as farms, which are open to guests?
    Mr. Touhig: I well recall the hon. Gentleman's question to me in June, in which he mentioned Mrs. Meirwen Pugh and her farm at Talyllyn. Since then I have travelled round many parts of Wales and I am greatly encouraged by the improvement in the tourist industry. People are taking holidays—long breaks and short breaks—in Wales, including the hon. Gentleman and many from his part of the world. I hope that he will continue to do that and to encourage many others to do
    698
    likewise. The Government have been putting in the funding to encourage the tourist boards and others to make Wales a more attractive place to visit. That will be a success at the end of the day, so I look forward to many more people coming to Wales for their holidays this year. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's advert for Mrs. Meirwen Pugh is much appreciated.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Tony McWalter: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 27 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. McWalter: My right hon. Friend is sometimes subject to rather unflattering or even malevolent descriptions of his motivation. Will he provide the House with a brief characterisation of the political philosophy that he espouses and which underlies his policies?
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    The Prime Minister: First, I should thank my hon. Friend for his question, which has evinced such sympathy in all parts of the House, about the criticism of me. The best example that I can give is the rebuilding of the national health service today under this Government—extra investment. For example, there is the appointment today of Sir Magdi Yacoub to head up the fellowship scheme that will allow internationally acclaimed surgeons and consultants from around the world to work in this country. I can assure the House and the country that that extra investment in our NHS will continue under this Government. Of course, it would be taken out by the Conservative party.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Does it remain a principle of the Prime Minister to sack any Cabinet Minister who lies?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, of course. I expect the highest standards of propriety.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Yesterday, the Transport Secretary admitted to the House that he told the British people something that was fundamentally untrue. Before the Prime Minister came to power, he said:
    "I would expect Ministers in a Government I lead to resign if they lie."
    if that is so, why is the Transport Secretary today still in his job and sitting on the Bench next to him?
    The Prime Minister: I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said. My right hon. Friend came to the House yesterday and made an absolutely full

    699
    statement, and he and his Department should now be allowed to get on with the issues that really matter to people—for example, issues to do with the botched privatisation of transport and the extra investment in our transport system that it needs. Of course, that is the last thing the right hon. Gentleman will ever ask me about.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Now we know that the Prime Minister clearly is not going to stand by his word. Under this Transport Secretary, rail delays are up by 40 per cent., and even last night passengers petitioned the Government to get rid of the Transport Secretary. After yesterday, no one will ever believe the Transport Secretary again.
    Before the Prime Minister came to power he also said that under his Government there would be
    "no more sleaze, no more lies, no more broken promises".
    It is bad enough that such a Cabinet Minister does not resign, but last night the Prime Minister rolled out the red carpet at No. 10 and congratulated him. Is it any wonder that the public's trust in politicians has fallen so low when the Prime Minister is too weak to root out dishonesty?
    The Prime Minister: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman exactly what the Transport Secretary will concentrate on: sorting out a privatisation that has wrecked the state of Britain's railways, ensuring that we get the largest ever investment into the London underground and appointing the right people to the Strategic Rail Authority, so that we get the extra rolling stock and investment that the transport system needs.
    Those are the issues, and there are two parallel agendas. One agenda—that of the Conservative party and parts of the media—is to do with scandal and gossip, day after day. The other agenda is about the economy, living standards, jobs, the NHS, education, crime, and the real issues of transport. He can concentrate on the first; we will concentrate on the second.
    Mr. Dai Havard: Is the Prime Minister aware of the excellent work of the Merthyr crime reduction partnership? Will he join me in congratulating it on receiving a British community safety award for car crime prevention initiatives in my constituency? [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Is he also aware, however, that our efforts to extend crime prevention work are being frustrated because of the lack of use of antisocial behaviour orders? Will he therefore undertake to speed up both the implementation and issue of those orders? Will he ensure that they are used much more frequently—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House should let the hon. Member put his question. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is reading."] Order. I am not reading, and I am saying that the hon. Gentleman should be able to put his question.
    Mr. Havard: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will my right hon. Friend increase the frequency with which the orders are used when ex-offenders are returned to the community, so that we are equipped and armed to deal with crime reduction?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend should not be in the least surprised at the jeers from the Conservatives.
    700
    After all, he was asking a question about a serious issue that concerns his constituents. Of course the Conservatives are not interested in it.
    My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that antisocial behaviour orders are an important part of the armoury of law enforcement in our country today. We need to make them easier to use, because the one thing that makes life hell for people in their local communities is the serious antisocial disturbance and behaviour of groups, particularly of youngsters, and families. I urge local authorities and the police in his constituency and others up and down the country to work together to use the orders more widely. We shall announce shortly, however, changes to how they operate so that they are less bureaucratic and easier to enforce.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: In spite of the somewhat inadequate inquiries of a minute or two ago, will the Prime Minister explain to people out there in the country why exactly he retains confidence in his Transport Secretary?
    The Prime Minister: For the very reason contained in the statement made by the Secretary of State yesterday, where he explained exactly what has happened, and because I believe that in the end the judgment that should be made, and indeed will be made, about this Secretary of State and this Government will be on the real issues to do with transport—the things that actually concern people in this country. I know that the Conservative party does not want to argue about them, but we do.
    Mr. Kennedy: There is no doubt that that is what the Transport Secretary and, indeed, the Government deserve to be judged on, but if their presiding over a shambolic railway system, the financial failure of air traffic services, and their ploughing ahead with the part privatisation of the London tube in the face of popular sentiment and their own Labour-dominated Select Committee add up to confidence in the Transport Secretary, will the Prime Minister explain what would lead to a loss of confidence?
    The Prime Minister: Let me deal with each of those issues in turn. First, in relation to the railway infrastructure, we know the problems caused by the lack of investment over many years and a privatisation which I think is generally regarded as botched and wrong. It was absolutely right that after the Hatfield rail disaster there was a full audit of the state of the infrastructure, from which time it was decided that there would have to be almost a complete renewal of it. That will require time to undertake and large amounts of investment. We are getting that investment in. It is right that it will take some time to sort out the mess of privatisation, but it will be done.
    Secondly, in relation to National Air Traffic Services, the right hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. In respect of air traffic control, there has been pressure on systems and on the companies operating them around the world as a result of 11 September. The difference is that, in fact, as a result of the public-private partnership, we have managed to get hundreds of millions of pounds into the Exchequer which can then be used for the purposes of rebuilding the infrastructure over time. [Interruption.] Never mind pointing at Labour Members—why does the right hon. Gentleman not listen to the answers that I am giving?

    701
    The third issue that the right hon. Gentleman raises is in respect of London underground. From this April, there will be the largest investment in the London underground since the tube was built. Yes, part of that money will come from the private sector. If we did not get the £4 billion or £5 billion from the private sector, we would have to take it out of the capital investment programmes for schools and hospitals and other things.
    Those are the answers to the questions that the right hon. Gentleman asks me, but I agree with him about one thing: it is on those questions that ultimately we are and should be judged.
    Mr. Colin Pickthall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in my constituency as we speak, wild hares are being torn to pieces by dogs in that great spectator event, the Waterloo cup? Does he share the disgust with that activity expressed by 81 per cent. of those surveyed in the most recent poll, and their desire for hare coursing to be banned and the annual atrocity at Altcar ended? Will he please tell us when the will of the House, expressed by overwhelming majorities in recent years, will be implemented? When will we follow the example of Scotland and ban the hunting of our wild mammals by a minority's dogs?
    The Prime Minister: There will be an announcement made on the timing of the vote that we promised both in the manifesto and in the Queen's Speech. That announcement will be made shortly.
    Matthew Green: I am sure that the Prime Minister agrees that Britain's livestock industry produces meat to the highest animal welfare and food hygiene standards in the world. Is he aware that imported meat often does not meet the same standards that we expect our farmers to reach, and is often cheaper than locally reared meat? For the sake of both the livestock industry and consumers, will he ensure that there is a level playing field, so that all meat imports have to meet the same standards as meat produced here?
    The Prime Minister: I agree that that is an issue, and we are working on it with the farming industry. First, if imported meat is coming into this country in contravention of the rules, it should not be. That is why we are working with the industry to tighten the rules. Secondly, it is important to secure a sustainable future for British farming. The basis for that was outlined in the recent report by Sir Donald Curry. We need to make sure that we work with the farming industry to ensure that British produce, which is of really high quality, can be marketed and sold properly not only in this country, but throughout the world.
    Mr. Tom Levitt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that police officers should not have to work long hours of overtime either to provide a first-class service, or to have a decent standard of living?
    Prime Minister: I think it important that police officers work under terms and conditions of employment that are right for the modern age. I have no doubt that we will be able to work with those in the police service not only to make changes in terms of policing reform, but to make major changes to our criminal justice system which will deliver the type of criminal justice system and police service that we need in this day and age.
    My. Nicholas Winterton: Like hon. Members on both sides of the House, the Prime Minister rightly takes an active interest in Africa, not least because many countries on that continent are part of the Commonwealth. Does he share my grave concern about the deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe? Does he not think it absolutely outrageous that in the middle of the presidential campaign, the president's opponent and two of his close colleagues have been charged with treason? In the event of—I hope—the right outcome and the election of the candidate of the Movement for Democratic Change, what contingency plans do the Prime Minister and his Government have to help that country out of the hellhole in which its people currently live?
    The Prime Minister: I agree entirely that what is happening in Zimbabwe is an outrage. The actions of Robert Mugabe are completely undemocratic, wrong and dictatorial. It is for that reason that we argued with other members of the European Union in favour of sanctions being applied; we will make the same case in the Commonwealth. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we should now—and we are doing so in our discussions with other countries in Europe and in the Commonwealth—concentrate on making sure that if the result goes against Mr. Mugabe, although we cannot be sure that it will because of some of the appalling things that have been happening, we are in a position to ensure that the proper democratically elected Government of Zimbabwe are supported.
    Caroline Flint: It was announced today that 50 years of peat working is to end on three sites in the United Kingdom, including Hatfield moors in my constituency and Thorne moors in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes). Is not that landmark agreement a good example of how the Government are supporting conservation and sustainability? Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the Thorne and Hatfield Moors Conservation Forum, which has for many years fought hard to save those precious peat lands? Will he commit the Government to supporting and promoting the alternatives to peat for Britain's gardeners?
    The Prime Minister: I congratulate not just my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) but my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) on leading that campaign with the pressure group that led it locally. The issue is important. Three

    703
    internationally important sites are involved. If we can discover ways of promoting sustainable development, benefits will flow for the whole country.
    The House may think that these issues are unimportant, but if people read the latest data and work on sustainable development and on the environmental degradation that will cause huge problems throughout the world, they will realise that some of these issues are far more important in the long term than they may seem.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Will the Prime Minister tell us whether teacher vacancies in schools have gone up or down in the last year?
    The Prime Minister: Teacher vacancies have gone up. Part of the reason for that, however, is that so many more teaching posts are available.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: That must be one of the most feeble answers ever given. The figures slipped out by the Department for Education and Skills last Friday—this Government love Fridays—show that vacancies have almost doubled and that schools were short of more than 5,000 teachers in the last year, which is up from 3,000 in the year before. The Prime Minister talks about the number of new teachers being recruited. Will he tell us now how many teachers left schools in the latest year for which figures are available?
    The Prime Minister: I do not have those figures, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that what he was saying a moment ago is absolute nonsense. Thousands more teachers are in place since we came to office. There are vacancies because schools are recruiting and have been given additional sums of investment. There are schools in my constituency, his constituency and up and down this country where we can see the new teachers, school buildings and classroom assistants.
    The difference between the Government and the Opposition is that we believe that that investment should go in. Time and again, we ask the right hon. Gentleman for a commitment that the Conservative party supports that investment. Can we now have it?
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Another feeble answer from the Prime Minister. If he wants to talk about my constituency, he should ask himself why at least one or two of those schools have had to struggle out of special measures while his Government have been in power. [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] The answer that he would not give is that 19,000 teachers left schools in 1999–2000. Ofsted reports that 20 per cent. of—
    Hon. Members: Reading!
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should let the Leader of the Opposition put his question. Some hon. Members are behaving rather childishly.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: They would do anything to protect their Prime Minister—absolutely anything, Mr. Speaker.
    704
    Ofsted reports that 20 per cent. of newly qualified teachers have left the profession in the last three years. The Prime Minister must therefore answer this question. Instead of messing around with exams and piling more paperwork on teachers, why does he not address the problems to which teachers' leaders have drawn attention—morale going down, a lack of discipline and teachers leaving the profession?
    The Prime Minister: Never mind about protecting me; it is the right hon. Gentleman who needs protection. Did I just hear him say, "messing about with exams"? I think that it is important that our children take exams. Fortunately, under this Government, exam results are going up. The numbers of teachers in schools have gone up for the simple reason that I have given—this Government are putting more money into our schools. If he talks to teachers not only in his constituency but up and down this country, he will find that they have seen the investment going into school rooms and school buildings.
    As for schools in special measures, this Government have taken schools out of those special measures since we came to power. That is one reason why the Ofsted report to which the right hon. Gentleman referred concluded that education in this country is improving.
    Hon. Members: More!
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Denzil Davies: Recently, my right hon. Friend met the Italian Prime Minister to discuss European Union matters. Is he not concerned that Silvio Berlusconi and Jacques Chirac are able, with their votes in the EU, to shape legislation that is binding on the people of Britain, despite the facts that neither is accountable to the British electorate and that both face serious corruption allegations? Also, their domestic policies are not the sort of policies that would be supported by most people in Britain.
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend has a deeply held and principled position, which is to be against our membership of the European Union. I happen to disagree with that. It is in the nature of legislation inside the EU that it has to be negotiated and agreed. I believe that we benefit far more from being constructive partners in Europe than from being semi-engaged in Europe.
    When we came to office back in May 1997, this country was completely and totally marginalised in Europe. It had no proper power and no proper influence as a result of the divisions within the Conservative party. I am pleased that that is no longer the case. I know and believe that the vast majority of people in Britain, whatever worries they have about the EU—it is important that there should be EU reforms—believe that we should be in the EU fighting our corner and getting the best for Britain, rather than on the path to exiting the EU.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: Further to the question of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, will the Prime Minister say whether it is acceptable for a Cabinet Minister to lie and remain in office? Will he guarantee that he will not move the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in the next reshuffle?
    The Prime Minister: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said about my right hon. Friend.
    Martin Linton: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be aware of the murder of the estate agent Timothy Robinson in an horrific attack on a Battersea street a month ago today. What assurances can he give my constituents that there will be more bobbies on the beat in Battersea; that there will be more street warden schemes, like the scheme that is starting in Clapham Junction on 1 April; and above all that the Government, who have been so successful in reducing burglary and car crime, will dedicate the same resources and the same determination to ridding our streets of street crime?
    The Prime Minister: May I first express my sympathy to the family of one of my hon. Friend's constituents? He is right to raise the issue of street crime, which is a serious problem in London and elsewhere in inner cities. It is for that reason that the Metropolitan police are taking action that is specifically targeted on it.
    There are two things that the Government must do. First, we must provide resources for additional police officers. I think that in the past year, about 1,000 extra officers have been recruited to the Metropolitan police. We must carry on that programme.
    Secondly, we must make changes to the criminal justice system that allow us to get people to court quicker and give us the opportunity not to give bail to those who may be a threat to our communities. We must ensure that sentences that follow convictions are proper sentences that fit the crime. I say to all right hon. and hon. Members that this will be a major part of the Government's legislative agenda over the next few years. If people are serious about tackling the problems of crime on our streets, they must back our legislation, because it is needed.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: In addition to the incompetence and muddle that now define the Prime Minister's Government, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is also the substantial charge of unfairness? Is he aware that West Sussex county council receives only £300 per week under the standard spending assessment for the care of an elderly person? An equivalent elderly person in Islington receives £917 per week. Will the Prime Minister do what he can, please, to restore the deficit of £13 million in West Sussex county council's social services budget, and ensure that the vulnerable elderly of West Sussex are properly cared for?
    The Prime Minister: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about the position in West Sussex, as I am not familiar with the details. Overall, there has been an increase in social services spending of about 20 per cent. in the past few years, which contrasts with the preceding few years, when there was a rise of barely 1 per cent. However, we accept that there is more to be done,
    706
    particularly in making sure that care home places are available. For that reason, about £1.4 billion is to be invested over the next few years. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about the position in his constituency and council area.
    Charlotte Atkins: This week's decision to allow pensioners to claim benefits for the first 13 weeks of a hospital stay is extremely welcome, but does my right hon. Friend recognise that the pay gap between men and women at work becomes a pay chasm in pension entitlement? Is it right that women should have to pay that price for caring for their families?
    The Prime Minister: I understand my hon. Friend's point. In spanning any chasm, it is necessary to take account of the resources available. However, she is right to say that the decision to extend the entitlement to 13 weeks has been widely welcomed. That had been unchanged since 1948 and it will bring considerable relief, especially to many elderly people. It is worth pointing out that as a result of the above-inflation rises in basic state pension, the winter fuel allowance and the free TV licences, prescriptions, eye tests and so on—as a result of all those measures taken together, we will have increased the amount of expenditure on pensioners by £6 billion a year from April. That is an indication of our support and dedication to making sure that their dedication and commitment are properly recognised.
    Mr. Paul Burstow: Given that the Employers Forum on Age estimates that it costs the country £31 billion a year to deal with ageism in the workplace, will the Prime Minister explain why it is sensible to delay for another five years legislation to deal with age discrimination in the workplace? Should we not be getting rid of age discrimination now and legislating in this Parliament and this Session?
    The Prime Minister: Everybody wants to get rid of age discrimination; the question is how to do it in a sensible way that does not impose undue burdens on employers. As I think the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge, there are huge practical issues to be worked through to make sure that any type of anti-discrimination measures work. It is important that we do that in consultation with employers, particularly small businesses and others that may be affected. I entirely agree with the objective, but it is important that we implement it sensibly.
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend consider making further funding available for maternity services? In particular, will he ask our right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Health to look speedily and sympathetically at a £12 million bid to modernise the maternity services unit at Northwick Park hospital, which serves my constituents? Although I recognise that significant additional funding has been made available to my health authority, which is clearly an excellent start, will my right hon. Friend encourage our

    707
    right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Health to recognise that further funding is necessary to get the unit modernised?
    The Prime Minister: I know that an application has been submitted by those in my hon. Friend's constituency which will be considered in due course. He is right to single out maternity services as a necessary part of the Government's additional investment and expenditure. Precisely for that reason, we are making sure that additional resources go into our national health service.
    David Burnside: The Prime Minister will remember well the very difficult decision made four years ago as part of the Belfast agreement to release all prisoners in Northern Ireland, both republican and so-called loyalist, who were guilty of the most horrific crimes. The people of Northern Ireland backed that because the prisoners were released on licence. It was not easy, but because the prisoners were released on licence, they would go back inside if they committed further crimes and terrorism.
    708
    Will the Prime Minister give a commitment to the House that he will stop the process, which I believe is far advanced, of initiating and legislating for an amnesty for those who committed crimes in Ulster in the past 30 years? That would drive a coach and horses through the confidence of the law-abiding community in Northern Ireland in the Belfast agreement.
    The Prime Minister: We have said that the issue of those people who have been charged with crimes in the past has to be dealt with. How it is dealt with is a matter under discussion, but the hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to this point: those convicted prisoners who were given early release were released on licence, so that if they breach the licence conditions, they can be put back in prison again. I hope that he understands that we accept that the measure was very difficult for people in Northern Ireland to accept as part of the Belfast agreement. However, I believe that that agreement, taken as a whole, has given us a chance for the future in Northern Ireland. So we must consider very carefully how to proceed, but I hope that we will have his support in ensuring that the Belfast agreement is maintained.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Andrew MacKay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that it has been a long-standing convention of the House that, in the interests of good cross-examination of Ministers, statements are released to Opposition spokesmen well in advance? Are you aware that the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions yesterday released his statement only a matter of minutes before coming to the Dispatch Box? Would you—[Interruption.] I am not surprised that the Government Chief Whip does not want to hear this. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me hear the right hon. Member's point of order.
Mr. MacKay: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker. Would you deprecate such short notice, and, if it happens again, ensure that the sitting is suspended so that Opposition spokesmen can properly consider what is in the statement? It was quite clear yesterday that the admission that the Secretary of State had misled the British public on the Dimbleby programme was not given to other spokesmen in advance so that they could properly cross-examine him.
Mr. Speaker: It is not a rule of the House but a courtesy that Ministers give as much warning as possible of any statement that they are going to make. I encourage Ministers to do that. [Interruption.] Order. If there is any difficulty or short notice in future, I can use my discretion, but I would rather encourage Ministers to give out their statements well in advance.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: There is nothing further to that point of order. I have explained the situation exactly.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, during questions on the Transport Secretary's statement, I asked:
"Did he make Martin Sixsmith's resignation a condition of Jo Moore's resignation?"—[Official Report, 26 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 575.]
The Secretary of State said "No." On "Newsnight" last night, contemporaneous notes were revealed of a conversation between Sir Richard Mottram and Martin Sixsmith on the afternoon of 18 February. I quote directly:
710
"The bigger roadblock is Byers. He's invested so much face in this that his credibility is very much on the line. He has also made a firm promise to Jo that if she stepped down he would get your head to roll as well so it would be very hard for him to announce that you hadn't completely resigned after all."
That confirms stories in The Sunday Times of 24 February—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying to use points of order to put a case. He is aware of the rules of the House. There are ways in which he can pursue matters, including parliamentary questions or Adjournment debates. He is trying to draw the Chair into the argument that he is advancing. I do not have anything further to say on that matter.
Mr. Blunt rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not have anything further to say on that matter.
Mr. Blunt rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should pursue this matter. I think that he has finished.
Mr. Blunt rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The matter is finished.
Mr. Andrew Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, the House of Lords Annunciators announced the proposed statement by the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions at about 12 o'clock, but the Annunciators in this place did not give such notice until at least half an hour later. Is there anything that you can do to assist us in knowing when such statements will be made?
Mr. Speaker: I do not control affairs in the other place.

Points of Order
  BILL PRESENTED
    HOUSING BENEFIT (WITHHOLDING OF PAYMENT)
    Mr. Frank Field presented a Bill to permit the Secretary of State to withhold payment of housing benefit on grounds of anti-social behaviour in certain circumstances: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 19 April, and to be printed [Bill 102].

Fireworks
3.35 pm
Joan Ryan: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision with respect to the retail sale of fireworks and use of fireworks by the general public.
I am sure many Members will be aware, if only from their postbags, that the problems caused by fireworks are extensive, and are no longer restricted to an annual seasonal event. The industry's voluntary code, which aims to promote the safer use of fireworks, stipulates that they are to be displayed to the public for only three weeks prior to 5 November, and for a few days afterwards. Unfortunately, however, the code is notably redundant, and fireworks are readily available to the public from retail outlets throughout the year.
Several significant problems are caused by the retail sale of fireworks. The most immediate is the number of injuries resulting from their use. In extreme cases their use can lead to fatalities. That, tragically, happened in the case of 13-year-old Martin Lamparter, a young man who lived in my constituency with his family and who was killed last December in an accident involving a firework. The event has devastated his family and the local community.
Even more tragic is the fact that Martin's death was not an isolated incident. Five deaths in the last five years have been directly attributable to fireworks. All were unnecessary, and would have been avoided had the retail sale of fireworks to the general public been prohibited.
Yet despite the focus of past debate on the subject—tending to centre on the devastating effects of injury and the potential for fatalities that fireworks possess—the hazard to human welfare of fireworks has not proved a sufficient propellant to effect the change in legislation for which my Bill calls. Following the implementation of the 1997 firework safety regulations, there was an 8 per cent. reduction in the number of firework casualties in 1998. However, the 30 per cent. drop in the volume of sales in that year makes the apparent decrease in injuries superficial, as proportionally the number of injuries was significantly higher. The number of casualties increased in both 1999 and 2000.
In recent weeks I have received many letters expressing support for the Bill, for a variety of reasons—not just because of the physical injuries that fireworks are capable of inflicting. The National Campaign for Firework Safety strongly supports the Bill, and has long recognised that under current legislation fireworks are a multi-faceted menace, at best a nuisance and at worst fatal.
The support that I have received of late has come not least from those concerned about the noise generated by fireworks. The noise pollution is not the occasional and tolerable inconvenience that it was once, but an ever-increasing source of fear and anxiety, especially to vulnerable groups in society. Such distress is not confined to people, but extends to domestic pets—some of which have had to be put down as a result—as well as farm animals and wildlife.
All those latter problems do not even necessarily entail the abuse of fireworks. When fireworks are deliberately misused, their effects are even more profound, exacerbating the possibility of injury, death and fear as
712
well as fostering additional problems. The abuse of fireworks results in antisocial behaviour, criminal damage and—as police in Oldham, Bradford and Northern Ireland have found—their conversion into weapons.
Current legislation is failing to be effective primarily because it is reactive. Police powers are restricted to responding to specific offences arising from the misuse of fireworks, and the law, while making it an offence for under-18s to purchase fireworks, does not make their possession of fireworks illegal.
This is a serious problem. Statistics demonstrate that the greatest percentage of firework injuries are to those aged 15 or younger, accounting for some 40 to 50 per cent. of all firework injuries over the past five years. Such evidence clearly demonstrates the ineffectiveness of current regulations. If the current law were more vigorously enforced and the under-age use of fireworks all but eliminated, firework safety could still not be guaranteed. Age alone does not qualify someone to use explosive devices responsibly and competently. Being old enough to drive does not automatically qualify a person to do so. The safety provisions relating to driving require that a licence be obtained in addition to an age criterion being met. I believe that there is a strong enough case to draw a parallel between driving and the use of fireworks.
Only those who are trained and licensed should be able to access and use fireworks, because even when they are used within the law and with the best of intentions, they are still proving hazardous. Addressing the many problems caused by fireworks requires far more than the further enforcement of current statutes or the entrenching of the voluntary code into law. A statutory code that emulates the current voluntary code would not prevent the problems that I have identified from manifesting themselves around 5 November.
In addition, it is discriminatory to allow the sale of fireworks to the public to commemorate one historical and cultural event—bonfire night—but to deny other celebrations such as Diwali and the Chinese new year the opportunity to include fireworks in their festivities. The only safe and fair option is a complete ban on the retail sale of fireworks to the general public. All festivities would thus be entitled to include fireworks as part of their celebrations, provided that they were used in organised and licensed displays.
There will be those who will object to such a prohibition, perhaps because their profit or employment depends on the sale or manufacture of fireworks, yet the legal requirement for pyrotechnic professionals will create a new niche in the market. An economic calculation must be balanced against the paramount principles of public welfare and safety, and the cost borne by the taxpayer in picking up the tab for the damage caused by fireworks.
There will be those who will contest this Bill under the banner of liberty, on the basis of defending the public's freedom to continue to purchase what essentially constitute explosives. Ironically, in attempting to defend liberty they fail to extend it to those who wish to be free from excessive noise pollution, fear, criminal damage and injury.
A further form of opposition will come from those who claim that banning the retail sale of fireworks to the public will result in the creation of a black market. There is little evidence to support that. However, those who cite other examples of prohibition—such as alcohol—must concede

713
that lighting noisy, colourful explosives is going to be much harder to conceal than consuming alcohol in one's own home.
A ban on retail sales and possession by the public of fireworks will invest the law with greater clarity and make it a lot easier to prosecute those who violate it. Numerous statistics demonstrate the need for reform to current firework legislation, for which neither the Firework (Safety) Regulations 1997 nor the Consumer Protection Act 1987 make adequate provision.
A ban on the retail sale of fireworks to the general public is the only way satisfactorily to address the many problems created by fireworks and to restore them to their role as a celebratory and pleasurable phenomenon. There is tremendous need—and equally tremendous public support—for this Bill, and it is with both of these things in mind that I urge Members to support it.
3.43 pm
Mr. Robert Key: I rise to oppose the Bill. It is only a little more than a month since the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) introduced his Bill. This Bill is even more restrictive than his, but I oppose it not on grounds of liberty, of whether one should have fun or not, or of being a killjoy or a spoilsport. I oppose it simply because it will not address the fears and concerns of most people.
I have fought for a long time on the issue of noise. The Bill that the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) will present shortly will not prevent cruelty to animals—be they cats, dogs, horses or wildlife. It will not stop antisocial behaviour by bad neighbours or by yobs who buy fireworks, legally or illegally. It will not stop public display organisers using very loud bangs. It will not protect the elderly from loud noises or young children from being frightened or injured by fireworks. It will not stop shift workers or night workers having their precious sleep shattered.
I shall not go into the regulations again. If hon. Members read the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Brent, North, they will see that there are a lot of them.
I also support the position of the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), who I am delighted to see in her place today. She said:
"We have no plans to ban the sale of fireworks to the general public … The Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997 prohibit from sale to the public several types of noisy category 3 fireworks such as aerial shells and restrict the size of the others. We will, of course, consider any representations that are made."—[Official Report, 26 November 2001; Vol.375, c. 672W.]
To her credit, she has done that.
The explosives industry group of the Confederation of British Industry recognises the great concern in the country and last year's unprecedented reaction to firework noise. The group has been working with the Department of Trade and Industry to see what steps the industry can take to alleviate the problem. It met the Minister on 19 December 2001 to discuss a possible action plan. One aspect of that plan was for the industry to examine the noise aspects appertaining to airbombs—the main culprit, especially in the hands of hooligans—to see whether it might be possible to stop supplying them to consumers or voluntarily reduce the decibel level to conform to the forthcoming European standards.
714
All those present at an emergency meeting held at the recent Harrogate toy fair, at which the main consumer fireworks suppliers exhibit, resolved to take the single tube airbomb out of circulation. That is a major step for the industry to consider because orders have already been placed and there is existing stock. The industry takes a responsible view and has been working with the Minister to find some legal backing to enforce that possibility. The DTI officials present at the Harrogate meeting undertook to find out whether what the industry wanted was within the scope of the Firework (Safety) Regulations 1997. From then on it has been quite clear that the industry is willing to address the fears of the public.
I would press the Minister on one more important point. Fireworks are imported, usually in containers, through British ports. I think that most of them come through Felixstowe. Many are sold under the counter or out of the famous white vans. Those people are not bothered about having legal, licensed explosives storage, nor do they abide by the requirements. In order to catch the dodgy importers—who may represent only 1 or 2 per cent. of the fireworks trade—the explosives industry group has proposed the introduction of a tracking system from the point of entry to the final destination of the container, so that local authorities and the police can follow up the shipments and seize those that are illegal. That is why I urge the Government to strengthen the role of the port trading standards officers and encourage the police to assist.
The explosives industry group is fully committed to addressing the overall problem of firework noise and wishes to convince the public that responsible firework sectors take this matter very seriously. I invite the House to consider that it would be a much better proposition to work with the industry and the Government to achieve the objective that we all want—far less noise from fireworks. People do not object to the visual display; in almost every case it is the noise. That point has been made in letter after letter. The fireworks industry action plan should be supported by the House.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is even something that you could do—as could hon. Members and anyone outside this place who feels strongly about the matter. If people log on to my website, robertkey.com, they will find that my online voting topic for this month is fireworks. They will see that, to date, voting is two to one in favour of my proposal—to reduce the noise—against the proposal of the hon. Member for Enfield, North. There is an opportunity for everyone to have their say online.
The Bill is not only restrictive but will not work. I wish that the Labour Whips would take a grip on their Back Benchers and encourage them to support the Minister in her achievements so far.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Joan Ryan, Linda Gilroy, Mr. Barry Gardiner, David Cairns, Dr. Nick Palmer, Dr. Evan Harris, Bob Russell, Sir Teddy Taylor, Ross Cranston, Siobhain McDonagh, Shona McIsaac and Tony Wright.

Fireworks
  FIREWORKS
  Joan Ryan accordingly presented a Bill to make provision with respect to the retail sale of fireworks and use of fireworks by the general public: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 April, and to be printed [Bill 101].
Orders of the Day

  Proceeds of Crime Bill
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.

  Proceeds of Crime Bill
    New Clause 7

      NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO DISCLOSE: REGULATED SECTOR
      '(1) Where a person receives, in the course of a business in the regulated sector, information or other matter which gives him reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting that another person is engaged m money laundering, he commits an offence under this section, unless subsections (2) or (3) below apply.
      (2) No offence is committed under this section if a disclosure within section 330(4) is made in relation to the information or other matter in question.
      (3) No offence is committed if either of the circumstances in section 330(5) applies.
      (4) Schedule 6 applies for the purposes of this section as it does for the purposes of section 330.
      (5) Section 330(6) applies for the purposes of this section.'.—[Mr. Grieve.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      3.52 pm
      Mr. Dominic Grieve: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 71, in clause 330, page 192, line 24, leave out from "suspects" to end of line 25.
      Amendment No. 72, in page 192, line 28, leave out from "based" to end of line 29.
      Government amendment No. 93.
      Amendment No. 175, in clause 332, page 194, line 11, at end insert—
      '(3) A person guilty of an offence under section [negligent failure to disclose: regulated sector] shall be liable to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.'.
      Mr. Grieve: On the second day of our consideration of the Bill on Report, we come to part 7 which relates to money laundering. As the House may be aware, some controversy has arisen as regards the impact of the measure on those who will have the duty of providing information to the Assets Recovery Agency—eventually through the National Criminal Intelligence Service—to ensure that money laundering is stopped.
      In Committee, we discussed issues relating to money laundering and to the offence of failure to disclose in the regulated sector. That debate was, in fact, the largest single debate during the whole Committee stage. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), will agree that the debate reflected the importance attached to the issue—especially by Government Back Benchers, although concerns were raised on both sides of the Committee about the existing legislation.
      716
      Clause 330 provides that a person commits an offence if, within the regulated sector, he
      "knows or suspects, or … has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that another person is engaged in money laundering … The second condition is that the information or other matter … on which his knowledge or suspicion is based … which gives reasonable grounds for such knowledge or suspicion, came to him in the course of a business in the regulated sector."
      The third condition is that he has not availed himself of the opportunity to disclose the information
      "to a constable, a customs officer or a nominated officer as soon as is practicable after it comes to him."
      In Committee, serious disquiet was expressed about the fact that subsection (2)(b) will criminalise not only those who know or suspect that money laundering is taking place and who fail to pass that information to the authorities, but those who may have been merely inadvertently negligent in not noticing what a court might regard, with hindsight, as the evidence that would have allowed them to know or suspect that money laundering was taking place.
      As I said, that gave rise to serious disquiet, which a number of hon. Members expressed fairly eloquently. I shall not take up the House's time by reading out chunks of what was said in Committee, but the hon. Members for Redcar (Vera Baird) and for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) both expressed concern about how the proposal would work. They spoke about the risk of unfairness, and of criminalising people who normally would be regarded by any right-thinking person as innocent. Such people would not deserve the frankly draconian penalties that are attached to the offence. The maximum penalty is a possible five years' imprisonment.
      The Government's response was encapsulated in what the Minister said in response to the debate, which was that the Government
      "consider that an objective test is necessary because we want the financial industry at large to be much more diligent in identifying and reporting instances of money laundering. It is already the test for the requirement to disclose information on transactions relating to terrorism. The relevant provision can be found in the provisions inserted into the Terrorism Act 2000."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 22 January 2002; c. 1070.]
      It seems to me that the question of money laundering goes much further than the prevention of terrorism. Although the Minister showed considerable willingness in Committee to appreciate the concerns that had been raised, his justifications for the proposal were inadequate.
      The other issue raised in connection with the clause concerned its drafting. Clause 330(2) is unusual in that it seeks to encapsulate two separate offences. The prosecutor who has to draft an indictment will have to choose whether the accused either knew or suspected that money laundering was taking place, or had reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting. I remain unconvinced that that choice will be easy to make. I suppose that we will end up with an either/or offence, and that the jury will be offered the choice of convicting on the greater or lesser charge. However, the clause is also unusual in that it makes absolutely no distinction with regard to the penalty to be imposed, except in so far as the court's discretion might apply.
      I am sure that the Minister would be the first to agree that the category of seriousness of an offence will be very different if the person who carries it out does so

      717
      inadvertently or through negligence, or deliberately. However, Parliament does not seem willing to cater for that difference.
      When we discussed the matter in Committee, the proposal that I put forward was fairly straightforward. It was that we should delete from the Bill a negligence offence. The Government resisted that proposal, even though I had the impression that some Government Back-Bench Members on the Committee would not have viewed such a course of action unfavourably.
      Mr. Ian Davidson: Indeed not.
      Mr. Grieve: From a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman says, "Indeed not." In Committee, he tended to be the great exacerbator of all offences. Given the criminality of some of the penalties to which he wanted recourse, I do not think that I can mention them on the Floor of the House.
      Mr. John Taylor: In an echo of issues that were raised yesterday by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), may I ask this? Are not the really big operators in money laundering—those who commit the most serious crimes—likely to be operating outside this jurisdiction? Has my hon. Friend turned his mind to that problem? Am I right in assuming that the Bill, as and when it becomes an Act, will apply only within our domestic jurisdiction?
      Mr. Grieve: My hon. Friend is right that the jurisdiction is territorial, although there are clauses in the Bill that provide for international co-operation to prevent money laundering, including the exchange of information. I hope that we will have an opportunity to consider these matters further because they raise difficult issues about the propriety of exchanging information between states which may have been derived from confidential information obtained in the United Kingdom from, for instance, the Inland Revenue, through the director. My hon. Friend is also correct that those who derive benefits from the proceeds of crime in this country may well launder their money elsewhere.
      The issue that we are considering concerns the regulated sector in this country—those in banking, finance and accountancy who are asked to carry out transactions by clients which may reveal to them a suspicion or knowledge that the client may be dealing in tainted money. The Minister knows that Opposition Members—indeed, Members on both sides of the House—find unexceptionable the principle of requiring disclosure by the regulated sector, and, indeed, outside it, where we hope it will take place. The question is how we enforce a criminal sanction on the regulated sector to ensure compliance that does not end up being unfair. The amendments would still allow that, curiously enough. Amendments Nos. 71 and 72 on their own would still allow the House, if it wanted, to remove the negligence element from the offence. They are consequential upon new clause 7.
      New clause 7 suggests the creation of a separate and distinct offence. Rather than clause 330 rolling into one the dual offence of either knowing or suspecting or having reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting—as is currently the case—we suggest that it would be sensible
      718
      to amend clause 330 to remove the negligence offence and then, if the Government wish, to create a new offence which rests upon the test of negligence, but to associate it, as we suggest in amendment No. 175, with a penalty that is only financial. Let me say in passing to the Minister—I dare say that he will say it to me when he replies—that I am aware that amendment No. 175 as it stands is not wholly adequate to fulfil our purpose. However, that in no way reduces the validity of new clause 7, which goes to the principal issue.
      If the amendment were accepted, there would be two separate and distinct offences within the regulated sector. In the first case, the offence would be committed when someone knew or suspected that money laundering was taking place and did not make disclosure. That is a serious offence, punishable by up to five years' imprisonment. In the second case, the offence is similar but would be committed only when the person had reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting. In those circumstances, the penalty would be only financial. In amendment No. 175, I stipulated
      "level 5 on the standard scale",
      which would be £5,000. However, that could apply only in summary proceedings; if the matter were to go to the Crown court, the fine would be at large. That is the normal practice in those circumstances.
      The essential feature of the new clause is that a person could not lose their liberty as a result of committing an offence through inadvertence. That ties in closely with general principles of law in a wide field of statutes, whereby the criminalisation of individuals for acts of negligence normally attracts only a financial penalty. For example, under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 a negligent omission would generally—with very rare exceptions—attract only a financial penalty, albeit possibly a substantial one.
      I commend the new clause to the House. If it were accepted, we would still be sending out a powerful message to the financial regulated sector—too powerful, some might argue. In the light of the proposal that I made in Committee, I have great sympathy for those who say that there should not be an offence based on negligence at all. However, assuming that hon. Members desire that such an offence should exist, the new clause would provide a valuable distinction. It would also improve the drafting of the Bill, bearing in mind the comments that were made in Committee about the unwieldiness of clause 330.
      Mr. Michael Weir: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify the reference in amendment No. 175 to
      "a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale"?
      Which standard scale is that? As the scales in England and Scotland may differ in this respect, the amendment would appear not to cover Scotland.
      Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, although, as he may have heard me say a few moments ago, I accept that amendment No. 175 does not fulfil the requirements that I should have wished of it. That is my fault, and I take full responsibility.
      This makes no difference to the general issue on which the House can vote. The question is whether there should be a financial penalty for the offence of negligence. In England and Wales, level 5 on the standard scale is £5,000

      719
      in a summary jurisdiction. If the matter were to go to the Crown court I would normally expect the fine to be at large. That is why I accept that amendment No. 175 would not fulfil the criteria.
      If we found that there was a different scale of fines north of the border, hon. Members would have to decide—and inform the Minister, if he was minded to go down that road—whether they had a view of what the fine level should be. As a great respecter of the devolution settlement in Scotland, I acknowledge that there may be a degree of variety. However, some of the issues under discussion are reserved matters and it would be odd not to have uniformity as regards penalties north and south of the border. I suspect that even the hon. Gentleman might be capable of agreeing with me about that, but I may be mistaken.
      Mr. Weir: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying. However, does he accept that if, by some mischance, the House voted to accept amendment No. 175, the clause would be rendered completely meaningless as far as Scotland is concerned, because the financial aspect will not be the same there? If he does not agree with that, does he think that the matter should be referred to the Scottish Parliament for a decision on Scots criminal law?
      Mr. Grieve: No, I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman at all. His argument is without foundation. If hon. Members wish, they can vote on new clause 7. By doing so, they would demonstrate to the Government that they wished to have a separate, lesser penalty for negligence. The Minister, with the help of his advisers, would be in a position to tidy things up—as he has done on many previous occasions. I see the Minister nodding his head approvingly. Indeed, if he were minded to accept the substance of the new clause, the normal practice would be for him to say so and I would then of course withdraw it. There is no problem in those circumstances.
      Mr. Davidson rose—
      Mr. Grieve: I see the hon. Gentleman and, although that may mean a problem on the horizon, I will give way.
      Mr. Davidson: The hon. Gentleman is too generous.
      There is some merit in the point that the Scottish nationalists are making. However, it should have been made in the Committee. Had they asked to serve on it, no doubt they could have made their representations there.
      Annabelle Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. From reading Hansard this morning, I know that the matter that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) raises was mentioned many times yesterday and that the occupant of the Chair ruled it out of order on three separate occasions. For the sake of clarity, can we have another ruling on that, because there are many important matters to discuss and that would save everyone's time?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): The constitution of the Committee is not a matter for debate. We should concentrate on the new clause.
      Mr. Grieve: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) makes a valid point, but we are going
      720
      wide of the mark. Part 7 deals with money laundering. It is clear that it is intended to apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, because clause 327 states:
      "from England and Wales or from Scotland or from Northern Ireland",
      and clause 332 appears to impose common penalties for money laundering. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I assume that in passing the Sewel resolution, the Scottish Parliament was content with the notion that there would be a common legislative framework for money laundering north and south of the border.
      Mr. Weir: That is not the point. What matters is the scale, which is different in Scotland. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue his point, he should have tabled an amendment that applies to Scotland and the appropriate Scottish scale.
      Mr. Davidson: The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) should have tabled an amendment in Committee.
      Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman was not in Committee, but he is here and can contribute to the debate by telling us what the penalty should be.
      The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. George Foulkes): The hon. Gentleman could have tabled an amendment on Report.
      Mr. Grieve: He could had he bothered to read the amendment paper before he came into the Chamber. His contribution borders on the absurd. Throughout our proceedings, hon. Members on both sides of the House have done their best to improve the Bill. We might have got things wrong and we might have fallen out, but we did not descend to the nit-picking banality that characterise his interventions.
      John Robertson: I thoroughly agree with the hon. Gentleman's sentiment, if not his point. However, can I drag us back to the issue of negligence? Does he not accept that he is inventing an excuse or a get-out for criminals who could use negligence in their defence instead of being charged with a view to sending them to prison? They could claim that they are negligent and happily pay the money. The hon. Gentleman is giving them a cop-out that allows them to get away with it.
      Mr. Grieve: Let me set out the approach that the hon. Gentleman should take. People who work in the regulated sector are for the most part—there may be terrible exceptions—likely to have been law-abiding citizens prior to the events covered by the Bill. I should be surprised if there are many chartered accountants lurking around who have strings of previous convictions.
      I would apply the same test to a criminal matter as that which applied to any other. Let us suppose that the hon. Gentleman picks up a book in a book shop and, because his mind is elsewhere and he is not concentrating, walks out clutching it. If he is prosecuted for that, he knows that provided that he satisfies the court that it was unintentional, he will be acquitted. He would probably agree that to convict someone of a serious criminal

      721
      offence of dishonesty when he had no intention of being dishonest would be a parody of the legal system. In the light of such circumstances, why should a different test apply to somebody who commits a mistake by wrongly assessing the information that he receives, which would lead him to make the disclosure?
      4.15 pm
      The Minister argued that, in the regulated sector, people should be fully trained, aware of the issues, and capable of picking up the problem and shouldering the burden—just as employers have to shoulder the health and safety burden in respect of their employees, including being criminalised for potentially negligent acts. I disagree, however, that that would provide an easy refuge. Any prosecutor who had to consider whether an offence was committed wilfully or negligently would probably have little difficulty extrapolating the answer to that question, and he could still pursue both offences and leave the jury to make up its mind.
      The point at issue is that it is wrong as a matter of principle to establish a criminal sanction with a potential maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment for somebody who may ultimately be found to have acted inadvertently, given that, with the benefit of hindsight, others might say, "You ought to have realised that there was something funny about this transaction." That is an overly onerous provision.
      If Parliament passes excessively onerous legislation that appears to weigh down heavily on people, the danger is that it will lead to all manner of unintended consequences. First, it will bring the law into disrepute, and when applied the sanction itself will appear to outsiders to have little merit. Secondly, people in the financial sector will be in a state of fear and less willing to participate.
      The oddity is—the Minister will doubtless agree—that the entire money-laundering provision is dependent on the good will and honesty of the regulated sector in co-operating with implementation. The sanction exists for the rogue element who might not co-operate, but the assumption is that people will be willing to come forward and help. If, however, they are so fearful of the sanctions that they close down the hatches and do not want to co-operate, it will remain very difficult to gather the information because the regulated sector will provide none at all. That is a compelling reason why we should be particularly careful about criminalising people by imposing a penalty of up to five years' imprisonment for what will ultimately prove an offence committed purely through negligence.
      Mr. Davidson: In discussing negligence, the hon. Gentleman mentioned shoplifting, and I can give him an example with which Conservative MPs will doubtless be familiar. Their former colleague Jeffrey Archer was caught shoplifting suits from a shop in Canada, but was given the benefit of the doubt because he had no previous. He pleaded negligence, rather than deliberate intent, and was let off, but he proved to be a proper bad'un, didn't he?
      Norman Baker: Then he copped it.
      Mr. Davidson: Then he copped it, as the Liberal Democrat so eloquently puts it. Given those
      722
      circumstances, are we not entitled to be a trifle suspicious of the defence of negligence and innocence? After all, the people involved in financial services are not babes in arms. Most of them are well aware of the way in which they operate, and in general they are exceptionally sharp in their dealings. Surely negligence should be no defence.
      Mr. Grieve: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Ultimately, a court or judge will decide in such cases. The particular matter that he mentions never came to court, so it could not be ruled on and I am unable to comment on it. A court and, potentially, a jury will have to decide whether a person has acted wilfully, negligently or with no negligence at all. The court will be able to consider those three possible outcomes. I simply want to make sure that where the court finds that there has been negligence, there will be an appropriate criminal sanction that properly reflects the gravity of the offence, and in my view that should be a fine, not a sentence of imprisonment. When the hon. Gentleman considers that argument, he may see some force in it.
      Before I sit down—I do not want to take up too much time, but my remarks have taken longer than I expected—I shall make a few comments about Government amendment No. 93. The Government have attempted to go some way towards dealing with the anxiety expressed in Committee, but they have done so by tabling an amendment that will, for the purposes of negligence, decriminalise those who have not been provided by their employer with
      "such training as is specified by the Secretary of State by order for the purposes of this section."
      I welcome that, but it is not sufficient.
      The amendment does not solve the problem of the excessive penalty for the negligence offence. I am concerned also that it will require the defendant in such cases to prove a negative. At the very least, it will complicate the issues. I have some anxiety about how a court will establish that a person was not provided by his employer with such training as is specified by the Secretary of State. For those reasons, I commend new clause 7 to the House and, subject to what I hear in the debate, I can tell the Minister that I am likely to press the matter to a vote, but I wait to hear from the Minister and other hon. Members how they view the matter.
      Mr. Paul Stinchcombe: As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said, in Committee I expressed considerable concern about both the principle and drafting of clause 330. My concern arises from the inclusion in a single subsection of two offences, the first of knowing or suspecting and the second of negligence.
      The question of principle is a simple one: do we believe that there should be a crime of negligence in the regulated sector? As a matter of principle, I do believe that. I disagree with the Tories on that point for two reasons. The first is that money laundering causes huge social problems. In my constituency, which is in leafy middle England, in Northamptonshire, there are some estates where up to 10 per cent. of young mums and dads are addicted to drugs and every single eight-year-old whom I have talked to has found needles in their garden. Those communities are ravaged by crime.
      The second reason for establishing a crime of negligence in the regulated sector is that that is where we should be making regulations. We should be regulating

      723
      people who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) said, are not babes in arms and, moreover, are making huge amounts of money out of the business that they conduct. For both those reasons we should establish the strongest possible professional codes of conduct.
      Mr. David Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman seems to be under the impression that we are seeking to remove the offence of negligence from the Bill. Is he not aware that new clause 7 would simply move the offence elsewhere?
      Mr. Stinchcombe: I was about to come on to that. In Committee, the Conservatives wanted to remove the offence from the Bill, but having heard some of the arguments of Labour Members, they have modified their position. However, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield made it clear in his arguments that, as a matter of principle, he still has residual objections to the crime of negligence being in the Bill, and I am simply putting on record why, despite my reservations about the way in which the offence of negligence is included in this legislation, I believe, as a matter of principle, that it should be in this Bill.
      Mr. Wilshire rose—
      Mr. Stinchcombe: Yesterday, we did not discuss many of the clauses, so if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will make progress so that I can deal with some points of drafting. It seems clear to me that the Government have tabled amendment No. 93 precisely to try to deal with some of the drafting points that I raised in Committee.
      In Committee, I asked three questions—two of detail and one of more significance. First, how should the indictment be drafted? I appreciate the points made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, but, on balance, indictments can be drafted using the either/or formulation and that issue can be resolved. Secondly, what should be the appropriate penalty for the offences? I asked that question because it seems likely that different thresholds should be established for the two types of offence, given that different culpability will be attached to them. I simply tell the hon. Gentleman that, yesterday, he argued for judicial discretion. The current proposal will preserve such discretion, so the judge can reach his conclusion on what the appropriate penalty should be in the circumstances of any case, and there is some force in that argument.
      Mr. Grieve: I perfectly understand the hon. Gentleman's point about judicial discretion, but most statutes provide upper and lower limits—usually upper limits—for penalties, based on Parliament's assessment of what is correct in public policy terms. For example, no one can be sent to prison for 16 years for a single theft offence. So, surely, there is no reason why, if the House considers that a financial penalty is appropriate in cases of negligence, we should not spell that out. Does he seriously think that someone should be sent to prison for an offence of negligence that relates to this type of default?
      Mr. Stinchcombe: I can conceive of certain circumstances, involving gross negligence and huge sums,
      724
      where such a penalty might be appropriate. I simply tell the hon. Gentleman that I understand his concerns and fully appreciate them—indeed, I raised them in Committee—but I also understand the force of the Government's argument, "Let us leave it to the judge to decide in any circumstances that come before him."
      The issue of greater significance in respect of the offence of negligence that I raised in Committee—I do so again now to discuss whether the Government have dealt with it in amendment No. 93—is that we provide a defence, an opt-out, for all offences under the clause as drafted: the person can say that he did not disclose the information because he had a reasonable excuse not to do so. Of course, if an individual did not appreciate that someone was a money launderer when he should have done, he would not disclose it. Prima facie, that would be the most obvious and reasonable excuse, and the individual could say, "I did not do it, because I did not realise that I had to, or could have done." Otherwise, everyone would disclose all information, and that cannot be right.
      That point seems to be dealt with technically in a satisfactory manner under Government amendment No. 93, because it states that no offence has been committed if the person
      "does not know or suspect"
      that other circumstances apply. That meets the drafting point, but the question then arises as to whether it meets in a satisfactory way. We have to decide whether to criminalise people on the basis of their negligence when they did not know or suspect that someone was engaged in money laundering, but when they should have done because they had been provided with appropriate training.
      I am persuaded that that is the correct approach, for the very first reasons that I advanced for agreeing with the offence of negligence in principle. We are dealing with the regulated sector and people are making money out of that sector. Because it is regulated and because of the harm that can be done in estates in Glasgow and Wellingborough, we should require appropriate professionalism of those professionals. To amend clause 330 so that it will be mandatory to provide such training and to take it seriously is a very sensible way forward.
      4.30 pm
      Norman Baker: Not for the first time, I rise to support the broad thrust of the comments made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). It worries me slightly to find myself agreeing with the Conservative party so much—I hope that I am not catching anything nasty in doing so. However, he raises some interesting and important points, which need to be addressed.
      First, someone's intention when an offence is committed seems to be terribly important. There is a difference between someone who deliberately sets out to commit a criminal offence, whatever it may be, and someone who commits an offence inadvertently, even if he or she should have known that that offence was being committed and should have been able to take action to stop it. In other words, they had been negligent. There is a difference between being negligent and wilfully intending to commit an offence.
      The example cited by the hon. Gentleman of shoplifting is not the most happy one. I am familiar with the example of a river pollution incident. An individual, through an

      725
      error, allowed a river to be polluted, and that led to a great deal of environmental damage, the killing of many fish and consequences for innocent third parties such as other farmers, and the like.
      Although the consequences were significant for those affected and the environment, that is very different from somebody deliberately setting out to kill those fish, poison that river and affect innocent third parties. The consequences for the third parties might be the same, but the intention in the person's mind is different. The law must recognise that difference. That is why I am uncomfortable, too, with the wording of clause 330.
      Another reason is that subsection (2) is an either/or provision. It states:
      "The first condition is that he—
      (a) knows or suspects"
      that another person is money laundering. That is of course for the prosecution to prove. However, the subsection also says that a person commits an offence if he
      "has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting".
      That reverses the burden of proof and requires an individual to demonstrate that he did not have reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting.
      Ian Lucas: Is it not a matter for the prosecution to prove that the individual concerned had reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting? The burden remains on the prosecution.
      Norman Baker: I am not sure that it does so entirely. Although the burden ultimately remains on the prosecution, it could construct a case for a person having reasonable grounds, and then that person must refute it. That would be different from the way in which he would refute the condition of knowing or suspecting in subsection (2)(a). They are not quite the same thing; the burden shifts slightly.
      I welcome Government amendment No. 93, which picks up the point that people should be properly trained. Of course the regulatory sector should be properly trained, and to a high standard. It is not inappropriate for the Secretary of State to suggest the sort of training that should occur and to specify it in guidance. It would be more serious if someone had received such training and was still negligent. It is therefore right that the amendment will make the sector more regulated and the people in it more professional and properly trained. It also gives someone less of an excuse for negligence following such training.
      The fact is, however, that somebody could still be negligent thereafter. They could fail to see something or inadvertently make an error that they should not have made and that the training should have prevented them from making, and be negligent. That is very different from deliberately setting out to commit an offence or from knowing or suspecting and doing nothing about it. If those two scenarios are different in someone's mind, the penalties for them should be different. That is why it is right to consider how the penalties could be separated. I am instinctively uncomfortable criminalising a wilful act in the same way as an inadvertent one. That is the essence of new clause 7, and I therefore support its premise.
      726
      The hon. Member for Beaconsfield will accept that amendment No. 175 does not work.
      Mr. Alistair Carmichael: Yes it does.
      Norman Baker: My hon. Friend says that it does work. It works in the sense that it would create separate penalties—but for crimes north and south of the border, which was not the hon. Gentleman's intention in tabling it. So, it might need some tightening up.
      Mr. Grieve: From having spoken to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), my understanding is that the comments from the Scottish National party Members are wholly erroneous and that level 5 on the standard scale in Scotland is identical to level 5 on the standard scale in England and Wales. However, I accept that the amendment could do with some tightening up with respect to summary jurisdiction and the Crown court.
      Norman Baker: I am grateful for that interesting intervention. I made the mistake of believing that Scottish National party Members would know what the position is in Scotland. I shall not make that mistake again.
      Mr. Weir: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the amendment does not specify the scale, and that there are different scales on different sides of the border?
      Norman Baker: I am informed that there is no need to specify, but I am tempted to say, as would the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson), that it is a pity that that was not raised in Committee, but it might be inappropriate to make that comment in response to the point made by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir).
      There is a serious issue relating to a general point that I made throughout Committee. The Government have the best intentions and want to make sure that the Mr. Bigs of this world who commit such acts are caught and that loopholes are closed. No one disagrees with those aims. However, as we proceed we must be careful to ensure that in catching the guilty, we do not accidentally entrap the innocent.
      Vera Baird: As has been said, I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe), expressed disquiet in Committee about the whole notion of criminality by negligence, but I did so in a context different from the one in which my hon. Friend has set the issue today.
      My hon. Friend refers to the regulated sector as though it were necessarily full of high-powered and highly trained people. On many occasions that will be so, but the schedule that defines the regulated sector is broad enough to include and specify building societies and credit unions. In building societies, transactions can flash across the screen before the eyes of people who may not be highly trained and may work part-time and who therefore do not fall within the category of persons whom we would regard as being capable of being complicit in money laundering. I worry about such people.
      Far more do I worry about volunteers in Redcar, Grangetown, South Bank and other places in my constituency where there are credit unions. Those people

      727
      run those credit unions on a wholly voluntary basis. Although I well appreciate that the answer might come back that little money is likely to be laundered through a credit union in Grangetown, the principle is the same: such people, who are not high-powered workers, will be in danger of being prosecuted for negligence. It is in that context that I expressed my disquiet, which I will not repeat at length today.
      Throughout, the issue has been raised whether criminality should result from inadvertence and error. I merely mention in headline terms that the people whom we will be capable of criminalising by mistake include those whose child has kept them awake all night, so that they have not had much sleep; those who are worried about something, or who are not paying much attention and letting the job tick over; and those who have been divorced or bereaved.
      We are all aware of the many reasons why someone might not pay proper attention to their job for a while, but some police officer, rightly, astutely and observantly, might come along later and say to such a person, "You should have seen that", with the result that that person is liable to the penalties that we have discussed. It is a less sympathetic example, but it is not uncommon for someone simply to make a mistake because they have had a bad day, and without real justification. Such people, too, may be criminalised. I am greatly concerned.
      I am grateful for Government amendment No. 93. Another category of persons about whom I was concerned in Committee was learners, who might exercise all the diligence that they can but still fall below a reasonable standard and so be criminalised. The amendment brings into play the defence of lack of training. That helps and I am grateful for it. It provides evidence that a good deal of thought has been applied to the arguments advanced in Committee. That is proper, but generous as well.
      Clearly, negligence in one form or another as a basis of criminality will remain in the Bill. NCIS says that that is important, and in Committee the Minister quoted NCIS's view that professionals have facilitated money laundering but claimed that they had no suspicion or knowledge. If it is to remain in the Bill, I ask that three issues be considered again in more depth than the evidence suggests has been the case up to now. I, too, raised an issue of drafting that was not dissimilar to that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough. If one considers closely the drafting of clause 330(2)(b), one sees that it is an offence if a person does not disclose when he has
      "reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting that another person is engaged in money laundering."
      The point that everyone is making is that, even though such reasonable grounds exist, that person may not know or suspect but is still guilty.
      As my hon. Friend also said, the defence in subsection (5) is that
      "a person does not commit an offence if he has a reasonable excuse for not disclosing the information or other matter".
      As he said, the reasonable excuse ought to be, "I didn't know it, so I couldn't disclose it." However, that is not a defence because the offence still exists under subsection (2)(b), even if the person involved did not know about it. A defence of having a reasonable excuse for not knowing
      728
      or suspecting is therefore necessary. That would cover a situation in which a person had been distracted, perhaps because his child was ill or for another reason that I have given as an example.
      Drafting such a provision might be over-elaborate. Is the Minister therefore prepared to confirm to the House that the defence in clause 330(5)(a) of a reasonable excuse is intended to cover a person who simply did not know that there was anything to report, and that the reason the person was negligent in not knowing about it is one of the things that would offer a reasonable excuse? Will he confirm that the clause is big enough to cover that situation?
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said, we discussed this matter in Committee at length. As he has graciously acknowledged, I have tried to pick up some of the points of concern. My reading of clause 330(5)—the legal mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) may be sharper than mine—is that it does not confine itself to not disclosing and refers to having a reasonable excuse for not disclosing. That would apply to a situation in which a person did not disclose because he did not know, and it would equally apply to a situation in which a person should have known but did not disclose in any case. It would cover both situations.
      Vera Baird: If my hon. Friend is satisfied, I shall accept his assurances and not press the point. However, I am sure that the original drafting of the clause contains a non-link between the aspects that I have set out. I am nevertheless reassured and grateful to my hon. Friend.
      I want to mention two more points. One of those has already been referred to extensively—that it would be wise to have two separate offences. I shall not repeat all the reasons that have been put forward for that, but there is an additional—if not huge—one. It is inappropriate that a person who is convicted of an offence that is the result of negligence, which could be seen as a disciplinary offence, should be labelled with the same criminal conviction as a person who has deliberately laundered money. Fair labelling—a well-known sociological concept—requires that there should be two charges so that a person who has had a bad night and missed a trick is not categorised by his previous convictions as a serious money launderer when he makes subsequent job applications. I therefore add my support to the proposal to have two offences.
      In response to my suggestion in Committee that cases of negligence could be dealt with adequately as internal disciplinary matters, my hon. Friend the Minister was good enough to say:
      "In many cases, they could".
      However, he went on to say:
      "there are organisations in which there is neither the will nor the ability to bear down."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 22 January 2002; c. 1115.]
      I appreciate why he made that point, but there will have to be a code of practice for prosecutions brought under the Bill. Will he therefore consider including in the code of practice the provision that no prosecution for negligent non-disclosure should be brought until it has been

      729
      considered whether the matter can be met and will be met by internal disciplinary mechanisms? I invite him to consider the three points that I have made.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. David Ruffley: To return to the analogy with shoplifting, I am reminded of something that a legal jurist once said to me. He said that we have come across cases where people are so confused that they walk out of a shop without paying for an item, but they are never so confused that they pay for it twice. We are in the territory of legalistic definitions and passes being sold. We have subjective tests, and they were discussed in Committee; we also have an objective test, and I am afraid that we are stuck with it.
      I support the observation of the hon. Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) that there should be a distinction between offences whereby the negligent failure to disclose should be punished by a fine not exceeding level 5 and those committed by someone who clearly should have known that money laundering was going on and, knowing that it was going on, failed to take the appropriate action. That distinction should be flagged up clearly for the reasons that she set out. However, it appears that someone who has had a bad night or a bad day will not be treated in a proportionate fashion by the legal and sentencing system in this country.
      I am particularly concerned by clause 330(5). The Minister has just referred to that subsection in an intervention, so will he explain whether, when a legal adviser claims privilege, that adviser must also have a reasonable excuse for not disclosing information? I do not understand what such a reasonable excuse might be. It appears as though the legs are being cut from underneath the privileged defence if the type of reasonable excuse must be of the type expected elsewhere in the clause. I am not at all clear how privilege will operate in that respect. It may be my lack of acuteness—which is uncharacteristic, I hasten to add—so perhaps the Minister will enlighten me.
      The hon. Member for Redcar also made an excellent point about training. The level of training expected has not been made clear in the Bill or in any of the Minister's comments that I have heard. We all know that the British Bankers Association, among many other distinguished bodies, has training days and training courses, but they are for employees of a certain level in a banking or financial services institution. That is fine, but unless we are given a clearer idea of the sort of accredited courses that will be run, we shall remain in the dark. For that reason, Government amendment No. 93 is defective, and this debate is important in flushing out what exactly Ministers have in mind.
      The Secretary of State will draw up regulations and prescribe certain forms of training so, for the reasons that the hon. Member for Redcar outlined, I hope that it will be clear what level of functionary will be involved. Will it be Tracey or Wendy in back office accounts or will it be Alan or someone else? Will it be someone with no interest in financial services? Perhaps they will come across the issue only when it flashes across their computer screens.
      The Minister may smirk, but I characterise the issue in that way to make my point forcefully. We are talking not about managing directors of banks, or even branch managers of banks; we are talking about back-office staff.
      730
      Instead of grinning, perhaps the Minister will tell us what comfort he will give us on this point and on that raised by the hon. Lady.
      Annabelle Ewing: I understand that to a considerable extent those who work in the financial services sector are already subject to stringent requirements and reporting duties. It may be that the proposed legislation will beef up the relevant provisions to an extent.
      The hon. Gentleman cites back-office staff. Surely the first people in a financial institution who would be well aware of their duties under existing money-laundering legislation would be back-office staff.
      Mr. Ruffley: The hon. Lady states the obvious, but is she suggesting that every employee at every branch, however small it might be, in every village, market town, town or city—for example, every member of the Natwest bank or the Halifax—will receive the appropriate training? If she is, I fear that she has probably missed the point.
      It is clear that people may slip through the net, and that is the point that I am making. It is the point that the hon. Lady made powerfully. She talked about credit unions and volunteers. The clause could easily catch such individuals. The Minister is shaking his head. If he thinks that we are wrong and that the credit union point is wrong, he will be able to say so. I am sure that he would want to do so. It is a point that needs answering.
      Training has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). We are invited to believe that individuals who want to pray in aid the defence set up by Government amendment No. 93 will have to prove a negative. I shall be interested to hear the Minister explain how individuals might easily and conveniently do that. The amendment does not give us any clue how that process might work. I would appreciate the hon. Gentleman's answer to that question.
      John Robertson: I thought that the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) was churlish when he attacked the Scottish nationalists. After all, three SNP Members have been in the Chamber for two days in a row, and that must be a record.
      I am not a lawyer. I speak on behalf of victims who cannot speak for themselves. These are people who have already passed on and others who are drugged up to the eyeballs and cannot speak for themselves, and the families whom tried to support these people. These are the people whom I try to represent.
      New clause 7 deals with a grey area, and in my opinion the purpose behind it is to try to cloud the issue. I feel that we are trying to introduce lesser sentences for those who deserve to be sentenced correctly. Clause 330 covers the rights of individuals, especially those who come into contact with those who have a criminal life style.
      My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scotland Office and I visited the Drug Enforcement Agency in Scotland. We had a long and frank discussion with representatives of it. It was amazing to me how they mirrored the discussion that took place when I and my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) and for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) visited Strathclyde police force. I commend the deputy chief constable, Graham Pearson. It was said that part of the problem rested with

      731
      lawyers and others. That was a reference to those in the regulatory area. If they are part of the problem, they are the people on whom we want to focus, especially in terms of the clauses that we are considering.
      Having read amendments Nos. 71 and 72, it strikes me that they are an attempt to introduce as a defence the claim, "I didn't know. I couldn't tell." That would take us down the road of a nice little fine and the person charged getting off.
      Clause 330(3) states:
      "The second condition is that the information or other matter—

      (a) on which his knowledge or suspicion is based, or

      (b) which gives reasonable grounds for such knowledge or suspicion,

      came to him in the course of a business in the regulated sector."
      Amendment No. 72 would delete the words
      "or which gives reasonable grounds for such knowledge or suspicion."
      Mr. Grieve: I understand why the hon. Gentleman should come to that conclusion. The amendment that he has just read out is similar to the one that was tabled in Committee, but as I explained to the House, it was linked to new clause 7. I would propose that those deletions should be made only if new clause 7 were incorporated, in which case there would still be an offence of negligence, but in the manner that I described, in a separate clause and with a separate penalty.
      John Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am sure that the Minister will be pleased to hear that. However, as was said on many occasions in Committee, the amendments give the impression that the Opposition are the criminal's friend.
      Reference has been made to a level 5 sentence, which is a maximum fine of £5,000. I should have thought that the Opposition, especially the Conservative party, with its law and order ethics, would want a punishment to fit the crime. A maximum £5,000 fine for someone who earns treble that in a week hardly seems a sufficient sentence for that person, particularly if the case involved severe negligence or fell just short of an offence having knowingly been committed.
      Mr. Carmichael: With regard to the maximum sentence of a £5,000 fine, may I point out to the hon. Gentleman that that would apply in summary procedure which, by definition, applies only to the less serious offences? If it is appropriate as the maximum fine for any other offence on summary procedure, it must be appropriate for this offence on summary procedure. If it were on solemn procedure, an unlimited fine would be applicable.
      John Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman and bow to his superior knowledge in matters of law. As I said, I am not a lawyer. I am speaking on behalf of the victims,
      732
      not the Law Society. A fine of £5,000 is not enough. The sentence should be left to the judge's discretion and should match the crime.
      Norman Baker: Does the hon. Gentleman accept, however, that there ought to be a difference in the penalty applied to someone who wilfully commits an offence and to someone who inadvertently commits the same offence?
      John Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman, but I do not see his point. The case will be heard, evidence will be taken, and the judge and jury will determine whether the accused is guilty or innocent. Depending on the severity of the offence, the judge will hand down a sentence to match the error of that person's ways.
      In conclusion, the debate in Committee on clause 330 left me bewildered. We spent an inordinate amount of time on the matter, during which time I wrote myself a note, which states, "I have given up the will to live." I see that we are going through the same debate again.
      Mr. Wilshire: If the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) had been more willing to give way, it might have been unnecessary for me to speak. The thought of people giving up the will to live was also something of an invitation for me to contribute.
      5 pm
      Quite a while ago, I sought to intervene on the hon. Member for Wellingborough when he dismissed the view that the Opposition seek not to delete the offence of negligence, but to provide for it in a different way. After doing so, he made two observations. First, he said that he would not give way again because there would be no time to debate other matters if he did so. I must respond that it is not Opposition Members who determine guillotines, but Labour Members. If there is not enough time for him to do what he believes needs to be done, he should address his views to his Front Bench rather than complain to us. Secondly, he implied that it did not matter what we were proposing now, but that he held against us permanently the fact that we had made the same proposal before. That is very unfortunate. The Committee's proceedings were marked by the fact that the Government often listened to what Opposition Members said, accepted that we had made very good points and changed their mind. If he can support his own Government when they change their mind, he should not criticise us when the force of his argument helps us along.
      Mr. Stinchcombe: I welcome the U-turn on the Tory Benches, but I was worried that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) seemed to be slipping back and suggesting that, despite the Opposition's grudging acceptance of an offence of negligence, there were still objections in principle.
      Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) advanced the entire argument, but the fact remains that, like the Minister, we are sometimes prepared to say that we have heard and accepted what has been said. Just as I have thanked the Minister on a number of occasions for changing his mind and listening to what we say, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will manage

      733
      to thank us—he can do so after the debate if not now—for behaving just as his own Minister has. I shall leave the matter there.
      The process of 39 Committee sittings has begun to get me thinking sometimes like the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson); I noticed a while ago that he was busily writing and I hope that I am not about to pinch his speech off him. I am not so sure that there should be such universal enthusiasm among Labour Members for Government amendment No. 93. I learned in Committee that if one thinks long enough about anything that is proposed in an amendment to this Bill, one will see it as a loophole. None the less, I invite him, the Minister and other Labour Members who want to support their Front Bench to ask themselves whether Government amendment No. 93 can be used as a loophole.
      I am an unscrupulous employer.[Laughter.] I am not, but let us assume that I am such an employer for the purposes of this argument and that I decide to become involved in money laundering, but do not want the powers of the Bill to affect me. The Government are now saying that if an employee has not been properly trained, he has a defence. Let us imagine that, as an unscrupulous employer, I ensure that some of my employees who are party to what is happening are not trained. I then let them do what is necessary.
      Mr. Mark Field: I think that I understand where my hon. Friend is leading the argument. Should not we be greatly concerned that, as he says, if the new clause is agreed, an untrained individual will not be liable, so the full force of the agency will be directed at the unscrupulous boss? That will lead to an enormous feeding frenzy for the lawyers who are involved in trying to unravel this rather ill-thought-through provision.
      Mr. Wilshire: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but I am not sure whether the unscrupulous boss would be prosecuted under the Bill or any other legislation for aiding and abetting—or whatever the technical phrase would be—an employee.
      Mr. Bob Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman and hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) served on the Committee and should be aware that employers in the regulated sector are required to train their employees. I think that he knows that.
      Mr. Wilshire: I am sure that there is an obligation to give training, but whether the training is satisfactory remains to be seen. That would be a matter for debate, and could provide the loophole.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) said that he thought he could see where the argument was going. Perhaps he saw that I was trying to persuade the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok and others to vote against their own Government. That is where the argument is going. The greatest advocate of not watering down the Bill is the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok, and I look forward to hearing what he will say after hearing the Minister trying to water it down.
      The Government's proposal could indeed be seen as a loophole. An employee who had deliberately not been given satisfactory training would be provided with an
      734
      excuse, and could launder money to his heart's content. I am sure that that is not what the Minister intends, but I think that it is what he is about to do.
      Ian Lucas: In the circumstances described by the hon. Gentleman, would not the unscrupulous employer have
      "reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting that another person",
      namely the employee, was engaged in money laundering? He would therefore be committing an offence himself.
      Mr. Wilshire: That may be so, but the person actually doing the laundering would be given an excuse. I am sure that the unscrupulous could find a way of protecting the proceeds of crime by shunting it down the line. I hope that I have said enough to cause Labour Members to have serious doubts about the loophole that is being proposed.
      The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) expressed concern about lesser sentences and punishments, as though, again, we were seeking to water the Bill down. I think that he has got the wrong end of the stick. I realise that a Member whose constituency has a serious drug problem will always want the guilty to suffer the maximum penalty, but to advance that argument is to misunderstand the point that we are making.
      Let us say, for the purposes of my own argument, that I accept a maximum sentence of five years for the negligent offender. Let us not get into a discussion about whether we want to water that down. Surely the hon. Gentleman accepts that if five years is adequate for negligence, we should consider an even longer term for deliberate offenders. That is the only distinction that Conservative Members seek to draw: that there are two different crimes, one far worse than the other, and that one should attract a more severe punishment than the other.
      John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is right. I would increase the sentence for deliberate offenders, but I would not lower it for those who had been negligent.
      Mr. Wilshire: Then the hon. Gentleman accepts our argument. The fact that he does not like our solution is one thing, but it is another thing to suggest, as was suggested in Committee, that we are the friends of the criminals because we want to dilute the Bill. However, he has at last accepted that that is not what we are trying to do. We are trying to achieve justice and fairness. If he thinks that five years is adequate for the negligence offence, he should have tabled an amendment to increase the sentence for the deliberate offence.
      If I have helped Labour Members to understand that even their own Government can create loopholes, and if I can persuade just one Labour Member that we are not the criminal's friend and that we are talking a great deal of common sense, my speech has been well worth while.
      Mr. Davidson: My speech follows that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) by coincidence; he did not provoke me into speaking. I nevertheless think it worth repeating some of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) about the framework of our discussions. I think that the Tories were a disgrace in Committee, and are a disgrace today. I still believe that they are weak on pursuing the collaborators of criminals.

      735
      Criminals need professional advisers, and I consider those advisers as bad as, if not worse than, some of the criminals themselves. Severe action should be taken against them. The Conservatives' form can be held against them in that regard. The nationalists will not recall this because they were not present, but those of us who were in the Committee noted the Conservatives' view that negligence should be a complete, absolute, utter, total defence. They believe that it should enable people to get off everything altogether. There is a difference, however, between the adjustments that the Government have made and the adjustments that the Conservatives suggest that they have made. We have retained our principles while being prepared to make tactical changes, which is why I am prepared to accept what Ministers are proposing.
      This is not a change in principle by the Conservatives. I believe that they are still in favour, in principle, of having negligence as a defence, but have been forced by political circumstance to modify that position. They are, therefore, putting forward the weakest suggestion that they can. It is interesting that we have heard from a variety of sources about the "not trained, bad night" defence for negligence.
      Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman will remember that, in Committee, one of the most powerful speeches against the negligence defence came from one of his Back-Bench colleagues. It therefore strikes me as odd that the change to which we have adjusted in the spirit of conciliation should be greeted with his particular brand of opprobrium.
      Mr. Davidson: Those on my side of the Committee who are now prepared to support a different position did not perhaps fully appreciate the majesty of the Government's position at that stage. They have now recognised that there are improvements within the same set of principles. I suspect that the Conservatives have retained the principle of wishing to water down this measure entirely.
      Let me return to the "not trained, bad night" defence. There is an offence of careless driving; there is also an offence of negligent driving, worded in various ways. People can be found guilty of manslaughter through careless driving. Negligence is not a defence in those circumstances; nor should it be. If someone killed other people or caused horrendous consequences as a result of carelessness while flying a plane or driving a train, we would not say, "That's all right; it was just negligence. It's a terrible shame, but we'll let them off." In those circumstances, negligence should not be a defence.
      Norman Baker: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that there is a difference between manslaughter and murder?
      Mr. Davidson: Yes, but I take the view that manslaughter should not be excused on the ground of negligence. Negligence is, in itself, a culpable offence and ought to be subject to penalties. I accept that there will be some circumstances in which there is genuine negligence, but I believe that a defence of negligence would be argued in more cases than would be justified.
      736
      I want clarification from the Opposition on the level of penalties in cases of negligence. Their amendment No. 175 proposes that a person shall be
      "liable to a fine not exceeding level 5".
      Notwithstanding the points that the nationalists have made—which would have been better made in Committee—that would amount to £5,000 or so, and would apply to new clause 7 if it were agreed.
      I and others referred in Committee to the scale of money laundering arising, for example, from the Nigerian incidents, in which billions of pounds were at stake. If someone involved in that exercise admitted negligence, perhaps on a plea bargain, would that mean that the maximum penalty to which they would be liable would be only £5,000?
      Mr. Grieve: I explained earlier—I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman did not understand me—that level 5 on the standard scale is for summary jurisdiction only. It is the maximum fine that can be imposed in a magistrates court on the standard scale. There is, therefore, no diminution of the force of summary jurisdiction in relation to other offences in the Bill. If the matter were to go the Crown court, however, the fine would be at large; it could be up to any level.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Davidson: I very much welcome that sign of adjustment from the Conservatives. They were giving the impression that they were in favour of minimising the penalties. I am reminded of prostitutes in Glasgow who consider fines a business expense. I can envisage lawyers, accountants and others regarding a small fine of £5,000 as simply a business expense, so the penalty needs to be a great deal higher. No doubt accountants would write it off against tax.
      I now turn to credit unions and the like. The idea that someone would come into a credit union with a plastic bag containing £500,000 and say, "I would like to lodge this." and the people at the credit union would not think, "There's something a trifle peculiar going on here", leaves me cold. I take a similar view of the excuse that has often been mentioned of the baby crying.
      Vera Baird: It is surely my hon. Friend who has talked not only about getting the Mr. Bigs, but about taking the heat out of the drugs industry and other evils at whatever level it occurs. No one was seriously suggesting high-level trade through a credit union, but the money that goes through credit unions in Redcar represents people's maximum savings and can equally represent big gains from drugs. The people who work in credit unions are subject to the same rules as the high fliers whom my hon. Friend detests so much and he will know that there are credit unions in Pollok, too.
      Mr. Davidson: Indeed there are, and I can tell my hon. Friend that if a Nigerian chief turned up with an address in Arden and a plastic bag with £2,000, never mind £2 billion, they would immediately be suspicious. So I have no qualms about the way in which the provision will apply to credit unions.
      I find the "bad night" defence laughable, however. The idea that somebody had a bad night—the usual sympathetic context is that the baby kept them awake,

      737
      though in financial circles it is more likely that they were out spending several thousand pounds on bottles of wine—and that the next day, because they had a sore head, they did not notice £500,000 flitting across the screen is laughable. We have to expect a certain degree of competence from people in the banking and financial sectors. Are we seriously expected to believe that the whole future of the British economy rests on the competence of the staff we love so dearly, yet the same staff could quite easily mislay the odd £500,000 as it flits across the screen? I think not. If we accepted that, the felons would pay for the nights out so that the excuse could be used.
      We asked earlier how we could discover what went through people's minds when all these transactions were taking place. I have a pretty good idea of what is in the minds of accountants, lawyers, bankers and others who handle these ill-gotten gains. It is money, money, money. They do it for the money. We should be in no doubt whatsoever about it. We would be much better served in the House—and we would have been in Committee—if the Conservatives were prepared to accept that some people involved in those industries are corrupt, dishonest and guilty of offences. Instead, the Conservatives adopted the stonewall defence of trying to pretend that the problem did not exist.
      I am glad to hear that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve)—I apologise to him if I have misunderstood him—is in favour of collaborators of crime going to prison for substantial periods if they are caught. That is his position, as I understand it. Perhaps he is not quite as soft on crime as I previously understood him to be.
      Finally, let me make two points—
      Mr. Weir: Finally?
      Mr. Davidson: Yes, about 40 per cent.
      I was struck by the point made by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who is no longer in his place, that if the regime were made too tough, people would launder their money elsewhere. That seemed to be his general point. In those circumstances, we have two alternatives. The first is to reduce our standards so as to attract such trade; the second, more reputable, option is to try to raise standards elsewhere in the world. The fact that the introduction of the highest possible standards might lose us some business is no reason whatever for allowing our standards to be watered down.
      Finally finally, I have made my entire contribution without mentioning more than twice the absence of Scottish National party Members from the Committee. That must be a record.
      Mr. Bob Ainsworth: As the House seems content to spend the whole of this part of the debate discussing one group of amendments, I wanted to intervene before we ran out of time.
      I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) that the amendments might not be perfectly drafted and that they are meant to be read as a whole. I do not want to descend into any nit-picking arguments about that; rather, I want to address the major issue that he has brought to the House, which we also discussed at great length in the Standing Committee.
      738
      The effect of the amendments taken together would be to split the failure to disclose offence into two separate offences. There would be different tests for each offence and a lower penalty for someone charged with having "reasonable grounds" to know or suspect—but not with actually knowing or suspecting—that money laundering was going on and thus needed to be disclosed.
      The negligence test is one of the key proposals in the Bill. It reflects the Government's commitment to strong anti-money-laundering measures across the United Kingdom. Such measures, including the new negligence test, are fully justified against the background of several money-laundering cases that have taken place in the City and which were not reported to law enforcement. It is in the interests of the City and its financial reputation that we demand the highest standards of diligence.
      In Committee, I gave a commitment that I would look again into the drafting to see whether there was any merit in having two different offences—the issue that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield has raised again today. I considered the matter at great length with officials in the Department, but I remain of the opinion that the negligence test would be most effective in a single offence, as currently drafted.
      An abundance of legal ability was available to me from members of the Committee. Some hon. Members suggested that the handling of the indictment could be strange and difficult. However, it has been explained to me that the indictment can be handled even if the offence contains all three mens rea elements of knowing, suspecting and having reasonable grounds to suspect. Everything that has been said in the debate confirms my belief that the indictment can be dealt with in that way.
      An indictment may contain only one offence or more than one mental element. There is no difficulty in specifying both in the indictment. There are precedents elsewhere, as the hon. Gentleman knows better than me.
      The standard indictment for rape is that the defendant knew that the victim did not consent, or was reckless as to whether she did. In criminal damage, the indictment states that the defendant damaged property criminally with intent, or was reckless as to whether it would be damaged. The same situation applies in various circumstances. Courts and prosecuting agencies are able to deal with them in drawing up indictments.
      Vera Baird: I am concerned about the analogy with rape. Does my hon. Friend not agree that the same level of criminality is probably involved when a man rapes a woman recklessly and does not give a damn about whether she says yes or no, and when a man rapes a woman knowing that she has not said yes? It would therefore be perfectly straightforward to charge the cases as alternative states of mind. We are talking in the Bill about two levels of criminality. Is it not difficult to see how a jury could inform a judge about the level of criminality of which it had found a person guilty?
      Mr. Ainsworth: I was trying to talk about the mental element of an offence. I think that my hon. Friend accepts that that is dealt with elsewhere.
      I shall move on to how the matter will be dealt with in sentencing. As I said, the indictment could be particularised, or it could state that the defendant knew or suspected, or had reasonable grounds to know or suspect.

      739
      Those are the three mental elements, but a judge might impose a sentence on the basis that only negligence had been established. That would depend on the evidence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) noted, we are effectively leaving it to the discretion of the courts to decide, as they will be able to take account of the evidence provided.
      The key argument against splitting the offence is that the prosecution would then have to decide whether to risk basing an indictment on knowledge, or suspicion. That is the problem with the current regime—it is very difficult to prove subjective knowledge. It is highly likely that prosecutors would go for the lesser offence if the proposed single offence were split, as the offence containing the subjective tests would be used only rarely, if at all.
      Mr. Grieve: I confess that I do not see that. The new clause is drafted in a way that allows indictments to include alternative counts. For instance, a prosecutor may say to a jury, "Our view is that the accused acted wilfully. However, if you conclude that he did not act wilfully, we shall say that the evidence is that he acted negligently." So I simply do not see the problem with having two separate offences. Both can appear as two counts on the same indictment.
      Mr. Ainsworth: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's argument that there is a major difficulty with the Bill as drafted. It would be far more problematic to require the prosecutor to decide at the outset how to frame an indictment, and to make him choose then between the objective and the subjective test. That would lead to the power being under-used. It certainly would not lead to what is central to the argument—a step change in the quality of staff in the regulated sector in this country, and the way in which that sector operates with regard to money laundering. I contend that history shows that that step change is badly needed.
      Ian Lucas: Does my hon. Friend accept that the real difficulty with the new clause is that it would lead to alternative charges being placed on the indictment, and that the inevitable result would be plea bargaining? The less serious offence would regularly be accepted, especially if it involved only the imposition of a financial penalty.
      Mr. Ainsworth: I have said that that would be the dilemma facing the prosecutor. I believe that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield has accepted that that is what would happen, and that that is what he wants.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Carmichael: Why does the Minister insist that the prosecutor should make the decision? Surely such a decision is best made by the jury after hearing all the evidence given in court under oath.
      Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman must realise that the jury can do precisely that under the Bill as it stands. The mental elements can be taken into account by the court and by the judge in sentencing. There is not a problem in that respect given the way in which the Bill is structured.
      740
      As far as the sentence is concerned, the judge will weigh up the case and form a view about the mental element and take that into account when deciding the level of penalty.
      Vera Baird: Is not the difficulty about the judge deciding the level of criminality so that he can impose the penalty that the jury might decide that the accused knowingly committed an offence while the judge sentenced him only for doing so negligently, or the other way around?
      Mr. Ainsworth: I think that the courts are capable of dealing with this offence in the way that the Bill provides, and I believe that my hon. Friend agrees. They can decide on the element of mens rea present in the offence and take account of that when a sentence is imposed. I do not think that it is beyond the capacity of the courts to do that.
      We were asked to look at defences. Representations have been made to everyone involved in the Bill about the impact that the offence could have on junior staff. Concern was expressed that people might not know or suspect that money laundering was taking place because they had not had the necessary training. There is an obligation to provide training for staff, and a company could be prosecuted for not doing so. We thought that that was adequate to deal with the situation, but because of concerns that have been raised both in the House and by organisations making representations to us, we brought forward Government amendment No. 93 to cover the situation and provide the defence that no training was given. The measure was discussed extensively in Committee.
      Government amendment No. 93 will accordingly provide the defence that the employer had not provided staff with the relevant training. The training that we have in mind is that which all employers are required to provide to their employees by reason of regulation 5 of the Money Laundering Regulations 1993. We intend to use an order-making power to enable the Secretary of State to specify the kind of training that will apply.
      As well as giving us an insight into some of his deeper thoughts about whether Traceys and Wendys could ever be thought of as company managing directors, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) asked whether there was a problem with clause 330(5). He wanted to know that the provision in paragraph (b) was not dependent on that in paragraph (a). It is not. A professional legal adviser would be protected and would not have to prove that he had a reasonable excuse for not disclosing information.
      Norman Baker: Doubtless the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) thought that Tracey was a man. Tracey is a man's name and that is why the hon. Gentleman believed that he might be a managing director.
      We have discussed what constitutes a "reasonable excuse" under clause 330(5)(a). The hon. Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) suggested earlier that a bad day or a problem with one's children might constitute such an

      741
      excuse. I hope that I do not misrepresent her. Do such reasons constitute a reasonable excuse? If not, will the Minister give examples of things that might qualify?
      Mr. Ainsworth: We went over that ground in Committee, and I was about to deal with the points that my hon. Friend raised.
      Mr. Ruffley: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Ainsworth: No. I have not managed to respond to the intervention of the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) yet. I cannot take another until I have done that. I do not want to stack up interventions, as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds provokes me to do.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar sought some assurances about clause 330(5)(a). The offence for which the clause provides applies both when the person knows and when the person has reasonable grounds for knowing. Subsection (5)(a) provides a defence of a "reasonable excuse" for not disclosing. The examples that my hon. Friend gave would be raised with the prosecutor. She gave an amusing example of a police officer behaving obtusely or unreasonably, but the issues that she raised could be considered by the prosecuting authorities and accepted as reasonable excuses if they believed that they crossed the requisite threshold.
      My hon. Friend also asked whether we could consider a code of practice. I am happy to continue the discussion with her if she wants to pursue the matter. However, I fear that introducing such a code could entail problems; it might be deemed to interfere with the independence of the Crown Prosecution Service. The CPS needs to decide whether to prosecute, taking all the facts of the case into consideration; it would not necessarily want to be bound by a code of practice that was imposed on it.
      Mr. Ruffley: It is kind of the Minister to give way. I cannot yet read the record, so he must correct me if I am wrong, but in his earlier response to points about clause 330(5) he appeared to suggest that a person did not commit an offence under the provision if paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) applied. However, the clause provides that paragraphs (a) and (b) must be taken into account.
      I must also repeat an earlier question: what constitutes a reasonable excuse?
      Mr. Ainsworth: The court would decide what constituted a reasonable excuse. I was explaining that in response to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar. The prosecuting authorities will decide whether to take a case forward. If they decide to do so, the court will determine whether the excuse is reasonable. We are not trying to fetter the court.
      The word "and" does not link paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (5). The word "or" is implied, although I accept that it is not stated. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, if he reads the subsection carefully, "or" is implied. The professional legal adviser does not therefore have to be covered by paragraph (a). He—I should emphasise "he or she" because of the hon. Gentleman's difficulties—does not need the reasonable excuse for which paragraph (a) provides.
      Mr. Ruffley: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Ainsworth: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman again. We are short of time, other hon. Members
      742
      wish to speak, and we need to discuss other amendments before 6.7 pm. I hope that Government amendment No. 93 makes the clause acceptable to hon. Members, and I ask the Opposition to withdraw the new clause.
      Mr. Carmichael: I intended to make only one narrow point in an intervention, but I have become increasingly irritated as the debate has progressed and I now have a number of issues to raise. I shall, however, try to give hon. Members a lesson in brevity in so doing and I hope that it is well taken.
      Mr. Davidson: Get on with it
      Mr. Carmichael: That is rich coming from the hon. Gentleman.
      On new clause 7 and the "bad night" defence, which at first I thought was a reference to the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), I declare an interest as the father of an 11-month-old son who is cutting his first set of teeth. The hon. Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) made her point well. The Minister yesterday invited us to sympathise with the two families living next door to each other in a terraced street, one of which was hard-working and struggling—perhaps failing—to make their mortgage payments. Overnight, his attitude has changed and it seems that those are the very people he is trying to persecute. The Minister and Labour Members must accept that a substantial number of ordinary hard-working low-grade employees are going to be caught by the Bill's provisions, and there is an inequity in that. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) drew parallels with careless driving. I do not want to get into that except to place it on the record that his points are absolute mince.
      Some hon. Members mentioned alternative verdicts. That is complex. There are various ways in which alternative verdicts can be returned. If knowingly and negligently are alternatives in the same offence, a sheriff and possibly a jury can convict under deletion. I accept that that is open to them. However, the Minister must be aware that it is sometimes difficult to get a jury to convict under deletion. Instead, we get a conviction for the whole offence. As the hon. Member for Redcar said, that can result from a misunderstanding between the jury and the judge over conviction and sentence. There is much to commend in the prosecutor having the option open to draft the indictment with the negligence offence as an alternative.
      Let me deal with the comments that the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) made on amendment No. 175. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) was mistaken when he was uncharacteristically soft on the Scottish National party. The amendment states that someone
      "guilty of an offence under section"—
      whatever it is to be—
      "shall be liable to a fine"—
      that is a term of art known to Scots law—
      "not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale."
      The hon. Member for Angus should know that level 5 on the standard scale is a term of art that is to be found in chapter 46 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. He said that the standard scale is not specified. That is

      743
      not necessary in any piece of legislation that I have come across in practice and I see no reason why it is necessary in this regard.
      Mr. Weir rose—
      Mr. Carmichael: If the hon. Gentleman has something new to say, I shall give way.
      Mr. Weir: The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) did not know the separate scales. The Bill does not specify the scale, and it can contain differences. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) makes a point about the Committee. Let me explain that amendment No. 175 is a Tory amendment. I support the Bill as agreed by the Scottish Parliament under the Sewel motion. Why should I table an amendment in the terms of amendment No. 175 in Committee or anywhere else?
      Mr. Carmichael: I take it that the hon. Gentleman has nothing new to say. Section 225(1) of the 1995 Act refers to the "standard scale" in inverted commas. It is a term of art known to Scots law; it should even be known to a solicitor from Angus. I do not understand his problem.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Mark Field: I, too, shall be brief.
      I accept that it is in the interests of the City of London that it is not seen as a soft touch for money laundering. I had intended to speak at some length on the money laundering provisions, but I obviously do not have enough time to do so. Instead, I shall make a brief point on over-regulation in the broader sense, which has the effect of exporting jobs. That has been the history of the City of London and all other financial centres in the post-war era. One reason why the Eurobond market is firmly in London is because of strict regulation in New York by the Securities and Exchange Commission in the 1960s and beyond. We should all remember that important lesson when we propose regulations.
      On new clause 7, a multitude of hon. Members spoke about the failure to disclose. When we were in Committee, it was understood that we should distinguish between the regulated and the non-regulated sectors, which goes to the heart of the point made by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe). I am worried, however, by the nature of the debate advanced by the Scottish mafia, the hon. Members for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) and for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson), because they are looking at the entire matter from the point of view of their constituents who have suffered from drug offences and drug users. I understand their deep, honest and genuine concerns about that, but by throwing the book at anyone who could possibly be connected with money laundering we run the risk of inflicting great injustices. For that reason, new clause 7 is a sensible compromise in the circumstances.
      There is a lack of understanding about the highly pressurised environment in which junior staff work in the City of London and the responsibilities that are placed on them. It is simplistic for the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok to suggest that every money laundering act will
      744
      involve an individual turning up with a plastic bag full of tens of thousands of pounds. The reality is that hundreds, if not thousands, of transactions take place on a daily basis on the trading screens of City of London money brokers. Junior staff in particular who are not accustomed to working in such pressurised environments may unknowingly let things slip through the net.
      Ian Lucas: Is it not important in such circumstances that the institutions have systems in place? Would not the offence encourage organisations and investment institutions to improve their systems that have failed so markedly?
      Mr. Field: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. Clearly systems will be in place. However, if they become compliance and regulation-oriented, there is a risk that we will lose a significant amount of business because a raft of large global financial organisations will decide not to continue to work in the City of London. I accept that a balance needs to be struck. We do not want London to be a soft touch for money laundering or other financial offences. I hope that that is clear.
      The hon. Member for Wellingborough is a barrister. It strikes me that until recently barristers could not be found guilty of negligence, a decision based on public policy grounds because of the independence of the Bar. If we put in place a major new criminal offence that allows of negligence, that will bring with it the juggernaut of state controls exercised by the Assets Recovery Agency. That is not a fair balance. There is a public policy issue at stake. Those criminal sanctions should be applied only in the most extreme cases if someone has merely been negligent.
      I am not entirely convinced by the plea-bargaining argument that has been advanced, but I fear that there may be something in it. If new clause 7 is accepted, junior staff might more easily be found guilty under the negligence provisions. Proof would be easier to establish in that regard, and the courts would also bring to bear a certain amount of sympathy if this option were open. Senior individuals who turn a blind eye to, or actively collaborate with, money launderers will surely feel the full force of clause 330. The provision suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) is therefore sensible, and I hope that serious consideration will be given to it, either here or in the House of Lords.
      Mr. Grieve: This issue has given rise to an interesting debate and excited a lot of comment in the House, just as it did in Committee. It is with some regret that I say, however, that the further our debate has progressed, the more worried I have become. It became clear from the Minister's response—via his officials—that he envisages a single count on an indictment, with the two offences rolled together. Even under the Bill as drafted, it is technically possible to have two counts, but the policy view is clearly that the offence is a single offence. That worries me all the more, and leads me to believe that new clause 7, which would establish a separate offence and penalty for negligence, is the better option.
      I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) and for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) for their contributions, and to other Members who made the same point. I am afraid that the Minister has not persuaded me, and I intend to press new clause 7 to a vote.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 184, Noes 306.

      Division No. 172]

      [5.52 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Allan, Richard

      Grieve, Dominic

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Hammond, Philip

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Hancock, Mike

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

      Baker, Norman

      Hawkins, Nick

      Baldry, Tony

      Hayes, John

      Baron, John

      Heald, Oliver

      Barrett, John

      Heath, David

      Beggs, Roy

      Hendry, Charles

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Hoban, Mark

      Bellingham, Henry

      Holmes, Paul

      Bercow, John

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Boswell, Tim

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Brady, Graham

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Brake, Tom

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Brazier, Julian

      Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

      Breed, Colin

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Key, Robert

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Burnett, John

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Burnside, David

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Burstow, Paul

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Burt, Alistair

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Butterfill, John

      Lamb, Norman

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Lansley, Andrew

      Cameron, David

      Laws, David

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Letwin, Oliver

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Cash, William

      Loughton, Tim

      Chidgey, David

      Luff, Peter

      Chope, Christopher

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Clappison, James

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Malins, Humfrey

      Collins, Tim

      Maples, John

      Conway, Derek

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Cotter, Brian

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Mercer, Patrick

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Moore, Michael

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Dodds, Nigel

      Norman, Archie

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

      Oaten, Mark

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

      Öpik, Lembit

      Evans, Nigel

      Ottaway, Richard

      Fabricant, Michael

      Page, Richard

      Fallon, Michael

      Paice, James

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Paterson, Owen

      Flight, Howard

      Pickles, Eric

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Prisk, Mark

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Pugh, Dr John

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Randall, John

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Goodman, Paul

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Gray, James

      Robathan, Andrew

      Grayling, Chris

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      746

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Tredinnick, David

      Ruffley, David

      Trend, Michael

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Tyler, Paul

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Selous, Andrew

      Viggers, Peter

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Walter, Robert

      Shepherd, Richard

      Waterson, Nigel

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Watkinson, Angela

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

      Webb, Steve

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Whittingdale, John

      Soames, Nicholas

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Wiggin, Bill

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Wilkinson, John

      Spink, Bob

      Willetts, David

      Spring, Richard

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Wilshire, David

      Steen, Anthony

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Swire, Hugo

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Syms, Robert

      Yeo, Tim

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Mrs. Cheryl Gillan and

      Thurso, John

      Mr. Desmond Swayne.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Chaytor, David

      Ainger, Nick

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Allen, Graham

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Clelland, David

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Coaker, Vernon

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Colman, Tony

      Bailey, Adrian

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Baird, Vera

      Cooper, Yvette

      Banks, Tony

      Corston, Jean

      Barron, Kevin

      Cousins, Jim

      Battle, John

      Cranston, Ross

      Bayley, Hugh

      Crausby, David

      Beard, Nigel

      Cruddas, Jon

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Cummings, John

      Bell, Stuart

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Benn, Hilary

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Bennett, Andrew

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Benton, Joe

      Dalyell, Tam

      Berry, Roger

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Betts, Clive

      Davidson, Ian

      Blackman, Liz

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Blair, Rt Hon Tony

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

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Borrow, David

      Dawson, Hilton

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Brennan, Kevin

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Browne, Desmond

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Bryant, Chris

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Drew, David

      Burgon, Colin

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Cairns, David

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Edwards, Huw

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Efford, Clive

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Casale, Roger

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Caton, Martin

      Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Fisher, Mark

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      747

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Lloyd, Tony

      Flint, Caroline

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Love, Andrew

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Lucas, Ian

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Luke, Iain

      Foulkes, George

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Galloway, George

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Gapes, Mike

      MacDonald, Calum

      Gardiner, Barry

      McDonnell, John

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      MacDougall, John

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      McFall, John

      Gilroy, Linda

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Goggins, Paul

      McIsaac, Shona

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McKechin, Ann

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Grogan, John

      McNulty, Tony

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McWalter, Tony

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hanson, David

      Mann, John

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Marris, Rob

      Havard, Dai

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Healey, John

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hendrick, Mark

      Martlew, Eric

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Heppell, John

      Merron, Gillian

      Hermon, Lady

      Miliband, David

      Hill, Keith

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Mole, Chris

      Hope, Phil

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Morgan, Julie

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Morley, Elliot

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Mudie, George

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Mullin, Chris

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Illsley, Eric

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Norris, Dan

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Olner, Bill

      Jamieson, David

      Organ, Diana

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Owen, Albert

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Perham, Linda

      Jones, Marlyn (Clwyd S)

      Picking, Anne

      Joyce, Eric

      Pickthall, Colin

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Pike, Peter

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Plaskitt, James

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Pond, Chris

      Kelly, Ruth

      Pope, Greg

      Kemp, Fraser

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Kidney, David

      Price, Adam

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Prosser, Gwyn

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Purnell, James

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Rapson, Syd

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Laxton, Bob

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Lepper, David

      Leslie, Christopher

      Rooney, Terry

      Levitt, Tom

      Ross, Ernie

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Roy, Frank

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Ruane, Chris

      Linton, Martin

      Ruddock, Joan

      748

      Ryan, Joan

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Salmond, Alex

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Salter, Martin

      Tipping, Paddy

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Touhig, Don

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Trickett, Jon

      Sawford, Phil

      Truswell, Paul

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Tynan, Bill

      Simon, Siôn

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Singh, Marsha

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wareing, Robert N

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Watts, David

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Weir, Michael

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      White, Brian

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Soley, Clive

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Southworth, Helen

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Squire, Rachel

      Wills, Michael

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Winnick, David

      Stevenson, George

      Wishart, Pete

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Wood, Mike

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Woolas, Phil

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Worthington, Tony

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Stringer, Graham

      Wright Tony (Cannock)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Mr. Ivor Caplin and

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Mr. Ian Pearson.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being more than two and a quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [26 February], put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

    Clause 329

      ACQUISITION, USE AND POSSESSION
      Amendments made: No. 91, in page 192, line 18, leave out "for" and insert "by".
      No. 92, in page 192, line 18, leave out "help him" and insert—
      'he knows or suspects may help another'.—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]

    Clause 330

      FAILURE TO DISCLOSE: REGULATED SECTOR
      Amendments made: No. 93, in page 192, line 38, at end insert—
      '(c) subsection (5A) applies to him.
      (5A) This subsection applies to a person if—

      (a) he does not know or suspect that another person is engaged in money laundering, and

      (b) he has not been provided by his employer with such training as is specified by the Secretary of State by order for the purposes of this section.'.

      No. 94, in page 193, line 16, leave out "a view to" and insert "the intention of".—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]

      FAILURE TO DISCLOSE: REGULATED SECTOR
        clause 331
          TIPPING OFF
          Amendment made: No. 95, in page 193, line 42, leave out "a view to" and insert "the intention of".—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]
        New Clause 4

          CODE OF PRACTICE
          '(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a code of practice as to the exercise by the Director and appropriate officers of functions they have under this Chapter.
          (2) After preparing a draft of the code the Secretary of State—

          (a) must publish the draft;

          (b) must consider any representations made to him about the draft;

          (c) may amend the draft accordingly.

          (3) After the Secretary of State has proceeded under subsection (2) he must lay the code before Parliament.
          (4) When he has done so the Secretary of State may bring the code into operation on such day as he may appoint by order.
          (5) The Director must comply with a code of practice which is in operation under this section in the exercise of any function he has under this Chapter.
          (6) An appropriate officer must comply with a code of practice which is in operation under this section in the exercise of any function he has under this Chapter.
          (7) If the Director or an appropriate officer fails to comply with any provision of such a code of practice he is not by reason only of that failure liable in any criminal or civil proceedings.
          (8) But the code of practice is admissible in evidence in such proceedings and a court may take account of any failure to comply with its provisions in determining any question in the proceedings.
          (9) The Secretary of State may from time to time revise a code previously brought into operation under this section; and the preceding provisions of this section apply to a revised code as they apply to the code as first prepared.
          (10) The following provisions do not apply to an appropriate officer in the exercise of any function he has under this Chapter—

          (a) section 67(9) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60) (application of codes of practice under that Act to persons other than police officers);

          (b) Article 66(8) of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (SI. 1989/1341 (N.I. 12)) (which makes similar provision for Northern Ireland).!.—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]

          Brought up, and read the First time.
          Mr. Bob Ainsworth: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
          Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 12—Code of Practice (No. 2).
          New clause 8—Investigations: anonymity of Agency staff and others—
          '(1) Where the Director is satisfied that there is good reason to believe that the conduct of an investigation or the safety of a nominated officer might be prejudiced if the identity of that officer were known, he may determine that the nominated officer shall have the benefit of anonymity.
          (2) For the purposes of this section, a nominated officer is—
          (a) a member of staff of the Agency, or
          (b) an accredited financial investigator.
          750
          (3) Where, apart from this section, a nominated officer may be required for the purpose of exercising his functions in the conduct of an investigation to produce or show any written authority or otherwise to identify himself, a nominated officer with benefit of anonymity shall—

          (a) not be required to produce or show any such authority or to so identify himself for the purpose of exercising his functions, and

          (b) be accompanied by a constable who shall, on request by, a person affected, identify himself as a constable and state that he is accompanied by a nominated officer.

          (4) Where a nominated officer with benefit of anonymity exercises his functions in the conduct of an investigation in writing, such function shall be exercised in the name of the Agency and not in the name of the nominated officer with benefit of anonymity.
          (5) Any document relating to proceedings arising out of an investigation where a nominated officer had benefit of anonymity shall not reveal the identity or address of a nominated officer with benefit of anonymity.
          (6) For the purposes of this section, "investigation" means any investigation specified in section 336 other than a money laundering investigation.'.
          New clause 9—Offence of prejudicing investigation by identifying nominated officer with benefit of anonymity—

          '(1) This section applies if a person knows or suspects that a nominated officer has the benefit of anonymity for the purposes of section[Investigations: anonymity of Agency staff and others].

          (2) A person commits an offence if he publishes or causes to be published—

          (a) the fact that an individual is or was a nominated officer with the benefit of anonymity,

          (b) the fact that an individual is a member of the family of a person who is or was a nominated officer with the benefit of anonymity, or

          (c) the address of any place as being the address where an individual who is or was a nominated officer with the benefit of anonymity or a member of the family of a person who is or was a nominated officer with the benefit of anonymity resides.

          (3) A person does not commit an offence under subsection (2) if—

          (a) he does not know or suspect that the identification of a nominated officer with benefit of anonymity is likely to prejudice the investigation, or

          (b) the identification is made in the exercise of a function under this Act or any other enactment relating to criminal conduct or benefit from criminal conduct or in compliance with a requirement imposed under or by virtue of this Act.

          (4) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2) is liable—

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

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

          Amendment No. 63, in clause 337, page 197, line 18, leave out "a civil recovery investigation".
          Government amendment No. 108.
          Amendment No. 67, in clause 352, page 206, line 11, leave out "either".
          Amendment No. 66, in page 206, line 11, leave out "or at once".
          Government amendments Nos. 98 and 99.
          Amendment No. 167, in clause 384, page 222, line 3, leave out "either".

