Sitting of 8 January 2002

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Middle East Peace Process
    Mr. James Clappison: What recent representations he has received concerning the middle east peace process. [22993]
    Helen Jackson: What recent discussions he has had with Palestinian leaders on the political situation in the middle east