          751
          Amendment No. 166, in page 222, line 3, leave out "or at once".
          Government amendment No. 102.
          Amendment No. 73, in clause 447, page 258, line 15, after "295(4)", insert ", 359(4)".
          Government amendments Nos. 251 and 103.
          Amendment No. 75, in page 258, line 26, after "295(4)", insert ", 359(4)".
          Government amendment No. 253.
          Mr. Ainsworth: Well done, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
          New clause 4 requires the Secretary of State to issue a statutory code of practice on the exercise of the investigation powers in chapter 2 of part 8. It will provide guidance on how the use of such powers on confiscation, civil recovery and money-laundering investigations is to be conducted by the director. New clause 12 provides for a similar code for Scotland.
          We acknowledge that the powers contained in part 8 are fairly intrusive. None the less, we believe that such powers are fully justified, because without them it is unlikely that the director of the new agency or others involved in law enforcement would be able to make any substantial improvement in asset recovery.
          Similar schemes in other legislation include codes of practice to ensure that there is a measure of control. The code will be published in draft, put out for consultation and laid before both Houses and the Scottish Parliament. Any breach of the code would be admissible as evidence in criminal and civil proceedings.
          It is entirely sensible to have a code that supports and guides the investigation powers in part 8. We intend that it should offer clear and helpful guidance on how the functions vested in the director and accredited financial investigators should be conducted. It will also be used as a safeguard to ensure that the powers are operated consistently.
          Government amendments Nos. 102 and 103 provide that the order that brings the code of practice into operation will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
          Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will the Minister confirm whether the Government intend to publish a draft code of practice for consideration, as the Bill moves from the House to another place? He was very helpful in Committee in talking about publishing such drafts and, at all stages, the Government have tried their best to provide helpful, indicative guidance. Will he follow that example with the new code of practice?
          Mr. Ainsworth: I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that we have made this proposal because of concerns expressed by him, his hon. Friends and others. I will try to ensure that people receive any draft so that they can see it in advance, but I do not know what the practicalities or the time scale for that will be.
          Having confirmed that any such order will be subject to the affirmative procedure, I turn to the new clauses and amendments that the Opposition have tabled. New clause 8 would grant anonymity in certain circumstances to the agency's staff. The hon. Member for East Hampshire
          752
          (Mr. Mates) is sitting in his place, and I welcome the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee's latest report on the proceeds of crime, the recommendations of which are reflected in new clauses 8 and 9. The Government are considering the report very carefully.
          We are aware that the Criminal Assets Bureau in Ireland enjoys statutory anonymity, and we are considering the position in the United Kingdom, as we want the agency's staff to be able to carry out their job effectively, to bear down on the proceeds of crime, without suffering from intimidation or reprisals in doing so. However, we must take into account the current provisions that apply to those who deal with the criminal fraternity.
          Anonymity is currently only available to police and customs officers in very limited circumstances in investigating terrorism, and civilian staff working for the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office have no statutory right to anonymity. So it would be a big step to allow anonymity for agency staff, but I am fully aware of the situation in Northern Ireland, which perhaps differs from that in the rest of the jurisdiction. I am also aware of the worry that the agency should be able to attract good-quality staff and to do its job effectively in Northern Ireland. I want to reassure Members that, although I do not want to accept the new clause now, we are seriously considering the position.
          6.15 pm
          Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the Minister giving way on that point because not only did we discover that anonymity was effective in the Criminal Assets Bureau, which faces similar troubles, but we discovered today that there are those from England, Scotland and elsewhere who believe that anonymity is important if they are to fight organised crime, which is increasing not only in Northern Ireland but elsewhere. I welcome the Minister's acceptance of the issue, but I ask him not to give too much weight to the views of those who think that it impinges on civil liberties because we have to consider the liberties of the servants of the state who are trying to defeat organised crime.
          Mr. Ainsworth: I was about to deal with the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises. Not only the agency's staff but those working for law enforcement and asset recovery bodies in Scotland will be involved, and they will do exactly the same job and be answerable to the Scottish Ministers or to the Lord Advocate, so we cannot consider only the agency's staff. Other financial investigators who operate outside the agency in other public bodies will investigate serious offences, and we would not necessarily want an automatic difference to be drawn between those who work for the agency and those other people.
          Hon. Members understand some of the difficulties involved. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about not being too concerned about some of the civil liberties arguments. I absolutely recognise the particular circumstances that can apply in Northern Ireland and the fact that we may have to deal with people who commit offences in the rest of the jurisdiction that are as serious as those that need to be dealt with in Northern Ireland, and I seek to assure the hon. Gentleman that such issues will be considered properly and that they will be discussed in another place.
          Norman Baker: Although I personally accept that it is sensible to provide anonymity for certain individuals who

          753
          may be threatened—to that extent I welcome the new clause—does the Minister agree that, if that principle is accepted, a check needs to be put in place to ensure that that opportunity is not abused?
          Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman points out some of the complications and difficulties that exist. We will announce our conclusions as soon as we reach them, having listened to everyone concerned and will, if necessary, table amendments in the other place.
          Rev. Martin Smyth: I understand that people have a right of appeal if they think that such legislation is used unfairly. That protection would be acceptable, but given that we live in a world where two strikes are allowed before action can be taken, where people are acquitted by the courts and have gone free and where godfathers have not been brought before the courts, does the Minister accept that it is important to consider the lifestyle as well?
          Mr. Ainsworth: Yes, and we have got to take seriously—not only in the Northern Ireland context—the cross-reference between organised crime, money-laundering offences and terrorism. If that was not apparent to all of us before the events of 11 September to the degree that it should have been, it certainly ought to be apparent to us now. Some serious issues therefore need to be considered. I do not promise the hon. Gentleman that I will be able to square the circle to his satisfaction and that of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, but we shall certainly consider those issues seriously, and we intend to table amendments if we can find a way through such things.
          Opposition amendment No. 63 would exclude civil recovery investigations from the offence of prejudicing an investigation. The Government believe that there should be sanctions and that anybody who prejudices an investigation or a prospective investigation by making a disclosure about it or by tampering with documents relevant to that investigation should be subject to the possibility of penalties. I neither understand nor accept the justification or reason for the amendment, and unless I hear something very strange from Opposition Members, I shall be asking the House to oppose it.
          Mr. John Gummer: Will the Minister help the House by saying in which other circumstances anything so draconian is available in civil proceedings? I do not know of any.
          Mr. Ainsworth: I respect the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge, but ask him to accept that we considered the civil classification and differences that apply under part 5 for many hours in Committee. In normal civil circumstances, the situation is straightforward: an allegation is made and tested in court, one to one. In these circumstances, the director needs some investigatory powers in order to be able to bring a case in the first place. We are not talking about a straightforward confrontation over an issue as usual in civil litigation.
          Effectively, Opposition Members suggest in the amendment that people should be allowed to tamper or interfere with or prevent an initial investigation free from any chance of anyone taking action against them. I do not accept that that should be so. I believe that, broadly, we have cross-party support on bearing down on the proceeds
          754
          of crime and that the proposed investigatory powers, which are essential to making the civil part of the Bill work, should not be tampered with.
          Mr. Stinchcombe: Will the Minister confirm that there are occasions already where interfering with civil proceedings can lead to criminal offences—for example, trying to pervert the course of justice in a libel trial?
          Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend is more knowledgeable then me on the matter, but I can tell him that there are similar criminal sanctions associated with civil investigations in other legislation. For example, under section 177 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, a person can be fined or imprisoned if they produce false or misleading material to an investigator. So, as my hon. Friend's example also shows, the proposed provision is not entirely without precedent.
          Government amendment No. 108 will extend the definition of judges who may hear applications in the Crown court in England and Wales. It was tabled in response to an issue raised in Committee. I assured hon. Members that I would revisit it. The amendment's wording is designed to exclude people such as the Lord Mayor of the City of London and aldermen, who are entitled to sit as judges in the central criminal court, but none the less widens the definition as suggested by Opposition Members in Committee.
          Under Opposition amendments Nos. 66 and 67, the director of the Assets Recovery Agency would not be able to conduct an interview with an individual under a disclosure order with immediate effect. We discussed that point in Committee. The proposed disclosure order is modelled on the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which contains the word "forthwith". The Northern Ireland legislation contains a code of practice in relation to the exercise of the investigation powers. That is one of the reasons why we have proposed under new clause 4 to introduce similar guidance. We will try to address the specific point raised in Committee by covering the whole gamut of provisions, such as access to legal advice and the rest, in guidance.
          Opposition amendments Nos. 166 and 167 would do the same in Scotland. Government new clause 12 will require Scottish Ministers to introduce a similar code of practice. I therefore hope that hon. Members will be able to accept that the same logic should be applied to jurisdiction north of the border.
          Government amendments Nos. 98 and 99 are technical. I hope that I do not have to waste the time of the House in going over them. We had overlooked the fact that the powers of the High Court in Northern Ireland are more limited. Amendment No. 98 broadens the scope of clause 370, and amendment No. 99 excludes from the clause account monitoring orders made in relation to a civil recovery investigation in England and Wales, as the High Court of England and Wales already has the powers to deal with such applications.
          I accept that Opposition amendments Nos. 73 and 75 would introduce similar provisions to those in paragraph 7(3) of schedule 6 to the Terrorism Act 2000, which are exercised under the affirmative resolution. We consider, nevertheless, that given the limited and technical nature of the definition of "customer information" in the Bill, the negative procedure is reasonable and will provide for appropriate parliamentary scrutiny.

          755
          I invite hon. Members to withdraw new clauses 8 and 9 and amendments Nos. 66, 67, 73, 75, 166 and 167.
          Mr. Hawkins: I welcome once again the way in which the Minister has responded to a number of the points that we made in Committee, and I thank him for his helpful response to my earlier intervention. We hope that it will be possible at least to see a draft form of the code of practice referred to in some of the Government amendments. I thank him for saying that he will investigate carefully the practicalities of that.
          The fact that the operation of the guillotines prevents discussion of certain very important matters on Report has once again been demonstrated. Just before we began considering this group of amendments, the House was not given any opportunity to discuss two other groups, which included some amendments on which Opposition Members wished to vote. In effect, especially because of a large number of speeches by Government Back Benchers on a previous group of amendments—I do not blame the Minister—and the operation of the guillotine, just as many matters were never reached in Committee, they have not been discussed by the House. Important matters will go to the other place completely undebated by this House.
          6.30 pm
          I make that point because of an example that arose last night, which also relates to Northern Ireland. Opposition amendment No. 145 was not reached before the guillotine fell. It went to the same point as the excellent new clauses 8 and 9 tabled by members of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. All hon. Members accept the importance of the links between organised crime and racketeering in Ulster and the funding of terrorist paramilitary organisations. That is why I welcome the unanimous report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I hope that Ulster Unionist party Members and others will speak to those new clauses, and I encourage members of the Select Committee to press them to a vote; if they do, Conservative Members will support them.
          Mr. Ainsworth: First, I should like to firm up my offer and state that we can produce a draft code. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a timetable, but I can give a commitment that we will do that. Secondly, on the issue of time, I point out that our extensive debate before the knife fell on the first part of our debate today was an almost exact re-run of a Standing Committee debate that was described by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) as the longest single debate in the Committee. If that hon. Gentleman then spends more than half an hour moving his amendments, he must expect that we will run out of time and that other business will not be discussed.
          Mr. Hawkins: I welcome the Minister's first point. It is helpful to know that it should be possible to see the draft code of practice, and I am grateful to him for firming up that assurance.
          I think that the Minister would accept that his criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) is unjust. My hon. Friend was dealing with
          756
          important matters and he took many interventions from Government Back Benchers. Hansard will show that it was almost entirely owing to his generosity in responding to the points made by Government Back Benchers that the debate was extended. Furthermore, Hansard will reveal that a huge proportion of the total time spent on those important matters was taken by Government Back Benchers re-running previously made arguments.
          Those who have read the Committee proceedings on the Bill will be aware that the Opposition have repeatedly stressed our concern about the crucial issues that relate to paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland. The Minister will agree that few matters relating to money laundering and associated offences affecting United Kingdom citizens are more important than the way in which such offences and similar racketeering operations occur in Northern Ireland. Although all money laundering is a serious crime, it is hard to imagine anything more serious than when it is done for the specific purpose of funding terrorist murder and other acts of violence.
          I therefore welcome the unanimous report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I draw the House's attention to paragraph 6, in which the Committee describes its visit to the Criminal Assets Bureau in the Republic of Ireland. I have discussed that with the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), and I know that he wants to reinforce some of the points made in the report. The report states:
          "The Republic of Ireland's Criminal Assets Bureau deals with sophisticated and dangerous criminals, some of whom have paramilitary connections. In a number of cases these individuals, prior to the establishment of the Bureau, had evaded the law enforcement agencies by verbal and physical intimidation of both witnesses and officials. We"—
          that is, the Committee—
          "were told that on occasion extreme violence had been used. Officers working for the Bureau are dealing with cases which it would frequently be difficult to pursue through other means without exposing staff to considerable personal risk."
          We all know that that sort of thing goes on. During one of our debates, I mentioned my great concern on being told that even senior officials working on the mainland for the Crown Prosecution Service had had to be moved because of threats from representatives of organised crime.
          We recognise that members of the Select Committee, under the distinguished chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), have taken the opportunity to table new clauses 8 and 9 to try to put much tougher measures on the face of the Bill. Although the Minister is being helpful and has said that he is prepared to contemplate introducing similar Government amendments at a later stage, the issue is so important that I encourage those behind the new clauses to press them tonight. Both in Committee and in the House, the Opposition have often been accused of seeking to water down the Bill. There can be no argument that the new clauses would have that effect; on the contrary, they would toughen up the Bill in the same way as our amendment No. 145—sadly, not reached last night—would have done.
          We welcome the fact that in several of their amendments the Government have responded to concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, other Conservative Members and I raised in Committee.

          757
          Government new clauses 4 and 12, the second of which relates to Scotland, reflect the importance of the code of practice and are therefore welcome.
          Government amendment No. 108 to clause 338 is, as the Minister explained, a specific response to concerns expressed by my hon. Friend and reinforced by other Conservative members of the Standing Committee. We argued that there should be an opportunity to define precisely the range of judges able to use the powers in the Bill when it is enacted, and the range of the jurisdiction they exercise. I ask the Minister to make it clear whether the new wording will allow those who sit as Crown court recorders, rather than as circuit judges, to exercise that jurisdiction. I understand why the Minister expressed his argument as he did and we accept his point in respect of those who are given the status of circuit judge purely in their ceremonial capacity, such as City of London aldermen. We thoroughly welcome his concession in response to our arguments.
          Amendments Nos. 67, 66, 167 and 166 would remove the words "either" and "or at once". We regard the matter as important. I shall listen to the Minister's response in due course, but I signal now the possibility of our pressing the amendments to a vote, especially amendment No. 66. Our aim is to make the operation of a new draconian measure more reasonable. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said, draconian powers that require the organs of the state to demand instant action are not normal. Usually, even when serious allegations are involved, there is provision to allow legal advice to be taken.
          I acknowledge the Minister's attempt to assist by saying that the matters may be dealt with in a code of practice, but we want to ensure that the procedure operates properly. The Government have said that the Bill complies in every respect with the Human Rights Act 1998—Ministers now have to certify that when they present a Bill. However, unless the Government accept a provision such as the one proposed in amendments Nos. 67, 66, 167, and 166, I wonder whether there is a danger that the procedure might be struck down in a future case. The Minister might say that the Government are prepared to risk it; I shall listen carefully.
          Similar concerns prompt amendment No. 63 in respect of civil recovery investigations. We wonder whether it is appropriate for such draconian powers to exist in what my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal correctly says is a civil procedure.
          Vera Baird: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He said that it had occurred to him that there might be a breach of the European convention on human rights as a result of the demand laid on someone to supply information or answer questions at once. If that is right, has he worked out which article of the convention he fears might be breached?
          Mr. Hawkins: I am tempted to say that that is a question of which I might require notice. I shall give the matter some thought, and perhaps I shall be able to respond more fully in a later intervention on the Minister or on the hon. Lady, after I have discussed the matter with my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield.
          I wanted to say that the Opposition welcome Government amendments Nos. 98 and 99. As the Minister said, such technical amendments are not expected to cause
          758
          much debate. They are tidying amendments, and we recognise that the Government are right to say that the High Court jurisdiction in Northern Ireland was more limited. The Government have undoubtedly been sensible to respond to that. Again, Government amendment No. 202 is purely technical in relation to the code of practice.
          Amendments Nos. 73 and 75 are more significant. They deal with the meaning of customer information, which is set out in clause 359(4). We feel that that matter should be referred to again in clause 447. Again, I shall listen to the comments of the Minister and other hon. Members on that. Government amendments Nos. 251, 103 and 253 are also technical, and we have no difficulty with them. I shall be interested to hear the contributions of right hon. and hon. Members.
          Mr. Adrian Bailey: I want to speak on new clauses 8 and 9, which I tabled along with the Chairman and other members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. We do not intend to press the new clauses to a vote. None the less, they outline issues that are clearly worthy of serious debate.
          Before I deal with the substance of those issues, I shall explain why I propose the new clauses. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee had a pre-arranged visit to Northern Ireland in pursuit of its inquiry into the financing of terrorism, and it was not anticipated that members of the Committee would return in time for this debate. Unfortunately, the timetabling of the debate was such that the original arrangements could not be altered. Having said that, some members of the Committee, whom I understand have taken an early flight back from Belfast, are present for this debate. Although I am still beholden to make our case, it is a reflection of the seriousness and concern with which they regard this issue that they have made such an effort.
          The Committee's objective was to pinpoint the key sources of paramilitary funds, and to examine ways in which the Government and law enforcement agencies could cut off those money flows. The Committee is still taking evidence and I am therefore restricted in what I can say. However, I can say that we learned very early in our consideration of the subject that there is an increasingly strong connection between paramilitary organisations and organised crime. As a result of that discovery, the focus of our inquiry has shifted to a certain extent.
          6.45 pm
          We recognise that the Bill is directed at more conventional criminality than paramilitary-linked outrages. Nevertheless, the added benefit of the Bill is its potential for cutting off the finance that fuels the flames of violence in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland has an Organised Crime Taskforce to tackle the problem, but the proposed Assets Recovery Agency will be an important and welcome addition and support.
          Although the Committee's examination of these issues has been in Northern Ireland, there can be no doubt that some considerations are common to fighting criminality anywhere in the UK. Above all, those who are subject to financial investigations are likely to be ruthless and vicious people, whether or not they have paramilitary links. The closer that such investigations get to the targets,

          759
          the more dangerous the targets are likely to become. That assumption lies behind new clauses 8 and 9, and it is one based on experience. The new clauses were prompted by recent visits to the Republic of Ireland, where we met and interviewed members of the Criminal Assets Bureau. The principal findings from our visit were published in our second report on 14 February, as previous speakers have mentioned.
          The Criminal Assets Bureau is the Irish equivalent of the proposed Assets Recovery Agency. We were told that the formation of the bureau in the mid-1990s arose from widespread public concern about the growth of organised crime, and especially about the murders of a policeman, Garda Jerry McCabe, and the investigative journalist, Veronica Guerin. Those two murders illustrated most clearly the potential dangers of the work that must be done. Over and above that, we heard other tales of intimidation, threats and violence against officials working on issues such as drug trafficking and social security.
          When inviting people to take posts as financial investigators or when staff of other agencies are involved in investigations, we must recognise that we are exposing people to risks for which they may never have been trained. The success of the agency will depend to a great extent on staff with professional skills who may never have envisaged being in the forefront of the fight against organised crime. In such circumstances, it is necessary to give them maximum protection. It seemed to the Committee that if we are to pursue serious criminals effectively, we need to provide officials who do so with a measure of protection. That protection will allow them to go about their work with confidence that no harm will come to them as a result. They and their families must also feel secure that no harm with come to their relatives.
          In the Republic of Ireland, that protection has been provided to civilian staff of the Criminal Assets Bureau through the statutory provision of anonymity. When staff participate in searches, they may be identified to the respondent only as "a member of the bureau staff", provided that they are accompanied by a member of the local Gardai. When letters are sent out about unpaid tax under the revenue Acts, they can be signed off merely in the name of the Criminal Assets Bureau, and not in the name of the individual conducting the investigation. Furthermore, it is an offence to identify publicly any member of the bureau's civilian staff or any member of his or her family. Staff of the Criminal Assets Bureau and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform have stressed to us just how important they believe that protection is in enabling the bureau to pursue the recovery of criminal assets effectively.
          The assets and money recovered are a measure of the bureau's success. So far, 50 cases brought under the Republic's proceeds of crime legislation have been taken through the courts successfully. As a result, 21 million punts have been frozen and a further 28 million punts taken in tax. Given the time scale involved, there will be further returns from assets that are currently frozen.
          The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee recognises the potential for the Assets Recovery Agency to play a similar role in pursuing organised crime. We want it to be as effective as the Criminal Assets Bureau in the Republic of Ireland, if not better. Protection for the staff of the new
          760
          agency will be vital, both in encouraging the right people to take up the work and, above all, in enabling them to concentrate on the work without fear of personal danger.
          We tabled new clauses 8 and 9 because it was not apparent to us that such protection would be provided under the Bill. We do not claim that the new clauses provide all the answers to all the questions posed.
          Mr. Michael Mates: I thank the hon. Gentleman for speaking to the new clauses so ably on behalf of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I wrote to the Minister on behalf of the Committee when we published our special report and, as a result of receiving a generous response suggesting what he might say tonight, we discussed the issue when the Committee met in Belfast this morning. We concluded that his reply was as far as we could expect a Minister to go given the short notice and the circumstances. We welcome the suggestion that he will consider the matter closely and sympathetically. That is why the Committee decided that we should not press the new clauses to a vote.
          Mr. Bailey: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments. As a member of the Committee who was not in Belfast, I am glad that by a process of intellectual osmosis I was able to reach the right conclusion.
          I welcome the assurances that my hon. Friend the Minister gave in his opening remarks and his constructive engagement with this issue. I accept his genuine desire to find a way forward to overcome some of the legal obstacles. On the basis of that, I thank him and hope that he will take seriously the comments made in the debate and will do everything within his power to address the issues that have been raised.
          Norman Baker: I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey). He put his case with moderation and probably convinced nearly everyone in the Chamber of the validity of his arguments. I also welcome the fact that the Minister has been good enough to say that he believes that there is merit in those arguments and that he will consider them. As the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) said, that is as much as we can expect of a Minister at this stage.
          New clause 8 has considerable merits. Liberal Democrat Members support it and my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), our Northern Ireland spokesman, expressed his support when I discussed the matter with him earlier. It seems sensible not to press the new clause to a vote, and I must point out to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), with whom I worked on and off in Committee, that we are working under a guillotine. Therefore, if a Minister says that he will consider a new clause carefully, it is not a sensible use of time to spend 15 minutes in the Division Lobbies, not least because a Division now might persuade Labour to vote the wrong way when we want them to vote the right way after they have had a chance to consider the matter.
          One point that I would make in passing about new clause 8 is that it is paramount that, if the safety of an individual is compromised or could be compromised, anonymity should be provided for the individual. Equally, checks and balances must be in place to ensure that the facility for anonymity is not misused. If there is a choice

          761
          between accountability and safety, safety must come first. Let us make sure that the process is not misused if it is introduced.
          Another point occurs to me but it probably goes beyond this debate. It is important to ensure proper co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Criminal Assets Bureau in the Republic. If we are to make the Bill work properly, a concordat or a similar measure should be in place to ensure co-operation. Perhaps it takes place already, but Northern Ireland Members will know more about that than I do.
          I am sorry to return to the arguments of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, but it is not fair to criticise the Government for the time that they have allocated to the Bill. Such criticism is not appropriate. They provided 39 steps—if I may call them that—in Committee and a great deal of time. If members of the Committee did not reach the amendments that they wanted to discuss, we should look to ourselves and the way in which we used our time instead of blaming the Government.
          I am not particularly convinced that amendments Nos. 67, 66, 167 and 166, which were tabled by Conservative Members, are the appropriate way forward. I am not sure that they make sense. Amendments Nos. 66 and 67 would delete the words "either" and "or at once" in clause 352(4)(a), which is the paragraph that deals with answering questions, but the same words also appear in subsection (4)(c), which covers the production of documents. As far as I can see—I might have misread the amendments—the words are not deleted in that paragraph. Therefore, if the Conservative amendments are approved, there would be no requirement to answer questions at once, but there would be a requirement to produce documents at once. That might be the intention of Conservative Members, but it appears a little inconsistent.
          Mr. Hawkins: Answering questions at once is very different from having to produce documents forthwith. Much legislation already contains the requirement to produce documents forthwith, but there is a danger involved in forcing people to answer questions at once without their having any opportunity to take advice. This point also gives me an opportunity to respond to the hon. Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), because there is also the danger that the Government may face problems under articles 6(3)[b] and 6(3)[c] of the European convention on human rights when these matters are analysed in the courts.
          Norman Baker: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has taken the opportunity to refer to the relevant articles of the convention. Perhaps the hon. Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), who knows more about these matters than I do, might wish to vouchsafe whether they are the relevant articles.
          If it is inappropriate to require questions to be answered at once, it is even more inappropriate to require documents to be produced at once. After all, one can answer a question after one has received legal advice, and the Minister has referred to the safeguards that he wishes to introduce. I hope that he will provide more information on how the safeguards will work to ensure that people are not unduly forced to provide information if they have not received legal advice. He suggested that he was aware of the issue, and I would be grateful if he could pick up on that point.
          762
          A person can theoretically answer a question at once, but they could not necessarily produce a document at once, perhaps because it was elsewhere. In a sense, it is a more onerous requirement. In addition, clause 352(4(b) contains the requirement to
          "produce information specified in the notice, by a time and in a manner so specified".
          The time specified could be immediately, so the deletion of the words "or at once" does not get round the problem that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) tried to identify. Unusually, the hon. Gentleman's amendment does not make a great deal of sense and is not coherent. It is not justified if the Minister has the safeguards in mind to which he referred. I shall be grateful if he expands on that.
          7 pm
          I am not convinced that the requirement to have answers at once, if there are safeguards, would breach the Human Rights Act. I shall be interested to hear whether the hon. Member for Redcar has a view on that. I am keen to invoke the 1998 Act wherever possible. It is good legislation and one of the best things that the Government have done. I am struggling to find a means by which it could be applied in the way that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath would like to see.
          Let us allow the Minister to leave the House and think about new clause 8. I am happy, for the sake of appearing not to be too supportive of the Conservatives, to disagree with their amendments in the group that is before us.
          John Robertson: I am pleased that new clauses 8 and 9 have been accepted in principle, if not in their entirety. I am glad that I will not have to decide which Lobby to pass through, as it seems that the proposals will not be put to a vote. The Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs should be congratulated on the work that it has done.
          I shall move on to amendment No. 63, and I hope that I will be intervened on when I ask my questions. Why do the Tories not want an offence of prejudicing investigation in the context of a civil recovery investigation? It might be said that it is a draconian measure, but draconian to whom—the victims of crime, or those who profit by crime? To me, a draconian measure would suggest that everybody suffers. But the only people who appear to me to be suffering at present are the victims of crime.
          I am in a quandary yet again in relation to amendments Nos. 66, 167 and 168, which are basically the same. Those amendments would seem to be advantageous to those who in the director's opinion have information. Why would we not want to gain information, and why would we not want to obtain it quickly? Criminals can move vast sums quickly, so surely we would want to get hold of them immediately. As I mentioned earlier in terms of the Drug Enforcement Agency in Scotland and Strathclyde police, the point was made on several occasions that we must seize assets quickly and, if possible, obtain the relevant information even more quickly. Why are we seeking to introduce measures that would lengthen the time during which we secure information? Perhaps the Opposition's spokesman will answer these questions for me in his summing up.
          Mr. Mark Field: The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that I shall leave the summing up to my Front-Bench spokesman.

          763
          It is easy to see these things in black and white, and I think that what we have tried to do throughout is to look at them in shades of grey. The innocent parties who concern the Conservatives and whose interests need to be protected are on the whole—though not exclusively—innocent members of the public who find the juggernaut of a new state agency up against them. It is against the background of the almost Kafkaesque world in which it would seem some Labour Members try to live that we have tabled what we hope are searching amendments. That is not to say that the general thrust of what is being proposed is not supported by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
          Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is developing into a speech.
          John Robertson: I understand the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's questions, but it is time that the juggernaut to which he refers got to grips with crime. The Conservative Government were in power for a long time but they did not get to grips with it. The Labour Government have been in power for more than four years, and we have not properly come to grips with it. The Bill is the best measure that I have seen to enable us to get hold of criminals and their ill-gotten gains—assets that have been taken from those who have become drug addicts, or from organised crime in large cities or smaller ones. Perhaps we have got to the crux of the matter as regards Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, as I think they call themselves. Perhaps they have become total oppositionists who feel that they have to oppose every Bill that the Government put before the House and to advance reasons for so doing. That is sad.
          Mr. Wilshire: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Opposition oppose only for the sake of it, will he explain why it is that when we have opposed certain things those on the Government Front Bench have agreed with us, accepted our opposition and brought forward amendments? Surely that undermines the hon. Gentleman's argument.
          John Robertson: There is always the exception that proves the rule.
          We listen. We have become a listening Government, much to the annoyance of the Opposition. The fact that we may have listened to some of the arguments and found something worth listening to probably surprises me more than anyone. The fact remains that the Opposition oppose everything that the Government put before the House, and especially this Bill.
          Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the opportunity to make a few comments, given that I intervened earlier. I share the concern that has been expressed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) about dealing with drug addicts and about smuggling in Scotland. The lesson that has been coming through is that the best way to tackle these folk is to hit them where it hurts, and that is through their finances and by dealing with the crimes that they are committing. Like the hon. Gentleman, I do not believe that there is a juggernaut directed against the citizens of the United Kingdom.
          764
          If anything, it is a juggernaut against those who have been growing rich on the poverty and misery of others in the UK.
          I speak as a Northern Ireland Member, but I have always thought of myself as a British Member of Parliament. When Northern Ireland Members illustrate our experience, I regret that it is thought that we are dealing only with Northern Ireland. I understand that recently in Yorkshire there was a vast smuggling expedition, which had an impact on the Treasury. There might have been some people from Ireland, but at this stage I cannot comment emphatically.
          The Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs took the opportunity, as the Bill was passing through Parliament, to highlight some gaps. We welcome the fact that the Government are ready to examine these matters. I trust that before the Bill leaves the House, some amendments will be accepted and fine tuned. There is some time to go.
          As I have said, some gaps have been noted. For example, people speak of the relationship between Northern Ireland and southern Ireland. In the Northern Ireland courts, recently, we were able to imprison a person who was retailing illegal petrol, but we could not deal with the person in the Republic who supplied it. Why was that? The answer is that in international terms there seems to be no legislation that allows for extradition for fiscal charges.
          It seems to me that ultimately all crime comes down to fiscal issues. There is the person in poverty who steals because she wants to feed a child and has not the money to do so. That is a fiscal problem. The Government must consider the issue with their colleagues in the European Union and perhaps elsewhere to ascertain whether something can be done to cross frontiers.
          When members of the Select Committee visited the Republic, we discovered that perhaps one of the greatest benefactors of what has been going on possibly lives in the east end of London. It is an interesting world that we live in. Anyone who thinks that the Bill has been introduced simply because of Northern Ireland or, for that matter, the Republic, should think again.
          I regret to have to say that in the House some years back, a former Minister in the Northern Ireland Office defended the fact that social security was provided for a person who had a job in this place that he would not take up. He would not take up a job, yet the family was getting social security. Why? Because otherwise some social security staff might have been endangered. That is why the concept of anonymity must be tackled seriously. I urge the Government not just to consider the matter, but to press ahead with the necessary legislative changes before the Bill returns to us in this place.
          Vera Baird: I join colleagues who have complimented the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, particularly its Chairman, on the convincing, honest and straightforward way in which the Committee presented its arguments.
          I shall deal briefly with amendments Nos. 66 and 67, which would amend clause 352, under which a judge can make a disclosure order which might require someone to answer questions at a time specified in a notice at a place specified in a notice, or at once. I agree with the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) that amendment

          765
          No. 66 does not deal with the problem, if problem it be, because even if the words "at once" are removed, as long as one leaves in the power to specify a time and a place in the notice, one can specify the time and place of delivery of the notice, which is the same as "at once".
          Mr. Grieve: I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady, but I disagree with her slightly. If the words "at once" were removed, the court would have to infer reasonableness in the way in which the order was defined. I would consider it unreasonable for an immediate demand to be made, when it is clear from the rest of the clause that a time and place to be specified ought to give the person at least time to prepare himself. Removing "at once" removes a mischief.
          Vera Baird: I take the hon. Gentleman's point—he does have a point—but bearing in mind the tenor of the power in clause 352, I am less sanguine that the courts would necessarily connote that reasonableness involved the opportunity to delay. That is my concern about the entire clause. Whether the power to order answers at once is express or implied, that difficulty arises. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can help me with that.
          I do not believe that there is a breach of the human rights convention and article 6.3. There is no human right not to answer questions. What matters is the use to which the answers are put thereafter. Of course, under clause 49 the director can pass on information which has been obtained by means of those unique powers. That may cause a difficulty, but it is the subject of a later debate.
          Mr. Hawkins: Both my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and I are listening carefully to the hon. Lady. Does she recognise that those of us who have practised in the courts are familiar with the many occasions on which the standard police warning—the caution—is given: "You are not obliged to say anything, but anything you say will be taken down and may be used in evidence"? The new procedure has no provision for cautioning. Does the hon. Lady consider that if we leave the words requiring somebody to answer questions at once, without taking any advice at all, there is cause for concern? I appreciate that, in part, she supports us on the matter
          Vera Baird: It is obviously a long time since the hon. Gentleman was in practice, if he thinks that the caution takes that form any more, or has done for the past decade. I do not accept entirely what he says about caution and the absence of a caution from the clause. There are powers in the financial services provisions and in the fraud provision to require answers without the need for caution. The limitation is on what the answers can be used for.
          The dilemma is this: whether, at common law—leave out human rights entirely—there ought in all realism to be a right to take legal advice. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) does not imagine that the wealthy criminals whom the Bill attacks keep their lawyers in a box, drinking wine and waiting in case the director should come to call. How will the power to demand answers at once—whether that power is express or, as I suggest it would be, implied—be consistent with giving people their basic right to be advised? The Minister will recall that the matter was raised in Committee, but it was never resolved. That remains my anxiety.
          7.15 pm
          Mr. Davidson: I do not intend to answer the question, "How many lawyers should fit in a box?"
          I shall follow on from the earlier point about the interrelationship between crimes. Just as the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee explored the subject of petrol smuggling in Northern Ireland directly, so indirectly did the Public Accounts Committee. That discussion made clear the extent to which drugs, petrol smuggling and other crimes were all tied in together and all involved money laundering. Interestingly, it also showed how the outwardly respectable are clearly involved in illegal activities.
          In the case of petrol smuggling, there is no doubt that the large oil companies are major players in the field. They supply enormous amounts of fuel to petrol stations just over the border in the Republic, knowing that such quantities of fuel will not be consumed in the immediate area. They are, so to speak, fuelling the smuggling trade by providing enormous quantities to those who they know, or ought to know, are using it for illegal purposes, in the same way as the tobacco companies collaborated in smuggling in various locations.
          The words "at once" are an important element of the clause, in terms of providing both documents and answers, but particularly documents. Over the years, I have been surprised by the number of businesses in trouble which have fires in their offices. That is obviously entirely coincidental and nothing whatever to do with any suggestion of malpractice, but if the police or other authorities have an interest in documents, it is clearly important that they are produced at once, before they spontaneously combust.
          Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman may have been temporarily absent when it was made clear that we have not sought to amend the provisions of the Bill in relation to documents. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) said that to be consistent, we ought to have done so, and we pointed out in response that there is a difference. It is perfectly well understood in the law that one must produce documents at once. Our amendment seeks to avoid the obligation to answer questions at once.
          Mr. Davidson: I was sure that even the Conservatives would not have the gall to suggest that documents should not be provided at once in the circumstances, even though, from their conduct in the Committee, it seemed possible that we were moving in that direction. All the parties represented in the Chamber, with the nationalists, who were not on the Committee, will be aware of the approach that the Conservatives generally took.
          I return to the matter of providing verbal answers at once. I have a difficulty with the prospect of people being tipped off that the authorities want to investigate some matter, and preparing an alibi and the lies that they will tell. That is as true of lawyers, accountants and bankers as of anyone else. There should be a provision for answers to be demanded at once. I fear that to delete such a provision would in some circumstances be to draw the teeth of the legislation. I accept that, if possible, it would be better to allow people time to prepare and to lift their lawyers, who may or may not have been drinking wine, out of the box, but there will be circumstances in which that is not in the public interest. The provision should be

          767
          allowed to remain as it stands, the better to protect the people whom many of my colleagues and I represent, rather than the crooks and shysters for whom the Opposition want to find loopholes.
          Mr. Bob Ainsworth: I shall be brief. I am not seeking to offend anyone, but as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) read his prepared script and appeared not to have listened to any of my comments on the amendments, I do not see any reason why I should say the same things again. The hon. Gentleman asked whether recorders were covered. That is precisely what was sought in Committee; they are covered, so they will be available and able to help.
          We discussed the term "at once" in Committee and I accept that it is exercising people. I do not want to go into detail on what the guidance will cover; indeed, I do not think that I can do so. The guidance that we envisage in new clauses 4 and 12 is designed to deal with the concerns raised in the amendments. That is our purpose and intention. It is not our intention to override people's rights to representation. However, some hon. Members appear to be encouraging me to preclude the ability to question people at once. Such questioning can be a very useful tool and I want to try to leave it available for use in appropriate circumstances, but yes, I also want to make certain that people have the right to advice, representation and the rest. Those are exactly the issues that I shall seek to cover in the code.
          Mr. Grieve: Will the Minister give way?
          Mr. Ainsworth: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment; I notice that his hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), who raised concerns in that regard, is temporarily out of his seat. Disclosure orders cannot lead to criminal proceedings, so some of his comments were unnecessary and uncalled for.
          Mr. Grieve: Clearly, the code of practice has the potential to be very helpful. However, if, as I think is likely, the code says that somebody who is required to answer questions should be given time—it may not be very long; even half an hour might be specified—to understand and check their legal position, will not that be the most compelling of reasons to remove from the Bill the extraordinary two words, "at once"? The term is simply unnecessary and imposes a fetter through its insistence on immediate replies—an insistence that could turn out to be incompatible with the guidelines that I suspect may be produced.
          Mr. Ainsworth: I shall try to satisfy the hon. Gentleman at some point during the Bill's passage that the sort of issues that he raises are unreasonable and unacceptable, and that we will seek to cover such concerns in other ways. I do not want to preclude in all circumstances the ability to require somebody to give information at once, and I shall try to avoid doing so.
          John Robertson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in half an hour, millions, if not billions, of pounds could
          768
          move between one country and another? Should not such matters be dealt with immediately, and not in half an hour's time?
          Mr. Ainsworth: I agree with my hon. Friend that such events can occur. However, it is not reasonable to demand information there and then in all circumstances without access to advice and all the rest of it. None the less, my hon. Friend raises a genuine issue and we will try to cover it.
          On the issue raised by members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, I am trying to get the balance right. I do not want to indicate that this is a done deal or that I can satisfy them completely. I hope that I have explained that there are considerable hurdles, while impressing upon them that I am not attempting to fob them off in any way; that I recognise the issues; and that I shall do my level best to ensure that we can do something that is effective if that is in any way possible. I am trying to get the balance right: I do not want those hon. Members to walk out of the Chamber thinking "We're okay, we've done it; there aren't any problems", but neither do I want them to walk away with the opposite view. I am trying genuinely to say that I do not want my officials or anybody else to think that this is not a serious issue that wants serious examination. If we can find ways and means of giving such useful protections, we should seek to do so.
          Question put and agreed to.
          Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

        New Clause 12

          CODE OF PRACTICE (No. 2)
          '(1) The Scottish Ministers must prepare a code of practice as to the exercise by proper persons of functions they have under this Chapter.

          (2) After preparing a draft of the code the Scottish Ministers—

          (a) must publish the draft;

          (b) must consider any representations made to them about the draft;

          (c) may amend the draft accordingly.

          (3) After the Scottish Ministers have proceeded under subsection (2) they must lay the code before the Scottish Parliament.

          (4) When they have done so, the Scottish Ministers may bring the code into operation on such day as they may appoint by order.

          (5) A proper person must comply with a code of practice which is in operation under this section in the exercise of any function he has under this Chapter.

          (6) If a proper person fails to comply with any provision of a code of practice issued under this section he is not by reason only of that failure liable in any criminal or civil proceedings.

          (7) But the code of practice is admissible in evidence in such proceedings and a court may take account of any failure to comply with its provisions in determining any questions in the proceedings.

          (8) The Scottish Ministers may from time to time revise a code previously brought into operation under this section; and the preceding provisions of this section apply to a revised code as they apply to the code as first prepared.'.—[Mrs.. McGuire.]

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

        New Clause 14

          PERFORMANCE OF FUNCTIONS OF SCOTTISH MINISTERS BY CONSTABLES IN SCOTLAND (NO. 2)
          '(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) section 373(1) (production orders),

          (b) section 375(2) (entry orders),

          (c) section 379(4) (supplementary to production and entry orders),

          (d) section 380(1) (search warrants),

          (e) section 384(1) (disclosure orders),

          (f) section 389(4) (supplementary to disclosure orders),

          (g) section 390(1) (customer information orders),

          (h) section 396(4) (supplementary to customer information orders),

          (i) section 397(1) (account monitoring orders),

          (j) section 401(4) (supplementary to account monitoring orders).'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

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

        Clause 338

          JUDGES
          Amendment made: No. 108, in page 198, line 17, leave out "Circuit judge" and insert—
          judge entitled to exercise the jurisdiction of the Crown Court'.— [Mrs. McGuire.]

          Clause 343

            FURTHER PROVISIONS
            Amendments made: No. 64, in page 200, line 3, leave out from first "material" to end of line 4.
            No. 109, in page 200, line 8, leave out subsection (3).—[Mrs. McGuire.]

          Clause 349

            FURTHER PROVISIONS: GENERAL
            Amendments made: No. 65, in page 204, line 17, leave out from first "material" to end of line 18.
            No. 110, in page 204, line 22, leave out subsection (3).—[Mrs. McGuire.]

          Clause 352

            DISCLOSURE ORDERS
            Amendment proposed: No. 66, in page 206, line 11, leave out "or at once".—[Mr. Hawkins.]
            Question put, That the amendment be made:—
            The House divided: Ayes 124, Noes 318.

            Division No. 173]

            [7.27 pm

            AYES

            Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

            Liddell-Grainger, Ian

            Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

            Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

            Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

            Loughton, Tim

            Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

            McIntosh, Miss Anne

            Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

            MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

            Baldry, Tony

            Maclean, Rt Hon David

            Baron, John

            McLoughlin, Patrick

            Bellingham, Henry

            Malins, Humfrey

            Bercow, John

            Maples, John

            Blunt, Crispin

            Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

            Boswell, Tim

            Mercer, Patrick

            Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

            Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

            Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

            Moss, Malcolm

            Brady, Graham

            Murrison, Dr Andrew

            Brazier, Julian

            Ottaway, Richard

            Browning, Mrs. Angela

            Page, Richard

            Burnside, David

            Paice, James

            Burt, Alistair

            Paterson, Owen

            Butterfill, John

            Prisk, Mark

            Cameron, David

            Randall, John

            Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

            Redwood, Rt Hon John

            Cash, William

            Robathan, Andrew

            Chope, Christopher

            Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

            Clappison, James

            Roe, Mrs. Marion

            Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

            Ruffley, David

            Collins, Tim

            Sayeed, Jonathan

            Conway, Derek

            Selous, Andrew

            Cormack, Sir Patrick

            Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

            Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

            Shepherd, Richard

            Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

            Simmonds, Mark

            Djanogly, Jonathan

            Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

            Dodds, Nigel

            Soames, Nicholas

            Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

            Spelman, Mrs Caroline

            Evans, Nigel

            Spicer, Sir Michael

            Fabricant, Michael

            Spink, Bob

            Fallon, Michael

            Spring, Richard

            Field, Mark (Cities of London)

            Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

            Flight, Howard

            Steen, Anthony

            Forth, Rt Hon Eric

            Streeter, Gary

            Fox, Dr Liam

            Swayne, Desmond

            Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

            Swire, Hugo

            Goodman, Paul

            Syms, Robert

            Gray, James

            Tapsell, Sir Peter

            Grayling, Chris

            Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

            Green, Damian (Ashford)

            Taylor, John (Solihull)

            Grieve, Dominic

            Taylor, Sir Teddy

            Gummer, Rt Hon John

            Tredinnick, David

            Hammond, Philip

            Trend, Michael

            Hawkins, Nick

            Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

            Hayes, John

            Tyrie, Andrew

            Hoban, Mark

            Viggers, Peter

            Howard, Rt Hon Michael

            Waterson, Nigel

            Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

            Watkinson, Angela

            Jack, Rt Hon Michael

            Whittingdale, John

            Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

            Wiggin, Bill

            Johnson, Boris (Henley)

            Wilshire, David

            Key, Robert

            Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

            Kirkbride, Miss Julie

            Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

            Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

            Yeo, Tim

            Laing, Mrs Eleanor

            Young, Rt Hon Sir George

            Lait, Mrs Jacqui

            Lansley, Andrew

            Tellers for the Ayes:

            Letwin, Oliver

            Mr. Peter Luff and

            Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

            Mr. Laurence Robertson.

            NOES

            Abbott, Ms Diane

            Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

            Ainger, Nick

            Atherton, Ms Candy

            Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

            Atkins, Charlotte

            Allan, Richard

            Bailey, Adrian

            Allen, Graham

            Baird, Vera

            Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

            Baker, Norman

            Banks, Tony

            Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

            Barron, Kevin

            771

            Battle, John

            Drown, Ms Julia

            Bayley, Hugh

            Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

            Beard, Nigel

            Efford, Clive

            Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

            Ewing, Annabelle

            Beggs, Roy

            Fisher, Mark

            Berth, Rt Hon A J

            Fitzpatrick, Jim

            Bell, Stuart

            Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

            Benn, Hilary

            Flint, Caroline

            Bennett, Andrew

            Foster, Rt Hon Derek

            Benton, Joe

            Foster, Don (Bath)

            Berry, Roger

            Foster, Michael (Worcester)

            Betts, Clive

            Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

            Blackman, Liz

            Foulkes, George

            Blears, Ms Hazel

            Francis, Dr Hywel

            Borrow, David

            Galloway, George

            Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

            Gapes, Mike

            Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

            Gardiner, Barry

            Breed, Colin

            George, Andrew (St Ives)

            Brennan, Kevin

            George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

            Brooke, Mrs Annette L

            Gibson, Dr Ian

            Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

            Gilroy, Linda

            Goggins, Paul

            Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

            Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

            Browne, Desmond

            Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

            Bryant, Chris

            Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

            Burgon, Colin

            Grogan, John

            Burnett, John

            Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

            Cable, Dr Vincent

            Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

            Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

            Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

            Cairns, David

            Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

            Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

            Hancock, Mike

            Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

            Hanson, David

            Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

            Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

            Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

            Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

            Havard, Dai

            Caplin, Ivor

            Healey, John

            Carmichael, Alistair

            Heath, David

            Casale, Roger

            Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

            Caton, Martin

            Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

            Cawsey, Ian

            Hendrick, Mark

            Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

            Hepburn, Stephen

            Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

            Hermon, Lady

            Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

            Hill, Keith

            Holmes, Paul

            Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

            Hood, Jimmy

            Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

            Hope, Phil

            Clelland, David

            Hopkins, Kelvin

            Clwyd, Ann

            Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

            Coaker, Vernon

            Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

            Coffey, Ms Ann

            Hoyle, Lindsay

            Colman, Tony

            Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

            Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

            Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

            Corston, Jean

            Humble, Mrs Joan

            Cotter, Brian

            Iddon, Dr Brian

            Cousins, Jim

            Illsley, Eric

            Cranston, Ross

            Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

            Crausby, David

            Irranca-Davies, Huw

            Cruddas, Jon

            Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

            Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

            Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

            Cummings, John

            Jamieson, David

            Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

            Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

            Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

            Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

            Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

            Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

            Davey, Edward (Kingston)

            Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

            Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

            Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

            Davidson, Ian

            Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

            Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

            Joyce, Eric

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

            Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

            Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

            Dawson, Hilton

            Kemp, Fraser

            Dean, Mrs Janet

            Khabra, Piara S

            Denham, Rt Hon John

            Kidney, David

            Dhanda, Parmjit

            Kilfoyle, Peter

            Dobbin, Jim

            King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

            Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

            King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

            Drew, David

            Kirkwood, Archy

            772

            Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

            Rapson, Syd

            Kumar, Dr Ashok

            Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

            Ladyman, Dr Stephen

            Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

            Lamb, Norman

            Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

            Lammy, David

            Robertson, Angus (Moray)

            Laws, David

            Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

            Laxton, Bob

            Lazarowicz, Mark

            Rooney, Terry

            Lepper, David

            Ross, Ernie

            Leslie, Christopher

            Roy, Frank

            Levitt, Tom

            Ruane, Chris

            Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

            Ruddock, Joan

            Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

            Russell, Bob (Colchester)

            Linton, Martin

            Salmond, Alex

            Lloyd, Tony

            Sanders, Adrian

            Llwyd, Elfyn

            Sarwar, Mohammad

            Love, Andrew

            Savidge, Malcolm

            Lucas, Ian

            Sawford, Phil

            Luke, Iain

            Sedgemore, Brian

            McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

            Sheerman, Barry

            McDonagh, Siobhain

            Sheridan, Jim

            MacDonald, Calum

            Shipley, Ms Debra

            MacDougall, John

            Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

            McFall, John

            Singh, Marsha

            McGuire, Mrs Anne

            Skinner, Dennis

            McIsaac, Shona

            Smith, Angela (Basildon)

            McKechin, Ann

            Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

            Mackinlay, Andrew

            Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

            McNulty, Tony

            Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

            MacShane, Denis

            Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

            Mactaggart, Fiona

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

            McWalter, Tony

            Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

            Mahmood, Khalid

            Soley, Clive

            Mallaber, Judy

            Southworth, Helen

            Mann, John

            Squire, Rachel

            Marris, Rob

            Starkey, Dr Phyllis

            Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

            Stevenson, George

            Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

            Stewart, David (Inverness E)

            Marshall-Andrews, Robert

            Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

            Martlew, Eric

            Stinchcombe, Paul

            Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

            Stoate, Dr Howard

            Merron, Gillian

            Stringer, Graham

            Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

            Sutcliffe, Gerry

            Moffatt, Laura

            Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

            Mole, Chris

            Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

            Moonie, Dr Lewis

            Taylor, David (NW Leics)

            Morgan, Julie

            Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

            Morley, Elliot

            Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

            Mudie, George

            Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

            Mullin, Chris

            Tipping, Paddy

            Munn, Ms Meg

            Tonge, Dr Jenny

            Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

            Touhig, Don

            Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

            Trickett, Jon

            Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

            Truswell, Paul

            Naysmith, Dr Doug

            Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

            Oaten, Mark

            Twigg, Derek (Halton)

            O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

            Tyler, Paul

            Olner, Bill

            Tynan, Bill

            Organ, Diana

            Vis, Dr Rudi

            Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

            Walley, Ms Joan

            Owen, Albert

            Ward, Ms Claire

            Palmer, Dr Nick

            Wareing, Robert N

            Perham, Linda

            Watts, David

            Picking, Anne

            Weir, Michael

            Pickthall, Colin

            White, Brian

            Plaskitt, James

            Whitehead, Dr Alan

            Pond, Chris

            Wicks, Malcolm

            Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

            Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

            Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

            Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

            Price, Adam

            Williams, Roger (Brecon)

            Primarolo, Dawn

            Wills, Michael

            Prosser, Gwyn

            Winnick, David

            Pugh, Dr John

            Wishart, Pete

            Purnell, James

            Wood, Mike

            Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

            Woolas, Phil

            Quinn, Lawrie

            Worthington, Tony

            773

            Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

            Tellers for the Noes:

            Wright, David (Telford)

            Mr. John Heppell and

            Wright, Tony (Cannock)

            Younger-Ross, Richard

            Mr. Ian Pearson.

            Question accordingly negatived.
            Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We seek your ruling on an incident that has just happened, in which the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) entered the Division Lobby after the doors had been closed, by going past the Tellers. I understand that he was not counted in the vote, but could you perhaps inform the House that it is not allowable for anyone to enter the Lobby by any means after the doors have been closed, and that hon. Members should be aware of that?
            Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin). I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) for having come to the Chair to confess his sin. He made an error that should not be perpetrated by hon. Members, and I assure the House that his name has not been counted in the tally that we have just heard, and that it will not be shown in the record of the vote.

          Clause 356
            FURTHER PROVISIONS
            Amendment made: No. 111, in page 207, line 42, leave out subsection (5).—[Mr. Foulkes.]
          Clause 370

            CONFISCATION AND MONEY LAUNDERING
            Amendments made: No. 98, in page 214, line 10, leave out subsection (1).
            No. 99, in page 214, line 28, at end insert—
            '(8) This section does not apply to orders made in England and Wales for the purposes of a civil recovery investigation.'.—[Mr. Foulkes.]

          Clause 376
            FURTHER PROVISIONS
            Amendment made: No. 165, in page 217, line 9, leave out from "privilege" to end of line 10.—[Mr. Foulkes.]
          Clause 408

            MODIFICATIONS OF THE 1986 ACT
            Amendment made: No. 100, in page 233, line 26, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
            '(c) any property in respect of which an order under section 131(3) is in force;'.—[Mr. Foulkes.]

          New Clause 10

            RESTRICTION ON DISCLOSURE FOR OVERSEAS PURPOSES (No. 2)
            '(1) Section 18 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (restrictions on disclosure of information for overseas purposes) applies to a disclosure of information authorised by section 429(1)(a) or (b) or 433(1)(a) or (b).
            (2) In the application of section 18 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 by virtue of subsection (1) section 20 of that Act must be ignored and the following subsection is substituted for subsection (2) of section 18 of that Act—
            "(2) In subsection (1) the reference, in relation to a direction, to a relevant disclosure is a reference to a disclosure which—

            (a) is made for a purpose authorised by section 429(1)(a) or (b) or 433(1)(a) or (b) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and

            (b) is of any such information as is described in the direction.".'.—[Mr. Foulkes.]

            Brought up, and read the First time.
            Mr. Foulkes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
            Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 69, in clause 429, page 249, line 37, leave out paragraph (a).
            Amendment No. 70, in page 249, line 39, leave out paragraph (b).
            Government amendments Nos. 237 to 250, 252 and 254.
            Mr. Foulkes: I am pleased to be at the Dispatch Box, even at this late hour. I was beginning to feel a bit redundant—almost superfluous, even a supernumerary. However, I am glad that I now have the opportunity to move new clause 10.
            New clause 10 would bring the powers in clauses 429 and 433 to disclose information for the purposes of an overseas criminal investigation or overseas criminal proceedings within the scope of section 18 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Section 18 of that Act provides power for the Secretary of State to issue a direction to restrict disclosure of information for overseas purposes. The power may be exercised when it appears to the Secretary of State that the overseas investigation or proceeding relates to a matter in which it would be more appropriate for any investigation to be carried out by the authorities of the United Kingdom or a third country.
            We believe that if the Secretary of State makes such a direction in respect of the bodies covered by the 2001 Act, the restriction should also apply to the director, the Lord Advocate or the Scottish Ministers when they make a disclosure in relation to overseas criminal investigations and proceedings. It would not be consistent to allow for such a disclosure to be made under the Bill, when other bodies might be prevented from disclosing information.
            The new clause specifically provides that section 18 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act applies to disclosures by the director under clause 429(1)(a) or (b) and clause 433(1)(a) or (b).
            I now come to Opposition amendments Nos. 69 and 70.
            Mr. Wilshire: Very good!
            Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman, who migrates between being a Whip, a Back Bencher and a Parliamentary Private Secretary—he is a multi-purpose Tory Member—says that the amendments are very good.
            Mr. Wilshire: Having given me three roles, would the Minister care to tell the House which one I am best at?
            Mr. Foulkes: Yes, I would. I think that he is probably best as a Back Bencher.
            Mr. Carmichael: He has a better future as a Back Bencher.
            Mr. Foulkes: Indeed he does. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), as I was in Committee, for giving me the opportunity to respond more effectively.
            Clause 429(1) sets out the purposes for which the director may disclose information. Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 would delete the paragraphs that would allow the disclosure of information for the purposes of a criminal investigation or for criminal proceedings, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.
            When we discussed this issue in Committee, the concern was that clause 429(1)(a) and (b) would mean an increase in the powers of the law enforcement authorities, in particular that they could be passed information obtained under powers that were not available to them but were available to the director. I recall that debate, as I am sure that the hon. Member for Spelthorne and others do. We said in Committee that we would reflect further on whether this concern was covered by the judicial approval that is required for the exercise of the director's powers.
            7.45 pm
            I can now tell the House that we are not convinced that there is the scope for abuse suggested in Committee, in terms of cases being referred to the director with the intention of the director using his powers for the benefit of the law enforcement agencies. There will be memorandums of understanding about the cases to be taken on by the director, and any abuse of the powers would soon become evident. The director can only act within his powers, so he can seek the part 8 orders only to help with the exercise of his functions. All these orders are subject to judicial oversight—an extra safeguard—and it is very unlikely that an order would be granted if it were sought for the wrong reason.
            We certainly do not agree that the director should be prevented from disclosing any information for the purposes of a criminal investigation or proceedings, which would be the effect of the amendments. That would prevent the passing of information obtained through means unavailable to the law enforcement agencies, which seems unnecessary. But—having, perhaps, been unhelpful to Conservative Members on that matter—we accept that there is concern that, under the Bill as it stands, information obtained by the director under a disclosure order could be disclosed to the law enforcement authorities.
            The disclosure order is a particularly far-reaching power; it is granted to the director alone, solely for use in confiscation and civil recovery investigations. We accept that there is an issue with the idea that information that the law enforcement authorities could not have obtained through the exercise of their own powers might be made available to them through disclosure by the director. We therefore propose that restrictions should be placed on the disclosure of information that the director has obtained under a disclosure order, so that it could not be disclosed for the purposes at clause 429(1)(a) and (b). I can tell the Conservative spokesman that we will consider further whether such information obtained under a disclosure order should still be disclosed for the other purposes set out at clause 429(1).
            776
            It has not been possible in the time between Committee and Report to table an amendment to achieve this. We need, for example, to ensure that any amendment takes account of the limited uses to which information disclosed in a disclosure order can be put in criminal cases by virtue of the provisions of part 8 of the Bill. But I can assure hon. Members that we intend to table such an amendment in another place. I hope, in the light of that, that hon. Members will not press amendments Nos. 69 and 70 to a vote.
            Amendments Nos. 237 to 250, 252 and 254 all relate to how the information disclosure provisions in part 10 will operate in Scotland. I shall start with amendment No. 237 as it stands. [Laughter.] I am sorry. I was slightly distracted then. I was about to say that I was pleased to see the three hon. Members from the Scottish National party here today, as we did not see them in Committee.
            Mr. Weir: I am sorry that the Minister has interrupted his speech to make such a cheap shot, but I am not at all surprised. This just proves that he was quite correct to predict his redundancy at the start of his speech.
            Mr. Foulkes: How shall I respond to that? I think that I shall ignore it.
            I return to amendment No. 237, and this time I shall get it right. As it stands, clause 430 provides for the exchange of information between the Lord Advocate and the Scottish Ministers in connection with their respective functions under parts 3 and 5 of the Bill. However, clause 433 already provides that the Lord Advocate and the Scottish Ministers may disclose information to each other for the purposes of their functions under parts 3 and 5. As most of clause 430 is already covered by clause 433, our intention is to delete clause 430 and amendment No. 237 would achieve that.
            Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. We have some sympathy with the complexity of the Minister's brief, but what just happened to him reminds me of the newsreader who announced, "The time is 7 pm Greenwich. Meantime, here is the news."
            Mr. Foulkes: I am sure that I will find another, more appropriate occasion to use that.
            There is only one aspect that is not currently covered by clause 433. Clause 430 provides that the Lord Advocate can disclose to the Scottish Ministers information that he has obtained in connection with the exercise of his functions under chapter 3 of part 5 of the Bill. That chapter deals with the recovery of cash and that the procurator fiscal has a role in the initial detention of the cash. If there is not to be a criminal prosecution, the matter passes to the Scottish Ministers to consider forfeiture. It is clearly important that any information the Lord Advocate has obtained in the first stages of the cash seizure be disclosed to the Scottish Ministers so that they can consider forfeiture. Amendment No. 243 therefore adds an appropriate reference to clause 433.
            Amendments Nos. 238. 240 to 242, 244 and 245, are purely drafting amendments. I could explain what each of them does, but in view of the time that would not be sensible.
            After the intervention by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) about Sewel motions, I suddenly realised why yesterday's exchange was so unfruitful. The hon.

            777
            Gentleman completely misunderstands the nature of Sewel motions. He seems to think that once a Sewel motion is passed, and the Scottish Parliament knows what is in the draft Bill that is agreed on Second Reading, that is that, and there can be no further changes and that once it has been approved by the Scottish Parliament, a Bill is immutable.
            Surely the whole purpose of a Sewel motion is to return to Westminster the power to legislate on devolved areas. That implies that when provisions are considered in Committee and on Report, particularly in relation to Scottish matters, amendments can be considered and, if necessary, agreed to. That is inherent in the nature of the exercise.
            Mr. Carmichael: I understand the Minister's analysis of Sewel motions. Does he agree, however, that the process raises some difficulties, particularly in view of the consequences? It is important that we should not be left with unamended and improperly considered legislation. Of course amendments should be made in Committee, but that raises difficulties. Will the Minister return to the point that we need some mechanism whereby we can have proper dialogue between parliamentary scrutiny here and the Executive functions in Edinburgh?
            Mr. Foulkes: I agree. Of course there needs to be dialogue. I was saying simply that we need the flexibility to consider amendments in Committee and on Report.
            Mr. Weir: Will the Minister give way?
            Mr. Foulkes: I am still replying to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael).
            After yesterday's exchange, I discussed the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We are looking again at the way in which Sewel motions work, we shall discuss it with the Scottish Executive and no doubt we shall have an opportunity to report back to the House. I hope that that will be helpful
            Mr. Weir: I thank the Minister for giving way, but I think that it is he who misunderstood the point. If he reads the minutes of the meeting of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs last November when we discussed the matter in great detail, he will find that I made the same point that I repeated yesterday—that if there are substantial amendments, the Bill should go back to the Scottish Parliament. The Minister agreed with me in November. I asked him yesterday when he had changed his mind and he still has not answered that question. What he is saying today does not change anything. I never argued that Westminster could not change legislation, but whether major changes should go back to the Scottish Parliament.
            Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman is a nitpicker even when there are no nits to pick—[Interruption.]
            : Order. The Minister gave the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to pick the nit.
            Mr. Foulkes: You are absolutely right, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall take your advice and be very careful in future.
            778
            I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question on two previous occasions. It does not need to be answered a third time. I am glad that I made my positive and substantive points in response to a Liberal Democrat Member rather than to one of these awful interventions from the SNP.
            I invite hon. Members not to press amendments Nos. 69 and 70 in view of my explanation and support new clause 10 and amendments Nos. 237 to 250, 252 and 254.
            Mr. Grieve: I greatly welcome the Minister's remarks about our amendments Nos. 69 and 70 to which I shall return in a moment. I also welcome new clause 10, which provides a measure of definition about what can be disclosed for overseas purposes on a subject which caused quite a lot of anxiety in Committee, as the Minister will recollect.
            Reading the particular clause of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, I am not entirely persuaded that it lays down any criteria about the danger of an exchange of information in the circumstances that we discussed in Committee, where it might be used for purposes that were highly prejudicial to the individual concerned and where, for instance, the right to a fair trial might not be obtainable. I hope that the Minister understands my point. That may be something that can properly be the subject of guidelines and codes of practice.
            I also appreciate that it is difficult for Parliament to legislate a framework that will stand the test of time. Some countries might slip in and out of the levels of acceptability that we would expect in terms of their judicial procedures, for instance, but I hope that the Minister will take on board that there is a legitimate area of anxiety that in exchanging information the director must have regard to the rights of the individual whose confidential information he is handing over to a foreign authority.
            Of course, in the desire to seize assets that is a perfectly acceptable activity, but it will not become so, and the whole framework will be brought into disrepute, if there is any suggestion that that information is not really being used for a legitimate purpose but, potentially, to persecute the individual in terms of his private wealth and finances in that country. This is a serious problem and one to which the director will have to be alive. I raise it because amendments Nos. 69 and 70 would have prevented disclosure to a foreign power in terms of criminal investigations elsewhere so it dovetails slightly with Government new clause 10. The two issues are linked and have been correctly grouped by the Clerk.
            I certainly will not press amendments Nos. 69 and 70 as the Minister has given some important assurances which I shall not repeat. He has clearly completely understood the point that was made in Committee that we are giving the director substantial powers, which in many respects appear much wider than those of any ordinary law enforcement agency. The purpose of that—as the Minister rightly said—is to seize the proceeds of crime, not to prosecute people. If a situation arises in which that information is handed over to another Government law enforcement agency for the purpose of prosecution, where that information would not have been available to it under its ordinary powers, there is an important issue.

            779
            8 pm
            Although I accept the Minister's point that the way in which the legislation is framed could not make the director the poodle of that other law enforcement agency—because the director's powers are circumscribed to the obtaining of information for his own purposes; nevertheless it is likely that in the course of obtaining information for his purposes the ARA could obtain information that might be used for the purposes of a criminal prosecution.
            I realise that that raises a difficult issue. It is legitimate for people to say that if the information shows the commission of serious crime and if it could be useful for the prosecution of an offender, it should be used—no matter how it was obtained. However, that gives rise to an important point. In those circumstances, is it proper to hand over information when Parliament has not seen fit to provide similar powers to the law enforcement agency—which is likely to be the police or the Customs—in the course of the agency's own inquiries? The guidelines will have to be considered carefully and amendments may have to be made in another place. However, mindful of the Minister's assurance, I shall not press the amendments to a vote.
            Mr. Carmichael: I warmly welcome the assurances given by the Minister on the use of disclosure orders. Those provisions are especially draconian and in the case of such powers it is incumbent on the state agencies charged with their execution to do so with every care. It is also incumbent on us to circumscribe as far as possible the manner in which such powers are executed. I look forward to hearing from the Minister the restrictions that he proposes and the manner in which he envisages that they will be carried out.
            I also welcome the hon. Gentleman's remarks about Sewel motions. With the indulgence of the Chair, those points might be developed at slightly greater length during Third Reading, which is nearly upon us.
            Mr. Davidson: I want to raise a couple of points. The first relates to the passage of information to foreign regimes. There must be a balance. We need to bear in mind the fact that some foreign jurisdictions are deeply corrupt and thus cause major difficulties for people who want to combat international drug dealing and money laundering. On the other hand, we must avoid giving guilty people the opportunity of playing off one regime against another by making civil or human rights arguments. I hope that any guidelines will reflect that.
            Secondly, will the Minister clarify whether the effect of the Conservative amendments Nos. 69 and 70 would be to stop any information at all—not merely that under disclosure orders—being passed to the authorities? If a person had confessed to a range of offences, including murder or arson, could that information be passed to the appropriate police or judicial authorities? It would not be the case that none of it was "handable overable"—if I may use that made-up phrase—[Interruption.] I think it is a good one.
            There was an interesting discussion of Sewel motions. Did the Minister—as I did—interpret the interventions of Scottish Nationalist Members as an excuse? Thus, although we originally thought that sloth and idleness had prevented them from attending the Committee debates,
            780
            in fact they did not attend because they thought that they would have the chance to deal with these matters in the Scottish Parliament. As the provisions are extremely tough, presumably any intervention hon. Members would have made would have weakened them and would have been much to be deplored.
            Mr. Foulkes: The debate has been interesting. We are grateful to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who spoke for the official Opposition, for his welcome. It was indicative of the way that the Bill was dealt with in Committee and on Report. As many hon. Members have said, there has been to-ing and fro-ing. I have not served on a Standing Committee for a long time—
            Mr. Wilshire: That is obvious.
            Mr. Foulkes: Yes, it is very obvious. When I was last a member of a Standing Committee, a different Government were in power and we were not given nearly as many concessions or nearly as much sympathy and understanding. We shall of course take note of the points made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield and return to them at a later stage.
            We always take into account the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson). I hope that he understands that we need to exchange information to comply with our international obligations. That is clear from the framework of those obligations to which we are a signatory. We shall bear it in mind that although the disclosure of information to certain regimes would not be appropriate, it would be in the case of democratic Governments with whom we have ordinary and good relations.
            The debate has been a good one. I am glad that we were able to get to it and that we could participate so fully. As has been said on several occasions, we are deeply delighted that those SNP Members who were unable—
            It being four and a quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [26 February], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
            Question put and agreed to.
            Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
            MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

          Clause 447

            ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
            Amendment proposed: No. 229, in page 258, line 29, leave out "or 431(6)" and insert ", 431(6) or 446".—[Mr. Salmond.]
            The House divided: Ayes 172, Noes 262.

            Division No. 174]

            [8.8 pm

            AYES

            Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

            Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

            Allan, Richard

            Jack, Rt Hon Michael

            Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

            Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

            Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

            Jenkin, Bernard

            Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

            Johnson, Boris (Henley)

            Baker, Norman

            Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

            Baldry, Tony

            Key, Robert

            Baron, John

            Kirkbride, Miss Julie

            Barrett, John

            Kirkwood, Archy

            Beggs, Roy

            Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

            Beith, Rt Hon A J

            Laing, Mrs Eleanor

            Bellingham, Henry

            Lait, Mrs Jacqui

            Bercow, John

            Lamb, Norman

            Blunt, Crispin

            Lansley, Andrew

            Boswell, Tim

            Laws, David

            Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

            Letwin, Oliver

            Brady, Graham

            Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

            Brazier, Julian

            Liddell-Grainger, Ian

            Breed, Colin

            Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

            Brooke, Mrs Annette L

            Llwyd, Elfyn

            Browning, Mrs Angela

            Loughton, Tim

            Burnett, John

            Luff, Peter

            Burnside, David

            McIntosh, Miss Anne

            Burt, Alistair

            MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

            Butterfill, John

            Maclean, Rt Hon David

            Cable, Dr Vincent

            McLoughlin, Patrick

            Cameron, David

            Malins, Humfrey

            Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

            Maples, John

            Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

            Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

            Mercer, Patrick

            Cash, William

            Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

            Chope, Christopher

            Moore, Michael

            Clappison, James

            Moss, Malcolm

            Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

            Murrison, Dr Andrew

            Collins, Tim

            Norman, Archie

            Conway, Derek

            Oaten, Mark

            Cormack, Sir Patrick

            O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

            Cotter, Brian

            Öpik, Lembit

            Davey, Edward (Kingston)

            Ottaway, Richard

            Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

            Page, Richard

            Djanogly, Jonathan

            Paice, James

            Dodds, Nigel

            Paterson, Owen

            Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

            Price, Adam

            Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

            Prisk, Mark

            Evans, Nigel

            Pugh, Dr John

            Ewing, Annabelle

            Randall, John

            Fabricant, Michael

            Redwood, Rt Hon John

            Fallon, Michael

            Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

            Field, Mark (Cities of London)

            Robathan, Andrew

            Flight, Howard

            Robertson, Angus (Moray)

            Forth, Rt Hon Eric

            Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

            Foster, Don (Bath)

            Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

            Fox, Dr Liam

            Roe, Mrs Marion

            George, Andrew (St Ives)

            Ruffley, David

            Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

            Russell, Bob (Colchester)

            Goodman, Paul

            Salmond, Alex

            Gray, James

            Sanders, Adrian

            Grayling, Chris

            Sayeed, Jonathan

            Green, Damian (Ashford)

            Selous, Andrew

            Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

            Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

            Grieve, Dominic

            Shepherd, Richard

            Gummer, Rt Hon John

            Simmonds, Mark

            Hammond, Philip

            Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

            Hancock, Mike

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

            Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

            Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

            Hawkins, Nick

            Soames, Nicholas

            Hayes, John

            Spelman, Mrs Caroline

            Heath, David

            Spicer, Sir Michael

            Hermon, Lady

            Spink, Bob

            Hoban, Mark

            Spring, Richard

            Holmes, Paul

            Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

            782

            Steen, Anthony

            Waterson, Nigel

            Streeter, Gary

            Watkinson, Angela

            Swayne, Desmond

            Weir, Michael

            Swire, Hugo

            Whittingdale, John

            Syms, Robert

            Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

            Tapsell, Sir Peter

            Wiggin, Bill

            Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

            Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

            Taylor, John (Solihull)

            Williams, Roger (Brecon)

            Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

            Wilshire, David

            Taylor, Sir Teddy

            Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

            Tonge, Dr Jenny

            Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

            Tredinnick, David

            Yeo, Tim

            Trend, Michael

            Young, Rt Hon Sir George

            Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

            Younger-Ross, Richard

            Tyler, Paul

            Tellers for the Ayes:

            Tyrie, Andrew

            Mr. Alistair Carmichael and

            Viggers, Peter

            Pete Wishart.

            NOES

            Abbott, Ms Diane

            Cousins, Jim

            Ainger, Nick

            Cranston, Ross

            Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

            Crausby, David

            Allen, Graham

            Cruddas, Jon

            Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

            Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

            Cummings, John

            Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

            Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

            Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

            Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

            Atherton, Ms Candy

            Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

            Atkins, Charlotte

            Davidson, Ian

            Bailey, Adrian

            Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

            Baird, Vera

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

            Banks, Tony

            Barron, Kevin

            Dawson, Hilton

            Battle, John

            Dean, Mrs Janet

            Bayley, Hugh

            Denham, Rt Hon John

            Beard, Nigel

            Dhanda, Parmjit

            Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

            Dobbin, Jim

            Begg, Miss Anne

            Drew, David

            Bell, Stuart

            Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

            Benton, Joe

            Edwards, Huw

            Berry, Roger

            Efford, Clive

            Betts, Clive

            Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

            Blackman, Liz

            Fisher, Mark

            Blears, Ms Hazel

            Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

            Borrow, David

            Flint, Caroline

            Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

            Foster, Rt Hon Derek

            Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

            Foster, Michael (Worcester)

            Brennan, Kevin

            Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

            Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

            Foulkes, George

            Francis, Dr Hywel

            Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

            Galloway, George

            Browne, Desmond

            Gapes, Mike

            Bryant, Chris

            Gardiner, Barry

            Burgon, Colin

            George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

            Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

            Gibson, Dr Ian

            Cairns, David

            Gilroy, Linda

            Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

            Goggins, Paul

            Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

            Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

            Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

            Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

            Caplin, Ivor

            Grogan, John

            Casale, Roger

            Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

            Caton, Martin

            Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

            Cawsey, Ian

            Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

            Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

            Hanson, David

            Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

            Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

            Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

            Havard, Dai

            Healey, John

            Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

            Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

            Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

            Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

            Clelland, David

            Hendrick, Mark

            Clwyd, Ann

            Hepburn, Stephen

            Coaker, Vernon

            Hill, Keith

            Coffey, Ms Ann

            Hood, Jimmy

            Colman, Tony

            Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

            Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

            Hope, Phil

            783

            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)

            Palmer, Dr Nick

            Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

            Pearson, Ian

            Humble, Mrs Joan

            Perham, Linda

            Iddon, Dr Brian

            Pickthall, Colin

            Illsley, Eric

            Plaskitt, James

            Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

            Pond, Chris

            Irranca-Davies, Huw

            Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

            Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

            Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

            Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

            Prescott, Rt Hon John

            Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

            Primarolo, Dawn

            Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

            Prosser, Gwyn

            Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

            Purnell, James

            Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

            Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

            Joyce, Eric

            Quinn, Lawrie

            Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

            Rapson, Syd

            Kemp, Fraser

            Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

            Khabra, Piara S

            Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

            Kidney, David

            Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

            Kilfoyle, Peter

            King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

            Roche, Mrs Barbara

            King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

            Rooney, Terry

            Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

            Roy, Frank

            Kumar, Dr Ashok

            Ruane, Chris

            Ladyman, Dr Stephen

            Ruddock, Joan

            Lammy, David

            Salter, Martin

            Laxton, Bob

            Sarwar, Mohammad

            Lazarowicz, Mark

            Savidge, Malcolm

            Lepper, David

            Sawford, Phil

            Leslie, Christopher

            Sedgemore, Brian

            Levitt, Tom

            Sheerman, Barry

            Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

            Sheridan, Jim

            Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

            Shipley, Ms Debra

            Linton, Martin

            Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

            Lloyd, Tony

            Singh, Marsha

            Love, Andrew

            Skinner, Dennis

            Lucas, Ian

            Smith, Angela (Basildon)

            Luke, Iain

            Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

            McDonagh, Siobhain

            Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

            MacDonald, Calum

            Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

            MacDougall, John

            Soley, Clive

            McFall, John

            Southworth, Helen

            McGuire, Mrs Anne

            Squire, Rachel

            McIsaac, Shona

            Starkey, Dr Phyllis

            McKechin, Ann

            Stevenson, George

            Mackinlay, Andrew

            Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

            McNulty, Tony

            Stinchcombe, Paul

            MacShane, Denis

            Stoate, Dr Howard

            Mactaggart, Fiona

            Stringer, Graham

            McWalter, Tony

            Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

            Mahmood, Khalid

            Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

            Mallaber, Judy

            Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

            Mann, John

            Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

            Marris, Rob

            Tipping, Paddy

            Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

            Touhig, Don

            Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

            Trickett, Jon

            Martlew, Eric

            Truswell, Paul

            Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

            Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

            Merron, Gillian

            Twigg, Derek (Halton)

            Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

            Tynan, Bill

            Moffatt, Laura

            Vis, Dr Rudi

            Mole, Chris

            Walley, Ms Joan

            Moonie, Dr Lewis

            Ward, Ms Claire

            Morgan, Julie

            Wareing, Robert N

            Morley, Elliot

            Watts, David

            Mudie, George

            White, Brian

            Mullin, Chris

            Whitehead, Dr Alan

            Munn, Ms Meg

            Wicks, Malcolm

            Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

            Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

            Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

            Winnick, David

            Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

            Wood, Mike

            Naysmith, Dr Doug

            Woolas, Phil

            O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

            Worthington, Tony

            784

            Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

            Tellers for the Noes:

            Wright, David (Telford)

            Mr. John Heppell and

            Wright, Tony (Cannock)

            Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

            Question accordingly negatived.
            Remaining Government amendments agreed to

          New Clause 6

            ENACTMENT
            'In this Act (except in section 448(1)) a reference to an enactment includes a reference to—

            (a) an Act of the Scottish Parliament;

            (b) Northern Ireland legislation.'.—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]

            Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
            Order for Third Reading read.
            8.22 pm
            Mr. Bob Ainsworth: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
            As I did not have the opportunity to say the usual words at the end of the Committee stage for reasons that are understood—we can blame nothing but the system—I should like to record my thanks to a few people at the start of the Third Reading debate. This is the first Bill for which I have had responsibility and it has been like jumping in at the deep end. I want to thank my hon. Friends for their considerable support in Committee. The outrider, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson), was ever reminding me of the need for these measures and tried to ensure that I did not go soft or make them ineffective. I also thank my other hon. Friends who have considerable legal experience and brought their expertise to the Committee.
            I genuinely thank both the Opposition parties that were represented in Committee for the way in which they handled matters. We have had our differences, which I will touch on briefly, but we gave the Bill proper scrutiny and have made a number of amendments. I am enormously grateful for their work and effort. I know how hard it is to do so from the Opposition Benches and the amount of time and effort needed to give such a measure proper scrutiny. I thank my officials and the officials of the House as well.
            I should like to remind the House of the need for the Bill. The Bill is about crime. Catching criminals and putting them away is not enough—if crime is profitable, they are quickly replaced. Unless hon. Members are content to allow that situation to continue, they must support effective measures to remove the profit from crime. Recovering the money deprives crime of its working capital, increases the deterrent by taking the profit away and addresses the lack of public confidence in the rule of law.
            It is to everyone's detriment that over the years this country has been lacking in terms of recovering the proceeds of crime. The majority of offenders go through the criminal justice system with little or no attempt made to apply confiscation. Only 1,200 drug traffickers and fewer than 200 other offenders had confiscation orders made against them in 2000–01. Enforcement of confiscation orders is poor. In the same year, orders to the value of £50 million were made and receipts were only

            785
            £20 million. Restraint is rarely used—about 250 orders per annum were made. It is not available early enough, so prosecutors often wonder what on earth is the point as the money will have disappeared.
            In the absence of criminal proceedings, there is no means of challenging the possession of criminal assets, no matter how blatant or powerful the evidence. The 1999 survey of law enforcement agencies showed that £440 million of suspect assets was held by 400 individuals. If that is evenly distributed, we effectively have 400 criminal millionaires living in our midst.
            Much organised crime is still based on cash. The police are often unable to intervene when they can identify suspect cash being carried or on premises. The seizure of such cash and its forfeiture in summary civil proceedings can have a major disruptive impact. That measure is currently not available other than at borders.
            Financial investigators need more help to trace criminal proceeds and gather evidence. Customer information orders and monitoring orders will help us to even the odds in the fight that we need to carry to the criminal fraternity.
            Money-laundering regulations offer unnecessary loopholes. Defendants are hardly ever prosecuted and even when they are, acquittal rates are well above the average for many countries in similar situations.
            There is continuing evidence of slackness in the reporting of suspect transactions. Last year's report to the Financial Services Authority on the Abacha case proves the point. The UK cannot comply with a request to freeze criminal assets until criminal proceedings are imminent in the requesting jurisdiction. That factor impeded the UK's ability to assist the Nigerian Government in the Abacha case.

            Because of the powers that we are taking, we have tried to ensure that we have given sufficient concessions and safeguards. I believe that the Bill is now effective and balanced. We gave a commitment this evening to look at protecting the anonymity of staff in the Assets Recovery Agency in appropriate circumstances, as proposed by the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. It will not necessarily be easy, but it is worth examining the matter seriously.
            I was surprised by the position taken by Conservatives Members, and I continue to be so. I was convinced that the Liberal Democrats would adopt the position that they did indeed adopt, but I was surprised at the position of Conservative Members, which perhaps goes to show that naivety can continue well into one's forties—[Interruption.] I am talking about myself.
            I entered into our consideration of the Bill believing that the main thrust of the Conservative Opposition would be that it is not as effective as it should be and that some measures should be strengthened. I was therefore surprised by the tabling in Committee of substantive amendments that would have weakened the Bill. [Interruption.] I happily acknowledge that some of the proposals that were made in Committee were useful and potentially make the Bill more effective, easier for us to pass into law and more compliant with the European convention on human rights. However, others would have punched great holes in our confiscation and assumptions proceedings. Measures in existing legislation that were enacted when the Conservative party was in power were suddenly considered to be too draconian and in need of watering down.
            786
            In response to debate, we have undertaken to insert the proposed list of lifestyle crimes into the Bill, retaining the power to update it from time to time by order. For unlisted offences, the Bill raises the number of convictions that are required before the burden is placed on the defendant to show how his assets are not the proceeds of crime. We are retaining the serious risk of injustice proviso—the measure to which the House of Lords attached such great importance in rejecting last month's appeal on the Rezvi and Benjafield cases.
            Mr. Davidson: I thank the Minister for saying that, like many of us, he was surprised by how soft the Conservatives appeared to be on collaborators with crime. They consistently sought to weaken the Bill in various ways and threatened to try to get measures reversed in the House of Lords. Does my hon. Friend welcome the fact that the Opposition Front-Bench boss has now arrived, hopefully to keep the apprentices in order and to ensure that they support the Government more fully in future? Does he think that the shadow Home Secretary was probably unaware that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) was descended from sheep and cattle thieves and therefore had a domestic interest in the matter?
            Mr. Ainsworth: More importantly, the shadow Home Secretary was fully aware of the position that was taken by Conservative Members on the Committee on behalf of their party, and is therefore largely responsible for it. My lips are sealed about the source of that information, and will remain so until such time as I come to write my memoirs, if I ever do. It is all part of the touchy-feely operation that the hon. Gentleman is putting in place on the Conservative Benches.
            Mr. Oliver Letwin: I am most grateful to the Minister for his charming efforts to introduce me into the conversation. I hope that he can satisfy himself that he was not unduly naive. He is merely wholly misinformed about the view taken by myself and my hon. Friends about the role of a responsible Opposition. We believe that the only way in which the rule of law will be preserved is if people have sufficient confidence in our legal system, and that that will exist only if there is an appropriate balance between the rights and the protection of the innocent and the pursuit of the guilty. The Minister and I should be joined in that view.
            Mr. Ainsworth: I totally agree. That is exactly what we tried to achieve through the way in which we managed the Committee proceedings and listened to the genuine concerns that were raised by Conservative Members and Liberal Democrats.
            I remind the shadow Home Secretary that there are two classes of innocents. First, there are those who wind up being accused of crimes that they did not commit or who face having profits taken from them which are not the proceeds of crime. Secondly, there are the victims in our constituencies who wind up living with the consequences of money laundering, drug peddling and other organised crimes and the profits that flow from them. I sometimes feel that Conservative Members want to give that a lower priority than do I and my hon. Friends.
            I do not want to prolong the debate or to prevent any hon. Members from having an input into Third Reading. I could go through different parts of the Bill to point out

            787
            the need for the measures that are being taken and to show how we have tried to ensure that they are balanced and proportionate. We have heard the views of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, some of which did not take into account the full balance of the issues concerned. For example, it was prepared to come down against aspects of the assumptions proceedings without fully considering the safeguards that the Bill provides. It suggested, without the support of recent case law, that the provisions on civil recovery are wrongly classified.
            We have safeguarded the traditional position of the matrimonial home in Scotland, leaving ourselves open to allegations about the regime in England and Wales. That issue was flagged up by the Human Rights Committee. However, it did not properly address the fact—it will have to do so—that the provision deals with the position of families who find themselves in danger of potential action against their matrimonial home as a result of measures against the proceeds of crime. Families may often find themselves in that situation during the normal course of their lives owing to debts or loss of work.
            I shall draw my conclusions to a close. I hope that we have sent the Bill to another place in a better state. I am pleased that we received so much support for many of its provisions. I sincerely hope that we can all look back many years from now with a degree of satisfaction that the measures have been effective and have made a difference. In Committee we looked back at comments made by Home Office Ministers of many years ago about the effectiveness of the measures that they were introducing. In many cases, we have had years of experience of seeing that they have not been effective. We bring our democratic process into disrepute if we introduce measures that promise effective action on things that are important to the people we represent which are not capable of delivering the change that is expected. I hope that we have made the Bill sufficiently effective so that it makes a difference and so that we can be pleased with our role in bringing it into effect
            8.38 pm
            Mr. Grieve: I echo the thanks extended by the Minister. I had a brief opportunity in Committee to thank the officials of the House and the civil servants who helped us, but I should like to repeat that tonight and in addition thank all hon. Members who participated in the Committee, not just my hon. Friends. I was mindful that throughout the proceedings the Minister and the Minister of State, Scotland Office, went to a great deal of trouble to ensure that our concerns were properly addressed and, if they were thought to be legitimate, acted on. Above all, there was the spirit of co-operation that I had hoped for when I said on Second Reading that our conduct in Committee might be a model of its kind. I am aware that we did not always get things right—certainly the guillotine sometimes came down at the wrong time—but there was an effort to ensure proper scrutiny. I hope that the Bill has been improved as a consequence.
            I assure the Minister that we are at one on the key issues. We know why the Bill is needed. We understand the pernicious problem of criminality which, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) has made clear many times, affects the poor much more than the wealthy. It destroys communities, especially in respect
            788
            of drugs, and the most disadvantaged are usually at a greater risk of the predatory activities of those who make money from crime. We are mindful of that and have no hesitation in believing that the Bill is necessary and desirable. Indeed, as the Minister acknowledged, the genesis of many of the measures that we have considered was under Conservative Governments.
            It is equally clear that during our deliberations on this enormous Bill, which now stands at 450 clauses, we changed what had been an add-on to the normal criminal justice system into an administrative law system for the confiscation of criminals' assets. At no time should an Opposition be more resolute in its defence of civil liberties and the rights of the individual than when the state takes upon itself, for whatever good reason, such enormous extra powers. I make no apology for the fact that in Committee we spent our time probing, asking and trying to understand what the Bill's consequences might be in practice, and making suggestions when we thought that it could be improved.
            I disagree entirely with the Minister on one thing: the Bill's efficacy in seizing the assets of criminals would not have been reduced one iota had he accepted the amendments that we pressed to a Division. He might care to reflect on that if he re-reads the amendments. I am prepared to concede, however, that if the Bill is properly administered—for which the Executive and the director of the Assets Recovery Agency will have a great responsibility—some of the fears that are reflected in our amendments may not be realised. I distinctly hope that they will not be. We have tried to ensure throughout the process that the framework provides a balance between the desire to seize assets and the civil rights of individuals, not just those from whom the assets are to be seized, but the third parties, be they spouses, children, partners, business associates or, in some cases, innocent bystanders who are caught by the procedures.
            The Bill has undoubtedly been improved. I thank the Minister for the amendments tabled on Report. They ensure that the problem of legal professional privilege, which was overlooked in some parts of the Bill, has been properly addressed. The restrictions on disclosure of information to foreign Governments, which the Minister has undertaken to consider further, are important because some Governments have mixed motives when they decide to pursue individuals for assets and do not have the standards of probity that we enjoy in this country. The provisions on confiscation increase the duties of the director to provide information in cases of injustice. That went a long way to meeting many of our concerns in Committee.
            That said, anxieties remain and the Minister will forgive me if I highlight them as a reminder. We need to be sure that part 2 offers adequate protection to prevent injustice. The lack of safeguards in respect of families, spouses and children pains me, and the amendments that we tabled yesterday in that regard were modest. A similar system exists in Scotland, and Scottish MPs—even those on the Government Benches—have made no attempt to gainsay it or to get rid of it, which suggests that it provides good protection. I hope that, even at this late stage, that issue might be reviewed in another place. The law can be very hard, and tempering such harshness is one of our responsibilities as parliamentarians.

            789
            I am also concerned about compensation. I heard what the Minister had to say on that, but because compensation will be available only in cases of serious default, and not of negligent default, those who are wrongly taken through a process and subsequently found blameless will be obstructed in their efforts to recover any resulting consequential losses. Perhaps that issue should be examined further.
            On civil recovery, we need to consider compensation for third parties in respect of the actions of receivers. I find it difficult to understand why we cannot require the director, before initiating proceedings, to have reasonable grounds for believing that there are assets to be recovered. It has struck me throughout that that modest measure would provide reassurance and remind the director of his duty. Is it not the responsibility of Members of Parliament to remind those who execute its authority of where their duty lies? If we do not do that, nobody else will.
            Although the part of the Bill that deals with money laundering is undoubtedly one of the most important—indeed, I hope that it will reap great dividends—onerous duties and requirements are, as the Minister knows, nevertheless being placed on law-abiding and blameless individuals who seek through their work in the financial and regulated sector to help others in a perfectly proper way. I am sure that they will wish to shoulder those burdens cheerfully, but it is sometimes difficult to do that when a sword of Damocles is hanging over one's head, and one slip after a bad night—however innocuous or innocent—could lead to a five-year prison sentence. That is one aspect of the Bill that has given me particular cause for concern.
            On the part of the Bill dealing with international matters, it is absolutely vital, as I have said, that the system of co-operation be transparent. First, the House must be aware of what is being done, which gives rise to the question of affirmative and negative resolutions—we did not have time to discuss them today—and the framework established by Order in Council. Secondly, there should be some monitoring of the way in which the system works, to ensure that foreign Governments do not use it for unintended purposes. Parliament has a duty to ensure that the rights of individuals are protected against foreign Governments who may not have our standards.
            That said, I congratulate the Minister on his Bill. He has handled it cheerfully, skilfully, with good humour and—I am satisfied—with the best of intentions. In that regard, I am also satisfied that the Government's intentions are transparently honest and correct, and that the aspiration that underpins the Bill is worthy. For that reason, we give it our support, mindful that it may be possible to reconsider and correct in another place some of the aspects that I have touched on, and which continue to give us some cause for anxiety. On that basis, we welcome the legislation and give it our support.
            8.49 pm
            Mr. Stinchcombe: I, too, welcome the Bill, and I do so warmly. I believe that it could lead to a sea change in the fight against acquisitive crime. For that reason, I was delighted to serve on the Standing Committee. I am pleased to have been able to participate in the debates on Report, and I am grateful to the House for the opportunity to make a brief contribution on Third Reading.
            Throughout our deliberations, we have heard much from Tory Members about their concerns for human rights and the need to ensure that the Bill properly reflects the
            790
            Human Rights Act 1998 and properly respects the European convention on human rights. I share some of their concerns, as I made clear in Committee, but I would give greater credence to the arguments that have come from their mouths if any of them had voted for the Human Rights Act in the first place. Many Conservative Members vehemently oppose that Act. At least one of them supported it, but he did not have the courage to vote for it—the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who has led for the Opposition in the debates on the Bill.
            I spoke in favour of the Human Rights Act 1998, and I voted for it. If called upon, I will vote for this Bill, and I would do so for an identical series of reasons. I genuinely and passionately care about human rights. I believe that they should be protected against violation, but that the most important of our fundamental human rights is not the right to protect the secrecy that surrounds our dodgy deals, but the right to live free from fear and free from crime. The Bill will do more than virtually any other measure that has been enacted while I have been a Member to tackle our fear of crime and protect that fundamental human right.
            In the past two months, I have visited an old lady in my constituency whose skull had been caved in during broad daylight by a young thug with a golf club. I was visited by another elderly lady whose arm had been broken when a bag was wrenched from it, again in broad daylight. I have talked to the police about a phone call received in the evening from an eight-year-old boy who was concerned because his father had been marched upstairs at gunpoint.
            Why do my constituents—in middle England, in Northamptonshire—suffer from such crime and why do they live in such fear? I believe that it is because 10 per cent. of the young adults in my constituency from some of the estates are addicted to drugs, because heroin is available at £5 a wrap, because crack cocaine is now found in my constituency, because of the needles that I can find everywhere and because many of my constituents have to steal to feed those habits. We have made it harder for them to burgle, so they have now taken to street crime.
            It is imperative that, in the House as well as elsewhere, we do everything that we can to fight that crime and street violence. We have to do so in many ways—by getting more policemen on the beat, by intelligent policing and probably by using more tagging—but we also have to tackle the drug trade itself, and we have to do so at both ends: the supplier and the user. As for the users, I want more to be done about drugs rehabilitation than we have ever tried to do, especially in prison. As for the suppliers, I want the profit to be taken out of crime, so that they cannot make their millions, or even their thousands, by peddling their filth and ruining the lives of innocent people. The Bill will help to tackle that, which is why I welcome it so warmly.
            8.53 pm
            Norman Baker: Parliament has dealt with the Bill in an exemplary fashion. If it were to approach other Bills similarly, we might all end up with better reputations outside the House than we probably collectively have at present. May I pass on my thanks to the staff and officers of the House for their help with the Bill? I also thank the Minister, who has been willing to respond to legitimate points. He has been polite and cheerful throughout and has been the sort of Minister whom one would hope to be responsible for a Bill.

            791
            I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and his colleagues. The hon. Gentleman in particular has given the Bill a great deal of his time and raised a number of legitimate issues, and the Bill is better as a consequence of some of the amendments that he moved. I also thank my own colleagues, of course, including my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), who has kept me busy and otherwise helped me during the debates on the Bill.
            I also pay tribute to Labour Members, who raised legitimate issues and took a real interest in the Bill. I particularly mention the hon. Members for Redcar (Vera Baird) and for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe), who managed to raise issues about which the Government did not necessarily want to hear, but did so in a constructive way that was loyal to their party. It is not always easy to strike that balance, and that should be recognised.
            My colleagues and I have always supported the principle of the Bill. I do not think that there will be a Division on Third Reading, but if there is we shall support the Bill. We support its principle because it takes the profit out of crime. I bear in mind the fact that two thirds of crime is motivated by profit, and that we must ensure that crime does not pay. That very old slogan needs some teeth, and this Bill gives it teeth. We are much better at convicting people than at depriving them of their ill-gotten gains. If the Bill goes some way to addressing that, it will have achieved a great deal. If we follow the money, we will end up getting the criminal, and that is a welcome change from traditional methods of approaching such matters.
            The principle of the Bill is agreed, so proceedings in Committee were largely about detail—or, perhaps, tensions. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield referred to some areas of concern, some of which I share and others I am less concerned about. I have identified four tensions that I will take to my colleagues in the Lords as areas of difficulty.
            The first tension is the key one: the balance to be struck between the power of the state and the rights of the individual. The Bill undoubtedly contains several heavy weapons to try to deal with serious crime committed by very clever people who may have expensive lawyers—or whatever the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) wants to attribute to them—and have escaped the traditional methods of justice and existing law. We must deploy heavy weapons against those people. I recognise that, even if it causes some trepidation. The other side of that coin is that we need strong shields to ensure that the innocent are not swept up in the process.
            As the Minister said, there is more than one kind of innocent person. There are innocent people who are the victims of crime, about whom we rightly heard from the hon. Members for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) and for Glasgow, Pollok. Innocent third parties can be swept up unwittingly and unfairly by such heavy legislation unless there are safeguards to enable them to escape it legitimately.
            There are also those who are guilty of negligence, who we do not want to treat the same as those who are guilty of deliberately seeking to launder money. Both are
            792
            problems, but they are not on the same scale. We need to ensure that there are shields for the innocent and that the penalties for those who are guilty of lesser crimes are not the same as those for major crimes.
            The hon. Member for Beaconsfield referred to the loss of the family home, which was discussed yesterday on Report. That brings me to the second tension that was evident during our proceedings in Committee: that between what happens north and south of the border. In the case of the family home, the Bill is very much Scotland 1, England 0, which cannot be right.
            Mr. Alex Salmond: Is that a full-time result?
            Norman Baker: It is a half-time result, as the Bill is yet to go to the other place—but the score may stay that way. How can it be right for a spouse to lose her home if she lives in Berwick but not if she lives in Galashiels? That worries me.
            Differences between legislation north and south of the border are inevitable. Indeed, I am a keen supporter of devolution, as are all my colleagues. We recognise and rejoice in the fact that there are differences north and south of the border, but I prefer the differences to occur in matters of policy and priority rather than in essential justice. The example of the loss of the home is a matter of essential justice. I regret that we have a different solution in Scotland from that in England.
            There have of course been moves to eliminate such differences. As the Minister will remember, it was proposed that courts in Scotland have discretionary power to make confiscation orders although such power was mandatory in England and Wales. That has now been evened up—the wrong way, in my view. It is a pity that the evening up did not go the other way, with the Scottish model imported into England.
            The third tension is between those who legislate—us—and those who interpret the law, namely the judiciary. As we have gone through the Bill, I have asked to what extent it is legitimate for Parliament to constrain the judiciary. Parliament has a right and a duty to legislate, and courts have a duty to interpret. The courts are an important backstop to ensure justice. In the past century, we find instances in which the courts have intervened to protect justice when Parliament has got it wrong; juries, too, have acted in that way. We can all think of cases that have led to changes in the law. The judiciary is an important feature of our democracy and it must be given the elbow room it needs to perform that function.
            The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok made it plain in Committee that he does not trust the judges. His solution, without wanting to put it too crudely, was as far as possible to write them out of the script in terms of the scope available to them for interpretation. As he does not trust the judiciary in its current form, he wants judges to be servants of Parliament, but that is a dangerous road to take. I agree that there is a need for reform in the legal system, but that is an entirely different proposition from cutting them out of the script altogether.
            That is one of the reasons why throughout proceedings on the Bill my colleagues and I have been keen to ensure that the judiciary is not written out of the script, and that judges are given the appropriate flexibility to interpret the law. That is why attempts were made to amend clause 6

            793
            to give the courts greater flexibility of action. The clause starts: "The …Court must proceed". Many wanted to replace "must" with "may", and the Liberal Democrats suggested inserting "normally" after "must". On Report, a further attempt was made to qualify the provision and give the courts elbow room to act if they detected a real risk of injustice.
            The Government were not keen on those amendments or on providing elbow room. I think that they should adopt a more relaxed attitude and realise that it is in their long-term interests not to constrain the judiciary too tightly, as they tend to do throughout the Bill. Their motives are of the best, but I conclude that ultimately the right balance has not been struck between the two elements.
            The fourth tension is between the need—perceived and actual—for the far-reaching heavy measures in the Bill and the requirements of the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998. I am happy to concede that Government Members are as keen on the Act as I am, and that they acknowledge that it was a big step forward and is an important part of this country's legislation. I am glad that the Minister referred to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, if only to disagree with it, because it shows that he recognises the importance of responding to the issues that the Committee raises.
            Incidentally, the report with which the Minister disagrees was agreed by all members of that Committee representing all three main parties and both Houses of Parliament. That does not mean that the report is necessarily right, but there is a substantial body of opinion, which includes hon. Members present tonight, that the recommendation and the wording of the report were appropriate. There will always be tension, but it is important that the Government pay proper attention to what the Joint Committee on Human Rights says. The Government themselves created that important body and its words should be heeded.
            I am not sure that the Minister entirely understood or accepted my point that there is an absolute requirement that each Bill introduced by the Government be consistent within itself with the Human Rights Act. On the front of the Bill was a statement that it is so consistent and that its provisions are compatible with convention rights. The Minister will remember that the Committee learned that the clause headed "Requirements for making of production order", originally clause 335, replicated provisions within the Drug Trafficking Act 1994, but without the Act's public interest protection provisions. The explanatory notes to the Bill said that that was because judges are required to act in a way that is compatible with the convention, and that the public interest protection provisions were therefore no longer necessary. That is a fundamental point. Those public interest protection clauses should have been included in the Bill, irrespective of the existence of the Human Rights Act.
            Mr. Bob Ainsworth: The area on which we disagreed—or on which I failed to understand the hon. Gentleman—was in relation to his apparent insistence that it was not good enough for us to say that this measure in
            794
            no way cuts across people's rights under the European convention on human rights. Even when we said that, it was not good enough for him.
            Norman Baker: If that is the opinion that the Minister formed, I am happy to clarify matters, as the Secretary of State for Transport, local Government and the Regions might have said in one of his illuminating statements. If the measure itself does not cut across the Human Rights Act, of course it is compatible with it. However, if the mirroring safeguards that would have been included in legislation previously are not included in this Bill, it will have fewer safeguards, by definition, because of the existence of the Human Rights Act.
            I shall not take very much longer, as other hon. Members want to contribute. I shall just raise one other point that I raised on Second Reading—which I do not think has been dealt with since by me or anyone else—about the hierarchy. Throughout the Committee, the Minister clearly explained how the hierarchy would work and gave several assurances for which I was grateful and which the Committee accepted. However, my one residual concern relates to the situation in which somebody is charged with a criminal offence and acquitted, and the lesser method—civil recovery—kicks in. The danger would be that, in the case of a high-profile acquittal, the public at large—who would not understand the hierarchical system—would view such recovery as persecution of an individual. That poses dangers to the credibility of the Bill.
            If such a conclusion were reached, the authorities might in turn be encouraged to engage in the equivalent of plea bargaining—which nobody in this place wants—and to opt immediately for civil recovery rather than a criminal charge. Of course, the threshold for civil recovery is lower than it is for a criminal charge, so that option will be tempting. In the same way, authorities sometimes pursue the charge of driving without due care and attention rather than the charge of dangerous driving.
            Overall, however, this is a good Bill, and Liberal Democrats are pleased to support it. We wish it well in the Lords and we shall table one or two amendments to deal with residual matters of concern. I thank the Minister for the considerate and helpful way in which he has ensured the progress of this Bill.
            9.7 pm
            Mr. Davidson: The Minister said that this was his first time piloting a Bill in Committee. He was not nearly as bad as we expected for an ex-Whip seeking to rejoin the human race. He was perhaps over-keen, on occasion, to compensate for his previous form. Nevertheless, he conducted himself with good humour throughout the Committee, as did most hon. Members. I was frequently phoned by the press, who asked for a list of members of the Committee broken down by age and sex. I replied, "All of them." That was a fairly easy response, but still a good one.
            In relation to the Opposition parties, it is worth while to remark that there were three Liberal Members on the Committee, but they were never present at the same time. I wonder how many other people noticed that. Even

            795
            tonight, there are only two of them, and one is sitting on the Front Bench and the other is behind him. That demonstrates their addiction to questions of hierarchy.
            Mr. Carmichael: The reason why there were only ever two of us was that—notwithstanding the difference in the numbers of Liberal Democrat Members and Labour Members—the sheer force of our arguments, if we had all been present, would have been overwhelming. Although the hon. Gentleman may not have raised many issues in Committee, he raised a number of laughs. Regardless of what his colleagues have said about him, I always thought that he was okay.
            Mr. Davidson: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman speaks on that point. He told us earlier that his 11-year-old son was cutting his first teeth. Children always use an especially hard type of stone in Orkney and Shetland for such purposes.
            I see that the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) has rejoined us. It is interesting that after many absences in Committee he has obviously been told to stay away, which seems eminently sensible. He spent much time in Committee signing his books. I understand that he had not completed colouring in some of them. He was sent away for Ugandan conversations at one stage. Given that he is a Member who has newspapers to sell, it is understandable that he was not always in Committee. I find myself hurrying past "Big Issue" sellers in case it is the hon. Gentleman—
            Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. Despite the general appreciation of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, we should return to Third Reading.
            Mr. Davidson: You are correct, Madam Deputy Speaker.
            We would have had a much better political exchange in Committee had nationalist Members served on it. As they did not volunteer, that obviously was not possible.
            Mr. Salmond: I have recently been studying some figures. It seems that the hon. Gentleman has spoken more in the past two days than he has spoken in the Chamber since the last general election. That is remarkable. I want to apologise to him, because yesterday I implied that his participation record in the Chamber was miserable. That is not true. The figures show that it is not miserable; it is just not very good. He is 27th out of 55 in the activity rate among Scottish Back Benchers, which I suppose—
            Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are on Third Reading.
            Mr. Salmond: In consideration of the Bill that is before us, and others, the hon. Gentleman's activity rate is just above relegation level.
            Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Ian Davidson.
            Mr. Davidson: I am aware that we are on Third Reading, Madam Deputy Speaker, so it would be inappropriate for me to say that even though my record
            796
            in the Chamber might not be particularly good, I still have a better voting record than that of the older nationalists on the Bill and on other issues.
            One of the strengths of the Committee was that a range of views were expressed by Labour Members. The Labour party that I joined was a broad church, and that was a good thing. One of the things that has caused me most unhappiness about new Labour is the way in which it has sought to narrow the range of acceptable opinions.
            The Tories have stressed their support for the Bill on Third Reading, but words are cheap. There were many occasions in Committee when they procrastinated and deliberately spun out discussion so that some clauses were not reached. It was made absolutely clear that those parts of the Bill could be dealt with in another place.
            We must see what the Conservatives seek to do to the Bill in the other place. They will be judged by their actions there. There is a real danger that they will try substantially to weaken the Bill, which will be to the detriment of our people.
            Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
            Mr. Davidson: I give way to the Member for sheep stealing.
            Mr. Grieve: I fear that the hon. Gentleman is beginning to suffer from the paranoia that starts to infect Governments after their first term. It is uncharacteristic of him to have succumbed because he has always been rather semi-detached. I can assure him that consideration in another place will be as constructive as we have tried to make it in this place.
            Mr. Davidson: If that were true, I would welcome that. I recognise that there are still some issues that would benefit from some rubbing and polishing, but that has not been the impression that I have gained from Conservative Members in Committee. We shall see.
            I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, no matter how ameliorative he was in Committee, will not be prepared, in enthusiasm to get the Bill through Parliament, to accept from the other place things that we were not prepared to accept in Committee or in the Chamber.
            Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman spoke about procrastination. I remember an occasion in Committee when he caused a series of Divisions entirely on his own, to the astonishment and horror of his Whip. Was that part of his crusade against the nationalists, or something to do with procrastination?
            Mr. Davidson: No, that was nothing to do with procrastination. It was a result of the operation of the Sewel motion and the fact that we were unable to debate some clauses dealing with Scotland because the hon. Gentleman and his Conservative colleagues had spent so much time on earlier clauses spinning out the debate. I do not remember whether they spun out an entire part of the Bill or just a day's debate, but they clearly wasted time—the Whip intervened on several occasions to keep things going—with the deliberate intention of preventing us from reaching some provisions applying to Scotland. I made my point reasonably well by forcing a number of votes. For the benefit of those who were not in Committee, it is fair to say that I lost them all, but that was not a surprise.

            797
            This is not the end of the road. We must consider implementation. I very much welcome the new unit that is to be established in Scotland and the announcement made by the Minister of State, Scotland Office. We must make sure that we have adequate resources for the police specialist units and the professional help being provided to them and to the Procurator Fiscal Service.
            If we are to have confidence in the legal system in Scotland and in England and Wales, we need to tackle its modernisation as a matter of urgency. I recognise that that is an area in which there are substantial vested interests and where there is producer domination. However, if we genuinely want the modernisation of our society, we cannot just be hard on soft targets. We must be hard on some of the real vested interests.
            I was asked earlier whether I wanted to reflect on my view of lawyers and the law. Yes, I probably do. On a number of occasions, I was not nearly hard enough. The more people bring me examples of the sort of behaviour to which I object in the law, the more I believe that more hon. Members should take up these issues in the interests of our constituents.
            My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) expressed more eloquently than I could the motivation behind my participation in the debate on the Bill in the House and in Committee. It has been a long slog, but I believe that if hon. Members representing areas such as mine are not prepared to put a substantial effort behind measures such as the Bill, we do a disservice to our constituents.
            We must protect those whose lives are cursed by drugs and crime in their communities. I have mentioned several times before, and I make no apology for mentioning again, the families who are unable to go out together for an evening or at any other time because they are afraid to leave their house unoccupied. We must take action against the society that allows that to continue. I hope that the Bill goes some way towards creating a better Scotland and a better Britain.
            9.18 pm
            Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words. My interest was sparked many years ago when I brought to the attention of the then Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Sir Kenneth Newman, a scam using stocks and shares to pass money to terrorist groups. It took some years before anything began to happen.
            I understand the comments of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). When a previous discussion was going on, my erstwhile colleague Enoch Powell expressed concern that we were interfering too much with civil liberties. However, the harsh reality of life is that society has changed dramatically. On behalf of my colleagues on the Select Committee, I express our thanks to the Minister for the reception that he gave our report, and to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) for his kind words.
            For far too long, law enforcement bodies have not worked together. The Bill should help them to move together. It is amazing how long it is since income tax legislation brought Al Capone to justice. It is also amazing how often we fail to realise that various law enforcement officers must come together to make a difference.
            798
            In that context, I should like to say something about lifestyle. A glazier who was doing some work in my office said to my secretary one day, "What is going on in this world? I am driving an old banger and doing my best to make an honest living, but I saw one of those godfathers driving into the petrol station the other day in a Mercedes." Fascinatingly enough, the papers began to refer to such lifestyles, and we saw the same person who drove the Mercedes pay tribute to his financial adviser, who helped him to invest wisely, although he earned only £3 a week in his prison days. I have yet to find out who that financial adviser is; I could do with him.
            Lifestyle means something. On reclamation of income tax, £10 million has already been restored through the Criminal Assets Bureau in the Republic to the Treasury—money that would never otherwise have been lifted in income tax. Some £20 million is waiting to be dealt with; it must be done legally and appeal methods can be involved. None the less, the reclamation of that money is a reflection of what is going on in our society.
            I welcome the movement that the Bill represents and I wish it speed through the other House, although I also welcome the fact that the Government will have the opportunity that has been given to successive Governments, whatever their hue, to be made wiser by the second opinions given in that place. I look forward to improvements being made. In Northern Ireland, the Bill is not only about terrorism—a subject to which some people keep returning—but about a whole change in our society. When we consider the courts, I think about the problem of drug pushers and other criminals in Ballymena, who are brought to the courts and remanded on bail so they can go out and make enough money to pay any fine that is imposed. While the judiciary must be careful in sentencing, it must realise that its job is not only to see that the law is not administered in a draconian way, but to ensure that the victims are protected.
            9.23 pm
            John Robertson: I thank the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) for his speech. What happened in his Province today is an example of why we need to tackle the proceeds of crime. The people of Northern Ireland know full well what happens with such proceeds in terms of terrorism and intimidation, and I should like to thank him personally for his contribution.
            In giving my own thoughts and feelings, I shall keep my remarks as short as possible. The Bill is a 301-page document with 450 clauses and nine schedules, so I can assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Committee stage was a long slog. It seemed more like 139 steps than like 39. While I might not have the same experience as other hon. Members—especially those in the legal profession—I have always tried to put victims first. I make no apology for that; the criminals will always be second. The people who perpetrate crime will always have to be taken care of, and I see the Bill as a way of ensuring that that happens: it is a start in allowing us to attack the Mr. Bigs, the money men; or, for that matter, the Mrs. Bigs—I do not want to be sexist.
            I am glad that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) is in his place. He gave a good example of the way in which the official Opposition have conducted themselves throughout the Committee stage and in this debate. In Committee, he tried to justify

            799
            the money laundering of the City of London. At one stage, he actually said "We need the money in London; otherwise it will just go somewhere else".
            Mr. Mark Field rose—
            John Robertson: I would be very disappointed if the hon. Gentleman did not wish to intervene at this point.
            Mr. Field: I think that I have made it clear, as has the Minister, that it is crucial to the City of London that we should not be seen as a soft touch in terms of money laundering or any of the other problems raised in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman rightly puts his constituents' interests first. The City of London is part of my constituency, and it is right for me at least to put the arguments against the problems of over-regulation and over-compliance, which are important to exporters. I do not suggest that those arguments should override all those advanced by the hon. Gentleman, but they should at least be heard.
            John Robertson: If those in the City of London and people like them had put their house in order in the past, I would not be attacking the hon. Gentleman now. I feel, as do the police and the Drug Enforcement Agency—which I mentioned earlier—that such people must be brought to book. Lawyers have rules, and they have not stuck to them.
            I will not attack lawyers and bankers, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson)— I certainly could not do it as well as he did—but, as I have said, these people must be brought to book. They seem to feel that they can turn a blind eye to the passage of illegal money through their hands. It is nothing to do with them; they are just doing their job, and they are well paid. No one can tell me that a lawyer in such circumstances does not know that someone is making a living from a criminal lifestyle. I am sorry to say this, but lawyers are not going to the police and telling them about such people. Indeed, lawyers defend them and get them off when they knew fine well from the outset that they were guilty as sin.
            The Liberals, who may be described as the unofficial Opposition—
            Norman Baker: The effective Opposition.
            John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman would say that, wouldn't he? Anyway, the Liberals are very nice men. Unfortunately, criminals just love very nice men. I know that their hearts are in the right place, because they told me so, but they cannot sit on the fence for ever. They will become sore after a while if they do. We know that: we tried it for long enough.
            May I say a word about the nationalists? I will not say anything about a Committee on which they did not sit—and I mentioned the fact that they did not ask to sit on it—because I would be ruled out of order if I did. I will say, however, that it is a pleasure to see them tonight. I am glad that they made an input today—I think—but whether it was effective is another matter. The leader-in-waiting made a slight input, but it was so slight that I will not even mention it.
            800
            The Committee stage was excellent. We had some fun. Members on both sides acted in good faith, for what they believed to be right. It just so happens that we are right and Opposition Members are wrong.
            9.29 pm
            Mr. Boris Johnson: I am grateful for the chance of intruding a few comments into the dying moments of the debate. I take my leave of the Bill in the immortal words of Geoffrey Howe, who referred to
            "the tragic conflict of loyalties with which I have myself wrestled for perhaps too long."—[Official Report, 13 November 1990; Vol. 180, c. 465.]
            My loyalties are divided, as are my instincts, following 39 fun-filled sittings.
            I have listened with great care to the passionate and sincere speeches of the two Glasgow Members. They plainly want to devise a Bill that creates a great money-extorting machine that will put every criminal inside it and squeeze them until the last bawbee—if I have the right term—drops from their pockets. I want to say how sincerely I agree with them in that ambition. I have listened to the hon. Members and I think that they are right, although I sometimes think that the landscape of Glasgow that they portray is a trifle too depressing. Not a single innocent sunbed-owner, and not a single innocent suntan—save, perhaps, that mantling the brow of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok—escapes their attention. None the less, I share their general prejudice against the criminals who inflict great misery on people not only in their constituencies but in those of all hon. Members, including my own.
            It has been a privilege and an education for me to listen to the Ministers and to the many learned and distinguished Labour and Liberal Members, all of whom have shown remarkable command of their subject. I have also been profoundly impressed—of course, I would say this, but I mean it—by the wisdom and humanity of our own Front-Bench Members. It became clear to me as our deliberations went on that, no matter how vehemently we agree with the ends, it is our duty as conscientious legislators sometimes to dissent from the means, particularly if the means that we are advocating will frustrate the very ends that we have in view.
            Let me risk the disapproval of some of the most learned Labour Members by trying to grasp this great Bill by its fundamentals. I shall not dwell on the minor points, but a problem still extant in the Bill is that some foreign Governments could decide that the legitimate property of London Bond Street salerooms was the proceeds of crime. I am thrilled to see that the Home Secretary has arrived at this critical point, and I hope that he will address his vast brain to this question. It is still a problem that those salerooms could be the object of the jealousy of a rapacious foreign Government who might want to repatriate an artefact—an image resembling the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe), perhaps—on the ground that it resembled Hammurabi, for instance. They might contend that it had been stolen by some British archaeologist in the 1920s.
            I shall leave those concerns on one side, however, and pass on to the guts of the Bill. I want to put an end to the Minister's perplexity by explaining what the Conservatives were trying to do during the 39 Committee sittings. We were right to take the line that we did, not

            801
            because we want to water the Bill down, but because we want it to work. I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that the Bill appears to mean, in a nutshell, that if a convicted criminal—who could have been convicted of anything—can be shown, under the nebulous terms of clause 75, to have a criminal lifestyle, the court must order the confiscation of their assets unless they can show that they are not the proceeds of crime.
            That is a terrifyingly powerful engine for getting money out of criminals. I can see why the eyes of Labour Members glitter when they contemplate it. All I can say is that there seems to be a risk, in some of the language, that the measure could be used not just against the Mr. Bigs—whom we all oppose—but against the innocent, such as the relatives of whom my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) spoke so movingly, and the mules—the victims of the drugs trade who are more likely to end up in the hands of the police.
            Time after time, Conservative Members have tried to ensure that the rights of the innocent are protected. That is not, as I have said, because we want to attenuate the Bill, but because we want to make it more legally robust and more successful. Unless the Bill is intelligently and humanely drafted, it will fail in its objective. It will net no assets, and all the glitter and excitement in the eyes of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok and his friends will be frustrated, and they will be disappointed.
            I shall give an example of what I mean. As the Minister knows, in 2000, the courts convicted one Robert McIntosh. I think that he was from Glasgow; he might even have been a constituent of one of the hon. Members here tonight. He was a very bad man—he is a very bad man; I think that I can say that without fear of contradiction. He was a drugs dealer and the court ordered £18,000 of his assets to be confiscated. The money was confiscated, but the decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal in Scotland because it involved the assumption, without any proof, that those assets were the proceeds of crime. That is exactly the way in which we are formulating the Bill and it will be a great shame if it fails to net the assets that we all want because, as the Scottish Appeal Court found, that means of the state getting its hands on the proceeds of crime conflicts with the Human Rights Act 1998.
            Mr. Bob Ainsworth: Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that there has been recent case law, particularly in the case of Rezvi, that has upheld the use of the assumptions in confiscation and not just in drug money.
            Mr. Johnson: I am grateful to the Minister for that important clarification. I am of course aware of it, but I have only to look around the Chamber tonight to see legal brains of the kind of rarity and skill that could easily use the Human Rights Act 1998 to frustrate the very purposes that we have been trying to advance day in, day out and week in, week out during our consideration of the Bill.
            In conclusion, the Bill has been improved by the efforts of hon. Members on both sides of the House, to protect the rights of the innocent because that is the way to make it—
            John Robertson: A juggernaut.
            Mr. Johnson: The hon. Gentleman said that it should be a juggernaut, but the problem with a juggernaut is that
            802
            it tends to crush the innocent and the guilty alike. It would be much better if the Bill were transformed—and I think that it has been—into a subtle and relentless octopus that picks the pockets of the guilty alone.
            Mr. Davidson: Would it be helpful if I pointed out to the hon. Gentleman that although the McIntosh case was overturned by the Scottish Appeal Court, the conviction was finally upheld by the Privy Council?
            Mr. Johnson: I am more than grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, but I think that I have already addressed it. Nor am I sure whether what he says is accurate. In fact, I think that he is trying to spoil my conclusion by making things up on the spur of the moment.
            Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend may have been confused by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) talking about the Privy Council when he may have meant the House of Lords. Does my hon. Friend agree with the words of a distinguished former Member, Sir Alan Herbert, also a journalist and distinguished playwright? He said:
            "As far as I am concerned, Scotland can govern itself for ever, but I hope the Scots never govern us. I have come back from one week-end in Scotland, and I must say that I found that there the laws were more barbarous in some respects than any laws which I expected to exist in these islands."—[Official Report, 9 May 1945; Vol. 410, c. 1945.]
            Mr. Johnson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that very good point.
            In conclusion, let the Bill be a subtle and relentless octopus, not a juggernaut which crushes the innocent and guilty alike. I think that we have done a good job in ensuring that and I hope that the other place will continue our work.
            9.38 pm
            Ian Lucas: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) who is glancing at his watch. Clearly, he wants to go and put The Spectator to bed and I am sure that he will do it very well.
            I want to make two brief points. The first is about the process. I speak as a new Member who was elected last June. Somewhat to my surprise, I have been impressed by the process and the way in which the Bill has proceeded. The main reason for that is that there was excellent input from all members of the Committee on which I was proud to serve. Everyone expressed their views freely and sincerely. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) who has worked extremely hard on the Bill. Today, I was amazed to see the hon. Gentleman lose his rag for the first time, when he was baited by Scottish National Members. I did not believe that that would ever happen, but he was pushed to that extent.
            I have been impressed by the way that the Bill has proceeded. The measure is important and goes to the heart of what may be the major problem facing this country. I hope that, when Labour Members talked about the communities that they represent, Opposition Members learned more about those communities than they knew before the introduction of the Bill. I suspect that they have done so.

            803
            The official Opposition and the other Opposition have also helped by tabling amendments so that the Bill is better than it was on Second Reading. We all agree about that.
            One continuing misapprehension about the Bill is that it contains no safeguards. I confess that I am a former lawyer so I instinctively followed some of the arguments made by Opposition Front-Bench Members. However, I have studied the Bill closely and it includes an extraordinary number of safeguards. Some of the drafting has not assisted in understanding the measure, but the Bill strikes the right balance. Balance is the key word. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) referred to tension. That is present throughout the Bill.
            A strong voice has spoken from the Chamber and from the Committee—a voice that represents people in the communities afflicted by the serious problems associated with drugs. As politicians we must speak out for those communities. The people who must listen to us are in the other place—especially the lawyers who will regard the Bill in a certain way. I suffered from that disease in the past, but as a new politician I have learned that I have a responsibility to look at legislation differently—in a way that reflects the problems and fears in the community that I represent. That voice will not be represented in the other place, but it is important that Members in that place hear from us about these grave matters and are assured that we have considered the Bill closely and that it must be taken forward.
            The Bill is already having an effect. I am sure that my very hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) will be delighted to know that two or three weeks ago the front page of the Law Society Gazette warned lawyers to be on their guard because the Proceeds of Crime Bill was on its way.
            9.43 pm
            Annabelle Ewing: I join hon. Members in supporting the Bill's Third Reading. We were happy to join the Government in the Division Lobby to support them on various issues during the past two days. It is clear that strong measures are needed to tackle the serious problems associated with drugs and other organised crime, which have cast a blight on communities the length and breadth of Scotland and throughout the rest of the United Kingdom.
            Before the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) takes up his barracking again, I want to agree with him on the important issue of resources. It is all very well to create new agencies and powers for—in Scotland—the procurator fiscal service, the Crown Office and so forth and our police force, but if there are no resources the new powers are not worth the paper on which they are written. I hope that issue will be addressed.
            Mr. Davidson: Will the hon. Lady give way?
            Annabelle Ewing: I shall not give way. I want to speak briefly as I know that other Members want to contribute before the debate ends.
            804
            I and my colleagues are very disappointed to note that new Labour Members voted against our amendment No. 229 tonight. It would have ensured that part 3 of the Bill, which went through substantial change in this House, would have been referred back to the Scots Parliament.
            John Robertson: Will the hon. Lady give way?
            Annabelle Ewing: No. I want to be brief and allow other hon. Members to speak.
            In the debate on Report, all parties agreed that there had been major changes to part 3 of the Bill. The Minister of State, Scotland Office, told the Scottish Affairs Select Committee on 7 November that, if substantial changes were made, there would be a political imperative to refer the matter back to the Scots Parliament. Those changes have been made, but new Labour Members tonight voted against that referral. That action must be regarded as indefensible, undemocratic and an attack on the very basis of the Scots Parliament. Scots Labour MPs, in particular, should be thoroughly ashamed of their conduct tonight.
            My last point is that the Sewel motion issue clearly remains unresolved. In his comments over the past few days, the Minister of State repeatedly confused the Scots Parliament with the Scottish Executive. The issue needs to be resolved. The substantial number of votes that my party garnered from other parties in the House—our amendment gained 172 votes—shows that there is an imperative to resolve the matter properly, in a way that respects both the spirit of the Scotland Act 1998 and democracy in Scotland.
            9.46 pm
            Mr. Carmichael: There were 39 sittings in Committee on this Bill, and we have spent two days on Report and Third Reading. One would have thought that everything would have been said by now but, remarkably, there remains something to add.
            I turn first to the question of Sewel motions. That matter was touched on by the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) and by the Minister of State, Scotland Office in his earlier statement. The Minister's statement is to be welcomed. There is no manual for dealing with Scottish legislation going through Westminster in the post- devolution context, especially when it arrives here as a result of a Sewel motion. The experience has been instructive for me and for other hon. Members from Scotland who served on the Standing Committee.
            There is a need to define the role of Scottish MPs, post devolution, in this House. I do not object to the Sewel process in principle, but there are aspects that need to be refined. It encourages a dialogue between Government and Executive that bypasses the important role that can be played by Parliament, both here and in Edinburgh. Those matters must be taken seriously.
            For example, it was drawn to my attention that any subsequent amendment to the Bill passed by the Scottish Parliament will be capable of being struck down by a court if it is not found to be consistent with the terms of the Human Rights Act 1998. The principal Bill can be given only a certificate of human rights incompatibility, and a number of other, similar issues that will have to be addressed.
            The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) and other hon. Members have said that a degree of legal expertise has been brought to bear on the Bill. I am a new Member

            805

            of Parliament. The Standing Committee considering the Bill was the first on which I have served, and I was struck by how remarkably easy it was to be dubbed an expert.
            However, I and other hon. Members—such as the hon. Members for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) and for Redcar (Vera Baird)—did bring to the Committee's deliberations a certain amount of experience of the criminal justice system. We all approached the debate from the point of view that all the different constituent parts of the criminal justice system—the judiciary, the prosecutors, defence solicitors, social workers, police—do an excellent job, often in very difficult circumstances. We only ever hear about the occasions when they get it wrong. We do not hear about the many occasions when they get it right and things go smoothly.
            It is apparent, with all these constituent parts, some of which are conflicting, that a system of checks and balances has to be in place. Liberal Democrat Members remain concerned that a number of checks and balances are not present in the way that they might be. I am concerned that the Lord Advocate in Scotland now has yet another function to perform. I hope that the Scottish Executive will keep a close eye on the manner in which his functions, provided in part 5 of the Bill, are to be executed and that, if necessary, setting up a separate Scottish Assets Recovery Agency may be given serious consideration at a later date.
            It is apparent that the days of the Lord Advocate as a Minister in the Scottish Executive are numbered. The number of functions that he has in terms of his prosecuting role and the additional responsibilities provided by the Bill must make that position more difficult to maintain. I say that as someone who has a great regard for the office of Lord Advocate. It is a very important one, but in this post-devolution age there should be no sacred cows. If the reform of an ancient office is necessary, so be it. Let us go ahead.
            806
            Liberal Democrat Members have accepted the need for the Bill. We accept that it is broadly good and wish it well. I shall watch its progress through the courts with great interest. It has been a pleasure and an honour, as a new Member of this House, particularly as a Scottish Member, to be part of these proceedings. We wish the Government well in their dealings with it in the other place.
            9.51 pm
            Mr. Mark Field: It will be a very brief speech indeed, Mr. Speaker. It is lovely to have the last word; I wish it were like that all the time in politics.
            I wish to associate myself with many of the comments about the consensus on the Bill. I fear that that is the last word. [Laughter.]
            Mr. Speaker: It certainly has been brief.
            Question agreed to.
            Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

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

            GOVERNMENT TRADING FUNDS
            That the draft ABRO Trading Fund Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 25th January, be approved.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
            Question agreed to.
            Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

            SOCIAL SECURITY
            That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Funds Payments) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 6th February, be approved.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
            Question agreed to.

  Public Entertainment Licences
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mrs. McGuire.]
  9.52 pm
  Mr. David Heath: It is a great pleasure to have the opportunity to speak about public entertainment licences. Many archaic parts of the law have somehow survived unrepealed, and some have a sparing connection with reality. Under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, for instance, it is still illegal to fly a kite or slide on ice in a public place. Happily, it is not often enforced.
  The problem with the public entertainment licence laws is that although they are archaic and in many respects foolish, they are vigorously applied by many local authorities. Many hon. Members will be aware of the ridiculous "two in the bar" rule. I spoke about this most recently on 3 December when I asked a question of the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting and mentioned Madonna duetting with Michael Jackson. Let me give another illustration: if Kylie Minogue and Elvis Presley—if he were still alive, as some believe he is—were to do a gig in a pub, they would not need a public entertainment licence, but three folk singers from Somerset would. I do not believe that the attendance would be comparable, and I put that case to the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting.
  I mean no disrespect to the Minister for Sport—I am delighted that he is to reply to the debate—but I hoped that I could give his colleague an opportunity to redeem himself in the eyes of every good west countryman and every adherent of folk music in the country. His reply on 3 December brought unprecedented opprobrium down on his head from the west country. He may have subsequently regretted his comments, and I should have liked to give him the chance to redeem himself.
  Some may believe that I am motivated only by my deep and lasting affection for Adge Cutler. However, although I am interested in and enjoy traditional and contemporary folk music, it is not the only form of entertainment that is affected by the rules. They affect jazz, pop, rock and every form of live music, and public houses and the licensed trade. Restrictions on the ability to perform live music on such premises often have a knock-on effect on tourism.
  Not only licensed premises are affected. Many people do not understand that it is a criminal offence for a brass band to play at a village fete in a vicarage garden because it is private land without a public entertainment licence. It is also a criminal offence for morris dancers to perform in a public house car park without such a licence. Last week's court case of the London borough of Southwark v. Sean Toye showed that it is an offence not only for a performance to include more than two people singing or playing at the same time, but for people to perform sequentially. If one person stands up, sings and sits down and is followed by a second and then a third person, that requires a public entertainment licence.
  Legal actions show that the "performance" does not even have to be advertised to the public to require a licence. We know that people do not have to pay money for such a licence to be required. However, people indulging in singing on licensed premises also appears to
  808
  need a licence. That was the crux of the case that Weymouth and Portland borough council brought against The Cove inn. I note that the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) is in his place. He may know more about that case. The council relied on case law from 1793 to establish that singing on the premises was potentially a criminal offence. For the record, the case was Clarke v. Searle.
  Jim Knight: The hon. Gentleman is correct about the case in my constituency. The Cove is a fine pub, which I recommend to hon. Members. It has a superb view over Chesil beach. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a shame that my constituents and council officers have spent disproportionate amounts of time corresponding with each other and arguing the toss about arcane legislation? As he said, it is a silly law, and everyone appears to be confused about how strictly to enforce it. It is unfortunate that, in the case that we are considering, it was decided to enforce it strictly. That has left everyone, including me, with a huge burden of correspondence.
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is right, and he has my greatest sympathy for the casework that has been generated. It shows how ridiculous the law is. The guidance that the licensees give recognises that. The British Institute of Innkeeping's "Handbook for the Entertainment Licensee's National Certificate" states:
  "Where community style singing to music is encouraged to take place, the entertainment will be licensable."
  We might have guessed that. It goes on to say:
  "If, however, the singing is spontaneous the council is unlikely to take action, although technically there is a breach of the law."
  If someone gets up in a pub and has the temerity to start singing—it has been known—he is technically in breach of the law. I do not know what the landlord is supposed to do about it: dash out and get a public entertainment—
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. McNulty.]
  Mr. Heath: No doubt the publican would be required to call time and close the public house.
  Jim Knight: About nine months ago, when I lived in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, everyone in the pub just down the road from me broke spontaneously into song after one or two people turned up who had been rehearsing their musical instruments. I confess that perhaps I broke the law when I joined in. I hope that he will forgive me for doing that in his constituency.
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman was a distinguished member of the local district council and would have had to take action against himself in those circumstances.
  There is a large coalition of interests against this nonsensical law. The Minister knows that the Arts Council, the Church of England, hon. Members on both sides of the House, the Musicians Union and publicans want the law changed. Indeed, the Government want it changed, as they have said several times. We need to change it because the rules are archaic and arbitrary. The interpretation and the costs that can be applied to the

  809
  person who wants a licence from the local authority are arbitrary. There is a disproportionate penalty for the so-called criminal offence. The fine can be up to £20,000 and it is possible to receive six months in prison for breaking the law. Not only can it criminalise those who hold licences for public houses and other venues and those musicians who may simply be ignorant of the rules, which is often the case with amateur organisations, but it over-regulates many premises that then face huge compliance and regulatory costs.
  In addition, the law reduces the amount of live music that is available in this country, which is a great shame. I should like to stimulate the performance of much more live music. Many places used to allow live music performances. Over the past 20 years or so, the number has decreased and less than 5 per cent. of public houses now hold a public entertainment licence, which is regrettable.
  The regulations are not in effect because of the number of people who are expected to attend a performance or the capacity of the venue. The rule is simply arbitrary. I would be the last person to argue that there is a case for abolishing the regulations if it meant that public safety was endangered or we risked allowing public disorder, but the authorities have other powers at their disposal in those circumstances.
  The Government produced a White Paper in April 2000 in which they said that they wanted to change things. Sadly, since the general election, and despite the famous text messages that we have heard so much about which were sent to young people on the morning of the election, there was nothing in the Queen's Speech to that effect and no such legislation is pending.
  There is a crying need for legislation to change the regulations. That does not mean simply abolishing the "two in the bar" rule because it would obviously be more restrictive if we made it a "one in the bar" rule. We need a complete change. If the Minister cannot give a date for when the Government will legislate, will he at least issue guidance to local authorities on how they should exercise the powers at their disposal so that their decisions are not so arbitrary? That would remove the enormous disparity in costs that exists between one local authority and another. Local authorities need to know what they are doing so that the public, event organisers and licensees of premises know what to expect.
  The Department, which has been asked to provide information on its website, has not been very helpful in that respect. I have a copy of a letter from Philippa Drew—the Department's director of education, training, arts and sport—to the director of the National Campaign for the Arts. Among other things, it states:
  "We are extremely reluctant to place general information on our website which may alarm ordinary and honest people unnecessarily when their local authority may adopt a policy of non-enforcement or the practice of waiving requirements in certain circumstances."
  The Department is arguing that it will not give guidance because people might worry that they will face the penalties that they may indeed have to face. That does not seem a credible position for the Government to adopt.
  I ask the Minister to reconsider the matter and give a real commitment that legislation will be brought before the House in short order. Irrespective of whether that happens, I ask him to provide proper guidelines for local authorities and the public, so that everybody knows where
  810
  they stand. A less arbitrary and fairer system might stimulate the public, the entertainment industry, live music, licensed premises, tourism and the general well-being of the population.
  10.6 pm
  The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on raising these issues tonight. A few weeks ago, he put a question on the matter to the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), who unfortunately cannot be here this evening. He is in the United States, battling for Britain by arguing that it is a good tourist destination for Americans, and by promoting our hospitality and leisure and tourist industries in this golden jubilee year.
  Contrary to popular belief, it is not true that all that my hon. Friend wanted to do was get away from "Wurzelgate". I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman had anything to do with the door-stepping of my hon. Friend when he visited the west country on the Friday after the question was asked. My hon. Friend was confronted with the Wurzels, who presumably got a tremendous amount of free publicity out of the incident. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport told me that she had to attend the folk singing awards to smooth troubled waters, as it were.
  Mr. Heath: The Minister might like to know that the Western Daily Press ran a headline stating, "Wurzelgate: the row that is rocking the Commons." It is true, therefore, that his hon. Friend has a certain notoriety.
  Mr. Caborn: As I said, my hon. Friend was door-stepped.
  Jim Knight: I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) is promoting British folk music while he is in the United States. He would be interested to know that my local paper, the Dorset Echo, has published correspondence from Americans who say how much they look forward to visiting this country to listen to folk music, what nonsense the "two in the bar" rule is, and that they are now fearful of joining in with such music.
  Mr. Caborn: I have no doubt that they will enjoy it, and I shall text my hon. Friend across the pond to ensure that he mentions the matter in his speech to the Americans in the next day or so.
  I am pleased to reply to this debate because we have a fairly good story to tell. In calling for reform of the public entertainment licensing system, the hon. Gentleman is, as he suggests, pushing at an open door. The Government are firmly committed to reforming and modernising our archaic licensing laws, which have been well described as occasionally just plain daft. As he said, a manifesto commitment was made in that regard. We take it very seriously, and I shall explain how we hope to see it through.
  The hon. Gentleman does not have to persuade us that many aspects of our existing laws on public entertainment are at times perverse. As he said in the House in December, it is ridiculous that, in theory, Madonna and

  811
  Michael Jackson could perform together unlicensed in a local pub, while three Somerset folk singers could not. That is why we are firmly committed to the abolition of the two-musician rule, but the issue goes much wider than that. The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to use that example at Question Time to illustrate how stupid the licensing laws are.
  As the hon. Gentleman said, we published the White Paper "Time for Reform" in April 2000. Before setting out our proposals to reform the licensing laws, it pulled no punches about what was wrong with the existing licensing arrangements. It identified the main problems with current public entertainment licensing, and I shall refer to some of the main issues. There is too much scope for inconsistencies in the approaches of different licensing authorities, which cannot be justified by real local differences.
  The hon. Gentleman asks whether we can give guidance to local authorities. I do not think that we can, but I take on board the point that he makes, and I shall speak to officials tomorrow to find out whether we can produce some guidance. If that can be done, I will ensure that it is. I shall also consider the issue that he raised about the website. As a matter of interest, I looked at the hon. Gentleman's website, on which he has given the world the text of the speech that he has made this evening. I suppose that that is one way of ensuring that he is well known in his constituency—he does not miss a trick.
  The hon. Gentleman suggests that an individual who joins in a singalong with a friend in a pub could be prosecuted under the public entertainment licensing laws and that many law-abiding citizens are breaking the law every day. I am informed that that is not true. The organiser of any public event and the manager of the premises where the event takes place may be prosecuted for breaches of public entertainment licensing law. However, my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) would not have been prosecuted in the case that he explained because people involved in spontaneous outbursts of singing hymns or rugby, football or folk songs may not be prosecuted. So there is obviously a difference of opinion, but I shall not debate that further.
  Jim Knight: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way yet again. He and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) were right to raise the guidance issue—I am sure that everyone will be grateful to them if they consider it further—but I recall circumstances in which the police may have been advised to give some things less priority than others. I am told that Belper folk club was recently raided by the police. A three-person group was playing at the club, which is run as an all-member club. The police were allowed into the club as new members to avoid the entertainment licensing laws, but they then pursued the matter further. So police time was used in pursuing a case that involves what everyone would regard as a silly law. Will my right hon. Friend consider whether police authorities could be advised that we all regard that law as silly and that we shall change it in due course? I look forward to his explaining when that will happen, as that would also be helpful.
  Mr. Caborn: My hon. Friend makes a sensible suggestion, and I am sure that my officials will take note
  812
  of it. If we can clarify the issue so that police time, which is valuable in keeping our communities safe, is not wasted trying to police silly licensing laws, it would be far better, so he is right to raise that issue.
  The second issue raised in the White Paper is that separate licensing systems for theatres, cinemas and music and dancing produce unnecessary complexity when the main purposes of the regulations are essentially the same. Again, we shall consider that issue in new legislation.
  Thirdly, the White Paper said that there is too much scope for local licensing authorities to impose disproportionate and burdensome requirements on venues—a point that the hon. Gentleman made. Fourthly, there is duplication of the requirements of fire safety and health and safety regulations. Again, we believe that those requirements can be modernised so that they are more effective. Fifthly, there is the problem that fees are set at the discretion of local authorities, with some evidence of excessive charging. That shows that the operation of the law is very wide and that it can be abused to some extent.
  Public entertainment licensing law currently gives the licensing authorities enormously wide discretion, and levels of enforcement vary considerably around the country. Some local authorities are zealous in their application of the law and others are not. The White Paper was about finding solutions to those and other problems across the licensing field.
  The White Paper proposed a single, integrated scheme for licensing premises that sell alcohol or provide public entertainment or late-night refreshment, sweeping away a considerable amount of red tape at a stroke, and proposed a new system of personal licences, which will allow holders to sell or serve alcohol for consumption on or off any premises. It also suggested new measures to back up restrictions on underage drinking.
  The White Paper proposed a new form of premises licence, which will set out operating conditions relating to the impact on crime and disorder, public safety, and public disturbance. Licence conditions should protect against those threats, but not interfere in other ways with how premises are run. It is proposed that the conditions attached to such licences should be set locally on the basis of striking a balance between the operator's requirements, residents' views, and police and fire authorities' assessments.
  To counter and minimise public disorder resulting from fixed closing times, the White Paper proposed that flexible opening hours be introduced as a condition of the premises licence, with the potential for some venues to operate for up to 24 hours and to open seven days a week, but subject to consideration of the impact on local residents. It was suggested that children be allowed access to any part of suitable licensed premises at the personal licence holder's discretion, but that licensing authorities have powers to restrict or deny access for children to unsuitable licensed venues.
  It was also proposed that the new personal and premises licences be issued by local authorities, providing greater democratic accountability to the community, and that licences be supported by a flexible range of sanctions, including temporary closure and temporary reduction in opening hours, instead of the present single, all or nothing sanction of loss of licence. That is a radical package of measures, which we remain convinced strikes an

  813
  important and necessary balance between the needs of business, including tourism in rural areas, and the concerns of local residents.
  The hon. Gentleman is concerned too about the impact on performers—musicians, singers, dancers and the like. The White Paper proposed the abolition of the two-musician rule because, as he clearly said, any individual playing with modern amplification can easily cause as much disturbance as any four, five or six musicians. Indeed, a single live acoustic guitar amplified by a microphone and boosted through a modern public address system can, as we all know, generate quite extraordinary sound levels.
  Live performers have no reason to fear our proposals. We consulted widely on them. The consultation was not limited to the powerful alcohol interests; we included groups representing the interests of folk and jazz musicians. I shall quote one response to the White Paper. It came from the Association of British Jazz Musicians, which said:
  "Remarkably, these reforms could benefit everyone: the brewers and landlords, as well as the present and future employees in the industry; and of course there will be increased opportunities for entertainers, particularly musicians. The reduction in regulation, with consequent savings to brewers and individual licensees, should also mean that there will be more money in the system for the payment of entertainers at a proper level."
  In May last year, we confirmed our intention to implement the reforms by means of primary legislation as soon as parliamentary time permits. The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot anticipate a future Queen's Speech, but I assure him that work on the preparation of the necessary Bill is ongoing. That work includes further detailed consultation with all interested stakeholders. In recent weeks, a draft of the instructions for the Bill was sent to organisations including the Musicians Union and
  814
  the Arts Council. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Arts Council has a working party on licensing reform that includes representatives of musicians and festival organisers.
  Like all of us, the hon. Gentleman would like reform to be introduced sooner rather than later. Public entertainment licensing law is enshrined in primary legislation and deals with important issues of public safety and disturbance, so primary legislation is needed to bring about the necessary reform. The House will want to debate those matters very fully indeed, because the law affects all our constituents.
  In December, the hon. Gentleman stressed the importance of live music in pubs and inns to the recovery of tourism in rural areas. I entirely agree with what he said then and tonight. Licensing reform will be good for business because it will sweep away a great deal of expensive red tape which no longer serves the purpose of protecting the public, and sometimes deters licensees from staging musical events on their premises. Reform will be good for consumers—citizens and visitors to this country alike—especially families, offering them more choice and safer surroundings in which to eat and drink and watch performers. Finally it will provide a much needed boost for both urban and rural tourism after a difficult and demanding year.
  Again, I warmly congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising some important issues tonight. We are singing from the same hymn book, whether licensed or not. I assure him that we take those issues seriously. A reform Bill, if we can persuade the House authorities to introduce one, would serve an extremely useful purpose, and I hope that that can be achieved sooner rather than later.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Ten o'clock.

Preamble
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Meat Imports
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. McNulty.]
9.30 am
Mr. Peter Atkinson: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to draw attention to the safety of meat imports. It could not have come at a more appropriate time given that we are celebrating—if that is the right word—the anniversary of the appalling outbreak of foot and mouth disease, which started at a pig farm in Heddon-on-the-Wall in my constituency. Coincidentally, the outbreak almost finished in my constituency. It did untold damage to farming there and throughout the north of England, Scotland and the south-west and caused devastation to the tourist industry.
On Monday, I visited the farm adjacent to Burnside farm where the first outbreak occurred. It was the anniversary of when the first pyre was lit at Burnside farm. Pictures of the blazing carcases of cattle, sheep and pigs were shown throughout the world and were a wonderful invitation to those in America to visit Britain. If we had wanted to put off tourists, we could not have done more. As a result of the disease, 6.5 million animals have been slaughtered. We have lost untold millions in tourism revenue—all because of imported meat. The cause of the outbreak must be linked to the illegal importation of infected meat.
The story was the same in 1967. The cause of that outbreak was never traced but again suspicion fell on lamb that was imported from Argentina. Furthermore, there was uncertainty about the cause of the outbreak of classical swine fever in 2000, but veterinary evidence tracked it down to a pork product. Fancifully, it was said that a pig was fed a ham sandwich in a pig unit. Whether that was true is not clear, but the three outbreaks can be linked to imported food.
The victims of the outbreak cannot understand why, 12 months on, stricter controls on the importation of meat products are not in place. All we have seen so far is posters at Heathrow airport advising people not to bring meat products into the country. We have been promised a forum to discuss the issue next month. The matter is urgent. People are staggered when they discover that, at Heathrow airport—one of the biggest cargo handling ports in the United Kingdom—the front line against such imports is manned by 10 environmental health officers employed by the London borough of Hillingdon who have 10 assistants to help them.
Those who read last night's Evening Standard will know the extent of what is brought into the country through Heathrow airport. The BBC alleged that, from May 2001 until a few weeks ago, no checks were made on meat at the airport. However, a spot check was made last week and, according to reports, that produced more than 300 kg of meat products.
250WH
The imported goods are not regular meat products. Many of them are endangered species that have been brought into the country by airline passengers. One aircraft from Nigeria had a vast quantity of chicken, fish and meat in passengers' luggage. I was told that one suitcase in the cargo hold was leaking blood. The list of imports is fantastic. Live crabs, chimps, goats, anteaters, rats, antelopes, monkeys, snakes, different types of dried meat, fish, even tiger parts from Sri Lanka, India and Japan and bear parts from Russia have been brought in through Heathrow airport. All such meat carries considerable risk of disease, and not only for animals. As Professor Joe Brownlie of the Royal Veterinary College said, it could pose a risk to humans through the spread of tuberculosis or other diseases imported from Africa. This is a serious matter.
The real problem is not so much the products that make headlines, but the importation of large quantities of illegal meat. We legally import large quantities of meat from countries in which foot and mouth is endemic. In the other place, Lord Vincent questioned the Minister about the amount of meat imported from such countries. We import 81,000 tonnes of meat from Brazil, 11,000 tonnes from Botswana and 8,000 tonnes from Namibia. In all, we import more than 100,000 tonnes of meat products from countries that have endemic foot and mouth disease.
The problem of illegal meat is, of course, much more complicated because we cannot tell how much comes in—much of the evidence is anecdotal. However, I believe that several thousand tonnes of illegal meat are imported every year, some of which come in directly and some of which are illegally imported into other European countries, re-boxed and re-labelled in false boxes, or simply put into freezers and sent here.
The National Farmers Union has carried out research in the port of Hull, for which I am grateful. Before 1992, when the port authorities were allowed to inspect all meat products, the port of Hull inspected 35,000 tonnes of meat. In 1993, after a European directive declared it illegal to inspect meat previously inspected by another member state, the port inspected 5 tonnes. So, 30,000 tonnes went through the port of Hull uninspected.
To ensure that food is safe, we rely on the good offices of other European Union countries. Although the majority no doubt enforce regulations well, some do not, and with enlargement the problem could get worse. Customs or health inspectors in countries where heavy lorries are in transit for only a few hours may not bother to carry out the inspections necessary to ensure that meat arriving at its destination is safe.
In the port of Hull inspections, considerable quantities of illegally imported meat were found such as spare ribs and pork scraps of different types. A considerable amount has also been found in Middlesborough, including chicken stock cubes, corned beef and fish products that had been transported in container lorries carrying other products—the classic method is to hide food behind a pile of vegetables. A substantial amount of illegal products is coming into this country.
What shall we do about the problem? We must end the confusion surrounding what imports are allowable. No one is suggesting that we should not be allowed to bring home shopping bought in French supermarkets—

251WH
that would be nonsense. However, I am told that a personal allowance of 1 kg of meat products can be legally brought in from a country that has endemic foot and mouth disease, which is ridiculous and defies any sense of responsibility.
Mr. Roger Gale: Before my hon. Friend leaves French supermarkets, does he agree that much of the meat sold in such places is produced under conditions that would not be allowed by law in this country?
Mr. Atkinson: In terms of certain support products, that may be the case. My hon. Friend has a strong interest in this issue. I do not agree wholeheartedly that the way in which meat is produced in European countries is much worse than the way in which it is produced here, with the exception of pork, where producers are still allowed to use stalls and tethers. I take my hon. Friend's point. I agree about meat products that come into Europe from non-European Union countries. Certainly, some of the conditions in which animals are brought up are way behind what we and our consumers expect. I also agree that some of the products that we buy in this country contain imported meat, particularly chicken, from countries about which there are suspicions that rearing is not up to our standards.
Perhaps the Minister would explain what has happened since May 2001, when we were promised a coordinated approach to improving checks at ports. We have not had an update since. It would be helpful if hon. Members heard what has happened since then. It is vital that the EU works more effectively. It is not enough to leave the matter simply to the good efforts of other European countries.
I should point out a potentially alarming development that I have noticed recently. Veterinary scientists have been considering the question of the transmission of BSE from mother to calf. I understand that transmission from one generation to the next is now ruled out. The 11 calves that developed BSE since the meat and bonemeal ban seem to have been fed contaminated food. How could that happen? As I understand it, in the EU, pigs can still be fed meat and bonemeal. That suggests that somehow there has been cross-contamination of animal feeds imported from Europe.
Meat and bonemeal may be carried in the same containers and stored in the same feed mills as other feed coming into the country. Policing that is a real problem. It is vital that we have the right to inspect food containers coming into the country much more regularly. I accept that such a right should not be used as a restraint on trade. The object of the European regulations is to stop unfair competition. I believe that, on health grounds, we need a European agreement that allows us to check our imported foodstuffs much more readily.
We should take the issue out of the hands of local authorities. It is nonsensical that the London borough of Hillingdon—I am sure that it is an efficient borough, although I know nothing about it—has responsibility to
252WH
deal with Heathrow airport. What intelligence is shared between Heathrow airport environmental health officers and those in, for example, Southampton, Scotland, Hull or Newcastle? None. We need a centralised system, because intelligence is vital.
We will not be able to catch all the illegal foodstuffs coming into the country; that is impossible. However, we can concentrate on the people who are likely to use them. That is where intelligence should come in. The technology for checking passengers is not rocket science. In Australia, a little spaniel comes up and sniffs passengers as they wait to show their passports. That is extremely effective, but we can also get machines that test for the presence of meat products in cargos.
Those measures should be taken urgently. We cannot wait for another outbreak of foot and mouth or some other disease to strike us again. The cost was too great last time, and it will be too great if it happens again. Travel and trade enrich us both as a society and as individuals, but not if they bring with them devastation and disease, as has happened in the past.
9.43 am
Mr. Russell Brown: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) on securing the debate. It seems that there is good news about the suspected new outbreak at Thirsk. The initial results appear to be negative. We all hope that the next two or three days will confirm that they are negative and that we do not experience what we did in the past 12 months.
As many hon. Members know, Dumfries and Galloway was one of the worst affected areas in Scotland. It is a rural area, and was decimated by the outbreak. Agriculture plays a significantly greater role in the economy of the community than in many other parts of the UK. It provides approximately 24 per cent. of the region's gross domestic product.
There were 176 confirmed cases of foot and mouth disease in Dumfries and Galloway, and as a result 1,300 farm businesses were directly affected by the cull policy. That led to the destruction of 18 per cent. of the cattle population and more than 30 per cent. of the sheep population. I declared from an early stage that it would take us many years to recover. Thankfully, my area is on the road to recovery, but many difficulties lie ahead.
As the hon. Member for Hexham noted, the first anniversary of the start of the outbreak was 20 February in England. It is 1 March in Scotland. The NFU on both sides of the border has been effective in raising awareness of illegal meat imports, and is justified in doing so. Issues also surround legal meat imports. There is little doubt that we should minimise as best we can the risk of diseases such as foot and mouth entering the country. We must place that high on the agenda of lessons to be learned from last year's outbreak. I am sure that the inquiries into the outbreak will consider the matter and in a time scale that will lead to those lessons being learned sooner rather than later, unlike with a lengthy public inquiry.
The Government have not been idle. I welcome the action that they have already taken to restrict illegal meat imports following the outbreak. Regrettably, much of that work has been done behind the scenes. Illegal importing is like any other smuggling operation. Control depends on effective intelligence. Government

253WH
action not only strengthens the information-gathering procedures of enforcement bodies such as local authorities and Customs and Excise, but improves the sharing of that information between them. I hope that the Minister will outline how successful that action has been in improving the effectiveness of enforcement activity, and how it has led to improved targeting of resources to where the problem is greatest. As the hon. Member for Hexham noted, some of our busiest airports are the most suspicious locations.
One of the biggest criticisms has been that there is not enough publicity about food imports at ports and airports. Notices are not the only effective way of drawing people's attention to what they should and should not do. I therefore welcome the action that is being taken to improve the situation, as well as the work that is being done to get the message across to visitors through travel agents and our embassies overseas before they embark on their journey.
I also welcome the commissioning of a full risk assessment, which the Veterinary Laboratories Agency will carry out, and the illegal imports forum that will be held next month to consider what can be done to intensify action on illegal imports. The Government have clearly strengthened the import controls that they inherited from the previous Government.
Mr. David Drew: My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) have made a compelling case, and I hope that the Government will consider the amendment to the Animal Health Bill. We must also consider the other aspect of the issue. Who is demanding and buying this meat? The retailer and the catering trade use it for personal consumption.
Mr. Brown: I agree. The process is about consumers and end-users. Regrettably, other people are profiting from this whole game, if I can put it in those terms. However, no one would dispute that, if more needs to be done, more should be done. The hon. Member for Hexham gave some examples, and many lessons can be learned from other countries.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister knows that each international airport in faraway New Zealand recently introduced a regime of 100 per cent. baggage search or X-ray for all arriving passengers. It would be a mammoth task here, but that does not mean that we should ignore it. We must seriously consider every opportunity that comes our way. The new X-ray machines detect any organic material, whether plant or animal, inside baggage. That is supplemented by sniffer dog teams.
I would appreciate the Minister's comments on the progress being made in the Department to consider similar action in the United Kingdom. I recognise that much hard work is being done behind the scenes to control illegal imports, but I want to give the Minister one message from the farmers in my constituency: the Government must be seen to be taking action, and that action must be seen to be effective, if we are to continue to build confidence in the agricultural industry.
There is some confusion about the divisions of responsibility for food import checks, which I hope the Minister will clarify. A number of bodies are involved in controlling imports, including the Food Standards
254WH
Agency, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department of Trade and Industry, port health authorities, the plant health and seeds inspectorate, and, as expected, Customs and Excise. Surely there is a case for a more co-ordinated approach or for bringing together many of those bodies.
There is a case for strengthening the role of the FSA so that it can be more active in checking meat imports. The repeated discovery of specified risk material in carcases of beef from Germany underlines the need for the FSA to maintain vigilance over imports.
Fifty-two weeks ago last Friday, I met representatives of my local branch of the NFU. A variety of issues were on the agenda, but the issue of legal meat imports containing SRMs, particularly beef from Germany, was raised repeatedly. I told my local farmers that it was no good telling me at a late stage, "This meat arrived and is now in the food chain." We must act early to warn people about what is happening. In fact, two or three weeks later, we saw the first indications of foot and mouth in the area. One morning, I received a telephone call from a distraught farmer whom I see regularly. He complained about SRMs in carcases from Spain and Italy.
The hon. Member for Hexham talked about end-users and consumers, and we must consider what can be done. Where will we be in a few years' time if there is a major outbreak of new variant CJD? We will all wonder where on earth it has come from. We have tightened up the way in which we conduct business in the UK, but meat imports with SRMs in carcases are clearly still entering the country.
We must consider whether the FSA can carry out far more stringent and random checks. I would even be so hard as to say that if we come across material infected with SRMs, we should have the power to close the relevant premises immediately. That should also apply to all the major supermarket chains, because they are by no means innocent in all this. A supplier must meet customer demand, but we need to tighten up the system. If supermarket chains and everyone else understand that the penalty could be immediate closure, they may be more mindful of what they bring on to their premises.
The most disconcerting aspect of last year's outbreak of foot and mouth disease was that it was not possible to establish its cause. As the hon. Member for Hexham said, there are strong suspicions that illegal meat coming into this country may have been one cause of the outbreak. The meat potentially found its way into pigswill that did not go through the proper process before it was fed to pigs.
Even if we could pin down exactly how the infected meat came into the country in the first place, zero risk from imported disease cannot be achieved, however much we wish for it. Listening to the comments of Opposition Members, one could be forgiven for thinking that the only issue we face is preventing the disease at the point of entry. The idea that import controls are a magic wand that can prevent a foot and mouth outbreak for ever is misleading. I fear that it is a cover for some hon. Members who would like to stop all meat coming from abroad.
Mr. Peter Atkinson: The hon. Gentleman referred to Opposition Members, but I am the only one who has spoken. I was not making the point that the hon. Gentleman claims; I do not want to stop all food coming into this country. I said that intelligence was necessary to find out who was using the meat, as well as to catch it. I accept that we will not catch all the meat coming into the country.
Mr. Brown: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I apologise if I gave the wrong impression. My point is that there have been previous debates on the issue. Some hon. Members in my party would dearly love to see more severe restrictions on imports.
Two miles from where I live is a major employer, 98 per cent. of whose business is centred around lamb and sheepmeat exports. Any action to ban imports would affect export markets and thus my constituent, and would do no one any good.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this country has the right to restrict imports under article 30—the renumbered article 36 of the treaty of Rome—for the protection of the health and life of humans, animals or plants? It is on that basis—he himself has made the case—that hon. Members on both sides of the House believe action should be taken. Does he agree that that measure could be instigated at certain times?
Mr. Brown: I cannot disagree with the hon. Lady. We need to operate within the rules, directives and regulations laid down, but, regrettably, as she and other hon. Members know, some wish to take things much further.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Hexham on securing the debate and look forward to the Minister's response to it.
9.57 am
Mr. Richard Bacon: Illegal imports were discussed at length during the passage of the Animal Health Bill. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) mentioned the amendments tabled by Labour Members. A striking aspect of the Second Reading debate was that Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members and those from the smaller parties all said that more must be done about illegal imports. One of the most memorable speeches in that debate was a veteran rant by the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks).
There is evidence that the Government have been complacent about the matter. The Curry report and that of Devon county council flagged up the issue of illegal imports. I quoted on Report what the Minister said on Second Reading:
"DEFRA has been leading interdepartmental discussions." — [Official Report, 12 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 666.]
I do not know whether it is a coincidence that the column number is also the sign of the beast. I quoted that comment again just over a month later on 13 December. It did not seem that much had happened,
256WH
certainly considering the Minister's answers. It is now 27 February, nearly four months later, and I have received a letter from the National Farmers Union, for which I am grateful, that says that it welcomes
"the Government's announcement that it will convene a high level forum on this issue, probably taking place next month."
Thank God for that. We have gone from interdepartmental discussions to a putative high-level forum. Presumably, if the NFU had known when the high-level forum was going to take place, it would not have used the word "probably". In other words, the Government had not even set a date, although if they have now, I would be grateful if the Minister told us today. The Government do not seem to be taking the issue seriously enough.
I have a letter, which was copied to me, from a constituent, Mr. Rod Tuck, of Diss in Norfolk to the Speaker of the House of Commons. In it he complains about the Minister. The letter says:
"Having read in Hansard details of the parliamentary debate on the Animal Health Bill on Thursday 13th December, 2001, I would like to register an official complaint against Elliot Morley MP, who seriously misled the House as detailed on Page 1025 at 1.45pm when answering a question from Mrs Winterton. With reference to the UK import controls on meat/meat products compared to those of Australia and America he states there is no significant difference between theirs and our custom controls on meat/meat products."
For the benefit of the Chamber, I have the exact quotation. The Minister said:
"On the claims that are being made about measures taken in America and Australia, I have been to those countries comparatively recently and I must say that I have not noticed any particular differences from the checks and security in our country." — [Official Report, 13 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 1025.]
Mr. Tuck kindly sent me a copy of his correspondence with the US Department of the Treasury Customs Services, which contains a helpful list of the differences between the approaches of the UK and of Australia and the United States, but I will not try the Chamber's patience by listing them all.
Mr. Tuck also enclosed an e-mail that he had received from Mr. Jim Dewhirst, who had recently been to Australia. Mr. Dewhirst wrote:
"The details of the precautions that the Australians and New Zealanders take are as follows:
"1) You receive a warning about 20 minutes before the plane lands that it is illegal to take into the country any product of animal or plant origin. If you are in doubt about anything that you are carrying you should declare it on arrival. You are warned that contravention of the rules will automatically lead to a hefty fine, or worse.
"2) On the flight you are given 'visitor cards' to complete. One of the questions asked is:- 'Have you been on a farm in the last 48 hrs?' Another is:- 'Do you possess any spiked shoes?' We had golf shoes with us, so we had to declare them.
"3) When we arrived at the terminal building all our hand luggage had to go through X-Ray machines."
This is in on arrival, not departure.
"They were looking for any illegal products, including food products and drugs.
"4) After the X-Ray machines we were then confronted by sniffer dogs. These were more in evidence in New Zealand than in Australia. We were even selected out of the crowd to help test a trainee dog: some contraband was hidden on our luggage trolley about 30 metres before we passed the dog. The dog did not fail to apprehend me!"
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): This is all very interesting, and I should say that I was in Canada two weeks ago and the procedures were no different from those at Heathrow. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that a recent report in the Scientific and Technical Review of the OIE, which is in the public domain, calculates that illegal meat imports into the USA each year vary between 450,000 kg and 4 million kg. That is not a criticism of the USA; it just demonstrates that people should not think other parts of the world have a panacea.
The hon. Gentleman should also remember that when we had an outbreak of foot and mouth, other countries rightly introduced procedures because of the risk. My final point is that New Zealand has 3.5 million visitors a year, while Britain has 48 million. There is the issue of managing these things at airports.
Mr. Bacon: I am grateful, and indeed honoured, that I managed to provoke the Minister into intervening so early in the debate. I accept that there is no panacea; no Opposition Member believes that there is. The problems are plainly serious. The United States is a much larger country than ours with huge land borders and five times our population. I would be interested to hear comparative tonnages if the Minister has the figures. The Minister referred to New Zealand and the United States, but I was talking about Australia.
I should like to finish dealing with Mr. Dewhirst's fifth point. He states:
"When we arrived at Passport Control we were again given the third degree about illegal imports—particularly so when we arrived in Australia. It was at this stage that we handed over the cards that we had completed … Our golf shoes were taken away and disinfected, being returned in sealed plastic bags. When we arrived in Australia from New Zealand we had with us some sea shells and some enormous pine cones that Kate"—
Mr. Dewhirst's wife—
"had collected. After inspection of these we were told that we could keep most of the shells but definitely not the pine cones. It's rather ironic that if we had not gone to Australia, but returned straight home to the UK, we would have had no problems whatsoever keeping the pine cones, in fact we would not have even needed to declare them. If I'd had a mind to do it, I could no doubt have waltzed through Customs with half a dead alligator in my luggage, without anyone even bothering to challenge me."
Mr. Dewhirst may be exaggerating, but such checks on arrival—X-ray checks, sniffer dogs, taking items away in plastic bags and disinfecting them—do take place. The story shows how seriously the problem is taken there. Such measures would illustrate to people going through the system the Government's perception that travellers should take the matter more seriously. As the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) said, it is a question not just of doing things behind closed doors with curtains drawn, but of getting the message across to people that it is a serious issue. The Government say that they have put up posters and are trying to do more.
Last Friday I returned to the United Kingdom after a long-haul transatlantic flight. I landed at a Royal Air Force base at which no checks of any sort took place. Signs on the plane reminded armed forces personnel about the dangers of criminal activity with drugs, but no mention was made of animal imports. When we landed
258WH
at the airport, I saw no posters, no customs officers and no checks. I could indeed have waltzed through with half a dead alligator.
Mr. Bill Wiggin: I have written to the Minister about a leaflet that I picked up in Detroit airport, which asked me if I had visited the UK and been on a farm. It specified the UK, which doubtless does untold damage to our tourist industry. On my return to the UK, I went through the airport and searched high and low for any signs asking me whether I was bringing meat into the country. I found one, but I would not have done so had I not been pushing a pram, because it was next to the lift; disabled people may also have seen it.
Mr. Bacon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As for writing to the Minister, I wish him luck. Many of us know that the chances of receiving a reply of any sort from DEFRA within three or four months are extremely slim. I recently wrote to a DEFRA official in Bristol in the hope that he might be able to help my constituent. I explained in the letter that there was no point in writing to Ministers. I had explained to my constituent beforehand that that was what I intended to do because I knew that at least two months would pass before I received an apology for not receiving a reply. I certainly wish my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) luck.
My hon. Friend makes a good point—the problem is not being flagged up openly enough. As a letter from the National Farmers Union makes clear:
"The admission that no further resources have been allocated to scrutinising personal imports at Heathrow airport since February last year underlines the need for no more delay in a firm grip being taken of this vital issue."
Customs and Excise collects £102,000 million in various duties. Its primary function is obviously collecting revenue, not necessarily deciding how that revenue is spent. It is important to recognise that the resources are there if the political will is there too. There is increasing consensus across all parties about the need to do something about this matter. The political will should be there to take a firm grip on this issue.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. It is always a pleasure to see a debate being enjoyed with such enthusiasm and vigour, but there is only 20 minutes left before Front Benchers begin their winding-up speeches. Seven hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. I hope that all hon. Members will bear that in mind and make their comments concise, clear and pertinent.
10.10 am
Mr. Mark Todd: I shall be brief as I have spoken on this subject before, and bring in some new information. The Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs visited Brussels recently and we spoke to those in the European Commission who lead consideration of the issue of meat imports. We have to recognise that we are in a common market and their approach to this governs much of ours. It was an interesting conversation that was reassuring in at least one respect: those who were concerned that disruption in Zimbabwe had not been identified by the European Commission and had not led to a different

259WH
approach to meat imports from that country were reassured that prompt action had been taken to prevent further imports of beef from Zimbabwe in view of the risks inherent in its control systems.
Less reassuring, however, was that when the discussion moved to illegal imports, the view was firmly expressed that that was a matter for member states to pursue individually and that the European Union, while conscious of the need for robust controls, did not feel that it had any further role to play. One of the arguments that has been advanced in this debate, and that may be advanced again, is that we must act in partnership with our European neighbours on this matter. That certainly does not imply leaving the matter to Europe. The Commission clearly does not intend to take robust measures itself.
The issue of exactly what kinds of risk we are talking about has already been explored: legal imports from risky countries, the concealment of meat within shipments that are otherwise legal and the personal baggage issue. We must recognise that all we can do is limit risk. We will not eliminate it. The Minister was right to point out that even the supposedly robust controls in the United States are relatively easily circumvented by those who are determined to do so or are so ignorant that they do not notice the key pieces of information that are given to them. However, the controls in other countries are of a much higher profile and are therefore much more likely to be noticed by those who are quite innocent in the matter and have simply not grasped that they may be doing something that carries a risk to animal and possibly human health in this country.
Mr. Roger Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that however many notices are put up in seaports and airports, they will not make much difference while it is still legal for individuals to bring 1 kg of meat into this country and into the European Union? We should be pressing the Minister to get the EU to abolish the rights of individuals to bring in 1 kg of meat.
Mr. Todd: I disagree. Sensibly managed personal imports are an important part of the liberty of free passage in the European Union. I do not believe that we should seek a total ban on that movement, but we should try to ensure that we police it better. Most travellers are responsible individuals who can work out the risks.
I have been through that process. I brought some salami back from Italy, which was within the weight limit. My wife questioned me about whether it was the right thing to do, but I believed that my decision was legitimate. It did not taste very nice, it made me think that I had made the wrong decision for other reasons. Most travellers are like me. We must consider the issue carefully, understand what the risks are, and be prepared to abide by sensible rules. However, we must recognise that some are ignorant of the rules or are determined to circumvent them.
It has already been shown that the regime of controls is confused. There are too many agencies. Some are ill resourced, and others lack the legislative teeth to do
260WH
anything about the people who are caught. We have had illustrations of gross breaches of the law, for which some perpetrators have not been prosecuted. Powers do not exist to prosecute efficiently, and changes in the law are clearly required. We also need to examine resourcing. The point has been made that additional resources have not been put into Heathrow, which is a major port of entry into the country.
It is not just about money but about co-ordination and the use of information technology. I am struck by the fact that other European Union states are tackling the issue in a more co-ordinated way and making better use of the information held by the various agencies involved. I do not know of another European Union state that tackles the problem in the same diffuse way as we do. Those who use more than one agency ensure that the data is co-ordinated between the agencies so that people know what others are discovering and where the risks are. That seems to be a sensible investment of resources.
With regard to the politics of the issue, the Animal Health Bill demands that farmers take certain steps, as I said on Second Reading. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) correctly identified critical issues of control in this country, which we must deal with regardless of what we do about imports. It is sensible to listen carefully to the stakeholders in these issues. The Bill in general asks farmers to co-operate, and some parts of it compel them to do so. They expect clear controls to be put in place as a quid pro quo, to some extent, for the co-operation that is being expected of them. Their expectation is legitimate. We must take a balanced approach. No one is claiming that tougher import controls make us risk free. They are part of a package that can be supported scientifically, practically and politically to achieve our objectives to make the country less at risk of animal-borne disease.
Several hon.Members rose —
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appeal again to hon. Members for brevity. That includes resisting interventions, if at all possible.
10.17 am
Mr. Roger Gale: My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) mentioned that I had more than a passing interest in animal welfare. I share that interest with the Minister.
I want to reinforce some issues. It has already been mentioned several times that much bush meat is smuggled illegally into this country, often by hand. It is no great secret that it is for personal use. More significantly, it is also on sale in shops, and is used in restaurants in London and elsewhere. Many of the animals are endangered and protected species. The trade is undesirable and unnecessary, and I ask the Minister to discuss with Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials and the Home Office the possibility of seeking the right to revoke the visa of anyone who brings in quantities of that sort of meat. It would be a considerable deterrent if people were warned when they went to entry clearance offices in any of our embassies or high commissions around the world, that the penalty for seeking to smuggle meat was the revocation of the visa and their immediate return to the country from whence they came. They probably would not do it.

261WH
Animal husbandry and animal welfare are directly connected with the quality and safety of meat imports. The Minister and I have campaigned long, often and hard to raise standards of farm animal welfare in this country. I believe that we have been right to do that and will be right to continue, but we must recognise that enhanced levels of animal welfare place a considerable cost on the British farmer. If we are to require the farming community in the United Kingdom to pay greater attention to animal welfare and seek to breed calves, pigs and chickens under the highest possible standards, it is nonsense for us to allow at the same time fowl, pigmeat and beef produced under far less safe conditions to be imported into the country.
We shall not enhance animal welfare worldwide if we allow that practice to continue, but simply damage domestic trade. I urge the Minister not to seek a prohibition on imports per se, but to drive towards prohibiting the import of goods not produced under the circumstances that we have in this country. If the Minister can address those issues, particularly in the context of the Animal Health Bill, I believe that we shall make considerable progress.
10.21 am
Mr. Alan Reid: We are all fully aware of the devastation that would be caused to our rural economy should foot and mouth disease enter the country once more. All the suggestions that I was going to make in my speech have already been made during the debate, so I will confine myself to emphasising to the Minister the importance of that issue. A tremendous amount of money was spent stopping the spread of foot and mouth from one part of the country to another, but we must also spend money to try to stop it coming into the country, and do all that we reasonably can to stop infected meat coming in.
The Animal Health Bill imposes various measures on farmers, but the Government must do their bit. I hope that the high-level forum will take place quickly and that there will be action soon. We need a commitment from the Government to act against the importation of infected meat.
10.22 am
Hywel Williams: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) on obtaining this debate. It is timely, especially with the foot and mouth disease scare reported in Yorkshire yesterday.
In January this year, Professor Gareth Edwards-Jones of the university of Wales, Bangor warned that we could face another outbreak of foot and mouth disease this year unless there were a clampdown on illegal imports. I recently read the NFU report entitled, "Veterinary, Plant Health and Public Health Controls on Imports", which notes that
"the main threats to the UK are from illegal imports",
and that although
"the existing body of legislation and regulations is—on paper—adequate to control illegal imports, we have serious concerns about the rigour with which existing controls are enforced."
That report makes 17 recommendations. I shall not trouble hon. Members with them all this morning, but note only that it calls for a comprehensive review of the
262WH
framework and resourcing of the UK's system of import controls, including an evaluation of the funding for UK import controls and clear country of origin labelling. We in Plaid Cymru, and the Scottish National party support that.
Only a few days ago, DEFRA reported the seizure of 315 kg of prohibited food at Heathrow. Apart from that, as has been noted, the deliberate importing and retailing of illegal and suspect meat is carried out by organised gangs. Hon. Members will welcome DEFRA's new striking poster. Its stark slogan is, "Keep out disease" and it notes that there are penalties of up to two years in prison and a fine of £5,000. However, that will act as a deterrent only if culprits are caught. One must note that passengers from outside the EU are still allowed to import 1 kg of meat hermetically sealed, 1 kg of fish, 1 kg of milk powder and so on. Those may be relatively small amounts, but the cumulative effect over a year would be considerable. I welcome the forum being held next month to agree further action. This is a matter of urgency.
Farmers are flexible people who can adapt; they need to be to survive the conditions of the industry at the moment. However, being flexible and adaptable does not mean closing one's eyes to an obvious source of danger. The first line of defence for animal and plant health must be an effective screen against imported disease. We need to have better co-ordination of efforts to control illegal meat imports, and more rigorous enforcement of personal imports and commercial shipments. The NFU report states that
"if personal import controls do not prove to be effective, serious consideration should be given to their complete prohibition across the EU.".
We are looking for clear evidence that the situation is improving quickly, and I look forward to the Minister's assurance that that is the case.
10.25 am
Mr. Bill Wiggin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) for securing the debate, and share the gladness of other hon. Members that the latest potential outbreak of foot and mouth does not seem to be genuine. My constituents work for Sun Valley in Hereford city, which imports animals to a high standard from Brazil and Thailand. It is those who do not meet that standard who concern me, particularly as I am secretary of the all-party group on endangered species.
In this country, we suffer from large numbers of live animals being imported. I have considered the case at Heathrow. There are 5,500 flights a week into Heathrow airport. In 2000, only 14 of those were checked and 5.5 tonnes of illegal bush meat were found; in 2001, only 10 were checked. That is of enormous concern, not only from an animal health but a human health point of view because viruses such as ebola are very "importable". We must connect animal with human health. A criticism that the National Pig Association has drawn to my attention is that too many agencies police the import of meat into this country. We should consider tightening that up. I suggest that one regulatory body would ensure gaps did not appear.

263WH
I looked at the potential for a bio X-ray machine. Some 25 such machines at Heathrow airport, and the staff to run them, would cost about £8 million, which is a bargain compared with the £2 billion to £4 billion that our country has spent on foot and mouth. It would cost approximately 10p per passenger coming through the airports.
I urge the Minister to think again about the 1 kg that is allowed to be imported as a personal allowance. If he did so local producers could be supported and the risk to human life reduced. I urge him to set up a commission to assess the risks of countries from which we import food, not only for our health but for a future for our farmers.
10.28 am
Matthew Green: I have two quick questions for the Minister. First, in an answer to a parliamentary question, he stated:
"We have taken action to improve publicity to travellers about import rules, to improve the collection and analysis of information about illegal imports and to use that information to better target enforcement activity. We are keeping these measures under constant review".— [Official Report, 11 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 850.]
Today, I hope that he will let us know about the details of that review, and about the effect of those measures. To date, we have had no information about the effect of any of the Government measures.
My second point relates to the full risk assessment carried out by the Veterinary Laboratories Agency. On 4 January, the Minister said that results would be published as soon as they were available. Can he tell us when that will be? I hope that it is soon, because such information is essential if hon. Members are to make a reasoned judgment on the effectiveness of controls that are being put in place.
10.29 am
Mr. Roger Williams: May I make three quick points? First, in intervening on the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) on the 1 kg personal allowance, I intended to make the important point that that concerns travellers coming in from third countries rather than people who move around the European Union.
Secondly, and this point has been made already, there is as much danger from legal imports as there is from illegal imports. At the moment, the chaotic state of our labelling policies allows people to re-label meat after it has been processed, which enables illegal imports into this country to be traded more easily.
Thirdly, when legal imports into this country are examined for problems, what types of tests are available? Are tests available to check meat for diseases such as foot and mouth and diseases that can affect human beings? How long do those tests take to be analysed? Can we detain meat during the time in which those tests are analysed?
10.30 am
Mr. Colin Breed: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would be failing in my duty if I were not to call the attention of the Chamber
264WH
to the House's decision that four senior members of the Speaker's Panel should be addressed as "Deputy Speaker" in conducting proceedings in the Chamber.
Mr. Breed: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In appreciation of your calling so many hon. Members, I shall be very brief.
I want to consider two aspects of the Government's approach to the foot and mouth crisis. First, they acted urgently on certain aspects of the crisis when we learnt that there was a possible outbreak. One year ago, regulation was introduced quickly to prevent animal movements, to close footpaths, to put up notices everywhere and even to prosecute people who took their dog for a walk on the beach. Clear, prompt action was taken almost immediately and emergency procedures were put in place very quickly, although there was inevitably criticism that they were not quick enough. Most fair-minded people, however, would say that they were quickly put into action.
Secondly, on imports, we have not seen massive emergency procedures. A total ban on personal imports of meat, which could have relapsed after a period, was not considered. No significant emergency advice along the lines of that mentioned this morning was provided for travellers, and there were no prosecutions. In effect, there have been no emergency procedures for the control of imports into the country.
One year ago, at the beginning of the crisis, there was inevitably confusion about demarcation among the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, local authorities, the NFU and, eventually, the Army. In the end, however, clear lines of demarcation were established for those bodies.
Except for co-operation that takes place on a friendly basis, port authorities, Customs and Excise and trading standards report to different places. There is co-operation on the ground, but co-ordination is not laid down. Consideration clearly needs to be given to providing a regulatory system that encompassed those bodies in one co-ordinated section.
I was surprised to learn from a written answer to a parliamentary question about Zimbabwe that imports are
"banned from the whole country except the veterinary regions of'— [Official Report, 4 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 263WW.]
and it lists a huge number of different places. I have not the foggiest idea how the ban is policed, and many of the people who attempt to police it will have no idea where those provinces are. I have severe reservations about whether it can be policed properly.
Finally, I shall mention regulation and legislation. Many of us have been through the Animal Health Bill and it is clear that the provisions are draconian, particularly for farmers. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) recognised the Government's responsibility to respond to that. Has any consideration been given to amending the Products of Animal Origin (Import and Export) Regulations 1996? Evidence suggests that they should be reinforced, but there is no sign of that being done. Instead of reciprocal arrangements on imports, the Animal Health Bill was introduced to plug the gaps and clobber farmers again.

265WH
Other than those directly involved, the general public want uniformed security staff at ports. We are an island nation and should be able to control imports better than countries with land borders. We need a combined security force that recognises the importance of not allowing the import of drugs and other products, including meat and plants.
We all have our own experience of the USA and I shall explain mine. I was behind a fairly elderly lady who had not filled in her form properly. She was caught with something—I do not know what—and whisked off. The Customs officer next to me said that it was sad because it was unlikely that she would be allowed back into the country to visit relatives, even if she had inadvertently filled in the form wrongly. The provision is severe: she may be refused entry because she made an illegal statement. That is draconian and I do not suggest that we go down that road, but it emphasises that other countries treat the problem more urgently and seriously than we have apparently done in the past year.
10.36 am
Mrs. Ann Winterton: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thank you for guiding us through this debate and for calling 11 hon. Members, which is excellent during a one-and-a-half-hour debate. I only wish that our debate could continue all morning because many hon. Members wanted to speak for longer and some have not been called.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) on securing a debate on this important issue. In his comprehensive speech, he set the tone for the contributions that followed and pointed out that we have had two damaging incidents of animal disease: classical swine fever and then foot and mouth disease. The foot and mouth epidemic started in his constituency but we are crossing our fingers and hoping that it ended in his constituency some time ago. The news this morning is hopeful; the case in the Ryedale constituency may not be positive.
There are two sets of imports. Illegal imports can introduce disease that threatens animals and humans. I do not want to introduce barriers to trade, but it is ridiculous that in this country we place on our producers responsibilities and high standards that are not always followed in other countries from which we import produce. That important issue should be addressed.
To return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) and another hon. Member, if we had honesty in labelling we could market United Kingdom-produced food more positively. The two sectors that sin most are the catering sector and the processing sector, which sells it products mainly through the four great supermarkets in this country, which control 80 per cent. of food sales.
Although those points may not be absolutely relevant, they are worth making. However, the illegal import of meat causes the greatest concern. Many hon. Members have referred to the large amount of bush meat that is imported illegally. Two London traders have been prosecuted for selling it. Last May a trader in Dalston, north-east London and his girlfriend were jailed for selling the meat of an endangered African monkey species. He boasted that he could import chimpanzee meat or even a whole lion carcase from
266WH
Nigeria for £5,000. He was sentenced to four months' imprisonment for selling parts of a tantulus monkey. He told the court that many African shops in Britain sell bush meat.
In September another London trader was given a conditional discharge after being found with the carcases of 11 monkeys and two anteaters. Although it is not the Minister's responsibility, such sentencing is utterly inadequate. I could make many suggestions that would ensure that people who undertook that trade were severely punished and, if necessary, deported.
Border inspections are critical. It has been pointed out that as an island nation we should be better placed to protect our people and animals from the importation of disease. Border inspections are lamentable, both at airports and seaports. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham referred to Heathrow and I have an interest in Manchester airport as it is close to my constituency. Few hon. Members mentioned seaports, where there is a huge opportunity to smuggle illegal meats and other products in containers. We cannot quantify that problem at this stage. We have a vague idea of what is entering in personal baggage through the main airports, but I believe that a gigantic amount is coming in through seaports. What is being discovered is merely the tip of the iceberg.
The Government must introduce effective measures. We accept that we will not catch everything, but we must try to be effective. We must use scanning equipment where appropriate and low technology in the form of sniffer dogs. I went behind the scenes at Heathrow last week, with permission of course, and saw luggage being unloaded and brought into the passenger halls. There is ample opportunity for scanning equipment to be used at that point before the passengers pick up their luggage.
Scanning machines cost about £180,000. I understand that they can be fixed to test for drugs, meat or other products. [Interruption.] The Minister does not believe that that is so but I believe that it could be done. Rather like speed cameras, especially those in Staffordshire, the county next to mine, they would act as a deterrent. They are mobile. We all naturally obey the speed limit because we do not know when we will be caught. Scanning equipment should be moved. There does not have to be one on every single luggage—
Mr. Russell Brown: Carousel.
Mrs. Winterton: Carousel. I thank the hon. Gentleman. The scanning equipment could be behind the scenes and used before the luggage reaches the carousel. The machines could be moved about. One would not need to invest vast amounts of money to be much more effective. Sniffer dogs are probably more cost effective. They should circulate with their handlers in the passenger halls to act as a deterrent and a reminder.
I am ashamed to tell the Minister, but when I entered the customs hall at the very end to watch customs officers check baggage I did not notice the two posters. I was not a passenger and I was there for a different purpose, but I did not notice them. That is not much of a deterrent. Surely, as in other countries, we should get passengers entering this country to sign a declaration. That concentrates the mind.

267WH
When I go to America, I am careful to ensure that I fill in and sign the form properly. That reminds me each time that if I have an apple in my overnight baggage, I should dispose of it or eat it quickly. We need more deterrence to ensure that people are aware of the dangers of importing meat and other products.
When the customs hall at Heathrow emptied, I could see how big it was. It was full of packages from a recent raid, to which other hon. Members have referred. Some packages were seeping blood. It is disgusting that that practice is allowed to continue and that customs officers and others have to handle such material, with all the dangers of contamination and so on.
A major issue is the need to co-ordinate the regulatory authorities and have one body in overall control. The Government must tackle the problem robustly—just posters will not do. However, we have not seen what else the Government have done in the year since the first outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham. We know that risk can only be limited, but the subject does not have the high profile that it needs.
As I said, the penalties for organised crime must be severe. An import for personal consumption of salami from Italy is not as risky as the same amount of bush meat, which threatens human and animal health. That point was well made.
In the year since the outbreak of the foot and mouth epidemic, very little action has been taken or is perceived, particularly by hard-hit farming and rural communities. I make no apology for repeating that we need a full and independent public inquiry to build trust between the Government and rural communities. The three inquiries that the Government set up, one of which has reported, will not fit the bill. Time is of the essence in one way, but we must get to the truth, and people must be able to have confidence that we have got to the truth. We need to know the cause of the disease and what went wrong in the handling of it.
People are feeling vulnerable again because of the news that we heard yesterday, although today's is relatively good. They need to know what contingency plan is in place to deal with any further outbreak. Will it be more effective than the last one? We were assured that there was a contingency plan, but it did not seem to be a meaningful one to anyone in the farming community.
Will the testing be quicker and more accurate? What consideration have the Government given to the use of vaccine in any future outbreak? Slaughter on the scale that we have witnessed will never be tolerated again. Is sufficient vaccine available in the United Kingdom? Has a contingency plan been drawn up for its use if the Government have decided to use it? What action can they take to reassure British consumers of the truth, which is that milk and meat from vaccinated stock are perfectly wholesome and safe to consume?
What action are the Government taking with partner states in the European Union to ensure that, in the event of another outbreak, barriers do not come down against our exports if we use vaccines? The example that stands out is the French ban on our beef because of BSE, which
268WH
is on going and causing damage. Again, if there were honesty in labelling, some of these issues might be covered.
The debate is taking place because, for the second time since the second world war, we have imported animal disease in the form of foot and mouth. It has caused devastation not only of the farming community but of rural businesses, including bed-and-breakfast establishments, pubs, post offices, shops, equestrian facilities and many others.
It must be stressed that the illegal importation of meat puts at risk not only animal but human health. We have not yet seen one of those incidents and, frankly, I hope that I do not live long enough to see one. If we view foot and mouth as devastating for animals, how much worse would it be if a disease outbreak affected the human population? I beg the Government to act quickly.
10.49 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) on securing the debate. He delivered his points extremely well. It is important to pay careful attention to our border posts, to measures for protecting consumers, and to preserving animal, plant and indeed human health.
We must keep matters in perspective. It is perfectly legitimate for the National Farmers Union to campaign on the issue of illegal imports and I make no criticism of any contributions to today's debate, which have all been perfectly reasonable and legitimate. However, the issue of keeping matters in proportion remains.
The Government believe that the measures in place in the UK are comparable with those of any other country. That is not to say that we should be complacent or that we cannot improve them. I shall soon outline the contributions that we have made over the past year. I was surprised to hear that some hon. Members were unaware of those measures, which may partly be the Government's fault. It is particularly useful to have an imports forum to discuss what measures are in place, what further measures we may be able to take, and what measures are or will prove effective.
A risk assessment is crucial, which is why we commissioned the Veterinary Laboratories Agency to conduct a proper assessment, which will take about six months. It will examine the probability of undetected illegal imports coming into this country and estimate the scale —
Mr. Bacon: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Morley: In a moment. It will assess the probability of infections with a class A animal disease.
It is right to confront the issue of illegal imports, but we cannot use it as a diversion from other disease control measures. No hon. Member speaking in the debate has tried to do that, but some in the wider community always look for simplistic answers or a scapegoat—and the favourite scapegoat is illegal imports.
We know where the disease started, but I cannot say too much about a particular farm, which, as the hon. Member for Hexham is aware, is subject to criminal

269WH
proceedings. I cannot comment specifically, but if regulations had been followed on the farm, we may never have had the outbreak in the first place. That should also be taken into account. We should also reflect on how the disease spread and the measures needed to stop it. As all hon. Members who have spoken acknowledge, when dealing with illegal activities, it is never possible to provide a 100 per cent. guarantee of stopping disease. That is why we need contingency plans on how best to prevent disease spread.
I say in all seriousness to all hon. Members present, including my hon. Friends, that it would be easy to spend an awful lot of extra money and resources on import controls without significantly reducing risk. We must assess the risks carefully and establish where best to apply our resources. We must think that through. I am sure that hon. Members would not disagree.
I must correct the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) on standards of imports. Legal imports, even from countries with endemic foot and mouth disease, have never been associated with disease spread of any sort because they have to pass through strict controls—deboning of beef, for example—and only certain regions are accepted. We utilised provisions under the OIE regulations to get our exports going again in certain parts of the country that were effectively foot and mouth free, even though some regions were officially under control. We were confident that our exports were safe, secure, properly regulated and measured. That should also be taken into account.
In respect of imports, I do not disagree with the point made by the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) about standards, but there are common EU standards for meat production, slaughterhouses and cutting plants, which apply to everyone and which the EU enforces. It is true that some of our standards of production are higher than those of the EU, which is right. We need to explore issues such as labelling and consumer choice.
Hon. Members acknowledged that we have increased publicity in ports of entry. There are new posters and leaflets, and travellers who apply to British embassies for a visa are given information explaining the regulations. There is an argument that we should make the posters bigger and bolder to increase awareness. A point was made about perception—being seen to do things—which is important. We are planning a pilot scheme with dogs trained to sniff out meat. A handler is undertaking training at present. Given the number of passengers going through Heathrow, we do not know how effective the scheme will be, but it is not unreasonable to try it out. The biggest benefit may be the visual impact, which I do not underestimate.
The law has been changed to strengthen enforcement powers to make it easier for local authorities to take action on meat that may have been illegally imported. Environmental health officers' powers have also been
270WH
strengthened, which will affect inland catering outlets. We are considering whether we can strengthen the Products of Animal Origin (Import and Export) Regulations 1996 and make them more effective; work is being done on the matter now.
Seizures have increased. In the year to 31 March 2001, 2.7 tonnes of illegal meat were seized. Since April 2001, there have been 1,076 seizures of illegal animal products—an estimated 46 tonnes of illegal meat. More checking is being carried out, and there have been more seizures. We are not complacent about the work that needs to be done.
We are considering the issue of personal imports. Some serious matters were raised, including the point about baby food, which people may need when they travel. Baby food is processed and sealed and it is not a problem.
The regulations state that the 1 kg allowance should be cooked meat, hermetically sealed. That is the EU standard, which minimises the risk. As the risk is largely from other illegal products, it would not necessarily be reduced if we did not have that EU standard. It is a serious matter, which we are discussing with the Commission.
We are talking to airlines about producing in-flight videos that can be shown to people travelling to this country telling them what they can and cannot bring into the UK. Landing and boarding cards have been amended in respect of declarations.
As I said earlier, a scheme that uses sniffer dogs is being considered. We are also considering using X-rays, but although some are quite sophisticated and can detect organic matter, X-rays are designed to show bones, not meat. There is thus a genuine doubt about whether X-ray machines are effective. However, there may be a role for a skilled operator with a more sophisticated machine; we do not rule it out.
We accept that we cannot entirely reduce the risk of illegal activity, but we are strengthening the regulations. As the hon. Member for Congleton said, there have been two prosecutions of people who imported bush meat, one of which resulted in jail sentences. They are the first prosecutions for that offence. I accept the point that was made by the hon. Member for North Thanet about the environmental impact and the undesirability of the trade. I will certainly bear in mind his point about visas and whether we can strengthen enforcement.
Time does not allow me to continue with all the points, but I want to emphasise that we are taking the issue seriously. We have taken a great deal of action, we intend to strengthen the law and we will ensure that what we do is public. We should perhaps do more to make public what we have already done, but it must be borne in mind that border controls are just one aspect of disease control. We must examine disease control in the round to ensure that we minimise risk in our country. I believe that we are doing that.

Flood Protection (Yorkshire)
11 am
Mr. Harold Best: I rise to speak on flooding in my constituency. I am mindful that there may be hon. Members present who have had experiences in places such as York, Selby and some parts of central Leeds that are similar to, and in some cases much worse than, those in my constituency. The effect of the damage on the people concerned is no different whether it is on a large or, as in my constituency, small scale, and the shared pain unites all such victims. It does not matter whether an individual victim or a community of interests is affected. The same painful and damaging effect must be managed and minimised.
It is the Environment Agency's responsibility to warn of impending floods, but none of us can escape the common knowledge that exists and has arisen out of shared experience of recent years. Flooding is a more common experience now, and the increasing severity of the flooding provides a growing consensus of scientific opinion. I refer to the view increasingly expressed in the scientific community that changes in our shared climate will produce more extreme weather, and that what we now call the extreme may become the new norm. The 1990s were the hottest years in Europe since records began, and rainfall was up by at least 10 per cent. and perhaps much more in certain parts.
The UK Climate Impacts Programme has produced models that speculate—I acknowledge that this is speculation—on a 3 deg increase in the world's average temperature, with a consequence of a roughly 20 per cent. rise in precipitation. Such evidence may still be less than convincing to those who always want further and better detail. I understand that view, although it is perhaps the same view that was encountered by Noah when he explained his anxieties about impending floods.
What is certain is that my constituency is experiencing hard evidence of change, whether that is long or short-term change. In the past few years, the River Wharfe has overflowed its banks more times that I can remember happening in my 64 years of living in close proximity. It has happened three times in the past year or so alone. That has affected people living close by the river—for example, in the market town of Otley—although it is perhaps nothing on the scale of the events that we saw on television that took place in York and further down river. However, I would not want to get into a meaningless competition about who suffers the most.
One young family who bought their house just more than a year ago—an older stone-built house about 100 years old—knew that their position close to the River Wharfe meant that they might experience flooding "once in 100 years", which was the professional advice that they received. So far, they have experienced the "once in 100 years" flooding three times. Their house does not become swamped by vast quantities of water; their experience is different. When flooding occurs, the road outside the home of the Floods—the name of the family—is under 250 mm of water, or about 10 in Passing vehicles push that water across into their curtilage. It then enters the house through the ventilation points underneath the floorboards. People may say that that is no great disaster, but it is, to say the least, a disturbing experience for a young family. It can
272WH
also be alarming if young children are involved and the parents have to think about the possible consequences of the flooding becoming dramatically worse.
The effect of flooding in Otley town centre is not catastrophic, but with only one road bridge in the centre and adjacent roads under 250 mm of water, even though the bridge is passable, traffic can come to a halt and that tends to choke the town centre. Inevitably, flooding damages the commercial life of the town. Anyone who knows about town-centre traffic is aware that a hold-up of two or three minutes has knock-on effects on the whole system.
Flooding is both debilitating and corrosive to a community and individuals. It is a serious problem. The inhabitants of town and village regard the River Wharfe as beautiful, as are the villages of Pool—an interesting name—and Arlington, and the market town of Otley alongside its banks that fall within my constituency boundaries. The countryside of Lower Wharfedale is very attractive. The river is a major asset to the town and villages. It is one of the cleanest in England. However, when it overflows its banks, the local sewage works downstream from Otley experiences problems. Such flooding is not a threat to public health, but no one would choose to manage the additional problems that it causes when the floods are fairly severe. The local anglers who, in many cases, are the watchdogs of water purity have drawn to my attention the fact that the sewage works have problems on non-flooding occasions. Because of that difficulty, some time ago before the last flood I arranged a meeting in my office this Friday with both Yorkshire Water and the Environment Agency, at which I also intend to pursue matters to which I have referred today.
What is to be done? So far, the answer has been that plans must be made to manage the expected. That is fair enough. It is difficult to plan for the unexpected. However, the problems that we may have expected a few years ago now have led to different expectations in the public mind. We must consider ways in which to plan differently. My constituents ask for the existing plan to be revised, a matter that we are taking up with the appropriate authorities. The plan is inadequate and it means that measures that should be taken quickly to manage the change in speed of flooding, for example, are not happening as they would like.
My constituents know that we cannot reverse overnight, or even in the next century, the abuse of our environment and the damage done by humankind in the past two hundred years or so. However, that is being tackled—somewhat slowly in my opinion—by the world's nations, some of whom are more enthusiastic than others. I am pleased that our Government are taking a leading role in improving the disastrous situation. My constituents do not want a miracle; they want a fresh consideration of what can be done locally. They would also like further and better help from the Government. That is not a new cry. I do not know how many times Ministers have heard that. Unexpected events place additional costs on local services. I hope that the Under-Secretary will give some thought to that.
No one expects our good Under-Secretary to turn back the tide, unless he is in the business of miracles, but I hope that he can help in developing a better, more sensitive and efficient planning process for the now inevitable overflow of the rivers in the Leeds City

273WH
metropolitan district council area, which has the River Aire at its centre. My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon), who cannot be here this morning, has faced similar problems. He has worked hard with his constituents to do what he can. He, too, would like the Under-Secretary to give the problem further consideration.
The Under-Secretary will respond with straightforward honest realism. He has a reputation for that, and I approve of it. It is not only appropriate but necessary to deal with those matters honestly and fairly. My constituents are hoping for an acknowledgement of the changing circumstances in which they live, and they hope for further Government help not in curing, but in ameliorating the problems that arise from—I was going to say "flow from"—the damage done by the growing menace of unexpected flooding.
11.12 am
Mr. John Grogan: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best) on securing the debate. I know his constituency well, and if I were not to represent Selby, the constituency I would most like to represent in the world would be Leeds, North-West, not least because of the River Wharfe. His constituency also contains Headingley cricket ground, which is one of the Meccas of Yorkshire. I feel great sympathy for what he has said about the recent effects of flooding on his constituency. Selby and many villages in my constituency have suffered flooding in the past 18 months.
I want to begin on an optimistic note. We have had debates both in the main Chamber and in Westminster Hall about flooding. The most recent one was held just before Christmas. Organisation and funding have improved in Yorkshire. It is little more than a year ago that, to many people's shock, it was announced that Yorkshire's flood defences were the worst in the country as measured by the Environment Agency for England and Wales. A backlog of works had built up. Many people remember the unseemly row that we had on the regional flood defence committee some 12 months ago about flood defence funding.
It is worthy of note that the capital programme in Yorkshire for flood defence funding in the next 10 years has doubled. In April 2000, about £93 million was going to be spent in the next 10 years on Yorkshire's flood defences. In April 2001, after the Selby, York and other floods of last winter, the flood defence committee adopted a budget for the next 10 years of about £208 million. That is a significant increase, funded by central and local government.
The good news is that since April 2001, the budget for the forthcoming year has been passed. The local authorities and the Environment Agency agreed on a budget that provides an increase in the local authority levy of 10 per cent. That means that the 10-year programme can begin to be funded. It will require two or three additional commitments from the local authorities—a sustained increase in funding over several years. The 10 per cent. increase will be needed for the next five years if the capital programme is to be implemented. There is a real need to deliver on that programme in Yorkshire. We must stick to the timetable outlined in it as far as possible and, year-by-year, show local authorities and the regional flood defence committee that we are delivering.
274WH
We should congratulate some of the individuals and organisations involved, such as Professor Roy Ward, who chairs Yorkshire's flood defence committee, and Peter Holmes, the Environment Agency officer responsible for flood defences in my area. I congratulate also the Under-Secretary's officials, who have worked hard to deliver the capital programme and ensure that we are back on track. By 2010, flood defences throughout Yorkshire should be up to national standards.
An appendix was added to the regional flood defence committee's papers, listing approximately 200 schemes throughout Yorkshire to be developed over that period. In my own constituency, Selby has £4.5 million for that purpose. The computer modelling will be finished in the next few months and the schemes will be built in the next three years. It is intended that the start dates for Riccall Ings, which will defend approximately 100 properties, and Tadcaster, which will defend another 100 will be in the financial year 2003–04, as will Cawood. Ulleskelf will follow in 2004–05. Incidentally, Otley is also in for a scheme in 2004–05. That progress should be acknowledged.
Next year's budget includes an additional £100,000 for the maintenance of existing flood banks because it is no good having expensive capital programmes if they are allowed to deteriorate. My constituency has existing flood defences that will hopefully receive a share of that maintenance budget in the next year.
Since flooding was last discussed in the House, an important report, "The flood and coastal defence funding review" has been published for consultation. The report has implications for Yorkshire. It is comprehensive and requires careful reading of the proposals. I endorse one such proposal that would help flood defences and planning in Yorkshire. The Environment Agency, or the single operating authority, should take responsibility for flood defences not only on main rivers, but water courses with significant flood risk. As hon. Members will be aware, several bodies have a role in flood defences, such as local authorities and internal drainage boards.
There have been occasions during the past year in my constituency—which has 88 villages—when I have been on a water course with all the agencies involved and asked, "Who is in charge?" Several people have shrugged their shoulders and, with the best will in the world, it is not always entirely clear who should take responsibility. It would obviously be beneficial to have one authority clearly in charge in areas that have significant flood risk, whether that is the Environment Agency, which is currently under its quinquennial review, or a separate authority with the power to co-ordinate activities and subcontract work to local authorities or drainage boards.
Several interesting proposals concern the raising of revenue to pay for flood defences. The question of a flood plain levy has been in the news. The Oxford Research Associates report lists the many disadvantages of such a levy. I shall bring a couple of them to the House's attention, and I share the view that the disadvantages are significant. The report says:
"Such a charge as an exclusive source of funding would not recognise the wider community benefits."

275WH
Flood defences in Selby protect not just the people of Selby but the traffic that goes through it and the commerce that uses it as a link to other areas.
The report also says:
"There could be challenges to the definition of flood risk area."
That could certainly happen. It goes on to say:
"Such a charge could be socially divisive as it takes no account of ability to pay."
It is concerned that the
"funds raised will not necessarily be used locally"
and that the charge could be seen to duplicate existing drainage board charges. That is quite a long list of disadvantages. In the words of "Yes, Minister", it would be a particularly brave Minister who took the proposal much further.
There has been some discussion of whether those who develop in flood plains should pay a development charge. That is a more interesting idea. The recently changed planning guidance discusses the fact that local authorities, as part of development gain, could already charge developers in flood risk areas for improvements in flood defences. That is worthy of consideration.
I have a parochial point about Selby and how matters have improved. The impact of mining on flood defences is an important local issue. I commend the Environment Agency, which has, during the past year, taken a robust attitude with UK Coal, which has to fund any additional flood defences to take account of mining. There should be a tension in that relationship. That has brought about flood defences on the B122 south of the village of Naburn, near York, which was flooded and completely cut off at the end of 2001. In the recent heavy rainfall, the village maintained access to Stillingfleet and thereby to York, which was appreciated. That is evidence of the Environment Agency taking strong, positive action in Yorkshire.
In any discussion of flood defences and prevention, it is worth remembering that what happens in the flood risk areas is not the only important thing. What happens in the uplands and dales is also important—such as attempts to improve retention of water in the uplands—as is the use of imaginative schemes such as flood management of washlands. South of Selby, Heck Ings and Gowdall Ings washland system has been developed and used to take water from the River Aire when it has been swollen. The development of washlands will be an important part of flood management in Yorkshire.
I am beginning to have discussions with local farmers. There is a change in emphasis in support for farming in, for example, the recently published White Paper. In the future, there may be a case for considering payments to farmers whose land is being used as a washland on an extensive basis, so that they are basically filling a role of environmental management. That might be in the spirit of the new White Paper.
Flood management not only in Yorkshire but nationally should have a higher profile in Parliament. In the last Westminster Hall debate on the subject, I mentioned the possibility of creating an all-party flood prevention group. A little progress has been made on that. I have had some discussions with colleagues in other areas and written to the Under-Secretary, inviting
276WH
him to help us to launch that group at an appropriate time. We shall probably make it an associate group. As I understand it, that would mean that bodies such as the Association of Drainage Authorities and insurance companies could be involved and come to meetings. Groups with a wider interest in flood prevention and management, together with interested Members of Parliament could then take the debate forward. As we hit the peak of the comprehensive spending review, there is a real case for those of us who have seen the devastation that flooding causes, not just in Yorkshire but elsewhere, to follow the lead of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West and continue to argue the importance of sustained funding for flood defences.
11.24 am
Hugh Bayley: I should begin by declaring an interest. I live beside the River Ouse in York and, in November 2000, we moved all our furniture upstairs, sandbagged and boarded up the front door, blocked the air bricks and had an anxious time as the water lapped the front door step for several days. It did not come inside but was one inch below the floor level. The difference between one inch below and one inch above the floor is all the difference in the world.
I cannot overstate the human cost of flooding. Many people in York have told me what they went through in November 2000. Homes that people had created over a lifetime were destroyed overnight. Many people were out of their homes for six months and some for even longer while they were repaired, which illustrates the extent of the damage that occurs when homes are flooded. The Under-Secretary understands that very well because he visited people in my constituency and elsewhere.
The response to the flood in York in November 2000 was magnificent and involved the City of York council, the emergency services—police, fire and ambulance—the Environment Agency and the Army. The Deputy Prime Minister came to the constituency twice. We ran out of sandbags and, within 20 minutes, he answered my desperate call for more and arranged for the Army to fly 50,000 sandbags in from Salisbury plain. The Under-Secretary also visited the constituency with the Prime Minister. The response involved utilities such as Yorkshire Water, the electricity companies and BBC Radio York, which provided a vital lifeline for people who wanted to know, hour-by-hour, how vulnerable they were. In Selby, the power went down and the only communication for many people in the middle of dark nights when water was lapping at their doors was the information on Radio York. It became a true public service broadcaster.
Perhaps most of all I should pay tribute to the response of the citizens of York who turned schools into dormitories and provided food for people who could no longer cook. Hundreds of people turned out and worked overnight to build a mile-long wall of sandbags to protect the Leeman road area. The response at the time was excellent; it was a model of how to respond. In their assessment of those floods, the Government took on board the response in York, which provided a good information service and a 24-hour helpline for the public and responded early to clean-up problems. The Government are using that response as a model for other authorities.

277WH
However, the response since the floods has been slower and not as good. New flood defences are being built in Malton and Norton. Existing flood defences have been repaired, but new defences have not been built in York and are not likely to be built for several years. There is a problem with a lack of transparency of how the flood defence system works. New flood defences in Malton and Norton are being built sooner than in York because they faced devastating floods two years earlier—some people have forgotten that—and it takes some years to design flood defence solutions, to consult with the public and to obtain planning permission and approval from the communities involved. That needs to be explained to people, and I have organised public meetings for the communities that were affected in York.
The Environment Agency has sent representatives to them, and once people understand what is happening and that much work is being done, they are considerably reassured. I particularly pay tribute to Craig McGarvey, the area manager of the Environment Agency's office in York. When he has attended meetings, he has explained how much work he and his staff are doing.
Generally, the Environment Agency's public relations has not been as good as it should have been. Improvements need to be made, and the agency needs to get out and meet communities affected to explain what they are doing and what can be done.
I was pleased to see the "Learning to Live with Rivers" report from the Institute of Civil Engineers. It concluded that:
"There is evidence of the significant impact which climate change is having on rainfall, evaporation, storage and runoff within catchments. The Commission is of a view that best practice in flood estimation must have the effects of climate change designed into it."
I have never before seen a statement about the palpable effects of climate change on flooding in the UK expressed so clearly and unequivocally in an official report. I congratulate its authors.
I am convinced that climate change is part of the problem, but only a part; there are other man-made causes of flooding that must be addressed. Building is one, which the Government responded to in the consultation document. The building of houses, workplaces, shopping centres and roads makes the ground less permeable so that water does not soak in, but runs off more quickly to rivers, which are more quickly filled.
Trees and hedgerows can soak up trillions of gallons of water. If we lose trees or if farmers dig up hedgerows, the land loses some storage capacity and, again, water runs off more quickly. The problem with a flood is not the quantity of water, but the speed at which it comes together. If the run-off from moorlands, hills, fields, shopping centres, and roads were slowed, the period over which the water ran down the river would be spread out, and the height of a flood would be lower. A two-day flood that is 6 ft lower than a 12-hour flood allows many properties to escape damage.
The Department needs to address the practice of ploughing downhill. It is easier to plough up and down a hill because the tractor does not fall over; if it goes around the hill, it can fall down, but ploughing downhill creates a channel down which water runs; ploughing across a hill retains water in the fields.
278WH
During the second world war—when it was so important to boost domestic food production—and since then, we have provided considerable flood defences for fields that used to be water meadows, but which are now used by farmers to grow winter crops. In the past, water meadows would retain water during a flood, so flooding downstream was less severe. Given that we face the necessity of putting farmland out of use through set-aside—as part of the common agricultural policy—the Under-Secretary should consider using the CAP and set-aside to convert some water meadows back to their natural state of flood protection. Flood banks could be knocked down and water meadows created once again. Farmers will still be able to get hay from the meadows in the summer, but winter crops would not be planted. If some farmland goes out of use because of set-aside, it would make sense for it to be farmland that can be usefully set to some other purpose.
The Government's consultation document contains a lot of good proposals, and I congratulate the Under-Secretary on the work that he and his team of officials have done. It includes, however, one truly dreadful proposal, which was put forward by consultants employed by the Department. They propose what would be, in effect, a poll tax on flood victims. That proposal deserves to sink as soon as possible. It is clear that we need to spend more money on flood defences, and I shall not duck away from the difficult question of how to raise the money. We have got to raise more money, and the public will have to pay. However, the burden must be shared equitably. The idea of a poll tax on victims is simply unacceptable.
I do not say that because I represent an area that is prone to flooding. A river is a drainage system. By draining water, it reduces the risk of flooding for people who live within the catchment from the source high in the hills right down to the sea. As one moves downstream, the river naturally gathers more water. It is absurd and unjust to suggest that a river will provide free drainage for people who live upstream, but that when it is full of water—as a result of providing drainage—and overflows, the victims of flooding downstream, who are also the victims of good drainage upstream, should pick up the cost. That is just not acceptable. It is a potty proposal, and the consultants have not earned their money.
We cannot and must not play off one community against another. I want the people living around the Ouse upstream of York to have good drainage. I want people downstream from York, in Selby and Barlby, to have good drainage. I do not want them to be flooded because York has good drainage. Drainage is a common good because it is something from which we all benefit. Because we share it, we must share the cost of providing it.
There are some things that one cannot buy as an individual or small community. Protection from environmental risks, such as air pollution or communicable diseases, is one such thing. The free marketeers who talk about Adam Smith should read "The Wealth of Nations". He recognised that things such as sewers in cities needed to be provided collectively by the public sector. Drainage is one such thing. It is not something that should be or can be bought by communities because that would lead to one

279WH
community protecting itself at the expense of another. That can never work in the public interest or the public good.
There are some good ideas in the document, and I should like to comment on one or two of them. There is a suggestion that specific flood defence costs attributable to individual flood plain developments could be borne by a charge on the developer. That is good economics. It means that a person who creates a potential cost for other people has to share that cost himself. It is also good social justice. I hope that that idea will be explored, although there will need to be consultation on it.
I approve of the consultation document's recognition that social and environmental concerns have been given too little weight in the past. The idea that flood protection bodies—regional customer bodies is the suggested new name—should be able to set a precept on local authorities is a bold move, and I congratulate the Under-Secretary on putting it forward. It is something that I lobbied him to do, and I am glad that he has decided to consult on it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) talked about the absurdity that we faced in Yorkshire after the big flood in November 2000, when the local authorities in the areas that flooded said that they would add an extra element to their council tax to ensure that they received all the possible grant available from the Government in order to maximise the money that was available for strengthening and improving flood defences. However, Yorkshire local authorities in areas that had not been prone to floods blocked the proposal. That cannot be an acceptable way to deal with a problem that causes immense hardship to a small number of people, and costs them immense sums of money. Those costs must be shared. Moving from a levy that has to be agreed to a precept increase creates transparency and accountability, and would make the system fairer.
The document sets out the Government's five key principles in the new system of funding, on which they are consulting: efficiency and effectiveness; simplicity and transparency; accountability; local democratic input; and autonomy. I approve of all those principles. However, two important principles are left out: timeliness and equitable cost sharing.
On timeliness, people expect to hear reasonably soon what flood defence is technically possible if they have experienced huge damage and disruption to their lives or to their livelihoods or if their businesses have been flooded. Once a form of defence has been identified as technically possible, there should be a reasonable time scale for putting the protection into practice. Under the current system, that does not happen. It is 15 months since the flood that hit York and neighbouring communities. In April—18 months after the event—the Environment Agency will publish the result of its audit of what happened along the River Ouse, and its outline proposals for what improvements can be made to flood defences. It will take another considerable amount of time—two or three years—to look for funding and to design schemes to address the flood defence deficiencies
280WH
that the report will identify. The public do not believe that that time scale is acceptable, and nor do I. A quicker response must be a principle of the report.
I talked about equitable cost sharing in relation to the poll tax proposal. I was pleased to see from the Under-Secretary's demeanour that he was not as convinced of the merits of that as his consultants.
I return to issues brought to my attention by constituents who faced considerable losses; in particular the South Esplanade area of York and the King's Arms pub on the King's Staith, which gets photographed and filmed by television every time there is a flood. The pictures make it look as if the whole of York has been deluged, which is absurd, as the pub is 20 ft below the street on what used to be the Roman wharf. The images go round the world, so tourists do not come and investors do not invest. The pub trades on the fact that beer is sold by bar staff in chest-high waders, but it misrepresents York.
Several businesses in that area, including the King's Arms, restaurants and warehouses, suffered losses that ranged from £90,000 to £400,000 as a result of the November 2000 flood. Around 20 houses in the South Esplanade and Friar's terrace area suffered losses of around £50,000 per house. That was the cost of putting right the damage done. The fire station and magistrates courts, which were flooded, cost £200,000 to put right. I do not know what the police station cost, but it was also flooded out.
The Environment Agency's predecessor, the National Rivers Authority, estimated in the 1990s the potential losses of a flood of the November 2000 proportions. Its estimate was a fraction of the real losses, which is significant because the decision about whether to build flood defences depends on the Environment Agency's estimates of the potential cost of not building them. One reason—there were others—that flood defences were not built for the King's Staith and South Esplanade area is that it was judged not to be cost effective. The cost of building the flood defences would have been disproportionate to the potential losses, and yet the estimate of potential losses was a substantial underestimate. I do not expect my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to comment on that, but I will give way if he wants to speak about representations that have been made.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): It may not be that specific group of houses, but I know that one group in York turned down a scheme on amenity grounds.
Hugh Bayley: It is precisely that one, but that was not the only reason why the scheme failed. Several different schemes were proposed. Some were favoured more by local residents than others, and the favoured ones tended to be more expensive. Had the estimate of the potential damage been more accurate, the cost of the more expensive but environmentally more acceptable defence schemes might have been judged to be cost effective. I will certainly send the Under-Secretary the papers that local residents put together on the issue, and I am sure that he and his technical advisers will examine them.

281WH
I am not trying to return to a decision that was made 10 years ago. That is history, and the decision was made, as the Under-Secretary rightly points out, with the agreement of a majority of local residents that a flood protection scheme should not go ahead. However, I believe that we should examine the mechanism by which costs are calculated. Cost-effectiveness is important, because however much money we have for flood defences, it will never be enough. Whatever sum we have must be used in a way that protects the maximum number of people.
To illustrate that point, preliminary costings for improving flood defences in York have been produced by the city council. One example concerns 118 houses in Rawcliffe that were flooded. The cost of providing temporary protection, which would protect up to the level of the November 2000 flood, has been provided, but it is metal sheeting covered with a temporary bank of earth.
Mr. Morley: I just wanted to make a point about temporary defences, because we have had a problem in Selby. Metal sheeting is not a temporary defence. The Environment Agency refers to it as temporary because it is not fully landscaped and complete, but the defence itself is very robust.
Hugh Bayley: I accept that the defence is robust, and that is why I say that it will provide protection. I am glad that the Under-Secretary reassured people who live in the Rawcliffe area that that is the case.
The cost of providing the current protection scheme—I now hesitate to describe it as temporary—is about £150,000. Full landscaping would bring the cost up to something like £500,000 to protect 118 houses. That would be a really good buy, given the losses experience by the people in those houses. More than 40 houses in Clementhorpe, including River street—which featured in photographs and national newspaper and television coverage—were flooded, and the cost of protecting those houses would be about £500,000 according to City of York council estimates. That is approximately £10,000 per house; much less expensive than doing the repairs. The 28 houses in South Esplanade and Tower street could be protected—on the basis of another back of the envelope costing by the council—for between £1 million and £2 million. In the outskirts of York, however, are two isolated houses that could be protected, but at a cost of £750,000. One has to ask whether it is worth protecting a house worth considerably less than the cost of protection; the answer is no.
The consultation document discusses whether all houses in a particular community should have the same level of protection, but doing so would mean abandoning the cost-effectiveness principle, which would not be wise. We would end up protecting fewer protectable people—not a sensible policy.
I have detained the Chamber for longer than I should. I am grateful to the Chairman for not calling me to order. With that, I shall finish and sit down.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. I would be remiss in my duty if I failed to remind the Chamber that the House took the decision—in its
282WH
wisdom or otherwise—that the four senior members of the Speaker's Panel should be addressed as Mr. Deputy Speaker.
11.51 am
Andrew George: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best) on securing the debate. I am not from Yorkshire, but I have visited it on many occasions. The hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) provided graphic descriptions of the floods suffered in the city and other parts of Yorkshire. We must learn lessons from what happened. The Under-Secretary will want to comment on the fact that 18 months have elapsed—as the hon. Member for City of York pointed out—before action was taken in response to those lessons.
Debate so far has focused on putting adequate defences in place in the areas most prone to flooding. I want to emphasise the wider context, as did the hon. Member for City of York towards his conclusion. We can no longer continue playing King Canute with water. Archival and cartographic evidence indicates that Yorkshire's East Riding has suffered from continual loss of land to the sea, and will continue to do so.
I was honoured to serve on the Select Committee on Agriculture—as it was then called—some three years ago when we examined flood defences. The Ministry viewed its recommendations positively and some resulted in the consultation paper on funding, which we are also debating today. A truism that we identified and which simply cannot be ignored is that, over the next 50 years, climate change is likely to contribute to continuing rises in eastern sea levels of about 6 mm a year. That does not sound much on a yearly basis, but it means many centimetres—or inches, as I prefer to say—over the next 50 years. Yorkshire is estimated to face a 0.5 cm increase every year. We cannot go on denying that it is happening, turning our backs on it or pretending that we can continually put up defences to stop that happening. The situation needs to be reviewed. That is only an estimate of sea level rises; it is exacerbated by the natural downward tilt of some land. As a Cornishman, I am always proud to point out that, perhaps symbolically, as England sinks, Cornwall rises. Either way, we are talking about a serious problem that cannot be ignored or avoided.
In evidence to the Select Committee, the Met Office identified the fact that, by 2050, winter days will be typically four or five times more common, in the sense that very heavy rainfall will be more regular during winter. In recent years, we have experienced more excessive rainfall in short periods, and the Met Office says that the flooding problems that we suffer as a result of that intense rainfall are likely to increase. Indeed, the problems that we have experienced in the last few years are likely to increase significantly in years to come.
We cannot simply put our heads in the sand and think that that will not happen, nor can we play King Canute and respond by building ever-higher defences. We must have a more strategic view of how to address the problems. As hon. Members have identified, the additional rainfall is affecting an increasingly urban environment, in which there is much faster run-off and rain collects in water basins more rapidly. That is exacerbating the problems.

283WH
To be fair to the Government, the UK strategy is the legacy of 70 or 80 years of believing that we can play King Canute and take on the sea and the natural elements. Development on flood plains—more than 2 million properties have been built in the last 10 years—has reduced their natural ability to contain and hold back floodwater as it rushes off hard surfaces faster than ever.
As the hon. Member for City of York said, an additional problem is the intensification of agriculture. Extensive drainage means that water runs off farmland faster than before. That intensification has led to overgrazing, soil compaction and the formation of surface crusts or soil capping, which reduce the land's natural ability to soak up water. Reports that flooding is occurring because catchments are saturated are not always accurate. Without soil compaction, supposedly saturated areas would be able to absorb more rainfall.
In addition, we are filling in flood plain wetlands. In the last 25 years, we have drained and filled 60 per cent. of our flood plain water meadows. These once acted as a natural safety valve, holding back floodwater and so reducing the flooding risk downstream.
All those problems show the fundamental contradiction between our long-term high principles about what we should be doing in response to global warming, rising sea levels and the climatic changes that we have described, and the commercial reality of the day-to-day financial pressures on us all.
Two examples show that contradiction. One is the planning system, which of course was artificially created by man. The planning system says that one cannot develop unless one completes a planning application form and gets permission. As we all know well—particularly those of us who have served on local authorities—planning committees, in effect, hand out rather large cheques to people who undertake very little work to secure their planning permission for a new development, every time they give planning permission.
The inexorable commercial pressure to seek housing and other types of development, whether on flood plains or anywhere else, is ever-present. The pressure for development will always be there. We have created a system that encourages us to develop in lower land and on flood plains where communities are based. We are creating commercial pressures that drive the desire to secure planning permission for developments in some of the most inappropriate areas from the point of view of flood defence. We need to recognise that.
Secondly, we have created artificial systems to encourage agricultural intensification, which has resulted in a desire to produce more and more to maximise the benefits of production supports. That has reduced our ability to allow for the saturation of land appropriately to avoid flooding. The difficulties that we experience are largely created by human systems of intervention. We need to recognise that and adapt some of the processes in response.
I congratulate the Government on introducing the consultation paper on funding. It goes in the right direction, but it raises a load of other questions. The structures of delivery of funding and strategy within
284WH
areas where there are special problems need to be looked at closely. I should be interested to know what the Under-Secretary considers to be the appropriate response to the plethora of agencies and bodies that either have a responsibility to deliver flood defence or cause flooding through excessive development or agricultural intensification. Should not the Environment Agency play a greater strategic and pivotal role in overseeing that? No other agency is in a more appropriate position to do that but, in many areas, it is unable to intervene.
What assessment has the Under-Secretary and the Department made of proposals for managed retreat in coastal areas? That has been on the agenda for some time. We had natural retreat in East Yorkshire many centuries ago. It happens naturally. Certainly the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Select Committee, wildlife trusts and others have indicated that, in certain areas, managed retreat is the most sensible option. It provides a far better barrier for the areas behind those in which we are retreating than putting that barrier up in the first place.
Should we move from a system of production support, of which Liberal Democrats are in favour, towards other direct payments to farmers as suggested by the Curry commission? For example, should we pay farmers to create rural flood plain wetlands, which are the countryside management payments that we can, within green box subsidies, encourage or allow farmers to receive?
Do we need to establish a more appropriate format for the strategic delivery of flood defence planning? Much flood defence is piecemeal planning. It ignores the downstream impacts of building concrete flood defence structures on urban areas. A catchment-based approach may be more appropriate. I know that the Government are considering that, and I should be interested to hear the Under-Secretary's comments about it.
An important aspect, and one that we are all looking towards, is the methods to restrict development in flood plain areas. Have the Government considered that objections from the Environment Agency to development in flood plain areas should be adopted as a mandatory instruction to planning authorities in certain circumstances? Should certain zones become areas of mandatory objection where planning cannot be permitted?
If that it not acceptable, would it be appropriate to oblige owners of property in areas prone to flooding—or developments that have gone ahead to which the Environment Agency has outlined strong objections—to disclose, at the point of sale, those objections? That may assist the process of discouraging development in flood plain areas. The debate has concentrated appropriately on efforts to reduce the impact of flooding, particularly in certain communities and urban areas. I want to encourage the Under-Secretary to examine a wider strategy.
12.7 pm
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: There cannot be many constituencies further apart than St. Ives and Leeds, North-West. Bedfordshire is in the middle; nevertheless, all three have suffered from the effects of flooding. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best) on securing the debate.

285WH
He made some pertinent points. The hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) asked the important question: "Who is in charge?" In his good, if somewhat lengthy, speech, the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) spoke movingly about the effects of flooding, particularly in human terms. That is something that we all understand yet never seem to take into account in our calculations. He also made a legitimate point about the need for new flood defences—not just shoring up the old—and suggested some simple, practical solutions that he would like the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to encourage. The hon. Gentleman is to be commended for his suggestions.
I cannot help but feel sorry for the Government's Environment Ministers. In recent weeks, they have rightly faced a barrage of criticism directed both at DEFRA's continuing failure to implement an effective waste management strategy—something about which the Under-Secretary and I have spoken in the past—and its handling of the European Union fridge disposal legislation. The World Economic Forum has criticised Britain's environmental policies as being among the most dismal in the developed world. It highlighted a lack of recycling initiatives, as well as the levels of air pollution.
To make matters worse, in a somewhat cruel twist of fate, a vast fridge mountain has sprung up in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), the Minister for the Environment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's introduction. However, I am not sure whether fridge mountains have anything to do with flood defences.
Mr. Sayeed: If I might explain, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They do because they have an effect on climate change. That acre of rusting, CFC-emitting white bears humiliating testament to the Government's incompetence and indolence.
For the sake of DEFRA Ministers, as well as that of home owners and businesses across the UK, let us be thankful that the floods of autumn 2000 have not been repeated on a similar scale. The figures associated with those floods are all too familiar. Inundation of land throughout England and Wales during that period resulted in insurance claims totalling more than £750 million and the evacuation of some 11,000 people. A complete financial impact assessment is impossible, as some of the properties affected were uninsured. The total cost of the damage, including loss of earnings, is estimated to be £1.5 billion to £2 billion.
The problem will not simply go away. Indeed, Environment Agency figures indicate that the dual spectres of coastal and inland flooding will loom increasingly large in the future. They project a tenfold increase in flood risk in the next century. So how can we in the political sphere set about managing that risk? I intend to touch briefly on three subjects that I hope will put some of what has been said today in a broader political context: first, the provision of funding for coping with the flood threat; secondly, the structuring of the institutional framework to deal with flooding; and finally, the redefining of planning guidelines so that developers are discouraged from embarking on projects that are likely to increase the risk of flooding.
286WH
Funding for flood protection has certainly increased since 1998, and looks set to increase further in coming years, and we should all acknowledge that. The Environment Agency, local authorities and the internal drainage boards spent a combined total of more than £330 million on flood defence last year, compared with £302.5 million during 1998–99 and the £316.4 million in 1999–2000.
The Government's spending review conducted in 2000 provided for a £10 million increase in DEFRA flood grants for 2002–03, and for a further £20 million for 2003–04. In total, Government spending on prevention and early warning looks set to reach £377 million this year, £394 million in 2002–03 and about £414 in 2003–04. We should all acknowledge that.
I am aware that it is easy to criticise Governments for not spending enough money. However, the inescapable fact remains that the Government's financial commitment to flood defence has failed to match the commitment to investment in preventative solutions that they announced in last year's Labour manifesto. In July 2001, a DEFRA report entitled "National Appraisal of Assets at Risk from Flooding and Coastal Erosion in England and Wales" explicitly recommended that capital expenditure in flood defence infrastructure should increase by a minimum of 100 per cent., with a parallel increase in expenditure on operation and maintenance.
The Association of British Insurers has called for a similar financial commitment on new flood defences, particularly targeted at the inland, fluvial flood threat. In its report to DEFRA last year, it concluded that budgeted spending remained
"significantly below the levels necessary to meet DEFRA's own standards".
It then called for an increase of at least £145 million in annual capital spending on improving flood defences in England and Wales.
The inescapable fact is that unless the Government can convince insurers that they are committed to capital outlay on improving and increasing actual flood defences—not administration—those insurers will either increase domestic and commercial premiums in high-risk areas to unaffordable levels or will simply refuse to insure at all against flood damage.
We all recognise the particular problems with an institutional framework that can deal effectively and consistently with the challenges of flood defence. Throughout the last century, Governments failed to ensure that the administrative framework could be reformed to keep pace with a growing flood threat. Apart from the devolving of Executive responsibility to national bodies in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, little has changed since a royal commission in the 1920s recognised the need for a national response to flood risk.
In England, DEFRA sets criteria for investment priorities. It pays capital grants to operating authorities, funds research programmes and ensures dissemination of best practice guidelines. Policy is then implemented by the operating authorities. In England and Wales, the Environment Agency is responsible for managing the flood risk from designated main rivers and the sea. Internal drainage boards deal with rivers not designated as "main", but which run through specified districts with

287WH
special drainage needs. Local authorities are involved because they manage the risk from non-main rivers outside internal drainage board areas. If they happen to be maritime district councils, local authorities also deal with coastal erosion.
Arrangements then become more complicated. There are problems with not only the backing up of sewers, but the remit of the water companies, private owners, riparian owners, city councils, district councils, county councils, parish councils and landowners with a direct interest. Such measures have all the makings of a managerial quagmire. However, such extraordinarily heterogeneous arrangements have advantages. They offer considerable scope for solutions that are sensitive to local circumstances, but the fundamental problem is too obvious. The framework suffers from exceptional bureaucratic complexity and makes the provision of a consistent national flood defence service well nigh impossible. Gaining approval for new flood prevention schemes is the bureaucratic nightmare. Even when there is money, plans tend to disappear.
The Under-Secretary may consider that there could be a better way in which to deal with the problem. For example, he may have in mind a financially non-interested body with emergency powers of coercion and arbitration, such as Ofwat, which can push other parties to do what is necessary. It could tell them first to sort out the problem and the question of who is responsible for it could be dealt with at a later stage.
I am short of time and must complete my remarks quickly because I want to hear what the Under-Secretary has to say. I will finish by saying that it is obvious that the current arrangements are not acceptable. We have problems that will continue to get worse, and we need a lead by Government to sort them out.
12.19 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best) on the way in which he opened the debate and on raising important issues on behalf of his constituents, especially the concerns of victims in flood-hit areas.
I am glad that, as hon. Members have mentioned, the recent floods have been nothing like those in 2000. That was partly because of the weather, although in some parts of the country it was almost as severe as in 2000. It was also because there has been considerable investment in and uprating of flood defences and, in particular, flood warning systems. About 320,000 extra people have been added to the Environment Agency's flood warning arrangements since last year, in one year alone.
I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) comment that where there has been an incidence of flooding, the reaction from local authorities, the agency and the police has been excellent. It has been quick and efficient. I recently spoke to the severe weather sub-committee of the Local Government Association, which was very complimentary about the way things have improved, particularly since the Northampton floods of 1998. We have made huge progress on floods.
288WH
I shall touch upon some of the points made by my hon. Friends and by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) in a moment, but I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West will want me to comment in particular on the schemes that he mentioned. I can give him an update on where we are with them. As he will appreciate, schemes take time because of planning, planning permission, engineering and design. My hon. Friend the Member for City of York mentioned speediness. Unfortunately, big engineering schemes are not always speedy because there can be challenging technical issues to overcome. The agency and engineers from my Department do a good job at looking at the options on that.
A scheme to protect properties in Castley lane, Pool, Wharfedale is scheduled to commence in 2002–03, this financial year, subject to obtaining the necessary planning and other approvals. I understand that, just as in York, a scheme in that area has already been rejected on planning grounds because people did not like the look of it. That is not unusual. In my travels round the country, I have found several areas that have rejected flood defence schemes that have been offered on the grounds of amenity.
How schemes look and their environmental impact is a consideration that must be taken into account. Sometimes, people want to go far beyond the engineering of a scheme designed to deliver flood defence, and then we come to the whole issue of cost-effectiveness. There can be ways of overcoming such problems, sometimes involving a combination of funding, in which a local authority or regional development agency puts money into environmental enhancement. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West mentioned Ilkley.
Mr. Best: Otley.
Mr. Morley: Otley, was it? I shall come to that in a minute. My hon. Friend might like to hear about Ilkley first. The scheme there was rejected on the grounds to which I referred; one example of several so rejected.
The scheme in Otley has been identified as part of the Environment Agency's long-term plan and is due to commence in 2004, again depending on the necessary approval and planning conditions. I shall make a point of talking to the agency about progress on that scheme because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West is anxious for such improvements in his constituency. He made a powerful case in his speech today, which I accept.
There are other issues, such as consequential costs and the cost to local authorities. We are currently reviewing the Bellwin formula, although that is not always triggered, as it depends on the size of the flooding. We are talking to the LGA about it, and in my discussions with its severe weather sub-committee yesterday, all parties in the LGA were pleased with progress.
I turn to other comments that were made, particularly by my hon. Friends the Members for Selby (Mr. Grogan) and for City of York, who made similar points. Both represent areas that have been severely affected by floods and I am pleased that during the recent severe weather, York's defences, which have been repaired and

289WH
reinstated since the floods of 2000—as my hon. Friend the Member for City of York said—were not severely challenged during the recent high water. I agree that it is probably not helpful to focus on York as having suffered a dreadful flood when very few properties were affected and the defences operated well within their capability. As the Ouse fell after the peak the agency did not even issue flood warnings in Selby and Gowdall because the new defences were not severely challenged and were in good shape. The people of York can be confident that, by and large, they enjoy good defences, as do the people of Selby now.
I understand the point about funding made by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire. We are not ducking that issue. Although I say so myself, we are open and transparent about flood defence. My Department commissioned an independent report on what future commitments should be. The report asked for a 100 per cent. increase in capital funding; during 2002–03, the projected increase in council funding in the Department's allocation for flooding and coastal defence is 70 per cent. That is not insignificant.
There is an on-going and legitimate debate on what is appropriate, but we must bear in mind how the money is spent and not just pluck figures out of the air. Large engineering projects must be programmed and only so many can be carried out during a year. People may argue for extra money, but they may be unable to spend it within a financial year. We are almost at that stage now with the amount of additional money that we have made available. It is challenging to many regional flood defence committees to include it in their immediate programmes.
Flood and coastal defences are a long-term gain and I am pleased that the Yorkshire regional flood defence committee and local councils have been more realistic about the levies that have been raised. With those levies, they can access additional capital funding that the Government have made available to them. In
290WH
Yorkshire, a plethora of schemes is being planned and constructed. I was pleased to visit Malton and Norton and see progress with the work there. A lot of work is taking place and Yorkshire received a big chunk of the additional £16 million for repairs and reinstatement. The Foss barrier needed an extensive overhaul after its sterling service during the 2000 floods. It has had that overhaul and the money has been made available. We are delivering and improving and I genuinely believe that matters are getting better and that risks are being reduced.
There is an on-going debate. The consultants' report examined funding mechanisms, institutional arrangements and matters to which the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) referred, such as flood plains and reinstatement. We have introduced an environmental impact assessment on grassland, which covers ploughing on slopes, and I accept that soil management is an issue. That is covered in DEFRA's soil codes, which are available free to landowners and farmers and cover run-off, soil erosion and the impact of flooding. We have addressed the matter.
I am enthusiastic about the approach to flood plain reinstatement and managed retreat because they are sustainable flood defences that provide environmental benefits. The recent review of funding suggests several radical ideas and I accept that some are more attractive than others. I heard what my hon. Friends said about the flood plain levy, but that is one idea about which I am less enthusiastic. It is right that we have an open debate about the best way in which to raise funds, and the consultant's report is a useful contribution to that. I welcome contributions from the public, local authorities and interested parties.
We have no fixed position on those proposals. We are waiting for the responses, we will listen to them carefully and we will respond in due course. I assure my hon. Friends that I have listened carefully to what they have said today.

NHS and Social Services (Oxfordshire)
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Before I call the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), I should advise the House that the hon. Members for Banbury (Tony Baldry) and for Henley (Mr. Johnson) have obtained the permission of the Minister, the owner of the debate, the hon. Member for Witney, and myself to make brief contributions.
12.30 pm
Mr. David Cameron: I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak about the problems in the national health service and social services in Oxfordshire. I am pleased to be joined by my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury (Tony Baldry) and for Henley (Mr. Johnson).
I have put in for the same Adjournment debate every week for one simple reason: the state of our health and social services is the subject that dominates both my postbag and my surgeries. We are poorly served in Oxfordshire, and it seems to be getting worse. However, the debate is not about point scoring; it is about asking the Minister what can be done to make things better. Having said that, I praise the magnificent staff in our hospitals and all those who work for social services. I spent a lot of time with them in the John Radcliffe hospital and the Witney community hospital last week. They struggle, often against the odds, to deliver their services. What I am about to run through may sound like a shopping list of problems, but I make no apologies for that because the shelves are bare in Oxfordshire.
I shall start with the most urgent problem, which is the buildings of Burford community hospital. The Government closed it in November 1999, but from the ashes of that dreadful decision came a group called the Phoenix trust. It had the excellent idea of saving the buildings to provide health services for the people of Burford. It put together a great plan involving voluntary bodies, charities and educational organisations, all of which are concerned with health and healthy living. It won the support of local people and the local council, and it won public funding as part of the leader plus bid.
The Phoenix trust won priority purchaser status from the South West Oxfordshire primary care trust, the body which owns the buildings, and it was offered a chance to acquire them for £500,000. Its plans fitted in with the Government's strategy of backing such healthy living centres. It raised the money, and after some negotiation it was ready to go. Last week, however, it heard that the district valuer had upped the value of the building to £700,000, and the health authority has said that its hands are tied.
Without any consultation, the primary care trust put out a press release stating that the buildings would go on the open market, in which they are likely to be snapped up by a property developer. I beg the Minister to intervene, even at this late hour, to put a stop to that nonsense. The goalposts have been moved at the last minute wholly unfairly against the Phoenix trust. People in Burford rightly feel that those are their buildings: the remains of their hospital that they backed and for which they raised money for decades. They should not be treated in that way. The original decision to close the
292WH
hospital was wholly wrong because we should be trying to deliver health care, and particularly respite care, closer to people.
The next problem on my shopping list is blocked hospital beds, which is directly related to such delivery of health care. Managers at the John Radcliffe hospital told me last week that typically between 100 and 150 beds are blocked across the county at any one time, and I had that figure confirmed this morning. The social services department at Oxfordshire county council explained at a recent meeting in Woodstock that half its care homes are going to shut before 2007, when the new standards will come in. Without rapid and positive action that problem will get much worse.
I recently wrote to every general practitioner in my constituency, and their answers came back thick and fast. Sandy Scott from the Wychwood surgery stated:
"Residential homes are closing at a rate of knots; funding for beds via social services provides no profit to the operators. The problem will only get worse unless addressed immediately."
I could quote from many similar letters. What actions will the Government take to ease that problem and ensure adequate care home places in Oxfordshire?
As well as a queue to get out of hospital, there is a queue to get in. Three related problems are the breakdown in the accident and emergency department of the John Radcliffe, the long waits for operations and out-patient appointments and the high number of cancelled operations. I have written to Ministers about individual cases. The overwhelming cause of those problems seems to be staff shortages. Before dealing with that, I shall explain what those symptoms mean for my constituents in west Oxfordshire. In A&E, the John Radcliffe has failed to meet the target for cutting 12-hour waits for admission to hospital; it has trolley waits. Such cases arise in my surgery and postbag weekly, and, as a doctor from the Woodstock surgery wrote in December:
"The JR has on several occasions been closed to admissions… Patients have been diverted as far as Northampton and Stoke Mandeville."
As for waits for out-patient appointments, a doctor from Charlbury wrote to explain that the waiting times for some clinics are more than a year.
For cancelled operations, the official figures are that same-day cancellations were 5.7 per cent. of last year's total. That is a bald statistic, but it means one out of every 20 planned operations is cancelled on the day it was supposed to happen. I know that the Minister will agree that that is a dreadful way in which to treat people. The record has improved considerably since then, but the long term problem remains, and 80 beds across the trust are still closed. There is a clear connection between A&E problems, cancelled operations and long waiting times.
Mr. Bowman of Shipton-under-Wychwood received a letter from a consultant urologist from the John Radcliffe, who explained:
"We are working presently at 100 per cent. capacity on the wards and our operating lists. This has two effects. Firstly, if we have emergency patients on the wards or we are unable to discharge patients following surgery…the inevitable consequence is that patients awaiting operations will have to be cancelled. Once the cancellation has been made, there then comes the second problem namely that all our operating slots are booked up for at least 2-3 months in advance."

293WH
The individual has the great disappointment of a cancelled operation, then is told that nothing can be done for two to three months, or sometimes longer.
That difficulty is caused by capacity constraints more than anything else, the most obvious of which is staff shortages. During a recent visit to the John Radcliffe, I was told that there were more than 300 nursing vacancies. All told, some 14 per cent. of positions are unfilled. The problem is caused by national pay rates combined with the high cost of living and housing in Oxfordshire. We cannot recruit enough staff, and we cannot retain those we have. I heard from doctors that some 80 nurses are coming from the Philippines. They will be warmly welcomed in Oxfordshire, but they are not the long-term answer. Our nurses should be paid at least the same as those in London, where London weighting provides more than £3,000 extra. In the longer term, we want to see an end to national pay rates.
Next on the shopping list is the star system for judging hospitals. Unsurprisingly, the John Radcliffe got no stars under the Government scheme. However, is that the right way to manage? The problem in the John Radcliffe is capacity: it is constrained, and cannot hire enough staff. So what have the Government done? They have hung a sign that says "failure" on the hospital's door. We were told at the meeting that a total of 21 indicators have to be met, but they are being reviewed, so the hospital's management is not sure of the targets it is trying to hit this year. Will the Minister provide some clarity on those indicators?
I shall address social services. To put the problem in a sound bite—I must because time is running short, and my hon. Friends must have their bites too—we have a funding crisis in social services with cuts being made, charges going up and services being cut back. Again, we have the critical problem of hiring staff. The director of social services at Oxfordshire county council described the situation as
"a social care economy on the point of collapse".
The long-term situation is worrying. People who care for loved ones at home are heroes and heroines, and they deserve our support. There are 67,000 of them in Oxfordshire. The institutional system will collapse if they cease to work their current wonders, and urgent action is needed to prevent that from happening. Oxfordshire spends over 15 per cent. more than its standard spending assessment. Its SSA is profoundly unfair, and is the sixth lowest in the country per head of population. Cuts are now reducing the overspend. Eligibility criteria determine who will and will not be assisted. I shall give the Minister a copy of the document that states that no assistance will be given for
"severe illness or disability and likelihood of deterioration".
Nor will assistance be given if there is a
"possible risk that an individual or carer is unable to maintain a safe environment".
This is a brutal document, and I sent a copy of it to the Secretary of State. I have not received a response.
The new charging policy is a direct consequence of the dire financial situation. Mrs. Roberts of North Leigh copied me the letter that she sent to social services. Her husband, who has Parkinson's disease, receives help from two care workers. He was being charged £409 a month, and that will increase to £952 a month—a
294WH
140 per cent. increase. The two care assistants do a great job, but they help for only eight and three quarter hours a week. If the Minister does the mathematics, she will realise that that is an expensive charge. The staffing problem underpins that. Mrs. Tussie Myerson is a brave mother who struggles to cope looking after Emmy, her severely disabled daughter. When I took up her case, the reply from the social services could have been written by the NHS. They told me that they were having
"extreme difficulty recruiting care staff for children".
The problem is the same.
We have high house prices and a high cost of living in our area, but we must stick to national rates. I e-mailed the Minister about some of those issues, as I want her to engage with the problems. The bald statistics back up the anecdotal evidence. In the Oxfordshire health authority, fewer operations were carried out in the last financial year than in the financial year before. The number of in-patients treated has gone down by 3,000. Oxfordshire health authority is soon to be no more, so that is the final element on my shopping list. Will the Minister guarantee that consistent figures will be published, so that we can keep taking the temperature of the health and social services in Oxfordshire on behalf of our constituents, and see what progress is being made? My constituents and I look forward to her reassurance about the difficult problems that we face in Oxfordshire.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I make a plea to the two hon. Gentlemen whom I intend to call to be succinct, to allow the Minister time to reply.
12.43 pm
Tony Baldry: I promise to be succinct, as my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) made all the points clearly.
I have had the Minister's responsibility, and I know that one can get frustrated at what may seem like an inordinate amount of special pleading from different parts of the country. We are not making any special pleading about social services, and I ask the Minister to visit Oxfordshire on behalf of hon. Members who have Oxfordshire constituencies. We are all concerned about the John Radcliffe hospital and its persistent nurse shortages. It would be helpful if the Minister could talk to the managers and staff, as there is a growing problem.
In its recent annual review of the performance of Oxfordshire social services, the social services inspectorate found that Oxfordshire has maintained a creditable level and quality of service provision despite significant budget difficulties. My hon. Friend talked about eligibility criteria. In Oxfordshire, many elderly and frail people no longer receive support from the county council and social services. Many people living at home on their own have no contact or social support. I spent time before Christmas visiting elderly people in their homes, at the suggestion of Age Concern. I was genuinely disturbed at how little support many of those people receive. They are often unnoticed, but they are in considerable need. As my hon. Friend said, we do not want to score political points; there is a problem and we would welcome the Minister spending some time with us. It would help to reinforce her argument that social services provision needs more money when she and her hon. Friends see the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and others who hold the purse strings.
12.45 pm
Mr. Boris Johnson: I, too, will be brief, as many of my points have already been made.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) for securing the debate. I echo everything that he said, especially about the shortfall in social services spending in Oxfordshire, which is having an adverse effect on some of the most vulnerable people in society. Week in and week out, hon. Members meet people in their surgeries who are at the end of their tether. They deal with severely disabled and elderly people who are being kicked out of nursing homes that are on the point of closure.
My hon. Friend elucidated the problems facing those nursing homes, such as the minimum wage and the additional standards imposed on them, and the problems faced by hospitals in the area, especially the John Radcliffe hospital, in recruiting and retaining nurses. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response to the point about national pay scales for nurses. Is there any prospect of that rigid system being made more flexible? It is at the heart of the problem.
Bed blocking is a huge problem in my constituency. My hon. Friend quoted some statistics, and there are others. Last year, on any given day, there were 22 cases of bed blocking in Oxfordshire. People have to be over 75 even to be mentioned in the statistics. Sometimes, people are driven to try to rectify matters themselves, as they did in the case of the Watlington hospital, which was closed by the Labour Government. Local people decided to rebuild it by public petition and public subscription, and I hope that the Minister will congratulate them on their success.
The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has not made many notable decisions in his tenure of office, but he did one good thing: he did not call in the Watlington hospital for approval and did not object to it. I congratulate him at least on that decision, and I hope that the Minister will, too.
Local people should not be expected to rebuild their own hospitals to rectify the problems that the Government are causing social services in Oxfordshire. I hope that the Minister will give some comfort and succour to many of my constituents who are suffering grievously.
12.48 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I congratulate the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) on securing the debate; his persistence finally paid off. I agree with him that the matters he raised are extremely important to his constituents and to people throughout the country. I acknowledge that health and social services in Oxfordshire are operating under tremendous pressure. I was pleased that the hon. Gentleman paid tribute to staff in social services and the NHS who manage to do a first-class job for many of their patients and clients, sometimes in very trying circumstances.
I am grateful for the contribution of the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) and a little less grateful for the partisan way in which the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) put his case. However, I am delighted to
296WH
join him in congratulating the people in Watlington on the work they have done. I hope that there will be a successful outcome to the proposals for Burford, which I shall mention in due course. It is an important matter for the hon. Member for Witney.
First, I shall deal with issues relating to social services. The standard spending assessment for social services in Oxford and the eligibility and charging criteria are matters of great concern. The Government take the work of social services very seriously. We are beginning to see much closer working between the NHS and social care in local communities. Our constituents are not bothered whether the NHS or social services provide their care: they want a seamless transition to meet their needs.
Nationally, resources for social services have increased in real terms by 3.1 per cent. a year over the past few years. That contrasts markedly with the 0.1 per cent. per annum increase between 1992 and 1997. I do not want to make partisan remarks, but recent increases have been considerably higher than in the past. That does not mean for a moment that all the pressures have been met and that services are not under any strain. I fully recognise that.
Oxfordshire has benefited from increased investment. It received a 9.3 per cent. increase this year, including a 6.5 per cent. increase in the personal social services SSA. That will increase by a further 5.6 per cent. next year. It will also receive significant increases in grants paid directly by the Department. The children's grant will increase by 11 per cent., the carers' grant by 22 per cent. and the building care capacity and deferred payments grants will double. Significant additional investment is therefore going into social services in the area.
I recognise that Oxfordshire faces local budget problems. It has an overspend from last year carried forward to this year. The new chief executive has appointed a specific person to examine the budgeting processes within the county to ensure that its expenditure leads to best value and effectiveness. I commend that robust approach to financial management at local level.
I acknowledge that funding for the national health service is significantly more generous than funding increases for social services. Under the joined-up system, the extra money invested in the NHS may sometimes have a more marked effect on social services in that the more people treated in hospitals, the more people need care on discharge and in the community. We have to try to match the two parts of the jigsaw for future funding.
I understand hon. Members' concern about eligibility criteria and charges, particularly when, as a result of changes, people previously eligible for free care suddenly find that they have to pay. I would like to highlight one forthcoming change that will improve the position of many constituents. Under the council's current charging regime, residents start to pay if they possess £12,000 of resources, excluding the value of their home. From October this year, that will be changed in line with national policy and the threshold will be increased from £12,000 to £19,000 before charges are payable. Many more people in Oxfordshire will then be able to access services without charge.

297WH
Supporting carers in the home is also important. Sometimes the whole debate about caring for elderly people is focused on residential care and nursing home places. I understand the reasons for that, but we must also understand that many people want to be cared for in their own homes for as long as possible. That often depends on the good will, energy and stamina of people who are often elderly themselves and care for their elderly partners. We sometimes forget that many carers are not young, fit and full of energy, but are people in their 60s, 70s or even older who have to provide care 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with all the commensurate strains that that puts on them and their families.
The Government view that problem as a priority. That is why we increased carers' grants for Oxfordshire by 40 per cent. last year. In 2002–03 the grant will be worth £85 million nationally, and Oxfordshire should receive £680,000. I am delighted that Oxfordshire is using its grant in several innovative ways, including extending the relief to carers to all client groups.
Carers often feel that they do not have the prospect of a break or a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel. They may want just a couple of hours off to do their shopping or to be by themselves. Carers hugely appreciate that, so making sure that respite and relief care are available is very important. Most carers desperately want to give the best care possible to the people who depend on them. The relatively small investment that we make in giving carers a short break is repaid tenfold in the extra energy that they bring back to the task that faces them.
There will be more respite care. More short-term breaks will be offered to carers of people with physical or learning disabilities, who are important clients and a demanding group of people to care for. There will also be breaks for carers of people with mental health problems. We tend to think of carers as people who help people physically to dress, wash and look after themselves, yet caring for someone with a mental health problem is probably one of the most intense jobs that anyone can do.
Three new care managers will carry out assessments throughout Oxfordshire. The Government introduced the right to assessment by carers themselves, rather than just the people being cared for. Carers are considered in their own right as individuals with needs.
This year, the promoting independence grant has replaced the previous set of grants. The new money has been spent on promoting independence through new patterns of service, which try to provide care close to home and help to prevent re-admission to hospital or residential care. Many authorities now provide outreach teams, and many places have fall clinics. One of the main reasons for the admission of elderly people to hospital in the first place is that they have had a fall because they are unsteady on their feet. They are also more likely to suffer a severe fracture that takes longer to heal. They go into hospital, lose their independence and have to stay in residential care. Elderly people do not want to enter that vicious circle of decline. The simple action of analysing the reasons why elderly people have falls in the first place can prevent tragedies, so we need to put more resources into the front end of
298WH
the system. The medication taken by elderly people often makes them more likely to lose their balance and have a fall, so that is also important.
Pay issues have been raised. Pay rates are a matter for local negotiation, but since April Oxfordshire has had a cost-of-living supplement of £600 for qualified nurses of grade C and above. A great deal of work has been done on child care facilities, returning to work, family-friendly policies and flexible working. I am acutely conscious of the recruitment and retention problems in the south-east. The cost of housing is high, and people find it difficult to survive on the wages that are paid in this area. That problem affects not only the health service, but teachers, police officers and the whole public sector. There are innovative schemes to provide people with access to housing. I believe that Oxfordshire is at the forefront of providing low-cost housing. The John Radcliffe is leading a scheme that will result in some 130 housing units becoming available.
Mr. Boris Johnson: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Blears: I shall press on, because there are only two minutes left and I want to deal with the Burford issue. I know that a group of local people has raised a great deal of money, which is welcome, and wants to provide a healthy living centre. There is an issue concerning how much information they have provided about what services would be on offer in the centre. It is important that that information be fully available so that the primary care trust can decide whether it wants to support the development and whether it would be of value to the community. I urge the group to be as open as possible. I will certainly urge the region to continue negotiating and to be fully engaged in the process.
I understand that the rise in the valuation that occurred quite recently resulted from a proposal by the Phoenix trust for part of the site to be used for residential development. Clearly, in an area with high land prices, such as Oxfordshire, the introduction of the residential element has been the trigger for an increase in the valuation. If the centre is to provide a service that is of great value to the NHS, there is a basis for further discussion about how local people can share the benefit. I ask all parties involved, including the officials in the region, to get together and ensure that we make progress as fast as possible. They are bound by public probity issues and must ensure that they act in accordance with proper rules for public funds.
Mr. Cameron: I should be grateful if the Minister would ensure that the officials do not put the building on the market until they have had the conversations to which she referred.
Ms Blears: I told my officials this morning that this is an important project and that they should have discussions and get information so that they can make a proper assessment of what will be put on the site. That is very important.
Finally on the health service, I recognise that local people will be concerned about the fact that their local trust has a zero star rating. However, it is beginning to improve and do a good job, and I will be visiting because I want to talk to the staff and everyone involved.

Care of the Elderly (Crawley)
1 pm
Laura Moffatt: I am delighted to be able to raise this particular issue. I know that, like the hon. Members who spoke in the previous debate, we all feel deeply about it. Many Members say how different the problems are and how important their constituency is, and I shall do the same.
Crawley is a new town and was formed just after the war. People from south London came within five years of each other to settle together with their young families. There was good employment and the town prospered. Few people would deny that Crawley is one of the most successful new towns. Yesterday, I entertained a GP from my constituency, Dr. Roy, who has just completed 40 years working in the health service. He said that he now sees the children of the children of the first generation, so Crawley is a town that has thrived and prospered.
The difference for Crawley, and other new towns, is that everyone came to the town at the same age. They have grown older together and are growing old together. We know that there will be a 51 per cent. increase in the number of over-85s in Crawley by 2011. This debate was designed to examine how we can address that challenge and ensure that we have a decent society. It is a national problem of course, not just one for the south-east and Crawley. People are living longer, and we should applaud that. In 1950, men were not expected to live beyond 67 years old and women not beyond 72 years. In 2002, men are expected to reach the age of 72 and women the age of 81. An average of five years longer in that short time is fantastic, and I hope we improve on that.
There are many reasons for those increased expectations. Ageism is being eliminated from the national health service. I remember when I was a nurse and people over 75 came into hospital requiring complex treatments or expensive drugs. Age was a real issue, but now if people can have a good outcome and are expected to do well from treatments, they are given them. People are treated as individuals, not just as someone who is growing older.
However, that brings huge challenges. A recent article in the Health Statistics Quarterly, produced by the Office for National Statistics, predicted that over the next 30 years 65 per cent. more nursing homes places and a 148 per cent. real-term rise in expenditure on longterm care will be needed. That is scary stuff, and we must face the challenge.
I have spoken a little about the problem in the southeast, but I want to expand on that. Land can be sold in my area and throughout West Sussex for between £500,000 and £1 million an acre—those figures come from West Sussex county council. The value of a terrace property in Crawley is more than £100,000, so hon. Members can imagine how pleased we were when the key workers scheme was introduced to enable people who worked in the care sector, teaching and police to move into our area. We want that scheme to be expanded because it has been enormously successful. However, high land prices have led to nursing home owners being able to make more money from the sale of
300WH
the land to a developer than they could ever make running the property as a going concern, and that problem must be dealt with.
West Sussex county council has a particular and interesting problem. Other boroughs can outbid it for nursing home placements. London boroughs can pay up to £100 a week more, and Kent and Surrey can pay up to £50 a week more. Cash for change made a huge and welcome difference to West Sussex—we received the fifth highest allocation. There was no question that it was needed, and the money was well used. However, we used the money differently from other boroughs by ensuring that everybody placed in a nursing or residential care home had an uprate in the amount being paid. Authorities such as Kent, Surrey and the London boroughs kept the existing price for those in nursing home places and bumped up the new places money, so they can now outbid West Sussex.
Authorities should work together to avoid running into such ludicrous problems. As a result of the outbidding, places are taken by people from London—4.5 per cent. of places in Crawley, for example. That may be good news because people are moving closer to their families, or it may be that there is a shortage of places where they come from. A further 9.7 per cent. of places are taken by people from Kent, Surrey and East Sussex, resulting in a 15 per cent. shortage of what is already a scarce resource. People from London and Kent are coming to Crawley, and Crawley residents are offered nursing home places on the coast. We must do something about that. We have only seven nursing homes in the whole town, in stark contrast to the coastal towns that often have many more.
We must use scarce resources more effectively. It is vital to deal with problems such as delayed discharge. I cannot bear people talking about bed blocking—it is insulting. If I had a loved one in hospital who had a delayed transfer of care and was accused of being a bed blocker, I would be very angry. It used to make me very angry when I was a nurse. We must remember that such language can be insulting to patients.
The problem will be with us for some time, but there is much that we can do to help. Yesterday, in my local hospitals in Crawley and Horsham, 44 patients had a delayed transfer of care. That may sound bad, but it is an enormous improvement on the 70-plus that we suffered for weeks. The cash for change money made a huge difference to the problem, with people working together in better networks and ensuring that people are moved on. Although it seems dire, the situation has greatly improved and I congratulate everyone who worked hard to make that happen.
We must find a no-blame solution. We should get round the table with all those involved in the care of the elderly who deal with delayed discharges and ensure that people have the correct support in their own homes. Before Christmas, I called a seminar at the House of Commons for all those involved—patients, their friends and family, representatives of borough and district councils, social services and the voluntary sector, and general practioners from the primary care trust. We had a useful and productive afternoon looking into better ways of working.

301WH
Without doubt, we all call for more money—that may be the long-term answer because we need to plan. However, it will not produce a single extra space in a couple of weeks, unlike some of the solutions offered by our conference on long-term care. We were delighted that the Minister of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) was able to visit and give the Government's view on the issue. It was helpful to our deliberations.
I shall describe some of the solutions that we came up with, because we felt that there was much that we could do. There is a lot going on, but we could work much more cohesively to ensure that people have better care. The main recommendation was for improved joint health and social service working. At the conference, a lot of work was explained to us, and it was good that we were all there to share the information. However, there was so much more that could have been done.
As the conference developed, people thought of new ways to work with each other, and they put a face to each other's names. They had usually spoken on telephones but had never seen each other face to face. It was heartening to hear people finding ways of working more cohesively. Of course the issue of increased capacity in the sector came up, but we did not state merely that there should be more nursing home and residential care places. Members of the borough council said that perhaps they had a role to play and could propose parcels of land that could be used for extra care homes.
In one care home in town, which has been superbly successful, elderly people can lock their doors but still have the extra care that keeps them in care places much longer and makes them much happier. We could expand plans for such homes, which prevent people from having to take up nursing home places too soon when they can be maintained in a different setting. That is one of the ways that we would like to pursue our aims locally, and we are actively considering it.
The issue of supporting people in their homes is vital. The fact that people want to stay in their homes tends to get lost in the debate. They want to be with their loved ones, if they have them, and their friends and families. That is why it is unacceptable to take people to the south coast to be put in nursing homes. They need to be in their communities. Crawley borough council should be applauded for its work to develop elderly care homes in the neighbourhood and to encourage people out of their three and four-bedroom houses to allow families to move in. That work is ongoing but could be expanded.
We want more intermediate care packages and greater clarity about the care that people can expect in their homes from local authorities. There was huge support for that, particularly from Age Concern.
Tim Loughton: I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing up the subject, which is important to hon. Members representing West Sussex. We do not want her problem to be transferred to my part of West Sussex on the coast. We should keep more people in their homes and provide packages for domiciliary care. Does she agree that West Sussex social services and social services departments in the rest of the country have to tighten their criteria because of the
302WH
shortage of funds, so fewer and fewer people are qualifying for the care at home that they so desperately need and that she and I favour?
Laura Moffatt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I understand his point, but I do not agree with the route he takes. West Sussex social services has had a sizeable increase in funds; it is the increase in the numbers of the elderly that is making the problem more acute. The social services department, which was well represented at the meeting, accepts that it has to target its funds much more, and it can think of ways of using them more effectively to keep people in their homes. There is a huge budget for that, which is very important. Of course, funding was an issue, so I take the hon. Gentleman's point.
Recognition of the problems of living and working in the south-east was to the fore. There were further recommendations to improve discharge planning—simple work that needs to be done—and communication with other organisations that assist with the care of the elderly. Improved care and medication for the elderly was also raised. I can well remember elderly people coming into hospital when there was nothing wrong with them other than the fact that they had been on the same medication for too long and had fallen over, or gone off their feet as it is known in the acute sector, and had to be rehabilitated. All that could be avoided.
More respite provision was much welcomed by the caring organisations and the voluntary sector. They said that if more respite care was provided they could care for the elderly at home and would not have to take up the nursing home or residential care option. West Sussex county council is working on that. It is ensuring that information to relatives and friends about supporting the elderly is improved. We are now developing better rehabilitation provisions at Crawley hospital for people who have suffered strokes to enable them to get back to the community as quickly as can be expected. Such good and reasonable options can make a difference. All the money in the world would not improve matters for us over the next few weeks, but changing the way in which we work could make a real difference to the people whom we care about so much.
I am not just shouting for more money. Of course, there is a need for extra resources, but I am talking about working together. The seminar brought people together to work out solutions. No one blamed the Government and said how dreadful they had been. No one said that social services were awful. Members of the seminar genuinely wanted to make a difference. Not only did such discussions improve the relationships of those within the organisations, they made people examine the provision of care in a different way. I hope that the report will make a difference.
1.16 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) on securing the debate and raising such important issues, and on the way that she has dealt with such significant challenges that face our society as we look to improving

303WH
the health and social care services that are available to elderly people in her constituency and throughout the country.
My hon. Friend was right to draw attention to the significant demographic changes in West Sussex and other parts of England. Meeting the needs of our elderly citizens is one of the biggest health and social care challenges that our country will face in the years ahead. I particularly welcome what she said about the long-term care conference, which she had a leading role in organising in the House before Christmas. If further evidence were needed, the conference confirmed the strong and positive relationships that exist between health and social care organisations in her constituency. She should be congratulated on the work that she has undertaken. I wish to place on record my appreciation of the tremendous efforts of staff in the NHS and West Sussex social services, and those in the voluntary and independent sectors. They are working together to deal with the challenges that she rightly identified.
My hon. Friend was right to say that we should tackle the problem at two different levels. There is a need for the joined-up local working that she described, and we must search for innovation, new solutions and greater efficiency in the use of the available resources. I want to focus the main drift of my remarks on the need for the Government to support the local and better working partnership that she described. There are four particular areas in which we must continue to develop policy and to make further improvements.
My hon. Friend was right to say that resources are important, because they will determine the shape and size of the local services that are available. That point was touched on by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). That is why the Government are investing significantly more money in social services. Funding for social services increased nationally by more than 20 per cent. in real terms between 1996–97 and 2002–03. That equates to an average real terms increase of more than 3 per cent. per annum, and compares favourably with real terms growth of only 0.1 per cent. in social services spending between 1992 and 1997.
West Sussex has benefited from the extra investment. Central Government support for social services spending in West Sussex is ahead of the national average growth in social services spending. This is the third year in a row that the West Sussex personal social services standard spending assessment has increased by more than the national average. In 1998, West Sussex county council received £106 million from central Government towards the cost of providing social services in the county. By next year, that figure will have risen to £123 million. Those figures do not include the extra special grants that local authorities receive from central Government.
We have been able to do that because we have recognised the real and genuine cost pressures in the south of England, such as land, property, wages and others to which my hon. Friend referred, which differ from those in other parts of the country, such as my
304WH
area. Those higher costs put extra pressures on social services, and it is right to reflect that in funding arrangements when possible.
We are committed to further improving methods of funding local councils with social services responsibilities, in particular to ensure that the allocation system is fair and transparent. My hon. Friend will be aware, as will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with your interest in such matters, that we have announced a review of all existing SSA formulas and aim to have an improved system in place for the financial year 2003–04.
I agree with my hon. Friend that we should continue to ensure that investment is maintained, but she acknowledged that that is only one part of the equation. It is not in itself the sufficient and ultimate criterion by which we should judge the success or otherwise of the reforms. It is fundamental, but other things must happen as well.
It was therefore very important that my hon. Friend dwelt on the need to build up capacity in the care system as a whole, in both health and social care services. The Government have an important role to play in supporting local change and development. Central to our plans to reform the care system is the development of new intermediate care services. Those services, which my hon. Friend described, are designed to prevent avoidable admissions to hospital and to allow patients, especially older people, the necessary time and care for rehabilitation. That should enable people to live independently in their own homes for longer when they need care and support from social care services.
I am aware of the need for further development of those services in my hon. Friend's constituency, as she has explained. The NHS plan announced that an additional investment of £900 million would be available annually by 2003–04 for new intermediate care and related services. We have already seen signs of progress in that area. An extra 2,000 intermediate care beds are now available, and 127,000 patients are being helped in their recovery after treatment by specialist intermediate care-related packages.
In Crawley, health and social services are working on a joint intermediate care strategy comprising extra community rehabilitation, supported early discharge schemes, a reablement scheme using beds at Horsham hospital, the use of low dependency nursing home beds and the development of a specialist home care dementia service. Those will be important additions to the services on offer locally. I understand that those and further plans for expansion in intermediate care services in my hon. Friend's constituency are currently under active consideration.
The development of those care packages should not be seen in isolation. The Government have introduced several measures specifically aimed at promoting greater independence, to which my hon. Friend referred and I strongly agree with her views. I think that we would all, were our opinions canvassed, want to remain in our own homes for as long as possible. That is the right place—close to friends and family in an environment with which we are familiar and that we have played an important part in shaping. Of course, there will always be those for whom residential care is the appropriate answer, but our

305WH
overall aim is to enable more people to be helped to live at home supported by home care services, such as the packages to which my hon. Friend referred.
We are providing West Sussex county council with additional resources to make further improvements in services. Schemes are available to prevent unnecessary hospital admissions, provide rehabilitation after hospital treatment and offer non-intensive services to help people to maintain or regain an independent life in the community, such as help with maintaining or entering employment, training or education through the development of seamless services between the NHS, social services and housing. That is the right way forward.
My hon. Friend dealt reasonably and accurately with the problems of delayed transfers of care. The issue of delayed discharges must be addressed, and we must continue to devote additional resources and effort to resolving the problem. It is in everyone's interests to ensure that people do not remain in hospital unnecessarily when they are ready to be discharged.
My hon. Friend was right to draw attention to the slow but steady reduction in delayed discharges from hospital during the past five years. We have made a commitment to reduce delayed transfers of care by a minimum of 20 per cent. by the end of March this year, which equates to freeing 1,000 acute beds by the end of the financial year. To that end, we are giving local councils an additional £300 million over this year and next year to help them tackle those problems. The money has been distributed to every social services department in England, but was targeted specifically on 55 councils that most needed additional resources. West Sussex was one of those and received £2.3 million in the current financial year, with a further £4.8 million in the next financial year. That money has been used to buy an additional 113 residential placements, and for increased expenditure on disability-related equipment and more spot purchasing of care home places by locality planning groups. My hon. Friend was right to say that it has also been used to increase fee rates where supply is particularly short.
The money is already having an effect and the number of blocked beds in West Sussex has fallen steadily from 142 delayed transfers in early September to 71, which is an improvement of 50 per cent. The figure is still too high and there is room for more progress, but we have in place the resources and some of the mechanisms to make a real difference.
We must also make a continuing contribution in our investment in service capacity and staff. We must continue to invest significantly in the training and education of the health and social care work force. A high-quality work force is crucial to ensuring that the country's most vulnerable people receive the best standard of care. Social care workers are a key part of
306WH
delivering the Government's modernisation agenda as they are at the sharp end of many vital public services. We have been investing significantly in the training of social care workers for several years through the training support programme grant. That grant stands at more than £57 million this year, and West Sussex has been allocated almost £540,000 of the grant so far and is entitled to bid for further funds from one of the sub-programmes within the grant.
As my hon. Friend is probably aware, last week my hon. Friend the Minister of State announced further investment in the training and development of the social care work force. That money will help to provide training and development opportunities for a further 26,500 social care staff. It will be used to fund a range of initiatives, including the induction training programme for 6,000 staff and the strengthening of the framework of NVQ qualifications. Investment in capacity and in the work force is being made, and we must find ways of ensuring improvements.
It is important that local authorities such as West Sussex, providers of care and those receiving care packages tackle the problems together and work in the spirit of partnership that my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley described. I believe that what matters most in a modern care system is the quality of care provided, not who owns or operates the individual services. In social care, there has always been a mix of private, voluntary and public sector provision, and that is absolutely right.
We must improve partnerships across the various sectors to ensure that sufficient capacity is available to meet local requirements. The Government are committed to working in partnership with the independent sector and to using capacity and resources to achieve the best possible outcome for users and their carers. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has recently established a new strategic commissioning group to work at national level to give greater direction to the commissioning of care services for adults. We must consider how we can pool resources, staff, land and premises to stabilise and build up capacity. There is a need to consider the role of care trusts and closer partnership working. We have made a good start, but a great deal more needs to be done.
I hope that I have been able to reassure my hon. Friend that the Government are doing everything possible to provide the NHS and social services in her constituency and elsewhere with the necessary resources and opportunities to allow them to do their jobs effectively. The Government will continue to invest more in both the NHS and social services in every part of the country. I hope very much that she will continue to give her support to all those efforts, and that together we can look forward to further improvements in the care provided to her constituents.

Graffiti
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): We now move on to the final debate, which has been initiated by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake). I advise the Chamber that one hon. Member has sought my permission, and that of both the Minister and the owner of debate, to take part, and I will be happy to call him.
1.30 pm
Tom Brake: As you indicated, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) would like to contribute.
The first question is whether graffiti is really an issue. Some people outside London consider it to be a minor distraction. However, again and again in local anecdotal evidence, from a large number of street surveys that we did recently, it came up as an issue about which people are worried. There is no doubt that it is a quality of life issue which people want to see addressed.
I did not want simply to rely on anecdotal evidence. I therefore asked my staff to do a ring-around to find out the scale of the problem across different boroughs. We received responses from 22 of the 33 London boroughs. The amount spent on the problem varies from one borough to the next. Wandsworth council, which runs a free service, spends £650,000 a year on removing graffiti. Croydon spends £250,000 a year, and a number of boroughs spend more than £100,000 a year on trying to address the issue. Graffiti is clearly a problem for the boroughs.
I also made contact with transport providers. Railtrack has a budget of £0.5 million to deal with the issue, but it went over that by £160,000, which means that the total cost to its southern region was £660,000. Graffiti is a significant problem, and although Railtrack has teams working around the clock, that has little, if any, impact on the issue. Hon. Members who travel by train know that they just have to glance out of the window to see evidence that graffiti on railway infrastructure is a problem that is not under control. Railtrack tries to remove any racist or obscene graffiti within a 24-hour period.

London Underground also has a significant problem, and it is spending £2.5 million a year on removal, prevention and security costs. Presumably, not all that is to do with tackling graffiti, because some of the security expenditure must be for other purposes, but the Underground is clearly spending a significant sum. I know from conversations with my local train operating company, GoVia, that graffiti is a significant issue. I am sure that it is a problem on other suburban commuter services in London such as Connex South Eastern.
We did not have time to go further afield in our survey. I am sure that if we had asked local NHS trusts, businesses and private individuals, they would also have revealed significant costs. Roughly speaking, the cost to the boroughs is £3.5 million a year. A quick calculation suggests that with that £3.5 million the boroughs could recruit between 100 and 150 teachers.
The boroughs, working with the Government, need to work hard on the issue of truancy and education. The Minister may be aware that there was a successful
308WH
anti-truancy project involving the police and local council in York. It succeeded in cutting by one third the number of recorded crimes committed by school-age children, who are the people principally involved in graffiti, and it had a significant impact on graffiti in that area.
We must establish that this is a real problem, and the figures demonstrate that it is. We need to ensure that the people responsible for it understand that it is not a joke or art, it is not cool or clever, and it costs Londoners dear. We must then establish that every organisation with responsibility for the matter takes action. Most local authorities are aware of it, and are taking action to address it. However, the extent to which they prosecute seems to vary significantly. There have been some 117 arrests in Bexley, but none in other boroughs. Action is being taken, but the scale varies from one place to another.
Other organisations are unwilling to tackle the issue. The cable company in my constituency allowed the local authority—very generously—to paint over its graffitied boxes, which it had placed willy-nilly around the borough, and then complained that the council was not using the right coloured paint. It does not seem to want to tackle the problem; nor does it believe that getting on top of it is its responsibility. Others, too, contribute negatively. The last time I looked, Graffitism advertised products that graffiti vandals use and promoted them with pictures of Connex trains that had been ruined by graffiti—there was a small disclaimer at the bottom stating that the magazine did not condone the activity. Arriva buses have drawn it to my attention that there is a shop in Croydon, which sells, alongside all the necessaries for carrying out graffiti vandalism, balaclavas. That does not seem positive or community-spirited.
We must establish that the problem is everyone's, and that it should be tackled through partnership. Local authorities that responded to our survey said that the availability of graffiti products, and access to them, needed to be examined. There must also be education through, for example, programmes that are not necessarily about sending those responsible to prison, but about actively involving them in cleaning up the mess for which they are responsible and, if necessary, making them pay the cost. Having more police officers, neighbourhood wardens and officers of the Royal Parks Constabulary would clearly assist, but, however many officers patrol, we will not get on top of the problem until the availability of products is examined.
Mr. Edward Davey: Is my hon. Friend aware that graffiti vandalism remains a major problem in my borough? Kingston's Conservative-run council was dragged kicking and screaming into drawing up an action plan on graffiti, but it has failed to tackle the environmental hazard. Does he agree that councils can do more? He is right to say that the Government need to provide more powers, including those to which he referred and those that would make it legally easier for councils to clean up graffiti on private property.
Tom Brake: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I confirm that when we spoke to people in Kingston, they believed that the problem was significant in their

309WH
borough. My hon. Friend makes a good point about allowing local authorities to act. We would prefer partnership, but if private owners are not willing to address the issue, perhaps other action should be open to local authorities.
I finish by asking the Minister to consider how glue sniffing, and the availability of solvent products, has been addressed. Could similar action be taken on the availability of products used for graffiti? Are the Government willing to support initiatives, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam may refer, relating to voluntary codes of practice for retailers?
In a response to a parliamentary question on 16 January, the Government said:
"There are no plans at present to restrict the sale of spray paints to juveniles; this would penalise young people who have a legitimate reason for their purchase."—[Official Report, 16 January 2001; Vol. 361, c. 206W.]
The same could apply to solvent abuse. People could purchase solvents for the best reasons; nevertheless, the Government decided to take action. Can the Minister explain why the Government are not willing to investigate measures, perhaps targeted at the youngest age group, that would help to address the problem?
Graffiti is not a joke, and it is not clever. It is not a badge of honour, and should not be considered as such by those responsible. It harms communities and, if left unchecked, creates a climate of despair and depression. We need a partnership approach, and the Government must play their part. I will listen with interest to the Minister to hear how he thinks the Government could help.
1.41 pm
Mr. Paul Burstow: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on his initiative in securing an important debate on a serious subject. I am also grateful to the Minister for the opportunity to take part in the debate.
As my hon. Friend said, graffiti is neither cool nor clever. It is purely and simply a crime, which stokes up the fear of more generalised crime in our communities. Steps that serve to eradicate it do much to reduce the general fear of crime that imprisons many people in their homes.
I shall talk about initiatives in the London borough of Sutton, which is in my constituency, and that of my hon. Friend. Things being done there provide a useful template, which others should follow. I hope that the Minister endorses them, and finds ways in which they can be further supported. In Sutton, the police, the council and other players in the community take the issue of graffiti and tagging seriously. They treat them as a crime, and as part of the wider agenda of tackling environmental crime. It is important that we recognise tagging and graffiti as crimes and treat them as such. The cost of the damage is immense and, as my Hon. Friend outlined, substantial costs arise for the public and private sectors, and for private householders who find their properties vandalised.
I hope that the Minister agrees that the problem is not something to be laid at the door of local authorities, as if the appearance of graffiti is its fault. Often, the
310WH
impression is given, at least in my community, that graffiti is the responsibility and fault of the local authority, when it should involve a wider community interest and sense of responsibility. It is particularly important that more is done to address the responsibility of parents. I shall flag up a couple of initiatives in Sutton that could be further developed.
The police, in conjunction with the Royal Parks Constabulary, have been running operations to gather evidence on graffiti—identifying tags and the like—to enable them to mount successful operations to arrest and prosecute graffiti vandals in the borough of Sutton. That has proved successful, and has created a profile of an area that will not tolerate such crimes.
If we are serious about tackling the crime, it is important to consider how to reduce the sources that supply materials. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight that concern. Will the Minister explain what the Home Office is doing to examine ways in which more encouragement can be given to those in the private sector who are involved in the supply of such materials to enter into voluntary codes in their localities to stop such sales to young people?
I am delighted that my local authority is about to expand its popular and effective neighbourhood warden service to add more eyes and ears on the streets to deal with the problem. However, a worry of the police, the council and those concerned with the partnership scheme in the London borough of Sutton is that, when such matters are taken to the courts, they are not prosecuted with full vigour. They do not result in damages that are commensurate with the cost to the individual.
I hope that the Minister is about to tell us that further steps will be taken to ensure that the courts understand the damage and blight of graffiti and graffiti vandals. Perhaps he will talk to his colleagues in the Lord Chancellor's Department to secure their co-operation in a real drive to ensure that law enforcement measures and the courts are driving down and getting rid of graffiti in our communities.
1.45 pm
The Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on securing the debate. I shall respond to the points that were made by him and the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow). Graffiti is a widespread problem. Worry about it is growing and the costs of removing it are high. It is important to stress that it is not only the financial costs of cleaning and repairing damage caused by graffiti that are important. It can spoil the enjoyment of public places and add to the sense of fear and insecurity in local communities. It can feed a fear of crime, even though there may be nothing statistically to back that fear.
Graffiti is an important issue and, in addition to stressing that it is a crime, we should recognise that tackling graffiti has a part to play in dealing with the fear of crime in our communities. If it is left untouched for lengthy periods, it can send out a message that no one cares about the area and that, in itself, can bring its own decline to the detriment of rundown neighbourhoods.
The same is true of the impact that graffiti can have on the confidence of those who wish to travel by public transport. We must tackle head-on the idea that

311WH
criminal damage in a public place can represent a legitimate art form which people can celebrate. The spread of tagging is a great public nuisance. It is a crime. The use of graffiti for offensive words and racist abuse is completely unacceptable.
Action against graffiti should form part of the local strategies for public reassurance and for tackling antisocial behaviour that we expect crime and disorder reduction partnerships to lead at local level. As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington will know, the objective was that from December last year every local authority should appoint an antisocial behaviour co-ordinator. Hon. Members may wish to check with their own boroughs that that has been done. Part of the remit of the co-ordinator should be to develop effective strategies for dealing with graffiti.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said that graffiti is not the responsibility of local authorities. I accept that, but local authorities are not responsible for people who drive their cars too fast in residential areas or for people who play their music loudly. However, we look to them to lead in traffic calming and environmental health matters. The leadership that local authorities must play in tackling graffiti in local communities is coherent.
The Government must ensure that we have in place measures that can support people at local level in tackling the problem. That means having in place appropriate sanctions and legal mechanisms to deal with those who write graffiti. It means encouraging best practice by design and the use of graffiti-resistant materials. It means supporting people in education and diversionary activities. Implementation of those measures will largely lie at local level.
Let us consider sanctions. First, graffiti is criminal damage for which there are appropriate penalties. Under the Criminal Damage Act 1971, damage in excess of £5,000 carries a maximum 10-year sentence for those aged 18 or over. Those aged 12 to 17 can receive a training order of up to 24 months. Lower levels of damage—less than £5,000—can result in a maximum of three months' imprisonment or a fine of up to £2,500 for a person aged 18 or over. For 12 to 17-year-olds, there is no custodial provision, but a range of measures is available, such as reparation orders, final warnings, local child curfews and antisocial behaviour orders. I accept that reparation orders can be an appropriate way of requiring offenders to put right the damage that they have caused.
It is important that appropriate use is made of antisocial behaviour orders, which we will amend during the passage of the Police Reform Bill and make simpler and more flexible and immediate in their application. They have already been used effectively in different parts of the country to tackle those using graffiti and causing criminal damage. Together with acceptable behaviour contracts, they should be part of local strategies to tackle graffiti.
It is also important to make full use of closed circuit television and, in some places, the initiative whereby databanks are kept of the tags that people put on
312WH
property, so that their tags can be tracked back to them. Those elements of strategies are up and running and are under development.
Mr. Burstow: The London borough of Sutton uses CCTV to gather evidence that is presented to courts, but the courts do not use the penalties to give effect to the community's anger at the damage that has been done. Could not more be done about that?
Mr. Denham: As the hon. Gentleman recognises, sentencing policy lies in the realm of the Lord Chancellor's Department.
On antisocial behaviour, constructive discussions at local level between crime reduction partnerships and area criminal justice committees or the magistracy, which generally deals with those cases, can be effective in building up an understanding of the scale of the problem and the impact on lives in local communities. That type of discussion at local level has proved to be effective and useful, and the hon. Gentleman may wish to pursue that. I shall raise the issue with the Lord Chancellor's Department and get back to him.
Mr. Edward Davey: I can confirm to the Minister and to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam that magistrates are prepared to use the powers that the Government have given them when they are engaged in the process. The bench at Kingston upon Thames magistrates court has been using the powers, although the Government now wish to close that court. Some local police who are trying to focus on graffiti are frustrated because, even when they suspect that a vandal has spray-paint cans in his bag and has sprayed graffiti in a nearby street, they are not able to search that bag for the spray-paint can. Will the Minister comment?
Mr. Denham: Perhaps I can come to that point in a moment. Powers are normally available to police under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 code of conduct, which governs their powers to search when they think that a crime has been committed. That is slightly different from searching people randomly in case they have an aerosol can in their pocket. The operational distinction may seem fine, but the legal one is very important. If police saw someone coming away from an area of freshly painted graffiti, I do not think that they would be constrained in their ability to identify whether someone was carrying the tools of the trade. If I am wrong about that, I shall get back to the hon. Gentleman.
Much reference was made to the initiatives taken by the Government to support the spread of neighbourhood and street wardens. The extended police family that we described in the police White Paper is very important. The presence of more visible authority figures in the street, whether working for the police service as community support officers or working for local authorities and other agencies as street wardens, is particularly important. I am grateful for the support for the Government's initiatives that hon. Members have given. We hope that the measures that we are taking through the Police Reform Bill and the implementation of the police reform White Paper will enable us to extend that local presence of additional people who can assist in tackling antisocial behaviour, disorder and graffiti.

313WH
The supply of aerosol paints and indelible marker pens has been mentioned. Historically, Governments of all shades have been resistant to measures to tackle that trade. There is an obvious balance to be struck between denying access to spray paints and marker pens to those who want to cause damage and granting it to those who have a legitimate use for them. We could all sensibly recognise that glues that have killed large numbers of people over the years are of a different order of magnitude. The balance is easier to strike there.
It is worth noting, and it is particularly relevant to the debate's London focus, that the London Local Authorities Bill, which had its Second Reading in the House of Lords yesterday, includes measures that would make it an offence to supply aerosol paints or indelible marker pens to any person apparently under the age of 18. That would apply to the areas covered by the London borough councils. If the Bill reaches the statute book the measures in it could provide a useful pilot in determining the effectiveness of the approach and whether we should seek to extend it.
Tom Brake Tom Brake rose—
Mr. Denham: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make a little more progress and then we can return to that point.
I want to stress the importance of effective clean-up as part of the response, which the hon. Gentleman also mentioned. Clean-up is a deterrent to taggers, particularly if there is a sense that no one will be around to see their handiwork. Adding to the list of best practice that we have had, I hope that no one will mind my mentioning my local authority in Southampton. Its best value review of the city's parks and cleansing services highlighted public dissatisfaction with the problem of graffiti. The council set aside resources to tackle the problem. It identified environmentally friendly products that are effective and easy to use and a full-time graffiti removal team backs up its commitment to remove obscene or racist graffiti within 24 hours.
In an interesting initiative launched in the last few weeks, which I shall watch carefully, the council has begun to supply graffiti removal kits free of charge to local community organisations. They comprise about £50-worth of different non-toxic water-soluble materials. Having been out one Sunday recently, cleaning graffiti off some shop fronts, I know that the
314WH
stuff is remarkably easy to use. It will be an interesting experiment to see whether volunteers from local communities can be used to take control of their areas, although not as an alternative to the council providing its own service.
Tom Brake: I just want to return briefly to the London Local Authorities Bill. Does the Minister support that measure and will he give it Government support to enable it to proceed?
Mr. Denham: The Government are considering a range of measures in the Bill, so I cannot give a specific position on that or other measures at this stage. The hon. Gentleman will understand from what I have said that I am following its passage with some interest. Were it to be passed, it would be useful to see how it worked.
I support the comments made about education, which is important. We need to look at ways of persuading young people that graffiti is criminal damage and that there is a serious cost to the wider community. The Youth Justice Board has been funding a number of pilot initiatives, particularly one operated by the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders in Brighton and Hove, Crawley and Worthing. It is intended to see what can be done by engaging young offenders in activities that tackle graffiti issues. We need to see what are the most successful and cost-effective forms of education of young people. Other schemes supported by the YJB focus on reparation, which has been mentioned, and using young people to clean off graffiti.
Railtrack has an initiative called "Track off", which was launched in April 2000 and is aimed at schools. It covers graffiti, but it is also aimed at stressing the dangers to young people of trespassing, particularly on what I still regard as the southern region three rail system, and of going on to electrified lines—which also applies to the underground. Similarly, through a number of Home Office and Department for Education and Skills initiatives we are investing in diversionary activities for young people in general, some of which are aimed specifically at graffiti, while others aim at tackling a wider range of vandalism and criminal damage problems.
Having laid—
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

PRIME MINISTER

  Correspondence
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister when he will reply to the letter he has received from Mr. Martin Cadman, dated 4 February. [35148]

  The Prime Minister
  I have asked a Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister to reply to Mr. Cadman.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Prime Minister how many(a) faxes, (b) letters and (c) e-mails he has received on average each month in the last five years. [38162]

  The Prime Minister
  The information is not available in the manner requested. The number of letters and cards I receive varies significantly from week to week. I receive about 500,000 items of post per year, and my office works hard to deal with them as efficiently as possible.

  Departmental Events
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the(a) conferences, (b) seminars, (c) workshops, (d) exhibitions and (e) press conferences which have been sponsored by his Department and which took place on non-departmental premises in each of the last four years, giving the title, purpose, date and cost of each. [34186]

  The Prime Minister
  My office supported "Building Bridges", a Christian-Muslim seminar held at Lambeth Palace on 17-18 January 2002, hosted by the Archbishop of Canterbury. We provided approximately £7,000 towards the cost of the seminar.

  British Companies
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 14 February 2002,Official Report, column 611W, on British companies, when and by what means his letter to the Prime Minister of Romania regarding Sidex came into the public domain; if he will place a copy in the Library; if a copy of it was sent to Sidex; how many letters he has written in the last 12 months to foreign Governments (a) in advance of and (b) following British companies winning contracts abroad; and what his criteria are for deciding whether to support British companies seeking contacts abroad by means of contracts with foreign Governments. [38395]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 14 February 2002,Official Report, columns 610-11W.

  Official Visits
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the parliamentary constituencies he has visited since 1 October 2001. [37770]
  1270W
  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member for the answer I gave him on 19 November 2001,Official Report, column 104W.

  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Prime Minister for what reason his Chief of Staff accompanied him to Lord Levy's house during his visit of June 2001. [37973]

  The Prime Minister
  My Chief of Staff did not accompany me.

  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions members of the Policy Directorate have travelled overseas on official business since 7 June 2001; and if he will list the(a) destination and (b) total cost, including the (i) travel, (ii) accommodation and (iii) subsistence allowance for each occasion. [37964]

  The Prime Minister
  Since 7 June 2001, members of the Policy Directorate have travelled overseas on official business on 13 occasions. The average cost of official travel was approximately £1,000 per visit.

  All visits have been made in accordance with the rules set out in the Civil Service Management Code. These arrangements follow the practice of successive Administrations.

  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions his(a) Chief of Staff and (b) Director of Communications and Strategy have formed part of the official party accompanying him on overseas visits since 1 May 1997; and if he will list the (a) destination and (b) total cost, including (i) travel, (ii) accommodation and (iii) subsistence allowance on each occasion. [37970]

  The Prime Minister
  Since 1 May 1997, my Chief of Staff has accompanied me on 35 official overseas visits and my Director of Communications has accompanied me on 77 official overseas visits. All visits have been made in accordance with the rules set out in the Civil Service Management Code. These arrangements follow the practice of successive Administrations.

  Information on the total travel and accommodation costs is included in the detailed list of Cabinet Ministers' visits overseas and information on expenditure by all Ministers on travel overseas. Lists of overseas visits undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing more than £500 during the period 2 May 1997 to 31 March 2001 were placed in the Library of the House and published in the Official Report on 17 June 1999, columns 196-97W; on 28 July 2000, column 969W; and on 20 July 2001, column 467W. The list for the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 will be published as soon as possible after the end of the current financial year.

  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions his chief of staff had with Her Majesty's Ambassador in Bucharest in June and July 2001; and what matters were discussed. [37968]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Special Advisers
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister how many(a) civil servants and (b) special advisers were involved in the preparation of background material for his use during Prime Minister's Question Time on Wednesday 13 February; and how many hours were spent by those in each category above on such preparation. [37769]
  1271W
  The Prime Minister
  As far as I am aware I am briefed in the same way as my predecessors were. A senior civil servant is in charge of preparing my briefing for PMQs, and draws on the input of other civil servants and special advisers as they see fit.

  Business Contacts
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what messages relating to LNM Holdings were exchanged between 10 Downing Street and the British Embassy in Bucharest in the 12 months to September 2001; and on what dates; [37969]

  (2) whether since 7 June 2001 he has made representations to foreign Governments on behalf of individual companies; and which they were. [37967]

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list each occasion since May 1997 when he has sent a personal message to heads of Government with the intention of advancing the commercial interest of British firms. [37774]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member and my right hon. Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Members for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on Thursday 14 February 2002,Official Report, columns 610-11W.

  Energy Industry
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 4 February 2002,Official Report, column 609W, on the energy industry, if he will state the reasons that he does not consider a precedent to be set by the provision of details of ministerial meetings with respect to Enron; and if he will make a statement. [39134]

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

WALES

  National Assembly (Electoral System)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the operation of the electoral system for the National Assembly for Wales. [35115]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The electoral system for the Assembly elections was outlined in the 1997 White Paper "A Voice for Wales". The Government have no plans to change it.

  Aerospace Industry
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the aerospace industry in north Wales. [35116]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon Friend the Secretary of State has regular discussions with the First Minister on a wide range of issues including the aerospace industry.
  1272W
  I am pleased to note that Airbus have made considerable progress in reducing the number of jobs at risk. This has been due in part to the good working relationship built up between management and the unions within Airbus UK.

  Steel
  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues and the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales about measures to improve the local economy in the steel-making and former steel-making areas of Wales. [35117]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet Cabinet colleagues and the First Minister regularly to discuss a number of issues, including economic development in steel making and former steel making areas.

  National Health Service
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Secretary for Health and Social Services in the National Assembly for Wales, regarding the state of the national health service in Wales. [35118]

  Mr. Touhig
  I have regular discussions with the Assembly's Minister for Health and Social Services regarding the NHS in Wales.

  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales regarding plans to reform the national health service in Wales. [35120]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. friend the Secretary of State and I have regular meetings with the Assembly First Minister and the Health and Social Services Minister to discuss the NHS and other health matters in Wales.

  We have had detailed discussions with regard to the reforms to be taken forward through the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Bill and the legislation mentioned in the Queens speech which will be drafted to reform the provision of health services in Wales.

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the Welsh Assembly regarding the national health service in Wales. [35133]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I regularly meet with the National Assembly First Minister and the Assembly Health and Social Services Minister to discuss the NHS in Wales.

  Objective 1
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales about the progress of objective 1 programmes in Wales. [35119]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Secretary regularly to discuss a range of issues, including progress with the objective 1 programme. At 12 February 2002, over 470 objective 1 projects had been approved, worth a total of
  1273W
  over £300 million in European grants. Over £64 million of Objective 1 grant has already been paid out by the Assembly.

  Cross-border Flooding
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he had with the Environment Agency concerning cross-border flooding. [35121]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular contact with the Environment Agency, which include discussions on floods and related matters.

  Additionally, the Wales Office and the Assembly are represented on the Interdepartmental Floods Task Force established by the Parliamentary Secretary of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

  Crime Reduction Partnerships
  Mr. Havard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with UK Government Ministers and representatives of the National Assembly for Wales on the work of crime reduction partnerships in Wales. [35122]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are in regular contact with colleagues and with the First Minister and his Cabinet colleagues about issues affecting Wales.

  The Government's partnership approach to fighting crime is making a significant difference in communities across Wales. With funding running into millions of pounds, local crime and disorder reduction partnerships are implementing projects targeted at crime hotspots, domestic violence and drug related crime. Partnerships are currently undertaking the first formal review of their strategies, which are due for completion in April 2002. The Crime Reduction Director for Wales encourages partnerships to link this work with other local community strategies, particularly the Communities First programme.

  Domestic Violence
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the Home Secretary about projects to combat domestic violence in Wales. [35123]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are in regular contact with colleagues about issues affecting Wales, including the need for measures to combat domestic violence and to protect its victims.

  As part of our response, a new Ministerial Committee, Chaired by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs has been established to co-ordinate action across Government.

  A number of important initiatives in Wales have been supported both by the Government and the National Assembly. Later this year, the Crime Reduction Unit for Wales will host two major conferences on domestic violence.

  Violent Crime
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly about the level of violent crime in Wales. [35124]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with the First Minister and his Cabinet colleagues about a range of issues including levels of crime, and measures aimed at combating it.

  The Government are committed to continuing to improve the reporting and detection of violent crime, and to tackling its underlying causes.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department regarding violent crime in Wales. [35135]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are in regular contact with colleagues about issues affecting Wales, including levels of crime, and measures aimed at combating it.

  The Government are committed to continuing to improve the reporting and detection of violent crime, and to tackling its underlying causes.

  Crime Reduction
  Mr. Bryant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with Whitehall colleagues and the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales about the implementation of measures to reduce crime in Wales. [35125]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are in regular contact with colleagues and with the First Minister and his Cabinet colleagues about issues affecting Wales.

  The Government's partnership approach to fighting crime is making a significant difference in communities across Wales. With funding running into millions of pounds, local crime and disorder reduction partnerships are implementing projects targeted at crime hotspots, domestic violence and drug related crime. The Crime Reduction Director for Wales encourages partnerships to link this work with other local community strategies, particularly the Communities First programme.

  NHS Consultants' Contracts
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will discuss with the First Secretary of the National Assembly the reform of NHS consultants' contracts. [35127]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I regularly meet with the National Assembly First Minister and the Assembly Health and Social Services Minister to discuss the NHS in Wales.

  I am aware that the Department of Health and the devolved Administrations have published a suggested framework for a new consultant contract together with proposals for combining the existing distinction award and discretionary points schemes to a single scheme, providing rewards for excellence.
  1275W
  Representatives from the Department of Health and the devolved Administrations are meeting the profession on a fortnightly basis to formulate a new form of contract which will have the support of both parties.

  Business Regulation
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations his Department has made to other Government Ministers concerning the level of regulation on business in Wales. [35128]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  As a Cabinet member I have regular discussions on a range of issues including regulation on business.

  In July last year, I made a representation to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, on certain aspects of the Government's move toward improving the efficiency of dispute resolution in Britain for both employees and employers.

  The Government's Regulatory Impact Unit (RIU) in the Cabinet Office is working to reduce regulation, bureaucracy and red tape in both the private and public sectors.

  For example, when business told us we could reduce the administrative burden of the National Minimum Wage and the Working Time Directive without affecting entitlements, we did so. The Government are keen to ensure that regulations do not damage business competitiveness.

  Training
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues and the First Secretary of the National Assembly about the progress of Government measures to improve the training and skills of the Welsh work force. [35129]

  Mr. Touhig
  I meet regularly with Cabinet colleagues and the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales.

  The Government together with devolved Administrations are putting in place UK-wide arrangements for industry-led skills development, with new Sector Skills Councils supported by a Sector Skills Development Agency.

  I understand that the National Assembly for Wales will publish its Skills and Employment action plan today that will set out over 50 actions to raise skills and economic activity and help address skills gaps and shortages experienced by employers.

  Economy
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues and the First Secretary of the National Assembly about the performance of the Welsh economy. [35130]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues and with the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales on a range of issues.

  The Government understand that some parts of the economy, such as manufacturing, continue to face difficulties.
  1276W
  There are no simple solutions. However, the Government are convinced that their robust macro-economic policies will continue to provide the right economic environment for sustained growth with low inflation.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussion he has had with the First Secretary about the future viability of the manufacturing sector in Wales. [35131]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular discussions with the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales on a range of issues including manufacturing in Wales.

  In Wales, under DTI's £15 million UK-wide scheme, a Welsh Centre of Manufacturing Excellence is being set up, which will benefit up to 2,000 firms in the first three years.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary on new initiatives to assist manufacturing industries in Wales. [35111]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Secretary regularly to discuss a range of issues, including manufacturing in Wales.

  The Government understand that some parts of the economy, such as manufacturing, continue to face real and sustained difficulties.

  There are no simple solutions at hand to ease these problems, but the Government and Assembly are helping British manufacturing to raise its game and to shift its focus from competing on the basis of cost alone towards high skill, high value-added products and processes.

  Job Losses
  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary on developing a response to recent job losses in manufacturing in Wales. [35134]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular discussions with the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales on a range of issues.

  Where there are significant job losses announced in Wales, there is swift help available through the Employment Service, together with Education Learning Wales (ELWa), Careers Wales and "one-stop shops" to help those who have lost their jobs with a range of assistance. This assistance can include careers advice, assistance with their applications and retraining in order to maximise opportunities to help them back into full employment.

  Wales Cinema Day
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what contribution his Department made to Wales cinema day this year; and what continuing commitment he has towards film-making and broadcasting in Wales. [35113]
  1277W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department fully supports Wales cinema day. On 3rd December last year I visited the International Film School of Wales in Caerleon, Newport. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary also visited the film school on 9 November.

  Miners' Compensation
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the number of applications for miners' compensation in Wales that have been settled(a) in full and (b) on an interim basis. [35126]

  Mr. Touhig
  I have regular discussions on many aspects of coal health compensation with the Minister for Industry and Energy at the Department of Trade and Industry.

  To date, there have been almost 34,000 respiratory disease and 17,000 vibration white finger claims registered in Wales. Nearly 12,000 interim payments and 2,800 full and final payments worth £71.2 million have been made in relation to respiratory disease. With regard to vibration white finger, 5,000 interim payments have been made and 4,600 claims have been settled by payment. The Department of Trade and Industry and their claim handlers IRISC are on target to make 15,000 respiratory disease offers in Wales by the end of the year.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions regarding miners' pension schemes. [35132]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State regularly meets with Cabinet colleagues including the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

  I very much welcome the announcement made by my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy on 17 January to enhance pensions for those miners on low pensions. The Government have been concerned about these miners for some time.

  My hon. Friend also made a joint statement with trustees of the two former British Coal pension schemes, the mineworkers' pension scheme and the British Coal staff superannuation scheme, agreeing a review of arrangements for the Government's guarantee of Members' basic pension benefits.

  Both the Government and the trustees recognise that there have been changes in circumstances since 1994 and have agreed to explore how these changes might best be reflected in revisions to the 1994 arrangements which would benefit Members. In doing so, they recognise that any revisions will need to be based on an equitable sharing of risks and reward between the schemes and the Exchequer, and will need to be sufficiently robust to operate satisfactorily in a wide variety of conditions.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on how many occasions since 1 May 1997(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity;
  1278W
  and if he will list the total cost, including (i) travel, (ii) accommodation and (iii) subsistence allowance, for each occasion. [37982]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Information is available only for the period since the Wales Office was established on 1 July 1999.

  Departmental special advisers have accompanied Ministers on visits abroad on seven occasions. It is not practicable separately to identify the costs of these visits, but all journeys were judged to comply with the Civil Service code.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Questions
  Norman Baker
  To ask the President of the Council if he will bring forward proposals to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House in respect of the rules relating to the type of question hon. Members can ask Ministers. [37780]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Not at present. The Procedure Committee is currently inquiring into parliamentary questions, and I await the outcome of that inquiry. The hon. Gentleman may wish to make proposals to them.

  Departmental Website
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council 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. [36205]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The Privy Council Office website was established in August 2000. In 2000–01, the cost to my Department of running it (including the initial setting up costs) was approximately £7,200. During the calendar year 2001, there were 300,914 successful hits to the website. The further information requested is not available.

  Services
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what services to Parliament are provided by outside contractors; when their contracts are due for renewal; and what services are provided in-house. [36716]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The House of Commons Commission is responsible only for services to this House. A very wide range of services is provided to support the work of the House, its Committees, and individual Members. I could not provide the information my hon. Friend seeks, except at disproportionate cost. If my hon. Friend has particular services in mind, the Director of Finance and Administration will do his best to assist.

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what assessment has been made of the work load and excess hours worked by staff supporting the(a) Parliamentary Commissioner for

  1279W
  Standards and (b) Registrar of Members' Interests; and if he will make a statement on the Commission's plans for remedy and recognition of the work load. [36863]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to paragraph 13 of the Commission paper "Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards: Nomination of Candidate" (House of Commons Paper 598 of the present Session).

  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, by what proportion Mrs. Filkin has been underpaid as Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; and when was the first day of work for which late payment is being made. [37118]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  Mrs. Filkin has not been underpaid. As the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) indicated in his response to the debate on the nomination of the new Commissioner on 13 February 2002,Official Report, column 267, Mrs. Filkin has been paid for all the days she has worked. As in the case of any individual employed by the Commission, details of her pay are confidential.

  John Stonborough
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, whether a daily rate of remuneration was agreed after Mr. John Stonborough was selected as Media Adviser to the House; and whether there is a bonus arrangement. [37266]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) on 29 January 2002,Official Report, column 210W.

  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, who keeps records of the days worked by Mr. John Stonborough for the House. [37267]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The Director of Finance and Administration arranged Mr. Stonborough' s terms of engagement, and is monitoring the contract.

  Recycling
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what percentage of waste within each department in the Palace of Westminster is recycled. [36712]

  Mrs. Roe
  Information on recycling is not recorded on a departmental basis. However, from March 2002, monthly data will be published, which will show the total amount of waste sent for recycling from the parliamentary estate under the following headings: paper, cardboard, glass, cooking oils and light bulbs.

  PDVN
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Select Committee what the cost was of(a) the introduction of the PDVN system and (b) subsequent upgrades to the system; and what the cost is of its annual maintenance. [35615]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  I have been asked to reply.
  1280W
  Figures are not kept in a form which allows the cost of establishing the PDVN to be identified. However, set-up costs were identified in the First Report of the Information Committee of Session 1993–94, "The Provision of a Parliamentary Data and Video Network". The cost of hardware and network software over the period 1994 to 2000 was estimated to be £1,962,000 (at 1994 prices). The hardware and network software was subject to a significant upgrade during the summer recess of 1999, at a cost of £2,100,000.

  Cabling of the Parliamentary Estate is a continuing project and is necessary not just for the installation of the PDVN but also for the introduction of a new fire detection system. Identifying cabling costs specific to the installation of the PDVN is thus not possible.

  The contract for maintenance of the PDVN currently costs £600,000 a year and includes the replacement of equipment and minor upgrades to the software. The cost of parliamentary staff directly involved in the day-to-day maintenance of the Network is approximately £100,000 a year.

  Health and Safety Legislation
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the President of the Council what plans he has to introduce health and safety legislation this Session; and if he will make a statement. [36596]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have no plans to introduce health and safety legislation this Session.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Priests (Compensation)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, how many priests claimed compensation under the scheme for those priests who disagreed with the ordination of women in each year since the scheme's inception. [37765]

  Mr. Bell
  The Ordination of Women (Financial Provisions) Measure 1993 took effect on 22 February 1994. By the end of 2001, 412 clergy had resigned and were receiving or had received payments under the Measure. A yearly breakdown is as follows:

  Year of resignation

  Number of claimants

  1994

  232

  1995

  67

  1996

  39

  1997

  20

  1998

  19

  1999

  13

  2000

  15

  2001

  7

  Total

  412

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, how many applications for compensation there were in
  1281W
  the (a) last year and (b) current year from priests claiming compensation under the Ordination of Women Measure. [37764]

  Mr. Bell
  In 2001 seven clergy applied for and are receiving payment under the Ordination of Women (Financial Provisions) Measure 1993. So far in 2002 one minister has applied for and is receiving such payment.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what the cost of the compensation Measure has been for those leaving the priesthood over the ordination of women in each year since the compensation Measure came into effect. [37766]

  Mr. Bell
  By 31 December 2001, the cumulative cost of payments made to clergy who had resigned and were receiving or had received payments under the Ordination of Women (Financial Provisions) Measure 1993 was £15.8 million. The annual totals are:

  £ million

  Year of resignation

  Total cost

  1994

  2.6

  1995

  3.3

  1996

  2.9

  1997

  1.0

  1998

  1.8

  1999

  1.8

  2000

  1.2

  2001

  1.2

  Total

  15.8

  These figures include monthly payments, grants for resettlement and, where needed, retraining, pension contributions and some assistance with rental for retirement housing.

  Expenditure to 31 December 2001 and budgeted provision for future expenditure in relation to the 412 claimants under the Measure is £24.2 million in total.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Royal Peculiars
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of the written submissions made to him in response to the Review on the Royal Peculiars; [37767]

  (2) how many (a) individuals and (b) organisations have submitted comments on the Review on the Royal Peculiars. [37727]

  Mr. Wills
  38 individuals and nine organisations have submitted comments in response to the Department's consultation on the recommendations of the Review of Royal Peculiars.

  A copy of these responses will be placed in the Library when they are published.

  Applications for Probate
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make it his policy to review the fee structure established by the Court 1282W
  Service for applications for probate to ensure that the fee is more closely related to the value of the net estate; and if he will make a statement. [37655]

  Mr. Wills
  Following a review in 1999, the fees for non-contentious probate were revised so that they more closely reflected the cost of providing the service. At present there are no plans to conduct a further review of the fees structure.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps she(a) has taken and (b) intends to take to encourage trainee solicitors to undertake legal aid practice. [36439]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  A number of initiatives have been introduced in order to assist with the continuing recruitment and retention of publicly funded lawyers. In April 2000, of the £46.7 million of additional money which was allocated to the Legal Services Commission (LSC) to assist with Legal Help contracts in 2000–01:£23 million, which was subsequently increased to £29 million, was awarded for asylum work to finance an incentive package to include training, recruitment and financial help to encourage existing contractors to expand and new organisations to enter into contracts.
  £1 million was provided to fund training in immigration, mental health and community care. This was provided in order to develop training courses and help firms to expand and retrain staff in priority categories of law.

  This is an area we keep under review, because our reforms to legal aid give the LSC opportunities to improve the supplier base. But I have no immediate proposals to announce.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent assessment she has made of trends in recruitment and retention of legal aid lawyers. [36438]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Legal Services Commission (LSC) reviews trends in recruitment and the retention of publicly funded lawyers on a continuing basis to ensure that there are sufficient numbers of competent lawyers to do all categories of publicly supported legal work throughout England and Wales. The LSC reports regularly to the LCD and the evidence is that there is currently a sufficient number of lawyers to undertake publicly funded work. As at 15 February 2002, there were 4,935 solicitor offices with contracts to undertake publicly funded civil and family work. In addition to this, the LSC has also awarded contracts to 382 not-for-profit sector organisations. As at 31 January 2001, the total number of solicitor offices with General Criminal Contracts stood at 2,921. There are also four public defender offices with the fifth to open in April 2002 and the sixth shortly after.

  Publicity Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment she has made of the total real terms expenditure of her Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies on publicity in each of the years(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000, (d) 2000–01 and (e) 2001–02 (i) to date and (ii) as estimated for the whole of the present year;

  1283W
  and if she will break these figures down to indicate expenditure on (A) advertising and (B) press and public relations. [36162]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Total real terms costs for advertising are as listed. During this period the LCD ran an advertising campaign to support the recruiting of lay magistrates, which accounts for spending in 1998–99 and mounted a major public information campaign throughout England and Wales on behalf of the Community Legal Service and the help and advice website "Just Ask!" which accounts for almost all of the advertising spend in 2000–01.

  Publicity achieved by press and public relations work is not recorded separately and costs cannot be differentiated from running costs.

  Advertising spend £

  (a) 1997–98

  LCDHQ

  0

  PRO

  4,465

  PGO

  0

  Land Registry

  13,580

  Court Service

  0

  NICS

  0

  Total

  18,045

  (b) 1998–99

  LCDHQ

  450,000

  PRO

  7,640

  PGO

  0

  Land Registry

  9,625

  Court Service

  5,345

  NICS

  0

  Total

  473,110

  (c) 1999–2000

  LCDHQ

  0

  PRO

  2,710

  PGO

  0

  Land Registry

  13,960

  Court Service

  18,960

  NICS

  0

  Total

  35,630

  (d) 2000–01

  LCDHQ

  4,283,780

  PRO

  8,950

  PGO

  0

  Land Registry

  2,505

  Court Service

  13,000

  NICS

  4,800

  Total

  4,313,035

  Advertising spend £

  (i) to date

  (ii) as estimated for the whole of the present year (Until 31 March 2002)

  (e) 2001–02

  LCDHQ

  0

  0

  PRO

  8,640

  8,640

  PGO

  0

  0

  Land Registry

  2,650

  3,200

  Court Service

  4,270

  4,600

  NICS

  0

  0

  CAFCASS

  6,515

  7,420

  Total

  22,075

  23,860

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the total cost to the Lord Chancellor's Department was for accountancy services in each of the last four years. [34173]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department entered into a nine-year PFI contract with CSL Group Ltd. in January 1998. This contract covers a wide range of services including providing accounting systems, making payments, receipting and accounts production. The cost of accountancy services provided to the Department by CSL under the contract, and from other external firms of accountants or their management consultancy arms where the assignment was connected with financial matters, in each of the last four years was as follows:

  £ million

  1998–99

  3.8

  1999–2000

  4.5

  2000–01

  6.0

  2001–02

  5.21

  1 To January 2002.

  Note:

  Figures include significant development work on resource accounting and budgeting.

  Community Service Personnel
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many cases of a breach of community service penalties there were in the west midlands region to the end of 2001. [36120]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The available information, from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database, relating to the west midlands region, shows that 1,398 persons breached their original community punishment orders in 2000. This total includes estimated magistrates courts data for Staffordshire since Staffordshire Police were only able to supply a sample of data for magistrates courts proceedings covering one full week in each quarter for 2000.

  This figure includes persons breaching community punishment orders in Staffordshire, Warwickshire, West Mercia and West Midlands police force areas at both magistrates courts and the Crown Court.

  Statistics for 2001 are not yet available.

DEFENCE

  Defence Agency Staff
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people work for the Defence Engineering and Science Group; how many are employed in Scotland; and what the personnel costs of the agency are. [27813]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Engineering and Science Group is not an organisation but merely a nominated group of professional-level civil servant engineers and scientists working within the Ministry of Defence.
  1285W
  On 22 January 2002, records showed the Defence Engineering and Science Group to be comprised of 12,027 engineers and scientists across the UK, of whom 833 are employed in Scotland. These 833 are employed in different agencies and budget areas of the Ministry of Defence.

  The personnel costs for these engineers and scientists cannot be uniquely or separately identified under the name Defence Engineering and Science Group, and could therefore be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The UK and Scotland figures given include professional-level civil servant engineers and scientists that have been previously included in answers to Warship Support Agency, UK National Codification Bureau, Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, Defence clothing and Textiles Agency, and the Defence Procurement Agency.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people work for the Army Base Repair Organisation; how many are employed in Scotland; and what the personnel costs of the agency are. [27820]

  Dr. Moonie
  As of 1 December 2001, the total number of staff employed by ABRO, formerly known as the Army Base Repair Organisation, was 2,694. Of these 132 individuals were employed at Stirling, ABRO's sole workshop facility in Scotland.

  The forecast total pay cost of ABRO staff for the current financial year of 2001–02 was as of 1 December 2001, £55.934 million. This figure includes £2.281 million for Stirling.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people work for the Strategic and Combat Studies Institute; how many are employed in Scotland; and what the personnel costs of the agency are. [27809]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Strategic and Combat Studies Institute (SCSI) is a defence academic forum controlled by the Defence Studies Branch of the Directorate of Development and Doctrine at Upavon. It is co-ordinated by the Director of Defence Studies (Army) and his Administrative Officer, based at Shrivenham. These two individuals are the only staff of the SCSI and there are no staff employed in Scotland. The costs of the SCSI are absorbed within the budget of the Defence Studies Branch and are restricted to publication and conference fees. The SCSI publishes a series of defence academic journals entitled "The Occasional".

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people work for the Defence Analytical Services Agency; how many are employed in Scotland; and what the personnel costs of the agency are. [27825]

  Dr. Moonie
  Defence Analytical Services Agency's (DASA)'s permanent full-time equivalent strength at 1 December 2001 was 135. DASA employs no staff in Scotland. The personnel cost of DASA' s permanent staff for financial year 2000–01 was £3.257 million.
  1286W
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people work for the Defence Secondary Care Agency; how many are employed in Scotland; and what the personnel costs of the agency are. [27803]

  Dr. Moonie
  As at 1 October 2001, 2,515 permanent personnel and staff on long-term contracts worked for the Defence Secondary Care Agency (DSCA); 10 were employed in Scotland, in the field of community psychiatry. Personnel costs for the current financial year in respect of staff in these long-term appointments are forecast to be some £83.26 million. In addition, the DSCA employs staff as and when required on short-term contracts. The associated personnel costs for the current financial year are forecast to be some £3.45 million.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people work for the Defence Estates; how many are employed in Scotland; and what the personnel costs of the agency are. [27849]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Estates employs 1,610 people, of whom 107 work in Scotland. The personnel costs of the agency for the financial year from 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 are £42.919 million.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people work for the National Codification Bureau; how many are employed in Scotland; and what the personnel costs of the agency are. [27807]

  Dr. Moonie
  The UK National Codification Bureau employs some 98 personnel, all in Glasgow. Personnel costs amount to about £2 million per annum.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people work for the Directorate General Commercial Organisation; how many are employed in Scotland; and what the personnel costs of the agency are. [27805]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Director General Commercial is the Professional Head of the Ministry of Defence's Commercial Function. He is professionally responsible for all commercial posts throughout the MOD, some 2,000 staff in total. Approximately 150 of these are based in Scotland. The Director General Commercial Organisation is a term used to describe collectively the commercial staff within the MOD. It is neither an agency, nor a budgetary element within the Department and costs of commercial staff are borne by their parent organisations. No central record is kept of the personnel costs for the Commercial Function and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people work for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency; how many are employed in Scotland; and what the personnel costs of the agency are. [27808]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Evaluation and Research Agency ceased to exist on 1 July 2001. From its constituent parts two new organisations were created; QinetiQ, a Ministry of Defence owned commercial company; and the Defence Science and Technology laboratory (Dstl), an agency of the MOD.
  1287W
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people work for the War Pensions Agency; how many employed in Scotland; and what the personnel costs of the agency are. [27810]

  Dr. Moonie
  A total of 918.5 people work in the War Pensions Agency, 16 of who are employed in Scotland. The total staff costs forecast for the year 2001–02 is £18,804,733.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people work for the Disposal Services Agency; how many are employed in Scotland; and what the personnel costs of the agency are. [27814]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the Disposal Services Agency (DSA) Annual Report and Accounts 2000–01 (pages 36-38) which was laid before the House on 18 July 2001. Copies are available in the Library of the House. There were four DSA employees in Scotland during this period.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people work for the Defence Bills Agency; how many are employed in Scotland; and what the personnel costs of the agency are. [27823]

  Dr. Moonie
  The number of staff who work for the Defence Bills Agency is 649, which equates to 583 full time equivalents, none of whom is employed in Scotland.

  The forecast of personnel costs for 2001–02 is £11.076 million.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people work for the Defence Repository; how many are employed in Scotland; and what the personnel costs of the agency are. [27804]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has a central records repository that is located at Hayes in west London. There are currently 100 MOD personnel directly involved in providing the main records and support services at the Hayes site, some working part-time, at an annual cost of £1.743 million. A further 12 MOD personnel working on associated tasks are based at the site, at an annual cost of £281,000. The records repository is not a defence agency and does not have any other sites associated with it, including in Scotland.

  Other Government Departments also have staff at the Hayes site, associated with their records holdings there. The Hayes site and the pan-Government records storage and retrieval services it provides are currently the subject of a Public Private Partnership project.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people work for the Defence Procurement Agency; how many are employed in Scotland; and what the personnel costs of the agency are. [27800]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Procurement Agency employs approximately 4,500 civilian and military staff, of which 122 are in Scotland.

  The payroll costs for financial year 2000–01 were just under £126 million.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people work for the Meteorological Office; how many are employed in Scotland; and what the personnel costs of the agency are. [27817]
  1288W
  Dr. Moonie
  The current number of people working for the Meteorological Office is 2,064. Of this number, 139 people are employed in Scotland. The total Meteorological Office pay bill for financial year 2001–02 is likely to be £72.771 million.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people work for the Defence Scientific Advisory Council; how many are employed in Scotland; and what the personnel costs of the agency are. [27802]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Scientific Advisory Council (DSAC) is an advisory body that provides independent advice to Ministers on scientific research matters related to defence issues.

  DSAC consists of five standing boards, a register of independent members and the Council itself. The current register contains 185 members, drawn from industry and academia, 13 of whom have registered that they live and work in Scotland. Each member is paid a daily fee for attendance at meetings together with travel and subsistence as and when members partake in DSAC activities.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people work for the Warship Support Agency; how many are employed in Scotland; and what the personnel costs of the agency are. [27811]

  Dr. Moonie
  As at November 2001, the latest date for which detailed figures are readily available, there were 11,105 people working for the Warship Support Agency, of which 3,666 were employed in Scotland. It is estimated that personnel costs within the agency for the financial year 2001–02 will total some £225 million.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people work for the Directorate of Standardisation; how many are employed in Scotland; and what the personnel costs of the agency are. [27806]

  Dr. Moonie
  In 1999 the Directorate of Standardisation became the UK Defence Standardisation team and part of the Defence Procurement Agency's Procurement Development Group. The UK Defence Standardisation team has the equivalent of 38 people working full time of which 32 are employed in Scotland. The payroll costs for financial year 2001–02 are estimated at £1.1 million.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people work for the Hydrographic Office; how many are employed in Scotland; and what the personnel costs of the agency are. [27815]

  Dr. Moonie
  As at 1 December 2001, there were 914 people employed at the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office. Currently there are five people (three full time and two part time) employed at the Chart Maintenance Unit at Faslane in Scotland. The forecast personnel costs for the agency for the financial year 2001–02 are £24,567 million.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people work for the International Visits Control Office; how many are employed in Scotland; and what the personnel costs of the agency are. [27816]
  1289W
  Dr. Moonie
  The International Visits Control Office is a part of the Directorate of Defence Security, and wholly based in London; it has no staff employed in Scotland. The office has a complement of nine posts. The annual personnel cost for the office is approximately £189,000.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people work for the Defence Export Services Organisation; how many are employed in Scotland; and what the personnel costs of the agency are. [27799]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Export Services Organisation employs 5891 service and civilian personnel, of whom three are based in Scotland. The personnel costs of the organisation for the financial year 2000–01, part of which are met from receipts, were £25.4 million.
  1 Full-time equivalent.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people work for the Ministry of Defence Police; how many are employed in Scotland; and what the personnel costs of the agency are. [27818]

  Dr. Moonie
  As at 1 January 2002, 3,328 police officers and 263 civilian staff were employed by the Ministry of Defence Police Agency. 782 police officers and 36 civilian staff were employed in Scotland. The personnel costs of the MDP Agency for the financial year 2000–01 were some £143 million.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people work for the Defence Aviation Repair Agency; how many are employed in Scotland; and what the personnel costs of the agency are. [27822]

  Dr. Moonie
  The latest figures available show that at 1 December 2001 the number of employees working for the Defence Aviation Repair Agency is 5,020. The number of employees working in Scotland is 334. The annual personnel costs of the agency at 1 December 2001 are £120 million.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people work for the British Forces Post Office; how many are employed in Scotland; and what the personnel costs of the agency are. [27819]

  Dr. Moonie
  The British Forces Post Office (BFPO) employs 132 military and 429 civilian personnel, mainly at its sorting office and headquarters in Mill Hill, London NW7. The remaining personnel are located in 11 regional Defence Mail Centres including one in Glasgow employing nine civilian staff. These are the only BFPO staff located in Scotland.

  The total annual personnel costs of BFPO are £11.838 million.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people work for the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency; how many are employed in Scotland; and what the personnel costs of the agency are. [27812]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency was disestablished in October 2000. Part of the organisation was restructured and became the Defence Clothing Integrated Project Team (IPT) in April 2001.1290W
  The IPT currently employs 245 staff, none of whom are employed in Scotland. The staff costs of the IPT are approximately £7.3 million per annum.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people work for the Defence Scientific and Technical Laboratory; how many are employed in Scotland; and what the personnel costs of the agency are. [27801]

  Dr. Moonie
  At 1 January 2002, the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) employed 3,037 staff. Of these, 54 were employed in Scotland. Based upon the first six months of Dstl operations, Dstl's paybill (which includes total pay, casual allowances, ERNIC and pension costs) averaged £8.56 million per month.

  Winter Olympics
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when(a) UK assets and forces and (b) NATO assets and forces have been used in supplying security for the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City and have replaced US forces in other theatres to allow for deployment to the US in order to undertake security for the Winter Olympics; in what roles they have been deployed; and if he will make a statement. [38322]

  Mr. Ingram
  As part of NATO Allies' contribution to combating terrorism, NATO has deployed Airborne Warning and Control Aircraft to help patrol American airspace including over Salt Lake City.

  Legal Action
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 12 February 2001,Official Report, column 178W, on legal action, how many cases (a) his Department and (b) its agencies have defended in (i) industrial tribunals and (ii) the courts, in each year since 1997; how many were concluded in their favour; and what the total cost was to his Department of litigation in each year. [38043]

  Dr. Moonie
  Due to the volume of information required to answer this question, I refer the hon. Member to the Ministry of Defence's Claims Annual Report, a copy of which is placed in the Library of the House each year. The report sets out the numbers and costs of those cases handled centrally such as Employer's Liability, Public Liability and Employment Tribunals brought by service personnel.

  RN Officers Corps
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action has been taken in regard to the job evaluation results of RN Officers Corps conducted in 2001; whether the evaluations have been published; and if he will make a statement. [38290]

  Mr. Ingram
  The results of the job evaluations of RN Officer posts completed in 2001 have been passed to the Office of Manpower Economics, which provides the secretariat to the Armed Forces Pay Review Body (AFPRB). Job evaluation data are used by the AFPRB in carrying out its remit to ensure pay within the armed forces is comparable with that of external groups undertaking jobs of similar weight. While copies of the job descriptions generated as part of the evaluation
  1291W
  process are made available, the final evaluation scores are not released. This is common practice in the wider evaluation industry and is followed throughout the armed forces regardless of rank or service. The evaluation system and its use are periodically scrutinised by independent consultants.

  MOD Police
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what sites have been provided with MOD police since September 2001; on what basis these have been provided; and if he will make a statement. [38065]

  Dr. Moonie
  Since 11 September, Ministry of Defence police have continued to secure key sites, and additional officers have been detached.

  Royal Navy (Pay Banding)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he expects the Officer Corps to move to Pay 2000 pay banding in the higher and lower tiers; and if he will make a statement; [38292]

  (2) when the Officer Corps of the Royal Navy is to be upgraded to Pay 2000 JE pay banding; and if he will make a statement. [38288]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are currently no plans to introduce differential pay banding for officers. Any changes to the current pay arrangements would firstly require the support of job evaluation data. A concerted programme to evaluate a wide sample of officer posts has recently been initiated. this is primarily to enable the Armed Forces Pay Review Body to fulfil their remit to ensure pay levels are broadly comparable with those in civilian life.

SCOTLAND

  Friends of Scotland
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what expenditure has been budgeted for by the Scotland Office to support the Friends of Scotland initiative during(a) financial year 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [23600]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Expenditure relating to the Friends of Scotland initiative in 2001–02 was absorbed within the Department's budget. No budget has been set yet for 2002–03.

  Clyde Shipyards Taskforce
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the work of the Clyde Shipyards Taskforce. [35315]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The work of the Clyde Shipyards Task Force is embodied in the published report which was handed over on 4 February. The Task Force was established in response to the announcement by BAE Systems that around 1,000 redundancies would be required to be spread between both of its yards on the Clyde. The remit was to consider the immediate and longer-term strategic issues facing the Clyde shipbuilding 1292W
  industry, particularly naval, and to identify the changes necessary to ensure a competitive industry and to exploit future opportunities.

  Key successes include reducing the required number of redundancies to 450, the establishment of two Employee Support Centres, the planned investment by BAE Systems Marine of £75 million on Clydeside and the establishment of heating installation and engineer opportunities for redundant employees.

  The report identified a total of 29 recommendations to be taken forward by Task Force Partners and for consideration by those outwith the Task Force. The report must be considered as a starting point, not an end in itself. Partners must deliver on their recommendations. Also there is the opportunity for BAE Systems to deliver a sound order book, based on the MoD contracts for Landing Craft (utility), Alternative Landing Ships Logistic and the Type 45 programme on which, for the first time in generations, the Clyde yards can plan and build for success. The work of the Task Force was part of that process.

  As part of the continuing process, the redundancy sub-group will continue to meet each month to develop activity and review progress towards its targets. The Task Force Partners have also agreed to meet twice more over the next six months to maintain the momentum and focus on implementing their commitments.

  A75
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations she has received regarding the level of speed limit in place along the A75 for heavy goods vehicles. [35738]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: Neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions have received any representations on this matter.

  Industrial Action
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [36189]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. Since that date, no days have been lost owing to industrial action by staff.

  Asthma
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local education authorities in Scotland are implementing an asthma policy. [36874]

  Mr. Foulkes
  As part of its responsibilities for health and education, this matter is devolved to the Scottish Executive.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Scotland Office will(a) co-operate with and (b)

  1293W
  give evidence to the temporary committee of the European Parliament set up to look into the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Scotland in 2001. [36731]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The remit of the EP Temporary Committee on Foot and Mouth disease is:To assess EU policy and the control of meat imports from third countries in the context of the epidemic;
  To analyse the management and implementation of community law in relation to outbreaks of foot and mouth disease so far and to invite the Commission, Governments and public officials to attend hearings of the Committee;
  To analyse the total impact on Community funds of the foot and mouth epidemic so far;
  Based on the above, to make proposals to look into vaccination policy in particular and for political and legislative initiatives, with regard to the prevention and fighting of diseases in the agricultural sector in general.

  The Committee was not set up 'to look into the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Scotland in 2001'.

  The Government are ready to co-operate with the Committee but have not so far been invited to give evidence to the Committee. If and when an invitation is received, the Government will consult closely with the devolved Administrations, including the Scottish Executive, in considering their response.

  Advertising
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much the Scotland Office spent on advertising in each year since 1997. [37575]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scottish Office was established in its present from on 1 July 1999. Since that date the Department has spent the following amounts on advertising:—

  Amount spent on advertising

  £

  July 1999-March 2000

  26,861

  April 2000-March 2001

  317,831

  March 2001 to date

  231,862

  Most of the expenditure related to electoral registration matters.

  Aggregates Tax
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment she has made of the cost to Scottish councils of the proposed aggregates tax. [36746]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed the introduction of the aggregates levy after a considered assessment of its impact across the UK.

  Electoral Publicity
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent by her Department on electoral publicity associated with the 2001 general 1294W
  election and if she will provide a breakdown of the sum spent by her Department on electoral publicity associated with the 2001 general election. [37092]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office spent in total £219,000 on electoral publicity for the general election in June 2001. This comprised £106,000 for producing and transmitting a television campaign aimed at encouraging people to vote, and £113,000 for creating and placing newspaper advertisements on postal voting arrangements.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [37813]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. The Department has had no empty properties since that date.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Capita Contracts
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the contracts her Department has with Capita; and what the(a) value and (b) nature of the contracts are. [36573]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 26 February 2002]: My Department has a number of contracts with Capita for a range of different services. These are as follows:

  Teachers' Pensions—Administration of the Teachers' Pensions Scheme. A contract with an estimated value in excess of £70 million over seven years.

  Connexions Card—Development of the Connexions Card. A Public Private Partnership with a contract value in excess of £100 million over seven years.

  Individual Learning Accounts—Administration of the ILA scheme. A contract for five years with an estimated value of around £55 million.

  Consultancy Framework Contracts—Framework contract to provide general management consultancy support and consultancy support for LEA interventions. The value of these contracts is determined by their level of usage. Estimated expenditure to date has been £436,500.

  Education (Stoke)
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of 16-year-olds have opted to continue into(a) further and (b) higher education in the Stoke-on-Trent local education authority in each of the last four years. [37270]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The percentage of 16-year-olds participating in full-time and part-time education for Stoke-on-Trent LEA in the three years for which data are available is as follows. Prior to 1997–98 Stoke on Trent LEA was part of Staffordshire LEA.
  1295W

  Percentage of 16-year-olds participating in full-time and part-time education1: Stoke-on-Trent LEA

  Full-time education

  Part-time education

  1997–98

  49

  9

  1998–99

  52

  8

  1999–2000

  58

  7

  1 Includes participation in schools, sixth form colleges and further education colleges

  Corresponding data for participation in full-time higher education by the same age cohort two years later are as follows.

  Percentage of 18-year-olds from Stoke-on-Trent LEA accepted for entry to full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses1

  Number

  1999–2000

  11

  2000–01

  13

  2001–02

  16

  1 Defined as the number of 18-year-olds from Stoke accepted for entry to full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses via UCAS, as a proportion of the 17-year-old population in Stoke the previous year

  In 1999–2000 Stoke-on-Trent became one of the original 15 LEAs to be piloted for the roll-out of Education Maintenance Allowances. National evaluation of EMA shows it to have had a beneficial effect on post-16 participation. Participation rates by LEA for 16 and 17-year-olds are published in an annual statistical bulletin, "Participation in Education and Training by Young People aged 16 and 17 in Each Local Area and Region, England".

  Standards Fund
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much was allocated per pupil through the Standards Fund for each English education authority in 2001–02. [37771]

  Mr. Timms
  The following table shows allocations for the Standards Fund, shown as an amount per pupil, for 2001–02, for each local education authority in England. The figures include recurrent and capital Standards Fund grants excluding those that are specifically for under-5s education, further education and adult education. The Standards Fund includes Government grant and local authority contributions, which have both been included in the calculations.

  The Standards Fund is one element of overall education funding and supports a range of national education priorities, such as the national literacy and numeracy strategies, support for Specialist Schools, measures to raise the level of achievement of pupils from ethnic minorities, the Excellence in Cities initiative and capital projects. As such the Standards Fund is not allocated on a simple per pupil basis, but in relation to the specific priorities it is designed to support. For example, the allocation a local education authority will receive to support its Specialist Schools will depend on the number of those schools in that authority. A local education authority will not necessarily receive an allocation for every Standards Fund priority. For example, not all authorities are part of the Excellence in Cities initiative,
  1296W
  which is designed to raise performance through a targeted programme addressing the educational problems of our major cities.

  Standards fund per pupil

  Local education authority

  £ per pupil

  Corporation of London

  1,738

  Camden

  682

  Greenwich

  665

  Hackney

  830

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  725

  Islington

  757

  Kensington and Chelsea

  708

  Lambeth

  701

  Lewisham

  624

  Southwark

  649

  Tower Hamlets

  861

  Wandsworth

  641

  Westminster

  632

  Barking

  466

  Barnet

  357

  Bexley

  312

  Brent

  492

  Bromley

  333

  Croydon

  384

  Ealing

  544

  Enfield

  406

  Haringey

  677

  Harrow

  350

  Havering

  331

  Hillingdon

  343

  Hounslow

  439

  Kingston Upon Thames

  490

  Merton

  547

  Newham

  578

  Redbridge

  366

  Richmond Upon Thames

  399

  Sutton

  325

  Waltham Forest

  602

  Birmingham

  519

  Coventry

  414

  Dudley

  323

  Sandwell

  435

  Solihull

  328

  Walsall

  425

  Wolverhampton

  510

  Knowsley

  676

  Liverpool

  555

  St. Helens

  452

  Sefton

  426

  Wirral

  451

  Bolton

  376

  Bury

  321

  Manchester

  639

  Oldham

  445

  Rochdale

  541

  Salford

  553

  Stockport

  373

  Tameside

  393

  Trafford

  351

  Wigan

  318

  Barnsley

  408

  Doncaster

  389

  Rotherham

  520

  Sheffield

  534

  Bradford

  559

  Calderdale

  358

  Kirklees

  462

  Leeds

  481

  Wakefield

  403

  Gateshead

  555

  Newcastle Upon Tyne

  529

  North Tyneside

  462

  South Tyneside

  506

  1297W

  Standards fund per pupil

  Local education authority

  £ per pupil

  Sunderland

  480

  Isles of Scilly

  1,743

  Bath and North East Somerset

  371

  City of Bristol

  481

  North Somerset

  346

  South Gloucestershire

  355

  Hartlepool

  493

  Middlesbrough

  504

  Redcar and Cleveland

  469

  Stockton-on-Tees

  536

  City of Kingston-upon-Hull

  498

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  375

  North East Lincolnshire

  411

  North Lincolnshire

  392

  North Yorkshire

  362

  York

  368

  Bedfordshire

  403

  Luton

  468

  Buckinghamshire

  396

  Milton Keynes

  392

  Derbyshire

  388

  Derby City

  420

  Dorset

  348

  Poole

  305

  Bournemouth

  507

  Durham

  430

  Darlington

  420

  East Sussex

  359

  Brighton and Hove

  391

  Hampshire

  344

  Portsmouth

  400

  Southampton

  366

  Leicestershire

  323

  Leicester City

  509

  Rutland

  478

  Staffordshire

  320

  Stoke-on-Trent

  538

  Wiltshire

  352

  Swindon

  352

  Bracknell Forest Borough Council

  348

  RB of Windsor and Maidenhead

  402

  West Berkshire District Council

  382

  Reading

  460

  Slough Borough Council

  446

  Wokingham District council

  362

  Cambridgeshire County Council

  346

  Peterborough City Council

  385

  Cheshire County Council

  319

  Halton Borough Council

  553

  Warrington Borough Council

  338

  Devon County Council

  342

  City of Plymouth

  315

  Torbay Borough Council

  317

  Essex County Council

  334

  Southend-on-Sea Borough Council

  341

  Thurrock Council

  395

  Herefordshire Council

  377

  Worcestershire County Council

  339

  Kent County Council

  327

  Medway Council

  328

  Lancashire County Council

  381

  Blackburn with Darwen

  540

  Blackpool Borough Council

  361

  Nottinghamshire County Council

  343

  City of Nottingham

  656

  Shropshire County Council

  357

  Telford and Wrekin

  448

  Cornwall

  388

  Cumbria

  391

  Gloucestershire

  356

  Hertfordshire

  328

  Isle of Wight

  387

  Lincolnshire

  380

  1298W

  Standards fund per pupil

  Local education authority

  £ per pupil

  Norfolk

  387

  Northamptonshire

  372

  Northumberland

  362

  Oxfordshire

  369

  Somerset

  411

  Suffolk

  338

  Surrey

  315

  Warwickshire

  342

  West Sussex

  310

  Note:

  Figures include recurrent and capital grants.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the 10 lowest education SSAs are per(a) primary and (b) secondary pupil for English education authorities in 2001–02. [37772]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is in the following table. The variations in SSA per pupil have two main causes: authorities in London and the South East receive an area cost adjustment, to compensate for the higher costs they face; and authorities receive funding according to their level of deprivation.

  The Government acknowledge that there are disparities in SSA per pupil, which are not justified by the education needs of children. We are working up proposals, in partnership with local government and other education interests, for the introduction of a new funding system in 2003–04.

  £

  Primary aged 5-10

  334 Solihull

  2,340

  356 Stockport

  2,340

  802 North Somerset

  2,340

  872 Wokingham

  2,340

  836 Poole

  2,330

  860 Staffordshire

  2,330

  877 Warrington

  2,330

  800 Bath and North East Somerset

  2,320

  855 Leicestershire

  2,290

  803 South Gloucestershire

  2,270

  Secondary aged 11-15

  875 Cheshire

  3,010

  885 Worcestershire

  3,010

  860 Staffordshire

  3,000

  877 Warrington

  3,000

  836 Poole

  2,990

  334 Solihull

  2,980

  855 Leicestershire

  2,960

  803 South Gloucestershire

  2,940

  800 Bath and North East Somerset

  2,930

  857 Rutland

  2,910

  Note:

  All figures are rounded to the nearest £10.

  AS-level Courses
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funding arrangements are proposed for pupils taking AS-level courses before age 16; and what the implications will be for the budgets of(a) the local learning and skills councils and (b) the LEAs respectively. [37955]
  1299W
  Mr. Timms
  Funding for pupils of compulsory school age who are not in a sixth form but are taking an AS-level a year or more early continues to be the responsibility of the LEA. In developing future funding arrangements we will take into account responses to the recent Green Paper "14-19—extending opportunities, raising standards".

  Playing Fields
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list applications made to her Department in the last three years for consent to allow development on school playing fields giving in each case(a) the outcome of the application, (b) what steps were taken to ascertain whether adequate sports facilities would remain if permission were granted and (c) where consent was given, what assurances were secured as to how proceeds of sale would be used. [33633]

  Mr. Timms
  [pursuant to his reply, 25 February 2002, c. 730-34W]: A column was omitted from the table. The corrected table follows.

  Although the Department does not collect information in the form requested, the following table lists applications to dispose of areas equal to, or larger than, a sports pitch, together with their outcome.

  Applications to dispose of school sports pitches that have been determined by the Secretary of State

  LEA

  School name

  Date applied

  Result of application

  Barnet

  Ashmole

  15 December 1998

  Approved

  Bedfordshire

  Silver Jubilee Middle

  30 April 1999

  Approved

  Bedfordshire

  Ashton St. Peter VA

  29 September 2000

  Approved

  Birmingham

  Broadway

  11 June 2001

  Approved

  Blackpool

  Collegiate High

  13 December 1999

  Approved

  Bolton

  St. James's CE

  24 July 1998

  Approved

  Bristol

  Monks Park Secondary

  28 October 1998

  Approved

  Buckinghamshire

  Bellfield First and Middle

  22 February 1999

  Approved

  Buckinghamshire

  Terriers County First

  10 May 1999

  Approved

  Buckinghamshire

  Downley Middle

  12 January 2000

  Approved

  Buckinghamshire

  Heights First

  12 January 2000

  Approved

  Calderdale

  Brooksbank

  1 July 1998

  Approved

  Cheshire

  St. James CE Junior

  30 November 1998

  Approved

  Cheshire

  Colshaw CP

  30 June 1999

  Approved

  Cheshire

  Westlands High

  17 November 1999

  Approved

  Cheshire

  Manor Park Infant

  27 November 2000

  Approved

  Cheshire

  Brookside County Infant

  5 February 2001

  Approved

  Croydon

  Haling Manor High

  4 January 1999

  Approved

  Derbyshire

  Noel Baker Community

  2 November 1998

  Approved

  Derbyshire

  Western Mere

  2 February 1999

  Approved

  Derbyshire

  Pingle

  26 July 2000

  Approved

  Devon

  Highweek Primary

  17 August 1999

  Approved

  Dorset

  Fosters

  7 December 1998

  Approved

  Dudley

  Colley Lane Primary

  11 October 2001

  Approved

  Dudley

  Summerhill Secondary

  11 October 2001

  Approved

  Durham

  The Avenue Comprehensive

  19 May 1999

  Approved

  Durham

  Westwood Primary

  31 July 2000

  Approved

  Essex

  The Stanway

  17 November 1998

  Approved

  Essex

  Moulsham High

  18 January 1999

  Approved

  Essex

  Oakview Special

  10 April 2000

  Approved

  Essex

  Tabor High

  29 January 2001

  Approved

  Gloucestershire

  Churchdown

  3 December 1997

  Approved

  Gloucestershire

  The Catholic School of St. Gregory the Great

  26 July 1999

  Approved

  Gloucestershire

  Oxstalls Community

  25 November 1999

  Approved

  Halton

  Ashley Special

  6 November 1998

  Approved

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Gibbs Green Special

  8 March 1999

  Approved

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Burlington Danes

  16 March 1999

  Approved

  Havering

  Frances Bardsley School for Girls

  13 August 1999

  Approved

  1300W
  Before October 1998, there was nothing to prevent a local authority selling a school playing field if it wanted to. Section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 was introduced in October 1998 to stop the indiscriminate sale of school playing fields. Local authorities and governing bodies of all maintained schools are now required to obtain the Secretary of State's consent before disposing of playing fields or any part of a playing field.

  Applications to dispose, or change the use, of school playing fields are assessed against the following criteria:

  (a) schools' needs: that playing field provision and curriculum requirements at the school making the disposal, and at other schools in the local area, will be met;

  (b) community needs: that community use of a school's playing fields is taken into account, with alternative facilities made available if necessary;

  (c) finance: that any sale proceeds are re-invested to provide new or improved sports facilities at schools, or are used to help to raise standards by providing better educational facilities.

  Only those applications that meet the criteria are approved. Since July 2001, all applications have been scrutinised by the independent School Playing Fields Advisory Panel to make sure that they conform to the published criteria. The Panel comprises representatives from the National Playing Fields Association, the Central Council of Physical Recreation, the education organisation Learning through Landscapes, the National Association of Head Teachers and the Local Government Association.
  1301W

  Applications to dispose of school sports pitches that have been determined by the Secretary of State

  LEA

  School name

  Date applied

  Result of application

  Kent

  St. Thomas' Special

  12 May 1999

  Approved

  Kent

  St. Simon Stock

  13 December 1999

  Approved

  Kent

  Allhallows Primary

  12 July 2001

  Approved

  Knowsley

  Sylvester

  12 August 1999

  Approved

  Lancashire

  St. Richards RC High

  15 December 1998

  Approved

  Lancashire

  St. Thomas Acquinas RC High

  5 February 1999

  Approved

  Lancashire

  Baines High

  15 November 2000

  Approved

  Leeds

  Lawnswood

  21 November 2000

  Approved

  Leeds

  Oakwood Primary

  21 November 2000

  Approved

  Leeds

  Roundhay

  21 November 2000

  Approved

  Leeds

  Wetherby High

  19 September 2001

  Approved

  Liverpool

  Childwall Comprehensive

  9 April 2001

  Approved

  Milton Keynes

  Denbigh

  16 November 1998

  Approved

  Milton Keynes

  Castles First

  6 August 1999

  Approved

  Norfolk

  Redgate Middle

  12 April 2000

  Approved

  North East Lincs

  Hereford Technology College

  13 November 2000

  Approved

  North Tyneside

  St. Mary's RC

  22 December 1998

  Approved

  North Yorkshire

  Settle CE Primary

  20 November 1998

  Approved

  Northamptonshire

  John Lea Secondary

  14 August 2000

  Approved

  Northumberland

  St. Benet Biscop RC Aided High

  5 February 1999

  Approved

  Northumberland

  Gallowhill Hall Special

  18 February 2000

  Approved

  Nottinghamshire

  Manor Comprehensive

  14 April 2000

  Approved

  Nottinghamshire

  Lincoln Street Infant

  14 July 2000

  Approved

  Oldham

  Kaskenmoor Secondary

  29 October 1999

  Approved

  Oxfordshire

  Wallingford

  16 June 2000

  Approved

  Peterborough

  The King's

  8 May 1998

  Rejected

  Peterborough

  Deacons

  28 July 1998

  Rejected

  Peterborough

  The King's

  27 September 2000

  Approved

  Rochdale

  Spring Hill High

  7 May 1999

  Approved

  Rochdale

  Middleton Technology

  28 March 2001

  Approved

  Sefton

  Litherland Moss County Primary

  22 March 1999

  Approved

  Shropshire

  Lower Grove

  2 February 2001

  Approved

  Somerset

  King Arthur's Comprehensive

  24 March 1999

  Approved

  Somerset

  Ladymead Comprehensive

  6 April 1999

  Approved

  Staffordshire

  Sir Graham Balfour High

  25 June 1999

  Approved

  Surrey

  Rosebery

  6 January 1998

  Approved

  Surrey

  Okewood District CE

  30 November 1998

  Approved

  Surrey

  Merland Rise CP

  8 January 1999

  Approved

  Surrey

  Banstead County Junior School and St. Anne's RC Primary

  27 May 1999

  Approved

  Surrey

  Park Mead Junior

  8 March 2000

  Approved

  Surrey

  Boxgrove Primary

  13 April 2000

  Approved

  Tameside

  Egerton Park High

  17 January 2000

  Approved

  Telford and Wrekin

  Blessed Robert Johnson

  26 March 1999

  Approved

  Wakefield

  South Elmsall Middle

  10 December 1998

  Approved

  Wakefield

  Kinsley First

  13 January 1999

  Approved

  Wakefield

  Kinsley First

  30 July 1999

  Approved

  Walsall

  Beacon

  18 December 1998

  Approved

  Walsall

  St. Thomas More Catholic Comprehensive

  18 April 2001

  Approved

  Warwickshire

  Attleborough First

  11 December 1998

  Approved

  Warwickshire

  Exhall First

  21 July 1999

  Approved

  Warwickshire

  Binley Woods First

  3 August 1999

  Approved

  Warwickshire

  Stratford-upon-Avon High

  14 August 2000

  Approved

  Warwickshire

  Marie Corelli

  21 August 2000

  Approved

  West Sussex

  Hazelwick

  7 February 2000

  Approved

  Wigan

  Hindley Borsdane Brook Special

  11 February 1999

  Approved

  Wigan

  Rose Hill Special

  11 February 1999

  Approved

  Wigan

  Tyldesley Highfield Special

  11 February 1999

  Approved

  Wigan

  Orrell Holgate Primary

  4 December 2000

  Approved

  Wiltshire

  Castle Combe Primary

  7 August 2000

  Approved

  Wolverhampton

  St. Peters Collegiate

  25 November 1998

  Approved

  Wolverhampton

  Aldersley High

  4 December 1998

  Approved

  Worcestershire

  Callowbrook First

  6 November 2000

  Approved

  Notes:

  1. 'Sports pitch' means areas of open grassed land which are equal to, or larger than, the Football Association's recommended area for games played by under-10s, that is 2,000 m2, and which have a configuration making them suitable for sports pitches (whether they are so laid out or not).

  2. The table excludes applications withdrawn by the applicant and applications where schools would retain the same, or a better, level of access to the same sports pitch or to an equivalent sports pitch.

  3. The table includes applications from grant-maintained schools, where the application was made under section 231 of the Education Act 1996 but the decision was made in accordance with the draft criteria and then the criteria published in Circular No. 3/99, The Protection of School Playing Fields. It also includes applications in respect of foundation and voluntary schools considered under Schedule 22 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 since 1 September 1999.

  1302W

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Audit Standards
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to ensure UK compliance with the EU recommendation on standards for external quality assurance systems in statutory audit. [37287]

  Ms Hewitt
  It may help if I set the context by first explaining our plans to ensure that there is a careful review of the UK's current regulatory practices for statutory audit and financial reporting, following the collapse of Enron in the US.

  The requirements in the UK are significantly different from the US in relation both to the relevant accounting standards and to the oversight and regulation of the audit profession. But it would be most unwise to conclude that problems of this sort could not arise in the UK; and it is right therefore to review arrangements carefully

  I am therefore setting up a group jointly with the Treasury, and including the Financial Services Authority and other regulators such as the Accountancy Foundation, to oversee and co-ordinate the response in the UK to these issues raised by the collapse of Enron. These include:
  whether the ethical standards of the professional audit bodies provide an adequate assurance on the independence of auditors, including the restrictions on the supply of non auditors, including the restrictions on the supply of non audit services
  whether there should be a requirement for the mandatory rotation of audit firms; or for the mandatory re-tendering for company audit
  whether current disclosures of audit and non audit fees in company accounts are adequate
  the role of Audit Committees in relation to the audit engagement
  the implications for accounting standards in the UK
  the implications for auditing standards in the UK.

  The Group will report on progress and emerging conclusions by the summer.

  At the same time I am also setting up an independent review of the role and effectiveness of non-executive directors in the UK. The review will report jointly to me and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I will provide further details of who is to lead the review and the terms of reference in due course.

  Together these reviews are aimed at:

  Ensuring that companies can fulfil their potential and improve productivity;

  Strengthening the UK's framework for how companies operate; and

  Encouraging greater transparency.

  The quality assurance systems for the statutory audit, both within and outside the audit firms, are an important part of the regulatory arrangements which give confidence in the audit process.

  The European Commission's Recommendation C(2000) 3304 of 15 November 2000 on "quality assurance for the statutory audit in the EU: minimum requirements" recommends that all persons carrying out statutory audits should be subject to a quality assurance system. The Recommendation sets out acceptable methodologies and covers topics such as review cycles, the scope of the review and the quality of the reviewer.
  1304W
  The United Kingdom has an established system of monitoring of statutory company auditors, which was in place well before the Recommendation was adopted. The bodies recognised under the Companies Act 1989 to supervise registered auditors are required regularly to monitor the performance of audit firms or individual auditors registered with them. My Department asked the recognised supervisory bodies to review existing requirements against the detail of the Recommendation and to report the results. The arrangements were found to be broadly in line with the Recommendation. All audit firms and individual auditors are subject to regular review, including monitoring visits by independent reviewers, and those with public interest clients, such as listed companies, are subject to a higher frequency of coverage.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of the population of(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales, (d) Northern Ireland and (e) the United Kingdom live more than (i) five miles, (ii) 10 miles and (iii) 20 miles from a Crown post office. [38040]

  Mr. Alexander
  I am informed by Post Office Ltd. that in the United Kingdom with regard to proximity to a main Post Office branch, 79 per cent. of the population live within five miles, 93 per cent. of the population live within ten miles and 99 per cent. of the population live within 25 miles. Figures are not available on an individual country basis.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of the population of(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales, (d) Northern Ireland and (e) the United Kingdom live more than (i) two miles, (ii) five miles and (iii) 10 miles from a sub post office. [38039]

  Mr. Alexander
  I am informed by Post Office Ltd. that in the United Kingdom with regard to proximity to a sub post office, 99 per cent. of the population live within two miles and 100 per cent. of the population live within five miles and, therefore, within 10 miles. Figures are not available on an individual country basis.

  Energy Technologies
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action has been taken as a result of her Department's Memorandum of Understanding with the United States Department of Energy in relation to new and renewable energy technologies. [37704]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have nothing further to add to the answer given to the hon. Member on 14 February 2002,Official Report, column 525W.

  CHP
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps her Department will take to ensure CHP is excluded from the obligation base for the Government's renewable energy obligation. [37698]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have nothing further to add to the answer given to the hon. Member on 12 February 2002,Official Report, column 292W.

  Hairdressers
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the regulations governing hairdressers in other EU countries. [35870]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  None.

  Car Block Exemption
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) when she will lay the European Draft Regulation on the Car Block Exemption before Parliament; [37100]

  (2) when she expects the draft Regulation on the Car Block Exemption to be adopted and published by the European Commission; what the length is of the consultation period to be held; who will be consulted; and what form the consultation will take. [37101]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The European Commission adopted a draft regulation on 5 February, and communicated it in confidence to member states. Following an initial discussion with member states on 7 March, the Commission will publish the draft on its website and in the "Official Journal of the European Communities". The consultation period will be not less than one month. As well as member states, the Commission will also formally consult the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, and will invite any other interested parties to submit their views.

  Bogus Billing
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to take action to deal with bogus billing for entries in business directories. [36387]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Companies are already afforded protection under the Unsolicited Goods and Services Act 1971 and the Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988.

  Trading Standards and the Office of Fair Trading take enforcement action against bogus billing (in conjunction with their counterparts overseas, where necessary).

  For example, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has investigated complaints about the European City Guide and this has led to the cancellation of some 400 contested invoices. The OFT is also pursuing complaints about the tour and travel guide with the relevant authorities in Liechtenstein.

  Domestic Subsidies
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the timetable is for implementation of the commitment reached at the Doha ministerial meeting on trade of November 2001 to cut export and trade-distorting domestic subsidies. [37858]

  Ms Hewitt
  The reference to export and trade-distorting subsidies can be found in the section of the fourth Ministerial declaration relating to agriculture. The negotiations on agriculture form part of the single undertaking in which virtually all the linked negotiations 1306W
  are to end by 1 January 2005. The mandate given by the Doha declaration also includes a series of interim deadlines.

  The negotiations on agriculture began in early 2000. Further key dates are 31 March 2003, when formulas and other "modalities" for countries' commitments are to be submitted, and the fifth ministerial conference in 2003, by which date countries are to have submitted comprehensive draft commitments.

  Unsolicited Mail
  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with her European counterparts on measures to curb the posting of offensive and unsolicited mail to the UK from other EU countries. [36571]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 25 February 2002]: The Department's officials work closely with enforcement bodies, such as the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), who work with their European counterparts on unsolicited mail.

  The ASA supervises the British Codes of Advertising and Sales Promotion and works with national and international regulators. The ASA liaises with the European Advertising Standards Alliance for action with the regulatory body.

  Since 1 June 2001, Stop Now Orders have provided a stronger mechanism for enforcing consumer protection legislation emanating from the European Directive. This includes laws on advertising. These Orders enable OFT and other specified UK qualified entities to act against businesses elsewhere in the EU, where their activities are harming the 'collective interests of consumers'. The OFT is working closely with counterparts in other Member States to establish the most effective means of acting against cross-border infringements within Europe.

  Unsolicited mail which is indecent or obscene under the terms of the Protection of Children Act 1978 or the Obscene Publications Act 1955 is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

  Cashpoints
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 24 January 2002,Official Report, column 1072W, on cashpoints, if she will list the sub-post offices where the (a) maintenance and (b) stocking of ATM machines is carried out by the sub-postmaster. [37842]

  Ms Hewitt
  For reasons of security, Post Office Limited do not make available this information.

  Crown Post Offices
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 1 February 2002,Official Report, column 612W, on Crown post offices, if the Crown Office network ran at a profit in (a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2000–01. [34916]
  1307W
  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: I understand from Post Office Limited that full independent audited accounts do not exist for that part of the overall post office network comprised of directly managed Crown offices for the years listed. However, estimates which allocate cost and income to this part of the network, such as those made by the PIU for 1998–99, would suggest that this part of the network ran at a loss over those years.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Parliamentary Questions
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will reply to the questions tabled on 4 February 2002 by the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr. [36067]

  Mr. MacShane
  The hon. Member received a reply to his question on 14 February 2002,Official Report, columns 566-67W.

  Health and Safety (Computers)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many employees in his Department who regularly use computers have taken up the provision of a free eye test; and how this service is advertised to(a) current and (b) new staff. [36687]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992, effective January 1993, require employers to provide and pay for, upon request from an employee, an eye and eyesight test. There is a requirement for further tests at regular intervals; the optometrist doing the first test can recommend when the next one should be. In addition, employers must pay the cost of special spectacles where normal ones cannot be used.

  This service is advertised to all new entrants during their induction training, is posted on the FCO intranet site and is described in our Code of Management. In 2001, 216 staff in the UK were reimbursed the cost of DSE eye tests.

  Indonesia
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the extent of popular support for the special autonomy arrangements introduced by the Indonesian Government to Aceh and Papua. [36926]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Special Autonomy legislation which came into effect for the provinces of Aceh and Papua on 1 January has received a mixed welcome. The UK Government believe the legislation offers a positive opportunity to the people of Aceh and Papua, and urges all elements of society in the two provinces to work together to implement the legislation in a constructive spirit to the benefit of all concerned.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the likely impact on human rights of the decision of the Government of Indonesia to establish a new military command in Aceh. [36925]
  1308W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Indonesian Government believe the re-establishment of the Aceh military command will lead to improved accountability for the security forces and security in the province through improved communication. Any moves to increase accountability and reduce lawlessness in the province should be welcomed. We continue to impress on the Indonesian authorities the importance of upholding and promoting human rights throughout the country. On 18 February the British Ambassador in Jakarta raised our concerns about reports that the Indonesian Government intended to 'crush' the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) by military force with Co-ordinating Minister for Political and Security Affairs, Bambang Yudhoyono.

  Mr. Luke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations his Department has made to the Indonesian Government on loss of life and displacement of people in the Moluccan Islands and Sulawesi. [37259]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We welcome the recent agreements brokered by the Indonesian Government between the warring factions in both Maluku and Sulawesi to end the fighting.

  The UK's message to the Indonesian Government is clear and consistent: a long-term solution to regional conflicts can be achieved only through political negotiation and consultation with the people. Together with our European partners we are in regular, top-level dialogue with the Indonesian Government, and urge them to maintain law and order and promote reconciliation in areas of conflict. The most recent direct contact was when our Chargé d'Affaires in Jakarta called on Manuel Kaisiepo, the Minister for Eastern Indonesia, on 29 November 2001.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the next round of talks under the terms of the Brussels process will take place. [36530]

  Peter Hain
  A further meeting under the Brussels process will be held in due course. The date is yet to be fixed. Our aim remains to conclude a comprehensive agreement before the summer.

  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what additional powers of self-government for the people of Gibraltar are being discussed with the Government of Spain during the Brussels process. [36531]

  Peter Hain
  Discussions under the Brussels process are aimed at overcoming all the differences between the UK and Spain over Gibraltar and at promoting co-operation on a mutually beneficial basis. In the context of an agreed Joint Declaration our objective is a future where Gibraltar can enjoy enhanced powers of self-government, allowing its Government and population to have a greater say in their lives.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will allow the Chief Minister of Gibraltar to attend talks under the Brussels process with the right to veto proposals. [36535]
  1309W
  Peter Hain
  We have invited the Chief Minister of Gibraltar to participate in the Brussels process on the basis of the two flags, three voices formula, having his own and distinct voice as part of the British delegation.

  We have made it clear that any proposals emerging from the Brussels process would be implemented only in the event of an affirmative vote by the people of Gibraltar in a referendum.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what rules govern the composition of the delegation of the Chief Minister of Gibraltar attending talks under the Brussels process. [36534]

  Peter Hain
  We have invited the Chief Minister of Gibraltar to participate in the Brussels process on the basis of the two flags, three voices formula, having his own and distinct voice as part of the British delegation.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what practical benefits for Gibraltar have been discussed during the talks under the Brussels process between the Governments of Britain and Spain. [R] [36540]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the copy of the joint communiqué from the Brussels process meeting in London on 4 February that was placed in the Library.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to invite the Governments of Spain and Gibraltar to talks under terms other than those defined under the Brussels process. [R] [36537]

  Peter Hain
  We continue to regard the Brussels Process as offering the best prospects for overcoming all the differences between the UK and Spain over Gibraltar, including issues of mutually beneficial co-operation, and sovereignty.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Spain about the right of the people of Gibraltar to self-determination. [R] [36541]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Foreign Secretary's answer to him on 5 February 2002,Official Report, columns 738-39.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is his policy that a bilateral agreement between Britain and Spain on the future status of Gibraltar will be(a) invalidated and (b) suspended if rejected in a referendum by the people of Gibraltar. [R] [36539]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer to the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) on 31 January 2002,Official Report, column 151WH.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral statement of 5 February 2002,Official Report, column 748, to which Treaty of Utrecht 1713 he referred. [36864]

  Peter Hain
  The treaty which provides for the cession of Gibraltar to the English Crown in its Article X was the treaty of peace and friendship between England and Spain signed at Utrecht on 13 July 1713.
  1310W
  Syd Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who is responsible for devising and implementing fiscal policies in Gibraltar. [36542]

  Peter Hain
  Under the 1969 Gibraltar Constitution, the Governor of Gibraltar retains certain powers in relation to the maintenance of financial and economic stability. Day-to-day control for the financial business of the Government of Gibraltar, including the collection of taxes, duties, licences and fees, etc., lies with the Financial and Development Secretary, who liaises closely with relevant Ministers of the Government of Gibraltar. The Assembly is responsible for the authorisation of expenditure and taxation measures.

  Syd Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason Ministers from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office did not accept an invitation to attend the Government of Gibraltar's talks on their constitution. [36532]

  Peter Hain
  I wrote to the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, in his capacity as Chairman of the House of Assembly Select Committee for Constitutional Reform, on 30 November inviting the members of the Select Committee to London for discussions on constitutional reform. They did not take up the invitation.

  Syd Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the European Commission on financial aid for Gibraltar resulting from an agreement between Britain and Spain on the future status of Gibraltar. [36543]

  Peter Hain
  We have kept the Commission informed in broad terms of our ongoing discussions with Spain within the Brussels process, and in that context have touched on how a possible settlement might impact on opportunities for additional funding in the region.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Spain has identified to him the practical benefits to Gibraltar of proposals on joint sovereignty. [36546]

  Peter Hain
  At the Brussels process meeting in London on 4 February, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Spanish Foreign Minister confirmed their shared aim of overcoming all differences over Gibraltar, including issues of mutually beneficial co-operation, and sovereignty.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the copy of the joint communiqué from the 4 February meeting that was placed in the Library.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guarantees the Government of Spain has given to preserve the Gibraltar way of life during talks on the future status of Gibraltar; and how these would be implemented. [36547]

  Peter Hain
  The UK and Spanish Governments have confirmed that under the Brussels process our shared aim is to overcome our differences over Gibraltar and to ensure a secure future for Gibraltar in which Gibraltar can preserve its way of life and traditions, enjoy greater internal self-government, sustain and enhance its prosperity, and reap the full benefits of a harmonious and mutually beneficial co-operation in all fields together with the wider region.
  1311W
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is regarding the right of self-determination for the people of Gibraltar in relation to Article 1 of the United Nations Charter of Human Rights. [36588]

  Peter Hain
  Her Majesty's Government support the right or principle of self-determination. It must be exercised in accordance with other principles and rights in the Charter of the United Nations and with other treaty obligations. In Gibraltar's case that includes Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht.

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when(a) he and (b) his Ministers next plan to visit Gibraltar. [36545]

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

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed the possibility of taking the status of Gibraltar to the International Court of Justice with representatives of the Government of Spain. [36544]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer to the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) on 10 December 2001,Official Report, column 632W.

  Iran
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about Iran's refusal to accept David Reddaway as Britain's new ambassador. [36589]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We regret Iran's refusal to accept David Reddaway as our ambassador to Tehran. The absence of an ambassador in Tehran will obviously inhibit the extent to which we are able to engage the Iranian authorities.

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's relations with Iran. [36577]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The UK, through critical engagement, aims to support reform in Iran while maintaining a robust dialogue on issues of concern. Iran's refusal to accept David Reddaway as our ambassador has however had an impact on the conduct of our bilateral relations.

  Indo-UK Peacekeeping Seminar
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent Indo-UK peacekeeping seminar held in India. [36556]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Indo-UK seminar on peacekeeping was held at the Centre for UN peacekeeping in New Delhi on 7 to 8 February 2002. The seminar followed on from a Joint Doctrine and Concepts Centre hosted seminar in Shrivenham in March 2001. Peacekeeping operations are an area in which both India and the UK have a wealth of experience to share. Both 1312W
  sides are keen to maintain a regular dialogue on the conceptual and operational aspects of UN peacekeeping operations.

  Spain
  Syd Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when(a) he and (b) his Ministers next plan to visit Spain. [36533]

  Peter Hain
  The Foreign Secretary and I will accompany the Prime Minister to the Barcelona European Council from 15 to 16 March. My noble Friend Baroness Symons plans to attend an EU Trade Ministers meeting in Toledo on 18 March and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), will attend a conference in Granada on 28 February.

  Non-Proliferation Treaty Review
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals the Government are planning to put forward to the preparatory meeting of the non-proliferation treaty review in April, in respect of the management of(a) surplus stockpiled fissile material and (b) fissile material obtained from decommissioned nuclear warheads. [36468]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The UK continues to support the statement in the final document of the 2000 nonproliferation treaty review conference that one of the practical steps for a systematic and progressive effort to implement Article VI of the treaty is" … arrangements by all the nuclear weapons states to place, as soon as practicable, fissile material designated by each of them as no longer required for military purposes under IAEA and or other relevant international verification and arrangements for the disposition of such material for peaceful purposes, to ensure that such material remains permanently outside military programmes."

  The UK has already placed the vast majority of the fissile material it declared under the Strategic Defence Review as no longer required for defence purposes under Euratom and IAEA safeguards. The UK has also indicated its readiness to contribute £70 million over 10 years to support the US/Russian plutonium disposition agreement, under which each side will dispose of 34 tonnes of weapons-grade plutonium.

  South Pacific Islands
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) embassies, (b) high commissions, (c) consulates and (d) trade and investment offices his Department has in (i) the Federated States of Micronesia, (ii) the Solomon Islands, (iii) the Marshall Islands, (iv) Nauru, (v) Kiribati, (vi) Tuvalu, (vii) Vanuatu, (viii) Fiji, (ix) Tonga, (x) Palau and (xi) Samoa; what the staff numbers are for each; and if he will make a statement. [37296]

  Mr. MacShane
  The UK has High Commission offices in Fiji, Kiribati, the Solomon Islands, Tonga and Vanuatu, and also in Papua New Guinea. The number of staff (including both UK-based and locally engaged staff) in each is as follows.
  1313W

  Fiji

  18

  Kiribati

  1

  Papua New Guinea

  12

  Solomon Islands

  6

  Tonga

  4

  Vanuatu

  91

  1 Three part-time.

  The Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau and Tuvalu are covered by our High Commission in Fiji, and Samoa by our High Commission in Wellington.

  We value our links with the island states of the South Pacific and are committed to working with them, particularly where we have resident representation, towards enhanced economic sustainability and governance, and stronger civil society. Our opening of a High Commission office in Kiribati in January has strengthened our ability to do this.

  FCO Telecommunications Network
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answers of 12 February 2002,Official Report, columns 162-63W, on the FCO Telecommunications network, at how many missions the Foreign and Commonwealth Office telecommunications network has installed both telephone systems and network connections; what progress was made in the first two weeks of February 2002 towards the target for February 2002; and if he will make a statement. [37069]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office telecommunications network (FTN) provides two main services for our Diplomatic missions overseas. One is connection to a telecommunications network; the second is the provision of a telephone system (PBX). Progress with implementation of these services against the February target is as shown:

  Telephone systems

  Network connections

  Total installation

  Target for February 2002

  7

  13

  20

  Installations achieved 1-14 February 2002

  3

  7

  10

  On target for February 2002?

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Notes:

  1. Telephone system installed at Los Angeles Consulate-General, Doha Visa Section and Doha Embassy.

  2. Network connections to posts at Tel Aviv, Bucharest, Athens, Barcelona, Alicante, Bilbao and Lisbon.

  Argentina
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he has taken to protect British interests affected by the financial crisis in Argentina. [37214]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government are concerned about the situation in Argentina and are in regular touch with those British companies affected. We want Argentina to deal with foreign investors transparently and without discrimination. We are pressing the Argentine Government to do this, through the IMF and the EU, as well as through our Embassy in Buenos Aires. Qualifying British 1314W
  investments in Argentina are protected by certain safeguards under the UK/Argentina Investment, Promotion and Protection Agreement, which provides a mechanism for companies to resolve disputes with the Argentine authorities, should the need arise.

  Taliban Prisoners
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what status has been applied to UK citizens detained in Cuba for alleged Taliban and al-Qaeda activities. [37806]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  It is for the US as the detaining power in the first instance to take a view on status depending on the facts of each individual case. The US authorities said in their statement of 7 February that they have no doubt that the Taliban and al-Qaeda detainees are not prisoners of war, and that the Geneva Convention requires a tribunal only where there is any doubt.

  They also confirmed that, notwithstanding the question of status, all detainees would continue to be treated humanely and consistently with the principles of the Geneva conventions.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs under what circumstances he will confirm the names of UK citizens as being held in(a) Cuba and (b) Afghanistan for alleged associations with the Taliban and al-Qaeda. [37711]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The names of UK nationals detained in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay are confirmed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office only when we are satisfied that the information is correct and the next of kin have been informed.

  LNM Group
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he was informed of the attempt by the LNM Group to acquire Sidex. [37933]

  Peter Hain
  The Secretary of State's Private Office were informed of LNM's bid on 19 July 2001 when routinely processing the draft letter for the Prime Minister to send to the Romanian Prime Minister. The Secretary of State learnt of it himself when being briefed for the 5-8 November 2001 visit to the UK of the Romanian Prime Minister.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how he assesses the national interest in deciding whether to support attempts by companies or individuals to acquire assets overseas; which other Ministers are consulted during that assessment; and(a) whether and (b) how such an assessment was made of the attempt by the LNM Group to acquire Sidex. [37928]

  Mr. MacShane
  Each case is considered on its merits, in conjunction with other Departments where appropriate. Such consideration will take account of the overall potential benefit to the UK, including its effect on British commercial, economic and foreign policy interests. This approach applied to the acquisition by the LNM Group of Sidex.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent changes there have been in United Nations sanctions in relation to Sierra Leone. [39604]

  Peter Hain
  UN Security Council resolution 1385 (2001) was adopted on 19 December 2001.

  The resolution extends for a further 11 months the mandatory UN embargo on the export of rough diamonds from Sierra Leone originally imposed for a period of 18 months by UNSCR 1306 (2000) of 5 July 2000.

  Diamonds certified under the Government of Sierra Leone certification scheme continue to remain exempt from the embargo.

  The UK originally played a leading role in promoting 1306 in the UN Security Council. It continues to support measures aimed at breaking the link between conflict and the illicit trade in rough diamonds.

  The embargo is implemented in the UK and the Isle of Man by means of an amendment to the Open General Licence, effected on 17 July 2000, and in the Channel Islands and Overseas Territories by Orders in Council under the United Nations Act 1946 (S.I. Nos 1822/2000 and 1840/2000).

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans there are to change the departmental expenditure limits and administration costs limits for 2001–02. [39605]

  Mr. MacShane
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Foreign and Commonwealth DEL will be increased by £32,584,000 from £1,362,704,000 to £1,395,288,000 and the administration costs limits will be increased by £34,335,000 from £634,598,000 to £668,933,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital is as set out in the following table:

  £000

  Resources

  Capital

  Change

  32,600

  -16

  New DEL

  1,268,738

  126,550

  of which:

  Voted

  1,100,856

  103,050

  Non-voted

  167,882

  23,500

  The change in the resources element of DEL arises from:

  (i) an increase of £965,000 in respect of take up of EYF;

  (ii) an increase of £9,462,000 in respect of an adjustment for Overseas Price Movements;

  (iii) a net increase of £10,000,000 as a result of a Reserve Claim for 11 September related activity;

  (iv) a PES transfer to the Ministry of Defence of £1,154,000 in respect of British Defence Staff in Washington;

  (v) an increase of £18,944,000 to reflect transfers from capital to improve budgetary flexibility;

  (vi) an increase of £2,330,000 relating to a successful bid against the Reserve for funds to tackle organised crime;

  1316W

  (vii) a PES transfer to the Department for International Development of £8,061,000 in respect of funding arrangements on the Conflict Prevention pool;

  (viii) a decrease in the FCO's Resource DEL of £5,743,000 to reflect a corresponding overspend on the FCO's Resource DEL last financial year;

  (ix) a PES transfer from the Ministry of Defence of £125,000 relating to funding for Ascension Island;

  (x) a PES transfer to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport of £2,000,000 towards the cost of mounting the 2002 Commonwealth Games in Manchester;

  (xi) an increase in £2,145,000 in the FCO's departmental unallocated pool for Conflict Prevention to reflect an increase in funding levels;

  (xii) a PES transfer from the Department for International Development of £18,837,000 to reflect revisions to funding arrangements for Conflict Prevention;

  (xiii) a PES transfer to the Ministry of Defence of £15,000,000 to reflect revisions to funding arrangements for Conflict Prevention;

  (xiv) a PES transfer from the Department for International Development of £1,750,000 to reflect revisions for funding arrangements for Conflict Prevention.

  The change in the capital element of DEL arises from:

  (i) an increase of £1,200,000 to Capital to reflect a successful bid against the Capital Modernisation Fund;

  (ii) an increase of £828,000 in respect of an adjustment for Overseas Price Movements;

  (iii) an increase of £16,900,000 as a result of a Reserve Claim for September 11 related activity;

  (iv) a decrease of £18,944,000 to reflect transfers from capital to resource in order to improve budgetary flexibility.

  The increases will be offset by inter-departmental transfers and will not impact on the planned total of public expenditure.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what sanctions the EU has imposed against Zimbabwe. [39606]

  Peter Hain
  On 18 February the General Affairs Council (GAC) of the European Union decided to implement targeted sanctions against the Government of Zimbabwe. The GAC expressed serious concern at continuing political violence, serious violations of human rights and restrictions on the media in Zimbabwe which call into question the prospects for a free and fair presidential election on 9-10 March 2002. The GAC noted that the Government of Zimbabwe had objected to having nationals of six EU member states accredited as observers for the forthcoming elections and refused to accredit the EU Chief Observer, Ambassador Pierre Schori.

  The measures adopted are carefully targeted. They comprise:

  (i) a travel ban to apply to Robert Mugabe and to 19 members of his inner circle;

  (ii) an asset freeze to apply to the same individuals;

  (iii) an embargo on the sale or supply of arms to Zimbabwe;

  1317W

  (iv) an embargo on the provisions of technical assistance and training relating to arms;

  (v) an embargo on the sale or supply to Zimbabwe of equipment which might be used for internal repression.

  The travel ban has been implemented by administrative means pending an order under section 8B of the Immigration Act 1971.

  The UK already has an arms embargo in place against Zimbabwe imposed on 3 May 2000 in respect of all applications for new licences for the export to Zimbabwe of goods and technology listed in part III, schedule 1, of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, as amended (commonly known as the Military List).

  The asset freeze, the embargo on the provision of technical assistance and training relating to arms and the embargo on the sale or supply to Zimbabwe of equipment which might be used for internal repression fall within Community competence. These measures are implemented by an EC regulation which is directly applicable in the UK. The regulation came into force on 21 February 2002, the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. Regulations under the European Communities Act 1972 will be passed to impose penalties for infringements of the regulation as required.

  Copies of the Common Position and regulation listing those subject to the asset freeze and travel ban can be found on the European Union website: www.europa.eu.int.

  Romania
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his Department's policy is on ministerial intervention in commercial negotiations between(a) large, (b) intermediate-sized and (c) small private companies and Romania. [37182]

  Mr. MacShane
  Each case is considered on its merits in terms of the overall potential benefit to UK business and to the UK economy. A number of factors will be relevant in considering this, including whether the company is incorporated or registered in Britain, whether the company has a UK address, whether a company is UK controlled or owned, whether it employs people in the UK, whether it has a UK-manufactured product or service, and whether there are wider benefits for the UK, eg in terms of increased access to overseas markets, increased employment or increased competitiveness.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  New Deal
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to improve the performance of the new deal for young people in helping participants from non-white ethnic minority groups to obtain sustained jobs. [25985]
  1318W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  New deal is pro-active in the promotion of equality of opportunity and outcome for people of all ethnic groups. In November 1998, we published a Strategy for Engaging Ethnic Minorities which looked at ways to identify and overcome the barriers to ethnic minority young people, providers and businesses participating in new deal. Action plans supporting the strategy are reviewed every six months.

  The National Employment Panel's Minority Ethnic Advisory Group (MEAG) advises the Department for Work and Pensions on increasing the effectiveness of the new deal for ethnic minority clients. Additionally we work with groups such as the Black Training and Enterprise Group, the Commission for Racial Equality and local Racial Equality Councils in developing tools to assist staff in engaging with ethnic minority clients.

  We are investing £15 million in new outreach services for people from ethnic minorities in some of the country's most deprived urban areas. The outreach service, to be launched in April, will explore different ways jobless people from ethnic minority communities can be helped through the new deal or specialist training.

  State Second Pension
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what evidence he has collated to assess the relative attractiveness of(a) contracting out of the state second pension scheme and (b) remaining within it for those with average earnings of (a) 75 per cent., (b) 100 per cent. and (c) 125 per cent. of national average earnings. [32878]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 6 February 2002]: In making any decision about pensions, individuals may consider both present earnings and their future prospects. In general we expect that contracting out will be the best option for most people but individuals will need to make choices that are appropriate to their current needs and aspirations for the future.

  Benefit Payments (Hospital Stays)
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the value is of reductions to(a) pensions and (b) other benefits made after a patient has been in hospital for over six weeks in each of the last five years; and how many patients have been affected by reductions to (i) pensions and (ii) benefits in each of the past five years. [33002]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.
  1319W

  £ million

  Incapacity benefit

  Retirement pension

  Severe disablement allowance

  Reduction in benefit with six to 52 weeks hospital downrating in place

  1996–97

  *5

  22

  2

  1997–98

  *5

  22

  3

  1998–99

  *5

  24

  3

  1999–2000

  *6

  26

  3

  2000–01

  *5

  28

  4

  Reduction in benefit with over 52 weeks hospital downrating in place

  1996–97

  *7

  37

  25

  1997–98

  *8

  33

  24

  1998–99

  *8

  32

  23

  1999–2000

  *8

  30

  23

  2000–01

  *9

  29

  21

  Notes:

  1. The information has been obtained from a number of administrative sources and a number of assumptions have been made, ie numbers marked * are taken from a small number of sample cases and are subject to a relatively high sampling error and should be used only as an indication of the current situation and it has been assumed that figures in a given quarter remain constant throughout the year.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest million.

  3. It is not possible to provide accurate total reductions for income support, housing benefit, or council tax benefit.

  4. The figures are given in cash terms.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when a substantive reply will be given to Mrs. G. Twizell's letter of 23 November 2001, concerning the bereavement allowance. [36835]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I replied to the hon. Member on 20 February.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will make a substantive reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Thurrock dated 29 January and 5 February, concerning his constituent, Andrew Palmer of East Tilbury. [37434]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I replied to my hon. Friend on 20 February.

  Disability Service Teams
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to increase the budget for disability service teams; and if he will make a statement. [37585]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 26 February 2002]: Disability service teams will become an integral part of Jobcentre Plus from April. We are investing significantly in the development of Jobcentre Plus and its services, including services for disabled people.

  Pension Credit
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether pensioner tax credit will serve as a qualifying benefit for warm front grants. [37638]
  1320W
  Mr. McCartney
  Subject to the agreement of the devolved Administrations and parliamentary scrutiny of the State Pension Credit Bill, it is intended that Pension Credit will serve as a qualifying benefit for warm front grants.

  Minimum Income Guarantee (Cleethorpes)
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners he estimates are claiming the minimum income guarantee in the Cleethorpes constituency. [37754]

  Mr. McCartney
  As at August 2001, there are 3,000 minimum income guarantee claimants in the parliamentary constituency of Cleethorpes.

  Pensions
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps the Government have taken(a) to identify appropriate indicators for securing safe and sustainable pensions by the spring Council meeting in Barcelona and (b) to develop a national strategy report by September; and what plans he has to promote public participation in this process. [37761]

  Mr. McCartney
  Discussion on the possibility of developing pension indicators is being taken forward by the Economic Policy Committee and Social Protection Committee as part of their remit for taking work forward on objectives for safe and sustainable pension systems. The UK takes a full part in this work. We are also discussing with the Commission the best format for the national strategy reports that will outline the approaches of member states to meeting the objectives that have been agreed. The UK response will draw on the extensive public consultations on pension developments that have already taken place.

  Benefit Fraud (North Lanarkshire)
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will publish the inspection report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of North Lanarkshire council. [39536]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate report was published today in respect of North Lanarkshire council and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  BFI Inspectors found that North Lanarkshire council is a poor performing authority that needs to make significant improvements to raise standards in almost every aspect of its benefits administration and counter fraud work. The report notes a lack of awareness of what constitutes a safe and secure benefits service at the council, despite an annual expenditure of more than £95 million on housing benefit and council tax benefit.

  Inspectors noted that the council was using three different types of claim form and considered that none of them was up to standard. They recommend that North Lanarkshire introduces a single claim form based upon the national BFI model. This is seen as vital to help claimants to provide all the supporting evidence needed for a claim to be worked out accurately from the start.
  1321W
  The report identifies weaknesses in a number of areas including the monitoring and control of benefit periods, the renewal of claims, and the way that the council deals with changes of circumstances to prevent overpayments. The council did not have a policy covering overpayments of benefit and had no management controls to show that overpayments were being dealt with correctly.

  Inspectors also express concern over the council's benefit security procedures. They found that none of the key British Safety standards on security controls were being met. Inspectors consider that North Lanarkshire's benefits service is highly vulnerable to internal fraud.

  The council's counter fraud policy was not being managed effectively. The report finds that the counter fraud team did not have enough staff to cope with the volume of work. Also, training and management direction was inadequate. Weaknesses were found in the council's IT security procedures, particularly on the standards of information security. The quality of investigative work was poor and inspectors considered that the council did not do enough to prevent fraud nor to deter repeat offenders. 80 per cent. of investigations examined by inspectors were found to be incomplete. Concern was also expressed in the report that the council did not refer cases to the Procurator Fiscal for prosecution.

  The report concludes that the council was not effectively managing the administration of benefit or the risks from fraud. Key benefits related policies that were

  Scheme rates

  £

  Scheme size

  Basis

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Minimum payment per scheme 1

  Occupational pensions

  2 to 11

  Scheme

  11.00

  12.00

  12.00

  12.00

  —

  12 to 99

  Member

  1.20

  1.25

  1.25

  1.25

  —

  100 to 999

  Member

  0.85

  0.90

  0.90

  0.90

  125

  1,000 to 4,999

  Member

  0.69

  0.70

  0.70

  0.70

  900

  5,000 to 9,999

  Member

  0.53

  0.53

  0.53

  0.53

  3,500

  10,000+

  Member

  0.37

  0.37

  0.37

  0.37

  5,300

  Personal pensions

  2 to 11

  Scheme

  3.75

  5.20

  5.20

  5.20

  —

  12 to 99

  Member

  0.35

  0.50

  0.50

  0.50

  —

  100 to 999

  Member

  0.25

  0.35

  0.35

  0.35

  50

  1,000 to 4,999

  Member

  0.20

  0.30

  0.30

  0.30

  350

  5,000 to 9,999

  Member

  0.15

  0.20

  0.20

  0.20

  1,500

  10,000+

  Member

  0.10

  0.15

  0.15

  0.15

  2,000

  1 Minimum payments ensure that schemes in the lower bands do not pay more overall than those the higher bands

  Child Support
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the change in the average payment made in child support maintenance by the non-resident parent that will result from the April 2002 scheme for(a) one child, (b) two children and (c) three children. [33267]

  Malcolm Wicks
  It is not possible to make firm estimates of the change to the average payment of child support maintenance as a result of the introduction of the
  1322W
  needed to provide clear direction to staff and stakeholders were not in place and a management information system was inadequate.

  The report makes recommendations to help the council address weaknesses and to improve the administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit, as well as counter fraud activities.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.

  Pension Schemes Act
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the general and compensation levies payable under the Pension Schemes Act 1993 by occupational and personal pension schemes. [39537]

  Mr. McCartney
  There will be no increase in the General Levy rates for 2002–03. Rates will remain at the 2000–01 level as set out in the table. Levy receipts are buoyant due to the growth in the number of members for which the levy is payable. Although Opra's costs have increased and it will have added responsibilities for regulating speeding up the winding up of pension schemes in 2002–03, there will be sufficient funding without increasing the General Levy rates.

  Although some payments have been made out of the pension compensation fund, it will not be necessary to raise a Compensation Levy in 2002–03.

  new child support scheme. While it is expected that there will be a rise in the levels of compliance, this cannot be quantified with sufficient precision.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the role and responsibilities of Alexis Cleveland in respect of the Child Support Agency. [37433]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Alexis Cleveland, as Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, has no responsibility for the Child Support Agency—Doug Smith is the Child Support Agency's Chief Executive.
  1323W
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to take into account the contribution to a stakeholder pension of the partner of a non-resident parent in calculating the assessment under the new CSA formula. [35372]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The income of a non-resident parent's partner will not be taken into account in the new CSA calculation. The partner's contribution to a stakeholder pension will therefore also be irrelevant.

  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what advice is given to clients who apply to the CSA before April; and if he will make a statement. [35374]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The CSA has written to existing clients with a live maintenance assessment in place informing them of the introduction of the new child support scheme for new cases, and of the implications for their case. The same information will be provided to new applicants when they receive notification of their maintenance assessment.

  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what transitional arrangements will be put in place for clients who face large adjustments in payments when transferring to the new CSA system; and if he will make a statement. [35376]

  Malcolm Wicks
  To give parents who have existing child support assessments time to adjust to the new amounts, child support liability will be phased over a period of five years and in stages of £2.50, £5 or £10, depending on the non-resident parent's net weekly income.

  Agency/body

  Staff days lost

  1998—Department of Social Security

  Headquarters

  Nil

  Benefits Agency

  8.5

  Child Support Agency

  Nil

  Information Technology Service Agency

  Nil

  War Pensions Agency1

  Nil

  Contributions Agency2

  Nil

  Independent Tribunal Service

  Nil

  Independent Statutory Bodies

  Nil

  1999—Department of Social Security

  Headquarters

  Nil

  Benefits Agency

  Nil

  Child Support Agency

  Nil

  Information Technology Service Agency

  Nil

  Contributions Agency

  Nil

  War Pensions Agency

  Nil

  Independent Tribunal Service

  Nil

  Independent Statutory Bodies

  Nil

  2000—Department of Social Security

  Headquarters

  Nil

  Benefits Agency

  Nil

  Child Support Agency

  Nil

  War Pensions Agency

  Nil

  The Appeal Service

  Nil

  Independent Statutory Bodies

  Nil

  2001—Department for Work and Pensions

  Corporate Centre

  Nil

  Benefits Agency/Employment Service3

  154,9284

  The Appeal Service

  Nil

  Independent Statutory Bodies

  Nil

  1 The War Pensions Agency transferred to the Ministry of Defence June 2001.

  2 The Contributions Agency transferred to the Inland Revenue April 1999.

  3 Before 2001 the Employment Service was part of the then Department for Education and Employment. Figures for these years will form part of the response from the Department for Education and Skills.

  4 All but 37 days relate to a single dispute.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether the five-year European Union action plan to encourage co-operation to combat social exclusion includes measures to help those with mental health problems. [36878]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The EU Action Programme to Combat Social Exclusion will make 75 million euro available over a five-year period to support various transnational activities with a view to improving:

  Analysis of characteristics, processes, causes and trends in social exclusion;

  Policy co-operation and exchange of information and best practices; and

  Participation and support for EU-level networking.

  The range of activities potentially eligible for support is very broad, in line with the multidimensional nature of poverty and social exclusion. The Commission and the Member States have acknowledged that mental health is an important issue for many people experiencing social exclusion. Accordingly, support from the Action Programme may be available for partnerships with an interest in mental health issues working across several Member States to tackle social exclusion. Support will be subject to a bidding process.

  Industrial Action
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 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. [36178]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is in the table:

  City of London Corporation (Events)
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 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. [35695]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information of this kind is not readily available and could be supplied only at a disproportionate cost to this Department. Attendance at events, engagements and functions by Ministers is undertaken in line with the guidance and principles set out in the Ministerial Code.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of telephone inquiries from members of the public to child benefit centres are charged at premium telephone call rates. [35539]

  Malcolm Wicks
  None of the Child Benefit Centre's customers is charged at premium rate.

  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will ensure that, when shared residency orders are granted by the courts, child benefit can be divided accordingly, in line with the amount of time the child spends with each parent; and if he will make a statement. [29788]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Child Benefit is a universal benefit paid as a contribution towards the cost of bringing up a child. It is normally awarded to the person with whom the child is living.

  Only one person can be entitled to Child Benefit for a particular child. Where the care of a child is shared between two parents, and the child spends time with each, both may claim the benefit. In some cases, the parties may choose which shall be entitled to the Child Benefit. Where agreement cannot be reached, legislation allows the Secretary of State to determine who shall be entitled. His decision will take account of a wide range of factors including any residency order.

  Golden Jubilee
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what events(a) he is and (b) other Ministers in his Department are planning to attend as part of the Golden Jubilee celebrations; and what events his Department is planning to arrange to celebrate the Golden Jubilee. [33249]

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

  Benefits (Overpayment)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in how many cases claimants have withheld consent to the exercise of the power to deduct overpaid(a) child benefit and (b) guardians allowance from other benefits under section 71(8) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. [35164]
  1326W
  Malcolm Wicks
  The exercise of power under Section 71(8) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 permits recovery of overpaid benefits without consent. An overpayment of Child Benefit or Guardians Allowance may therefore be recovered from other benefits providing payment is being made to the same claimant.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in how many cases overpaid(a) child benefit and (b) guardians allowance has been deducted from other benefits in each year since 1992 under the provisions of section 71(8) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992; and what the total value is of the overpaid (i) child benefit and (ii) guardians allowance so deducted. [35163]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information is not available in the format requested.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  HIV
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will encourage pharmaceutical companies (1) to make antiretroviral drugs for the treatment of HIV more affordable; [37843]

  (2) to allow non-exclusive voluntary licences to be made available for generic antiretroviral drugs for the treatment of HIV. [37847]

  Clare Short
  The Working Group on Access to Medicines, which I chair and which brings together UK Government, pharmaceuticals and others is looking at options for bringing about widespread, sustainable and predictable differential pricing of medicines for the poor, including antiretrovirals. We are encouraging key partners—pharmaceutical industry, developing countries, donors, and international organisations—to play their part in bringing this about.

  Officials from the Working Group are currently considering what detailed arrangements to recommend, including a consideration of non-exclusive voluntary licensing of antiretrovirals and other drugs. The Working Group will have a final meeting on this issue in May. It will give a progress report and make recommendations to the Prime Minister.

  In order to protect incentives for future research and development, any new arrangements would need to be consistent with the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement and the Doha declaration on trade and public health.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Gambling Review
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she expects to make an announcement on her Department's preferred proposals from the Gambling Review; and if she will make a statement. [38060]
  1327w
  Mr. Caborn: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) on 5 February 2002, Official Report, column 814W.

  Sports Clubs
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if the Government plans to make sports clubs VAT exempt. [37882]

  Mr. Caborn
  There are already some VAT exemptions in place for sport: playing services provided by non-profit making clubs, lettings of sports and physical recreation facilities to all types of providers, and entry fees to sports and physical recreation competitions. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport received representations from the Central Council of Physical Recreation last year asking that a reduced VAT rate be introduced for the use of sporting facilities and for admission to sporting events. As with all proposals for tax reform the Government will need to consider full and detailed evidence of costs and benefits before taking any decision on additional VAT exemptions.

  Athletes
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what further action she is taking to improve sports medicine facilities for athletes. [37818]

  Mr. Caborn
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 31 October 2001,Official Report, column 758W.

  In addition to this he will wish to note that over £180 million of lottery money is being committed to develop the UK Sports Institute (UKSI) to provide athletes with modern facilities which will include world class sports science and medicine facilities. Many of these facilities are now up and running and the UKSI is able to offer a wide range of services including biomechanics, massage, nutrition, medical consultation and screening programmes to elite athletes in the UK.

  The UKSI has set up a number of programmes to ensure that elite athletes stay healthy, recover quickly and remain fit. These include the Athlete medical scheme, run in partnership with the British Olympic Committee, which provides access to medical consultations and treatments. There are currently over 1,000 athletes on the scheme.

  The UKSI central services team is currently auditing the sports medicine support services in UK Sport's priority 1 and 2 sports. The findings of this audit will enable the development of a sports medicine strategy for each priority sport.

  UKSI is also developing a sports medicine mentoring programme, currently being trialed by the Scottish Institute of Sport, which will provide training and development opportunities for sports medicine professionals.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the average response time was for responding to departmental correspondence; what percentage of letters took longer than one month for a response; and what percentage took longer than three months for a response in each of the last five years. [37444]
  1328W
  Mr. Caborn
  We do not hold this information in the format requested. We aim to reply to all departmental correspondence within 18 working days and our performance for the past five years is shown in the table.

  Percentage of replies issued within 18 working days of receipt

  1997–98

  68

  1998–99

  71

  1999–2000

  81

  2000–01

  85

  2001–021

  90

  1 To date,

TREASURY

  Pensions (Tax Relief)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost to the Exchequer of allowing tax relief on pension contributions at the standard rate of income tax, regardless of the actual tax rate of the contributions. [27688]

  Ruth Kelly
  The estimated full year yield from restricting income tax relief on pension contributions by employees and the self-employed in 2001–02 is £1.7 billion, and on contributions by employers £2.6 billion. These estimates take no account of the behavioural effects which are likely to result from such changes.

  Secondments
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff were seconded between(a) PWC Consulting and PricewaterhouseCoopers,(b) Ernst & Young, (c) Deloitte & Touche, (d) KPMG and (e) Andersen and his Department in (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) April 2001 to the latest date for which figures are available. [33871]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Deputy Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) on 26 February 2002.

  Public Service Agreements
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which units in the Treasury are responsible for monitoring public service agreements; how many people they each employ; and if he will make a statement. [37067]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The 13 teams and one central team in the Treasury with responsibility for departmental expenditure policies also monitor public service agreements. There are around 180 staff in these teams, though not all the people concerned have responsibility for PSA monitoring.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his Department holds a record of the performance of each Government Department against their public service agreement targets; and if he will make a statement. [37068]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Yes. Departments report publicly against their PSA targets in their departmental reports.

  Standing Committee on Euro Preparations
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 14 February 2002,Official Report, column 589W, on the Standing Committee on Euro Preparations, if he will place the membership list of the working groups working with the Standing Committee in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [38312]

  Ruth Kelly
  The organisation and membership of working groups working with the Chancellor's Standing Committee on Euro Preparations were listed in the second Outline National Changeover Plan, published in March 2000. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  ECOFIN (Scottish Administration)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason no devolved Administration Minister attended the 2407 European Union Council of Ministers (ECOFIN) meeting on 12 February; what suggestions and matters of concern from the Scottish Executive were raised in their absence by the UK Government delegation; and what information and evidence is being provided by him to permit post-council scrutiny by the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament. [38036]

  Ruth Kelly
  Ministers from the devolved Administrations attend Council meetings whenever appropriate. Decisions on attendance are taken by the lead UK Minister on a case-by-case basis.

  The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, under the Scotland Act 1998, fiscal, economic and monetary policy—in other words matters dealt with by ECOFIN Council—is reserved for Westminster. As such, parliamentary scrutiny is achieved through the Commons European Scrutiny Committee—of which the hon. Gentleman is a member—and through the House of Lords European Union Committee.

  Company Cars
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many company car drivers whose employers have supplied the Inland Revenue with correct information have been issued with incorrectly calculated coding notices in the last 12 months; [37844]

  (2) how many renewal coding notices the Inland Revenue plans to issue to company car drivers before 30 March. [37845]

  Mr. Boateng
  The recent problems which have led to some individuals' car benefit figure for 2002–03 being calculated are the only known instance where information properly submitted by employers has not been correctly used to calculate coding notices. We believe that up to 280,000 cases are affected. In all cases the Revenue will send a correct coding notice before the start of the tax year.

  As at the end of December, the Inland Revenue had not received the relevant information for approximately 1.2 million company car drivers and therefore had to estimate the amount of car benefit for 2002–03. By early March all of those taxpayers will have received a leaflet asking for the necessary information to correctly calculate
  1330W
  their tax code. The number of these revised coding notices issued before the new tax year will depend upon the rate of response to the requests.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what evidence he has collated on whether the changes to company car taxation due to come into force on 6 April have influenced companies' choices of cars. [37846]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Inland Revenue will comprehensively evaluate the effects of the changes to company car taxation applying from 6 April. The Revenue will begin this evaluation after the changes have been introduced, and the work will include an assessment of the effects on employers' and employees' choices of cars.

  Coalition Against Terrorism
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the cost to the United Kingdom of the coalition against terrorism; and what estimate has been made of its future and continuing costs. [34818]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have been asked to reply.

  Additional operating costs up to the end of December 2001 were £65.3 million.

  As was announced yesterday as part of our presentation of spring Supplementary Estimates to the House, we estimate the total cost of operations in Afghanistan up to the end of March 2002 to be some £261 million. This figure includes the cost of munitions consumed and represents the additional cost of operations over and above the cost of planned activities.

  We constantly review our continuing commitment and will inform Parliament of our initial estimate for 2002–03 as early in the financial year as we can. As announced yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has already agreed to provide a further £55 million for urgent operational requirements. This is in addition to the £100 million announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his pre-Budget statement on 27 November 2001.

  Vehicle Seizures
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many vehicles were seized by HM Customs and Excise in the past 12 months; what the comparable figures were in each of the previous three years; and what the total value of the items seized from persons and vehicles at the borders with France in the past 12 months was. [38331]

  Dawn Primarolo
  For the number of vehicles seized across the whole of the UK in 1997–98, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 18 June 1998,Official Report, column 274. For the number of vehicles seized across the UK in 1998–99 and 1999–2000 I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 15 January 2001, Official Report, column 124W. Figures for the number of vehicles seized by Customs across the UK during 2000–01 are contained in the Government's response to the independent report by John Rogues into "The Collection of Excise Duties in HM Customs and Excise" (House of commons command 5329, July 2001), a copy of which was placed in the Library on 19 July 2001.
  1331w
  Customs do not centrally retain figures on the value of goods and vehicles seized at the borders with France.

  Bankruptcy
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will examine what recompense exists for those people who have recently declared bankrupt who have been offered further credit by organisations in the knowledge that they are dealing with bankrupts. [37613]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 26 February 2002]: I have been asked to reply.

  No recompense is available to bankrupts simple as a result of being offered credit by organisations in the knowledge that they are dealing with bankrupts. A bankrupt is guilty of an offence if, either alone or jointly with any other person, he obtains credit to the extent of the prescribed amount (currently £250 or more) without informing the person from whom the credit is obtained of his bankrupt status. If credit is obtained after disclosure of the relevant information no offence is committed.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what safeguards exist to protect people in the process of being declared bankrupt from being harassed by money-lending organisations. [37612]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 26 February 2002]: I have been asked to reply.

  At any time after a bankruptcy petition has been presented or a bankruptcy order has been made the court can impose a stay on any action or legal process against the property or person of the debtor. After a bankruptcy order has been made no creditor has any remedy against the property or person of the debtor in respect of a debt provable in the bankruptcy. There is nothing to prevent the offering of loans to people in such financial difficulty.

  Finance (No. 2) Act
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library the studies that his Department has undertaken of the efficacy of sections 42 and 48 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1997; and if he will make a statement. [38115]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Film production benefits comprise two accelerated tax reliefs, section 42 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1992 and section 48 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1997. The Inland Revenue is currently evaluating their efficacy in stimulating additional film production.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the Exchequer cost of sections 42 and 48 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1997 for the three fiscal years from April 2002; and if he will make a statement. [38114]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Film production benefits from two accelerated tax reliefs, section 42 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1992 and Section 48 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1997. The estimated tax cost of relief provided to British 1332W
  qualifying films under section 48 is £85 million for films produced in 1999–2000. Section 48 was extended for a period of three years in Finance Act 2001 and the tax cost of the relief for films was estimated at an average of £90 million a year to 2004–05. The tax cost of section 42 relief is estimated to be an additional £70 million a year.

  Self-assessment
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 31 October 2000,Official Report, column 412W, on tax returns and the internet, for each month since 1 July 2001 how many self-assessment tax returns were (a) issued, (b) received,(c) waiting to be processed and (d) processed; and if he will make a statement. [38308]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The statistical data requested are as follows:

  Tax year 2000–01

  Self-assessment income tax returns

  Date

  Issued

  Received

  Processed

  Waiting to be processed

  1 July 2001

  8,940,513

  1,323,115

  864,497

  458,618

  29 July 2001

  8,990,292

  1,943,901

  1,350,597

  593,304

  2 September 2001

  8,989,043

  2,798,153

  1,966,795

  831,358

  30 September 2001

  9,152,255

  4,241,952

  2,677,145

  1,564,807

  4 November 2001

  8,842,560

  4,682,767

  3,421,658

  1,261,109

  2 December 2001

  9,360,099

  5,383,846

  4,436,261

  947,585

  30 December 2001

  9,299,623

  5,745,572

  4,839,285

  906,287

  3 February 2002

  9,552,433

  8,362,361

  5,848,319

  2,514,042

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate(a) HM Treasury and (b) Inland Revenue have made of the average time it takes to fill out a self-assessment form; and if he will make a statement. [38264]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue does not have information about the average time it takes to fill out a self-assessment return but we carry out usability testing as part of the development process.

  Betting Taxation
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a list of the companies that responded to the consultation launched on betting taxation in the 2000 Budget; and if he will make a statement. [38118]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government publication "Our Stake in The Future", which was placed in the Library on 7 March 2001, contains a list of the respondents.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Senior Lawyers
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General what percentage of time was spent by senior lawyers in(a) administration and management and (b) considering cases and advocacy in the latest year for which figures are available. [35949]
  1333W
  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 14 February 2002]: The CPS does not collect data on the time individual senior lawyers spend on administrative and management functions and on file review and advocacy duties.

  The CPS is implementing the recommendations of Sir lain Glidewell in his review of the CPS published in 1998 and is well advanced in setting up a new organisational structure based on Criminal Justice Units and Trial Units. A senior lawyer supported by a business manager heads each of these operational units. This mirrors the relationship at area level between the Chief Crown Prosecutor and the Area Business Manager, and at national level between the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Chief Executive. The role of the business manager is to manage the unit's administrative and business processes, thus releasing the senior lawyer to focus on a personal portfolio of the more serious cases, leadership, criminal justice liaison and line management of the prosecutors in the unit.

  Training from April 2001—present

  Status

  Course title

  Duration(days)

  Target Group

  Provider

  Numbers Trained

  Regional

  Development

  Selection Interviewing

  4

  Selection panellists (B1 or above)

  CPS

  91

  Development

  Business Writing Skills

  1

  Administrative staff

  Plain Language Commission

  30

  Development

  Completing Application Forms

  0.5

  All staff

  CPS

  43

  Development

  Effective Communication

  —

  All

  CPS

  52

  Development

  Job Holder Awareness

  —

  New staff

  CPS

  95

  Development

  EFQM

  —

  Unit heads and service centre managers

  —

  50

  National

  Development

  Diversity

  1 or 2

  All staff

  Ionan

  4,500

  Development

  Influencing and Negotiation Skills

  2

  ABMs/senior managers

  JSB

  30

  Development

  Project Management

  2

  ABMs/senior managers

  Invicta Training

  60

  Regional

  Legal

  Firearms

  —

  Lawyers

  CPS

  11

  Legal

  Advocacy

  —

  Lawyers

  CPS

  81

  Legal

  Homicide

  2

  Lawyers

  CPS

  23

  Legal

  Drafting Indictments

  2

  Lawyers and caseworkers

  CPS

  36

  Legal

  Handling Complaints Against the Police

  —

  Lawyers

  CPS

  16

  Legal

  Identification

  —

  Lawyers

  CPS

  70

  Legal

  RIPA

  —

  Lawyers

  CPS

  24

  Legal

  Misuse of Drugs

  —

  Lawyers

  CPS

  28

  Legal

  Disclosure

  —

  Lawyers

  CPS

  100

  Legal

  Fraud

  —

  Lawyers

  CPS

  19

  Legal

  Child Abuse

  —

  Lawyers

  CPS

  20

  Legal

  ECHR

  —

  Lawyers

  CPS

  84

  Legal

  Victim and Witness Care

  1 or 0.5

  Casework and administrative Staff

  CPS

  16

  National

  Legal

  Legal Trainee Scheme

  —

  —

  Compulsory courses—several providers including LPS, Inns of Court and Central Law Training

  34

  Legal

  Youth Offenders

  2

  Lawyers—youth specialists

  CPS Lawyer tutors

  464

  Legal

  Higher Court Advocacy

  6

  Barristers/Lawyers

  Assessed by Nottingham Law School (CPS Tutors)

  7

  Legal

  Graduated Fees

  2

  All Lawyers and caseworkers

  CPS

  523

  Legal

  Direct Communication with Victims and Witnesses

  3

  Lawyers and Victim Information Bureau staff

  CPS and Focus Consultancy trainers

  983

  Regional

  Management

  Disciplinary Handling

  2

  All Managers

  CPS

  86

  Management

  Managing Attendance

  1

  All Managers

  CPS

  114

  Management

  Introductory Management

  —

  New Managers

  CPS

  72

  Management

  Managing Performance Indicators

  —

  Managers

  CPS

  103

  Management

  Handling Complaints of Discrimination

  1

  Managers

  CPS

  40

  Management

  Manager as Developer

  —

  Managers

  CPS

  24

  Management

  Case Management Plans

  —

  Managers

  CPS

  18

  Management

  Performance Appraisal Reporting

  3

  All Managers

  CPS

  98

  CPS Staff (Training)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will list the training programmes available for CPS staff indicating the latest participation rates; which training providers are used; and if they are quality assured. [35945]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 14 February 2002]: The range and providers of training programmes available to CPS staff and the numbers who have attended are shown in the table. The numbers trained are for the current year, from April 2001 to the date of preparation of this answer (26 February 2002).

  Where external providers supply training, quality is monitored throughout the duration of the programme by means of evaluation reports and observation of the external providers by CPS Training and Development Managers or internal project managers. Regular meetings are held with the providers to discuss quality issues as they arise and all tutors are required to provide a CV and references prior to being engaged.
  1335

  Training from April 2001—present

  Status

  Course title

  Duration (days)

  Target Group

  Provider

  Numbers Trained

  National

  Management

  Employment Law

  1

  Area Business Managers/Senior Managers

  JSB

  65

  Management

  Performance Management

  2

  Senior Managers

  CPS Training

  242

  Management

  Managing and Leading Change

  3

  Unit Heads

  Actors in Management/Consultant

  53

  Management

  Leadership Development Programme

  5

  Chief Crown Prosecutors

  Ashridge Business College

  47

  Regional

  Vocational

  Induction

  —

  New staff

  CPS

  229

  Vocational

  Training for Trainers

  —

  —

  CPS

  91

  Vocational

  Welsh Language

  —

  Lawyers

  CPS

  8

  Vocational

  Manual Handling

  —

  Facilities staff

  CPS

  19

  National

  Vocational

  Resource Accounting

  —

  Area Business Managers and Finance Staff

  CMPS

  1—

  Vocational

  Induction—Lawyers and caseworkers

  —

  All new Lawyers and caseworkers

  CPS

  400

  Vocational

  Certificate in Criminal Prosecution

  Distance Learning

  New casework staff

  ILEX Tutorial College

  455

  Vocational

  Diploma in Criminal Prosecution

  Distance Learning

  Experienced casework staff

  ILEX Tutorial College

  72

  Vocational

  Stress Management—Dealing with Traumatic Cases

  —

  Lawyers/Caseworkers

  Margaret Sharp (Qualified Psychologist)

  30

  Vocational

  Designated Caseworker

  10

  Internal selection

  CPS Lawyer tutors; assessment by the College of Law

  32

  Vocational

  IiP Internal Assessors Workshop

  2

  Training Managers and service centre staff

  Crane Davies/The Development Partnership

  40

  1 Figure unavailable

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General how often members of the Crown Prosecution Service have met the family of someone killed as a result of a crime to explain their decision on prosecution, broken down by region, in each year since the inception of this initiative. [37071]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 25 February 2002]: One of the responsibilities of the Crown Prosecution Service under the current Victims' Charter, published 1996, is to meet on request the family of someone killed as a result of a crime, to explain decisions about prosecutions.

  The figures for the number of such meetings held are collated each year and published in the Crown Prosecution Service's Annual Report. They are also submitted annually to the inter-agency Victims' Steering Group, which is charged with monitoring the Charter Standards for which the respective criminal justice agencies are responsible. Monitoring of the Charter Standards began in 1997.

  In 1997–98, the Crown Prosecution Service records show that 100 per cent. of requests for meetings were granted. However, further statistics for that period are not available.

  In the following year, 83 requests were received and all were granted. All meetings were held, with the exception of one which was cancelled at the request of the victim's family.

  In 1999–2000, 102 requests were received and 101 granted, and meetings held in all these cases. One request was refused as the person making the request was a pivotal prosecution witness in two related cases that were ongoing, and it was not considered that a meeting would be appropriate.
  1336W
  In 2000–01, 118 requests were received, all of which were granted, and all meetings were held.

  Figures for 2001–02 are not yet available but will be published in the forthcoming Annual Report.

  A breakdown of the figures by area is as follows:

  Victim's Charter monitoring—standard 9 1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999

  Area

  Requests for interview

  Number granted

  Avon and Somerset

  0

  0

  Bedfordshire

  3

  3

  Cambridgeshire

  2

  2

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  Cleveland

  2

  2

  Cumbria

  0

  0

  Derbyshire

  3

  3

  Devon and Cornwall

  1

  1

  Dorset

  0

  0

  Durham

  0

  0

  Dyfed Powys

  1

  1

  Essex

  3

  3

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  Greater Manchester

  9

  9

  Gwent

  1

  1

  Hampshire

  0

  0

  Hertfordshire

  2

  2

  Humber

  0

  0

  Kent

  1

  1

  Lancashire

  3

  3

  Leicestershire

  2

  2

  Lincolnshire

  1

  1

  London

  11

  11

  Merseyside

  2

  2

  Norfolk

  3

  3

  Northamptonshire

  0

  0

  North Wales

  0

  0

  North Yorkshire

  3

  3

  Northumbria

  4

  4

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  South Wales

  1

  1

  South Yorkshire

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  See entry for West Midlands

  Suffolk

  0

  0

  Surrey

  0

  0

  1337W

  Victim's Charter monitoring—standard 9 1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999

  Area

  Requests for interview

  Number granted

  Sussex

  7

  7

  Thames Valley

  6

  6

  Warwickshire

  0

  0

  West Mercia

  5

  5

  West Midlands

  1

  1

  West Yorkshire

  4

  4

  Wiltshire

  1

  1

  Central Casework

  1

  1

  Total

  83

  83

  1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000

  Area

  Requests for interview

  Number granted

  Avon and Somerset

  4

  4

  Bedfordshire

  6

  6

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  1

  Cheshire

  4

  4

  Cleveland

  2

  2

  Cumbria

  0

  0

  Derbyshire

  1

  1

  Devon and Cornwall

  1

  1

  Dorset

  0

  0

  Durham

  1

  1

  Dyfed Powys

  3

  3

  Essex

  0

  0

  Gloucestershire

  7

  7

  Greater Manchester

  8

  8

  Gwent

  1

  1

  Hampshire

  1

  1

  Hertfordshire

  3

  3

  Humber

  0

  0

  Kent

  1

  1

  Lancashire

  2

  2

  Leicestershire

  6

  6

  Lincolnshire

  1

  1

  London

  9

  9

  Merseyside

  4

  4

  Norfolk

  1

  1

  Northamptonshire

  3

  3

  North Wales

  6

  6

  North Yorkshire

  0

  0

  Northumbria

  1

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  1

  1

  South Wales

  0

  0

  South Yorkshire

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  2

  2

  Suffolk

  2

  2

  Surrey

  1

  1

  Sussex

  7

  6

  Thames Valley

  2

  2

  Warwickshire

  1

  1

  West Mercia

  4

  3

  West Midlands

  1

  1

  West Yorkshire

  1

  1

  Wiltshire

  1

  1

  Central Casework

  3

  3

  Total

  102

  101

  1338W

  1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001

  Area

  Requests for interview

  Number granted

  Avon and Somerset

  1

  1

  Bedfordshire

  4

  4

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  1

  Cheshire

  3

  3

  Cleveland

  3

  3

  Cumbria

  0

  0

  Derbyshire

  1

  1

  Devon and Cornwall

  3

  3

  Dorset

  1

  1

  Durham

  3

  3

  Dyfed Powys

  2

  2

  Essex

  2

  2

  Gloucestershire

  3

  3

  Greater Manchester

  2

  2

  Gwent

  3

  3

  Hampshire

  3

  3

  Hertfordshire

  4

  4

  Humber

  0

  0

  Kent

  2

  2

  Lancashire

  2

  2

  Leicestershire

  4

  4

  Lincolnshire

  2

  2

  London

  7

  7

  Merseyside

  6

  6

  Norfolk

  1

  1

  Northamptonshire

  4

  4

  North Wales

  4

  4

  North Yorkshire

  1

  1

  Northumbria

  5

  5

  Nottinghamshire

  2

  2

  South Wales

  3

  3

  South Yorkshire

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  2

  2

  Suffolk

  4

  4

  Surrey

  6

  6

  Sussex

  0

  0

  Thames Valley

  8

  8

  Warwickshire

  0

  0

  West Mercia

  5

  5

  West Midlands

  0

  0

  West Yorkshire

  5

  5

  Wiltshire

  1

  1

  Central Casework

  5

  5

  Total

  118

  118

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General what quality standards each Crown Prosecution Service region supports; and when registration was obtained. [35951]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 14 February 2002]: The CPS supports the Investment in People quality standard.

  All CPS areas apart from CPS London, and HQ Directorates have been recognised as meeting the Investors in People quality standard for training and development of employees.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Correspondence
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) when she will reply to the correspondence from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed dated(a) 2 May and 18 July relating to representations from McCreath, Simpson and Prentice Ltd., (b) 25 May and 17 July relating to representations from Mr. Lindsay of Anglo-Scottish Pest Control and (c) 23 May and 17 July relating to Mr. Walton on the loss of income from grass park letting; [7265]

  (2) pursuant to the Under-Secretary's holding reply of 15 October 2001, when she will reply to the letters relating to representations from (a) Mr. Lindsay of Anglo-Scottish Pest Control dated 25 May and 17 July and (b) McCreath, Simpson and Prentice Ltd. dated 2 May and 18 July. [20204]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 15 October and 3 December 2001]: A response to the right hon. Member's letters of 2 May and 18 July was sent on 6 February 2002, to letters of 25 May and 17 July on 29 November 2001, and to letters of 23 May and 17 July on 1 January 2002.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letter of 25 July from the hon. Member for North Shropshire concerning the importing of BSE via cattle from Poland. [12636]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: A response to the hon. Member's letter of 2 (not 25) July 2001 was sent on 5 February 2002.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the statutory instruments issued by her Department in the last 12 months, indicating(a) the purpose of each and (b) the cost of each to (i) public funds, (ii) businesses and (iii) individuals. [36223]

  Mr. Morley
  In the 2001 calendar year, DEFRA/MAFF has made 526 Statutory instruments (SIs). A full list and purpose of each instrument is available through the HMSO SI registrar, which can be found at (siregistrar@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk).

  Due to the very large number of SIs made, the breakdown of individual purposes and costings could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Regulatory Impact Assessments for regulations imposing a cost or benefit are published on the Department's website and are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list for 1997–98 and each subsequent financial year the amount spent by(a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its non-departmental public bodies in respect of hotel and other similar privately-provided accommodation (i) in the UK and (ii) abroad for (A) Ministers, (B) staff and (C) other persons; if she will list the proportion of this cost incurred in respect of (x) food and (y) alcohol in
  1340W
  each case; and if she will list the average cost per hotel room or similar unit of accommodation provided in each case. [34388]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has only been in existence since June 2001, so does not have such historical information. Producing figures for the current year to the level of detail required would involve disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list for 1997–98 and for each subsequent financial year, including the current year to date, the amount spent by(a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its non-departmental public bodies on (i) food and (ii) alcohol, indicating how much was spent on guests, and how much in respect of (A) Ministers and (B) staff, broken down to show how much was provided directly by her Department and how much reclaimed. [34463]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has only been in existence since June 2001, so does not have such historical information. Producing figures for the current year to the level of detail required would involve disproportionate cost.

  Peat Extraction
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she is taking to protect lowland raised bog habitats at Thorne and Hatfield Moors in South Yorkshire and Wedholme Flow in Cumbria. [39454]

  Mr. Meacher
  I confirmed this morning that terms have been agreed to cease large-scale commercial peat working at Thorne Moor and Wedholme immediately and to phase it out over the next three years at Hatfield Moor. This has been achieved as a consequence of negotiations between English Nature and the major operator on the sites, Scotts Ltd. Upon satisfactory completion of contract Government will provide £17.3 million to English Nature to buy out existing peat extraction consents and to buy the sites. The arrangements include measures to safeguard employment and to re-deploy effort towards restoration of the sites and the development of peat alternatives.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many organic farms there were in each constituency in each year since 1990. [34872]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: We do not hold the information requested. However, statistics showing the growth of organic production in the UK since 1993, by land area and number of holdings and a list of individual producers, processors and importers of organic products are being made available to the Libraries of the House.

  Environmental Sustainability
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what steps she proposes to take to improve Britain's ranking on the World Economic Forum's Environmental Sustainability Index; [37272]
  1341W
  (2) if she will make a statement on the recent report of the World Economic Forum on Environmental Sustainability and its findings relating to the UK. [37708]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 26 February 20021: In its Strategy for sustainable development for the UK, 'A better quality of life' published in 1999, the Government established 15 headline indicators (and a core set of around 135 indicators) to measure progress towards sustainable development by the country as a whole. The first review, 'Achieving a better quality of life', Government annual report 2000, was published in January 2001 and the second annual review will be published shortly. Looked at as a set, the 15 headline indicators can be seen as a "Quality of life barometer".

  The Government decided against aggregating indicators along the lines of the World Economic Forum's Environmental Sustainability Index. Such indices may be useful as tools to raise awareness but their choice of components, and the way in which they are weighted together, is largely subjective. A different choice of components, or of weights, would give wholly different results and hence the resulting measures are potentially misleading. This is aptly illustrated by the fact that the World Economic Forum's choice of components last year resulted in the UK being ranked 16th in the world in the same Index, as opposed to 91st this year.

  The Government believe that the headline indicators established by the 1999 Strategy present an alternative, more transparent and comprehensive picture than any aggregated measure.

  Job Sharing
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many people are employed in her Department on a job share contract; and what percentage of vacant positions was advertised on this basis in the last 12 months. [35359]

  Mr. Morley
  There are currently 83 people employed in DEFRA on job share contract. Although vacant positions are not generally advertised on such a specific basis, applications are always welcomed from those wishing to work on a part-time or job share basis. It is departmental policy, as an equal opportunity employer, to meet requests for all types of flexible working, including part-time working and job sharing, wherever the nature of the work allows.

  Greenhouse Gas Emissions
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to what extent Government Departments have achieved the target of a 1 per cent. per annum reduction in greenhouse gas emissions against the 1990–2000 levels. [36003]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government have set the following target: "all departments to contribute towards the Government Estate target of a 1% p.a. on-going reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from buildings". The data for the first year to which the target applies (2000–01) are not yet available, but I will make the data available as soon as possible.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what is the(a) location and (b) number of CHP units operating on the Government estate, broken down by the different fuel used within these units. [36004]

  Mr. Meacher
  There are four combined heat and power installations on the Government Civil Estate in England, which are all gas fired. They are located at:

  Whitehall District Heating Scheme, (based in MOD) Whitehall, London;

  Ashdown House, London;

  Eland House, London; and

  Veterinary Laboratories Agency, Weybridge, Surrey.

  There are also 10 gas fired CHP installations at UK RAF stations.

  The Department for Education and Skills building at Moorfoot, Sheffield, is connected to the Sheffield heat and power network which uses the municipal waste incinerator as its source of energy.

  Investigations are currently in progress covering the utilisation of CHP technology for a number of other buildings. This could be either by installing CHP units or joining existing heat networks. Progress is partly dependent upon the expiry date for their current energy contracts.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what the estimated operational costs are for the Department's quality assessment programme for combined heat and power in financial year 2001–02; [37707]

  (2) what costs were incurred in setting up her Department's quality assessment programme for combined heat and power to 31 March 2001. [37706]

  Mr. Meacher
  The costs incurred in setting up and running the combined heat and power quality assurance programme (CHPQA) to 31 March 2001 was around £765,000. The anticipated operational costs of the CHPQA for 2001–02 is around £625,000.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many overseas visits have been undertaken by parliamentary private secretaries in her Department at departmental expense in each of the last four years; and at what cost to public funds. [36812]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 25 February 2002]: Since the creation of DEFRA on 8 June 2001, no overseas visits have been undertaken by parliamentary private secretaries at departmental expense.

  Waste
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much Greater London waste has been recycled in each of the last three years. [37114]
  1343W
  Mr. Meacher
  Based on estimates from the Department's Municipal Waste Management Survey, the amounts of municipal waste collected for recycling or composting in Greater London are listed:

  Year

  Thousand tonnes

  1997–98

  237,000

  1998–99

  273,000

  1999–2000

  383,000

  Note:

  2000–01 data are currently being collected from local authorities.

  Information, including the amounts of industrial and commercial waste, for Greater London is published in Strategic Waste Management Assessment 2000: London, Environment Agency. Data are available for one year only and based on estimates from the Environment Agency's National Waste Production Survey.

  Industrial and commercial waste 1998

  Waste management method

  Thousand tonnes

  Land recovery

  52,000

  Re-used

  90,000

  Recycled

  2,364,000

  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made in the reduction of London's municipal waste by 3.7 million tonnes by 2020. [37719]

  Mr. Meacher
  The latest available figures, from the Department's municipal waste management survey, indicate that London produced approximately 4.4 million tonnes of municipal waste in 1999/2000. This figure was approximately 3.8 million tonnes in 1996/97, 4 million tonnes in 1997/98 and 4.1 million tonnes in 1998/99. 2000/01 data are currently being collated from local authorities.

  It is of course up to individual waste authorities to promote waste minimisation and to develop minimisation schemes. However, I understand that the Mayor's municipal waste management strategy for London (currently in draft form) recognises this problem of growth in waste and emphasises the importance of reducing the amount of waste London produces.

  The Government encourage all waste authorities to reduce the amount of waste produced and waste minimisation is at the top of the waste hierarchy, as set out in the Government's Waste Strategy 2000.

  The spending review 2000 provided a ring-fenced grant of £140 million, for two years, for local authority waste management and this funding will be targeted at recycling and minimisation schemes. The Government have consulted on the method for distribution of this fund and responses to the consultation are currently being considered. I will be making an announcement on the final structure of the fund shortly.

  The new opportunities fund has also set aside £49.5 million of lottery money for community sector waste minimisation, reuse and recycling programmes in the UK.
  1344W
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what progress has been made towards greater self-sufficiency in dealing with London's waste; [37721]

  (2) what plans are in place to minimise the transportation of waste in London. [37720]

  Mr. Meacher
  It is for individual waste authorities to determine how and where their waste is disposed of. At present, much of London's waste is transported outside London for disposal at landfill sites. However, I understand that the Mayor's Municipal Waste Management Strategy (currently in draft form) proposed to address this issue, by looking at the current waste disposal facilities in London, and assessing what new facilities are required, with the aim of greater self-sufficiency for London in relation to waste, and maximised recycling and composting.

  Greater self-sufficiency and increased recycling and composting will mean that less waste needs to be transported outside London. Where waste does need to be transported, the Mayor's draft strategy proposes to encourage the use of environmentally friendly modes of transport, such as rail, river and canal.

  The Government's Waste Strategy 2000 stressed the importance of waste being dealt with as close to its source as possible. All waste authorities are encouraged to take this 'proximity principle' into account and to reduce transportation of waste, wherever possible, when developing their municipal waste management strategies.

  In March 2001 the then DETR issued Guidance on Municipal Waste Management Strategies to all local authorities. This advised that opportunities for using forms of transport other than road haulage be considered by authorities. This guidance also made authorities aware of the Freight Grant schemes, administered by DTLR, which aim to encourage the use of inland waterways and maritime freight, as opposed to road transport.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent research her Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the extent to which local recycling initiatives are affected by the expansion of the waste incineration industry. [35395]

  Mr. Meacher
  The department has not commissioned such research. Local authorities have a responsibility to plan waste treatment and disposal. Waste Strategy 2000 set targets for recycling and composting of household waste in England and Wales, and in March 2001 we introduced statutory performance standards for local authorities in England.

  Where a local authority or company proposes a waste incineration facility, our policy is that it should be small enough that it does not act as a disincentive to increased recycling, and should not undermine the achievement of the statutory recycling targets that have been allocated.

  Under the guidance we issued in September 2000 for Private Finance Initiative projects, proposals which include incineration must also demonstrate that all opportunities for recycling have been considered first, and that the arrangements proposed will not produce a barrier to the longer term development of recycling.

  Veterinary Service
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to increase the size of the State Veterinary Service. [37476]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 26 February 2002]: The Government are determined to ensure that the State Veterinary Service (SVS) has the ability to operate with maximum efficiency and be able to respond rapidly to any emergency. As from 3 December 2001 the Chief Veterinary Officer, as Director General of Animal Health and Welfare, has taken command of the Veterinary Policy Unit, together with the Animal Health Group and the TSE Directorate. The SVS Field Service has transferred to the command of the Director General of Operations and Service Delivery.

  The Structure of the SVS Field Service is currently the same as in July 2001 but we are in the process of creating a new Animal Health Divisional Office at Newcastle. This will bring the total number of Animal Health Divisions to 24.

  We have recently appointed 36 new permanent veterinary staff and further appointments are in the pipeline which will bring the SVS up to its full complement of veterinary staff.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much is owed by her Department to auctioneers and valuers in Scotland in respect of work undertaken in controlling and compensating FMD losses; and if she will make a statement. [36745]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 25 February 2002]: There have been no further developments since the reply I gave the hon. Member on 17 December 2001, Official Report, column 146W.

  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list those landfill sites used for(a) carcase disposal and (b) ash disposal following the foot and mouth outbreak; if she will list those sites where carcases and ash are to be removed and to where; and what the costs are of this removal and redisposal. [37621]

  Mr. Morley
  From our records 16 landfill sites were used during the 2001 FMD outbreak to dispose of FMD carcases. These are as follows.

  1. Cwmni Gwastraf Mon Afon, Wales

  2. Poplars Landfill, Staffordshire

  3. Distington, Cumbria

  4. Hespin Wood, Cumbria

  5. Flusco, Cumbria

  6. Deep Moor, Devon

  7. Chapmans Well, Durham

  8. Port Clarence, Middlesbrough

  9. Warnham Brickworks, West Sussex

  10. Shakespeare Landfill Site, Isle of Grain, Kent

  11. Withnell, Lancashire

  12. Biffa Waste Disposal, West Midlands

  13. Viridor Waste Management, Wiltshire

  14. Cory Environmental (Glos.) Ltd., Gloucestershire

  1346W

  15. Grundon Waste Ltd., Gloucestershire

  16. Mercia Waste Management Ltd., Worcestershire

  Our records indicate that seven landfill sites have been used to dispose of the ash created from the burning of carcases. These are as follows:

  1. Calvert, Buckinghamshire

  2. Bishops Cleeve, Gloucestershire

  3. Hespin Wood, Cumbria

  4. Lillyhall, Cumbria

  5. Wilnecote Landfill Site, Staffordshire

  6. County Environmental Services Ltd., Cornwall

  7. Roseland "Group" Lean Quarry, Cornwall.

  The Environment Agency has at the vast majority of burn sites given permission for the ash from pyres to be buried on site after an assessment of the risks to controlled waters. Where it is not possible to dispose of it in this way (eg because groundwater conditions are unsuitable and there is a risk of potassium or other leached salts entering surface or groundwater) the ash is being removed. DEFRA has to date removed ash from 160 sites with a further 10-12 sites programmed for removal, at a budgeted cost of £29.5 million.

  According to our records, carcases have been exhumed at two sites in Wales (including the mass burial site at Eppynt). Exhumed carcases were either burnt or rendered. There are no current plans to exhume carcases at other sites.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reason hon. Members have not received a communication from the Lessons Learned foot and mouth inquiry; and if she will make a statement. [36998]

  Mr. Morley
  I understand that the Lessons Learned inquiry has already begun writing to hon. Members whose constituencies form part of its programme of visits to areas of England, Scotland and Wales most affected by the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease. The inquiry Chairman is also extending an invitation to meet these hon. Members after his programme of visits has been completed in April. In addition, I understand the inquiry has offered to meet the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidance is issued by her Department to dairy farmers re-stocking livestock post-foot and mouth disease about the risks of spreading bovine tuberculosis. [37919]

  Mr. Morley
  The Chief Veterinary Officer wrote to all cattle keepers in England in October last year enclosing an advisory leaflet on how to minimise disease risk when restocking and replenishing cattle herds in the aftermath of foot and mouth disease. The leaflet "Golden Rules for a Healthy Herd" (www.defra.gov.uk/footandmouth/farmers/recovery/cattle—restock.asp) set out advice for purchasers and vendors. Among other matters the letter from the Chief Veterinary Officer drew particular attention to tuberculosis in cattle and a specific leaflet "TB in Cattle: Reducing the Risk" (www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb) was also enclosed.
  1364W
  A further leaflet on keeping disease out of farms, "Farm Biosecurity Protecting Herd Health", is also available on the internet (www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb).

  Milk
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the quality and hygiene restrictions imposed on milk imported to this country; what proportion of the imported milk is tested to ensure it complies to these regulations; and what volume of milk has been imported to the UK in each of the last 20 years. [36426]

  Mr. Morley
  All milk and milk products imported into the UK from other EU member states must have been produced in accordance with Community rules. Imports from third countries must have been produced to standards at least equivalent to those. Among other things, the legislation lays down the approval, structural, handling and enforcement requirements to be applied. In line with Community rules, random spot checks at destination may be carried out.

  Consignments of milk and milk products imported from third countries are subject to veterinary inspection on entering the EU to ensure that conditions of import have been complied with and that they have remained in a satisfactory condition during transport. This constitutes a documentary check on all imports from third countries, as well as physical checks on 50 per cent. of these.

  The amount of milk imported into the UK for each year from 1982 is as follows:

  UK imports of milk—1982–2001

  Million litres

  EC

  Non-EC

  1982

  15.10

  0.01

  1983

  22.77

  0.03

  1984

  28.00

  0.02

  1985

  29.33

  0.03

  1986

  34.02

  0.10

  1987

  40.80

  0.10

  1988

  43.17

  —

  1989

  32.06

  —

  1990

  34.13

  —

  1991

  59.26

  0.02

  1992

  121.94

  0.02

  1993

  93.59

  —

  1994

  164.15

  0.19

  1995

  172.83

  0.00

  1996

  119.42

  0.03

  1997

  151.68

  0.00

  1998

  187.31

  —

  1999

  134.43

  0.01

  2000

  122.38

  —

  20011

  85.23

  —

  1 January to November

  Notes:

  1. Data for 1988–2001 refer to 'Milk and Cream of a fat content, by weight not exceeding 6 per cent.'

  2. Data for 1982–87 refer to 'Fresh Milk and Cream (including skimmed and buttermilk, sour milk and cream, whey, kephir and yoghurt)'

  3. As such, data for 1988–2001 and data for 1982–87 are not directly comparable.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the end distribution of milk produced in the 1348W
  UK; and what proportion of milk was sold (a) in supermarkets and (b) on the doorstep in each of the last 20 years. [36427]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department does not collect data for milk sales by outlet. The Dairy Council estimates that around 69 per cent. of household purchases of liquid milk are now made in supermarkets and 23 per cent. from doorstep deliveries. 10 years ago doorstep deliveries accounted for around 61 per cent.

  Farms
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) farms, (b) dairy farms and (c) dairy cows there were in (i) the Ribble Valley and Fulwood constituency, ii) Lancashire, (iii) the North West of England, (iv) Wales and (v) the United Kingdom in each of the last 20 years. [36425]

  Mr. Morley
  Information in respect of the Ribble Valley constituency, Lancashire, the North West Government Office Region and England are contained in the table. Figures for Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland are matters for the devolved authorities.

  Year

  Total Holdings

  'Dairy' type holdings

  Holdings with dairy cows

  Total dairy cows

  (i) Ribble Valley constituency 1

  1990

  1,143

  458

  513

  29,262

  1995

  1,071

  405

  447

  27,584

  2000

  1,096

  299

  343

  24,336

  (ii) Lancashire

  1981

  6,154

  1,984

  2,236

  112,516

  1982

  6,079

  1,903

  2,141

  113,085

  1983

  5,985

  1,890

  2,130

  116,591

  1984

  6,074

  1,890

  2,121

  114,443

  1985

  5,976

  1,790

  2,044

  110,297

  1986

  6,054

  1,753

  1,982

  109,796

  1987

  6,094

  1,661

  1,896

  106,401

  1988

  6,117

  1,571

  1,811

  102,237

  1989

  6,118

  1,495

  1,753

  99,749

  1990

  5,793

  1,524

  1,722

  100,688

  1991

  5,733

  1,426

  1,659

  99,889

  1992

  5,732

  1,367

  1,613

  97,429

  1993

  5,712

  1,286

  1,578

  96,197

  1994

  5,617

  1,373

  1,543

  97,805

  1995

  5,307

  1,314

  1,461

  92,407

  1996

  5,226

  1,286

  1,430

  92,603

  1997

  5,167

  1,238

  1,386

  89,687

  1998

  5,148

  1,181

  1,358

  88,571

  1999

  5,307

  1,119

  1,292

  89,015

  2000

  5,432

  1,025

  1,182

  84,595

  (iii) North West Government Office Region 2

  1981

  19,393

  6,721

  7,527

  432,341

  1982

  19,306

  6,580

  7,328

  441,349

  1983

  19,213

  6,530

  7,307

  454,615

  1984

  19,138

  6,335

  7,224

  445,786

  1985

  19,117

  6,055

  6,999

  429,715

  1986

  19,271

  5,945

  6,837

  431,409

  1987

  19,390

  5,713

  6,620

  421,117

  1988

  19,380

  5,412

  6,363

  404,539

  1989

  19,443

  5,246

  6,175

  400,285

  1990

  18,603

  5,186

  6,036

  400,567

  1991

  18,573

  4,993

  5,928

  396,387

  1992

  18,559

  4,801

  5,757

  385,269

  1993

  18,721

  4,294

  5,624

  383,544

  1349W

  Year

  Total Holdings

  'Dairy' type holdings

  Holdings with dairy cows

  Total dairy cows

  1994

  18,611

  4,744

  5,510

  391,859

  1995

  17,665

  4,554

  5,275

  373,712

  1996

  17,533

  4,449

  5,144

  375,212

  1997

  17,397

  4,241

  4,993

  359,192

  1998

  17,374

  4,058

  4,933

  354,937

  1999

  17,609

  3,904

  4,671

  361,748

  2000

  17,944

  3,630

  4,315

  348,192

  (iv) England

  1981

  155,484

  31,590

  38,589

  2,282,799

  1982

  155,592

  30,908

  37,516

  2,319,587

  1983

  156,036

  30,361

  37,037

  2,368,613

  1984

  153,161

  29,912

  36,150

  2,317,849

  1985

  153,766

  28,300

  34,577

  2,216,073

  1986

  154,735

  27,583

  33,520

  2,208,746

  1987

  155,785

  26,138

  32,010

  2,134,050

  1988

  156,647

  24,747

  30,683

  2,042,530

  1989

  157,393

  23,849

  29,492

  2,008,202

  1990

  150,652

  22,792

  28,755

  1,997,640

  1991

  150,966

  22,701

  27,963

  1,936,316

  1992

  151,718

  21,712

  27,080

  1,871,340

  1993

  153,422

  18,771

  26,460

  1,861,421

  1994

  153,426

  20,579

  25,830

  1,897,024

  1995

  146,112

  19,632

  24,678

  1,809,282

  1996

  145,637

  18,904

  23,798

  1,783,327

  1997

  144,777

  18,007

  22,932

  1,700,250

  1998

  145,093

  17,014

  22,316

  1,642,636

  1999

  147,220

  16,313

  21,326

  1,659,210

  2000

  146,347

  15,126

  19,917

  1,574,779

  1 Parliamentary constituency data are only available for the years 1990, 1995 and 2000.

  2 Cheshire, Cumbria, Greater Manchester, Lancashire and Merseyside.

  Notes:

  1. All data taken from the June Census Agricultural and Horticultural Census; the latest data available are from the June 2000 Census.

  2. Data for England or any region/area within England do not include minor holdings.

  3. A 'dairy' type holding is one where dairying is the predominant activity on the holding.

  Fish Quotas
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment her Department has made of the relationship between quota levels and fish market prices over the past five years. [37948]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department is contributing to an economic research project led by the Sea Fish Industry Authority which is examining the determinants of fish prices and demand at both the quayside and retail levels. This has not yet reported, although the results of the quayside phase are due to be published soon. What is clear at this stage however is that, because of the global nature of the markets for some important species, there is often no simple relationship between local catch levels and market prices.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the relevant information concerning the Shetland and Orkney fish quota leasing schemes has been submitted to the European Commission; and for what reasons there has been a delay in provision of the information. [37927]
  1350W
  Mr. Morley
  The Commission announced an investigation into the Shetland and Orkney fish quota leasing schemes on 28 November 2001. Following an extension, granted by the Commission, of a month to the original deadline information from the Islands' Councils was provided in time to meet the 6 February deadline. Meanwhile the Commission on 12 February invited interested parties to comment within a month on the investigation.

  Warm Front Scheme
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recognised training is available for those wishing to provide energy advice to householders; what level of training is provided for those giving advice under the Warm Front scheme; and what recommendations her Department makes as to appropriate training of these individuals. [36563]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Energy Saving Trust is an independent body grant funded by Government to promote the sustainable and efficient use of energy in the domestic and small business sectors. The trust's national network of Energy Efficient Advice Centres provides advice on domestic efficiency issues. All staff who provide advice are required to have passed either City and Guilds Energy Awareness (6176), have a National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) in energy efficiency or two years' relevant experience.

  The Government's main programme for tackling fuel poverty in the private sector in England is the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES), now marketed as the Warm Front Team. Two scheme managers, Eaga Partnership and TXU Warm Front Ltd., are responsible for administering HEES.

  The Department stipulates that the scheme managers' energy efficiency advisers are trained to at least City and Guilds Energy Awareness (6176). Eaga Partnership's advisers are City and Guilds trained. TXU Warm Front Ltd.'s energy advisers are certified by the independent National Home Energy Rating Assessment Board.

  Animal Health
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what consultations she has had on the introduction of new animal health legislation; and if she will make a statement. [37489]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department consults with a wide range of stakeholders and interested parties on animal health legislation. For example, the rules covering the new Interim Animal Movements Regime were extensively discussed with a stakeholders group and representatives of individual organisations, prior to secondary legislation being introduced. All formal consultation exercises carried out by the Department are listed on the DEFRA website, including details of current consultations on, for example, the implementation of powers in the Animal Health Bill and a proposal for an Animal Welfare Bill.

  Veterinary Practice
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to introduce further legislation to govern veterinary practice. [37488]
  1351W
  Mr. Morley
  The Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 requires modernising; preliminary discussions have taken place, between DEFRA officials and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, on drafting a new Act to regulate the veterinary profession, but the discussions are still at a very early stage.

  In the interim we are progressing with amendments to the Act which would: (i) permit certain procedures currently reserved to veterinary surgeons to be delegated to fully trained and competent para-professionals; and (ii) allow veterinary nurses, and student veterinary nurses under supervision, to carry out medical treatment and minor surgery on all species of animals.

  Fisheries Agreement
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will place a copy of the evaluation report on the fisheries agreement between the EU and Mauritania in the Library. [36074]

  Mr. Morley
  The evaluation report on the fisheries agreement between the EU and Mauritania is a European Commission paper which is not in the public domain. It is not therefore within our power to make this document public. However, I have asked the UK Permanent Representation in Brussels to make inquiries to see if it can be made public.

  Ministerial Boxes
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by what means ministerial boxes are conveyed from private offices in her Department to(a) herself and (b) her 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. [36273]

  Mr. Morley
  Ministerial boxes originating from this Department are transported to Ministers' homes either by Government car or by a service provided by the Royal Mail.

  Flood Defences
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations she has received on her proposals to improve flood defences. [37631]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency has asked the Government to recognise and commit to meeting the need for a significant further increase in funding on a planned basis to (a) improve flood warnings and (b) maintain and improve the overall standard and extent of flood defence. This will be considered through the Spending Review 2002 process. Current plans are for this Department's spending on flood and coastal defences for all operating authorities to increase from last year's outturn of £66 million to £114 million in 2003–04.

  Representations have also been received about the methodology governing the economic appraisal of flood defence works. The current methodology will be subject to review in the light of such initiatives as on-going DEFRA research into the impact of flooding on people, the Institution of Civil Engineers' report entitled "Learning to Live with Rivers" and the agency's report
  1352W
  on the appraisal of flood defence works which I received recently. This report was undertaken following the Lessons Learned report on the autumn 2000 floods which outlined the agency's concerns about the process for making investment decisions. We are consulting more widely on its conclusions.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish the list of the 100 communities referred to on 21 December 2001 by the Chairman of the Environment Agency as not being cost effective to provide with protection against flooding; what action she has taken to communicate this information to the residents, local authorities and other bodies in those communities; and what steps her Department has taken since 21 December 2001 to urge the Environment Agency to provide flood defence schemes to those communities. [34685]

  Mr. Morley
  This Department has policy responsibility for flood management in England and provides grants for capital works that meet economic, technical and environmental criteria and achieve an appropriate priority score. Operational responsibility rests with the Environment Agency, local authorities and internal drainage boards who decide which works to promote and their timing. I have encouraged those operating authorities to consider action for areas of the country at highest risk from flooding and coastal erosion. Both DEFRA and the operating authorities have a responsibility to all taxpayers to ensure that value for money is obtained when funding works.

  The Environment Agency in its Lessons Learned report following the autumn 2000 floods undertook to use all available information to catalogue the flooding, the local causes and how solutions or responsibility for action can be successfully attributed for the 8,554 properties that were flooded at 795 locations in England.

  The agency has now assessed the locations. For many work has been included in maintenance or capital programmes resulting in the repair and improvement of damaged defences. Initially the agency identified some 700 properties (in 100 locations) where it was proving difficult to provide an early practical solution; these were primarily sites where there was flooding of less than 10 properties.

  Investigations continue to identify scope for providing flood protection to the remaining properties through flood warnings, communal defences or individual property protection.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the questions of the hon. Member for the Vale of York of 6 February, Refs 33931 and 33933-33935. [36941]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies to her on 12 February 2002,Official Report, columns 267-68W and 273-74W.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will calculate
  1353W
  the change in CAP sterling payments to UK agriculture if the calculations had been based on ECU not the euro in each of the last three years. [37642]

  Mr. Morley
  It is not possible to calculate what CAP sterling payments to UK agriculture would have been in each of the last three years had they been based on the ECU rather than the euro. The ECU has not existed in the last three years. Eleven of the 15 currencies from which it was calculated were pegged to the euro throughout that period, and Greece joined subsequently. Since we do not know how those currencies would have fluctuated had the euro not been introduced, we cannot tell what the value of the ECU or any CAP payments linked to it would have been.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the importance of discussion of European Union enlargement to the mid-term review of Agenda 2000 on Common Agricultural Policy reform; and if she will make a statement. [37921]

  Mr. Morley
  Her Majesty's Government believe that CAP reform is necessary, that preparation of enlargement should proceed in parallel with discussion of reform but that enlargement should not determine that reform.

  Appointments
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many people have been appointed by her to official bodies and NDPBs coming under the aegis of her Department in the last three years; and who they were. [33348]

  Mr. Morley
  Information about the numbers and remuneration of ministerial appointments to public bodies, including the names of chairpersons, is included in the annual Cabinet Office publication, "Public Bodies". Copies are available in the Libraries of the House and also published on the Cabinet Office's website at www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/quango. The next edition of "Public Bodies", which will include information on appointments as at 31 March 2001, will be published shortly.

  The names of all members appointed to public bodies are published annually in the departmental report. Departmental reports for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are available in the Libraries of the House. The 2001 report is also available on line at www.defra.gov.uk. Publication of the 2002 report for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) is expected in late spring 2002.

  A number of public bodies, which were the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), transferred to DEFRA in June 2001 as a result of the machinery of Government changes. Names of members appointed to these bodies before the changes were published in the DETR annual departmental reports, available in the Libraries of the House. The DETR reports for 1999, 2000 and April 2001 are also available on line at www.dtlr.gov.uk.

  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the appointments made by her Department since 1 May 1997 1354W
  of chairmen of (a) non-departmental public bodies, (b) commissions, (c) inquiries, (d) agencies and (e) task forces; and if she will list their (i) term of office, (ii) salary and (iii) known political affiliation (A) past and (B) present. [33884]

  Mr. Morley
  The information requested on chairmen of non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) will be placed in the Library of the House.

  The Commissions to which the Department appoints chairmen are listed among the NDPBs in the table which has been placed in the Library of the House. They are the Meat and Livestock Commission (executive NDPB), the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and the Sustainable Development Commission (advisory NDPBs). The public body, the Commons Commissioners, is an NDPB tribunal.

  The agencies to which the Department appoints chairmen are listed among the NDPBs in the aforementioned table. They are the Countryside Agency and the Environment Agency (executive NDPBs).

  The Department appointed the chairmen of the following Public Inquiry:

  Name

  The BSE Inquiry

  Chairman

  Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers

  Term of office

  Inquiry announced on 22 December 1997. Report published on 26 October 2000

  Salary

  No salary/fee from the inquiry.

  Information on the number, remit, and membership of task forces, 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 on the period between 1 May 1997 to 31 October 1999. A second report was published on 27 July 2000 and covered the period 1 November 1999 to 30 April 2000. The most recent report: "Task Forces, Ad Hoc Advisory Groups and Reviews" was issued in October 2001, and covers the period of the financial year 2000–01. Copies of these reports have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Meat Imports
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many port health officials were employed to check personal imports of meat and meat products on 1 January(a) 2002, (b) 2001, (c) 2000 and (d) 1999. [36585]

  Mr. Morley
  Responsibility for checks on imports of meat and meat products at points of entry are the responsibility of the local or port health authority and it is for the appropriate local authority to deploy staff according to the volume and nature of products imported. Most of the staff also undertake a range of other duties so the number checking imports can vary from day to day. The total number of local authority staff employed at Border Inspection Posts as at November 2001 was 196, comprising 97 Environmental Health Officers, 48 Official
  1355W
  Veterinary Surgeons and 51 support staff. Figures for other years and staff not working at Border Inspection Posts are not available.

  HM Customs officers also carry out checks for illegally imported meat and other animal products in passengers' baggage. In addition State Veterinary Service staff are also empowered to deal with illegally imported animal products when they are found.

  Fishermen's Association Ltd.
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she next intends to meet the Fishermen's Association Ltd. regarding its concerns on enforcement of fisheries policy; and if she will make a statement. [36548]

  Mr. Morley
  We have no current plans to meet the Fishermen's Association Ltd.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to ensure that the Government's CHP target is reflected in her Department's aims and objectives. [37705]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government target of 10,000 MWe of installed CHP by 2010 will make a significant contribution to DEFRA's objectives to promote sustainable management and prudent use of natural resources domestically and internationally. The CHP target will also contribute to DEFRA's future public service agreement targets.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on how applicants qualify for inclusion in the Government's quality assessment procedure for CHP; and whether this procedure requires periodic re-assessment. [37710]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Combined Heat and Power Quality Assurance programme (CHPQA) provides a practical, determinate method for assessing CHP schemes. Operators are required to self-assess their scheme, based on actual performance data, which are subject to validation and verification. A CHPQA certificate is then issued detailing the parameters qualifying as "Good Quality" CHP. All CHPQA certificates are valid to 31 December of the year of issue, whereupon applicants must submit a fresh self-assessment based on the previous year's data.

  Dioxins
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 12 November 2001,Official Report, column 598W, on dioxins, what assessment she has made of where the dioxins emitted to air from an incinerator end up and how long they are likely to remain in the environment. [34575]
  1356W
  Mr. Meacher
  Low levels of dioxins can be detected in all environmental media and, in the UK, the mean levels are currently approximately:

  Air (ambient rural)—10 femtograms per cubic metre

  Air (ambient urban)—100 femtograms per cubic metre

  Soil (rural)—5 nanograms per kilogram

  Soil (urban)—30 nanograms per kilogram

  River sediments—20 nanograms per kilogram.

  The critical factor for all of these is the concentration in air, which itself is controlled by emissions from primary sources and by complex exchanges/recycling of dioxins with water, soil and vegetation. Dioxin emissions to air from municipal solid waste incinerators contribute less than 1 per cent. of total dioxin emissions, so they currently make only a minor contribution to environmental concentrations.

  Dioxins are persistent in the environment and commonly have half-lives in soils and sediments in the order of years, although these will vary between the different compounds and media.

  Radioactive Waste
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), of 4 February 2002,Official Report, columns 748-49W, if there are exceptions to the policy of returning reprocessing wastes arising from contracts with foreign customers back to the country of origin. [36464]

  Mr. Meacher
  All BNFL's new reprocessing contracts for overseas customers since 1976 have included a provision to return the resulting wastes back to the country of origin. BNFL has proposed that it should be allowed to return an additional amount of high-level waste in substitution for a radiologically equivalent amount of intermediate and low-level waste. This proposal was referred to in the consultation paper "Managing Radioactive Waste Safely" which my Department and the devolved Administrations published in September 2001. Comments were invited on the link between waste substitution and the availability of a long-term management strategy. The consultation paper noted that BNFL is permitted to engage in waste substitution for low-level waste for which an environmentally acceptable disposal route exists

  Fish Stocks (Canoeing)
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which independent consultants were consulted by the Environment Agency before they reached their conclusions on the impact of canoeing on fish stocks in November 2000. [34955]

  Mr. Morley
  The research published in autumn 2000 was conducted on behalf of the Environment Agency by APEM Ltd., Enterprise House, Manchester Science Park,
  1357W
  Lloyd Street North, Manchester M15 6SE. The expert panel consulted by APEM on the impact of canoeing on fish stockscomprised:

  Dr. Gordon Copp, Fish Biologist, University of Hertfordshire;

  Dr. Nick Giles, Environmental consultant specialising in freshwater fisheries, aquatic ecology and conservation;

  Professor Paul Giller, Freshwater and community ecologist, Department of Zoology and Animal Ecology, University College Cork, Ireland;

  Dr. Anton Ibbetson, Senior Scientific Officer, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology;

  Dr. Michael Ladle, Retired Head of the Fisheries Department, Institute of Freshwater Ecology;

  Professor Peter Maitland, Independent freshwater ecology consultant, Fish Conservation Centre, Haddington;

  Professor Richard Mann, Fish biologist, Visiting Professor at the University of Hertfordshire;

  Dr. David Summers, Fisheries Manager, Tay District Salmon Fisheries Board;

  Dr. Ian Winfield, Fish ecologist, Institute of Freshwater Ecology, Windermere.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when Environment Agency research document W266 on the impact of canoeing on angling and fish stocks was discussed by(a) the Environment Agency board and (b) each regional fisheries, ecology and recreation advisory committee. [34962]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency board does not routinely discuss research documents; it did not discuss research document W266.

  All committees were apprised of the research and some chose to discuss it. The North East Regional Fisheries, Ecology and Recreation Advisory Committee discussed the document in January, April and October 2001 and South West RFERAC in january 2001. The remainder did not discuss it.

  Environment Agency (Committees)
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the members of each Environment Agency regional fisheries, ecology and recreation advisory committee; and whether they have an(a) angling, (b) navigation and (c) recreational interest. [34961]

  Mr. Morley
  There is no statutory requirement to have recreation and navigation interests on the RFERA Committees but the agency has determined, with the consent of Ministers, that these should be represented. Relevant details of the membership of each RFERA Committee have been placed in the Library of the House.

  There are also generic rules for the balance of interests on these Committees which should have no more than 21 members:

  Interest Group

  Members

  Academic/professional

  1

  Recreation

  2

  Conservation

  1

  Cross-membership with other committees

  3 or 4

  Riparian owners

  1 or 2

  Navigation

  1 (except 4 in Thames and 3 in Anglia)

  Fisheries

  11

  1358W
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what criteria were used to appoint chairmen and members of the Environment Agency Regional Fisheries Ecology and Recreation Advisory committees. [34930]

  Mr. Morley
  flThis Department is responsible only for the appointment of the Chair of each of the Regional Fisheries, Ecology and Recreation Advisory Committees in England and is not directly involved in the appointment of the Committee members.

  Details of the criteria which DEFRA and the Environment Agency are using for the appointment of the Chairs and members of the RFERACs have been placed in the Library of the House

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if advertisements for the chairs of the Environment Agency regional fisheries, ecology and recreation advisory committees were placed in boating and canoeing magazines; and if she will make a statement. [34928]

  Mr. Morley
  In accordance with the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments (OCPA) guidance, taking into account the role and remit of these posts, proportionality and available resources, advertisements were placed in The Times, the Sunday Times and the Anglers Mail. The advert also appeared on the Department's website.

  Rural Affairs
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how the views of customers of the Rural Payments Agency are being accommodated in the design of its new business processes. [35284]

  Mr. Morley
  The views of Rural Payments Agency's (RPA) customers are being accommodated in the design of its new processes through the involvement of an RPA Industry Forum, drawn from key industry representatives, supported by commodity/scheme expert groups. Consultation will continue to take place and develop as the Change Programme progresses. This work is being supported through the delivery of a Customer Relationship Management (CRM) strategy and overarching European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) Business Excellence and Balance Scorecard approach within RPA. This will incorporate research, targeting, performance monitoring and benchmarking against customer criteria.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will place copies of the OGC Gateway one and two reports on the Rural Payments Agency project in the Library. [35278]

  Mr. Morley
  The RPA Programme has successfully passed both OGC Gateway one and two with the third Gateway review due in December 2002.

  OPG Gateway two commented that:

  RPA is currently well positioned to deliver a successful outcome, which reflects:

  strong stakeholder engagement and support;

  early industry participation; and

  effective user involvement.

  1359W
  The OGC Gateway process has been welcomed by the RPA as it has helped RPA management externally to validate the progress that is being made and identify areas for improvement, while benefiting from the experience and learning from previous projects and programmes.

  Arrangements have been made to place copies of the OGC Gateway one and two reports in the Library.

  Brazilian Mahogany
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many shipments of Brazilian mahogany there have been to the UK since the Brazilian Environment Agency's ban on trade in October 2001; and how many shipments are en route to the UK. [37805]

  Mr. Meacher
  No shipments of Brazilian mahogany to the UK have taken place since October 2001. We are aware of one shipment anticipated to arrive in the UK during the last week in February.

  Brazilian mahogany is listed in CITES Appendix III and as such does not require an import permit. For these species a self-completed report notification form must be presented to HM Customs prior to the arrival of the specimens, together with the relevant export permit (s) or certificate (s) of origin issued by the Management Authority in the exporting country.

  Essex Estuaries European Marine Site
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact of the Habitats Directive on boating activities within the Essex Estuaries European Marine Site. [36702]

  Mr. Meacher
  No assessment has yet been made. However, English Nature's advice for the Essex Estuaries given under Regulation 33 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations 1994 identifies boat wash and mooring chain abrasion of the sea bed as issues which will require further investigation. In addition, the draft management scheme, established under the 1994 regulations, contains an action point to develop strategic plans for leisure boating development for each estuary system within the site.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made in drawing up the Essex Estuaries European Marine Site management scheme; and if she will make a statement. [36701]

  Mr. Meacher
  The management group for the Essex Estuaries European Marine Site are considering the final draft of the management scheme at the moment. It is hoped to launch the management scheme later this year.

  MV Mari Geni
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the options available to the owners of the MV Mari Geni, if they accept decommissioning, for the disposal of the fishing vessel's track record. [37925]
  1360W
  Mr. Morley
  Under the 2001 fishing vessel decommissioning scheme for England the fixed quota allocation (FQA) units and track record of decommissioned vessels may be transferred to:

  other over 10 metre licensed vessels (whether in the same ownership or not);

  over 10 metre licence entitlements (whether held by the owner (s) of the decommissioned vessel or not);

  producer organisations.

  It is possible to split the FQA units from a single decommissioned vessel and to transfer them to two or more licensed vessels, licence entitlements or producer organisations. However, the track record from a decommissioned vessel cannot be split in this way and must be transferred in its entirety to a single recipient which need not be the same as the recipient of the FQA units.

  Meat Exports
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects the resumption of exports of United Kingdom-produced meat to(a) non-European Union countries and (b) European Union countries. [33383]

  Mr. Morley
  Exports of UK-produced biungulate meat to EU countries have been possible throughout the foot and mouth disease outbreak, provided the meat was produced in accordance with the conditions set out in Commission Decision 2001/172/EC which introduced export controls on animal products in response to the outbreak. Exports to non-EU countries required the agreement of the importing country in addition to the conditions established under Community law. The requirements set out in the above Decision were in practice very demanding and only very few exports took place under those provisions.

  On 7 June 2001, Community restrictions on exports of meat from Northern Ireland were lifted. Thereafter meat produced in Northern Ireland could be exported to other EU Member States without restriction.

  Progressively exports from areas of Great Britain recommenced as counties met the criteria for classification as "FMD free" as required by the Decision.

  The UK has now been recognised as FMD free by both the EU and the Office International des Epizooties, the international animal health organisation. On 5 February the European Commission's Standing Veterinary Committee agreed to lift all trade restrictions on the UK related to the FMD outbreak, including the need for export certification. As soon as this change to Community law has been formally adopted, we will reflect it in UK domestic law. This should be very soon. Trade in biungulate meat to EU countries can then resume under pre-FMD conditions. At that point trade with non-EU countries will solely take place on the basis of those countries' own important requirements. The Chief Veterinary Officer has written to non-EU countries informing them of the change to our official status and asking them to remove any conditions or restrictions that they applied because of our FMD outbreak.

  Specific restrictions remain in place in respect of exports of beef because of BSE.

  Dolphins
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will establish an investigation into a possible connection between the sonar signals sent out by Royal Naval vessels and the increasing number of dolphins found in UK coastal waters. [37926]

  Mr. Morley
  I have no knowledge of any research that indicates that sonar signals from Royal Naval vessels should increase the number of dolphins occurring in UK coastal waters. Currently, neither the Department nor the Ministry of Defence plan to carry out such an investigation.

  Goats (Scrapie)
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the status of goats with regard to the national scrapie plan; how many goats have been reported to the authorities as having contracted scrapie in each year since 1993; and what assessment she has made of the significance of the incidence of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy in the national goat herd. [37923]

  Mr. Morley
  Goats are known to be liable to scrapie infection. They do not possess genotypes which would allow breeding for resistance to scrapie, and it would not be appropriate to broaden the scope of the national scrapie plan to include goats as well as sheep.

  Since the disease became notifiable in 1993, eight cases of scrapie have been confirmed in goats in Great Britain of which three were confirmed in 1993, one each in 1994 and 1995 and three in 1996.

  In recognition of the limited data available on the true incidence of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies in sheep and goats, a testing programme was introduced this year across the European Union. As part of an expanded programme coming into effect in April, the United Kingdom will be testing 66,000 sheep and goats.

  Rio+10 Conference
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she is taking to involve(a) non-governmental organisations and (b) hon. Members in the (i) preparations for and (ii) attendance at Rio+10 Conference in Johannesburg. [36502]

  Mr. Meacher
  A dedicated team within DEFRA has been established to co-ordinate domestic preparations for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD). They are working closely with colleagues from other Government Departments to raise awareness of the summit across civil society, including non-governmental organisations (NGOs), as well as other organisations and the public more generally. We are working with NGOs by: supporting key umbrella organisations such as UNED-UK and the Environment and Development Group of the BOND Network (British Overseas NGOs for Development) working in partnership with NGOs, for example WWF on the "Our World Project"; including NGOs in the official UK delegation to the UN preparatory meetings; and establishing a wide stakeholder group to share information on preparations for WSSD.
  1362W
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to all MPs in January informing them of the summit and suggesting how they might get involved. The Environmental Audit Committee are also conducting an inquiry into the UK preparations for the summit, at which the Secretary of State will give evidence on 20 March.

  The decision on who will be part of the UK delegation for the summit will rest with the Prime Minister and no decisions have yet been made. But as with previous events of this type we will want a balance of interests represented.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Identity Cards
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what work is being undertaken to study the introduction of identity cards; when the work is likely to be completed; if it will be published; and if he will make a statement. [32627]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) on the entitlement card on 5 February 2002, Official Report, column 872W.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the publications issued by his Department in each of the last four years; and what the(a) circulation, (b) cost and (c) purpose of each was. [34194]

  Mr. Leslie
  This information is not held centrally, nor in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Information on publications issued by my Department since May 1997 to December 2000 has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  I have asked my officials to collate the information on publications issued by my Department from 1 December 2000 to 31 January 2002. I will write to the hon. Member with this information as soon as practically possible, and place a copy of this information in the Libraries of the House.

  Information on the circulation and purpose of each publication is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister 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. [34394]
  1363W
  Mr. Leslie
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Task Forces
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what mechanisms have been set in place to enhance the openness of task forces; and what requirements there are for the publication of(a) details of meetings, (b) papers produced for meetings and (c) remuneration for task force members. [36465]

  Mr. Leslie
  Individual Ministers are responsible for agreeing the programme of work of the task forces for which they are responsible; that would include whether they publish details of their meetings or papers produced.

  The Cabinet Office has on a regular basis published information on the number, remit and membership of task forces, ad hoc advisory groups and reviews since 1997. The most recent report covering 2000–01 was published in October 2001. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  The 2000–01 report sets out details of the full title; the date established; the date wound up (if appropriate); number of members and information on the sectors they are drawn; the name and background of the chair; and details of reporting arrangements (including any reports published).

  Task force members who are not civil servants do not generally receive remuneration for their work, but they are compensated for travel and subsistence ("out of pocket expenses").

  Central Office of Information
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list (1) the campaigns managed by the Central Office of Information in the last 12 months; and what the(a) costs and (b) advertising agencies that received contracts for each campaign were; [37962]

  (2) the marketing campaigns undertaken in the last 12 months by the Central Office of Information, broken down by the Government Departments that were responsible for initiating the campaigns. [37961]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have placed copies of the lists in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the publicity campaigns undertaken by the Central Office of Information in each year since 1997, broken down by whether they were carried out through(a) television adverts, (b) newspaper adverts, (c) internet advertising, (d) private polling and (e) focus groups. [37957]

  Mr. Leslie
  The information is not held in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister on what criteria advertising contracts are awarded to external agencies through the Central Office of Information; and what changes to the criteria are planned. [37958]

  Mr. Leslie
  Contracts are awarded following a competition between suitable companies. Companies are selected following a rigorous analysis of past performance 1364W
  and the independent Advisory Committee on Advertising also provides guidance on the selection of suitable agencies.

  No changes to the criteria are planned following the changes in responsibilities.

  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what research is undertaken by the Central Office of Information to monitor the effectiveness of Government marketing communications; and what the findings were for the advertising campaigns carried out on behalf of the Government in the last 12 months. [37960]

  Mr. Leslie
  A wide range of research techniques are used to monitor effectiveness.

  All research through COI is commissioned through independent research specialists.

  Findings on advertising campaigns can be released only by the commissioning department and not by COI.

  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the funding of the Central Office of Information was in each year since 1997. [37963]

  Mr. Leslie
  Central Office of Information (COI) is funded in two ways. The great majority of its expenditure is recovered as a trading fund by recharging costs incurred to its clients who are all publicly funded bodies. A small element of funding is also received as central vote funding under class xvii vote 4.

  Both amounts can be seen in the annual report and accounts published by COI and laid before Parliament each year. The vote funding is shown in an extract of the appropriation account and the funding from charges is represented by the income shown in the income and expenditure account.

  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister on what basis it was decided that the Chief Executive of the Central Office of Information should report directly to the Prime Minister's Director of Communications; and whether the Central Office of Information will continue to report to Cabinet Office Ministers. [37965]

  Mr. Leslie
  The new role of the Chief Executive of the Central Office of Information (COI) as the Government's chief adviser on marketing communications and information campaigns was, as I reported to the House on 5 February 2002,Official Report column 862W, a recommendation from a quinquennial review of the COI which was carried out by the Cabinet Office. The Chief Executive remains fully accountable to Cabinet Office Ministers for the work of the Central Office of Information, and they are accountable to Parliament. Individual Departments remain responsible for individual campaigns.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  National Rail Summit
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 29 January 2002,Official Report, column 192W, on the National Rail Summit, if he will list

  1365W
  the commitments agreed to by the industry in 1999 and place in the Library the related documentation; if he will place in the Library a copy of the summary of progress against the 1999 commitments produced for the 2000 Summit; and if he will state what further reviews of progress (a) have taken place and (b) are planned to take place and place any copies of related documentation in the Library. [33839]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Copies of the relevant press notices have been placed in the Library. The SRA reviews the delivery of train operators' franchise commitments and reports on them in its annual report—copies of which are available in the Library.

  Contracts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what contracts his Department has had since 1997 with(a) Arthur Andersen and (b) Accenture for (i) accountancy, (ii) audit and (iii) consultancy work; and what staff have been seconded (A) to his Department from and (B) from his Department to these firms. [32423]

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the total cost to his Department has been of services provided by(a) Andersen and (b) Accenture, Andersen Consulting for (i) accountancy services, (ii) consultancy work and (iii) other work in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [32106]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Individual Government Departments are responsible for taking decisions on the goods and services they acquire, whether through the private finance initiative (PFI) or other procurement routes, taking into account the Government's policy of seeking value for money for the taxpayer. The public sector as a whole has signed hundreds of contracts, covering the delivery of a range of services.

  For details of contracts with Andersen, I refer to the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) on 7 February 2002, Official Report, column 1097W, and 25 February 2002, Official Report, column 829W. The cost to date on all contracts is £402,157.78.

  Central Railways
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to publish the SRA report on Central Railways. [34880]

  Right to Buy sales and housebuilding completions, London: 2000–01

  Number of housebuilding completions during 2001 by:

  Local authority dwellings sold under RTB1 in 2000–01

  Registered social landlords2 for:

  Private enterprise3

  Number

  Months reported

  Rent

  Sale

  Number

  Months reported

  Barking and Dagenham

  527

  9

  22

  0

  185

  9

  Barnet

  252

  12

  157

  14

  334

  12

  Bexley

  0

  12

  28

  0

  97

  11

  Brent

  156

  9

  161

  12

  n/a

  0

  Bromley

  0

  12

  59

  15

  n/a

  0

  Camden

  760

  12

  22

  0

  283

  12

  City of London

  50

  12

  0

  0

  73

  12

  1366W
  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: The SRA's view on Central Railway's proposals is currently being considered by Ministers.

  Concessionary Travel
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of pensioners benefiting from concessionary bus fare schemes in London in the last two years. [37517]

  Ms Keeble
  I have been informed by the Association of Local Government that the number of pensioners benefiting from concessionary bus fare schemes in London in the last two years is as follows:

  September 1998 to September 1999–879,000

  September 1999 to September 2000–866,000

  Road Building (Greater London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the major road-building programmes for the Greater London area for which his Department is responsible. [37264]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Following the establishment of the Greater London Authority in July 2000, the only roads in the Greater London area for which the Secretary of State is responsible are the M1, M4 and M11. There are no plans for major building programmes on any of these roads in the area.

  Housing
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list for each of the past three years the investment by each English housing authority; and how much of this expenditure was from(a) central and (b) local government sources. [36621]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 25 February 2002]: The information requested has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what information he has for each London borough over the past year of(a) local authority houses sold under right to buy, (b) the number built by registered social landlords for rent, (c) the number built by registered social landlords for part rent/purchase and (d) the number built by the private sector for sale. [36619]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 25 February 2002]: The available information is as follows.
  1367W

  Right to Buy sales and housebuilding completions, London: 2000–01

  Number of housebuilding completions during 2001 by:

  Local authority dwellings sold under RTB1 in 2000–01

  Registered social landlords2 for:

  Private enterprise3

  Number

  Months reported

  Rent

  Sale

  Number

  Months reported

  Croydon

  249

  12

  81

  12

  135

  12

  Ealing

  330

  12

  36

  8

  n/a

  0

  Enfield

  216

  12

  151

  43

  1,911

  12

  Greenwich

  518

  12

  139

  0

  910

  12

  Hackney

  764

  12

  165

  98

  668

  10

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  283

  9

  21

  2

  25

  11

  Haringey

  239

  6

  110

  4

  51

  12

  Harrow

  88

  12

  30

  7

  79

  12

  Havering

  273

  12

  114

  0

  238

  12

  Hillingdon

  231

  12

  102

  19

  199

  11

  Hounslow

  283

  12

  30

  12

  250

  10

  Islington

  n/a

  0

  111

  19

  196

  12

  Kensington and Chelsea

  108

  12

  11

  2

  71

  12

  Kingston upon Thames

  51

  12

  83

  0

  165

  12

  Lambeth

  669

  9

  144

  32

  n/a

  0

  Lewisham

  n/a

  0

  118

  25

  19

  12

  Merton

  164

  9

  42

  0

  401

  12

  Newham

  272

  6

  62

  36

  498

  11

  Redbridge

  129

  12

  122

  0

  184

  12

  Richmond upon Thames

  33

  6

  0

  0

  147

  12

  Southwark

  809

  12

  130

  50

  343

  7

  Sutton

  146

  12

  177

  36

  120

  12

  Tower Hamlets

  1,074

  12

  87

  55

  1,271

  12

  Waltham Forest

  244

  12

  33

  15

  126

  12

  Wandsworth

  323

  12

  40

  21

  252

  12

  Westminster

  440

  12

  296

  79

  197

  12

  Note

  1. Data shown are for April 2000 to March 2001, and include a small number of Rent to Mortgage sales.

  2. RSL newbuild includes "off the shelf' purchases of properties built by private developers. RSL completions are recorded when the final tranche payment for the scheme is made.

  3. Private enterprise completions do not distinguish properties which may be intended for rental.

  Sources:

  DTLR P1(B) quarterly and P2 (monthly) housing activity returns

  Housing Corporation ADP completion statistics

  Railways
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 1 February 2002,Official Report, column 589W, on railway policy, if he will list the specific responsibilities of staff working in the (a) Rail Delivery Directorate and (b) Railways Restructuring Directorate; and how many staff work in each directorate. [37566]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are now 51 people working in the Rail Delivery Directorate and 32 people in the Railways Restructuring Directorate. It is neither customary nor practicable to publish individual civil servants' job descriptions.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what proportion of the £26 billion programme of public sector support for sustaining the rail network and delivery of existing commitments, as referred to on page 25 of the Strategic Rail Authority Strategic Plan published on 14 January is(a) public investment, (b) public resource expenditure and (c) revenue support for private investment, subdivided for each year of the 10-Year Plan 2001–02 to 2011–12; [37522]

  (2) what proportion of the public sector funding used to lever in the new commitments, as referred to on page 25 of the Strategic Rail Authority Strategic Plan published on 14 January, is (a) public investment, (b) public
  1368W
  resource expenditure and (c) revenue support for private investment for each year of the 10-Year Plan 2001–02 to 2011–12. [37525]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies given to my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) on Wednesday 23 January 2002,Official Report, columns 871-72W, and for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) on Tuesday 29 January 2002, Official Report, columns 177-178W, for the classification of total public sector funding.

  No classification has been made for the figures published in the SRA strategic plan. While some expenditure can be generally classified—such as capital expenditure on CTRL and resource expenditure through franchise support payments—funding is allocated by purpose (i.e. existing or enhanced railway) rather than public expenditure classification.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much money has been spent on the bid costs of the company limited by guarantee team and their advisers; and what the estimated monthly budget going forward is. [37541]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority is funding the bid costs of the CLG team and their advisers. Expenditure will depend on the claims submitted to the SRA.

  Departmental Underspend
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the underspend in his Department for each year since 1997–98 for(a) total expenditure and (b) rail expenditure in each case providing details of the (i) amount and (ii) financial year to which any underspend has been re-allocated. [37223]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Provisional outturn against cash limits and against cash departmental expenditure limits, which replaced cash limits from 1 April 1999, is published in the relevant editions of the Public Expenditure Provisional Outturn White Paper. Amounts taken up under end year flexibility arrangements are announced in written answers preceding supplementary estimates and at the end of each financial year. It is not possible to provide separate figures in respect of rail expenditure on a comparable basis.

  Jubilee Line
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the figures originally forecast for(a) passenger volumes, (b) revenue raised and (c) frequency of trains per hour on the Jubilee Line for each financial year since 1997–98. [37253]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for London Underground Ltd., who have provided the following information, which indicates forecast Jubilee line passenger volumes (by the number of journeys), revenues (in the form of cash receipts) and services (as trains per peak hour):

  A forecast of journeys is available only for the opening year of the Jubilee Line Extension: 1999–2000—119 M journeys.

  Only forecast receipts from cash sales at underground ticket offices on the Jubilee Line are shown, rather than total revenue. This is because data on receipts are available by line. (Total revenue would include apportionment of travelcard income between different operators—including buses, national rail etc.—but these figures are available only at network level.)

  Forecast receipts

  £ million

  1997–98

  47.3

  1998–99

  51.0

  1999–20001

  69.5

  2000–01

  2 106.8

  1 Jubilee Line Extension fully open November 1999

  2 Forecast

  Forecast service levels were altered as the project evolved to reflect changes to the signalling system proposed for use on the extension. The final forecast was in line with the service actually delivered. Service levels are expressed as trains per hour (tph) on the busiest section of line at peak hours at year end. The busiest section for the first two years quoted was Charing Cross-Willesden Green and, thereafter, North Greenwich-Willesden Green. The latter two years' data are for peak direction as well as peak hour services:
  1370W

  Tph

  1997–98

  20

  1998–99

  20

  1999–2000

  24

  2000–01

  24

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the(a) passenger volumes of, (b) revenues of and (c) services on the Jubilee Line for each financial year since 1997–98. [37246]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for London Underground Ltd., who have provided the following information, which sets out Jubilee Line passenger volumes (by the number of journeys actually made), revenues (in the form of cash receipts) and services (as trains per peak hour):

  Passenger journeys

  Million

  1997–98

  62

  1998–99

  65

  1999–20001

  92

  2000–01

  139

  1 Jubilee Line Extension fully open November 1999

  Only receipts from actual cash sales at underground ticket offices on the Jubilee Line are shown in the table, rather than total revenue. This is because data on receipts are available by line. (Total revenue would include apportionment of travelcard income between different operators—bus, national rail etc.—but these figures are available only at network level.)

  Receipts

  £ million

  1997–98

  47.4

  1998–99

  51.3

  1999–20001

  70.6

  2000–01

  107.5

  1 Jubilee line extension fully open November 1999

  Service levels are expressed as trains per hour (tph) on the busiest section of line at peak hours at year end. The busiest section for the first two years quoted was Charing Cross-Willesden Green and, thereafter, North Greenwich-Willesden Green. The latter two years data are for peak direction as well as peak hour services:

  Service levels

  tph

  1997–98

  20

  1998–99

  20

  1999–20001

  24

  2000–01

  24

  1 Jubilee Line Extension fully open November 1999

  Rail Services (South-west)
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he has taken to persuade the Strategic Rail Authority to provide for a three hour journey time from London to Plymouth in its 10-year plan. [37294]
  1371W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority is currently considering how journey times from London to the south-west could be improved.

  London Underground
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will estimate the loss of revenue because of fare evasion on London underground in each of the last 10 years. [37244]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is an operational matter for London Underground (LU) who have provided the following information.

  Estimated loss of revenue due to fare evasion on London underground

  year

  Estimated loss of revenue (percentage)

  Total revenue for the year (£ million, cash)

  Estimated loss of revenue (£ million, cash)

  1992

  2.37

  703

  16.7

  1993

  2.28

  749

  17.1

  1994

  1.19

  824

  9.8

  1995

  1.44

  849

  12.2

  1996

  1.50

  864

  13.0

  1997

  2.00

  945

  18.9

  1998

  2.30

  993

  22.8

  1999

  2.41

  1,059

  25.5

  2000

  2.37

  1,131

  26.8

  2001

  2.54

  1,150

  29.2

  LU have identified particular revenue loss hotspots, and these areas have been targeted in liaison with the British Transport Police (BTP) and where appropriate the train operating companies. They are also engaged in initiatives with the BTP to mitigate the effects of ticket touting, for example, by making announcements to customers to ask them not to give their tickets to touts and asking them to report touts to LU staff. Steps have been taken to make ticket purchase far simpler, by introducing phone and internet ticketing facilities and the installation of "Queuebuster" ticket machines at the busiest stations. The development of smartcard technology, being introduced under the Prestige project, should help to make fare evasion more difficult in the future.

  Refurbishment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 21 January 2002,Official Report, column 571W, what the cost of refurbishing each ministerial private office was in each year since May 1997. [37887]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The cost of refurbishment works in ministerial accommodation since May 1997 is as follows:

  £

  Year

  Approximate cost(exclusive of VAT)

  1997–98

  138,000

  1998–99

  12,300
  1

  1999–2000

  6,200

  2000–01

  2,100

  Fire Authority Funding
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the Government will make a decision on funding to fire authorities in England and Wales for the additional costs of emergency planning following the events of 11 September 2001; and if he will make a statement. [37886]

  Dr. Whitehead
  We are providing £53 million funding for the fire service to give further protection to the public and emergency services in the event of a major chemical, biological or radiological attack. The funding would provide new equipment, including decontamination facilities for members of the public and personal protective equipment for firefighters.

  In view of the heightened levels of threat following the events of 11 September, we want to ensure that the fire service has the necessary equipment to protect the public and the emergency services should an attack occur. Detailed contingency plans are already in place and responses to a range of different threats, including chemical, biological and radiological, are tested regularly in exercises. This new equipment will further increase the level of preparedness.

  Political Parties and Elections
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proposals his Department has to introduce legislation relating to the regulation of(a) political parties and (b) elections in the next 12 months. [37851]

  Dr. Whitehead
  When parliamentary time permits, we intend to introduce legislation to adjust the numbers of UK MEPs consequent upon enlargement of the European Union and to enfranchise Gibraltar for the European parliamentary elections. Current plans for secondary legislation this session include regulations about the sale of the electoral register under section 9 of the Representation of the People Act 2000 and regulations to re-commence section 143 of, and paragraph 14 of Schedule 18 to, the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 relating to election publications.

  Railtrack
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment has been undertaken by(a) his Department and (b) the HSE of (i) the work undertaken by Global Crossing within the railway industry, (ii) the safety critical functions of Global Crossing within the railway industry, (iii) the nature of the contract between Global Crossing and Railtrack and (iv) progress towards meeting a timetable for the implementation of safety improvement in the railway industry by Global Crossing. [34977]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Racal Telecom (now Global Crossing) have a contractual arrangement with Railtrack, which is a commercial matter between the companies. There are no agreements between Racal Telcom/Global Crossing and either the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) or my Department. Global Crossing supplies telecom and associated services to the British rail industry. Railtrack as infrastructure manager retains overall responsibility for safety. HSE advise that there have been no prosecutions against Racal Telecom or Global Crossing since 1 April
  1373W
  1999, or enforcement notices since 1 April 2001. HSE data from before this date are not available without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Level Crossing, East Tilbury
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will request the appropriate safety agencies to investigate the frequency of failures to the level crossing gates at East Tilbury on the LTS line, and the consequent ability of vehicles of the emergency services to gain access to East Tilbury; and if he will make a statement. [36852]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) Railway Inspectorate is aware of the recent problems experienced with equipment at the East Tilbury Level Crossing. The HSE advise that technicians have always arrived on site immediately to rectify these problems and that provision has been made for the emergency services to be able to communicate directly with Railtrack regarding any emergency issues.

  M25
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make it his policy not to widen the M25 between junctions 12 and 15 within the vicinity of terminal 5. [36853]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The decision to widen the M25 between Junctions 12 and 15 was made as part of the Roads Review announced in July 1998. This section of road was already severely congested and widening within the existing motorway boundary was considered to be and remains the most appropriate solution. The more recent decision to approve the construction of Terminal 5 at Heathrow Airport will necessitate the construction of a new access road (T5 Spur Road) from T5 to the M25 between Junctions 14 and 15. Both sets of improvements can now be designed and constructed at the same time to limit the delays during construction.

  Electronic Voting
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what information he has collated on the proportion of the population in each 10-year age band that has sufficient(a) access to equipment and (b) training to be able to vote from home this year. [38042]

  Dr. Whitehead
  We have given approval to 31 local authorities to run electoral modernisation pilot schemes in this May's local and mayoral elections. We have been careful to ensure that all sectors of the electorate—young and old, and those with physical disabilities including the visually impaired—are not disadvantaged by the new arrangements. Where authorities pilot internet or other online voting techniques, these will be run alongside traditional methods of voting so that a person can choose to vote at the polling station or by postal vote on demand.

  We will be asking authorities piloting all postal ballots to provide for those visually impaired electors who wish to use the voting device allowing them to vote in secret. Pilot authorities are working closely with disability groups and others in the run-up to the elections, and will provide information and advice on how the different ways of
  1374W
  voting work. Following these elections, the Electoral Commission will carry out an extensive evaluation of the pilot programme which will provide more information on specific voting patterns and how we go about establishing modern voting methods.

  Deeside Park Junction Study
  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he has considered the recommendations of the North West Regional Assembly following completion of the A550/ A5117 Deeside Park Junction Study; and if he will make a statement. [39373]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have today written to the Leader of the North West Regional Assembly and a copy of this letter has been placed in the House of Commons Library, together with a copy of the Department's Press Notice.

  The Deeside Park Junction Study was commissioned by the Government as part of their 10-year Plan for Transport. The study looked at ways to improve safety and congestion on this strategic section of route between the M56 and the Welsh Border.

  In my letter to the Assembly I outline my support for the recommendations made by the study. I am pleased to say that the scheme for on line improvements to the route, which includes the grade separation of the three junctions, is to be added to the Targeted Programme of Improvements with immediate effect. I am also encouraging the local authorities to take forward the other study recommendations.

  This is good news for motorists in Deeside and North Wales and the improvements will reduce not only congestion and delays but also accidents. This route serves the expanding Deeside Industrial Park and is the main route into North Wales and the Port of Holyhead and these improvements will help the further economic regeneration of the region.

  Decontamination Facilities
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the provision of funding for mass decontamination facilities. [39514]

  Dr. Whitehead
  We are providing £53 million funding for the fire service to give further protection to the public and emergency services in the event of a major chemical, biological or radiological attack. The funding would provide new equipment, including decontamination facilities for members of the public and personal protective equipment for firefighters.

  In view of the heightened levels of threat following the events of 11 September, we want to ensure that the fire service has the necessary equipment to protect the public and the emergency services should an attack occur. Detailed contingency plans are already in place and responses to a range of different threats, including chemical, biological and radiological, are tested regularly in exercises. This new equipment will further increase the level of preparedness.

  Strategic Employment Sites (North-East)
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what further changes he is intending to make to draft regional planning guidance for the North East about the two proposed strategic employment sites in the broad location of north Sunderland and west of Stockton. [39607]

  Ms Keeble
  Over 1,000 comments have been received in response to the proposed changes to draft Regional Planning Guidance for the North East (RPG1) which were published in April 2001. In his letter to the Association of North East Councils (ANEC) announcing the publication of the proposed changes, my right hon. Friend the then Minister for Housing and Planning specifically invited views on the proposal to reduce the number of new greenfield strategic employment sites from four to one.

  This proposal raised significant objections from the Regional Planning Body, the local authorities, and the Regional Development Agency (One NorthEast). In the light of all the comments received we are proposing to reinstate the proposal for a strategic employment site in the broad location of North of Nissan, Sunderland. There will be strict control of the development of the site which would be promoted as a high quality site to assist in the creation of new business clusters, rather than as originally envisaged to provide a long term reserve solely for large single users. The re-instatement of the site is on the basis that ANEC will progress the proposed employment land review, and re-allocate or de-allocate unsustainable sites as part of the early review to be undertaken in 2002–03.

  To ensure appropriate development of the site it is proposed that after the precise location of the site has been defined a development brief be prepared. A joint brief may be needed given that the area of search straddles three local planning authorities: Sunderland City Council, Gateshead Council and South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council. This should safeguard the site for prestige development of national or regional significance, and ensure that public transport accessibility is maximised. The site boundaries will need to be defined in the relevant unitary development plans.

  Whilst the principle of the need for an additional strategic employment site in the Tees Valley is accepted, further work is required to identify more precisely where this should be in the broad area West of Stockton. This proposal should be carried forward as part of the early review of RPG1 in 2002–03.

  Comments on the proposed further change are being invited over a twelve week period. These will be considered, along with all the representations already received, before RPG1 is finalised later in the year.

  Departmental Resignations
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if payments in excess of salary were(a) owing to and (b) negotiated with (i) Jo Moore and (ii) Martin Sixsmith following their resignations. [38326]
  1376W
  Mr. Byers
  Jo Moore will be paid in accordance with her contract. Details are a confidential matter between the individuals and the Department.

  With regard to Martin Sixsmith, I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by Sir Richard Mottram on 25 February, a copy of which is available in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he was first informed of the decisions of(a) Jo Moore and (b) Martin Sixsmith to resign; and by whom. [38325]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement I made on Tuesday 26 February to this House and that of Sir Richard Mottram, the Permanent Secretary of my Department, made on Monday 25 February, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the organisations which were subsumed into the South West Regional Development Agency. [37295]

  Alan Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The five organisations which either were subsumed into the RDA or from which the RDA took staff were:

  Rural Development Commission (RDC)

  English Partnerships

  Devon and Cornwall Development International (DCDI)

  West of England Development Agency (WEDA)

  Government Office for the South West.

  The RDA was established on 1 April 1999. WEDA and DCDI ceased to exist operationally from that date; both these organisations and the RDC were wound up by April 2000.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment the Government made of(a) the role of, (b) the effectiveness of and (c) the projects undertaken by the regional development agencies; how often these reviews take place; and if he will make a statement. [37260]

  Alan Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  We regularly assess the role and effectiveness of the regional development agencies. Under the Single Programme Budget arrangements, which take effect on 1 April 2002, the Government will be reviewing annually RDAs' effectiveness in achieving progress towards the realisation of their Regional Economic Strategies, and in contributing towards the regional achievement of the national targets the Government have set.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the costs that have been incurred by each individual regional development agency in each year since their establishment. [37258]

  Alan Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Since their inception the RDAs have been given an annual administration budget to cover the running costs of each agency. The budgets are as follows.
  1377W

  Administration Budget (running costs)

  £000

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  One North East

  8,791

  10,513

  12,853

  North West Development Agency

  11,837

  13,876

  14,956

  Yorkshire Forward

  8,659

  8,284

  9,989

  East Midlands Development Agency

  5,013

  7,377

  7,528

  Advantage West Midlands

  7,421

  8,352

  8,793

  East of England Development Agency

  4,570

  4,849

  5,836

  South East Development Agency

  6,416

  6,343

  7,143

  South West Development Agency

  7,086

  8,380

  9,099

  London Development Agency

  n/a

  6,009

  9,470

  Total

  59,793

  73,983

  85,667

  Airport Security
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what health and safety assessments have taken place on the eye scanning techniques on trial at Heathrow Airport. [36720]

  Angela Eagle
  I have been asked to reply.

  The iris recognition trial at Heathrow is being run in conjunction with the United Kingdom (UK) Immigration Service, British Airports Authority, British Airways, Virgin Atlantic and the technology supplier EyeTicket Corporation of the United States of America. All organisations are members of the Simplifying Passenger Travel Interest Group whose focus is on streamlining the various processes involved in a passenger's air journey. Participants are selected airline frequent flyer visitors to the United Kingdom approved by the Immigration Service for entry into the voluntary scheme.

  The technology used in this trial involves a camera which takes a black and white picture of a passenger's eye to analyse the iris pattern. This is then recorded as a digital code on a secure database. Once registered, passengers glance into a separate camera at an iris recognition station and have their identity verified before being granted automated entry to the United Kingdom.

  Eyeticket advise that the cameras in the trial are video cameras. No lasers or any other potentially harmful light sources are used. The optical subsystem manufacture has certified that the camera systems and illumination are in compliance with the latest worldwide standards for eye safety.

  Health and Safety Officers from the Immigration Service and British Airport Authority (BAA) have carried out environmental risk assessments within the area where the iris registration and recognition systems are located. Both have reported that the risk to staff and passengers posed by the presence of the systems is insignificant.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police SSAs
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the standard spending assessment per head of population in each police authority area in England and Wales and the average figure for these authorities. [28664]
  1378W
  Mr. Denham
  The Standard Spending Assessment (SSA) for each police authority in England and Wales per head of population in 2001–02 and 2002–03 is given in the table.

  The average SSA per head for 2001–02 is £147.63 and for 2002–03 is £147.92

  £

  Police force

  SSA per head 2001–02

  SSA per head 2002–03

  Avon and Somerset

  120.85

  120.89

  Bedfordshire

  120.92

  121.34

  Cambridgeshire

  112.15

  111.70

  Cheshire

  120.70

  121.30

  City of London

  9,560.60

  9,324.58

  Cleveland

  159.66

  160.94

  Cumbria

  131.77

  133.44

  Derbyshire

  114.02

  115.90

  Devon and Cornwall

  119.69

  119.36

  Dorset

  108.32

  108.18

  Durham

  144.18

  145.16

  Dyfed Powys

  117.22

  118.10

  Essex

  114.54

  113.53

  Gloucestershire

  119.21

  119.26

  Greater Manchester

  156.96

  157.57

  Gwent

  134.94

  136.75

  Hampshire

  120.11

  121.20

  Hertfordshire

  117.79

  117.29

  Humberside

  137.35

  137.46

  Kent

  128.73

  128.25

  Lancashire

  135.37

  136.41

  Leicestershire

  118.49

  118.87

  Lincolnshire

  109.15

  108.51

  Merseyside

  179.97

  180.34

  Metropolitan police

  250.42

  249.92

  Norfolk

  114.85

  115.29

  North Wales

  125.06

  124.36

  North Yorkshire

  112.38

  111.80

  Northamptonshire

  114.17

  113.55

  Northumbria

  160.46

  160.92

  Nottinghamshire

  131.79

  132.22

  South Wales

  141.76

  143.85

  South Yorkshire

  141.85

  141.91

  Staffordshire

  114.68

  115.43

  Suffolk

  111.15

  110.71

  Surrey

  102.95

  101.96

  Sussex

  119.99

  120.01

  Thames Valley

  115.83

  115.37

  Warwickshire

  112.27

  111.15

  West Mercia

  109.00

  108.44

  West Midlands

  155.99

  157.59

  West Yorkshire

  146.85

  147.32

  Wiltshire

  113.78

  112.86

  England and Wales

  147.63

  147.92

  Correspondence
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Immigration and Nationality Directorate will reply to the letter of 29 November 2001 from the hon. Member for Aylesbury about case reference ISB/ 100049. [29371]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: The hon. Member's letter was transferred to the Joint Entry Clearance Unit (JECU) on 30 January 2002, and I understand that their officials will reply to him shortly. I apologise for the delay in transferring the hon. Member's correspondence.
  1379W
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the letter of 23 October 2001 from the hon. Member for Torbay, regarding Mr. Elias Masif Bousaley of Torquay and his visa renewal application. [36755]

  Angela Eagle
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 27 February 2002. I am sorry for the delay in replying.

  Dorset
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the financial resources and initiatives sponsored by his Department in the last 12 months for Dorset, which are additional to the Government SSA grants. [29892]

  Angela Eagle
  Following is a list of financial resources and initiatives sponsored by the Home Department in Dorset.

  Details relate to the period 1 February 2001 to 31 January 2002 unless otherwise stated.

  Initiative

  Resources (£)

  Communities Against Drugs

  470,800

  Active Community Grant Bournemouth Council for voluntary service

  31,500

  Mentoring Fund Grant

  12,250

  Unaccompanied asylum seeking children

  71,101

  Adult and family asylum seekers grant

  1,605,364

  Drug Action Teams

  113,964

  Arrest Referral Scheme

  56,476

  Youth Offending Schemes

  483,431

  Partnership Development Fund

  89,556

  Reducing Burglary Initiative1

  85,149

  Closed Circuit Television1

  2,512,936

  Capital Modernisation Fund—security for small retailers

  6,477

  1 The figures shown represent the amount that has been allocated to projects in Dorset for the full term of the Crime Reduction Programme (financial years 1999–2000 to 2002–03). Project management arrangements mean that it is not possible to confirm actual payments made in the specific time frame.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of the(a) annual cost and (b) total value of the empty properties owned by (i) his Department, (ii) his agencies and (iii) other public bodies for which he has had responsibility in each of the last four years. [30069]

  Angela Eagle
  The Home Office's estimate of the annual cost and total value of empty properties on its estate and the estates of its agencies and non-departmental public bodies for each of the financial years requested is as follows:

  £000

  Total cost

  Total value

  1997–98

  254

  4,480

  1998–99

  609

  9,953

  1999–2000

  6,634

  13,723

  2000–01

  8,594

  13,323

  These figures include costs of properties vacated for the purposes of refurbishment. Cost information on empty
  1380W
  homes is not kept and a meaningful estimate of the figures could be made only at disproportionate cost. Progress in reducing the number of empty homes is reported annually in the Greening Government annual reports.

  The largest single currently vacant property is No 2 Marsham street, London SW1 which is due to be redeveloped by means of a Private Finance Initiative (PFI). Annual costs include rent, rates, utilities and security. The figures relating to the years 1999–2000 and 2000–01 take account of the fact that Lunar House, Croydon was also vacant pending refurbishment. The increase in the total estimated value of empty properties for years 1999–2000 and 2000–01 is largely accounted for by the acquisition of property for the purposes of secure training centres by the Youth Justice Board and detention centres by the Immigration Nationality Directorate.

  Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date he(a) received a notice of appeal in respect of case IMM/G6193 and (b) referred the appeal to the Independent Appellate Authority. [32308]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 1 February 2002]: The appeal was received in the Home Office on 7 February 2002 and received by the Immigration Appellate Authority on 8 February 2002.

  Fair Trade
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to encourage participation by his Department in Fair Trade Fortnight from 4 to 17 March. [33542]

  Angela Eagle
  The Home Office to coincide with Fair Trade Fortnight will be publishing an article on fair trade in the next edition of "Purchasing Matters", an internal periodical for all procurement staff. In the near future the Home Office will be holding a purchasing symposium on the issue of fair trade.

  The Department for International Development will be supporting the Fairtrade Foundation over the next three years by providing £120,000 in its effort to target new groups through the Fair Trade Fortnight campaigns. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development will be attending the campaign launch on 4 March 2002.

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total cost to his Department was for accountancy services in each of the last four years. [34158]

  Angela Eagle
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The available information relates to the cost of accountancy services from external providers in support of the following particular projects.
  1381W

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Introduction of Resource Accounting and Budgeting (RAB) in the core Home Office

  0

  0

  75,177

  269,701

  Prison Service RAB Training and Development

  0

  0

  67,920

  1,165

  Accounting advice on treatment of Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contracts

  32,205

  10,711

  0

  0

  Assistance with the Prison Service Quantum project

  0

  53,000

  0

  0

  Forensic Science Service Audit Fees

  55,000

  55,000

  55,000

  58,000

  Total

  87,205

  118,711

  198,097

  328,867

  Asylum Accommodation Centres
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice he has sought from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the possible locations of the proposed asylum accommodation centres and their proximity to foot and mouth disease burial sites. [34480]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), on 5 February 2002,Official Report, column 897W.

  Local Language Groups (Lincolnshire)
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the proportion of the population of(a) North Lincolnshire and (b) North-east Lincolnshire who speak (i) Arabic, (ii) Hindi, (iii) Urdu, (iv) Farsi/Dari and (v) Pashtu. [34578]

  Angela Eagle
  I assume my hon. Friend's question relates to the potential site for an asylum seeker accommodation centre that has been identified in her constituency. Given the broad range of facilities which will be provided within the accommodation centres and the self-contained nature of the centres, there is not the same need to inquire into local language groups that existed with dispersal to cluster regions as the risk of asylum seekers becoming isolated is greatly reduced.

  Information exists on the ethnic make-up of North Lincolnshire and North-east Lincolnshire from the last available census. It has been used previously to obtain information on ethnic communities within cluster areas and potential cluster areas within the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) regions.

  Police Precept
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the cost of each police force was met by precept on local authorities in(a) 1997 and (b) 2001. [34774]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 8 February 2002]: The figures are set out in the table.

  Proportion of net funding requirement met from council tax

  1997–98

  2001–02

  Avon and Somerset

  16.2

  19.6

  Bedfordshire

  16.3

  18.8

  Cambridgeshire

  17.2

  19.6

  Cheshire

  17.1

  18.6

  Cleveland

  11.3

  12.1

  Cumbria

  15.6

  21.2

  Derbyshire

  16.0

  19.7

  Devon and Cornwall

  16.9

  17.9

  1382W

  Proportion of net funding requirement met from council tax

  1997–98

  2001–02

  Dorset

  23.8

  29.1

  Durham

  12.3

  11.4

  Dyfed-Powys

  16.2

  25.5

  Essex

  18.9

  22.1

  Gloucestershire

  17.0

  23.1

  GMP

  11.4

  12.0

  Gwent

  13.4

  19.1

  Hampshire

  17.8

  17.5

  Hertfordshire

  19.3

  23.6

  Humberside

  12.8

  17.2

  Kent

  16.9

  16.7

  Lancashire

  13.6

  15.0

  Leicestershire

  15.0

  18.7

  Lincolnshire

  20.8

  24.8

  Merseyside

  11.7

  13.5

  MPS

  9.3

  15.9

  Norfolk

  17.1

  22.4

  North Wales

  15.7

  22.4

  North Yorkshire

  18.4

  20.1

  Northamptonshire

  21.4

  22.1

  Northumbria

  11.2

  10.2

  Nottinghamshire

  12.6

  15.3

  South Wales

  12.5

  18.4

  South Yorkshire

  12.1

  12.2

  Staffordshire

  15.8

  23.3

  Suffolk

  17.8

  19.8

  Surrey

  16.6

  31.9

  Sussex

  18.8

  18.9

  Thames Valley

  19.5

  20.5

  Warwickshire

  18.2

  24.8

  West Mercia

  18.7

  23.7

  West Midlands

  11.2

  10.6

  West Yorkshire

  12.1

  12.2

  Wiltshire

  18.6

  24.6

  Immigration and Nationality Department
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average response time is of Her Majesty's Immigration and Nationality Departments in Croydon to messages left through the hotline telephone service by hon. Members and their staff. [35793]

  Angela Eagle
  Statistics are not maintained, but the aim of the unit is to respond substantively to callers within seven days.

  The hotline is reliant upon a wide range of Government offices and agencies, including British diplomatic posts abroad, for information and documents. Where there is likely to be delay, the hotline will endeavour to contact the caller to let them know of this and when a full response is likely to be available.

  Next month will see the introduction of a new and much improved telephone system, which will allow the hotline to hold calls in a queue and provide callers with information while they wait for the call to be taken. The

  1383W
  system will also enable calls to be voice recorded and will provide reports on performance which can be used as a means of on-going assessment and determining staff numbers.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the hotline telephone service available to hon. Members from Her Majesty's Immigration and Nationality Department in Croydon. [35794]

  Angela Eagle
  The performance and working methods of the hotline are kept under regular review. Last autumn, the number of operators was increased from eight to 10 and their central function was more sharply defined as responding to calls promptly and offering general immigration advice.

  Next month will see the introduction of a new and much improved telephone system, which will allow the Hotline to hold calls in a queue and provide callers with information while they wait for the call to be taken. The system will also enable calls to be voice recorded and will provide reports on performance which can be used as a means of ongoing assessment and determining staff numbers.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what checks are made on the response times of Her Majesty's Immigration and Nationality Department in Croydon to(a) messages and (b) queries made through their hotline telephone service by hon. Members and their staff. [35795]

  Angela Eagle
  There is currently no system for leaving voice messages for members of the hotline. The unit's fax machine is switched on permanently and faxed messages are allocated to operators upon receipt during normal working hours.

  All telephone calls and faxes to the hotline are logged on an electronic file and all hotline operators have access to that file. The information logged will include a date, agreed with the caller, for the operator to ring back with a substantive response or an interim progress report.

  The manager of the unit checks the electronic file at least once a week and any outstanding matters are identified and addressed without avoidable delay.

  Persons proceeded against1, convicted and sentenced at all courts for offences under the Immigration Act 1974 Sec.25(1)(a) and (b). England and Wales 1998 to 2000

  Proceeded against

  Found guilty

  Offence description

  Statute

  1998

  1999

  20002

  1998

  1999

  20002

  Knowingly concerned in making or carrying out arrangements for securing or facilitating the entry into the UK of anyone whom he knows or has reasonable cause for believing to be an illegal entrant

  Immigration Act 1974 Sec.25(1)(a) as amended by Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 Sec.5

  193

  233

  199

  115

  150

  145

  Knowingly concerned in making or carrying out arrangements for securing or facilitating the entry into the UK of anyone whom he knows or has reasonable cause for believing to be an asylum claimant

  Immigration Act 1974 Sec.25(1)(b) as added by Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 Sec.5

  4

  20

  11

  3

  6

  3

  Total

  197

  253

  210

  118

  156

  148

  1384W
  Next month will see the introduction of a new and much improved telephone system, which will allow the hotline to hold calls in a queue and provide callers with information while they wait for the call to be taken. The system will also enable calls to be voice recorded and will provide reports on performance which can be used as a means of ongoing assessment and determining staff numbers.

  Drivers (Violent Acts)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many reported cases involving violent acts by drivers there were in England and Wales in each of the last three years; how many of those convicted in the courts of such offences were(a) men and (b) women; how many were (i) sent to prison and (ii) fined; and if he will make a statement. [36290]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information requested is not available. "Road rage" is not an offence covered by specific legislation and motorists involved in consequential criminal behaviour are likely to be charged with an offence appropriate to the circumstances (such as criminal damage, common assault or dangerous driving). The details of the circumstances of offences are not collected centrally.

  People Trafficking
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been(a) charged and (b) convicted in courts in England and Wales with the smuggling of (i) adults and (ii) children under the age of 18 years into this country in each of the last three years; and how many of those convicted were (A) sent to prison and (B) fined. [36292]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The available information, from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database, relating to England and Wales for the years 1998 to 2000 is shown in the table. These data cover proceedings under the Immigration Act 1971 Sec.25(1) (a) and (b) as amended by the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 Sec.5. No other offences connected with people smuggling can be separately identified in the statistics collected centrally, nor can the figures given be broken down according to the age of the people being smuggled.

  Statistics for 2001 are not yet available.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already indicated his intention to increase the maximum penalty for these offences to 14 years, and a range of further measures are under consideration.
  1385W

  Sentenced

  1998

  1999

  20002

  Offence description

  Statute

  Custody3

  Fine

  Custody3

  Fine

  Custody3

  Fine

  Knowingly concerned in making or carrying out arrangements for securing or facilitating the entry into the UK of anyone whom he knows or has reasonable cause for believing to be an illegal entrant

  Immigration Act 1974 Sec.25(1)(a) as amended by Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 Sec.5

  137

  —

  146

  —

  146

  —

  Knowingly concerned in making or carrying out arrangements for securing or facilitating the entry into the UK of anyone whom he knows or has reasonable cause for believing to be an asylum claimant

  Immigration Act 1974 Sec.25(1)(b) as added by Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 Sec.5

  3

  —

  3

  —

  3

  —

  Total

  140

  —

  149

  —

  149

  —

  1 Figures provided are on the principal immigration offence basis

  2 Staffordshire police force were only able to submit sample data for persons proceeded against and convicted in the magistrates courts for the year 2000. Although sufficient to estimate higher orders of data these data are not robust at a detailed level and have been excluded from this table.

  3 The numbers sentenced to custody may exceed those found guilty as they may include those committed for sentence from the magistrates courts in the previous year.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women have been trafficked into the UK from other European countries in each of the last three years. [37199]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Forming an accurate estimate of the levels of trafficking in people is problematic due to the hidden nature of the act. There are currently no accurate, reliable data in existence within the United Kingdom or the European Union. A Home Office research study "Stopping Traffic" (Police Research Series 125) published in 2000 indicated that although there was intelligence to suggest that some women and children are trafficked into the United Kingdom for the purposes of sexual exploitation, it was impossible to make an accurate assessment of numbers, but that it was likely to be in the range of 140 to 1,400 per annum.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department has taken with other European countries to stop the trafficking of women from those countries into the UK. [37198]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Effective action against an organised crime, which does not respect borders, requires close co-operation with other countries, particularly with our European Union (EU) partners. The European Council at Tampere set out an agenda for tackling illegal immigration, especially human trafficking. We welcome the progress already made there, including the directive on smuggling and two framework decisions on smuggling and trafficking. We intend to legislate to give effect to the EU directive and framework decision on the facilitation of unauthorised entry, movement and residence when a suitable opportunity arises.

  All EU member states have established a formal network of Immigration Liaison Officers (ILOs) following guidelines adopted at the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 29 May 2001. They work alongside other United Kingdom (UK) liaison officers as part of the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) overseas network. UK-based law enforcement agencies work closely with Europol and ILOs.

  The UK is contributing to the EU STOP programme, which was set up by a joint action of the European Council in 1996 to support member state organisations responsible for action against the trade in human beings
  1386W
  and the sexual exploitation of children. A European Council decision of 28 June 2001 established a second phase of this programme (STOP II). Of the projects submitted in the year 2001 funding round, 15 had UK involvement. Of these, 12 organisations were successful and the UK takes the lead with five projects through NCIS and other agencies and organisations.

  The UK is also working with EU "Candidate Countries" on twinning projects to assist them in combating organised crime, including organised immigration crime. In close co-operation with the member states and the applicant countries, the Belgian Presidency organised a High Impact Operation at the future eastern borders of the EU in September-October 2001. The UK and Ireland were paired with the Czech Republic. This co-operation also comprised technical assistance, exchange of expertise and the development of intelligence.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what facilities exist to help women who have been trafficked into the UK to return to their homes; and if he will make a statement. [37200]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  As announced in the White Paper "Secure Borders, Safe Haven", we are currently preparing a pilot programme to support victims of exploitation escape their circumstances. Working with the voluntary sector, we will assist people to return home, and ensure that they have the support necessary to ensure that their return is safe and dignified. We envisage that the programme under development will provide initial counselling, and suitable accommodation for victims to return to, which will help them reintegrate into the community and find employment.

  We intend to develop a best practice `toolkit' to help those who deal with illegal immigrants and trafficking victims to distinguish victims in genuine need and to deal with them appropriately. This toolkit will be important for practitioners, chiefly police and immigration officers, who will use it to identify victims and ensure that the right procedures are followed to provide victims with the support and help they need. It will be a comprehensive summary of best practice based on 'what works'.

  Student Visas
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many man hours on average it has taken to process a student visa application in the last 12 months. [36990]

  Angela Eagle
  This information is not readily available and could be obtained only by scrutiny of individual case files at a disproportionate cost. The length of time to process an application varies from case to case.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for student visas were received in each of the last six months. [36993]

  Angela Eagle
  The available information is given in the following table.

  The information relates to decisions on applications for leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a student. The latest available data are for the period July to December 2000. Data for 2001 are due to be published later this year.

  Grants and refusals of extensions of leave to remain1 in the United Kingdom as a student, July to September 2000

  Number of decisions

  Grants

  Refusals

  Total

  July

  5,200

  430

  5,630

  August

  6,130

  340

  6,470

  September

  8,070

  280

  8,350

  October

  10,150

  140

  10,290

  November

  8,600

  450

  9,050

  December

  5,480

  220

  5,700

  Total

  43,620

  1,860

  45,490

  1 Excludes dependants of principal applicants, the outcome of appeals and withdrawn applications.

  Notes:

  Data rounded to the nearest 10; because of this the sum of constituent items may not agree with the total as shown.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his target of three weeks' average for the processing of student visa applications starts on the day of receipt and not the day of being entered on the computer. [36996]

  Angela Eagle
  The target of processing all straightforward applications within three weeks has been measured from the date of receipt until now. As a result of the business process changes recently introduced, this will in future be measured from the date on which the application is posted by the applicant.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many clerical staff were engaged in processing student visas in each of the years(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000 and (c) 2000–01; [36992]

  (2) how many clerical staff have been engaged in processing student visas in each of the last six months. [36991]

  Angela Eagle
  There are no staff dealing only with applications for leave to remain in the United Kingdom for the purpose of following a course of study. The average number of staff involved in the initial processing of new postal immigration applications in each of these 1388W
  years was as follows: 60 in 1998–99; 115 in 1999–2000; and 160 in 2000–01, but over the last six months this has increased to 190 staff.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it clear on the appropriate form and on his Department's website that applications for student visas sent by unregistered post cannot thereafter be traced until the visa is finally granted. [36989]

  Angela Eagle
  This now is not the case; as a result of the business process changes introduced over recent months, all new applications are opened and entered on to a case information database within a very few days of receipt and updated at each stage of the process. This has brought about a significant improvement in our ability to trace all individual applications as they are processed.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how applications for student visas sent by(a) registered and (b) unregistered post are treated. [36994]

  Angela Eagle
  All applications are processed in the same way irrespective of the method of posting. The only advantage of registered mail is that the barcode on the package allows it to be registered on to a database as soon as it is received.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time from receipt of an application for a student visa to its entry on the computer was in the last 12 months. [36995]

  Angela Eagle
  This information is not currently available. We are introducing a Casework Information Database which, when fully operational, will enable us to monitor our performance on general immigration casework more effectively.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he has made for independent bench marking of the Student Visa Service. [36988]

  Angela Eagle
  Although not specifically aimed at students the Integrated Casework Directorate is conducting a self-assessment of its general casework process using the European Foundation of Quality Management, with a view to independent assessment of benchmarking in due course.

  Health and Safety (Computers)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many employees in his Department who regularly use computers have taken up the provision of a free eye test; and how this service is advertised to(a) current and (b) new staff. [36686]

  Angela Eagle
  The Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992, effective January 1993, require employers to provide and pay for, upon request from an employee designated as a user, an eye and eyesight test. There is a requirement for further tests at regular intervals; the optometrist doing the first test can recommend when the next one should be. In addition, employers must pay the cost of special spectacles required where normal ones cannot be used.
  1389W
  Comprehensive figures are not held centrally, but the available information shows, that in the period 1 April 2001 to 14 February this year 782 staff in the core Home Office and Prison Service Headquarters had a free eye and eyesight test.

  This free provision is advertised throughout the Department by various means. A revised Home Office Notice was issued in August last year. In addition other means of drawing the provision to the attention of staff include information notices to staff, global e-mails, health and safety notice boards, Prison Service Orders, handbooks, and induction course material.

  Victims of Crime
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who are the members of the Victims Steering Group; how often the group meet; and whether minutes of the meetings are available to the public. [37002]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Victims Steering Group, formed in 1985, meets twice a year and its membership is comprised of representatives from the following:

  Home Office Justice and Victims Unit

  Home Office National Probation Directorate

  Home Office Research and Statistics Unit

  Prison Service

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority

  Association of Chief Police Officers

  Association of Chief Officers of Probation

  Crown Prosecution Service

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Justices' Clerk's Society

  Magistrates Association

  Judiciary

  Victim Support.

  The minutes of meetings are not published. The Victims Steering Group was formally disbanded at a meeting in November 2001, as it was recognised that the new services for victims in recent years, together with planned developments, required a more proactive, delivery focused national group. Consideration is being given currently to the terms of reference and membership of this replacement body.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how victims are classified for the purposes of the Victims' Charter; and how many victims have utilised the service since its inception, broken down by(a) region and (b) type. [36999]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Victims' Charter applies to all individual victims of theft, burglary, criminal damage, arson, assault, domestic violence, racial harassment, sexual crimes and homicide. It also applies to the parents or carers of child victims of any of these offences, and to the relatives or close friends of homicide victims.

  The second version of the Charter, published in 1996, sets out 27 standards of service which victims should expect to receive from individual criminal justice agencies—the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the courts, the National Probation Service, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, the Prison Service, and Victim Support.
  1390W
  No central record is kept of the number of victims who have made use of the services provided by each agency since the first Charter was introduced in 1990.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what extra help victims of serious crime have received; how many victims have received extra help(a) per year and (b) broken down by region; and how serious crime is defined in this respect. [37004]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Victim Support offer help and support to all victims of crime, and will gauge how much help a victim needs according to the seriousness of the offence and the effect it has had on the victim. Most victims of crime will be automatically referred to Victim Support by the police, unless the victim specifically states he/she does not want this to happen. Victims of serious crimes will only have their details passed to Victim Support with their expressed consent. In this context, serious crimes are defined as sexual offences, domestic violence or homicide.

  Information is not collected centrally which lists how many victims have received extra help (a) per year and (b) broken down by region.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which agencies have consulted victims since 1977; what the subject of the consultation was; and whether the reports are available to the public. [37003]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Information is not collected centrally on which agencies have consulted victims; what the subject of the consultation was; or whether the reports are available to the public.

  The most significant recent consultation involving victims was a review of the Victims' Charter. A consultation paper was issued on 28 February 2001 seeking views on issues such as a bill of rights for victims, the establishment of a Victims' Ombudsman, and whether victims of road traffic incidents should receive the services provided to victims of crime. The consultation period ended on 15 June 2001, and 120 responses were received, including 49 from individual victims. A summary of responses was placed in the Library and on the Home Office website in July 2001.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how victims are informed of the(a) Victims' Charter and (b) Victims' Support Group. [37000]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  After reporting a crime, all victims will be given the opportunity, by the police, to be contacted by Victim Support if they so wish. At or about the same time, the "Victims of Crime" leaflet is also issued by the police, and it outlines how Victim Support can be contacted directly. Victims are also made aware of Victim Support through television programmes such as "Crimewatch UK".

  The Victims' Charter is available at police stations, at Victim Support Schemes, and from some public libraries and is published on the Home Office website.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how criminals in prison are informed of the victim support service; and how many visits have been undertaken by the victim support service
  1391W
  to prisoners who have alleged that they have been sexually abused, broken down by prison since inception of the service. [37074]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Victim Support is an independent charitable organisation which receives grant aid from the Home Office (£25 million in 2001–02) to provide support to victims of crime and to witnesses.

  There is no requirement for Prison Service staff to inform prisoners who allege that they have become victims of crime about the services of Victim Support. However, if a prisoner had a need for such information and sought it from a member of staff, such as his personal officer, probation officer or a health care worker, the information would be provided.

  Victim Support advise that they work from a non-judgmental position, and accept that a prisoner can become a victim and thus qualify for their support. Victim Support schemes are accordingly willing to visit prisoners on request and with permission from the prison authorities. They do not collate data on how many prison visits have taken place.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many criminals in prison who are victims of crime(a) have been taken to visit courts before their case is started and (b) have had seats reserved for a friend or relative, broken down by area since inception of the service; and what recent research he has undertaken to examine the link between abused children and their potential to become abusive adults. [37073]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Witness Service, run by the voluntary organisation Victim Support, can arrange pre-trial visits to familiarise victims of crime with the layout of the court and the courtroom. No statistics are collected on how many victims, including those serving prison sentences, take advantage of this opportunity, nor how often seats are reserved for a friend or relative during the trial itself.

  Number of persons1 in prison in Wales on the 30 of each year broken down by year and offence groups

  Offence group

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  20022

  Affray

  29

  22

  23

  33

  24

  19

  Arson

  11

  20

  23

  18

  18

  36

  Assaults

  11

  11

  16

  17

  22

  39

  Blackmail

  1

  2

  1

  5

  1

  2

  Breach of court order

  8

  24

  20

  21

  19

  19

  Buggery and indecency between males

  27

  25

  26

  27

  19

  26

  Burglary

  237

  350

  373

  315

  291

  332

  Criminal damage

  53

  55

  54

  32

  43

  56

  Cruelty to children

  2

  2

  4

  1

  2

  7

  Drug offences

  124

  206

  206

  186

  248

  280

  Drunkenness

  2

  1

  3

  1

  8

  —

  Forgery

  2

  3

  2

  —

  4

  2

  Frauds

  25

  29

  24

  21

  30

  29

  Gross indecency with children

  37

  44

  35

  42

  44

  42

  Handling stolen goods

  33

  31

  40

  21

  24

  34

  Immigration Act 1971

  3

  4

  —

  —

  47

  2

  In charge or driving drink/drugs

  13

  31

  27

  23

  30

  22

  Kidnapping

  5

  3

  12

  6

  11

  6

  Manslaughter

  2

  5

  5

  11

  9

  16

  Murder

  28

  27

  23

  27

  33

  33

  Not recorded

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Offence not recorded

  19

  18

  53

  46

  35

  41

  Other criminal offences

  15

  41

  42

  38

  38

  32

  Other homicide and attempted homicide

  28

  49

  47

  43

  33

  51

  Other motoring offences

  92

  97

  115

  134

  135

  138

  Other non-criminal offences

  4

  2

  3

  —

  —

  2

  Other offences of VATP

  25

  37

  26

  37

  30

  35

  1392W
  The Home Department has not conducted any recent research to examine the link between abused children and their potential to become abusive adults.

  Northumbria Police
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answers given to the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) on 18 December 2001,Official Report, columns 231-36W, and the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) on 18 December 2001, Official Report, column 242W, if he will clarify the numbers of (a) uniformed and (b) civilian staff employed by Northumbria police in September 2001. [37579]

  Mr. Denham
  I regret that the information set out in the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) on 18 December 2001,Official Report, column 242W, contained a transcription error. The table recorded police strength of 3,908 at August 2001 as the figure for September 2001.

  Northumbria police strength on 30 September 2001 was 3,893. This is 75 more than in September 2000 and 216 more than in March 1997. The force had 1,346 civilian support staff at the end of September 2001.

  Prison Population (Wales)
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners there were in Wales(a) at the last available date and (b) in each of the last five years broken down by the offence committed. [37163]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 26 February 2002]: Data showing the total number of persons in prisons in Wales is provided in the table. These persons are held in Cardiff, Swansea, Parc and Usk (including Prescoed) prisons. They would not necessarily have lived in Wales before they were imprisoned.
  1393W

  Number of persons1in prison in Wales on the 30 of each year broken down by year and offence groups

  Offence group

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  20022

  Other sexual offences

  65

  74

  100

  92

  89

  97

  Other thefts

  90

  145

  159

  127

  148

  157

  Perjury/libel/pervert the course of justice

  18

  19

  29

  17

  17

  22

  Rape

  95

  124

  134

  121

  125

  125

  Robbery

  93

  107

  127

  118

  122

  128

  Taking and driving away

  56

  62

  60

  56

  59

  50

  Threat/disorderly behaviour

  10

  13

  11

  7

  9

  11

  Violent disorder

  2

  14

  7

  12

  7

  17

  Wounding

  172

  242

  267

  251

  268

  282

  Total

  1,437

  1,939

  2,097

  1,906

  2,043

  2,191

  1 Includes persons held on remand

  2 Data for 31 January

  Overseas Teachers
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) working holiday and (b) other visas were granted to overseas teachers to work (i) for employment agencies and (ii) as teachers in the academic year 2000–01. [37151]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 26 February 2002]: I regret that the information on working holiday makers admitted to the United Kingdom does not separately identify those who are teachers.

  Work permits are not normally issued to employment agencies. However since October 2000 under a temporary variation to the work permit arrangements, work permits have been issued to teacher agencies. The number of work permits issued to teaching agencies during the academic year 2000–01 was 743.

  The number of work permits granted for teachers in the 2000–01 academic year was 3,444.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many overseas teachers, having been granted a visa related to a post in a particular maintained school, have applied to transfer that visa to allow them to work in a different school; and how many of these transfers were granted, in each of the terms of the 2000–01 school year. [37150]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 26 February 2002]: The number of applications received and approved for overseas teachers already holding work permits and moving from one post to another during the 2000–01 academic year was:

  Term

  Number

  Autumn

  12

  Spring

  27

  Summer

  139

  Prisoners
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what mentoring services are available to(a) children and (b) adults in prisons in England and Wales. [37792]

  Beverley Hughes
  The main mentoring service available to prisoners aged 18 and over is the "Listener" scheme, which operates in 112 prisons in England and 1394W
  Wales. The Samaritans train selected prisoners to offer help and support to prisoners who are feeling distressed, providing a "listening ear" to their peers from someone who understands the situation they are in. Listeners are available 24 hours a day to any prisoner who requests to see one, anywhere in the prison.

  The Prison Service is working with the Youth Justice Board, the Samaritans, and other voluntary organisations to establish and develop appropriate mentoring arrangements for juveniles in custody. The Young Men's Christian Association already offers support to juveniles in three establishments.

  Other mentoring schemes operate locally and many are linked to drug rehabilitation programmes. Such programmes use 'graduates' to provide peer support for those currently working through the course. These mentors often run support groups as well as providing one to one help.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average distance from home is for(a) adult male prisoners, (b) women prisoners and (c) juvenile prisoners. [37793]

  Beverley Hughes
  The latest figures, as at 30 September 2001, are set out in the table.

  Miles

  Population Group

  Average distance from home1

  Adult male prisoners

  18 to 20-year-olds

  49

  Over 20-year-olds

  53

  Women prisoners (all ages)

  66

  Juvenile prisoners (males and females)

  53

  1 Where a home address is not recorded a prisoner's committal court town has been used in the average distance from home calculation.Evidence suggests that in most cases the court and home towns are the same.

  Prison Service
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason the Prison Service key performance target for cost per prisoner is £37,509 in this financial year; and what the cost per prisoner was in 2000–01. [37794]

  Beverley Hughes
  The cost per prisoner target of £37,509 in 2001–02 is generated by dividing the full resource cost of the Prison Service, reflecting the move
  1395W
  to resource accounting, by the projected average prisoner population. The full resource cost takes into account factors such as the depreciation of assets and the cost of capital charge.

  The cost per prisoner outturn for 2000–01 was £27,636. This was based upon cash costs only and therefore did not take account of the factors such as depreciation and the cost of capital that are now appropriate under resource accounting.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason the Prison Service key performance target for the cost of an uncrowded prison place is £36,323 in this financial year; and what the cost of a prison place was in 2000–01. [37791]

  Beverley Hughes
  The cost of the uncrowded prison place target of £36,323 in 2001–02 is generated by dividing the full resource cost of the Prison Service, reflecting the move to resource accounting, by the projected average certified normal accommodation. The full resource cost takes into account factors such as the depreciation of assets and the cost of capital charge.

  The cost per uncrowded prison place outturn for 2000–01 was £27,090. This was based upon cash costs only and therefore did not take account of the factors such as depreciation and the cost of capital that are now appropriate under resource accounting.

  Prison Conditions
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what circumstances prisoners are permitted to be held more than two to a cell. [37787]

  Beverley Hughes
  Prisoners are permitted to be held more than two to a cell when the accommodation has been certified by the area manager, in accordance with the 1952 Prison Act and the Prison/Young Offender Institution Rules, as being suitable for holding more than two prisoners.

  Female Imprisonment
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases involving women were heard at(a) magistrates courts and (b) crown courts in each of the last 12 months; and what proportion of these cases resulted in a sentence of immediate imprisonment. [37789]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The available information, from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database, is set out in the table.

  Statistics for 2001 are not yet available.

  Women proceeded against at court and those sentenced to immediate custody, by month, England and Wales, 2000—Magistrates courts

  of which:

  Month

  Women proceeded against1

  Sentenced2

  Given immediate custody

  Percentage given immediate custody4

  January

  23,250

  18,125

  425

  2.3

  February

  26,822

  20,854

  562

  2.7

  March

  29,753

  23,247

  563

  2.4

  April

  23,634

  18,571

  425

  2.3

  1396W

  Women proceeded against at court and those sentenced to immediate custody, by month England and Wales, 2000—Magistrates courts

  of which:

  Month

  Women proceeded against1

  Sentenced2

  Given immediate custody

  Percentage given immediate custody4

  May

  27,294

  21,482

  457

  2.1

  June

  27,319

  21,334

  611

  2.9

  July

  27,144

  21,174

  538

  2.5

  August

  26,498

  20,744

  497

  2.4

  September

  26,871

  21,150

  463

  2.2

  October

  27,489

  21,786

  438

  2.0

  November

  31,565

  24,700

  448

  1.8

  December

  21,901

  17,317

  351

  2.0

  Total

  319,540

  250,484

  5,778

  2.3

  Women proceeded against at court and those sentenced to immediate custody, by month, England and Wales, 2000— The Crown Court

  of which:

  Month

  Women tried3

  Sentenced3

  Given immediate custody

  Percentage given immediate custody4

  January

  467

  435

  145

  33.3

  February

  515

  478

  195

  40.8

  March

  654

  613

  214

  34.9

  April

  452

  428

  152

  35.5

  May

  546

  501

  195

  38.9

  June

  555

  526

  197

  37.5

  July

  526

  473

  179

  37.8

  August

  365

  366

  149

  40.7

  September

  547

  514

  200

  38.9

  October

  500

  448

  177

  39.5

  November

  548

  450

  172

  38.2

  December

  398

  374

  147

  39.3

  Total

  6,073

  5,606

  2,122

  37.9

  1 Includes only prosecutions against women completed in magistrates courts including those committed for sentence to the Crown Court.

  2 Includes those sentenced in the magistrates courts and committed for sentence in the Crown Court.

  3 Excludes women committed for sentence.

  4 Expressed as a percentage of those sentenced.

  Crime Statistics
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of people who have been convicted of(a) violent crime, (b) sex abuse and (c) domestic violence since 1997 were subject to any of these offences as children. [37779]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information requested is not available centrally, as the Home Office Court Proceedings Database contains no information on the circumstances of individual cases nor the histories of those appearing before the courts.

  Sex Offenders
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many criminals who have been convicted of sex abuse have refused to attend sex offenders treatment programmes in each year since 1997. [37776]
  1397W
  Beverley Hughes
  There are no figures kept centrally about the number of prisoners convicted of sex abuse who have refused to take part in the sex offenders treatment programme and this information could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reimburse local authorities for their expenditure on supporting unaccompanied asylum seeking children. [39480]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I have laid before Parliament today a Special Grant Report which sets out the arrangements for reimbursing local authorities in England for the costs of supporting Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children (UASC) as a result of their duties under the Children Act 1989.

  The Special Grant Report explains the areas of expenditure which will be eligible for the grant and the time scales for local authorities to make their claims.

  As I outlined in the White Paper we will continue to offer appropriate levels of care to UASC and the Home Office leads the Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children's Stakeholder Group. One key element of this is to ensure that we can sift out adults posing as children and deter those seeking to abuse the system. Home Office staff are already taking steps to challenge older applicants and divert them to the adult asylum process.

  We are exploring opportunities for better sharing of costs across the country and in particular the joint commissioning of accommodation for unaccompanied minors who are 16 or 17 on arrival. We are already doing more to support local authorities by improving information exchange and UASC will be included as part of the asylum audit. It is important that financial support to local authorities provides fairly for essential needs and encourages good value for money.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department into which languages the information leaflets for asylum seekers in induction centres are translated; and if he will place a copy of the English language leaflet, and the document asylum seekers are required to sign, in the Library. [36431]

  Angela Eagle
  It is intended to produce a comprehensive briefing package in 31 languages. These are:

  Albanian

  Amharic

  Arabic

  Bengali

  Chinese Simplified

  Croat

  Czech

  Dari

  Farsi

  French

  Gujurati

  Kurmanji

  Kurdish soorani

  Lingala

  Lithuanian

  1398W

  Ndebele

  Nepali

  Pashto

  Polish

  Portuguese

  Punjabi

  Romanian

  Russian

  Serbian

  Shoria

  Spanish

  Swahili

  Tamil

  Turkish

  Ukranian

  Urdu

  The induction system is an evolving process and as such literature is still subject to change better to reflect the whole end to end asylum process. National Asylum Support Service (NASS), in conjunction with voluntary sector organisations, is in the process of refining and producing a raft of material for issue to those asylum seekers going through the induction process. This includes the 'client diary' which asylum seekers are asked to sign. When the material is finalised I shall arrange for an English language copy to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of race-related crimes have been reported involving asylum seekers since the introduction of the Government's dispersal policy; and if he will make a statement. [35443]

  Angela Eagle
  Detailed statistics are not collected centrally on race-related crimes involving asylum seekers. The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) records the numbers of allegations of racial harassment made by asylum seekers and their dependants in receipt of NASS support. Between May 2000 to December 2001 NASS investigations team recorded 1,159 allegations of racial harassment.

  When NASS first learns of such incidents it always ensures that they have been reported to the relevant local police, who have prime responsibility for investigating the allegation. If, following police advice, it is decided that safety or wellbeing of an asylum seeker, who is receiving NASS support, is in any doubt NASS would arrange to move that person to alternative accommodation while the case is under investigation.

  If an asylum seeker does not wish to report allegations of harassment to the police, they can do so through their solicitor who can make a report on their behalf, or an asylum seeker can report the incident to their landlord. Alternatively, there are voluntary organisations with whom an asylum seeker can report and discuss their concerns. The voluntary organisation would then liaise with NASS as regards further action.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when final decisions regarding the sites of accommodation centres for asylum seekers within the UK will be taken. [32516]
  1399W
  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) on 13 February 2002,Official Report, column 461W.

  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.

  Police Station 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.

  Firearms
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many reported offences involving the use of(a) firearms and (b) hand guns there were in each of the last six years for which figures are available; [36115]

  (2) 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]

  (3) how many (a) killings and (b) crimes causing personal injury involving the use of hand guns there were in each of the last six years for which records exist. [36151]

  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 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

  Number

  19951

  39

  19961

  30

  19971

  39

  1998–992

  32

  1999–20002

  42

  2000–012

  47

  1 Calendar years

  2 Years ending March

HEALTH

  MRSA
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made of the effectiveness of Quat Phen in combating MRSA. [8723]
  1400W
  Yvette Cooper
  We are not aware of Quat Phen being used within installed ventilation systems used in NHS hospitals with respect to combating MRSA.

  However antiseptics and antibiotics are used to treat people who are carriers of MRSA, are colonised with MRSA, or have local or systemic MRSA infections. The treatment used depends on the condition to be treated, and on the strain of MRSA.

  Organ Donation
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent initiatives his Department has implemented to encourage people to become organ donors. [23972]

  Jacqui Smith
  There have been numerous wide-ranging initiatives in England to raise the public's awareness of the shortage of organs for transplantation. The Department runs a public information campaign with a current annual budget of £900,000. A public information leaflet incorporating the organ donor card is widely distributed, and is also available through the Organ Donor Literature line. The campaign is further enhanced by securing free TV airtime for short public information films, a campaign website and partnerships and arrangements with the DVLA, the Passport Agency, rotarian clubs, Boots the Chemist and some banks who have chosen organ donation as a cause to support.

  The Department runs a special campaign to raise awareness among members of the Asian Community. This includes short TV films featuring well known Asian personalities and leaflets in various languages. Awareness is also raised by maintaining a presence at cultural and religious events, and by facilitation of debate on this issue at forums set up within Asian communities. Phase three of this campaign was launched in September this year.

  A similar campaign targeting the African and African-Caribbean communities is planned for launch in spring 2002. The campaign will feature a public information leaflet, targeting advertising and public relations.

  The Department funds the work of the voluntary organisations through the Section 64 Grant Scheme, including a major initiative to raise awareness by the National Kidney Research Fund. We are also helping to promote the Transplant Partnership's 2001 Christmas initiative "sign one more card this Christmas" by using the specially designed franking stamp and encouraging other organisations to do the same.

  Nursing Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health under which circumstances the NHS might pay a retainer for the nursing costs to a nursing home during a time a person is in hospital. [26580]

  Jacqui Smith
  The circumstances in which the National Health Service will pay a retainer should be set out in the contract which the NHS agrees with the nursing home.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health authorities and primary care trusts have completed their determinations of the banding of nursing care for those who were resident in nursing homes at 1 October 2001 and were paying for their own fees; for
  1401W
  those health authorities and primary care trusts which have not yet completed the determinations, how many each authority has outstanding; how many health authorities and primary care trusts have not yet begun their determinations; if the Government plan to pay interest to those people whose determinations of the banding of nursing care have not been completed by the end of December 2001; and for each health authority and primary care trust that has completed the determinations, what percentage of residents has been placed in (a) the lowest band, (b) the middle band, (c) the highest band, (d) a higher level based on individual need and (e) the percentage found to require fully funded NHS care. [26579]

  Jacqui Smith
  Preliminary information available from regions of the position at the end of December, indicates that around 80 per cent. of the nursing homes with residents eligible for National Health Service funded nursing care had had their residents' needs for care determined by a registered nurse. The majority of the remaining assessments were completed by the end of January.

  Around 99 per cent. of people in nursing homes whose needs have been determined have been found to be eligible. Of those whose needs have been determined, around 19 per cent. have been allocated to the low band; 58 per cent. to the middle band; and 22 per cent. to the high band. The information collected did not include those found to require fully funded NHS care, but the Department is aware that this has occurred in a significant number of cases.

  The NHS is funding care from a registered nurse, which is being provided by the nursing home and payments are made to the home for that care from October 2001.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether Welsh residents who move to a nursing home in England will receive NHS funding under(a) the Welsh or (b) the English scheme; [26582]

  (2) whether English residents who move to a nursing home in Wales will receive NHS funding under (a) the Welsh or (b) the English scheme. [26638]

  Jacqui Smith
  Residents will receive funding for their nursing care from the authority that is responsible for their health care. In general, this means that residents will receive funding under the scheme of the country in which the nursing home is situated.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures the Government are taking to ensure that additional administration costs incurred by a home as a result of the implementation of free nursing care are not passed on to the resident. [26581]

  Jacqui Smith
  The national health service is working at a local level to minimise the administrative burdens on both the NHS and nursing homes. Local agreements should ensure that administration costs are not passed on as a separate charge to individuals.

  In-patients (Hertfordshire)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the percentage was of patients waiting for in-patient treatment in the Hertfordshire Health Authority on(a) 1 January 2001 and (b) 1 January 2002. [25989]
  1402W
  Mr. Hutton
  Hertfordshire Health Authority in-patients as a percentage of total waiting for treatment on 1 January 2001 is 49.3 per cent. Figures for 2002 are not yet available.

  These data are nationally published data taken from regional offices data systems.

  Migraine Treatment
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent guidance he has issued on treatment available to migraine and chronic headache sufferers. [26081]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have issued no recent guidance on treatment for either migraine or chronic headache sufferers.

  Hearing Aids
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) digital and (b) analogue hearing aids are fitted in the NHS. [32092]

  Jacqui Smith
  Figures on total numbers of hearing aids purchased by the national health service are not collected centrally. However, figures are collected in respect of the modernising hearing aid services project. To the end of January 2002, 22,346 digital and 1,243 analogue aids were fitted to adults by the 20 hospitals involved in the project.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which NHS trusts will provide digital hearing aids following the Government announcement on 24 December 2001; and if he will make a statement. [36388]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have invited expressions of interest by 1 March 2002 from all health communities not yet involved in the modernising hearing aid services project. We will make decisions shortly about which sites will be included.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the latest estimate he has available is of the(a) cost of implementing physical changes to residential and nursing homes and (b) annual cost of staffing implication resulting from the Care Standards Act 2000. [32699]

  Jacqui Smith
  The latest estimate of the cost of compliance with the new standards and regulations for care homes was published in the regulatory impact assessment, which was placed in the Library in December 2001.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the(a) average and (b) longest times waited by patients assessed as needing a care home whilst on an acute assessment ward before leaving the ward for a care home were in the last 12 months (i) in the UK and (ii) in North Yorkshire. [36916]
  1403W
  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not collected centrally in the form requested.

  Ageism
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on how the £12 million dedicated to countering ageism in the NHS has been allocated. [34404]

  Jacqui Smith
  No such allocation of dedicated funding has been made. The programme of action provided by the National Service Framework for Older People to address the issues of age discrimination is centred on giving older people fair access to all services. This is regardless of age, on the basis of clinical need in the national health service, and in social care services by ending the use of age in eligibility criteria to restrict access to available services. Older people as the major users of health and social care services will benefit from increased levels of funding over the coming years, building on the announcements in the NHS Plan.

  £

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  (i) Andersen

  51,547

  7,226

  0.00

  1,774

  0.00

  (ii) Deloitte Touche

  72,350

  45,445

  11,083

  55,604

  342,730

  (iii) Ernst and Young

  26,229

  18,211

  23.00

  30,918

  66,676

  (iv) KPMG

  331,712

  166,943

  222,802

  33,054

  1,147,785

  (v) PricewaterhouseCoopers

  143,710

  196,890

  244,699

  1,039,566

  308,364

  Working Conditions and Practices
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [35361]

  Ms Blears
  Employees working on job-share contracts are recorded as "part-time" workers. It is therefore not possible to identify the number of staff employed on a job-share contract, as the figures do not differentiate between those actually employed part-time and those employed specifically on a job-share contract.

  The policy of the Department is to assume that all jobs are capable of being carried out on a part-time basis and, therefore, no specific reference is made in advertisements to the fact that the post is suitable for part-time working. Recruiting managers are expected to make reasonable adjustments to job descriptions or other aspects of the job to meet the needs of applicants with non-standard working hours or working patterns.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [35926]

  Fertility Treatment
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the NICE guidelines for fertility treatment will be published. [34617]

  Ms Blears
  I understand that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence has not yet published a timetable for development of these guidelines.

  Accountancy Contracts
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish 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. [34988]

  Ms Blears
  The Department does not centrally hold a record of individual contracts. However our financial records show the following total payments made by the Department (excluding its agencies) to (i) Arthur Andersen, (ii) Deloitte Touche, (iii) Ernst and Young, (iv) KPMG and (v) PricewaterhouseCoopers by fiscal year since April 1997:

  Ms Blears
  The Department does not hold any data specifically on the number of reported cases of work related stress. While the Department collects data on sickness absence, which includes stress, it is not possible to identify if the cause of the 'stress related illness' was work related. It is not possible, therefore, to identify costs.

  The Department's settlement/compensation payments are made to address a number of circumstances, of which work-related stress is only one element. Central records giving compensation payments on the grounds of work-related stress are not recorded separately.

  The Department has a number of procedures in place to help managers and staff to be aware of and to reduce work-related stress. The Department has:

  issued guidance for managers and staff in line with health and safety legislation on 'Working Time Regulations'.

  Has a mental health policy that recognises that stress at work is a significant contributor to mental health problems.

  Issued guidance to managers and staff on the causes of stress and how to reduce this.

  Provides staff with a free confidential counselling service, "Care First", and

  encourages its staff to attend relevant training or discuss any concerns with their line managers.

  These are established procedures and there is no on-going cost to the Department, with the exception of the "Care First" providers, which are contracted by the Department at an annual cost of £77,000.
  1405W
  As part of the 'revitalising health & safety' initiative aspects of the above will be reviewed in relation to stress in the workplace.

  St. George's Hospital, Tooting
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial allocation has been made to St George's Hospital, Tooting in each of the last 10 years. [35322]

  Mr. Hutton
  St George's Healthcare National Health Service trust does not receive a financial allocation but receives income for the services it provides to other NHS organisations. The Trust also receives income from other sources including overseas and private patients as well as funding for education, training, research and development.

  St George's was established on April 1 1993. The total income of the Trust since its establishment is as follows:

  Year

  Income

  1993–94

  139,109

  1994–95

  143,092

  1995–96

  152,098

  1996–97

  161,793

  1997–98

  173,135

  1998–99

  185,927

  1999–2000

  227,622

  2000–01

  223,195

  Note:

  The Trust received additional one off funds in 1999–2000 to offset impairments to fixed assets (£21 million).

  Thrombolysis Treatment
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health at which hospital A and E departments thrombolysis treatment is not available. [35982]

  Ms Blears
  All Accident and Emergency Departments have the capability to provide thrombolysis for patients suffering from heart attacks and the vast majority provides this treatment. In a very small number of trusts, arrangements for the management of patients with heart attacks include rapid admission to Coronary Care Units for thrombolysis rather than treatment in the Accident and Emergency Department.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health at which hospital with coronary care units thrombolysis treatment is not available. [35983]

  Yvette Cooper
  Thrombolysis treatment is available at all coronary care units. Providing thrombolysis for heart attack patients as quickly as possible is the subject of one of the standards set out in the National Service Framework, our ten-year programme for improving the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of coronary heart disease.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when thrombolysis treatment will be made available at Hull Royal Infirmary. [35984]

  Jacqui Smith
  Thrombolysis treatment has been administered at Hull Royal Infirmary since 1987.

  Hospital Waiting Times
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how long waiting times are and how many people are waiting for referral to cancer specialists in the Hull and East Riding over the last 12 months. [35980]

  Jacqui Smith
  In Hull and East Riding patients waiting to see a cancer specialist, with few exceptions, are seen in outpatients within a week and inpatients within two to three days.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how long waiting times are and how many people are waiting for examinations for cancer in Hull and the East Riding. [35978]

  Jacqui Smith
  Patients in Hull and East Riding, who are referred by their general practitioner with suspected cancer, should be seen within two weeks in accordance with the NHS cancer plan targets.

  From January to December 2001, of the 2,413 patients referred via the two week wait process only 15 waited longer than two weeks and all of these were seen within 42 days of urgent GP referral.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many have waited longer than eight weeks to see a cancer specialist after being referred by their GP in Hull and the East Riding in the past 12 months. [35979]

  Jacqui Smith
  Health authority records show that, in Hull and East Riding, 2,413 patients were referred via the two week wait process from January to December 2001. Of these only 15 waited longer than two weeks and all of these were seen within 42 days of urgent general practitioner referral.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients admitted to A and E departments in Hull and East Riding have waited more than 12 hours before being treated in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [35985]

  Jacqui Smith
  All patients waiting in Accident and Emergency at Hull Royal Infirmary are treated within 12 hours. During the year 2001, there were no 12-hour inappropriate waits in Accident and Emergency at Hull Royal Infirmary.

  Smear Tests
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients are waiting and for how long for smear test results in Hull and East Riding. [35977]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information is not available in the form requested. Data on waiting times for smear test results for East Riding health authority in 2000–01 are shown in the table. In about 1 per cent. of cases the information was not available.

  Time from receipt of smear to authorisation of report

  Percentage of reports

  Up to 4 weeks

  82

  More than 4 weeks up to 6 weeks

  13

  More than 6 weeks up to 8 weeks

  4

  Over 8 weeks

  1

  Sources:

  KC53 part E

  Statistics Division 2B

  Departmental Website
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [36139]

  Ms Blears
  The cost of the Department of Health's website is as follows:

  £000

  Financial year

  Hosting and maintenance

  Website development

  Estimated staff costs

  Total costs

  1998–99

  29.4

  20

  178.9

  228.3

  1999–00

  62.8

  30

  229.4

  322.2

  2000–01

  57.8

  130.7

  277.1

  465.6

  2001–021

  69.6

  2 245.9

  339.7

  655.2

  1 To 1 February 2002.

  2 This figure includes £532,000 spent on user research.

  The Department uses page impressions rather than hits as a measure of usage. The figures for the last four years are as follows:

  Calendar year

  Page impressions

  1998

  4,533,775

  1999

  16,485,398

  2000

  37,504,218

  2001

  48,337,144

  Union Duties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [36200]

  Ms Blears
  The Department, including its agencies, has 10 accredited full-time union representatives (100 per cent. of their duties) who may receive paid leave to undertake union activities.

  In addition to facility time, a reasonable amount of paid time off for accredited representatives, to enable them to carry out trade union activities, may be given within a limit of 15 days per annum. An additional 10 days may be given to those elected or appointed to national union bodies such as group and national executive committees.

  As all annual leave taken by staff is recorded and checked locally by business areas within the Department, there is no centrally held information available on the cost of paid leave taken by accredited representatives for trade union activities.

  The Department does not hold any details of union duties undertaken by non-departmental public bodies staff.

  Industrial Action
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [36179]
  1408W
  Ms Blears
  There have been no days lost owing to industrial action by staff in the Department or its agencies in the last four years.

  The Department does not hold any details of union activities undertaken by non-departmental public bodies staff.

  Medicines
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what levels of access there are to medicines(a) over-the-counter and (b) through the NHS itself. [36293]

  Ms Blears
  There are two levels of access to over the counter medicines. General sale list medicines are available from a range of retail outlets. Pharmacy medicines are available from pharmacies. As part of national health service arrangements medicines may be administered or supplied by a range of professional staff or prescribed by doctors, dentists and some nurses. Depending on the circumstances, prescribed medicines can be dispensed by hospital or community pharmacies or by dispensing doctors. There are restrictions on the types of medicines which most professional staff may administer, supply or prescribe, some of which arise from legislation under the Medicines Act, and some of which are specific to the NHS.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy that a change to the procedures for the reclassification of medicines from prescription-only to pharmacy sale will not remove availability by way of the NHS medicines reclassified for over-the-counter availability. [36294]

  Ms Blears
  The NHS Plan committed the Government to making more medicines available over the counter and therefore giving people a greater choice in their treatment and empowering patients to manage their care with the help of skilled health care staff. However, before a medicine is made more widely available, it is assessed against strict criteria relating to its safety in the circumstances in which it will be used. The policy is to improve access to a range of medicines without affecting their availability on the national health service, unless there are existing restrictions on NHS availability.

  Cruse Bereavement Care
  Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met representatives of Cruse Bereavement Care; what financial assistance he is providing for Cruse Bereavement Care; what assessment he has made of the contribution Cruse makes to reducing long-term mental health problems; and if he will make a statement. [R] [36935]

  Jacqui Smith
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last met with representatives from Cruse Bereavement Care on 2 June 2000. On 12 February 2002 civil servants from the Department met with the new chief executive of Cruse to discuss the work of Cruse and its role in the delivery of modern mental health services.

  The Department has provided Cruse Bereavement Care with funding over a number of years under the Section 64 General Scheme under the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968. Details of current projects and funding are:
  1409W

  £

  Quality Care in Bereavement

  1 180,000

  Bereavement Care—Improving Access

  2 176,000

  Promoting Bereavement Awareness

  3 90,000

  1 Over 3 years from 1999

  2 Over 3 years from 2000

  3 Over 3 years from 2001

  We recognise that to deliver a modern, dependable health and social care service, the voluntary sector has a crucial role to play in helping service users cope with their mental health problems and we appreciate and value the very good work being done by voluntary organisations such as Cruse.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists, broken down by health authority, have taken NHS patients in(a) 1979, (b) 1992, (c) 1997 and (d) 2001 or the most recent available date. [36390]

  Ms Blears
  Table 1 shows the number of General Dental Service (GDS) dentists on the dental list in each family health service authority (FHSA) at the end of(a) September 1979 and (b) September 1992.

  In April 1996, FHSA's were replaced by health authorities.

  Table 2 shows the number of GDS dentists on the dental list of each HA at the end of (c) September 1997 and (d) September 2001.

  Dentists working in more than one FHSA or HA are counted only once in their main health authority.

  GDS dentists cover principals and their assistants and vocational dental practitioners.

  Table 1: general dental service: number of dentists by family health service authority at 30 September 1979 and 1992, England

  FHSA

  1979

  1992

  England

  12,146

  15,411

  Avon

  309

  360

  Barking and Havering

  90

  99

  Barnet

  143

  139

  Barnsley

  40

  62

  Bedfordshire

  90

  140

  Berkshire

  184

  251

  Birmingham

  257

  300

  Bolton

  53

  74

  Bradford

  115

  144

  Brent and Harrow

  178

  192

  Bromley

  109

  123

  Buckinghamshire

  146

  243

  Bury

  43

  55

  Calderdale

  39

  56

  Cambridgeshire

  118

  179

  Camden and Islington

  185

  175

  Cheshire

  241

  331

  City and East London

  149

  175

  Cleveland

  93

  166

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  114

  141

  Coventry

  73

  82

  Croydon

  135

  125

  Cumbria

  111

  143

  Derbyshire

  164

  257

  Devon

  295

  366

  Doncaster

  46

  85

  Dorset

  183

  229

  1410W

  Table 1: general dental service: number of dentists by family health service authority at 30 September 1979 and 1992, England

  FHSA

  1979

  1992

  Dudley

  55

  74

  Durham

  95

  142

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  254

  259

  East Sussex

  219

  273

  Enfield and Haringey

  150

  168

  Essex

  319

  438

  Gateshead

  37

  64

  Gloucestershire

  145

  204

  Greenwich and Bexley

  110

  150

  Hampshire

  398

  512

  Hereford and Worcester

  143

  207

  Hertfordshire

  307

  381

  Hillingdon

  69

  80

  Humberside

  132

  205

  Isle of Wight

  30

  46

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminister

  345

  209

  Kent

  376

  495

  Kingston and Richmond

  114

  128

  Kirklees

  70

  116

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  236

  268

  Lancashire

  284

  421

  Leeds

  213

  258

  Leicestershire

  169

  238

  Lincolnshire

  95

  123

  Liverpool

  123

  146

  Manchester

  136

  177

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  202

  246

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  84

  96

  Norfolk

  154

  223

  North Tyneside

  50

  59

  North Yorkshire

  186

  235

  Northamptonshire

  102

  140

  Northumberland

  56

  83

  Nottinghamshire

  200

  272

  Oldham

  42

  69

  Oxfordshire

  144

  191

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  133

  147

  Rochdale

  45

  57

  Rotherham

  46

  62

  Salford

  49

  62

  Salop

  96

  123

  Sandwell

  63

  71

  Sefton

  77

  90

  Sheffield

  131

  165

  Solihull

  42

  53

  Somerset

  123

  149

  South Tyneside

  22

  45

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  75

  89

  Staffordshire

  180

  237

  Stockport

  91

  107

  Suffolk

  151

  196

  Sunderland

  47

  70

  Surrey

  380

  455

  Tameside

  46

  66

  Trafford

  62

  85

  Wakefield

  59

  87

  Walsall

  44

  59

  Warwickshire

  99

  131

  West Sussex

  227

  283

  Wigan

  55

  85

  Wiltshire

  117

  173

  Wirral

  89

  112

  Wolverhampton

  50

  64

  Note:

  Some dentists have contracts in more than one family health service authority. These dentists have been counted only once, in the HA in which they hold their main contract.
  1411W

  Table 2: General dental service: number of dentists by health authority at 30 September 1997 and 2001 England

  Health Authority

  1997

  2001

  England

  16,728

  18,354

  Avon

  397

  441

  Barking and Havering

  109

  131

  Barnet Enfield and Haringey

  340

  377

  Barnsley

  63

  66

  Bedfordshire

  152

  189

  Berkshire

  281

  313

  Bexley Bromley and Greenwich

  273

  294

  Birmingham

  314

  320

  Bradford

  153

  144

  Brent and Harrow

  188

  221

  Buckinghamshire

  262

  294

  Bury and Rochdale

  128

  120

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  186

  199

  Cambridge1

  —

  248

  Cambridge and Huntingdon1

  132

  —

  Camden and Islington

  203

  225

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  153

  178

  County Durham

  153

  167

  Coventry

  82

  94

  Croydon

  148

  151

  Doncaster

  93

  99

  Dorset

  244

  279

  Dudley

  82

  91

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  333

  352

  East Kent

  188

  210

  East Lancashire

  159

  165

  East London and The City

  186

  204

  East Norfolk1

  222

  —

  East Riding

  140

  155

  East Surrey

  190

  199

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  294

  324

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  121

  125

  Gloucestershire

  206

  225

  Herefordshire

  65

  74

  Hertfordshire

  421

  512

  Hillingdon

  91

  104

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South-east Hampshire

  202

  238

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  216

  217

  Kingston and Richmond

  146

  159

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  276

  272

  Leeds

  258

  284

  Leicestershire

  263

  282

  Lincolnshire

  135

  157

  Liverpool

  157

  154

  Manchester

  167

  171

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  260

  298

  Morecambe Bay

  105

  117

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  163

  170

  Norfolk1

  —

  284

  North and East Devon

  175

  204

  North and Mid Hampshire

  181

  206

  North Cheshire

  89

  95

  North Cumbria

  104

  107

  North Derbyshire

  98

  117

  North Essex

  285

  319

  North Nottinghamshire

  103

  120

  North Staffordshire

  108

  126

  North West Anglia1

  111

  —

  North West Lancashire

  162

  172

  North Yorkshire

  267

  304

  Northamptonshire

  159

  171

  Northumberland

  100

  101

  Nottingham

  212

  225

  Oxfordshire

  201

  257

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  163

  185

  Rotherham

  67

  76

  Salford and Trafford

  151

  158

  Sandwell

  92

  93

  Sefton

  96

  96

  Sheffield

  189

  199

  Shropshire

  130

  143

  Solihull

  54

  68

  Somerset

  163

  176

  South and West Devon

  216

  254

  South Cheshire

  260

  256

  1412W

  Table 2: General dental service: number of dentists by health authority at 30 September 1997 and 2001 England

  Health Authority

  1997

  2001

  South Derbyshire

  166

  180

  South Essex

  212

  247

  South Humber

  74

  81

  South Lancashire

  87

  97

  South Staffordshire

  154

  178

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  186

  200

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  94

  104

  Stockport

  113

  119

  Suffolk

  206

  228

  Sunderland

  77

  95

  Tees

  188

  208

  Wakefield

  90

  108

  Walsall

  57

  57

  Warwickshire

  146

  170

  West Kent

  378

  367

  West Pennine

  147

  151

  West Surrey

  271

  307

  West Sussex

  300

  349

  Wigan and Bolton

  172

  182

  Wiltshire

  190

  215

  Wirral

  135

  136

  Wolverhampton

  69

  71

  Worcestershire

  180

  183

  1 Three HAs: Cambridge and Huntingdon, East Norfolk and North-west Anglia were replaced by two HAs: Cambridge and Norfolk in April 2000

  Note:

  Some dentists have contracts in more than one health authority. These dentists have been counted only once, in the HA in which they hold their main contract

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding streams are available to help set up new NHS dental practices; and if he will make a statement [36397]

  Ms Blears
  All health authorities have in place dentistry action plans aimed at meeting the Government's dental access pledge. These action plans identify local issues and develop solutions. Over the last two financial years the Government have allocated £10 million from the Dental Care Development Fund and the Dentistry Action Plan Fund to support local plans to improve access. This money enables health authorities to assist dentists seeking to set up new practices and to expand and modernise existing ones. For the future dentistry will be included in the local improvement finance trust scheme. This will provide locally focused support for the establishment of new national health service practice facilities.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when a substantive reply will be given to Sarah Markham's letter of 28 November 2001, concerning payments to nursing students. [36834]

  Mr. Hutton
  A reply was sent on 21 February.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham dated 24 August and 21 September 2001 concerning a constituent and enzyme potentiated desensitisation treatment. [34846]

  Yvette Cooper
  A reply was sent on 13 February.

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many drug misusers were receiving treatment by type of service in(a) 2000 and (b) 1997. [37572]
  1413W
  Ms Blears
  Information on the number of drug misusers in treatment in England in 2000–01 is given in table 1; comparable information is not available for earlier years. Information on the numbers of drug misusers who presented for treatment for the first time or for the first time after a gap of six months, for both 1997 and 2000 is given in table 2. Both tables exclude treatment in prisons.

  Table 1: Numbers of drug misusers in treatment by type of service, 2000–01

  Type of service

  Number

  England

  118,522

  Inpatient

  2,424

  Community: specialist services

  103,094

  Community: general practitioners

  8,180

  Structured day programmes

  706

  Residential rehabilitation

  1,902

  Others

  2,216

  Source:

  DH, Regional Drug Misuse Databases

  Table 2: Number of drug misusers who presented for treatment during the periods 1 April to 30 September 1997 and 1 April to 30 September 2000, by type of service

  Type of service

  1 April to 30 September 1997

  1 April to 30 September 2000

  England

  21,996

  33,093

  Inpatient

  455

  428

  Community: specialist services

  18,647

  28,624

  Community: general practitioners

  1,571

  1,429

  Structured day programmes

  11

  175

  Residential rehabilitation

  516

  759

  Others

  795

  1,678

  Source:

  Statistics from the Regional Drug Misuse Databases on drug misusers in treatment in England, 2000–01

  Psychiatric Extra-contractual Referrals
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost has been of psychiatric extra-contractual referrals (1) of offenders since 1997; [37220]

  (2) to the private sector since 1997. [37219]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Child Poverty
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children between the ages of 10 and 14 are living in persistent poverty in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 1991–92; and if he will make a statement. [35682]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is not available.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have for the introduction of licensing for food businesses. [37310]

  Yvette Cooper
  I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that there are no current plans to introduce new licensing provisions for food businesses.
  1414W
  The immediate priority for the Food Standards Agency, which has responsibility for food safety matters, is to improve standards generally among food businesses. It is doing this through initiatives to increase the uptake of food safety management systems designed to enable food businesses to identify and control food hazards and the recently launched campaign to increase hygiene awareness among caterers.

  The Board of the Food Standards Agency has indicated that it will keep the issue of wider licensing under review in the light of progress with these initiatives.

  Overseas Treatment
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients from the West Sussex Health Authority area have received treatment in continental European hospitals under the NHS scheme; where; for what conditions; when he will be able to give the cost; what other establishments in the other country were assessed; what cost comparisons were made; and for what reason the hospital used was selected. [37768]

  Mr. Hutton
  As of 26 February, seven patients had undergone knee replacement surgery in the Lutherhaus Hospital in Essen and the Eduardus Krankenhaus in Cologne under a contract between West Sussex Health authority and Germedic. Of these, four come from the West Sussex Health Authority Area and three from East Sussex. The latter group were all on a waiting list at a trust in West Sussex.

  The costs of these procedures are commercially confidential. They are comparable to the cost of purchasing individual procedures in the United Kingdom private sector.

  These patients have travelled under the auspices of Germedic, a company which facilitates treatment in German hospitals for non-German patients. Germedic proposed the use of these hospitals to West Sussex, who then satisfied themselves that the hospitals were suitable for their patients.

  Patients are travelling to Germany from West Sussex as part of a pilot scheme. Subject to evaluation of the pilot, arrangements will be put in place for securing overseas treatment for National Health Service patients on an ongoing basis. Decisions about the choice of hospital will be based on quality, convenience and choice.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS patients have been treated in continental hospitals since 1 January; and through which health authorities. [37314]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 26 February 2002]: Between 1 January and 15 February a total of 50 national health service patients travelled overseas to receive treatment in continental hospitals under the current pilot scheme. Forty two of these patients have come from the East Kent Health Authority area; West Sussex Health Authority has sent seven patients and the Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire Health Authority so far has sent one patient.

  Anaesthetic Breathing Systems
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reporting regime exists for incidents where the anaesthetic breathing system is believed to have(a) been blocked and (b) malfunctioned. [36263]

  Ms Blears
  The Medical Devices Agency (MDA), an executive agency of the Department, currently operates two systems for reporting adverse incidents involving medical devices.

  Incidents involving blocked or malfunctioning breathing system components should be reported to the MDA by health care professionals or the National Health Service through the user reporting system or, if the report comes from a manufacturer, through the agency's vigilance reporting system.

  At the beginning of each year, the MDA publishes advice in the form of a safety notice to health care professionals to encourage them to report adverse incidents and to outline how to do so. MDA's website also provides advice on reporting incidents involving medical equipment, together with reporting forms and an online reporting facility.

  MDA liaison officers have been appointed for each health authority, NHS trust and social services department in England (also for the majority of primary care trusts) with a dual role of raising awareness of the need for incident reporting and secondly to ensure that any safety advice issued by MDA is disseminated within their organisation to those who need to know.

  The mandatory scheme for reporting adverse incidents relating to medical devices, often termed vigilance reporting, is an obligation laid upon all European Member States via the Medical Devices Directives. These Directives have been implemented in United Kingdom law via the Consumer Protection Act which places statutory obligations on manufacturers to report incidents which led to, or could have led to, death or serious injury.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the police investigation into blockages discovered in anaesthetic breathing systems, as part of Operation Orcadian; and when he expects these will be concluded. [36264]

  Ms Blears
  After discussion with the Essex police I am able to make the following statement.

  A police investigation commenced with the tragic death of Tony Clowes at Broomfield Hospital, Chelmsford on 18 July 2001. Further incidents involving blocked anaesthetic breathing equipment components came to light and a linked enquiry was launched headed by Essex Police under the name Orcadian.

  The basis of the enquiry and the linking process was to look for a common factor. As the enquiry progressed a number of other incidents were reported from a number of sources, including patients who felt they may have been involved in an incident in the past. Some manufacturing faults were also reported.

  In many cases the information available is, or was, very scant. There have been difficulties in obtaining accurate accounts and records for incidents that are historic and
  1416W
  which may not have been considered significant at the time. Some of the incidents involved date back to the late 1980s.

  During the course of the investigation, experiments were carried out which showed that a blockage could be replicated whilst the items were in storage. This finding changed the focus of the enquiry from 'whom' to 'how'.

  To date no common factor has been found although the enquiry is still ongoing.

  Orcadian has been a joint enquiry involving nine police forces and the close co-operation of the National Health Service, Health and Safety Executive and the Department of Health.

  The Medical Devices Agency (MDA) has assisted the police by providing Orcadian with advice on breathing systems and their use. Since the enquiry began, the MDA has published three Hazard Notices to advise and alert users to related safety issues as they have emerged from the police enquiry.

  It is difficult to predict at this stage when Orcadian will be concluded.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many incidents relating to the blockage of anaesthetic breathing systems are believed to have occurred within the NHS in each of the past three years; and if he will make a statement. [36265]

  Ms Blears
  The Medical Devices Agency (MDA) report that there are three main ways in which anaesthetic breathing system components can become blocked. These are: manufacturing problems; user error; and possible tampering.

  The MDA adverse incident database holds the following information for each type of blockage over the past three years:

  Manufacturing problem

  User error

  Possible tampering

  1999

  1

  1

  1—

  2000

  2

  1

  1—

  2001

  4

  9

  7

  1 None reported

  The increase in reports for 2001 may be attributed to the publication, by MDA, of three hazard notices raising the awareness of the possibility of blockages, together with the raised profile brought about by media coverage of the police Operation Orcadian.

  Some of the reports relating to possible tampering are historical events that were reported following MDA's action and the police investigation. All seven incidents are subject to ongoing investigation within Operation Orcadian.

  Those reports categorised as manufacturing problems were investigated by MDA and appropriate corrective action has been taken by the manufacturer to reduce the likelihood of re-occurrence. In some cases the product was recalled.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what resources have been made available for counselling unaccompanied asylum seeking children suspected to be at risk of being victims of trafficking. [36640]

  Jacqui Smith
  No specific resources have been made available for counselling accompanied asylum seeking children suspected to be at risk of being victims of trafficking. However, eligible unaccompanied asylum seeking children will have access to the full range of local services.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many places are available in safe houses in the United Kingdom for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children suspected to be at risk of being victims of trafficking. [36641]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has undertaken into the disappearance of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children from social services care for the suspected purpose of trafficking for commercial sexual exploitation; and what resources have been made available for this research. [36642]

  Jacqui Smith
  No specific research has been undertaken into the disappearance of unaccompanied asylum seeking children from social services' care for the purposes of trafficking for commercial sexual exploitation. We are aware that a number of unaccompanied asylum seeking children in care in West Sussex have in the past gone missing, and that West Sussex Social Services Department and Sussex police have put in place protocols and procedures to help tackle this problem.

  Private Hospitals
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) monitoring and (b) evaluation of private hospitals his Department undertakes. [31128]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]: Currently, private hospitals are regulated under the Registered Homes Act 1984 by health authorities, rather than the Department, which carries out no monitoring or evaluation centrally. On 1 April this year, responsibility for regulating private hospitals will be taken over by the National Care Standards Commission under the Care Standards Act 2000. Information collected by the Commission about the services and facilities they inspect will be published.

  Dementia
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to commission research into the incidence of dementia. [35083]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: The Department of Health has a research programme underpinning the National Service Framework for Older People. Dementia will be one of the topics to be considered in the research attached to the NSF underpinning strategy.
  1418W
  Bids for policy-related research projects will be sought in the near future. The successful projects, and their research findings, will be included on the National Research Register www.doh.gov.uk/research when available.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his written answer of 26 January 2002,Official Report, column 717W, on additional health services, whether the number of (a) early intervention teams and (b) crisis resolution teams are known; and what the figures are. [35570]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: A service mapping exercise was completed by Local Implementation Teams (LITs) and submitted on the 31 October 2001.

  Based on the details supplied at that time which are now becoming ready for report following validation and assessment:

  (a) There were 16 early intervention teams in place;

  (b) There were 52 crisis resolution teams in place.

  It is worth noting that these services are undergoing rapid development as part of 2004 NHS Plan target and these figures will rise over the coming months.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 16 January 2002,Official Report, column 376W, on mental health, if he will provide a breakdown of how the revenue expenditure in 2002–03 and 2003–04 will be spent in respect of (a) crisis resolution, (b) assertive outreach, (c) early intervention, (d) primary care workers and (e) services for women and carers. [35482]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: In 2002–03 additional £93.5 million revenue has been allocated to mental health services. £75 million of this will go out with health authority allocations as shown in the table and is earmarked for mental health. Breakdown of allocations is not yet available for 2003–04.

  2002–03

  Crisis resolution

  30

  Assertive outreach

  10

  Early intervention

  15

  Gateway to specialist services

  10

  Women services

  0

  Carers

  10

  Primary care workers

  0

  Total

  75

  In addition to the health authority allocations, some budgets will be held centrally to support specific schemes. Of this £2.5 million has been allocated to support training projects for primary care workers.

  Although health authority allocations are calculated on the basis above, expenditure data will not be collected for specific areas of mental health. Local investment plans

  1419W
  will dictate the proportion of allocation spent in each area and performance against targets set out in local implementation plans will be measured.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new entrants to the civil service were employed in his Department in each of the last five years; and how many in each year were aged 50 and over. [36488]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 25 February 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Cabinet Office on 25 February 2002, Official Report, columns 875-80W.

  Annexe A: length of delayed discharge—patients of all ages—quarter 2 2001–02

  National and regional summary

  Total delayed

  Percentage delays

  Area

  Less than 8 days

  Between 8-14 days

  14-28 days

  More than 28 days

  Less than 8 daysM1

  Between 8-14 days1

  Between 14-28 days1

  Greater than 28 days1

  Percentage HAs included in analysis

  England

  1,607

  1,268

  1,401

  2,789

  22.7

  17.9

  19.8

  39.5

  96.8

  Northern and Yorkshire

  165

  145

  164

  355

  19.9

  17.5

  19.8

  42.8

  100.0

  Trent

  144

  95

  65

  88

  36.7

  24.2

  16.6

  22.4

  100.0

  West Midlands

  278

  169

  202

  371

  27.3

  16.6

  19.8

  36.4

  100.0

  North West

  164

  107

  122

  214

  27.0

  17.6

  20.1

  35.3

  93.8

  Eastern

  108

  105

  90

  332

  17.0

  16.5

  14.2

  52.3

  85.7

  London

  136

  244

  191

  406

  13.9

  25.0

  19.5

  41.6

  92.9

  South East

  387

  242

  402

  812

  21.0

  13.1

  21.8

  44.1

  100.0

  South West

  225

  161

  165

  211

  29.5

  21.1

  21.7

  27.7

  100.0

  Health authority summary

  Total delayed

  Percentage delays

  Health authority

  Less than 8 days

  Between 8-14 days

  14-28 days

  More than 28 days

  Less than 8 days1

  Between 8-14 days1

  Between 14-28 days1

  More than 28 days1

  HA included

  Bardford

  11

  0

  1

  0

  91.7

  0.0

  8.3

  0.0

  Yes

  County Durham and Darlington

  24

  7

  13

  38

  29.3

  8.5

  15.9

  46.3

  Yes

  East Riding and Hull

  4

  20

  2

  1

  14.8

  74.1

  7.4

  3.7

  Yes

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  1

  6

  12

  23

  2.4

  14.3

  28.6

  54.8

  Yes

  Leeds

  11

  16

  27

  92

  7.5

  11.0

  18.5

  63.0

  Yes

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  45

  13

  16

  17

  49.5

  14.3

  17.6

  18.7

  Yes

  North Cumbria

  14

  15

  29

  75

  10.5

  11.3

  21.8

  56.4

  Yes

  Northumberland

  2

  0

  0

  0

  11.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Yes

  Sunderland

  10

  5

  11

  28

  18.5

  9.3

  20.4

  51.9

  Yes

  Tees

  19

  25

  28

  11

  22.9

  30.1

  33.7

  13.3

  Yes

  Wakefield

  17

  3

  4

  10

  50.0

  8.8

  11.8

  29.4

  Yes

  North Yorkshire

  9

  13

  15

  55

  9.8

  14.1

  16.3

  59.8

  Yes

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  -2

  22

  6

  5

  -6.5

  71.0

  19.4

  16.1

  Yes

  Barnsley

  2

  3

  1

  0

  33.3

  50.0

  16.7

  0.0

  Yes

  North Derbyshire

  3

  3

  0

  0

  50.0

  50.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Yes

  Southern Derbyshire

  3

  1

  0

  0

  75.0

  25.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Yes

  Doncaster

  2

  2

  4

  9

  11.8

  11.8

  23.5

  52.9

  Yes

  Leicestershire

  27

  19

  8

  6

  45.0

  31.7

  13.3

  10.0

  Yes

  Lincolnshire

  6

  15

  11

  11

  14.0

  34.9

  25.6

  25.6

  Yes

  North Nottinghamshire

  7

  11

  12

  20

  14.0

  22.0

  24.0

  40.0

  Yes

  Nottingham

  22

  4

  3

  4

  66.7

  12.1

  9.1

  12.1

  Yes

  Rotherham

  9

  12

  3

  17

  22.0

  29.3

  7.3

  41.5

  Yes

  Sheffield

  59

  16

  6

  3

  70.2

  19.0

  7.1

  3.6

  Yes

  South Humber

  4

  9

  17

  18

  8.3

  18.8

  35.4

  37.5

  Yes

  Birmingham

  86

  35

  52

  157

  26.1

  10.6

  15.8

  47.6

  Yes

  Coventry

  8

  10

  6

  25

  16.3

  20.4

  12.2

  51.0

  Yes

  Dudley

  31

  12

  13

  8

  48.4

  18.8

  20.3

  12.5

  Yes

  Herefordshire

  13

  2

  4

  2

  61.9

  9.5

  19.0

  9.5

  Yes

  Sandwell

  9

  0

  8

  17

  26.5

  0.0

  23.5

  50.0

  Yes

  Shropshire

  4

  13

  5

  4

  15.4

  50.0

  19.2

  15.4

  Yes

  Solihull

  10

  3

  9

  21

  23.3

  7.0

  20.9

  48.8

  Yes

  North Staffordshire

  17

  23

  20

  26

  19.8

  26.7

  23.3

  30.2

  Yes

  South Staffordshire

  2

  25

  38

  49

  1.8

  21.9

  33.3

  43.0

  Yes

  Walsall

  10

  3

  10

  19

  23.8

  7.1

  23.8

  45.2

  Yes

  Warwickshire

  57

  27

  14

  11

  52.3

  24.8

  12.8

  10.1

  Yes

  Wolverhampton

  29

  1

  1

  0

  93.5

  3.2

  3.2

  0.0

  Yes

  Worcestershire

  2

  15

  22

  32

  2.8

  21.1

  31.0

  45.1

  Yes

  South Lancashire

  8

  3

  1

  1

  61.5

  23.1

  7.7

  7.7

  Yes

  Liverpool

  5

  22

  10

  39

  6.6

  28.9

  13.2

  51.3

  Yes

  Manchester

  12

  0

  6

  20

  31.6

  0.0

  15.8

  52.6

  Yes

  Morecambe Bay

  4

  6

  17

  47

  5.4

  8.1

  23.0

  63.5

  Yes

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  10

  3

  9

  40

  16.1

  4.8

  14.5

  64.5

  Yes

  Delayed Discharges
  Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a table of delayed discharge times for each hospital trust in England and Wales, grouped by health authority area. [37129]
  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 26 February 2002]: The information is not available centrally in the format requested.

  Information on lengths of delayed discharge at national, regional and health authority level in September 2001 (quarter 2 2001–02) is in the table.
  1421W

  Health authority summary

  Total delayed

  Percentage delays

  Health Authority

  Less than 8 days

  Between 8-14 days

  14-28 days

  More than 28 days

  Less than 8 days1

  Between 8-14 days1

  Between 14-28 days1

  More than 28 days1

  HA included

  Salford and Trafford

  27

  11

  19

  13

  38.6

  15.7

  27.1

  18.6

  Yes

  Sefton

  —

  11

  5

  13

  —

  —

  —

  —

  No

  Stockport

  0

  5

  0

  4

  0.0

  55.6

  0.0

  44.4

  Yes

  West Pennine

  12

  5

  15

  4

  33.3

  13.9

  41.7

  11.1

  Yes

  Bury and Rochdale

  5

  0

  6

  2

  38.5

  0.0

  46.2

  15.4

  Yes

  North Cheshire

  16

  13

  18

  13

  26.7

  21.7

  30.0

  21.7

  Yes

  South Cheshire

  4

  2

  4

  6

  25.0

  12.5

  25.0

  37.5

  Yes

  East Lancashire

  10

  2

  0

  4

  62.5

  12.5

  0.0

  25.0

  Yes

  North West Lancashire

  37

  8

  6

  1

  71.2

  15.4

  11.5

  1.9

  Yes

  Wigan and Bolton

  14

  5

  2

  2

  60.9

  21.7

  8.7

  8.7

  Yes

  Wirral

  0

  22

  9

  18

  0.0

  44.9

  18.4

  36.7

  Yes

  Bedfordshire

  16

  8

  14

  48

  18.6

  9.3

  16.3

  55.8

  Yes

  North Essex

  —

  25

  28

  34

  —

  —

  —

  —

  No

  South Essex

  4

  25

  32

  67

  3.1

  19.5

  25.0

  52.3

  Yes

  Suffolk

  61

  16

  6

  106

  32.3

  8.5

  3.2

  56.1

  Yes

  Cambridgeshire

  9

  11

  25

  86

  6.9

  8.4

  19.1

  65.6

  Yes

  Norfolk

  12

  25

  7

  12

  21.4

  44.6

  12.5

  21.4

  Yes

  Hertfordshire

  6

  20

  6

  13

  13.3

  44.4

  13.3

  28.9

  Yes

  Hillingdon

  34

  6

  11

  11

  54.8

  9.7

  17.7

  17.7

  Yes

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  7

  9

  10

  8

  20.6

  26.5

  29.4

  23.5

  Yes

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  9

  24

  16

  31

  11.3

  30.0

  20.0

  38.8

  Yes

  Croydon

  3

  8

  9

  10

  10.0

  26.7

  30.0

  33.3

  Yes

  Kingston and Richmond

  7

  10

  6

  49

  9.7

  13.9

  8.3

  68.1

  Yes

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  -67

  72

  17

  37

  -113.6

  122.0

  28.8

  62.7

  Yes

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  0

  28

  32

  44

  0.0

  26.9

  30.8

  42.3

  Yes

  Barking and Havering

  -6

  30

  24

  78

  -4.8

  23.8

  19.0

  61.9

  Yes

  Brent and Harrow

  32

  6

  14

  8

  53.3

  10.0

  23.3

  13.3

  Yes

  Camden and Islington

  10

  12

  8

  26

  17.9

  21.4

  14.3

  46.4

  Yes

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  29

  9

  11

  52

  28.7

  8.9

  10.9

  51.5

  Yes

  East London and City

  12

  11

  8

  30

  19.7

  18.0

  13.1

  49.2

  Yes

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey

  66

  19

  25

  22

  50.0

  14.4

  18.9

  16.7

  Yes

  Bromley, Bexley and Greenwich

  —

  16

  24

  35

  —

  —

  —

  —

  No

  Berkshire

  35

  7

  23

  116

  19.3

  3.9

  12.7

  64.1

  Yes

  Buckinghamshire

  24

  1

  25

  42

  26.1

  1.1

  27.2

  45.7

  Yes

  East Kent

  22

  I 1

  6

  52

  24.2

  12.1

  6.6

  57.1

  Yes

  West Kent

  37

  26

  18

  33

  32.5

  22.8

  15.8

  28.9

  Yes

  East Surrey

  9

  4

  14

  24

  17.6

  7.8

  27.5

  47.1

  Yes

  West Surrey

  14

  29

  36

  97

  8.0

  16.5

  20.5

  55.1

  Yes

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  85

  25

  86

  0

  43.4

  12.8

  43.9

  0.0

  Yes

  West Sussex

  63

  40

  52

  85

  26.3

  16.7

  21.7

  35.4

  Yes

  Northamptonshire

  -21

  14

  26

  75

  -22.3

  14.9

  27.7

  79.8

  Yes

  Oxfordshire

  11

  27

  5

  14

  19.3

  47.4

  8.8

  24.6

  Yes

  North and Mid Hampshire

  41

  17

  48

  119

  18.2

  7.6

  21.3

  52.9

  Yes

  Southampton and SW Hampshire

  27

  26

  36

  114

  13.3

  12.8

  17.7

  56.2

  Yes

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  40

  15

  27

  41

  32.5

  12.2

  22.0

  33.3

  Yes

  Somerset

  16

  8

  12

  4

  40.0

  20.0

  30.0

  10.0

  Yes

  South and West Devon

  17

  6

  0

  1

  70.8

  25.0

  0.0

  4.2

  Yes

  Wiltshire

  18

  15

  17

  37

  20.7

  17.2

  19.5

  42.5

  Yes

  Avon

  29

  52

  48

  76

  14.1

  25.4

  23.4

  37.1

  Yes

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  46

  20

  11

  5

  56.1

  24.4

  13.4

  6.1

  Yes

  Dorset

  57

  18

  9

  4

  64.8

  20.5

  10.2

  4.5

  Yes

  North and East Devon

  32

  27

  36

  16

  28.8

  24.3

  32.4

  14.4

  Yes

  Gloucestershire

  10

  15

  32

  68

  8.0

  12.0

  25.6

  54.4

  Yes

  1 All ages

  Glutaraldehyde
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to stop the use of glutaraldehyde in hospitals in England and Wales. [35030]

  Ms Blears
  There are currently no plans to stop the use of glutaraldehyde in hospitals in England. National Health Service employers are already to give priority to preventing their employees being exposed to glutaraldehyde by inhalation, ingestion or skin contact under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1994.

  Date Rape Drugs
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines he has issued to young women with regards to the dangers of date rape drugs. [35629]
  1422W
  Ms Blears
  The Department funds the National Drugs Helpline to provide information, advice and support to anyone concerned about substance misuse. The helpline provides a range of information about date rape drugs, including their effects, risks and referral to local agencies that offer support. This service is free and confidential, and is open 24 hours a day.

  The Department also funds Drugscope, an organisation that provides information on all aspects of drug policies and problems, including information on prevention and safety issues for people who feel that they may be affected by date rape drugs.

  Child Protection
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which Minister is responsible for the area child protection committees. [37775]
  1423W
  Jacqui Smith
  Area child protection committees are inter-agency forums for agreeing how the different services and professional groups should co-operate to safeguard children in their area. They are not statutory bodies, but are accountable for their work to their main constituent agencies. They are therefore not accountable to any Secretary of State. Each local authority with social services responsibility should take lead responsibility for the establishment and effective working of ACPCs. Local authorities are ultimately accountable to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health in respect of their social services functions.

  Ambulance Staff (Physical Assaults)
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list, by regional ambulance service, the number of days off sick taken by ambulance staff following physical assaults by members of the public while on duty in(a) Q4 2000–01, (b) Q1 2001–02, (c) Q2 2001–02, (d) Q3 2001–02 and in (e) 2000–01, (f) 1999–2000, and (g) 1998–99; [35864]

  Violent incidents in ambulance trusts—reported 1998–99

  Region

  Trust name

  Number of violent incidents standardised to a year

  Rate of incidents per 1,000 staff (WTE)

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Cleveland Ambulance NHS Trust

  15

  54

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Cumbria Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  1—

  1—

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Durham County Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  32

  100

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Humberside Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  23

  66

  Northern and Yorkshire

  North Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  7

  21

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Northumbria Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  52

  70

  Northern and Yorkshire

  West Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance Services NHS Trust

  28

  27

  Trent

  Derbyshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  25

  57

  Trent

  Leicestershire Ambulance and Paramedic Services NHS Trust

  34

  79

  Trent

  Lincolnshire Ambulance NHS Trust

  56

  101

  Trent

  Nottinghamshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  120

  221

  Trent

  South Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  57

  99

  Eastern

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Ambulance and Paramedic NHS Trust

  22

  38

  Eastern

  East Anglian Ambulance NHS Trust

  1—

  1—

  Eastern

  Essex Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  12

  16

  London

  London Ambulance Service

  464

  153

  South East

  Hampshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  26

  60

  South East

  Kent Ambulance NHS Trust

  96

  152

  South East

  Oxfordshire Ambulance NHS Trust

  0

  0

  South East

  Royal Berkshire Ambulance NHS Trust

  36

  101

  South East

  Surrey Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  12

  24

  South East

  Sussex Ambulance Services NHS Trust

  105

  144

  South East

  Two Shires Ambulance NHS Trust

  1—

  1—

  South West

  Avon Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  30

  85

  South West

  Dorset Ambulance NHS Trust

  93

  290

  South West

  Gloucestershire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  2—

  2—

  South West

  West Country Ambulance Services NHS Trust

  43

  47

  South West

  Wiltshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  1—

  1—

  West Midlands

  Hereford and Worcester Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  2—

  2—

  West Midlands

  Staffordshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0

  0

  West Midlands

  Warwickshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  2—

  2—

  West Midlands

  West Midlands Ambulance Services NHS Trust

  63

  60

  North West

  Greater Manchester Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  71

  71

  North West

  Lancashire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  56

  88

  North West

  Mersey Regional Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  56

  58

  1 Indicates that there were less than five violent incidents, when standardised to a year.

  2 Indicates that the trust either submitted no data or the data was not comparable with other trusts.

  Notes:

  1. Data reported covered different time periods and have been standardised to an annual equivalent to allow comparison.

  2. The figures represent all violent incidents to any staff in each ambulance trust. No figures are available for only physical assaults or for only ambulance staff on duty.

  3. At the time of this collection national definitions had not yet been published. Definitions and reporting thresholds varied between trusts.

  Source:

  Department of Health's 1998–99 Survey of Sickness Absence, Accidents and Violence in NHS trusts
  1424W
  (2) if he will list, by regional ambulance service, the number of physical assaults by members of the public against ambulance staff while on duty in (a) Q4 2000–01, (b) Q1 2001–02, (c) Q2 2001–02, (d) Q3 2001–02 and in (e) 2000–01, (f) 1999–2000, and (g) 1998–99. [35863]

  Ms Blears
  The Department conducted a survey of sickness absence, accidents and violence in national health service trusts in England in 1998–99. The survey found that there were approximately 65,000 violent incidents against NHS trust staff recorded each year. Figures for each individual NHS ambulance trust are shown in the table. A further survey of recorded violent incidents in 2000–01 has been conducted, and the figures are currently being analysed by the Department.

  Information on levels of sickness absence resulting from violence at work is not collected centrally, but may be held at a local level by individual national health service employers. The average sickness absence rate for staff directly employed by NHS ambulance trusts in 1999 was 6.6 per cent.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.

Violence and Terrorism
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What conclusions they draw from the day of united prayer for peace, held by the leaders of worldwide faiths in Assisi, Italy, on 24th January, and in particular their declaration renouncing the use of violence.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, there is no ministerial responsibility or accountability in respect of the event mentioned in the noble Lord's Question. However, the Government welcome this reaffirmation that the main world faiths have common values of peace and tolerance, shared by decent people of all beliefs and of no belief. We welcome their renunciation of the violence and terrorism perpetrated by some in the name of religion. We also welcome the commitment to eliminate the root causes of terrorism through dialogue and education, the promotion of mutual support and respect, and the creation of a world of solidarity and peace based on justice.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, even if he is not personally responsible for the issue raised in the Question. Will he take matters a step further by asking his right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary to ask British missions overseas to seek and positively encourage inter-religious cooperation, particularly in the conflict areas of the world?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the Foreign Secretary works through the embassies and the diplomatic corps. To be honest, we are being asked to tread in muddy waters. We have made it abundantly clear that we want peace and tolerance and everybody—of whatever faith or of none—to be treated equally.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, did the leaders of faiths in Northern Ireland take part in the day of prayer? If so, did they also subscribe to the renunciation of violence?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am not responsible for listing the participants in the private operation referred to in the Question. It has nothing to do with the Government. The Government were not represented and it is not for me to publish a list of those participating or to discuss that matter in the House.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I appreciate the Minister's reply, but will he consider
1436
that possibly the most dangerous situation in the world at the moment is the Middle East? If he reads the declaration, he will find that the leaders of the Islamic faith, the Jewish faith and the Christian faith have all said that they would welcome frank and peaceful dialogue over the troubling issues of Israel and Palestine. Will he suggest to the Foreign Secretary that this is an issue that might well he built upon. given that those spiritual leaders have great influence, not least in that very troubled part of the world?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am happy to draw these exchanges to the attention of the Foreign Secretary. The whole point of the process is getting people to talk, not fight each other, as a way of finding solutions to the world's problems.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords. I am grateful to the Minister for his reply to the important Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. Is he aware of how many important dialogues and encounters are taking place in our country and across the world and of the very important role that religions play in peace-building and culture-forming? For example, following on what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, the Archbishop of Canterbury called an important inter-faith meeting in the Middle East recently, which led to the Alexandria declaration among Jewish, Islamic and Christian leaders. Will the Government assure us of their encouragement of the faith communities in those dialogues, which have a significant impact on the peace-making movement?
Lord Rooker: Of course, my Lords. As I said in my original Answer, some people use their religion as a means of waging war and intolerance on their fellow human beings. That is to be condemned. It is also true that people of faith do not have a monopoly on peace and tolerance. We want everybody to be involved in dialogue. To that extent, we shall do what we can to encourage everybody of whatever faith from whatever part of the world to talk to each other as a way of finding solutions to problems rather than going to war.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the attitude of the Government, as explained by him, appears to some of us to be totally appropriate?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, as that was not a question, there is no answer to it.

Regional Museums
2.40 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to implement the recommendations in the report Renaissance in the Regions: The Future of England's Regional Museums by the Regional Museums Task Force.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I announced on 22nd January the timetable for implementing the recommendations of the Regional Museums Task Force as set out in the report Renaissance in the Regions: A new vision for England's museums, which was published last October. Resource, the Council for Museums, Archives and Libraries, has subsequently published draft criteria for the selection of museums to act in partnership as regional hubs. My department is continuing to discuss with Resource the implementation of other aspects of the report.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging response. Does she appreciate how vital it is that there is adequate funding for the successful implementaion of the report? Is she aware that there is a great body of hope and support throughout the country behind a request for additional funding, on which I hope she might draw, where appropriate, in submitting the strongest possible bid for the necessary funding for the implementation of the report? How much flexibility will there be in the regions to allow the current area museums councils or their successors to retain the hands-on assistance that they are giving to the museums, especially the small museums, which may not become a part of the regional hub?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I shall deal first with my noble friend's third question. She is absolutely right to draw attention to the excellent work done by the area museums councils. I can reassure her that the very important services they provide, especially to small museums that need this type of help and support, will not be lost when the new arrangements with regional hubs are introduced. Indeed, I believe that some of the services that have been dropped and have disappeared may return when the Resource report recommendations are implemented. Incidentally, over the next two years, Resource will provide more money—funding is being doubled—for those services.
As for my noble friend's first question, if hope and support from across the country can get us the extra money, we shall draw on both the hope and the support that are being provided.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, has the Minister given any thought to the position of university museums, such as the Ashmolean and the Fitzwilliam, which, unlike national museums, are not exempt from VAT? They are great museums. Will she give thought to exempting them from VAT?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the university museums are of course great museums with wonderful collections, and the Government very much support the work that universities do in making those collections available. What I cannot do is give the noble Lord any assurance that VAT can be removed in relation to those museums. The Government took a decision to remove the requirement to pay VAT from
1438
the national museums for which they are directly responsible. What I can say, however, is that the university museums will be very much part of the reform programme to be introduced following the Resource report. I am hoping that they will play a part in the development of regional hubs.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, will the Department for Culture, Media and Sport examine the role of conservators? The current shortage of posts, and reduction in the number of posts, is leading to a crisis in the profession. That state of affairs will also have a detrimental impact on many of the artefacts in the museums' care.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the role of conservators is enormously important in all of our museums. It is important that that role should be protected and that we recruit enough people to play that role. I hope that when Resource's recommendations are implemented, and if there is further funding particularly for our regional and local museums, that role will be not only protected but enhanced.
Baroness David: My Lords, considering the contribution that museums make to the education service at all levels, but particularly at the primary level, can the Minister tell me what co-operation there is between her department and the Department for Education and Skills? Does she think that there will be an extension of that work under the new proposals? Can she say what that might entail?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I can tell my noble friend that there is a huge amount of co-operation and collaboration between my department and the DIES on the overall issue of the contribution that museums can make to education. There is no doubt that good museum exhibitions and the good work done by museums in developing educational programmes can enhance the curriculum and motivate children by bringing alive history, geography and many other parts of the curriculum. I have seen some truly excellent work by small local museums that has achieved just that aim. The DfES is putting substantial sums into museum education and it currently has 63 projects going. Just recently, my noble friend Lady Ashton announced a further £1 million for that programme. My own department also has a programme for museum and galleries education. It is therefore a very big part of what our museums are now doing.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some local authorities, such as Northampton borough council, are in the process of closing museums that are much loved by the public and much used by the schools? As the Government are on the same wavelength as that particular council, will she perhaps consider using her influence to see that those closures are stopped?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, although it may be regrettable in some respects, I think that it would be

1439
wrong for the Government to intervene in a local authority's decision to close one or possibly two museums. At the same time, I think that we have to recognise that this country has a very large number of museums, and that closures may occasionally be necessary when museums are failing in order to put more resources into museums that are successful. I shall certainly look into what is happening in Northamptonshire—I was not aware that closures were planned there—and investigate the issues that have led to those closures.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that an important aspect of the issue is the fact that there has been no national strategy for most regional museums? Moreover, local authorities no longer have the finances to subsidise some of those museums as they have had in the past. As a member of the task force. I was most worried by the need to establish these hubs as early as possible, so that the regions are able to support themselves through their own arrangements. The arrangements vary greatly, and work and assistance must be provided as soon as possible.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I very much agree with my noble friend's comments on the need to make rapid progress in this respect. It is true that there have been problems in some regions of the country in sustaining the museum sector. However, we have a quite rapid timetable. The plan is that Resource will look at applications for the creation of regional hubs by, I think, the end of April, and announcements will he made sometime in June.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, is the Minister aware of some of the difficulties faced by the new hands-on science museums, many of which were set up as millennium projects? They were given capital funding to set themselves up but do not have continuing current funding to enable them to keep going and, as a result, now face some difficulties. Given the need to encourage students to study science at A-level and at university, will the Minister consider talking to her colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, about that matter to try to sort it out?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am aware that some science centres are in some financial difficulty in terms of their revenue funding. However, when they were set up it was made clear that they would be provided with lottery funding for their capital needs but that they would then have to survive and operate within their own budgets as regards their revenue. I am certainly happy to discuss that matter with my noble friend Lady Ashton but science centres must try to live within their budgets and raise money where they can. However, I accept that they, like other museums, provide valuable support for the curriculum.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the eight different components of the National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside, albeit they comprise a national museum, play an
1440
important role in regional terms? Does she further agree that Liverpool's bid to be city of culture in 2008 is greatly enhanced by those centres of cultural heritage? Can we therefore count on continued support and funding from the Government?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I shall not he trapped by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, into supporting Liverpool's bid to be the European city of culture. Some 12 or 13 other cities are also preparing bids to achieve that status. However. when I visited Liverpool recently for the reopening of the Walker Gallery I was extremely impressed by the work carried out by the national museums on Merseyside, in particular with regard to the refurbishment of the Walker Gallery. The Government will continue to fund that national group of museums, as they do many others. Indeed, the Government have been able to increase the funding provided for our national museums by about 12 per cent.

Organic Food: Labelling
2.52 p.m.
Lord Geraint Lord Geraint asked Her Majesty's Government:
What scientific procedures there are to establish that animal meat for human consumption that is labelled organic is truly organic.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, certification of organic meat production entails satisfying EC requirements covering the origin of animals, their feed, permitted husbandry practices and transport. No scientific procedures exist to verify that meat is organic by testing the end product and checks must be undertaken by on-farm inspections supported by associated documentation.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's reply which was comprehensive and to the point. However, will he consider introducing legislation to safeguard the interests of consumers when they purchase labelled organic food which is not organic?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we have legislation under EU regulations which ensures that rules are laid down under which food that is organic can be labelled organic. A regulatory body in the UK is responsible for overseeing the 10 private sector bodies which certify that food is organic according to the rules laid down. Local authorities can enforce the law and take action against claims which are proven to be false. However, there is no scientific test which can prove that food is indeed organic. The Food Standards Agency has two research projects under way to determine whether such a scientific test can be developed. Obviously, one hopes for a positive

1441
outcome from that, but we have a regulatory system to ensure that the proper checks, in so far as they can be made, are indeed made.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, will the Minister tell us what sanctions are available when these labels are found to be inaccurate?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as I say, it is for local authorities to carry out checks on possible fraudulent claims. They can bring prosecutions under the Food Safety Act. In the year 2000, 41 prosecutions for false or misleading descriptions were brought before the courts and 64 prosecutions were brought for labelling regulations offences and other offences. Those figures are not broken down into organic and non-organic cases but the legal process is in place and it is up to local authorities to enforce the law.
Earl Howe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Agriculture Select Committee in another place drew attention to possible discrepancies in the organic standards that are observed in certain third world countries? Bearing in mind that a fairly large percentage of the organic meat sold in the UK is imported, will the Government ensure that action is taken at EU level on the concern of the Select Committee?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, all cases involving problems in that area will, of course, be reviewed by the Government and if concerns need to be raised at EU level we shall certainly raise them. Within the EU all organic meat must be produced to the same standard. It is up to each country of the EU to enforce legislation in its own country. As regards organic production outside the EU, a number of countries have already demonstrated to the EU that they have equivalent standards. Imports from those countries may take place freely, although the importers must be registered and subject to audit. As regards imports from other countries, importers must show to the control authority that equivalent standards apply. The regulatory framework is in place but clearly, if there are examples where it is believed that the rules are not being applied, the Government will look into those seriously.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the recommendation in Sir Don Curry's report on the future of food and farming that the Government should introduce a comprehensive strategy for organic food production covering its production, research and development, standards and marketing? I believe that that would satisfy many of the questions raised by noble Lords.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Government are committed to developing an organic food and farming action plan following the recommendations of the Curry commission. That will consider the strategy for the future direction of organic
1442
farming and assess potential growth for UK production and the market. Alongside that, the Food Standards Agency is reviewing the issue of farm assurance schemes which is important in terms of the consumer knowing and understanding what various labels mean.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, further to what the noble Lord has just said about farm assurance schemes, does he agree that, in addition to organic food, there is room for food that has been produced with a minimum of inputs of fertilisers, pesticides and veterinary medicines, and a staged assurance scheme which indicates how that food has been produced? Will the Minister ask the Food Standards Agency to consider that matter?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am happy to draw the noble Countess's remarks to the attention of the Food Standards Agency. The substantive point that she raises is that the consumer wishes to know more about the food that he or she buys. Our intention is to ensure—the Food Standards Agency has made representations on this matter in Europe—that labelling is as accurate and comprehensive as possible. I believe that that relates both to organic and non-organic food.
Lord Carrington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that organic honey is on sale everywhere? Would he be good enough to let the bees know about that?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I shall certainly draw the bees' attention to the noble Lord's comments.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will agree that one can buy plenty of good Scottish beef which has never done anyone anything but good.

Martin Sixsmith
2.59 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions was informed or consulted about any proposal to transfer Mr Martin Sixsmith to another post within the Civil Service.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I refer the noble Baroness to the Statement that I repeated to the House yesterday, which dealt with these matters. In that Statement, my right honourable friend referred to the discussions between Mr Sixsmith and Sir Richard Mottram. He said that he was not directly involved in those

1443
discussions but that he made it clear to Sir Richard that in his view Mr Sixsmith should not be given a job elsewhere in government. He went on:
"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".—[Official Report, 26/2/02; col. [1342.]
Those discussions focused on Mr Sixsmith getting another job in government or being compensated according to the terms of his contract.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that the serious outcome of yesterday's Statement was that the Secretary of State brought the Civil Service and good governance into disrepute? He blamed civil servants for the fiasco in his department, he sought to interfere to end the career of a named civil servant and he publicly denigrated other civil servants before any inquiry. He has admitted to misleading the public on national television and he has been warmly supported for that behaviour by the Prime Minister. What a shameful state of affairs! Will the noble and learned Lord explain how we will know when a Secretary of State is telling the truth?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not agree with any of those premises. The Secretary of State is engaged in trying to improve the transport system in this country, and that is what he should be engaged in.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness who asked the Question had an opportunity to look at the faces of those sitting around her? Is my noble and learned friend aware that those faces suggest—as do those on this side of the House—that she is flogging a dead horse? Is my noble and learned friend aware—he should know better than most, because he repeated the Statement yesterday—that the question was firmly answered yesterday? Will he recall, for the benefit of the House, the gentle, delicate, subdued and even reluctant way in which Mr Ingham dealt with the press and various members of his own government at the time? Does my noble and learned friend agree that compared to that master of the black art of spinning, the present generation of government information officers has a great deal to learn?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, first, it would be unwise and infelicitous of me to comment on the faces of the people around the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. Those faces are smiling radiantly at the moment and looked suddenly interested when my noble friend asked me to describe what they looked like. Secondly, this matter was fully dealt with—for more than an hour—yesterday in this House. The appropriate step is to go on and examine how one can improve transport. On the third matter, I am much too young to remember Mr Bernard Ingham, but I have read that when he was acting on behalf of the then Prime Minister he would brief against members of the Cabinet when they were still in the Cabinet.
Lord McNally: My Lords, will the Minister therefore comment on a horse that is very much alive? In today's The Times, Mr Peter Riddell writes:
"The latest row reinforces the case for early Civil Service legislation … But 10 Downing Street has been slowing down the promised consultation over legislation".
Will the noble and learned Lord confirm that the delay over that Civil Service legislation is because of blockage in No. 10 Downing Street? If so, will he use his immense influence with the Prime Minister to draw his attention to the opinions of the noble Lords, Lord Butler and Lord Bridges, and of others with vast experience, who suggest that the Government should now give priority to Civil Service legislation?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am not aware of any such blockage. I repeat what I said yesterday. The Government have committed themselves to a Civil Service Bill when time allows. That remains our position. I also draw the noble Lord's attention to the point made today by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, who is not in his place; namely, that no Bill or Act of Parliament is going to prescribe for personal relations. He said that in the vast majority of cases, relations between special advisers and civil servants are good, and that is the position in this Government. No Bill is going to make that better or worse.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, in the past, have not Ministers resigned when they were caught out lying? Is not that a desirable practice?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is for each individual Minister to make a decision about whether his career continues.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, may I tell the Minister that the people of Birmingham—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, may I ask noble Lords to let me demonstrate that when I begin a sentence with the word "may", I finish with a question mark—as I have just done? May I tell the Minister that the people of Birmingham, when they are not talking about the need to site the national football stadium on the edge of the city, are much more interested in obtaining better public transport and more efficient services from local councils rather than being bothered about who is working in a Whitehall press office?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, my noble friend certainly may tell me that. May I also say that the views that my noble friend attributes to the people of Birmingham are shared by people throughout the country? They want the concentration to be not on office politics, as the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, described it yesterday, but on making the transport system work.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, have not the Government sought to establish a new principle for Cabinet Ministers—that they can be economical with the truth on Sunday morning on television and stay in office? There was not even a proper apology yesterday; just an expression of regret in the Secretary of State's Statement.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, no, they have not.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that when I came in through the Peers' Entrance about an hour ago, there was a kerfuffle across the road and a noise? I said to the policeman, "What's it all about?" He said, "There is one chap". "What's he doing?" "He's shouting, 'Keep your hands off Stephen Byers!'" Listening to the Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the Answer made me wonder whether it was Bernard Ingham off his head.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I was not aware of that.

National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill
3.5 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clause 2,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 3 and 4,

Schedule 3,

Clause 5,

Clauses 7 and 8,

Clause 6,

Schedules 4 and 5,

Clause 9,

Clause 22,

Clauses 10 to 19,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 20 and 21,

Clause 23,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 24 to 35,

Schedules 8 and 9,

Clauses 36 to 40.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Housing
3.6 p.m.
Lord Best Lord Best rose to call attention to the potential of the private rented sector in tackling the United Kingdom's housing problems; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I count myself as very lucky to have been successful in the ballot for a debate and I hope that this discussion will indeed raise awareness of the private rented sector and its role in tackling the UK's housing problems.
I must begin by declaring various interests in this subject. First, I am the director of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which invests about 5 per cent of its assets in private rented property. Secondly, I have a long-standing family interest in private renting. My grandparents invested in this sector, which they believed to be an "ethical investment", because it produced a satisfactory return but also gave others a roof over their heads. As with so much privately rented property, these homes have been sold over the years as they became vacant. Today, only a small residue remains, owned by members of my family, although not by myself. Thirdly, I chair—jointly with Chris Holmes, the director of Shelter—a commission on the private rented sector. That includes representatives of all the major bodies representing landlords and their agents, as well as key organisations representing tenants' interests. Our commission is seeking a consensus and will be publishing its report and recommendations in the spring.
Let me place before your Lordships my central proposition. It is that an expansion in private renting could ease two major problems facing the UK: first, the problem of severe shortages of accommodation, particularly in London and the South East; and secondly, the need for regeneration in the cities of the Midlands and the North, where the issue is not one of shortages but of people moving away, with unfortunate economic and social consequences.
The private rented sector in the UK today represents about 10 per cent of the total housing stock. Three-quarters of the rented homes are owned by individuals, not by companies, and two-thirds of those individuals have private renting as just a side-line, representing less than one-quarter of their income.
The sector had declined from some 90 per cent of the nation's homes before the First World War to less than 9 per cent in the late 1980s. Modest growth returned when, after 70 years of rent controls, the Housing Act 1988 removed those restrictions from all new lettings and the requirement that tenants should have lifelong security of tenure. The removal of those restrictions came just when the property boom in the owner-occupied sector turned to bust and many people who could not sell their homes could let them instead. From the mid-1990s this phenomenon subsided, but new investment—almost all by private individuals, many taking advantage of the low interest rates for buy-to-rent mortgages—has injected more than £2 billion each year into the sector, helping it to sustain its modest growth.
But the UK remains firmly out of line with other advanced economies. The percentage of its homes in the private rented sector is less than half of that in most European countries and still less compared with Germany and France, let alone the USA, with all those apartments that we see in "Friends" and other TV series. It is a very small private rented sector that marks out the shape of housing in the UK as quite different from other countries. If the UK could expand its stock of private renting to comparable levels of competitor countries, the economic and social gains would be immense.
In relation to housing shortages, we know that to meet the Government's projections of household growth we need to create well over 200,000 extra homes each year in England alone. Yet house building, both by speculative private house builders and by the housing associations, is producing fewer homes than in any peacetime years since the 1920s. A deficit is now appearing of some 50,000 homes a year. As this shortfall accumulates and the gap widens, very severe problems, reflected not just in high house prices and long commuter journeys but in severe overcrowding and homelessness, are bound to escalate. London and the South East will continue to be the worst affected areas in terms of housing shortages.
The Government's figures, however, show that 40 per cent of all the extra households are likely to be for just one person of working age. Those represent a huge market-place for private renting. In France, for example, an average of over 40,000 extra homes have been provided each year by the private rented sector over the past 15 years. Why are we missing out on this stream of investment? It could finance, for example, 100 apartment blocks in East London, close to the jobs in the City. It is estimated that the number of people working in London may rise from the present 4.5 million to 5.5 million by 2025. Many of London's workforce are single people for whom high-density living, which may be unsuitable for families, is more than acceptable and for whom private renting is often ideal.
But while the value of the private rented sector in easing pressures in the South may be obvious, your Lordships may find it harder to believe that private renting could also help with the other problem that I identified; namely, that of the need to regenerate many of our cities in the Midlands and the North.
Perhaps surprisingly, it is my contention that the time is right for large-scale investment in private renting to attract and retain middle-income people in the centres of many of our older industrial cities. We need to prevent inner cities becoming segregated areas just for the poorest households instead of containing the kind of social mix which any thriving neighbourhood requires.
After undertaking market research among single people on middle incomes working in urban areas, my organisation, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, has built two blocks of apartments—one in Birmingham and one in Leeds. We call them "CASPAR" schemes, which stands for city-centre apartments for single
1448
people at affordable rents. The developments are on recycled, somewhat uninspiring Brownfield sites close to the centre. But both are the subject of high-quality architecture aimed at fashion-conscious. trendy, single young people looking for a city lifestyle.
Those developments at market rents, of 46 and 45 apartments respectively, have proved to he very popular and very profitable investments for us. They have outperformed the rest of our substantial investment portfolio, with immediate income returns of over 6 per cent net per annum, indexed probably in line with earnings, plus prospects of excellent capital growth. We plan to undertake further CASPAR developments, and there is no reason why other investors should not do just as well as we have and thereby boost regeneration efforts in cur older cities.
Why is it that the institutional investors— the big investors such as pension funds and insurance companies—stay away from residential property? First, for many years antipathy to the sector was undoubtedly based on so-called "political risk". When rent controls were lifted at the end of the 1980s, the fear of institutional investors was that the position might be reversed by a new Labour government. However, in the 1980s the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, as shadow housing Minister, had the sensitivity to seek to reassure potential investors that an elected Labour government would not overturn those changes, as did successive shadow Ministers and the then government Ministers after 1997. The Government's assurances in their housing Green Paper in the year 2000 were absolutely explicit. It is impossible now to believe that "political risk" should deter investment.
Secondly, investors in the 1980s came to believe that equity investments on the stock market could continue to appreciate without limit. We now know better and property may well appear a safer and more sensible bet in the future.
A third turn-off for major investors has been the poor image of the sector. Since the days of Rachmann, the stereotype of the "wicked landlord" has persisted. A small minority of bad landlords is linked to criminal activities—not only housing benefit fraud but also harassment, drug dealing, prostitution and intimidation. The sector needs to be rid of those elements.
Local authorities need the resources to do more to help in positive ways with the regulation, accreditation and education of smaller landlords and in supporting both landlords and their tenants. I am hopeful that the Commission on the Private Rented Resitdential Sector will help to promote a new settlement for the sector which could enhance its reputation and improve its public image. But these issues should not concern institutional or individual investors using properly qualified managing agents.
Fourthly, there are issues of taxation. The final abolition of mortgage interest tax relief has now levelled the playing field in tax terms between renting and owning. Tax incentives could bolster private renting. That technique is common in other countries. The business expansion scheme here created 81,000

1449
private rented homes in the 1990s but it cost the Exchequer £1.7 billion, and many of those properties have now been sold into owner occupation.
UK Chancellors are likely to prove resistant to introducing any more tax incentives; and, indeed, they can distort investment decisions. But private renting deserves simply not to be taxed at higher levels than comparable investments or equivalent businesses. For example, the British Property Federation would like to see fairness over the rates of stamp duty, which can currently mean the Exchequer receiving far more if a block of apartments is purchased by one investment institution for letting rather than being bought by a whole number of separate individuals. That is not fair.
More important than special—probably temporary—tax incentives is a shift in attitude by all the key players. The shape of housing requirements has changed. A new market has opened up of more mobile people who settle down 10 years later than the generation before them, or who are now divorced or separated. House builders need to recognise that renting can suit that new market. Some builders are already selling to individuals who buy to rent. It is not a big leap to expect partnerships between developers and investment institutions. Selling a whole development to a single investor achieves economies for both.
Housing associations should certainly receive more support to help those with the highest priority needs, but some housing associations want to diversify. They have the capacity to organise CASPAR-style developments in more places. They should be encouraged by the Housing Corporation and local authorities. Sometimes they could build up portfolios of apartment blocks that institutional investors could then buy off-the-peg.
Pension funds, insurance companies and trade unions which continue to invest in office blocks need to seize the new opportunities in the residential property sector. That ethical and profitable investment could ease growing shortages in London and the South and could produce the attractive apartment blocks needed to revive city centres in the Midlands and the North.
I hope that this debate calls attention to the potential of an effective private rented sector in tackling the UK's housing problems. I beg to move for Papers.
3.21 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Best, to the housing repertory company. Some members are present. They perform regularly. However, I am sorry to see that I am the only Labour Member to speak in this debate. After all the years in which I have been involved in the subject, I would never have believed that only one Labour Member was prepared to speak in a debate on housing.
What noble Lords have heard so far cannot be bettered. I hope that at the beginning of the Minister's notes are the words, "Give this a very warm welcome".
1450
I do not see how any noble Lord can add detail to the authoritative introduction to this debate that we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Best. He comes to the House with a lifetime's work in this area.
When I saw the subject of the debate, I said to myself, "That is my subject; I shall speak on that". The noble Lord has drawn my attention to the main theme in his address, which is quite simply that there has been change. When I was a boy I lived in a place called Sutton's Dwellings, Barrack Road, Newcastle upon Tyne. I was never lucky enough to be a council tenant. Those who were council tenants had a stroke of luck in getting their tenancies.
During my working life in housing, there was, first, predominantly rented accommodation or council housing and then gradually owner occupation. Over the years, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, has told us, the percentages of those types of accommodation have changed and the private rented sector, which once was dominant, has faded gradually. Under the 1924 Wheatley Act, councils used their powers of slum clearance and rebuilding, and repaired some of the damage caused by neglect in the private sector. In the 1960s we found that the urge for owner occupation came to the fore. Sadly, in the 1980s the ravages that were done to affordable housing by the right-to-buy legislation resulted in the modest growth of housing associations.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, has declared some interests, as I shall. As a councillor, council leader and chairman of a housing committee, I say that there is no single activity of a council that bears more upon the quality of life of the people that it seeks to represent than housing. Considering that the Government want to improve health and education and to reduce crime, I say to the Minister, who has my highest regard and respect, that no single factor will help the Government to achieve those aims more than improving the quality of housing, whether private, rented, co-operatives and so on. The quality of a house in which a family is brought up has a major bearing on those issues, and on people's quality of life and satisfaction.
In regard to the state of housing, the noble Lord, Lord Best, in a roundabout way, mentioned that the Government have produced statistics to show that £20 billion needs to be found to make habitable the housing that is currently unfit for habitation. Much of the money spent by the Government by subvention to the Housing Corporation has not been spent on building new houses, but on trying to keep in decent repair neglected housing.
I have here the English Housing Survey of 1996 which starkly points at the sector of housing where most damage has been done and where most money needs to be spent. In 1996 it reported that of housing unfit for human habitation, 17.9 per cent was in privately rented homes, 6.8 per cent in council housing, and 3.9 per cent in housing association property. That is partly due to the age factor. Housing associations are fairly modern; council housing can be up to 100 years old; and much privately rented accommodation may be even older than that.

1451
My attention was drawn to a well researched brief from Shelter, for which I am grateful. Shelter is pre-eminent in keeping the pot boiling, in reminding the Government of what is needed and in coming up with suggestions. Shelter says that there is a need for reforms to housing benefit, incentives to promote greater investment in the sector, modernisation of the legal framework for private renting, support for best practice in management, and better regulation.
Shelter gives a good illustration of where it should be possible to move faster. It says:
"Over £2.25 billion a year in housing benefit is paid to 750.000 tenants in the private rented sector".
That number is declining, partly due to landlords who have pulled out of letting to housing benefit claimants due to poor administration. In other words, because it can take so long for the benefit to be determined, people lose the house they are after. That is chaotic administration. Between 1995 and 2000 the proportion of new claims that took more than the statutory requirement of 14 days to determine rose from 18 per cent to 37 per cent.
I cannot believe that the Minister and his advisers are not aware of what will be said in this debate. They must be aware. I do not raise these issues in order to castigate the Minister or his staff; I do it as a peg upon which to point a plea. When the Minister is wondering what initiatives may be taken, can he look to see whether the position of those who wait is the same—that is, a doubling from 18 to 37 per cent—or whether something can be done.
That brings us to the role of the local authority. As a previous local government man, I am well aware of the burden and responsibility that is placed upon councillors. I have previously told the House that when a Member of Parliament, more than once I left my surgery, got into my car and cried because of the hopelessness that I felt at my inability to ease the housing problem in a place such as Edmonton. I cannot believe that it has changed very much. The councils' need to have weapons to deal with the problem that still exists.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, drew my attention to this phenomenon. At one time private rented accommodation and the landlord were well known, but the sector was not very big. There are a number of people, as unlike Rachman as one can get, who are not in the business of buying rented accommodation or of buying accommodation to rent, purely for the sake of making the lives of those who occupy it a misery and of making a profit. They are genuine modern businessmen and women who see a role for their business in providing good accommodation under guidance and control by the local council.
Can the Minister say something helpful about the initiatives that the noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to, whereby there is an opportunity for local authorities, tenants, estate agents and others to come together to get a better deal for the people who need housing?
We know the extent to which people who are made redundant and lose their homes or who come to this country as immigrants, asylum seekers—call them
1452
what you like—need accommodation at the lower end of the scale. I should like the Government to encourage individuals, with the sanction of the local authority, to do something in this area. The local authority has a strategic role to play in policy and planning. It has an enabling role in advising, guiding and regulating those who want to invest in private sector properties and in regulating and promoting well-managed rented homes.
There have been some self-inflicted wounds. One was the right-to-buy legislation. I hear colleagues on this side of the Chamber, particularly those from rural areas, bemoan the fact that affordable accommodation is no longer available. It was built by the local authorities, then bought by the tenants and has disappeared. It will never come back. The Minister and his colleagues are well aware that the ability of a council to build new housing is virtually non-existent.
Therefore, one must look at alternatives. The private rented accommodation sector is one. But there are others. I declare an interest. I am the chairman of a body called the United Kingdom Co-operative Council, which is the all-embracing body for the co-op societies—housing, the bank and insurance. In that capacity I keep in touch with these issues. I was particularly struck by remarks made by David Rodgers, the executive director of CDS Co-operatives, a co-operative housing association of which I am pleased to serve as honorary president. He tells me that the CDS Co-operatives is working with the New Economics Foundation. Its chief executive is Ed Mayo, the former adviser to the Chancellor, the right honourable Gordon Brown. It is studying the feasibility of developing a new sub-market form of cooperative housing for key workers.
The study, which they hope will be jointly financed by the Housing Corporation, is a response to the excellent report by the Greater London Authority's Affordable Housing Scrutiny Committee, chaired by GLA member, Meg Hillier, into the need for key worker housing in the capital. The study will look at the prospect of giving key workers in high cost housing areas the same opportunity to invest in their homes through membership of a limited equity housing cooperative as key workers living in lower cost housing areas.
That is only one of the possibilities. The Minister, in a very busy life, gives maximum attention to these matters. I allude to other aspects of housing— to those who live in mobile homes, park homes and so on. I believe that he will not only look upon this debate as one which is worthy of his attention, but one from which he can produce some ideas along the lines of the initiative taken by the noble Lord, Lord Best. I congratulate the noble Lord on setting the scene and the tone. I am certain that the Minister will give a sympathetic reply.
3.37 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am extremely grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Best, succeeded in the ballot because this is a debate that this House

1453
needed to hold. Although there are not many speakers, it will be a high-quality debate because those who do speak, such as the noble Lord, are highly qualified and well respected within the profession.
Like the noble Lord, I declare an interest. I am a surveyor. I am a consultant to a firm of residential agents in Chelsea. Therefore, I advise clients and have friends who are directly affected by the current law.
As the noble Lord, Lord Best, has said, the UK has only a small, by international standards, PRS with a large number of owners with small portfolios. Fifty per cent of all landlords in England let seven or fewer homes. Over a quarter of landlords have only one letting, and many are "accidental" landlords; for example, as a result of inheriting a property, or having difficulty in selling one or needing to move abroad for employment reasons. These landlords have little chance of becoming expert property managers and turn to letting agents for help, whose standards of competence and probity vary greatly. Others have entered the sector as an investment, but have done so only very recently as mortgages for the acquisition of properties to let have become available on attractive terms through "buy to let" schemes. They are still very inexperienced.
As the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, something like £10 billion of new investment has come into the sector in the last six years. That is very welcome. But we need to be very careful that we do not increase a raft of amateur landlords to the market. We do not want to go back to that state of affairs. Managing property is not like managing stocks and shares or having a broker to manage stocks and shares. Property is a much more complicated exercise. Only by continued training of landlords and agents will one get the standards that are sadly missing at the moment.
I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, would be very upset if I did not once again remind him that it is high time that agents were licensed on a proper basis and were trained on a regular basis. That, too, must apply to landlords.
About 60 per cent of the private rented sector comprises lettings to people under the age of 30, many of those being corporate lets. At the other end of the spectrum, in poorer areas, many tenants are on housing benefit. In some areas, investment values are sustained exclusively by the availability of housing benefit at levels that bear little or no relationship to housing supply and demand.
The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors recently highlighted the issue of the 760,000 homes currently empty in England. That is a greater number of homes than the population of Leeds, which is England's third largest city. That is a disgraceful and unwarranted state of affairs, which has three effects. First, there is a strong body of evidence to suggest that areas that include significant pockets of empty homes suffer from higher than average levels of crime and associated problems. Secondly, during the period 1991 to 2016, we need to accommodate 3.8 million households within the UK. Empty homes could fulfil
1454
a percentage of that. Thirdly, by allowing 50 per cent council tax relief to owners of empty homes, the Treasury loses an annual income of the order of £75 million. Those empty homes represent a considerable wasted asset to the UK in terms of the investment already made in constructing them, the ongoing maintenance and security cost of keeping them empty and the cost of bringing them back into use.
First, will the Minister consider extending the role of the Empty Property Advisory Group and making it accountable to a specific Minister? Secondly, will the Government formulate a strategy setting out targets to reduce the number of empty homes and establish a benchmark against which government agencies and local authorities can be required to act?
What have the Government done? They published a housing policy statement, The Way Forward for Housing, on 13th December 2000. It was one of a linked series of policy statements on regeneration and social exclusion, including the urban and rural White Papers, the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal and the planning policy guidance for housing published that year. Sadly, that did not convince anyone that the Government understood the private rented sector. Furthermore, it gave the impression that they do not have the time or resources to acquire such an understanding or to think deeply about the matter. As a result, they fall back on gut instincts, political preconceptions, and token gestures. The only point on which I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Best, is that I do not believe that the political risk from government is all but dead. I say firmly that it is alive and kicking and is a major deterrent to investors—not only in the private rented sector.
Let us consider the Homes Bill, which many of the your Lordships will remember. At a recent meeting of the National Association of Estate Agents. the Government official responsible for the Bill was given a severe grilling. On a show of hands, three quarters of those present voted against the proposed seller's pack and people left the meeting with the distinct feeling that the Government do not understand the housing market at all.
I shall now consider in a little detail the problems that prevent the private rented sector from playing the role that it should in this country. The private rented sector is possibly the only sector of the economy in which the tax and regulatory systems work to prevent the growth of small and medium-sized enterprises into larger businesses. That is the consequence of several discriminatory anomalies within the tax system in how private landlords are treated compared with other businesses.
First, let us take the anomaly of trading status. Property letting is one of the few business activities that is not treated as a trade for tax purposes. Income from property is taxed under Schedule A as investment income, regardless of whether the income is generated from pure investment or from a property ownership and management business.
Then there is the question of management costs. Because this form of business is not regarded as a trade, a landlord managing his own property is unable

1455
to claim the costs of managing his property and lettings business against tax. However, he would be able to claim those costs if he were using the services of a managing agent. As I said at the outset, the high percentage of landlords who have a small number of dwellings to let do not want to employ managing agents. The tax position is discriminatory.
Then there is the question of capital gains tax rollover relief. Unlike other businesses, because they are not regarded as a trade, lettings businesses are unable to claim roll-over relief from capital gains tax when they sell a capital asset with the intention of reinvesting the funds realised in their business. I am sure that your Lordships would agree that that severely limits the flexibility, mobility and above all the efficiency of investment, particularly among smaller investors. as the decision to sell to reinvest carries with it the same tax penalty as the decision to sell to take the profit.
Then there is the anomaly of earned income. Full-time landlords, whose sole activity is managing their property and lettings business and who have no other source of income cannot contribute to personal pension schemes because tax relief on contributions is permitted only on earned income and excludes investment income. That is provided by Sections 639(1) and 644 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. It may be argued that the property holdings offer a more than adequate substitute for a pension fund. However, the snag is that that implies that the owner will sell the portfolio on retiring, thus preventing business passing from one generation to the next. Even if I he portfolio is sold, the landlord will still face a substantial capital gains tax liability on the proceeds.
I turn to self-investment personal pension schemes. Some landlords have generated Schedule D income, usually through trading properties, and have used that to contribute to SIPPS. The SIPPS rules allow investment in commercial property and allow it to be let, but expressly forbid direct investment in residential property or land connected with such an investment, except where commercial property includes a residential element that is either occupied by an employee as part of the job or is an integral part of the business premises and is occupied by a person who has no family connection with the owner.
The result of that has been that professional residential landlords have bought commercial properties, often shops with flats above them, and have been compelled to leave the flats vacant, despite their having a residential lettings business, because of the potential adverse impact on their pension arrangements. That restriction is equally frustrating the other way round, because some small pension fund investors who are looking principally to invest in commercial property are frustrated from making the most effective use of their funds because the flat above a prospective investment is tenanted. So people are caught both ways.
I am sure that the noble and learned Lord would expect me to raise the anomaly of value added tax. Residential rented property is an exempt supply for
1456
VAT purposes, so any payments of VAT made to suppliers of goods or services—for example, building contractors or managing agents—are irrecoverable. That increases the cost to the landlord and, when combined with the tight margins under which smaller landlords operate, can act as a disincentive to repair.
I turn, as did the noble Lord, Lord Best, to stamp duty. Stamp duty has quadrupled from 1 per cent to 4 per cent. Perhaps I can give an example to illustrate the point made by the noble Lord. If, as an investor, I wanted to buy 20 flats, I could buy all 20 individually and pay no stamp duty if the flats were valued below the threshold—say at £50,000 each. If I bought all 20 flats as an investment, I would have to pay £40,000 in stamp duty, which is a windfall to the Government that practically equates to the value of one of the flats. So, I am deterred right from the beginning from making the purchase.
Then there is the problem with developers, which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Best. There is no incentive for developers to develop a property for investment purposes. They are likely to get more profit from selling partly to investment people and partly to owner-occupiers. There is a great opportunity being blighted at birth, and, as a result, no developers have taken it up.
It is clear that housing investment trusts, which were introduced in 1995, will not work. The structure that was put in place is too complex. No trust has been launched successfully to date, and no one seriously believes that one will be introduced in the future. However, there is a need for a tax-transparent securitised vehicle for indirect property investment, following the 2000 Budget.
The industry has spoken to the Government about it, and the Government said, "No" to the industry's proposals. It is no good the industry trying to come up with another set of proposals and trying to second-guess what the Government really want: it is time for the Government to identify the areas in which the industry has something to offer, specify the help that they will give and recognise that the private rented sector can play a significant part not only in reducing the number of empty properties but in reducing the shortages in the South East and providing better accommodation in the North, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, said. The Government must say, "This is what we want you to do to help us. We are the enablers; you are the professionals. Get on and do it". Sadly, under current legislation, with the current anomalies, that will never happen.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord. Lord Falconer of Thoroton, will, as a result of the debate. grasp the opportunity to do something revolutionary and take a major step forward for everybody.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I shall declare an interest. I am president of the National Home Improvement Council and, until recently, I was patron of National Energy Action, both of which organisations are committed to improving the quality of the housing stock in this country.

1457
I am therefore delighted to take part in the debate so ably initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and I fully support the thrust of his remarks, namely that the private rented sector could and should play an increasing part in meeting the country's housing needs. We heard from the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, about the difficulties, particularly of a fiscal nature, that he, as someone who is familiar with the property market, sees in the way. No doubt the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, will cover some of those points in his reply.
I shall deal with a different aspect, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, who referred to the most recent House Condition Survey. He said that it demonstrated the relatively poor quality of a large part of the private rented sector, compared with the rest of the nation's housing. There is little doubt that the sector contains a large amount of poor housing. Under the general heading of poor housing, as defined in the English House Condition Survey of 1996, 31 per cent of private tenants are in poor housing, compared with 14 per cent overall. That is on page 76 of that report. Both those figures are well in excess of those for comparable European countries. We have a relatively high proportion of poor housing in Britain, and it is particularly noticeable at the lower end of the private rented sector.
Because of my particular interest in energy, I shall deal with that aspect of private rented property. Poor housing equates to poor health, and poor health is largely due to inadequate heating. There is a sombre statistic for this country that is often quoted in debates such as this: the rate of winter mortality is higher, relative to the rest of the year, than in any other west European country. Our rate is something like 15 per cent or more above the normal rate, whereas elsewhere it is an average of 6 per cent. In some countries, such as Denmark, where they pay particular attention to housing quality, there is no difference between the rates of summer and winter deaths.
We have a long way to go to improve the quality of our housing. Regrettably, in the private rented sector the proportion of poor housing is greater than elsewhere. To be fair to the Government, they have made efforts to deal with the problem of heating in poor homes. The Home Energy Efficiency Scheme, now known as the Warm Home Front, seeks specifically to improve heating and insulation in houses, particularly those of the elderly, that are poorly equipped in that respect. Unfortunately, the proportion of funding from HEES that has gone into the private rented sector has been much smaller than elsewhere. In fact, something like 5 per cent of HEES funding has gone to improving the private rented sector, when at least 10 or 15 per cent should have gone in. There are many reasons for that. In some cases, it is the reluctance of the landlord; in others, it is the tenant's lack of knowledge. Whatever the reason, there is a slower rate of improvement at the lower end of the private rented sector than elsewhere.
1458
My noble friend Lady Maddock was responsible for successfully introducing in another place the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995—known as HECA—the objective of which was to improve the standard of heating in homes throughout the country. Unfortunately, progress under that Act has not been as great as was anticipated, and, for that reason, Dr Desmond Turner introduced a further Bill in another place—the Home Energy Conservation Bill—which was strongly supported at Second Reading. Unfortunately, the Government proposed several amendments in Committee that severely weakened the Bill's impact. I know that my noble friend Lady Maddock will refer to that matter. I hope that the Government will use all possible forms of legislation and fiscal measures to stimulate improvements in the quality of the private rented sector.
The relative energy efficiency of buildings can be assessed using energy ratings. There is a well-established system of energy rating known as the standard assessment procedure or SAP. Estimates were made of the SAP value of different types of housing in the English House Condition Survey. SAP estimates are made out of 100—the nearer to 100, the more energy efficient the house. The SAP standard laid down for new buildings is 80. That is in Building Regulations. However, the estimated average for the whole housing stock in England—I refer to the English House Condition Survey—is 44. That is about half. In the private rented sector, it is 35, and what is worse is the fact that one in three elderly households in that sector occupy properties with a SAP rating below 20. In severe winter conditions, anyone who is elderly and lives in a house with a SAP rating of 20—a quarter of what is estimated to be desirable for new housing—could get very ill, if indeed they survived. That is a deplorable situation. We must sort it out in contemplating a major expansion of the private rented sector. At the very least, we must ensure that that end of the sector does not continue to suffer from these disadvantages.
I should like to propose that, in that part of the private rented sector where the Government are contemplating the introduction of licensing, such as in areas of low demand and in houses in multiple occupation, they should include an obligation to have an energy rating. Thus, when the properties are registered, levels of energy efficiency will be known and can be improved as necessary. I believe that such a simple measure, added to the points which other noble Lords have made, could help to achieve better standards in the private rented sector and could contribute to the objectives referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Best, in introducing the debate.
4.1 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am delighted to be able to join in with the debate and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for bringing forward this subject. I shall start by declaring an interest. I do not know whether I would describe myself as an "accidental landlord", although I like the description coined by my noble friend Lord Caithness. I think that

1459
I probably did start in that way. However, I do not agree with my noble friend that it is not possible to learn through the process.
I had a spare basement and so I let it out. I have many memories of that basement. I let it out in the days when Harold Wilson's government froze all rents. I cannot tell the House how damaging that rent freeze was. It stopped everything dead in its tracks. Later, when one wanted to re-let a property or to increase the rent, the increases appeared to be huge to those who had to meet them. Smaller, more regular increases would not have been as bad. During the period when no increases were allowed, it was not even possible to meet basic overheads such as the supply of heating and other services.
It is no wonder that commercial enterprises are not moving into residential lettings; people have long memories. The noble Lord, Lord Best, stated that it was impossible to believe that anyone could consider it to be a political risk. I believe that everyone still considers it a political risk to build or buy a large structure to let out at reasonable rents to those who desperately need such places. That is a great pity, because until we achieve large-scale ownership, small landlords really only comprise "potterers" like myself. That is not the way positively to address housing need.
In the days of statutory tenancies, rent levels were not even sufficient to cover repairs or maintenance. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, drew our attention to the poor state of a great many properties. The Housing Act 1988 made a big difference and assured shorthold tenancies have worked well.
The noble and learned Lord on the Front Bench knows that I have referred to the situation in Australia on previous occasions. When I was in Australia on 11th September and afterwards, I inquired into what renting and letting was like over there. While in the United Kingdom an agent is paid 10 per cent, 15 per cent or even more, plus VAT, for managing a property, in Australia the cost amounts to only 4 to 6 per cent for full management, while the letting fee is set at one week's rent. In this country, tenancy agreements can be extremely complicated. Although it is possible to buy a standard form from a legal stationery office, if one has had any kind of unfortunate experience then it is wise to have a lease prepared properly. To do so will set the landlord back at least a couple of hundred pounds. Even then there is no way of ensuring that the tenant will actually pay.
I heard the statement with regard to the deposit scheme that is to be introduced. That scheme is already in place in Australia and rental deposits are secure. I am very much in favour of the proposal and I am delighted that the pilot scheme is to be continued. However, if such a system is ever established, it will be essential to put in place a safeguard, as is the case in Australia. If tenants fail to pay the last month's rent due on their tenancy agreement, there must be a way of securing an eviction within 14 days. It is now a common ploy for tenants, having paid the deposit, perhaps to trash their accommodation or even damage things acidentally—who would know whether the
1460
damage was deliberate? The tenants then fail to pay the last month's due rent, knowing that the original deposit could not possibly cover both the damage and the rent. Thus, on a year's tenancy, the landlord can be left thoroughly out of pocket, receiving rent for only 11 months out of the 12—if that, after seeing to the repair of any damage. If we are to introduce secure deposits then we must also be fair to landlords. Instead of landlords having to wait many months to regain possession of their properties, a procedure must be put in place to ensure that it is done quickly.
I turn now to another way of providing good accommodation in London. This city presents a particularly difficult problem because of its high property values. Those building large developments in London are now obliged to provide a certain amount of social housing. In the past it was possible to buy out those rights. The price of a buy-out per unit rose from around £40,000 a time to £80,000. However. on the whole, most local authorities now insist that social housing should be provided on site. Of course that means that it can be provided only by a registered social landlord. That is because those building large new developments do not want the bother or nuisance of coping with a small number of social tenants.
There are special difficulties in London. I turn to those encountered in sheltered accommodation. If such accommodation is provided by a large charity or enterprise such as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation or the William Sutton Housing Trust or Land Securities, then the philanthropic attitudes of those organisations ensure that funds are put in. However, if other people are to be attracted into providing rented residential accommodation, the businesses would have to he self-financing. People are looking for a return on their money and want to be confident that they will be able to carry on their businesses successfully.
I understand that housing associations are permitted only very restricted rent increases each year and that some of them are encountering difficulties. The position is not too bad at present because interest rates on loans are fairly low, hut if they rise housing associations may find themselves in great difficulty. If they have to borrow on the open market, that money will be linked to the London InterBank Offered Rates, LIBOR, which is an important factor.
Perhaps I may emphasise the importance of the point made by my noble friend Lord Caithness with regard to the tax situation. If property rental were to be reclassified as a trade or a business, more people would move into the sector, which suffers from the great disadvantage of not being so classified. That is why some people are regarded as "amateurs" in the field; rented accommodation is not considered to be a business and does not enjoy any of the associated advantages.
I personally consider the greatest disadvantage to be the fact that it is not possible to "roll over". If one has a house in which one flat is let, that cannot be rolled over to something that might be let to two people, or from two to four people. Nothing is done to encourage that kind of practice. That would not happen in any

1461
other business. If I sold my dental practice, I could move into another dental premises, using the money from my original business to set up a continuing enterprise. However, because rented accommodation is not classified as a business, it is constantly at a great disadvantage.
I wonder whether the future for London accommodation will lie in flats such as the tiny units I recently saw advertised. I do not suggest that we go to the Japanese extreme, where I understand that such accommodation is like the sleeping compartment in a railway carriage into which one can move for the night. However, I read that a number of micro-flats are being built. Perhaps there is a future in such flats because so many people in the nursing profession, in the police and so forth, have seen the accommodation that was available now disposed of.
We are crying out for people to come and work in London. I have seen blocks of police flats sold off all over London. When I was chairman of the Royal Free Hospital, the nurses' home was sold off because nursing had changed and we no longer had to provide accommodation for nurses. Because they had all become university students, we had to accommodate them for only one year. The local council had put such huge orders on the properties that it was not viable to do them up, and therefore the property was sold. Once sold it was gone forever. I do not know about the situation of a person needing accommodation now—I am not involved in that area any longer—but nurses' homes all over London have been disposed of.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to the CASPAR scheme. It sounds most interesting and I should like to hear more about it. I wonder whether it works only because it operates in an area where house prices are low and possibly rents are low. The major problem in London is how to provide essential properties for rent when property prices are as high as they are at the moment.
Mention has been made of housing benefit schemes. Again, these are a problem. Questions have been raised previously in your Lordships' House about the huge backlog and the time it takes to deal with applicants for housing benefit. Very often the landlord gives up totally and says that he cannot possibly let the property because of the time an application takes to process and because of a lack of confirmation and a sense of security about the tenants taking the property. Something will have to be done about that.
I declare an interest—not a financial one—as an honorary vice-president of the National House Building Council. Reference has been made to people building estates and so on. It must be made clear that these people are in business—as I would like to be in regard to my lettings
Many kinds of people would like to rent. There are many older people who would like to release the capital in the house that they own, move into a pleasant rented place and be able to use their capital for healthcare, holidays, to help others and so on.
1462
Many people would like to do that. In London at the moment, they have the option of paying an expensive rent in an expensive area or very little else.
The high-rent sector in London has been very hard hit since 11 th September. The same thing happened during the Gulf War. Virtually no tenants arrived and there was a period of about six months when one was lucky if one could get anyone to rent anything. At the moment the agents are saying that this is exactly the situation in London and that there is a huge surplus.
But it is not the kind of accommodation that will help those in need at the bottom end; it is luxury accommodation that is available in London at the moment. There are many properties vacant in Mayfair, for example, but they are largely in foreign ownership and, although they are little used, we have no control over them. People are entitled to do what they want with their own property. If they keep it empty and use it for only six weeks a year, it is not something with which we can deal.
I do not think that those kind of people would accept an incentive to enter the rental market, but, if we reclassified property rental as a trade, it would be a first step. If we then encouraged people to provide accommodation and made it easier for them in terms of tenancy agreements and the costs involved, that would be a big factor.
4.14 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, the private rented sector caters for those who do not want or do not qualify to live in council housing, and for those who do not want to buy or are waiting to buy their own homes. As we have heard today, as the demand for homes grows, so, too, does the demand in the private rented sector.
Like others, I should declare a humble interest—again, as a part-timer—in that at home I have two cottages that are rented out and on the farm in Suffolk we have cottages that are rented out and cottages that are rent-free for employees and past employees.
I should not like anyone to run away, however, with the idea that the growth in private rented accommodation is caused by population expansion. Here in the UK, annual population growth runs at less than one-quarter of 1 per cent per year. As other noble Lords have said, the increased demand for housing is caused by people choosing to live alone, by others forced to live alone after the death or abscondment of their partner and by families splitting up because the main breadwinner moves jobs. Many such moves are caused by companies, government departments and agencies shifting their operations closer and closer to the seat of power here in London and the South East, or to the burgeoning centre of excellence, for example, at Cambridge.
The lack of balance involved creates a vicious circle: too many people in a popular area chase too few houses, and so prices rise; back from where they came, too many houses wait for too few people, and so prices fall. Caught in a chain, many have to rent—but the prices in the rented sector continue to rise.

1463
As people flood in to one particular area or region, the number of "caring" professionals required also rises. They come into an area to find that house prices are often too high for their income, and so they turn to the rented sector. The rest, as we have said today, is history.
One answer to the problem would be to build affordable homes to meet the demand. In a housing shortage, developers, by and large, do not want to build such homes, and so they offer alternatives. When building estates, they do not provide affordable homes but offer new schools and other facilities which the area needs. They often build three, four and five-bedroom houses, but they do not build affordable housing.
A more sensible answer would be to encourage companies, government departments, agencies and others not to build offices and factories on green belt land but to move to where such buildings already exist. They could also look at the question of their distribution centres and warehouses, which are often built on green belt land. In areas where there is a high housing demand, they should not build on brown field sites that are suitable for housing.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, referred to previous housing debates in which we have both spoken. I should like to draw the attention of the House to a development in Leicestershire where, on a 32-acre redundant brown field site, surrounded by a canal, the old Pex textile factory site was converted into one and two-bedroom flats. It is bang in the middle of Leicester and ideal for people who wish to live in the rented sector. I suspect that had it been another time it would have been pulled down and office accommodation erected. It is a very good example of where warehouses and industrial buildings can be converted to suitable one and two-bedroom houses.
Incentives could be offered to persuade some companies to move to areas where jobs are in short supply and where abundant housing is ready for renovation and conversion of the kind we have seen in London. Most noble Lords will remember that it was not that many years ago that the housing in certain parts of London that are now considered very fashionable was thought to be of fairly poor quality.
On 13th December 2000 the Government published The Way Forward for Housing. It listed six key measures which it claimed would promote a healthy private rented sector. I hope that when the Minister comes to reply he will give examples of what has happened since then. In recognising that an inability to remove unsatisfactory tenants is a disincentive to potential private landlords, a point made by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, one of the specific targets in that document was for all evictions to be carried out within four weeks of the bailiff receiving the warrant. Can the Minister give us a list of examples? If not, perhaps he will write to me later. The matter may have progressed so that people who seek to remove unsatisfactory tenants are achieving that. Will the Minister say whether the time involved in dealing with this issue is becoming shorter or longer?
1464
Urban and rural regeneration programmes were intended to bring into occupancy empty houses and vacant units above shops. Will the Minister say how many have been filled as a result of those regeneration incentives?
The Way Forward for Housing names administration of housing benefit as the fundamental challenge in improving housing availability in the private rented sector. Does the Minister have any idea about the position today? Has it worsened, or is it better? Is he aware of the growing number of evictions caused solely by non-payment of housing benefit entitlement? Has he read the report from the CAB on the growing reluctance of private landlords to accept as tenants people on housing benefit? Despite the claims in paragraphs 10.15 to 10.55 of the document, does the Minister accept that the severity of the problem is acute and will he tell us whether any practical measures are under way to improve the position?
I remind the Minister that the Housing Corporation issued a clear warning in July 2000 in reply to The Way Forward for Housing policy document. Paragraph 9.11 on page 23 states:
"There is strong evidence that the delivery of housing benefit is getting worse".
I shall share some figures with the House.
In a Written Answer on 19th December last year, the Housing Minister, Malcolm Wicks, provided figures on the number of housing benefit regulations, statutory instruments and circulars issued year by year from 1988 to 2001. In those nine years, up to and including 1996, there were some 36 housing benefit regulations, 81 statutory instruments and 316 circulars—an amazing total to a paper-hater like myself. In the past four and a half years up to 2001, there were 29 housing benefit regulations, 90 statutory instruments and 400 circulars. I shall repeat that because in half the time there were 29 housing benefit regulations as against 36, 90 statutory instruments as against 80 and 400 circulars as against 316. No wonder housing benefit is running late. Perhaps officials are reading government literature instead of paying the clients.
The CAB stated in a recent briefing:
"Over four million tenants rely on housing benefit to pay their rent, with average payments of £48.30 per week".
The briefing continued:
"In many parts of the country the housing benefit sy stem is in crisis. DSS figures show that between 1998/9 and 1999/2000 there was a drop of 10% in the number of claims processed within the statutory 14 days. The Audit Commission has indicated that only 56% of local authorities are administering housing benefit efficiently and the Local Government Ombudsman reported a 73% increase in housing benefit complaints in his 1999/2000 annual report".
I think that all noble Lords would agree that that is unacceptable and I wonder whether the Minister will respond to that specific issue.

1465
I turn to rural housing, and affordable rural housing, in particular, which in some areas is as crucial and under pressure as it is here in London and the South East. In a White Paper on rural issues, produced in November 2000, the Government said:
"We will promote more flexible lettings policies by local authorities, so as to take more account of specific rural needs in their area. We propose changes to social housing lettings to promote a more customer-focused approach giving applicants more say and greater choice in where they live".
They continued:
"Over the next three years, we will be providing £1 1m to support pilot schemes involving local authorities and registered social landlords which test choice-based lettings policies".
I wonder whether the Minister has information about how many pilots have begun and what progress has been made.
The White Paper also touched on the question of empty homes. It stated:
"We are funding the Empty Homes Agency to work with local authorities to bring more empty rural property back into use".
Questions have been asked both in your Lordships' House and the other place about the disgraceful number of empty properties in our stocks. Perhaps the Minister will refer to that matter, too, when he replies.
The Benjamin Foundation was referred to in the White Paper. It stated:
"The Foundation will now be able to set up a rent deposit and housing support service for young people who are vulnerable to homelessness. This will provide practical help to enable young homeless people to find and secure accommodation locally, close to their natural support networks".
Again, I ask the Minister to respond to that issue when he replies to the debate.
I return to a comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham. Our previous debates on these issues in this House have always shown the strong link between the welfare of the people living in the houses and the quality of such houses. Whether one lives in one's own home or a rented one, regardless of whether it is privately rented, it is important that the standard of the house is acceptable. We have heard this afternoon that the private rented sector offers tremendous potential. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for giving us the opportunity to debate some of these issues and to make suggestions to the Government which we hope will be taken forward quickly and urgently.
I add my congratulations to the noble Lord on highlighting the changes that have taken place in the work force. In the olden days, people used to stay in jobs for perhaps 10, 20 or 30 years, but today people change jobs and homes several times. The rented sector has a great role to play.
4.27 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Best, on introducing the debate and on setting the scene so well. Although not many people are taking part in the
1466
debate, it has been extremely wide ranging and well informed, making it quite difficult to come in at this point.
Like other noble Lords, I declare my usual interest. I am president of the National Housing Forum Trust, vice-president of the National Housing Federation and patron of the Empty Homes Agency. I have also recently agreed with my noble friend Lord Ezra to become a vice-president of the National Home Improvement Council.
The debate has brought out two reasons why the private rented sector does not play as important a part in contributing to a flexible housing system in this country as it could, although it is important to have such a system. We have created a flexible economy, about which the Government are quite proud, but we have failed to achieve flexible housing to go with it. That is why this debate is very important.
The issues that have been highlighted are the size of the private rented sector, which is very small, and how to create conditions in which to increase its size. Another problem, to which many noble Lords have referred, is the condition of much of the sector and the problems surrounding its management. Only 11 per cent of housing is in the private rented sector, and the people who live in it tend to be rather polarised. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has been reading the same briefing, which tells us that many of the people who live in this sector are under 30. However, there is another large group of tenants living at the poorer end of the sector who are on housing benefit. A further consideration is the quality of the housing in this sector. It is very varied. We have heard graphic descriptions of some of the worst housing, not least from my noble friend Lord Ezra, particularly in reference to energy efficiency. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, also touched on the matter.
The housing Green Paper published in 2000 identified the need to improve this sector. Chapter 5 was headed "Promoting a healthy private rented sector". In the Green Paper the Government identify the need to bring forward many of the matters that have been referred to. There is not enough social rented housing. We have not managed to expand this sector in a period of two governments. Sometimes it is not appropriate for people to buy, or there is no affordable property. Therefore, there is a great need to develop this sector.
The Green Paper identifies some of the measures that could help in this regard. It accords with many of the points made in the debate. We need to encourage good landlords and to assist them to raise standards. We need to persuade more people to invest in this sector. In particular we need to raise the standards of some of the worst landlords. The debate then arises as to how that can be achieved.
There was an interesting section in the Green Paper on the role of taxation, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, made some interesting proposals in that regard. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us as to where we have arrived on this issue in the past two years.

1467
A further area in relation to tax and business is the situation of small landlords. Many landlords own fewer than seven properties. I have great sympathy with the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. More support is needed for small investors. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, touched on the matter. Private landlords who operate to professional standards should be treated in the same way as others who have small businesses. I hope that the Government will respond. I believe that they are considering certain proposals.
One important approach would be to reduce the rate of VAT on all refurbishment works to the level of that for newly built homes. It would be extremely helpful also if tax relief could be introduced to offset the cost of improvements as well as the cost of repairs and maintenance—a point touched on by other speakers.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, talked about extending tax relief—currently available to landlords using a managing agent—to those who manage properties directly. I have some sympathy with the idea, but there is a difficulty. We are all saying that we want to encourage landlords to manage properly and to use managing agents if they cannot do it themselves. Therefore, we need to be careful as this is a difficult area.
One approach that could help on the tax front would be to simplify capital allowances on the costs of converting flats, particularly those over shops and other commercial premises. I read with interest that the Minister is very interested in the concept of people living over such premises in London. Some of us in t he housing world have been talking about this for a number of years. There have been some very good schemes. I am glad that, having taken up his new portfolio, the Minister is keen on the idea. That is good news. Many of the properties in this category are empty. In northern Europe and Scandinavia people live in town centres; they are happy to live over shops. It means that there are people living locally who use the restaurants. The towns do not become empty in the evenings with people being afraid to go out. The Minister has signalled that he thinks this a very good idea: I wait to see whether he will offer anything concrete.
People may inherit a house. Or they may have one or two properties but are not sure how to manage them. There is talk in the Green Paper of registered social landlords taking on this role. The point was touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. It is a problem in some ways for registered social landlords. They are in the business of social letting and it is not easy for them. However, there have been some very good schemes whereby registered social landlords have taken over empty properties in their area and managed them for the people who own them. It is an excellent idea and we should continue to encourage such schemes. None of the regulations surrounding registered social landlords should prevent them from doing that.
Various other approaches could help. One that has been touched on at the edges is the modernisation of the legal framework for private renting. Since the
1468
introduction of the Housing Act 1996 it has been lawful for properties to be let on shorthold tenancies without a written tenancy agreement between landlord and tenant. The idea is not promoted by those who want this area to be very professional. It mitigates against tenants being aware of their rights and responsibilities and is often the cause of landlord and tenant disputes. Agreements between residential landlords and tenants should be regarded in the same way as other professional agreements between businesses and their customers. That reflects comments by other speakers about this area being a proper business. Therefore, such agreements should he subject to written contracts.
I understand—the Minister may be able to explain the matter further—that the Office of Fair Trading is working with the Law Commission to develop a model contract for pre-formed standard assured and assured shorthold tenancies. I believe that the law should oblige landlords to provide written tenancy agreements at the start of all tenancies. I hope to hear reassuring noises from the Minister on this matter when he replies.
Reference has been made to the tenancy deposit scheme. That is a positive approach taken by the Government and I welcome the fact that the pilot scheme will continue. However, I am rather disappointed in regard to the regulation of houses in multiple occupation. It is one of the worst areas in this sector in relation to the condition of the houses. Such regulation has not been forthcoming from the Government—in the previous Session or in this one. We are talking about a period of some five years.
As my noble friend Lord Ezra said, the Home Energy Conservation Bill is attempting to build on the Act that I was able to see through another place in 1995. But attached to that is a proposal about regulating houses in multiple occupation. This was a manifesto commitment by the Government at the previous two elections. I ask the Minister if he will study carefully what happened in Standing Committee in another place yesterday to the proposal attached to the Home Energy Conservation Bill. I make that request because the definition of a house in multiple occupation has been deleted from the face of the Bill and will now be dealt with by regulation. Moreover, the threshold—that is, the number of occupants, or perhaps storeys, above which a house in multiple occupation must be compulsorily registered— has also been deleted from the Bill's provisions and left to regulations. The timescale for introducing this seems to be slipping back.
As this happened only yesterday, it is possible that the Minister is not in a position to say as much as I would wish. Nevertheless, I hope that he will give an assurance that he will seriously consider what is happening in this area. One aspect that concerns me is the fact that the Bill will be placed before the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will also consider my request and look into the matter.

1469
Other speakers mentioned housing benefit, the administration of which is often a hindrance. Sometimes it is an advantage to landlords, but sometimes it is not. An awful lot of public money has been going into substandard housing over the years. I know that this problem was referred to in the Green Paper. I do not say that it is easy for the Government to deal with housing benefit, but progress has been very slow; indeed, it is a bit of a stop-start process. We often hear that it will be reformed and that everything will be wonderful, but then the Government backtrack, partly because it is such a difficult area to reform. In the Green Paper, consideration was given to whether there was some way that housing benefit could be used to help improve the condition of property.
Today's debate has ranged far and wide. I believe that there is general agreement between us, as well as among bodies outside like the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Shelter, and the Empty Homes Agency. I am sure that all those participating in the debate are grateful for the information that we receive from such bodies. All those people, across parties, and local authorities want to see more investment in this sector so that standards can be raised. There should be measures to ensure effective management and regulation. It is important that the management, or any regulation that is introduced, should be carried out in such a way that we do not drive people out of this sector. When the Minister responds, I hope that he will be able to update us on all that was said in the Green Paper, which was published nearly two years ago, and tell us where we stand at present.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, is always very generous in the way that he perceives governments. He was very hopeful about what might happen, while other noble Lords were a little sceptical. Over the past five years I have become more cynical myself. I had hoped that this Government would move faster on housing matters. I was most interested in the observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. He pointed out that he is the only person from the Labour Party, apart form the Minister, talking on housing in today's debate. This was the big issue for past Labour governments. I am sure that I do not need to point the Minister in the direction of The House Magazine where, just recently, his honourable friend in another place, Austin Mitchell, the Labour MP for Great Grimsby, said:
"Every Labour Government since 1945 can be proud of its record in housing. Not this".
It is for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, to prove him wrong.
4.44 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I should like, first, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for being successful in the ballot. I shall not congratulate him because I think it is a matter of thanks that he should have managed to promote such an extremely interesting debate this afternoon. I also thank the noble Lord for bringing some fresh and original thinking to the
1470
subject. One would not really expect anything else from the noble Lord. He has immensely long experience in housing. Indeed, having listened to what he said, I believe that his current chairmanship of the Commission on the Private Rented Residential Sector ought to be bearing, or about to bear, good fruit.
One of the areas to which the noble Lord drew particular attention is the difference between the amount of housing in the private rented sector in this country compared to that elsewhere. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Gardner gave us some very good examples of what happens in Australia. Clearly, we are very deficient in this country in terms of the way that we deal with the private rented sector, especially as regards our encouragement of it.
I welcome the thoughts expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and his premise that large-scale institutional investment into housing for rent should be encouraged. It would certainly provide new resources for a sector that currently accounts for some 2.3 million tenancies. As other noble Lords have pointed out, 53 per cent of those tenancies are provided by individual landlords, with rather less than 8 per cent of investment being provided by corporate or institutional means. The sector quite often serves a mobile, short-stay population, or, increasingly plays an important part in the requirements of those on low incomes who are finding it difficult to find accommodation at a price that they can afford. Indeed, in many instances, they are supported by housing benefit.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is no longer present in the Chamber. He rightly drew attention to some of the problems that have occurred with housing benefit, so I do not need to venture any further into that aspect. However, had the noble Lord stayed long enough, I should have congratulated him on representing the Labour Party extremely well; indeed, because of his very wide-ranging experience in such matters, one voice in the shape of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is probably sufficient to encompass the Labour Party's views on housing. My noble friend Lady Byford also drew attention to the problems experienced not only in the administration of housing benefit but also by those to whom it applies.
The participation of the corporate or institutional investor is not new. When I first came to London, most of the mansion blocks were owned by large insurance companies—indeed, companies such as the Prudential and Norwich Union were wide owners. The flats were all on leases, which were usually quite short. Those companies divested themselves of all their properties. In many instances they sold them to overseas, absentee investors who often reaped the fast return by selling the flats on long leases, while, in others, they left no managing agents so that repairs went undone and tenants did not know who was responsible for the maintenance of the property. Consequently, a very substantial proportion of the rented sector dried up.
As we heard this afternoon from all the speakers who have taken part in this debate, the absence of the latter is now manifested by a dearth of housing that

1471
can be afforded, especially by those on low and middle incomes. My noble friend Lady Gardner drew our attention to the problems experienced by key workers. As a director of a hospital, I well remember being forced to sell housing that was designated for staff on the basis that it was "paternalistic" to maintain it. It seemed to be an extraordinarily curious way of looking at the situation, but I suppose that nurses' homes and places of residence for medical students and doctors at that time had hostel-like status. None the less, the loss of such housing is now coming home to roost. Indeed, much police housing has also been sold. This means that there is no housing sector to assist those who need to live and work within the metropolitan areas. It has also led to the necessity for us to talk, again, about providing housing for key workers, and to look to the affordable sector in order to do so.
As we have heard, London and the South East have particular pressures to address in this respect. Land for new development is becoming increasingly expensive. The result can be seen in the spiralling cost of housing.
The first question that we need to ask is whether there could he enough incentives and enough return to make it worth while for investment companies to come back into the market for rent. If not, what might be required to enable them to do so? We have talked about some of the measures that might be necessary. Any renewal of the rented market may be possible only if the Government are prepared to consider further enticements such as those proposed by the previous government—the scheme for tax credits, lower VAT on brownfield developments or conversions and reductions in corporation tax. My noble friend Lord Caithness went into considerable detail about those measures. I bow to his expertise in that area, as his professional life encroaches on it.
As my noble friend said, it is important that incentives do not encourage amateur landlords who find business management difficult, but encourage those who can, on a long-term basis, manage a property portfolio, tenants, links with the local authority if necessary and the repayment of mortgages.
My noble friend Lord Caithness also rightly drew attention to the fact that an enhanced private rented sector will require more management and letting agents. During our discussions on the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, amendments were moved to try to ensure that there was a regulatory basis for management and letting agents because of the problems that have been caused all over the country, but specifically in London, by those who were not up to it and who, in some cases, were corrupt. I hope that the Minister may be able to tell us that attention is being given to providing a regulatory framework for such agents, who will inevitably have a larger role if the private rented sector increases.
As other noble Lords have said, there is some evidence that the private sector is remaining robust, particularly on the back of buying to let, when mortgages or finance are provided for property specifically for rent. However, without the ability to
1472
ensure an adequate return to maintain the standard, that market could provide a false dawn. The last Conservative government made strident efforts to increase the proportion of private sector tenancies from the existing low base of 9 per cent of households by introducing shorthold and assured tenancies to speed up the process for a landlord who needs to repossess a property and introducing pre-tenancy determinations of rent eligibility for housing benefit, as well as introducing new housing benefit rules. All those measures continue, as do the housing investment trusts that were introduced. My noble friend Lord Caithness drew our attention to the limited success of those trusts, which may be due to the rules being too complicated. Despite all those measures, the proportion of private rented sector lettings has risen to just about 11 per cent.
Reverting to one of the main points made by the noble Lord, Lord Best, I suspect that the lack of enthusiasm for institutional investment stems from the difficulties with management costs, maintenance, service charges and the adequacy of the return on the investment. If the sector were re-enthused, would investors be satisfied with the amounts of rent that they could charge, which would almost certainly have to be set with rent assessment panels in mind? If the rents were too low, it would not be worth the investment. If they were too high, the whole purpose of such provision would be lost.
I was interested in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Best, about the Rowntree Trust's success with the CASPAR scheme, which seems to show that there can be a return on investment that would encourage institutional investors. I very much hope that that will be developed. We may hear more about it in due course.
Like all those who have spoken, I have no doubt that there would be demand for such accommodation. Reliance on the "For Sale" market has in general been a successful investment for most people over the past 10 or 20 years, but it inhibits mobility. The long processes involved in selling and buying in many instances prove to be a deterrent to those seeking to move to job opportunities in other parts of the country. However, home ownership is becoming less accessible, not only because of the increasing cost—the National Housing Federation has estimated that across half of England home ownership is beyond the reach of those earning less than £30,000—but also because of the Government's policies, which have brought about higher stamp duty and council tax and the abolition of mortgage income tax relief. The revivification of a reliable and affordable private sector in housing would be welcome and valuable. My noble friend Lady Byford also referred to the problems in rural areas, where affordable housing is greatly lacking and where the rented sector could play an increasing part.
My noble friend Lord Caithness and others have also drawn attention to the 750,000 homes that are currently empty in this country. This is not an easy problem. We laboured with it in my clays as chairman of a local authority housing committee and it is still

1473
prevalent. When we are looking to provide more than 100,000 new units a year in a country in which land is becoming less and less available, 750,000 empty units represents seven years worth of renewing our assets and requirements.
I by no means wish to be negative about the proposals put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Best. If incentives and investment returns could be provided that would entice such institutional interest back to the housing market, providing a nucleus of professional landlords, we might see a major improvement in that sector of housing and thus further choice across the country. I welcome those proposals and look forward to seeing how and whether they can be implemented. I also look forward to the other suggestions coming from the noble Lord's commission, which will be of great interest to all those who have had an opportunity to take part in this enormously interesting and important debate.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Best, on initiating this very interesting debate. It comes on a particularly apposite day, because today is the first day after the Homelessness Act received Royal Assent. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, asked what the Government had done about homelessness. I do not want to sound remotely churlish, but I must point out that the first legislation that we introduced after winning the election was the Homelessness Bill, which she played a significant part in improving in this House. This is an auspicious day.
Secondly, this is a time when there is huge pressure on housing in London, the South East, the South West and other parts of the country. The private rented sector has an important role to play in seeking to reduce those pressures. The noble Lord has raised a particularly apposite subject today.
The noble Lord's basic proposition was that an expansion of private sector renting could ease the problem of shortage of accommodation in London and other areas of high demand and could assist with the problems of regeneration in the North and the Midlands. I entirely agree with that basic proposition. We also all agree on the need for improvements as far as necessary in the standard of landlording in the private rented sector, the need for improvements in the quality of the properties in the private rented sector and the need to attract as much investment as possible into the private rented sector. We all agree on those propositions. The question is how to achieve those particular aims. I shall therefore first go through the debate's main themes and then deal with the specific points that noble Lords have made in a debate that has been of the highest possible quality.
How does one attract investment into the private rented sector? Political risk was the first issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and it is important to touch on it. The lower the political risk in relation to the private rented sector, the more a landscape will be
1474
created for investment by both smaller landlords and institutional investors. The private rented sector is sensitive to changes in regulation. Although the Government have made it clear that they will act on houses in multiple occupation and on the selective licensing of private landlords in areas of low demand—to cover unscrupulous landlords, particularly in the North where there is abandonment, who put in tenants who are very frequently guilty of anti-social and criminal behaviour and destroy communities—the Government have no intention of changing the regulatory framework covering the private rented sector.
The political risk is therefore low, as was emphasised both by shadow spokesmen when Labour was in opposition and by spokesmen and Ministers since the party has been in government. I entirely agree with the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Best, that the political risk is low.
How do we attract investment in a context of low political risk? I shall first outline tax measures affecting both individual small landlords and institutional investors. First, however, I should declare an interest. I and/or my wife are owners of properties that are rented out. We are therefore, as it were, accidental landlords. I should have made that clear at the outset and apologise for not doing so.
I shall deal first with the point on tax raised by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and others, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Best. We want reputable investors to expand the supply of decent rented homes. Buy-to-let schemes may now have brought 160,000 better quality properties into the private rented sector. Measures in the May 2001 Budget which, were introduced in response to the urban White Paper provide for 100 per cent capital allowances for conversion of redundant space over shops into flats and zero or reduced VAT rates for refurbishment of empty properties and residential conversions. I think, however, that the noble Earl would agree that although financial institutions are showing a growing interest in the sector they have yet substantially to commit funds.
There is a clear reluctance among institutions to become involved in property management. One solution which the noble Earl mentioned is a tax-transparent vehicle for onshore indirect investment—the so-called US-style real estate investment trust. Although, as he said, that solution has been rejected because of the distortion it might create between the tax treatment of industry and of property, we have not completely dismissed such a vehicle specifically for investment in private rented property. The noble Earl effectively said, "We, the market, have tried; now it is for you, the Government, to present ideas on how to take it forward". Although such decisions are ultimately for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I should think that the right course is to continue discussing with the industry whether vehicles can be developed to encourage institutional investors without falling foul of the types of distortion to which I have referred. It is very important that we continue that

1475
discussion, as we have committed to do in the Green Paper. It is sensible for discussions to continue with an open mind on both sides.
The noble Earl also raised the slightly different issue of the tax treatment of landlords. Although, as I said, we are keen to encourage institutional investment in the private rented sector, we also value the contribution of small landlords—who, numerically, as all speakers have recognised, form the backbone of the sector. The fact that residential landlords are classed as investors rather than traders for tax purposes—which was the noble Earl's point—has long led to calls for a level playing field. The noble Earl added to those calls in his excellent speech. Although we have some sympa thy with that view, we cannot ignore the fact that landlords do not face the same degree of risk as traders because of the asset value of their business. Nevertheless, we remain open to sensible suggestions for tax changes.
As we said in the housing Green Paper, we do not want artificial tax breaks that distort investment choices and do not tackle the problems faced by the sector. It is another sphere in which we have taken some action, to which I referred at the outset of my speech. We recognise, however, that other action may be possible. Let us sit down together and see if there are real options not only in the tax treatment of landlords, but in relation to institutional investors. We believe that, in the medium and long term, to encourage the private rented sector, it is very important both to attract institutional investors and to encourage small landlords.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, also referred to house builders and partnerships between house builders and investors. Of course we would encourage that, as we would encourage CASPAR-style developments. Noble Lords who have seen those developments will know how successful they can be. I thoroughly support the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Best, about the potential of such development.
I have dealt with the issue of attracting more money. As for the quality of landlording, we would thoroughly support helping well-intentioned landlords to improve their expertise. We would encourage it through local authority accreditation schemes and other best-practice initiatives. We also believe that various separate but connected initiatives such as tenancy deposit schemes are a thoroughly good idea. I was very glad that, on 13th February, I was able to announce that the tenancy deposit pilot scheme will continue for another two years while we determine whether take-up can be proved, how the scheme can be made self-sufficient, and what legislation might be required to support it in the long term. We all support the idea of improving the standard of landlords.
A connected and very important issue is raised particularly strongly, although not only, in the north of England—where people in areas of low demand frequently say that they are most concerned about antisocial behaviour and criminal activity. As the value of property decreases in areas of non-social housing—which is owned by private landlords—landlords buy
1476
property and put in tenants who have no regard for the community, commit criminal or anti-social behaviour and cause a rapidly accelerating flight from that community. We have issued a consultation paper, and we are keen to obtain views and act on the issue as quickly as possible—to permit the licensing of property and landlords and to stop landlords from obtaining housing benefit while watching the community be destroyed because of tenants' behaviour. We consider that an issue of considerable urgency.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, made clear, houses in multiple occupation were the subject of a Government manifesto commitment in both 1997 and 2001. As was said recently— I recommit myself to it now—we shall legislate on houses in multiple occupation as soon as a legislative slot is available to do so. It is an important issue. All the statistics show that the largest proportion of bad quality property is in the private rented sector. Within that sector, the largest proportion of had quality property is composed of houses in multiple occupation.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I am slightly worried by the Minister's statement that the Government will legislate when time is available. A Private Member's Bill is going through the other place at the moment which has a section on houses in multiple occupation. Are we to understand that the Government will not support that and will introduce a separate measure?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we have given support to that Bill but it does not contain full provision for the licensing of houses in multiple occupation. It only contains provisions that pave the way for that. I do not know what happened at the Bill's Committee stage yesterday as I am not as up to speed as the noble Baroness in that regard. Although that Bill goes some of the way, it does not go all of the way to provide a licensing scheme for houses in multiple occupation. That will have to be provided by a subsequent Bill and that is why I say that legislative time is needed to complete the process.
The question of the quality of homes was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. He referred to the importance of energy efficiency and gave terrifying statistics on the percentage of homes in the private rented sector with ratings which he rather modestly described—these were not exactly the words he used—as ones that would seriously damage the health of an elderly or vulnerable person who had to live in them during the winter. What is being done? There is grant assistance. We provide help from public funds largely through grants. These are targeted by local authorities on occupiers of poorer condition housing w ho cannot afford to keep their homes in good repair. Renovation grants are given for structural work and average about £10,000 per dwelling. Home repairs assistance grants are given more frequently and tend to be used to pay for non-structural work such as rewiring or essential upgrading. We estimate—this is local authority distributed money—that local authorities will spend annually an average of £280 million of their housing investment programme money on private sector renewal over the current spending period.

1477
The grants regime currently is constrained by a complex set of rules. We are in the process of sweeping those away by means of a regulatory reform order currently before Parliament. Under the simplified rules local authorities will have greater flexibility to aid home owners by means of grants, loans and loan guarantees. As the noble Lord knows from our conversation on the subject this morning, we also help to fund the Home Improvement Agency which comprises small teams attached to local authorities who help primarily elderly and vulnerable people to identify necessary repairs and improvements. The noble Lord also referred to the warm front zones. He said that when we introduce legislation to license houses in multiple occupation and in relation to the private rented sector we should consider incorporating an energy efficiency requirement in the licensing. That is a sensible idea which we shall certainly examine in considering those two areas of licensing. The three main areas mentioned were: investment, quality of landlords and quality of property. Those are issues that we need to keep under constant review. I have mentioned the steps that we are taking to advance those further.
I believe that three other areas were emphasised. As regards housing benefit noble Lords should make no mistake that we recognise the effect that the poor administration of housing benefit can have on tenants in the private rented sector. It is not just a question of constant difficulties for the landlord making housing benefit tenants unattractive but also the fact that from time to time housing benefit tenants are evicted because housing benefit is so slow in being paid. Delays in payment seriously affect both tenants and landlords. Steps are now being taken to help authorities improve their performance in that regard. The Department for Work and Pensions has developed and consulted on the first ever set of national performance standards. We have increased administration funding for the first time in eight years and established a help fund for local authorities. The new DWP help team has given direct practical support to individual authorities. A pilot scheme has involved social landlords in verifying tenants' claims in order to speed up processing. Last year a more realistic single room rent definition was adopted so that young people can obtain decent privately rented accommodation. This is an important issue. We recognise that more work needs to be done on it. However, we recognise the consequences of not getting it right. We are trying to get it right.
I touch briefly on other issues that were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, was not present when the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, bewailed the fact that there was only one speaker from the government Back Benches but said that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, was the equivalent of 20 members of our party. The noble Lord's experience in the field is second to none. He gave a warm welcome to the proposals put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Best. He also said that there was no single factor more important than housing in
1478
contributing to this Government's aims in relation to health, education and fighting crime. I thoroughly agree with that. The noble Lord emphasised the importance of the reform of housing benefit, incentives to encourage greater investment, better management and better regulation. Those are all points with which I agree subject to the point that the regulation must not, as it were, unhinge the political risk. The noble Lord emphasised that local authorities have a role in encouraging investment in the private rented sector. I agree with that. They have a strategic role as regards housing right across their boroughs whether that be in relation to social housing or the private sector. The noble Lord said that the right-to-buy was a self-inflicted wound. However, it is now part of the landscape and we shall not fundamentally change it. We must consider the problems of housing in that context.
I believe that I have dealt with many of the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. However, I refer to one other point that he made. He said that I would be disappointed if he did not refer to an effective refrain of his during the passage of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill; namely, the licensing of agents. During discussion on that Bill he said that although there are many extremely reputable and competent agents a few rogue agents of a low standard bring the whole profession into disrepute. As I indicated, we shall consider the question of licensing agents. We shall shortly produce a consultation paper to enable a whole range of options to be considered without giving a particular steer one way or the other.
The noble Earl referred to empty properties, as did a number of other speakers. He mentioned the figure of 760,000 empty homes. He asked whether we would expand the role of the Empty Property Advisory Group. That group, which the department set up in 1999, was established to make recommendations to feed into the Urban White Paper. It was disbanded after the White Paper was published. We are working closely with the Empty Homes Agency to take forward many of the recommendations, including the production of good practice research for local authorities in establishing empty property strategies. The Empty Homes Agency and its partners in the research project are setting up an advisory group of experts which will have a similar role to that of the Empty Property Advisory Group. As I say, the Empty Property Advisory Group was disbanded but a similar body will be set up.
I believe that I have dealt with the main point that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, made. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, described herself rather unfairly as a potterer in this area. Having heard her contribution to this debate and to the debates on commonhold and leasehold reform, she may be a potterer as a landlord but she has an extremely effective understanding of the private rented sector. She referred to the benefit of tiny units. In so far as density is an important issue in relation to dealing with the problems of a shortage of affordable housing, I entirely agree with that comment. She mentioned tax, as did other noble Lords. She also mentioned the

1479
regulatory framework within which private landlords operate. I reassure her that there is no political risk in the private rented sector.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred to The Way Forward for Housing and sought an update of how that is progressing. I hope that my comments on the quality of landlords, the quality of property, trying to seek institutional investors and encouraging the small landlord have covered many of the points that have been made. I shall read her speech to establish whether I should reply to her in writing about how we are getting on in relation to the Green Paper, The Way Forward for Housing.
I pick tip the point that the noble Baroness made about the importance of affordable housing in rural areas. I thoroughly endorse what she said. Two weeks ago, Mr Alun Michael, the Minister responsible for rural affairs, and I went to visit a rural affordable housing scheme in Lewes. All of the points that the noble Baroness raised were strongly and effectively made by the local authority down there and by the housing association that was setting up the scheme. That matter can all too easily be overlooked. I hope that she will recall that in our 2001 manifesto we committed ourselves to a specific number of affordable houses in rural areas for a number of years—I cannot remember the exact figures—because we recognise precisely the problem that she identified.
I believe that I have dealt with all of the points that were raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Maddock and Lady Hanham. Once again, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Best, on an effective and important debate.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Best: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. It has been a joy to be part of it. I especially thank the noble and learned Lord the Minister for a very full response to all of the matters that we have discussed and in particular for saying on four occasions that he is open to bids and offers and is very willing to sit down and talk through a number of issues, including regulation, taxation and much more. I assure him that his offer will be accepted, not least in relation to the report from the commission on the private rented sector, which will come out in the spring. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Poverty and Terrorism
5.22 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf Lord Dahrendorf rose to call attention to the links between third world poverty and terrorism; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I rise to,
"call attention to the links between third world poverty and terrorism".
I hasten to add the reservation:
"Poverty does not cause terrorism and conflict, but it increases the risk of it".
Those are actually the words of the Secretary of State for International Development, Clare Short, and I agree with her in that, as in her conclusion that what is needed is "more aid, better spent". But why does poverty increase the risk of terrorism? And how can aid be spent better?
On the extent of third world poverty in this age of globalisation there can be no doubt. Former President Clinton has, in his Dimbleby Lecture and elsewhere, cited the figures, which bear repeating:
"One billion people live on less than one dollar a day; one billion people go to bed hungry every night; a quarter of the world's people never get a clean glass of water; every minute one woman dies in childbirth".
This is, as Mr Clinton argued, the flip side of globalisation. It creates a lot of angry people. Some of them remain just frustrated and apathetic. Some want to "destroy the civilised world". However—this is Mr Clinton again—
"a lot of people are angry because they want to he a part of tomorrow, but they cannot find the open door".
That in fact is my theme, and helping them find the open door is our task.
Perhaps I may offer one further quotation—not from a politician but from the thoughtful and compassionate analyst, Michael Ignatieff—which identifies the link referred to in my Motion in words that I could not have chosen better. Mr Ignatieff said:
"One of the unacknowledged underlying causes of the September 11 events was the coincidence of globalised prosperity in the imperial world with disintegration in the states that achieved independence from the colonial empires of Europe in the 1960s. The collapse of state institutions has been exacerbated by urbanisation, by the relentless growth of lawless shantytowns that collect populations of unemployed or underetnplo)ed men who can see the promise of globalised prosperity on the TV in every cafe, but cannot enjoy it themselves. In states like Pakistan, where the state no longer provides basic services to the poorest people, Islamic parties, funded from Saudi Arabia, step into the breach, providing clinics, schools, and orphanages where the poor receive protection at the price of indoctrination in hatred".
We do not have to go to the third world to find the Ignatieff syndrome, if I may call it that. The so-called "shoe bomber" from Bromley, Richard Reid, illustrates the path from rootlessness to petty and not-so-petty crime, to prison, and from there to the hands of caring Muslim mullahs, on to the community of the faithful and further to militancy, ending in training for terrorism in Pakistan.
In the third world, the syndrome occurs in a systematic way. There are several kinds of terrorism, and what I have to say does not apply to all. One major strand, however, is related to the frustrations of the pathways out of poverty. It is not the truly destitute who organise themselves or turn violent, nor is it the traditional poor; it is those who have left the traditional cycle of poverty—for the most part of village life—but have failed to find a place in the new scheme of things. They have smelled a life which has inspired their dreams—often through American symbols, such as Hollywood, Coca-Cola and the rest, which is why America looms so large in their minds—but they cannot find a place in it. The noble Lord,

1481
Lord Puttnam, who would have liked to have been here for this debate, sent me a recent statement of his in which he talked about,
"the very real prospect of a fundamental 'dislocation' between the world of the imagination created by the moving image, and the everyday lives of people around the globe".
It is not just cultural dislocation that I am talking about; many of the people in question end up in favelas and shantytowns within sight of the glittering city lights and far away from the homely misery of their origins. They are lost between roots that are cut and fruits that will remain distant hopes. This is where that cocktail of envy and hatred is brewed, which makes terrorism so vicious.
Nor is that just a failing of individuals. The seriousness of the predicament that I am describing lies in the fact that it is an almost inevitable stage on the path from poverty to prosperity. Modernisation initially means uprooting. Remember The Bleak Age of industrialising Britain—described so vividly by social historians and novelists—Gin Lane, the workhouses and the acts of Luddite destruction and of burning down prisons? For whatever reason, there is no straight path from poverty to prosperity. Things get worse before they get better. The process called "development" begins with a valley of tears, and many lose patience during the trek. They seek a shortcut to a better life by what the authors of The Bleak Age, the Hammonds, called "the remedy of the New World"—that is, by migration—or they express their frustration by committing crime, including terrorism. Many do both in a "runaway world".
That is the background and central thesis of my Motion. But of course for us, in Parliament, the key question is: what can we do to mitigate the process at which I have hinted? Let me leave no doubt. So far as terrorism is concerned, it must be fought. Nothing offered here by way of explanation should be misread as an excuse. I agree wholeheartedly with former President Clinton that,
"there is no excuse ever for the deliberate killing of innocent civilians for political, religious or economic reasons".
But once this battle has been won, the major task remains. As Mr Chris Patten put it in a recent speech, after the "smart bombs" we need a "smart development policy".
In order to indicate what that might mean, I want to make five points which are also five questions to the Government. The first is that a smart development policy is not only about money. To be sure, such a policy is bound to be costly, but neither debt relief nor financial aid transfers to governments will achieve what is needed. In particular, we should stop talking about a Marshall Plan for the developing world. In so far as the Marshall Plan after World War II was successful, it served to aid reconstruction in countries which had had a developed infrastructure and, above all, a population trained and motivated to go forward to a modern economy and society. The money needed for development today needs much more careful targeting.
Secondly, the major task of any smart development policy is institution-building. This is no longer a new idea; the World Bank and even the IMF know it. Certainly the Government are aware of it, and I commend the recent Strategic Defence Review paper, A New Chapter, for including sections headed "Tackling the Basis of Terrorism" and "Engaging the Causes". Action has not yet quite reached the level of such knowledge. Governments could do worse than take Professor Amartya Sen's book, Development as Freedom, as their guide. Without what Sen calls "political freedoms", "economic facilities", "social opportunities" and "transparency guarantees", there will be no sustainable development.
Translating such principles into action is not easy. In essence, it means giving more emphasis to the social infrastructure of third world countries than to their physical infrastructure. Establishing the rule of law is critical, and it has to do with creating an incorrupt judiciary. Teachers have to be trained, and nurses. One is obviously hesitant to recommend the creation of further international institutions; there are probably too many already. However, given the collapsing state structures in many third world countries, there is a case for charging particular international agencies with building a social infrastructure that lasts.
I have quoted Sen's "types of freedom", as he calls them, except for one, which brings me to my third point: protective security. In developing countries in particular, it is, in Sen's words, necessary,
"to provide a social safety net for preventing the affected population from being reduced to abject misery, and in some cases even starvation and death".
I would add the argument: for preventing those frustrated by the long trek through the valley of tears from turning to terrorism to express their frustration. "Fixed institutional arrangements", in Sen's words, for cushioning the difficult passage to relative prosperity are hard to create and costly to guarantee. But, without them, we shall all pay an even higher price.
My fourth point is simple. We need examples of success in order to gain support for the smart development policy. That means concentration on particular countries. Whoever aims at everything will probably achieve nothing. That is why I believe the work which my noble friend Lord Ashdown is going to do in the Balkans is so important, and it is why I believe that Europe would be well advised to concentrate on the critical country of Turkey as much as on any other.
My fifth and final point has to do with Europe. The record of the European Union in development policy is mixed. It is certainly not a model of the smartness which Commissioner Patten had in mind. Yet such a policy would be an important contribution to a true partnership with the United States of America. America's readiness to intervene in many parts of the world by military means is not coupled with a similar readiness to contribute to building sustainable liberal institutions in foreign parts. We Europeans, whose collective military capabilities are likely to remain

1483
weak for a long time to come, have a task here which is suited to our experience, our interest and our capacity. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Stone of Blackheath: My Lords, I believe that the debate will show that there are links between poverty over there—wherever "there" is—and terrorism over here. But there are those who believe that, because of that link, we should do more over there for our own good and to protect ourselves. I hope that the debate shows a closer link and a different motivation for our concern.
I returned only yesterday from Ecuador. The level of absolute poverty there has just risen from 35 per cent to 70 per cent. The links between poverty and terrorism there are obvious, immediate and local. I met Jennifer on Sunday. She is four-and-a-half years old. She had been kept in a cardboard kennel in a back yard until last Thursday by adults who were not her parents. She had been hit so hard that it broke her jaw. She had lost most of the sight in one eye and one ear was badly affected. She had also been sexually abused. Her story is not uncommon, and I believe that that is the terrorism which is linked to poverty.
But I have come to report positively for this debate. I saw at first hand the type of work that wins over the hearts and minds of those who find themselves confronting extreme poverty and other difficulties. In Santo Domingo de los Colorados, the group of five people whom I accompanied, four of whom were British. went to help Orphaids, an organisation which helps children of parents with HIV or AIDS. John and Brenda Hart work for that NGO, running a project which provides a local home for such children just before or after their parents' death. The children receive bereavement counselling and the security of knowing that they will have a family and a safe home after their parents die. The parents have the comfort of being able to die knowing that their children will be safe in the future. I am sure that your Lordships will he pleased to know that the British Government will he supporting that project.
On a wider scale, since our trip, which was linked with Orphaids, PLAN International, a child-centred community development organisation, is now working in Ecuador with more than 70,000 families, with 3,400 local volunteers in seven localities, to help communities to improve the lives of their children. There are tangible results. The children now have access to better education, health and water, all thanks to partnerships between their parents and their local communities, local governments and NGOs. Over 100,000 people in Britain contribute to that work. Our own Department for International Development is also making a difference, supporting a very important child rights programme, giving children a voice and changing adult behaviour on issues such as abuse and child labour.
I also visited the indigenous Colorados Indians, who. with help, are improving their own society. They invited me to their meeting house, where they were
1484
discussing alternatives to the traditional hereditary method of finding their leaders. They asked for my views. They also said that their priorities for their community are education, health. crime and economy. I asked them, "What about transport?", and they said that they did not have much. They asked whether I could help them to find a couple of vehicles. I said I would ask.
Ecuador is not a country that experiences much international terrorism. It is certainly not a country that sponsors state terrorism. However, I believe that there is little room for complacency. Ecuadorians living in the border provinces, in Esmeraldas and Carchi, have experienced years of extreme poverty. Until recently they have received little help from either the central government or the international community. Some of their people are now forced to work in cocoa plantations across the border in Colombia, where the cocaine production business is run by terrorist organisations such as FARC, ELN and AUC. Those organisations began over 30 years ago as extreme left or right-wing movements fighting poverty. That is the fertile ground in which terrorist groups can recruit new members.
Our targeted help at the right time is exactly what is needed to reverse that type of situation. But in my view that work is best done altruistically, concerned with the violence and terror that is perpetrated on their children, rather than as an afterthought for our own self-preservation. I want to report to your Lordships' House that in Ecuador I saw wonderful British people doing just that.
My hope is that this debate will help those who live in extreme poverty in Ecuador and elsewhere to continue to receive the help that they need and I hope that we decide to increase resources in the future for their sake and not for ours.
5.42 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords. we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, for initiating this important debate. A terrorist is defined as one who favours or uses terror, whether in governing or in coercing a government or community. Just such effects can be seen in the Sudan, Myanmar, Indonesia, Cambodia, Vietnam (for a long period after the Vietnam War), Iraq, Sierra Leone and Nigeria, and today there are the very different but almost equally menacing situations in Afghanistan and Zimbabwe. I saw state terrorism for myself in the Soviet Union in the 1950s. For once I shall say nothing about our own home-grown terrorists.
However, I do not believe that terrorists spring from the poor and the oppressed, although poverty has necessarily been enhanced and prolonged by terrorist activity. Osama bin Laden and his followers are not poor, nor do they profess any mission to help the poor, but only to destroy what they hate in society, whether in the US or in some rich Arab state. Like the BaaderMeinhof gang, like Carlos the Jackal who was harboured by the Sudan, like Patty Hearst in the US, many are angry, spoilt, power-seeking children of the rich and privileged who want to destroy, not build.

1485
Unfortunately there is a potent extra ingredient in the make-up of Al'Qaeda and that is the religious fanaticism that attracts some young men who lack purpose in their lives. To some extent that is our fault as we offer them nothing satisfying in which to believe. So far as I know, Al'Qaeda has never claimed that it wishes to redress poverty or to help the poor. Its members want to impose their particular brand of fanaticism.
Indeed there was a time when, in Latin America. extreme poverty and anger was a breeding ground for revolution and for ideologically inspired violence, which was understandable. However, today the very poor in Africa—the continent that I know best—are astonishingly patient, courageous and ready to try to make things work. They are not destroyers. Changing continents, my cook in Hanoi had one modest ambition: that his daughter should be a teacher. That is not much to ask. Zimbabwe and Sierra Leone are two examples of the fundamental, solid decency and sanity of people under attack, whether from state terrorism or violent men.
If the events of 11th September have given the world a wake-up call so that we may act more effectively to help to relieve world poverty that is good. I hope that all those Tokyo pledges will be kept. However, I do not believe that those events happened in the name of the poor.
It is nearly half a century since the colonial era in Africa ended. In that time the African formula for power residing, if not with one leader then at least with one powerful group, whether tribal or military, still effectively obtains in many countries. As Lumumba once explained to me, to tolerate an opposition is to demonstrate weakness not strength. Therefore, we are dealing with small, privileged groups.
It often puzzles me that the British are ashamed of their colonial past, which left a relatively sound administrative and economic infrastructure, the English language and the rule of law in a continent ruled and fragmented until then on tribal lines, wholly unadapted to the modern world. Yet we deliberately leave action on Zimbabwe to the EU on the grounds that, unlike us, it has no colonial overtones. The EU contains such brutal and incompetent so-called colonisers as the Belgians, the Germans, the Spaniards and the Portuguese and even, to some degree, the French.
NEPAD is now the "in" thing. The concept is admirable, although because of the African power structure I have doubts about how far any economic wealth will trickle down to the people. However, if we are rightly bent on treating African states as we would treat any other economic partner, we must recognise, as the World Bank does not, that Uganda does not yet enjoy the sophisticated infrastructure of Switzerland. En revanche, the African leaders must no longer be allowed to manipulate us by rejecting constructive criticism as colonialist, as has happened in the past, in regard to many of our best aid programmes. Colonialism has been dead a long time. It survives only
1486
in the minds of some politically correct gurus who believe it to be a credible reason for failure or, worse, inaction.
What is needed, and soon, is energetic measures to help each country to strengthen its infrastructure; for instance, through extensive training courses for administrators. It was the total absence of that that was Belgium's criminal legacy to the Congo, which should have been prosperous. Finally we must begin by reinforcing strength where it exists. Such countries as Zimbabwe, and to some extent Uganda, can be regional hubs of success. Let us build on that. Prosperity and law and order for the ordinary people will be one of the best, although slowest, ways of countering terrorism.
I have two further points. It is time we ended the proliferation of increasingly useless new organisations and made the existing international bodies, such as the UN and the Commonwealth, more effective. The Harare declaration has proved to be a hollow joke. The real test of the Commonwealth now will be the report of the observers of the Zimbabwe election. I am deeply grateful to the Government for the further injection of money that was announced yesterday. Nevertheless, once we have the result of that election, the Commonwealth will have to take some action.
My last point is that we should be seen to believe more in ourselves. Sierra Leone wanted us hack because the colonial experience for them—surprise, surprise—was good. Every important black leader in anglophone Africa whom I have known had at least one loved and admired colonial service friend and mentor. They respect us when we respect ourselves. We should believe in ourselves more.
Touring round Africa with the French, who have a different agenda, and incidentally who were responsible for much of the violence and tragedy of the Great Lakes region, may do us good in the EU, but in Africa we should and could stand on our own decent record and act fearlessly.
5.48 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I must pray the indulgence and forgiveness of the House. Today I am on duty in place of my good friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, who had hoped to contribute to this debate. I was determined to be present for this debate as chair of the board of Christian Aid, but this evening I have a longstanding engagement in Guildford that I cannot escape, so I doubt that I shall be here for the duration. That is my loss because the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, has introduced a subject of profound importance to all noble Lords. I share the gratitude of the House for that.
I want to establish a basic principle. One can raid moral and ethical thought and philosophy; one can dig deep into the heart of all the main religious traditions of the world; but nowhere will one find anything to justify the slaughter of innocent people. Whether one considers the terrifying experience of total war that was our lot in the 20th century, the suicide bombers

1487
who blow themselves up in open markets, or helicopter gunships and tanks firing shells at innocent people, one looks in vain for any principled justification for killing the innocent.
I am proud, if I may say so, to belong to a Church which owns the memory of Bishop George Bell, who had the profound courage in the midst of the last war to question the carpet bombing of German cities. We said, post- 11th September, that we must respond to those wicked acts of terror by holding to the values of our history and culture in the practice of our international politics. If we allow an unprincipled pragmatism, which can sound so sensible in the immediate, to govern our politics, what response will we make to those who say that the only way we will shift injustice in our world is by indiscriminate acts of violence? "If it works, it must be OK", is not a principle of moral and religious conviction that we can accept.
So let us begin by drawing that moral line. But if the challenges of poverty and injustice in our time are not to be addressed by the route of violence, how are they to be tackled? The despair that many feel that there are no answers and that there is no hope will tempt people into seeking whatever way seems available to them if those of us with power and opportunity are not seen to be facing those challenges with urgency and commitment.
The moral challenges of poverty and injustice are huge, as the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, ably set out before us this afternoon. We cannot go on, through the process of globalisation and liberalisation in our international economic order, increasing the prosperity of the developed world while we leave billions of the rest of the human community behind. What strategies do we have for dealing with those challenges?
It is easy for us to point to war, civil disorder and mismanagement across the continent of Africa, for example, as the reason for so much poverty. There is truth in that. But following the suggestion that we should be specific, let me take noble Lords to the nation of Tanzania. It is one of the poorest nations in the world. But it is a peaceful country which, because it is at peace, can easily be forgotten in the cycle of need in our international community. The greatest contribution that its founding father, Julius Nerere, made was not rural socialism, but the uniting of its culture into one language and one political community. It is a country of equal numbers of Christians and Muslims, of people of many tribal and cultural backgrounds now owning a common commitment to the nation. People can walk the streets of Dar es Salaam, as I have, in peace.
I am told that 40 per cent of the world's population is under the age of 15. In countries like Tanzania the vast majority of the people are under the age of 25. The tackling of poverty can only happen by deliberate strategic action seeking to ensure that the systems of trade and international finance work for the poorest nations of our world. We have much still to do in that regard. Yesterday I was at a meeting, one year on from
1488
an international conference on child poverty addressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As was indicated there, we still have huge strides to take.
In relation to the issue of terrorism I turn to the Gaza Strip, to which some noble Lords may have been. If you enter some of the Palestinian refugee camps on the Gaza Strip you encounter the deep, seething anger of people about the injustice. This is the feeding ground of violence. We must tackle those issues politically. We must say to our American friends, "Unless you confront the issues of justice in places like that and not simply talk about the violence, you will go on feeding the possibility of terrorist action in our world".
Across our world emerging generations are looking to us to see whether we have the moral courage to meet the demands of justice for the poor and dispossessed. As the prophets of old made clear, protesting our religious or ethical purity carries no weight unless it is accompanied by actions which demonstrate our commitment.
Later this evening I shall be addressing a meeting in my diocese on the passion of Christ. There is an unbreakable golden thread of hope which links that theme to our debate this afternoon. It calls us to costly action for the helpless, and that is the meaning of this debate so beautifully moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, this afternoon.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I agree with the right reverend Prelate that the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, has chosen a crucially important subject. Since September 11th many voices have spoken about eliminating the root causes of terrorism. Those have included the Prime Minister. His words at the party conference are familiar:
"Out of the shadow of this evil should emerge lasting good—above all justice and prosperity for the poor and dispossessed".
Former President Bill Clinton voiced similar wise words, as the noble Lord said, at the Dimbleby Lecture. However, the present incumbent in that post has been much more insistent on being—to borrow a phrase—tough on terrorism rather than tough on the causes of terrorism. Tackling those causes is a much longer-term project. Some might say it is an endless task, not worth attempting; that terrorism as an evil must first be stamped out. I suggest that that would be the endless task, rather like the war on drugs—and that will be the case even if the body now being examined by the United States turns out to be that of Osama bin Laden.
Optimists suggest that September 11th should act as a stimulus to redouble the efforts we are making through DfID and international organisations to eliminate poverty, promote democracy and good governance. But as far as I am aware no systematic analysis of the links between underdevelopment and terrorism has been carried out. The noble Lord, by initiating this debate, has started the ball rolling.

1489
As he pointed out, third world poverty underlies some "terrorist" activity, but the relationship is neither direct nor, as the noble Baroness, Lady Park, pointed out, universal. Terrorism means different things to different people. The definitions of terrorism in both the Oxford and Chambers dictionaries are interesting. Chambers says that terrorism is:
"An organised system of violence and intimidation, especially for political ends".
The Oxford Dictionary defines it as a "system of terror" or "government by intimidation". The words used by both tend to suggest more that terrorism is a system used by states against the people than vice versa; and that the activities of many repressive states constitute terrorism.
The purpose of torture, for example, is more often than not to intimidate and terrify people than to extract information. The extra-judicial killing of political activists, as well as eliminating the activist, is an instrument of intimidation directed at the population. When there is widespread feeling that a government are not responding to legitimate concerns and are violating human rights, activists and the population that supports those activists are driven to direct action. At first that may be non-violent—demonstrations, for instance, or the occupation of buildings—but if it is then resisted by state security forces using force or brutality, popular movements are driven to take up arms against the state. In that way coercive states can generate "terrorism" which is then directed against themselves in response to their own negation of human rights and intimidation of the population. The indirect link between terrorism and popular political action to reduce poverty by the people of the state in that kind of situation I hope I have made reasonably clear.
Mary Robinson, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, said in a lecture that I attended last November that extreme poverty was,
"the worst problem in human rights in our world today … [It] means a denial of the exercise of all human rights and undermines the dignity and worth of the individual. And yet, even in situations of extreme poverty the human spirit triumphs in fighting back".
The example she then gave was of a benign NGO-led project in a Delhi slum. But for many others poverty and a desperate and frustrating life, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, lead people to seek desperate remedies. Among these may be to join a religious movement which welcomes them into a faith and brotherhood and offers the promise of a better life and, at the same time, a target for their anger. Fundamentalist Islam fits this bill very well.
In an article in the Telegraph on 24th November, a South African, RW Johnson, described,
"the third world's love affair with Islamic fanatics".
He further stated that,
"the fall of communism deprived the so called non aligned bloc of the leadership it had [formerly] implicitly accepted".
1490
More crudely, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, recently described militant Islam as "the new Bolshevism", with the implication that it was to be confronted and fought rather than be made redundant through increasing prosperity.
Again I echo the right reverend Prelate. Although poverty may underlie terrorism, the immediate trigger is almost always widely perceived as unbearable injustice. An example is the central—but not the only—reason for the anti-American stance of Al'Qaeda and similar radical Islamic movements. That is, the United States support for Israel while it is illegally occupying parts of Palestine. A solution to this problem would truly be a "giant leap for mankind" against terrorism. Let us hope that George W Bush, in cautiously welcoming the current Saudi initiative, has perhaps seen the light.
6.1 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, on his choice of debate. I congratulate him on his success in the ballot.
One of the consequences of the terrible events of September 11th was the establishment of a consensus; not only for a global coalition against international terrorism, but also for a global coalition against poverty. Nations and institutions alike agreed that action to alleviate poverty worldwide was needed to prevent a repeat of those atrocities.
We can only eliminate terrorism if the fertile conditions which breed it, such as poverty and marginalisation, are removed. I have fears that the political will for this view is likely to be difficult to sustain in the long term. It may become a poor relation to the more specific coalition against international terrorism. As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has stated, poverty reduction is a long-term mission. There are no easy short cuts nor quick fixes.
The only way to eliminate the terrorist threat permanently is to understand and to treat its causes. Healing its symptoms can only ever be a temporary cure—neutralising the threat perhaps, but not removing it. The international coalition against terrorism has more easily measurable goals and is capable of more rapid successes—witness the collapse of the Taliban in Afghanistan. But the reduction of poverty and inequality is perhaps our most potent long-range weapon against terrorism.
Poverty and terrorism are often two sides of the same coin and our response must continue to be a twin-track one. One track is the uprooting and destruction of the Al'Qaeda network and its allies around the world. Parallel to that runs the equally important track of rendering infertile the soils of poverty, suffering and resentment in which the seeds of terror grow.
There is a minority school of thought which disputes the linkage between terrorism and poverty. Its advocates argue against a connection between socioeconomic indicators and involvement in terrorist activities and suicide attacks in particular. Some even lean towards a darker view of humanity altogether, in

1491
which the evil of terrorism is part and parcel of the human condition—the tainted countenance of human nature.
Those who dispute the linkage between poverty and terrorism argue that the common stereotype of terrorists as uneducated, impoverished, disenfranchised unfortunates is no more than a myth. Some of the evidence supports that position. Osama bin Laden, born into wealth and privilege in Saudi Arabia, is held up as proof that it is not poverty which causes terrorism. It is often pointed out that the perpetrators of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks did not fall into the category of the poor and the hopeless, but were college-educated men, from middle-class Saudi Arabian and Emirate families.
That has led to a search for other reasons to explain the lure of terrorism. Some believe that the lack of democracy and the state-centred systems of government in countries such as Saudi Arabia, which allow their young subjects no official outlets for dissent or opposition, are to blame.
Terrorism is a many-headed hydra. Sometimes terrorism has a coherent political agenda; and sometimes it is used in a less focused way, to express rage and protest, or to advance an extreme and fanatic religious agenda, or even for more obscure pathological reasons. In all cases, terrorism makes no distinctions in its choice of victims. The young and the old, the rich and the poor, the politician and the bystander, are all legitimate targets to the terrorist. The power of modern communication to project the horror of terrorism has made it a devastating weapon. The ancient Chinese strategist, Hsun Tzu, defined terrorism as:
"Kill one, frighten ten thousand".
With the communications revolution and the power of television, many more today are frightened, but the principle is the same. While the aims and objectives of individual terrorists groups may differ, there is common ground to be found in the root causes of terrorism. Kim Dae-Jung, the Nobel Peace Prize winner stated the matter well:
"At the bottom of terrorism is poverty. That is the main cause. Then there are other religious, national and ideological differences".
I do not say that there is always a direct linear route between poverty alone and the extremism or fanaticism which is so often the driving force behind terrorism. Nor does all terrorism have its roots in poverty, but when its origins lie elsewhere terrorism's adherents have tended to operate on the margins of society. But where terrorism finds resonance and support in the mainstream of a society, where it is perceived as a genuinely viable option, in those cases, poverty and despair will be found cheek by jowl with violence and fear.
I have said before that I do not believe there would have been the same level of popular support among so many in Pakistan for the Taliban and Osama bin Laden if Pakistan was not one of the world's poorest, most illiterate, most malnourished and least gender-sensitive regions in the world. Forty per cent of
1492
Pakistan's population lives below the poverty line; 36 million of its inhabitants live in absolute poverty; over two-thirds of Pakistan's adult population is illiterate; and half of all child deaths each year are linked to malnutrition.
Likewise, and I agree with the right reverend Prelate, I believe that the poverty of the Palestinians has nurtured their support of terrorism against Israel. Their standard of living has fallen by some 40 per cent since the signing of the Oslo accords, while unemployment rates are between 20 to 30 per cent in the West Bank.
A life lived in poverty, a life of hardship and a life devoid of hope, is one where terrorism may find the support it needs to succeed and where those who feel that they have nothing to lose and all to gain are willing to sacrifice everything, including their lives. This is one of the most important challenges of our time.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf for highlighting, in what may only be a quiet period between outrages, the threat of terrorism and the need to look more fundamentally than has been done here and elsewhere at what we can do to eliminate that irrational reaction to civic dissatisfaction.
I agree profoundly with what my noble friend has said. Therefore, I shall focus my remarks on the rebuttal of arguments that are not likely to be heard in this Chamber but which may be adduced elsewhere to qualify some of the prescriptions that he has offered. First, there is the argument that we do not know what causes these suicidal terrorists to commit to irrational self-destruction. It is true that the psychology of suicide bombers is not to be read like an open book. Few of them leave suicide notes in purported explanation of their actions. Comments about motivation made by third parties seeking to magnify the effects of their horrific actions may be exploitative rather than truly explanatory, but none the less the general thesis advanced by my noble friend is right. I support it entirely.
In answer to those who would argue otherwise, it is not so much the fact of destitution as an awareness of contrasting relative affluence elsewhere that provides the seedbed for terrorism. That awareness is inevitable. We cannot insulate ourselves from it or erect barriers against it. It is simply inconceivable that growing populations in North Africa, for example, enjoying direct media information on European life in all its affluence, will simply accept a large adverse disparity of income without seeking to do something about it. As Sam Brittan wisely observed,
"The situation in which capital is mobile but labour is not is hardly permanent. Movements across the Rio Grande between Mexico and the United States are surely suggestive of what will happen in Europe … Migration, whether legal or illegal is about the most peaceful move they might attempt".
It will not do for affluent countries to found their policies towards the third world on the belief that the prevailing distribution of wealth and income is sacrosanct. Nor can we regard the' alleviation of

1493
poverty mainly as a matter of voluntary insurance or private benevolence. I must say that I have heard that kind of argument recently—last week, in fact—in both Washington and New York from people whose views I regard as well-intentioned but entirely mistaken.
My footnote is to seek to address a little further the imperative for institutional reform to which my noble friend referred, and which is powerfully argued by Amartya Sen in his book on development. The argument is sometimes deployed that it is no business of ours to seek to export our western notions of democracy and liberty to other countries that have their own way of doing things. That view is simply ahistorical and superficial. It fails to understand the philosophies expressed, especially on the Asian continent, far further back even than our own Christian dispensation.
The Buddhist convert, Asoka, who presided in the third century BC over an empire greater than the British Empire, promulgated views of religious toleration that would do well to be adopted by countries today, although India is by no means the country that one looks to for their enshrinement in law, for it is already among the most tolerant countries in Asia. Akbar, to take an example from another religion, was responsible for promulgating views about tolerance in legislation in 1590 in the Mogul empire, which should also be drawn to the attention of the intolerant Islamic extremists who have sought to deny such toleration.
Perhaps the most insidious anti-western view has been expressed by Lee Kuan Yew and his followers, who argue that an authoritarian solution is the only way forward and the only system compatible with economic growth. That too is shallowly based and does not stand up to scrutiny even in Africa, where Botswana, notably, has a highly successful developed democracy and the highest rate of growth.
This debate should be regarded as commenced by our discussion today. Given the enthusiasm of Members present to speak, all of us inevitably must confine our remarks, but I hope that we can take practical steps to support initiatives by governments—especially our own—to promote democratic underpinnings which make expenditure on aid more likely to be fruitful in defeating the frustrations that have given rise to terrorism.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, one of the minor tragedies of September 11th was that it led to much muddled thinking. This debate on terrorism and poverty is an example of such muddled thinking. Of course, we should all do everything to eliminate poverty; that is quite right. I may turn to some dubious statistics about poverty later, if I have time. But we should never eliminate poverty because if we do not people may terrorise us. That is the perfect incentive for everyone to pick up a brick and throw it. We cannot establish any sort of invariable link between poverty and terrorism. The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, is a
1494
distinguished social scientist. He knows how difficult it is to establish correlation between anything in social science, so let us not go down that road.
We ought to think of eliminating third world poverty, but the connection lately made—since 11th September, as if there had been no terrorism before then—is misplaced. It leads us to fallacious thinking about globalisation, among another things. One statistic that has not been mentioned is that during the past 30 years more people have been brought out of poverty than at any time in human history. I do not deny that there is still a lot of poverty, but the spectacular growth rate in Asia, China, Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, and so on has brought perhaps—I am guessing—1 billion people out of poverty during the past 30 years. So let us not hear anything about globalisation increasing poverty and all that nonsense. There is no hard evidence for that. There is a lot of poverty; it is very bad: and we should do something about it.
If I may add a footnote, we are not going to give anyone any aid. Forget about it! If we do not even help our own poor, we are not going to help the Third World. But we can at least stop subsidising ourselves with 300 billion dollars of subsidy for our own agriculture. We can stop being protectionist, so that we keep out the goods of the Third World as if our jobs are so much more important than their jobs. Recent articles in the press depicting a plant in Romania as a great enemy of our jobs in Britain showed how close protectionism is to all our hearts. Any money given abroad is our enemy because we care only about our jobs, their jobs do not matter. So the first thing that we ought to do is to stop being protectionist, stop subsidising ourselves and stop polluting the world. The poor will then take care of themselves and get themselves out of poverty. We should get out of the way rather than hinder them.
I have two minutes left in which to say something about terrorism. One root cause of terrorism is nationalism. There are lots of nationalist struggles—struggles that arise from injustices felt by nationalists against colonial or other oppressors—which lead to terrorism. Terrorism played a part in the creation of the state of Israel. It was born because its people had a grievance against an occupying power and took to terrorism. I have said before in your Lordships' House that the history of our Commonwealth has been one of terrorists becoming Prime Ministers. So, the new-fashioned idea that terrorism is all bad and that, therefore, we ought to do something about it is very dubious. It is bad thinking.
When we consider Northern Ireland, Palestine, Kashmir or Sri Lanka, we see that many struggles arise from the ills of nationalism—nationalism frustrated or denied and people not given as much territory as they thought they should have had. That is why people rise in revolution. It used to be said during the Cold War that if the first world did not give aid to the third world everyone there would become a communist. Well, we did not give them aid, and they did not become

1495
communists. Simplicities such as the belief that if we do not relieve poverty there will he more terrorism will not do.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford said, it is important that we settle the major problems of injustice, and they are political injustices. It does not require money to solve the problem of Palestine or the problem of Kashmir. In Sri Lanka, which is an exemplary country in terms of human development, they have been killing each other for 20 years. They have been killing each other not because there is no clean water but because there is a nationalist struggle between the Tamils and the Sinhalese.
We should do lots of things about terrorism and lots of things about poverty, but we should not mix the two up.
6.21 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, for his powerful introduction to the debate. It would be helpful to find a consensus about the causes of terrorism. No doubt some links between third world poverty and terrorism can be shown. However, they do not explain why relatively affluent Britons and Americans should rush off to join Al'Qaeda. They do not explain why, in the past, rich, well educated Germans and Italians joined the BaaderMeinhof gang or the Red Brigade. The long-standing use of terror in Northern Ireland, the Basque country and Corsica seems to have little to do with poverty. Nor does the extreme violence of some animal rights campaigners in this country.
Poverty is a depressing and depersonalising situation, but I doubt whether it is a prime cause of terrorism. Terrorism is more closely connected with powerlessness and injustice, with a sense that all channels of non-violent or political progress have been blocked off. Basic human needs theory maintains that subsistence needs are the most immediate and pressing. Once those have been satisfied, even inadequately, people try to meet their non-material and spiritual needs. Prominent among such higher needs is the quest for identity, which is both personal and corporate. It concerns the identity of the family, the tribe or the nation. Identity is denied if people are obliged not to use their own language or culture. Their identity is threatened if they feel that they have no economic or political rights. When identity is denied, people often become violent. Ideology or religion then provides the spark for terrorist violence, even suicidal violence.
I shall give some examples. In Northern Ireland discrimination and unemployment over a period of 45 years from 1922 led to nationalist alienation. There was fertile ground for IRA violence, once civil rights marchers had been attacked. Now, after the Belfast agreement, we are trying to cope with Unionist alienation. In South Africa, the ANC long maintained a non-violent stance. Only when apartheid became a wholly closed system. withholding the franchise and freedom of movement from most black and coloured people, did the ANC reluctantly agree to somewhat
1496
half-hearted terrorism. Later, when negotiations began to dismantle apartheid, some whites and some black leaders felt their identities to be deeply threatened. They too responded with terror. Now, thanks to great statesmanship, combined with Christian patience and forbearance, we can hope that those days are gone, in favour of a multi-ethnic democracy.
Israel, as has been said, provides another case study. When the Jews felt that they had no more than a toehold in their promised land, they produced their terrorists, in the form of the Stern Gang and the IZL. Israeli victories, in turn, generated Palestinian terrorism. The Palestinians saw themselves as second-class citizens in Israel, as a people under military occupation and rule in the West Bank and Gaza or as refugees and exiles in other countries. It is not surprising that they produced the PLO, the PFLP, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Palestinian terrorism has ebbed and flowed with the prospect of a political solution. There was hope at the time of the Oslo agreement and for a while afterwards. Now, we can only trust that those on every side will appreciate that war is unwinnable and that peace will have to be negotiated.
I hope that I have said enough to make it clear that people become violent when their identity is denied or suppressed. Terrorism in the hands of the powerless is seldom mindless; often, it is precisely calculated. Reactions to oppression and discrimination are similar in widely varying cultures. Terrorism that has popular support can rarely be suppressed by force and security measures alone. When that is tried, violence is likely to recur in the next generation. Poverty is not. in itself, a major cause, although relative poverty and envy may be an ingredient. Ideology and excessive religious zeal often trigger terrorism. Of course, we should not ignore poverty, hut, as far as concerns terrorism, it is more important to pay attention to the loss of identity and self-respect, often accompanied by a burning sense of injustice.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Parekh: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, for sponsoring and initiating such an important debate.
We can all take it for granted that terrorism is evil, and the modern form that it has taken is even more so. It is more indiscriminate, inflicts heavier casualties, makes vague and non-negotiable demands and has turned into something of a spectacle, designed to dazzle and impress. We are all agreed that terrorism must be fought and prevented. Is that enough? I do not think that it is.
Terrorism springs from deeper causes and will continue for as long as those causes are not systematically dealt with. More important, terrorism is often engaged in by people who think little of their life, for religious or other reasons. If there are people who are prepared to throw away their life for worthwhile causes, there is nothing that we can do to prevent it. Terrorism, therefore, cannot be seen in

1497
merely military terms. It is not a military problem; it is a political problem. As a political problem, it can be dealt with only by addressing the deeper sense of injustice or the deeper causes from which it springs.
What are the causes of terrorism? In our debate, we seem to have established some kind of connection between poverty and terrorism. My noble friend Lord Desai, with his customary eloquence and flair, highlighted some of the difficulties with that. The poor do not, by themselves, engage in terrorism. In fact, there are few examples in history of the poor engaging in terrorism. Generally, they are too demoralised, too disorganised and too unsophisticated to engage in any form of terrorism.
Although poverty is not directly related to terrorism, there is, however, a connection at a deeper level. That connection springs from the climate in which terrorism grows. The poor have no stake in society and, therefore, tend to fall easy prey to terrorist propaganda. They are desperate and therefore easily seduced by the terrorist fantasy of a Utopian society in which all their problems would be solved. Being disorganised, they can also easily be terrorised into doing things that otherwise they would not do.
Being brutalised by poverty, they tend to see little wrong in terrorist activities, in taking innocent lives. That is because their own innocent lives have been stifled by terrorist factors springing from poverty and the state. In short, the poor provide a readily available and mobilisable material for religious groups who relieve the poverty of the poor only by capturing their souls for fanatical causes.
For those reasons, world poverty needs to be treated as a matter of urgency. That is partly—but only partly, as my noble friend Lord Desai pointed out—because it leads to terrorism. But, more important, it is morally obscene. It creates instability in the regions concerned and produces weak states and, equally important, because prosperity in one part of the world is closely tied with prosperity in others.
While poverty is one cause of terrorism, it is not the only one. People react violently when they feel humiliated, used as pawns in an international power game, unjustly treated, marginalised or trampled upon. We in the West built up and used the mujaheddin in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets and we have not been entirely even-handed in our approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We have also supported obnoxious and repressive regimes in many parts of the world and stifled secular and progressive forces.
Sometimes we have trained and funded terrorists and have given state terrorism legitimacy. We have taken advantage of the vulnerabilities and ignorance of developing societies by manipulating them, either by imposing unfair terms of trade or using them for our own purposes. All these tend to provoke bitterness, anger, rage and hatred in some parts of the world and create a climate in which the likes of bin Laden have taken unscrupulous advantage of the people involved.
1498
In short, while tackling world poverty, we must also address these and other causes of terrorism. We need to respect other societies, to treat them as equals, to cherish their cultural diversity and not think in terms of imposing our own way of life on others. We must stop intervening in the affairs of other societies in order to promote our own interests and we must be fair in our approach to international conflicts. Above all, we must abandon the isolationist illusion that somehow we can create an island of peace and civility in a world seething with desperate poverty, injustice, marginalisation and humiliation.
We now know that the caves of Afghanistan were closely connected with the World Trade Centre in New York. Just as the rich and prosperous cannot live happily in gated communities in their own societies, the rich and powerful nations cannot isolate themselves from the rest of the world. In a globalised world, we are interdependent and share a common fate. While we pay lip service to the rhetoric of human unity and interdependence, I do not think that we have even begun to grasp its full economic and political logic. Unless we do so, terrorism in one form or another will continue to haunt us.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, there can never be any excuse for terrorism. The root causes are many and varied and we have heard several interesting reasons and theories during the course of the debate this afternoon. The wealth divide certainly plays a part but, as my noble friend Lord Moynihan pointed out, the terrorists who attacked the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon were not living in poor. third world countries. Many of the hijackers were well educated and middle class. Many of the foiled terrorist attacks since September I I th have been carried out by people from this country, the United States, France and North Africa, not third world countries. Behind every terrorist organisation there is a financial, recruitment and training infrastructure.
Terrorists such as Osama bin Laden are not motivated by poverty, but by ideology, religion and a festering resentment of the West. Most of the recent acts of terrorism have been prompted by religious or nationalist extremism, not by poverty itself.
While poverty may not automatically lead to terrorism, poor people in countries with bad governments are vulnerable to influence by terrorists. This harmful indoctrination can be programmed into the minds of the poverty-stricken, who suffer inadequate education, a lack of decent sanitation, healthcare and human rights.
Some 80 per cent of the world's population has just 20 per cent of its wealth. Vast tracts of mankind live on less than one dollar a day. We must reduce that number. The circumstances of under-development do matter. When an African child dies every three seconds, the developed world has a clear duty to act. We must continue vigorously with well-targeted development assistance. We need to help create capable states that encourage economic growth and invest in public services.

1499
When poor countries are committed to good governance, there is a better opportunity to encourage a reduction in poverty while discouraging the control of terrorist networks. Under good governance, public institutions function transparently, accountably and responsibly on behalf of their citizens. Without it, the benefit of public programmes will not reach their targeted recipients, notably the poor.
It seems almost callous to suggest that anything positive might have come out of the events of 11 th September. But a greater awareness of the misery that engulfs much of the world's population and a real determination to do something about what everyone has come to see as a morally indefensible divide, may be one of the lasting legacies of those terrible events.
After September 11th, the West must show that it is serious about constructing a just global economic order. Rich countries have responsibilities to the poorest of the world to open our markets arid to transfer resources. Growth is essential for poverty reduction. This depends on having market-based policies which promote investment and deliver effective macro-economic management. At the same time, however, policies are needed to protect poor people from shocks and adjustment costs.
Trade has played an important role in encouraging the spread of democracy to the developing countries. Western economies need to create new markets into which global capitalism can expand. Louis Schweitzer, the chairman of Renault, has said that the market for cars in the West is saturated. To sell more cars, a prosperous middle class in other, less developed parts of the world, will have to be developed. In that way, poverty reduction in developing countries is good for developed countries. As incomes rose in Far Eastern countries such as South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand, so too did the people's expectations for the establishment of democratic forms of government. China's entry into the World Trade Organisation is leading to such significant changes in its economy that its political system will also become more open.
6.39 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, has raised a very difficult question. I support his analysis that the poor are not to be blamed yet again for our discomfort. The Question easily leads us into a cul-de-sac because it is said that poverty can be a breeding ground for terrorism. But even if all the Chancellor's highly publicised dreams—I should like to believe in them—were to come true, we would still be unable to smooth over all the wrinkles of the developing world. We have to deal with the world as it is and try to work out what lies behind the appalling acts of terrorism that we have seen.
The gunmen who opened fire in a Rawalpindi mosque yesterday, or the murderers of Daniel Pearl, will be found only through the normal process of the police and intelligence services—and they need more support than ever.
1500
Poverty is only one indirect cause. A more obvious one is oppression, which afflicts rich and poor alike. VS Naipaul said oppression does not exist—the noble Lord, Lord Desai, may agree with him—but it is widely understood to be an abuse of power. It is one of the conditions of man which leads to frustration and intolerance and, ultimately, to violence or terror.
Another much quoted cause is the disaffection of youth—the revolt against authority which thrives on poverty and oppression, although it comes in almost every family. Linked with this is religious indoctrination—the pressure on young men and women to conform and fight for a particular fundamentalist credo.
The corollary is militancy, the love of fighting which persists in many societies. Who is surprised by the aggression of tribesmen, for example, in Yemen, Sudan or Afghanistan until it is directed towards foreign embassies or a financial centre in Manhattan? As the world contracts, such violent cultural and religious clashes are bound to be more frequent. and they are not cured simply by freezing bank accounts or denying passports.
What about the actual ideological causes which can lead to uprising and intifada?All this is now branded as terrorism. One familiar example for us is the resistance against the Germans in occupied France. Surely all of us, or our parents, would have attempted to join that resistance, or at least would have sympathised with it. As has been said, there is a very fine line between soldiers in uniform and guerrillas who resist occupation. Is the terror on the side of the state or on that of the resistance fighter? In Zimbabwe, the Middle East and many areas on the brink of civil war, this line has eventually to be drawn.
The yardstick of terror is fear among the civilian population, and the reality in the West Bank and Gaza today is that there are terrorists on both sides putting fear into the population. We all know, and have heard again, that one-time terrorists are also fighters turned politicians who become our respected friends, our trading partners and even our allies in the coalition against terrorism.
There are also much wider cultural causes. I do not doubt that Anglo-Saxon superiority in its various economic and political forms plays a role in this vicious prejudice born of poverty, oppression and madness. Here I advocate world awareness and citizenship, which is the language of contemporary education. We have started on this road under this Government and we must stay on it.
The US likewise. But why is it that the American view of foreign affairs still looks like cowboys and Indians? The Government, by placing themselves so close to the United States, are entering a dangerous world of black-and-white solutions—a world which Europeans have long rejected. I am thinking, of course, of the US policy in countries such as Sudan, Israel-Palestine, Iraq and other points further east on the famous "axis of evil".

1501
We all hope that the US will play a more significant part in eradicating poverty, but now that the Taliban has been defeated, will the US pay more attention to the plight of the people of Afghanistan? Weeks after the Tokyo conference, the aid agencies are still waiting for that answer. because on so many battlefields they have too often seen billions of dollars of military hardware rolling along past forgotten civilians.
Our Government have an important role in Afghanistan. They have made bold statements about poverty in Africa and parts of Asia. Gordon Brown and Clare Short have taken a strong stand, but the latest aid statistics from DfID tell their own story. The international development targets are becoming more elusive. Education and infant mortality have improved and yet adult literacy in countries such as Yemen, Mauritania and even Pakistan is still as low as 40 per cent, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan.
The latest partnership in Africa is not adequate. The unpayable debt relief and trade programmes are regarded as more effective routes to poverty alleviation, but there are no new initiatives which suggest that developed countries are making significant concessions.
In conclusion, areas of terrorism may coincide with the world's poorest societies, and NGOs continue to do their essential work. But at a higher level there is little to indicate a major shift in policy resulting from September 11th. All we are seeing is a half-hearted political coalition against terrorism. In the Middle East, the latest Saudi moves are encouraging, but unless General Sharon can be forced into a settlement—this is at the heart of our anti-terrorist campaign—the US and Britain, in the name of antiterrorism, will, in effect, connive at continuing illegal occupation and persecution of both Palestinians and the substantial and growing Israeli minority who would like to see an immediate cessation of violence.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I declare an interest having spent most of my professional life outside Westminster working with humanitarian agencies. I am still very much involved—albeit now in a voluntary capacity—with organisations such as Oxfam, Saferworld and International Alert.
The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, is to be congratulated on and thanked for a particularly scholarly and powerful introduction to the debate. Listening to our deliberations, I cannot help reflecting that in some ways we are in an almost classic pre-revolutionary situation—the grotesque concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a very few; the dispossessed billions; and the alienated, often well-educated, bitter elite which itself feels excluded and therefore sets out to exploit the impoverished.
It is that constituency of ambivalence that provides the ideal basis for terrorist activities. Many people would never contemplate terrorist action, but, in the context of struggling every day to survive until the next
1502
morning, sometimes inevitably ask themselves whether the terrorists are not on their side. When we talk so glibly about fundamentalism, we should ask ourselves how far fundamentalism really is a cause or how far it is a vehicle for the dispossessed. We do not have to look very far from where we are now to see evidence of that in the history of our own islands.
I want to talk very briefly, in the context of our concern about the link between terrorism and poverty, about some issues on which we should concentrate if we are to get things right for the future. First, there are the structural issues—not only the internal structural issues to which the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, referred, but the structural issues internationally of trade and debt and of enabling the developing countries not simply to play on a level playing field but to climb on to the playing field in order to begin playing. If that is to happen, we must look at what we ourselves must do in terms of tariffs, restrictions on trade and so on.
There is also the issue of demography. In 2001, the world population was 6.1 billion. It is likely to be 7.2 billion by 2015. Ninety-five per cent of this increase will be in the developing countries, mostly in rapidly expanding urban areas. Imagine the pressure that will put on fragile political systems. Imagine the consequences of that in terms of unemployment and under-employment.
In the context of that population growth, a disproportionate number of children are under 15. In Algeria, 60 per cent of children are under 15. As I have seen for myself from my own work in the past, many of these children feel better off and more secure in an armed band that is fighting for their interests than left destitute in the city streets.
Then, of course, there are the refugees. In 1970, there were 2 million refugees, and by 2001 there were 21 million, not to mention the internally displaced people who do not have the formal status of being classed as refugees because they have not crossed a frontier.
Already the refugees from Afghanistan are destabilising Pakistan and the region. The same problems are occurring in west and central Africa, central Asia and the Caucasus. Above all, we see the kernel of destabilisation, alienation and resentment in the Middle East. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, is right to refer to that constantly. Until the issue is resolved, we cannot look forward to a stable world.
Then there are the deprived ethnic minorities within many societies of the world, not least our own. Deprived, dispossessed and disadvantaged ethnic minorities are often in a structured way unable to break out of their predicament, which leads to a breeding ground for conflict.
There are other issues, too. We can imagine the pressures that will develop if we do not, for example, tackle effectively the issue of climate change. Imagine what will happen as pressures develop because of the increasingly short water supplies in the world, or the dislocation caused by the irresponsible arms trade. It is extraordinary that the permanent members of the

1503
United Nations Security Council are the world's greatest exporters of arms. The culture seems to be that arms are good things to export unless there is an overriding reason for not doing so. In the context of what we are talking about, in terms of stability and the campaign against terrorism, the culture must change to one in which arms are seen as extremely dangerous things to export which should be exported only when there is a good security reason for doing so.
Those long-term issues must be addressed. In the midst of all this, there is an urgent challenge to talk honestly and closely to our American cousins. There seems to be a difference of emphasis between their unilateralism and militarism as a solution and the European emphasis on multilateralism and the realisation that, in the end, the battle will be won in hearts and minds. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that that difference is being debated strongly with our friends in the United States.
6.52 p.m.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, it is not an easy task to follow a speech such as that made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, with his powerful rhetoric and experience in the subject. I also wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, for giving us such a telling analysis of most of the problems that our world will face in the next 20 years.
In view of the many approaches that we have heard this afternoon, it may seem a little simplistic to suggest that international terrorism today seems to require three components before it is triggered in such a way as to become a threat. Those components have been touched on in different ways. The first is a sense of injustice; secondly, there is leadership with a reasonable degree of education; and the third component is money.
Ever since 11th September the hunt for a cure for terrorism has assumed a new urgency. The statesman who says that he has a cure for terrorism will find people beating a path to his door. Our Prime Minister has journeyed far and wide hoping to build up links to enable him to say that he has the influence to achieve something in that field. In his speech to the Nigerian Parliament on 7th February he was anxious to make a specific link between terrorism and poverty when he spoke about failed states, dictatorships and economically bankrupt countries as being a major source.
The trouble is, as the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, emphasised, using the words of the Minister for International Development, that poverty alone is not sufficient to ignite terrorism. It requires a perceived sense of injustice to get the fire going—passions in the human heart, envy, hatred, hurts from being excluded or insulted, or fears of privilege being undermined. Nowadays that is assisted by our modern world of instant communications in that the injustice does not have to be entirely one's own. Many of those who hold resentment over some relatively minor injustice are fired up to accumulate many other injustices to stoke the fire. Thereby, they add what they hope will bring
1504
meaning to their lives. As has been pointed out, they may be people whose lives lack meaning because of wealth as well as because of poverty.
Nobody is suggesting that we should deprive the third world of the other two elements that I analysed—education and money—simply to achieve an easier life for ourselves even if we had the power to do so. Our development programme aims to give the third world more education and more money. But because of that, we have to work with ever more serious dedication towards defining injustice, taking care not to invent injustice and removing it whenever it is in our power to do so.
I have known men of the political Left and the political Right who have been classed as rebels—some even as terrorists—in their own countries. Of those countries, in the four that can be classed as third world, I can spot only one in which the motive that drove them was poverty.
I do not know whether my final point will contribute to the fourth point of strategy outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. I shall touch on Lebanon because it is an area that has been wracked by terrorism. My brother-in-law happened to be one of the first western reporters to cover the Sabra and Shatilia massacres of Palestinian refugees in the Lebanon. My other rather limited source of knowledge of the country comes from my younger son who, after two summers staying in Palestinian refugee camps, made it the subject of his university degree.
He has recently brought to my attention an interesting development in the field of what newspapers would at the outset have labelled the cause of the conflict—religion. There can hardly have been two more ruthless opponents than the so-called Christian and Muslim militias who fought it out in the streets of Beirut. But there is now a dialogue between former participants from both sides. It is headed by a former senior officer of one of the Christian militias and has a great deal more to do with the actual practice of the Christian religion. He apologised in the press for what he had done in the name of his nationalism and Christianity. He has found an equal response from individuals who had been engaged equally violently on the Muslim side and who were prepared to see that a fuller understanding of their own religion entailed a denunciation of the kind of violence in which they had been engaged. Together they can now talk about a better future for their children in a shared country.
I raise this subject because I am anxious for our country with its wide experience of world affairs to look for ways in which to address the all-important roots of terrorism. Luckily, no noble Lords have suggested that we should confine ourselves to addressing only the economic problems. The right reverend Prelates are unfortunately unable to be here, but I hope that they will forgive me when I say that my fear is that if we were to refuse to address all the elements, we would be accused of something that has been said about the Christian religion, which is that it has not been tried and found wanting, but that it has been found difficult and not tried.
6.59 p.m.
Lord Bhatia: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, for initiating this debate. In a few words, such as "third world", "poverty" and "terrorism", he has captured the essence and headlines of much of today's malaise around the world. Poverty and terrorism are not necessarily confined to the third world. They exist in the West, too. At times, poverty breeds terrorism; at other times, terrorism creates poverty.
Apart from the usual forms of terrorism, I wish to draw attention to state terrorism when governments behave as terrorists, with a veil of democracy in some cases, or sheer gun power in others. The irony is that when the populations under such regimes rise to defend themselves or to oppose the state, they are called terrorists by that state. On the other hand, the populations that rise up to oppose the state call themselves freedom fighters. Who is right? Who are the terrorists? We look at the same conflict from two different windows and see a different picture.
I want to talk about poverty in the third world and touch on some of the root causes of terrorism. In the third world, in many cases, there is constant tension and conflict between people and the state. In many cases, the state has a thin veneer of democracy to legitimise its control, but is not truly democratic. In some cases, democratically elected government has turned into dictatorship. Avoiding, delaying or rigging elections to stay in power becomes the norm. The example of Zimbabwe is right in front of us.
As we examine the links between poverty and terrorism in the third world, we need to examine also the links between lack of democracy and poverty which lead to terrorism. Who are those who support the regimes that deny the human rights of their own people? We in the West must accept some blame. In our national interest, we continue to support and prop up undemocratic regimes—and the population of such countries pays the price for it. We allow arms exports to such countries and allow the arms brokers to sell arms to the people who want to fight their government. There is a spiral of violence and conflict fuelled by arms. The product of such processes is that poverty grows and breeds terrorism, not only within a country against the government, but against those who have supported that evil government. Why are we surprised when we see those products of poverty become terrorists?
What are the solutions, and what is the possible way forward to deal with third world poverty and reduce terrorism? Here is a menu—fixed or à la carte, as you will. First, we must increase and support the process of democracy. Secondly, we must promote and ensure human rights globally. Thirdly, we must forgive third world debts. Fourthly, we must deal with corruption everywhere, whether in the West or in third world countries. Lastly, we need to establish a type of Marshall Plan—it could be called a "Clare Short Plan" or a "Tony Blair Plan", but such a plan must be established to help in these processes.
1506
In the global economy, the rich and the poor countries—North and South, first world and third world countries—are intractably linked. What happens to the poor will affect the rich. If we wish to deal with the root causes of terrorism, we need to address the causes of poverty, not only for our security and peace but because it is the right and moral thing to do.
We need to remind ourselves of some of the statistics of poverty. Half the world's people live on less than two dollars a day. About I billion people do not have access to safe drinking water. One in five children never go to school. One billion adults cannot read or write. Malaria and TB kill 7 million children annually in South Africa, Zimbabwe and Botswana. That is abject poverty. Unless there is a will to deal with these issues and a will to provide actual cash resources, the poor will become poorer and many will become easy prey to terrorism.
Let us remind ourselves about the Marshall Plan. In 1945, the US Secretary of State, George Marshall, transferred 1 per cent of the USA's national income for four years to Europe. In today's money it would be about 75 billion dollars. This was not an act of charity but an investment to create peace and prosperity for both the USA and Europe.
Just as the Marshall Plan brought peace and prosperity to the USA and Europe, investment in a type of Marshall Plan for the developing world, particularly for Africa, could also eliminate poverty and terrorism in the world. It is estimated that there is a need for 50 billion dollars over the coming years for that purpose. That is a massive sum of money to be transferred to the developing world—but the issues of poverty and terrorism are massive.
Before concluding my remarks, I must raise the question of free trade and the opening up of markets for the third world. The Doha round can he successful only if it is fully implemented and can play as important a part as the Marshall Plan did for Europe. With three-quarters of the world's poor living in rural areas, market access for their agricultural products could make a colossal difference in the eradication of poverty. It is estimated that agricultural subsidies in the West run at the rate of 1 billion dollars a day—six times the amount spent on development assistance. I submit that the single act of removing agricultural subsidies—which are an abrasion on the landscape of free trade—could save lives, reduce poverty and deal with one of the root causes of terrorism.
I end by quoting President Bush and the Prime Minister, Tony Blair. In July 2001, President Bush said:
"Our goal is to ignite a new era of global economic growth through a world trading system that is dramatically more open and more free. We must reject a protectionism that blocks the path of prosperity for developing countries. We must reject policies that would condemn them to permanent poverty".
The Prime Minister said in October 2001:
"If globalisation works only for the benefit of the few, then it will fail and deserves to fail. But if we follow the principle that power, wealth and opportunity should be in the hands of the many not the few—if we make that our guiding light for the global economy—then it will be a force for good".

1507
I hope that your Lordships will join me in saying to President Bush and to the Prime Minister, "Well said. Now deliver it. The hungry and the poor of the third world wait for your words to be translated into reality".
7.5 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, in introducing this Motion for Papers the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, has asked us to consider one of the more unexpected aspects of third world poverty: terrorism in the third world and terrorism in the developed world.
Some noble Lords blame the prosperous nations for the poverty of the third world. Unlike my noble friend Lord Desai, I believe that, sadly, there is a grain of truth in such arguments. We must eliminate that grain of truth. I agree with the right reverend Prelate. Attempting to do this with aid is a tricky business. As the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, said, over the years corrupt rulers have been allowed to misuse aid. Aid has been, and still is, tied to trade—which in itself leads to corruption. Equally, aid has been used as a substitute for trade and has thereby weakened the economy of the receivers instead of strengthening it. As my noble friend Lord Desai pointed out, rich countries have put barriers between themselves and third world countries, and that has caused much resentment. The noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, made the same point. The European Union's "Anything But Arms" initiative is a welcome attempt to overcome that in the field of manufactured goods, but the common agricultural policy still keeps agricultural products out of Europe. As the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, said, all this has caused impotent outrage and anger; and we now know that in some countries that fuels terrorism.
If aid is going to work to reduce terrorism, not only will it have to help a country's economy; it will have to help to put in place more effective political institutions, capable of providing resources to fund better public services, especially health and education. There must he better targeting, as my noble friend Lord Stone put it. The aid must be designed to deliver order where there is disorder. Fortunately, many progressive development agencies and progressive countries are trying to provide aid along those lines. What terrorism has done has been to make the situation more urgent. The whole process must be speeded up.
My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been aware of the importance of aid ever since he became Chancellor. He has been taking initiatives in the public sector in regard to debt reduction and has set ambitious targets for reducing poverty and increasing aid. But in the private sector, too, attitudes may have to change. Business is currently promoting initiatives to counter these difficulties in terms of corporate social responsibility and voluntary codes of conduct for operating in a deregulated market. If international terrorism signals the failure of these initiatives, then international business will find that it will have to give up some of its rights and freedoms in favour of greater world-wide
1508
regulation on the environment, on human rights and on tax, and it will have to accept the jurisdiction of international organisations.
As other noble Lords have pointed out, terrorism is a complicated matter, involving outrage and anger at other matters as well as at poverty. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Dahrendorf and Lord Astor: it is certainly not poverty alone that has stimulated Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. As the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, said, terrorism needs money. The Economist magazine recently pointed out that the jihad movement continues to attract some of the Arab world's richest, most privileged and best-educated people. The reports in last week's Financial Times on terrorist finances described the huge array of sources of funds for these terrorists: businesses, charities and private donors.
Terrorist funds have been blocked in 147 countries. So if it is not poverty that has outraged these terrorists, what is it? I believe that it is outrage at the competitive, modern and glamorised world in which we live, especially, as the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, pointed out, in the United States. It is the fear of secularism; the intolerance caused by fundamentalist religious certainty in all religions. The press recently carried a number of articles by Arab commentators calling on their countries to open their economies, to modernise their societies, to modernise their education and their systems of government and to stop blaming the West for all their ills. Nor is the answer forcing Mr Sharon to do something, as the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, suggested.
Of course, what precipitated all this was the attack on September 11th, and it has been kept alive by President Bush's speech about the axis of evil. I was in the United States when he made that speech. I believe that he was saying to North Korea, Iraq and ran that the policy of engagement—the policy of building bridges—has a limit. In Afghanistan that limit had been reached. What he is looking for is a sign that these countries understand this, and that the USA is ready to fight terrorism. Mr Bush also went on to praise the international alliance against terrorism and poverty, but that was hardly reported. What I found more disturbing in the United States was the stifling of dissent. Any questioning of this policy towards terrorism was labelled as "unpatriotic".
So the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, is right to draw our attention to the links between terrorism arid poverty in the third world. By doing so, he has given an urgency to the elimination of poverty.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we have had a most interesting and expert debate. I hesitate to add to much of what has been said. Most of all, in the opening speech of my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf, I was fascinated by the subtlety of his argument about the relationship between poverty and terrorism, and the way in which he stressed that terrorism is at least as much a disease of modernisation as it is a disease of absolute poverty. I very much agree with him and wish

1509
to take that argument further. After all, we have had the same experience in Europe over the past 200 years; namely, that fundamentalism was part of the disease of modernisation and of the immense dislocation of society and of values as a result of the shift from the village to the town and the city and the shift from traditional assumptions about life to bourgeois education and all the different matters that accompany it.
Due to the speed of transition in Saudi Arabia, people in one generation have gone from traditional villages where they lived in wooden houses and moved around by way of donkeys right through to seeing universities being built in new towns, and engineering being provided as a subject for a university degree. Indeed, that has meant a huge dislocation. The younger generation find themselves arriving in a different world into which they are not entirely accepted, in which they do not feel entirely at home, and from which many feel themselves alienated and excluded.
We had the same experience in 19th-century Europe. This country had the tremendous advantage of being the first to go through the Industrial Revolution and the population explosion. We went through that process more slowly than those who followed. After all, it was Germany that went through that revolution most rapidly and, therefore, found it most dislocating. Thereafter, it was the turn of northern Italy and the countries of what was then the Austro-Hungarian empire. Outside Europe it was Japan. Some years ago I can remember hearing a very elderly Japanese person talking about going up to visit a village that was still effectively living in the Middle Ages, and then moving into a city that was going through the Industrial Revolution.
Fundamentalist movements in Europe were often forms of secular fundamentalism, anarchism, faschism and communism. However, they brought with them the same pressures—rapid population growth and urbanisation—which are now afflicting societies across North Africa and Asia. As a number of noble Lords have said, those pressures are made more acute in that area by the immediacy of global communications and by the rich world's attempted blockage of the safety value of outward migration that was there for 19th-century Europe. These people have images of the forbidden promised land, the sense of exclusion from the rich but foreign world. It is, therefore, not at all surprising that those who were directly involved in the events of 11th September were very often people who had been educated in the West but were not in any sense assimilated into it.
The problems in Africa south of the Sahara are in many ways different. With respect, I believe that our Prime Minister exaggerates the link between poverty and terrorism in trying to justify NEPAD as a defence against terrorists. There are many other ways to justify the development of Africa, but, at present, there is no threat of terrorism exported from Africa south of the Sahara. There are many other threats that face us from the many weak and failed states across Africa; namely,
1510
uncontrolled migration, desperate refugees fleeing from corrupt governments and internal conflict, disease spilling out from societies where traditional structures have collapsed, and trans-national crime and illegal trade in drugs, diamonds, timber, and so on.
The latter are also threats to our comfortable, rich world. It is in our long-term self-interest to respond to them. However, there are some dangers in attaching the label of "terrorism" to all the problems of the third world. The problems that developing countries face are much more complex and deserve a broader and more modulated response. But what should our response be? Of course we have to respond to terrorism, but that requires good intelligence and cooperation among police forces more than investment in heavy weapons. It requires a long-term response, not the drawing up of the sort of posse that is being called for in the United States.
I recommend the article by James Woolsey in last Friday's Wall Street Journal to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. The article compares the current situation to the film "High Noon": the United States is, indeed, the sheriff standing up to the evil men as they return to town, and the Europeans are the wimps who are finding excuses to slip away. It is a most unfortunate image. We must recognise just how far the current European consensus on what our response should be is from the current consensus within policy-making circles in the United States. We have to talk about nation building not only in Africa but also, as my noble friend said, in Bosnia and in Turkey. After all, Turkey is going through a huge population explosion, with all the dislocations that follow, as well as experiencing problems of urbanisation. We do have a stake in demonstrating that a secular state can grow successfully and democratically out of Islamic roots.
We also have similar long-term problems across west and central Asia; that is, in building a civil society, in building institutions that arouse the trust of the community, and in building a more liberal approach to education. It is a long haul and this will pre-occupy the rich West for more than a generation. We also have to keep the door open to migration—not a popular statement to make when standing for election in this country, or in many others—to allow the elite of those countries, the desperate, to come and join our societies and to begin to feel that they are not excluded by the West.
We must also recognise that adjustments have to be made in the North in our patterns of conspicuous consumption and, in particular, in our consumption of energy resources. Nothing depresses me more about the current response from the United States than the denial that US consumption of energy is part of what is seen as the arrogance of the West and that the US drive for security of energy has biased American policy towards the Middle East for the past 30 or 40 years. There are some enormous problems with the widening gap between American and European understandings of how to respond.

1511
The events of September 11th and their aftermath were a shock to the United States. I am struck and depressed by the extent to which Americans believe that the situation is entirely different from any terrorist threat that European states have had to face in the past 30 or 40 years. I am also struck and depressed by their faith in a military response to the exclusion of other areas and the denigration that one faces when arguing for the European emphasis on the social underpinnings of fundamentalism and anti-westernism and of the importance of assisting in social and economic development.
There is also a denial that the American image is at stake. The Israeli-Palestine conflict is clearly linked to what is happening in the Middle East, but the perception in central and western Asia that the United States does not care about social and economic development outside Israel is very much part of the enormous problem. The sadness that Israel is now destroying the Palestinian economy and thus creating a much more fertile basis for future Palestinian terrorism is part of where we now find ourselves.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, said, not only does poverty breed terrorism, but terrorism and corrupt and weak states lead to poverty. Sadly, we are now seeing that in Zimbabwe and we have to an extent seen it from the relatively weak state of Pakistan. It will not be easy for the West to take on and maintain the delicate task of promoting good and less corrupt government across the world. We face the very hard task of explaining to our comfortable citizens that they cannot shut out the problems of the developing world or the frustrations of the newly educated and that we have to invest in their development and adjust some of our most cherished patterns of consumption to the requirements of creating a more balanced global community.
7.22 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, on initiating this important debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, for replying in the absence of her noble friend Lady Amos, who I gather is representing us in Australia. We quite understand that. The debate has been most informative, with many extremely interesting and convincing contributions. I agree with many of the points that have been made by most noble Lords.
As has been said, we were all stunned by the terrorist outrage on 11th September, which shocked and shook the complacency of the West. We have been horrified and outraged yet again by the more recent terrorist attacks in the Middle East. The Government and her allies have the support of these Benches in their actions to tackle terrorism and the causes of terrorism. It is this second point—the causes of terrorism—that has provoked today's debate. We have heard several noble Lords refer to the links between third world poverty and terrorism. We on this side have long emphasised the importance of humanitarian assistance. That has been particularly relevant in the rebuilding of
1512
Afghanistan, where humanitarian aid has gone hand in hand with combating the evil forces of the Taliban, who occupied that country for a number of years.
In the wake of the terrorist attacks on the United States last September, the question of where and why terrorism originates has preoccupied leaders and governments throughout the world even more than it did before. But the war against terrorism has erroneously broadened into a war against poverty. Poverty was soon identified as a major cause of disaffection, which could easily lead to extremism in certain circumstances. That link was the theme of the Prime Minister's recent visit to Africa.
The causes of terrorism are wide and varied, as we have heard from many noble Lords, especially the noble Lord, Lord Parekh. It is not my intention to argue that poverty does not contribute to the causes of terrorism, but to emphasise that any problem often has many root causes. With terrorists, we are not dealing with the African poor, as my noble friend Lady Park so eloquently described, but with an exceptionally dangerous trans-national network of political conspirators who employ terrorism as a strategy—that is, they strike at non-military targets to gain publicity for their cause, to demoralise and discredit governments and to gain popular support by provoking the authorities into overreaction. Those are the classic tactics of the weak, not the poor.
Terrorism today, as in the 1960s and 1970s, is mostly about destabilising the West by extending the classic von Clausewitz definition of war as the continuation of politics by other means. The main tools for dealing with terrorists are the same today as they were then: the intelligence services and the police, backed, where necessary, by specialist paramilitary units, not necessarily international aid.
My noble friend Lord Moynihan was quite right when in October he argued that:
"Terrorism is a malignant disease, and like all diseases, prevention is better than cure".—[Official Report, 18/10/01; col. 770]
That quite accurate sentiment makes it important that we do not lose track of the wider issue by focusing on just one cause of terror. Indeed there is an argument that, far from breeding global terrorists, poverty makes countries more introspective. Global terrorists may use impoverished, unstable countries as cover, but they need money, technology and sophisticated organisations. In many cases, recruits to terrorist organisations have been identified as disaffected, well educated youths from relatively affluent: backgrounds. The terrorists who attacked New York last September were not Afghans, but Saudis and Egyptians. The threats from weapons of mass destruction come from oil-rich Iraq and Iran. The very poorest countries are often too preoccupied with internal affairs to foment trouble far away on different continents.
Traditionally, terrorism has been a method used to achieve a specific political objective. In 19th century Russia it was the overthrow of the Tsarist regime. In the Bosnia of Gavril Princip or the Ireland of Sinn Fein it was liberation from alien rule. Once their objective

1513
is achieved the terrorists—now transformed into "freedom fighters"—are welcomed into the community of nations and become respected heads of state or, at the very least, are provided with offices in Westminster.
In the case of Al'Qaeda, the ideological war against the West, and particularly against the United States, goes way beyond the impoverishment of Arab territories. To the Al'Qaeda network, US policy towards the Middle East is seen as a just cause to attack the perceived oppressor. That policy includes the presence of American forces in Saudi Arabia, the impact of 10 years of sanctions on the Iraqi people and the American support for Israeli measures against the Palestinians. Their roots go far deeper and their objectives are infinitely more ambitious. They are rooted in a visceral hatred and contempt for Western civilisation as such and resentment at its global ascendancy. Their object is to destroy it altogether.
Those factors make it very important that an explanation of the current inflammatory situation cannot be confined to poverty. As my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever so clearly and rightly said, although the alleviation of poverty should be high on the world's agenda, we should perhaps be cautious about viewing it as a solution.
During this debate, speakers have identified a wide range of other causes of terrorism, including religious intolerance, lack of respect for human rights and individual liberty, and—as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said in his interesting speech—narrow nationalism. Moreover, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, so rightly said, we should not forget to include animal rights terrorists.
Over the years, the factors that I have mentioned have influenced terrorist organisations such as the IRA, ETA in Spain, Hamas and Islamic Jihad although poverty was not the issue.
Alexis de Tocqueville pointed out a century and a half ago that revolutions are caused not by poverty but by rising expectations and by the whole process of development—without which poverty cannot be eliminated. As Professor Sir Michael Howard, the renowned military historian, rightly said,
"historical precedent suggests that poverty itself is not the problem as has been frequently emphasised, it is not amongst the poorest countries that al Quaeda finds its recruits but the richest. Our object in combating terrorists must be not to exact revenge but to bring them to justice for the crimes they have committed and prevent them from committing any more".
The issue of injustice, whether real or perceived, has woven its way throughout this debate, as my noble friend the Duke of Montrose has reaffirmed. In the end we cannot escape the evil of terrorism. Andrei Sakharov, when in forced exile in Gorky, said much the same as did President Bush after September 11th. He said:
"I hope that people all over the world will understand the deadly nature of terrorism whatever its goals and will deprive them of any kind of support, even the most passive, and surround them with a wall of condemnation".
7.32 p.m.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, for initiating this debate. His speech established a pattern for an extraordinarily well-informed and thoughtful debate.
If I may say so, initiating this debate has also been a very bold initiative. The discussion of poverty and terrorism is at once both enormously important and highly sensitive. My noble friend Lord Rea reminded us that, in recent months, Members of this House have experienced some difficulty in defining what we mean by terrorism, let alone in agreeing on its causes. In recent weeks, I have sat in international meetings and experienced precisely the same definitional problems with colleagues from overseas. I have heard IRA activities in Northern Ireland described as "freedom fighting", and I have listened to those who, in seeking to explain the causes of the horrors of 11th September, have come all too dangerously close to justifying what happened on that terrible day.
Like many others who have spoken today, including of course the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, let me be absolutely clear and unequivocal: terrorism cannot be justified. Whatever the perceived cause or grievance, terrorist activity is always repellent and evil, involving as it almost always does, violence, murder and terrible suffering to innocent people. I disagreed a little with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, because I do believe that terrorism is as old as history; we have only to remember the massacre of the Jews in York, or of the Huguenots in France. I agreed very much with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. Since recorded history began, there have been examples of those who believe that their cause was so different, so powerful and so justified that they had the right to force others through any means at their disposal to acquiesce in their demands.
What makes the voices of some individuals, filled with that potent combination of zeal and hatred, so persuasive to others? At what point do people with a legitimate political, social or religious objective turn from pursuing their causes through civil or political means and turn to violence, murder and other forms of criminality? As the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, reminded us, some terrorist acts arise from the particular obsessions of individuals who do not find support and might even be described as outsiders in their own communities; examples include the destruction of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, the sarin gas attacks in Tokyo and the 1970s kidnappings undertaken by relatively affluent and very self-absorbed European youth terrorists. Such acts were one-off because the terrorists were unable to draw on the support of the people who shared their sense of injustice and frustration.
Elsewhere, however, terrorism has taken deeper root. The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, is again right: terrorist groups most likely to do significant damage are able to draw on support from within their own communities to enable them to plan and finance their activities. There are people who are prepared to

1515
support or acquiesce in terrorism as they share the terrorists' goals and are somehow able to condone their methods. There are many deep and unresolved conflicts in the world, many of which have been mentioned today, including those in Nepal, Colombia, Sri Lanka, Somalia, and—one of the deepest and bitterest—in the Middle East, which was the focus of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and my noble friend Lord Judd.
Some seek to justify terrorist activity because they believe that globalisation has made them powerless and that—as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said—forces beyond their control have marginalised their ability to act legitimately in their own interests. While acts of violence in pursuit of such arguments can never be justified by reference to poverty or deprivation, we have to deal with the arguments themselves. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford was right: there is terrible poverty in the world, innocent people are suffering and there is appalling injustice. As the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, argued so very powerfully, a sense of injustice, perceived or real, is a very potent factor.
The issue for us is how we use the resources available to us to deal with that poverty and injustice. As the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, reminded us, the Prime Minister said,
"power, wealth and opportunity must be in the hands of many not the few—if we make that our guiding light for the global economy, then it will be a force for good and an international movement that we should take pride in leading".
Some terrorism is criminal not only in its outcome of violence and destruction but in its motivation. My noble friend Lord Stone reminded us of the drugs trade in Colombia, where powerful armed groups finance themselves through the drugs trade, the illicit diamond trade in Sierra Leone and Liberia, and the appalling trade in human beings that is perpetrated right around the globe. Intimidation may be used to force support, but poverty too can be a powerful recruiting sergeant in such cases.
I return to a comment of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, in which he was supported by my noble friend Lord Parekh and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. The truly destitute—those who live on the edge of starvation—do not engage in terrorism. However, those who have the means to perpetrate violence also have the means of communication; they have the means of organisation and the technology. They also have money and resources, as the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, argued.
I therefore agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, my noble friend Lord Rea and the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, that the link between third world poverty and terrorism is a highly complex and difficult one. It is perhaps less contentious to describe it in terms of the relationship between poverty and conflict. However, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Park, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that to imply that poverty causes conflict or terrorism would be a huge injustice to the millions of the world's poor who work hard day in and day out and never turn to violence. Nevertheless, poverty can provide fertile
1516
ground for conflict to grow and for those with evil intent to pervert the thirst for social and economic justice into violence and terrorism.
One issue is all too clear: conflict causes poverty. However, although it causes poverty everywhere, it does so perhaps most obviously in Africa. As the Prime Minister said last October, the state of Africa is a scar on the conscience of the world. Twenty of the world's poorest countries are either involved in violent conflict or have recently emerged from it. The stark truth is that the poor are terrorism's most numerous victims.
Let us take an appalling example that is so brutally fresh in all our minds. The World Bank has estimated that the additional slowdown in the world's economy resulting from the 11th September outrage will mean that, in 2002, 10 million more people will have to survive on less than one dollar a day. The World Bank has also argued that tens of thousands more children will die as a result of poverty related illnesses. So the terrorists who perpetrated that evil are also responsible for hurting the most vulnerable people and the weakest countries in the world. I assure my noble friend Lord Stone and the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, that Her Majesty's Government believe in tackling poverty because it is right to do so and because our humanity and our sense of justice demand that we do.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, mentioned the statistics that Bill Clinton gave in his Dimbleby lecture. I add that a quarter of the world's population die of the diseases related to poverty: AIDS, TB, malaria and diarrhoea. Some 10 million children die every year from malnourishment and preventable illness. Moreover, 113 million children do not have access to primary education and as a result 800 million people cannot read or write.
The impact of poverty is not just an individual human tragedy. As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, poverty destabilises societies. It can be the soil in which terrorism thrives. Even stable poor countries a re unlikely to have the resources to implement effective counter-terrorism measures. To stop money laundering or the illegal movement of arms and explosives is difficult enough in a county like ours, let alone in the poorer countries of the developing world. Countries without resources to provide basic services for their populations may find those with extremist ideological messages coming in to fill the gaps, particularly in the field of education.
As conflict is such a powerful factor in preventing development and keeping people poor, resolving or avoiding it has become central to the international development agenda. In pursuing the prime purpose of our international development effort—the elimination of poverty—we in this country help address the potential causes of conflict and strengthen countries' individual capacities to counter terrorism. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, that it is very important to do that at a practical level. For example, we help countries to improve the effectiveness of their administrative systems. We support legal and judicial

1517
reform. We assist in the development of accountable and democratic government and transparent financial and commercial systems. We promote the will and capacity to crack down on corruption. Helping countries stamp out money laundering supports their efforts to combat corruption, organised crime and the drugs trade and helps them contribute to the fight against terrorism. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, is right—where there is conflict, we can support institutions set up to encourage power sharing, inclusiveness and moderation. We support security sector reform in recognition of the devastating role that unaccountable and repressive security services can play in fostering conflict and inhibiting development.
An example of that is the work we have undertaken in Indonesia, a country of 200 million people, 300 ethnic groups, 350 languages and many problems with poverty and exploitation. Our aid programme focuses on three areas: policy formulation and budgetary management which benefits the poor; governance reforms; and forest management for the benefit of forest communities. It includes support for a policy dialogue on security service reform, parliamentary oversight of defence, law enforcement, budget management, a strategic defence review and a democratic framework to police what is happening.
I refer to what is happening in transforming Sierra Leone. Our training there has constituted a vital part of our effort. We have achieved much with our own military resources. British short-term training teams provided basic infantry training to some 10,000 men. We are now continuing to provide training, support and advice through the UK-led International Military Advisory and Training Team.
In the year 2000–01, DfID committed more than £26 million to projects and programmes whose principal aim was conflict reduction and over £272 million was committed to projects and programmes whose principal aim was to improve the quality of governance in developing countries. I hope that that gives an illustration of the real commitment that exists to building up those institutions. Improving the quality of governance has been a significant objective—alongside other objectives—of over half DfID's bilateral spending commitments in the past year. NGOs play an important part in that. Total expenditure through UK civil society organisations in 2000–01 was £184 million, the largest sums being sent to the British Red Cross, Care International UK, Oxfam, Save the Children Fund and the VSO.
Faced with the obvious threat which terrorism poses to our way of life since September 11th, we have also redoubled our efforts to deal with terrorism head on. We can all take pride in the part that Britain played, alongside the United States and our other allies, in the international coalition against the Al'Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan. We can take pride in what has been achieved: severe damage to the terrorist networks and the liberation of the Afghan people from that very brutal regime. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that we remain committed to Afghanistan
1518
for the long term, including through our development and reconstruction efforts. British troops are leading the early phase of the international stability assistance force which is providing such an important element of security for the fledgling civilian government.
We are also fully engaged in the international community's efforts to thwart terrorism more generally. We have been working with our colleagues in the G8 on ways of cutting off terrorist financing, strengthening aviation security and enhancing cooperation on intelligence and security matters. In the EU, we have agreed to create a European arrest warrant, a common EU definition of terrorism and a specialist anti-terrorist team in Europol.
In the UN, Security Council Resolution 1373 requires all member states to respond to the global terrorist threat, and establishes the Counter-Terrorism Committee to monitor progress towards that goal. The fact that that committee is chaired by Sir Jeremy Greenstock, our Permanent Representative at the UN, is, I believe, in part a recognition of the lead which Britain has long taken internationally on action against terrorism.
Next week at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting—the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, was kind enough to mention that my noble friend Lady Amos, together with my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, will represent us at that meeting—we shall strongly support the Commonwealth response to international terrorism.
As for this country, our own anti-terrorist legislation means that we have already complied with many of the obligations of Resolution 1373. We are one of the few states to have ratified and implemented all 12 of the international anti-terrorist conventions. We are looking again at what we can do in terms of having the right forces and the right capabilities to meet the additional challenges we face from international terrorism as regards what our Armed Forces are doing. The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, referred to the new chapter in the strategic defence review which is indeed very important. We have a string of anti-terrorism legislation in the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act which received Royal Assent last December.
My right honourable friends the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Clare Short have led the international effort to place the reduction of poverty at the core of the international development effort. Since 1997 the UK has increased its official development assistance spending from 0.26 per cent of gross national product to a planned 0.33 per cent in the year 2003–04. We are committed to making substantial additional progress. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, that we are also using our influence internationally to strengthen the global commitment to reduce poverty in every poor country in the world. I assure my noble friend Lord Judd that we put that argument to everyone. We put it as much to our friends in the United States as we do elsewhere.

1519
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, were also concerned about debt. The Government have strongly supported the heavily indebted poor countries debt relief initiative which the World Bank and the IMF began in 1996. We have tried to accelerate that initiative. We have pledged over £300 million to the trust fund established to help multilateral institutions provide debt relief and to help the indebted countries. I remind the noble Lords, Lord Bhatia and Lord Judd, of the much firmer arms control policies that we have and the far greater transparency that has been in place on arms exports since 1997.
We should also remember that all countries have signed up to the United Nations millennium development goals. Prime among those is halving the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by 2015. That will enable 1 billion people to free themselves from extreme poverty. But to do that, there will have to be much greater international efforts than are currently being made. By some estimates, the extent of those efforts will have to double; even then, as the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, reminded us, billions will remain in poverty.
Our efforts will not succeed simply by rich countries handing out more money. Success will critically depend on the governments of developing countries adopting accountable and representative forms of governance, combating corruption and upholding the rule of law, and strategies for poverty reduction, which will ensure that their resources are used to the most productive effect.
Success will also depend on development assistance being used as effectively as possible. It should be focused where it has the greatest impact. The noble Lords, Lord Desai and Lord Bhatia, and many others were right to emphasise the importance of the Doha trade round. The globalisation of politics that brought the terrorists to the United States has to be matched by the globalisation of our efforts to eliminate poverty. We must act on the growing understanding that desperate poverty is as morally unacceptable in Africa or Asia as it is in Britain, and it is every bit as dangerous.
7.51 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, it remains for me to do three things. The first and most difficult is to resist the temptation to engage in further debate. The second and easiest is to thank all noble Lords who participated in this extremely thoughtful debate. It gave much food for thought; it gave much food for thought for action. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for having responded not only to the analysis that many noble Lords offered but also to the demand for an explanation of government action in this field. The third and relatively easy task, since I am really moving for action rather than Papers, is to beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Police Act 1997 (Enhanced Criminal Record Certificates) (Protection of Vulnerable Adults) Regulations 2002
7.52 p.m.
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 7th February be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it might be helpful if I indicate briefly at the outset that the provisions of these regulations are compatible with the rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights.
The regulations are a crucial element in the package of measures that we have been putting in place under Part V of the Police Act 1997 and which will be operated by the new Criminal Records Bureau. The bureau will allow wider access than hitherto to information about convictions, which may have a material bearing on a person's suitability for employment in particular jobs. Special emphasis has been placed on the protection of children and also of vulnerable adults.
The 1997 Act left a number of detailed matters to be prescribed later under secondary legislation. The issue before noble Lords this evening is the definition of those positions involving work with vulnerable adults which should be eligible for the highest level of certificate—or disclosure, as they are to be known—that the Criminal Records Bureau will issue.
The provisions in the regulations reflect widespread consultation. They set a high test. That is appropriate because enhanced disclosures should be treated not as the norm but as a high level of check to be reserved for those who are at greatest risk. It also reflects the clear view of those representing the disabled that people should not be categorised as vulnerable solely because they are disabled. The regulations therefore strike a balance, which will ensure that those who are at particular risk are afforded the higher level of protection that an enhanced disclosure will provide. Those people are receiving specified services and, because of their disability or condition, are heavily dependent on others, are seriously impaired in their ability to communicate, or would have difficulty protecting themselves. They obviously require and deserve this added protection. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 7th February be approved [19th Report front the Joint Committee].—(Lord Rooker.)
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I have looked at the website of the Criminal Records Bureau. The terms of the regulations appear to be slightly broader than the definition of "vulnerable adult" that is set out on that website. I do not know for sure whether that means that the Government have expanded the initial definition or simply that the website did not fully lay out the definition. The main difference is the addition

1521
of "social care services" as a service covered, which is in the regulations but not on the CRB website. The other main difference is that the website refers to,
"serious reduction in physical or mental capacity",
in the "conditions" section, whereas the regulations simply require a reduction in capacity.
We are not here to oppose the regulations, because the definition in terms of the services covered, condition of the individual and disability appear to be reasonable. However, this is an appropriate opportunity to press the Minister on the consultation that he said had taken place. What consultations did the Government undertake in drafting the definition and what changes have there been to the original definition? How many jobs will be affected, and how many enhanced certificates do the Government expect to be issued? What plans are there to update the law on sex offences in relation to vulnerable adults following the review, Setting the Boundaries?
This debate also gives us an opportunity to ask the Minister for an update on the establishment of the CRB. What are the reasons for the delay? Has Capita been responsible in any way and what assurances are there that it will meet the new deadline? We seek an assurance from the Minister on the accuracy of the information given in the certificates.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his customary courtesy in explaining the regulations. Self-evidently it is right that special emphasis should be placed on the protection of children and vulnerable adults in the context of assessing an individual's suitability for employment in certain jobs. The enhanced criminal record certificates embodied in the regulations offer such protection.
That said, I have an oblique query, with which I hope the Minister can help me. Notwithstanding compliance with the ECHR, to which the Minister attested, how does the proposed disclosure regime meld with the Data Protection Act, particularly in respect of disclosure of data held to the individual concerned and not just to the prospective employer? I look forward to the Minister's satisfying my curiosity on that point. In the mean time, we on these Benches are satisfied that the regulations are sensible and are content to give them a fair wind.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their comments.
In response to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, about the number of jobs, I shall have to take advice and write to him. With regard to the website, I freely admit that I do not have a copy of it in my briefing notes. However, I have the form of the definition to hand. It is important to put on the record the kind of people we are talking about. The provisions relate to people who are receiving various services, including accommodation and care in a care home, or in a hospital, or in an establishment catering for people
1522
with learning difficulties, or support to live in their own home; who have any of a range of conditions, such as a learning or physical disability; and who, as a result, are heavily dependent on others, or suffer problems in communication, or have limited ability to protect themselves. We are therefore looking for enhanced disclosures for that vulnerable group of people.
In the brief time that is available I am happy to put on the record the organisations that were consulted on the drafting of the definition. They are: the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, Mencap, the Salvation Army, WRVS, John Grooms, Leonard Cheshire, MacIntyre Care, the Queen Elizabeth's Foundation for Disabled People, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, the Royal National Institute for the Blind, Scope, Sense, the Sue Ryder Foundation, the Disabilities Trust, the Multiple Sclerosis Society, the Papworth Trust, the Shaftesbury Society, the Winged Fellowship Trust and the Voluntary Organisations Disability Group. That suggests the large range of groups that were involved. I cannot give details of what might have changed in terms of the presentations that were put to them.
I fully accept that originally another order was laid in which the word "substantial" was removed. The wrong draft was laid; it was not a mistake. We consulted the Department of Health about the use of the word "substantial"—that is, in paragraphs 2.3.a and 9.c. In those two paragraphs we believed that the test was set too high. It was considered to be too stringent, and that is why the word was removed. It was not a change. It was simply the case that the wrong draft was laid.
With regard to the Data Protection Act, measures relating to the Criminal Records Bureau are based on the fact that the individual, not the employer, applies for a certificate. It is the individual who applies for a job, and it is his information and not the employer's which is in question. Therefore, I can assure noble Lords that we are not setting up an operation which is incompatible with the data protection provisions.
I turn to the grossly unfair question raised by the noble Lord. Lord Dholakia, about setting up a debate on the Criminal Records Bureau. It is, of course, currently being set up. It will begin to issue standard and enhanced disclosures in March in cases in which police checks are currently available and from the beginning of April 2002 in all other cases. It is expected that basic disclosures will become available later in the summer of 2002. I can give further and better particulars, but a full launch of the Criminal Records Bureau will take place in April this year. It is a new executive agency of the Home Office set up under the legislation to which I referred earlier.
In respect of questions which I have not answered, I shall write to both the noble Lord and the noble Earl and shall place a copy of the letter in the Library.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) Order 2002
8.2 p.m.
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th February be approved [18th Report front the Joint Committed].
The noble. Lord said: My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate this order. As I recall, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 was the first piece of legislation to become an Act before the second election of that year. It was passed within weeks of the general election at which I was first elected to the other place in February 1974. Over the years the Act has performed a valuable function in getting people back into society following difficulties that they have encountered.
I should place on record—I believe that it is important to do so—that we are satisfied that the measures contained in this statutory instrument are compatible with the rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights.
I do not know how much detail noble Lords want, and I should like to be brief. But I believe that it is important to put on record that the 1974 Act had an underlying philosophy. It concerned the importance of reforming those who commit offences, helping them to pick up their lives and make a fresh start in the hope that they would not return to crime. It accepted that, by definition. they would have paid their penalty and would be able to make a more valuable contribution to society.
That is not to undermine the principle of punishment—far from it. But we must have in place a means for rehabilitation if we are not to have an underclass of people who can never work again. That makes no sense whatever. On the other hand, we must balance that against the risk to society from exoffenders—in particular, the risk to the most vulnerable members of society.
Ever since the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act has been in place, there has been a list of positions in relation to which an offender cannot escape his past, even if his conviction under the Act is spent. In certain circumstances, he is still required to make a disclosure about his previous criminal activities and convictions. He cannot use the excuse that, because those convictions are spent, he does not need to answer certain questions. Of course, the legislation is 25 years old, and the Home Secretary announced last year that there is to be a fundamental review of the Act. That review will be reported later this year.
Perhaps I may run briefly through the changes in the order. There are some important exceptions: some are wholly new; others amend and update existing exceptions. I believe that I should place those on the record for those who follow our affairs. With regard to applicants for taxi and private hire vehicles drivers' licences, the order will put criminal records checks on a statutory footing and allow the Criminal Records Bureau to provide the information. Another exception concerns RSPCA inspectors and other staff who are
1524
authorised as part of their duties to carry out the killing of animals with firearms or lethal drugs. The intention is to ensure that such staff are eligible for a firearms licence on completion of training and that those with access to lethal drugs and other humanitarian killing devices are fit and proper persons.
There is a new exception for air traffic control personnel because of the privatisation of the service. This point was previously covered by the Civil Aviation Authority exception. The public also have the right to assume that a registered chartered psychologist is a fit and proper person to practise. The exception will allow the British Psychological Society better to ensure that that is the case.
The Court of Protection appoints receivers. I declare a previous interest, having been a receiver for a late friend. When I was a Member in another place I found it illuminating to see what checks were in place for receivers. Nevertheless, we are now taking the view that it is important to do whatever is possible to guard against unsuitable individuals being appointed as receivers and to have them added to the list.
The inclusion of registered foreign lawyers and Fellows of the Institute of Legal Executives brings them into line with others in the legal professions. Normally I refer to the "legal industry", but in this respect I shall settle for the "legal professions". There is a new exception to bring actuaries into line with colleagues in the legal and accountancy professions. The Crown Prosecution Service is included purely as a technical tidying-up of the exception for the Director of Public Prosecutions and any employment in his office.
The inclusion of the Serious Fraud Office and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise will bring them both into line with the Crown Prosecution Service. The inclusion of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad is necessary to ensure that all employees—not only police officers—are subject to full criminal record checks.
There is a new exception to cover people employed by Internet service providers and others who monitor conversations in electronic chat rooms better to ensure the protection of children. The order updates the existing social services exception to allow full criminal record checks on those who provide social and care services to vulnerable adults. There is movement of the exception covering National Lottery licensing from the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 to its rightful place in the exceptions order.
The policy objective is to ensure that the right balance is struck between the beneficial effects of rehabilitation with its neutralising effect on employers' potential prejudices on the one hand, and, on the other, the genuine need for access to information on the grounds of public protection. Of course. focus has been sharpened by the Human Rights Act. The disclosure of an individual's spent convictions potentially could infringe Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. We are satisfied that the exceptions as drafted achieve the right balance and

1525
are therefore compatible with the legislation. Therefore, I hope that the order will receive the approval of the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th February be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Rooker.)
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that information. On 25th April 2001 the Government announced that they were establishing a full review of the Act. They said that the review will follow the recommendation from the Better Regulation Task Force in its Review of Fit Person Criteria in 1999. I shall not spell out the terms of reference, as the Minister will be aware of them.
However, it is not clear whether this statutory instrument and last year's statutory instrument have anything to do with the work of this review. I have one or two questions and I hope not to stretch the patience of the Minister. I shall be happy for him to write to me with the answers. However, it would be helpful to know on what research the statutory instrument is based and what consultation there has been. What input has there been from the two groups—the core group and the advisory group—that are reviewing the Act? I am grateful to the Minister for having specified the exceptions. This area is crying out for reform. It is a step through which offenders will ultimately be able to get to the rehabilitation process which will help in their development.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of this order, which we on these Benches support. In particular, I welcome his reinforcement of the point that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, which is over 25 years old, is being reviewed and that the Government have it in mind to introduce legislation in due course to bring it up to date. It would he somewhat invidious to try to pin down the noble Lord as to the timescale so I shall not do so. None the less, that appears to be a more coherent way forward than the somewhat piecemeal way in which such exceptions have been added to by secondary legislation.
1526
At the risk of trying the patience of the Minister, I am tempted to repeat my query about the Data Protection Act, although I am sure that his answer to me in the previous debate will carry over to this order. So I shall content myself with that. We support the order and are content to give it a fair wind.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments of both noble Lords. I do not have a date by which the review will be concluded, but the expectation is that it will report later this year. It is being conducted in an open and inclusive way and the review team has been keen to listen to what people have to say.
Off the cuff, this order is not a consequence of the review. This is a review of the fundamental rationale behind the Act. Over the years several orders have been added. As can be seen from some of the points that I have made, some of these exceptions are wholly new and some are modifications as a result of legislation. The wholly new ones are chartered psychologists, Court of Protection receivers, registered foreign lawyers, legal executives, actuaries and Internet chat room monitors. I suspect that some of those, by definition, have come about because of changes in technology since the original legislation was passed. particularly the last one. Some of the others that I have mentioned, like air traffic control personnel, are purely a consequence of privatisation and moving people from one area to another.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, my answer on data protection is the same as I gave in the previous debate. There is no fundamental change. This is a modification to some of the areas concerned. I understand that the existing legislation conforms to the data protection legislation. No one has queried that. I have certainly not seen a note to that effect. If the noble Lord has any particular problems I shall be happy to look into them. If I have not responded to any points I shall do so in writing.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes past eight o'clock.

  Diploma in Veterinary State Medicine
  Diploma in Veterinary State Medicine
  State Veterinary Service
  State Veterinary Service
  Animal Health Bill
  Animal Health Bill
  Emissions Reduction Scheme
  Emissions Reduction Scheme
  Countryside Agency Website
  Countryside Agency Website
  Marine Stewardship Reports
  Marine Stewardship Reports
  Ainsdale National Nature Reserve
  Ainsdale National Nature Reserve
  Pesticides
  Pesticides
  Foot and Mouth
  Foot and Mouth
  Formby Pinewoods: Protection of Red Squirrels
  Formby Pinewoods: Protection of Red Squirrels
  Rural: Definition
  Rural: Definition
  British-Irish Council
  British-Irish Council
  Refugees and Asylum Seekers: Racial Attacks
  Refugees and Asylum Seekers: Racial Attacks
  IRA: Training
  IRA: Training
  Bus Lanes
  Bus Lanes
  Facial Biometrics Software: Human Rights and Civil Liberties Implications
  Facial Biometrics Software: Human Rights and Civil Liberties Implications
  Police Authorities in North-West England: Budgets
  Police Authorities in North-West England: Budgets
  Incitement to Racial Hatred: Criminal Proceedings
  Incitement to Racial Hatred: Criminal Proceedings
  Seat Belt Offences
  Seat Belt Offences
  Illegal firearms
  Illegal firearms
  Neighbourhood and Street Warden Schemes
  Neighbourhood and Street Warden Schemes
  Security Service: Release of Historical Records
  Security Service: Release of Historical Records
  Asylum Applicants: Dependants
  Asylum Applicants: Dependants
  Afghan Asylum Seekers
  Afghan Asylum Seekers
  Asylum Seekers Detained in Northern Ireland
  Asylum Seekers Detained in Northern Ireland
  Unaccompanied Asylum-seeking Children
  Unaccompanied Asylum-seeking Children
  Charities and the Voluntary Sector: Support
  Charities and the Voluntary Sector: Support
  Campaign against International Terrorism: MoD Funding
  Campaign against International Terrorism: MoD Funding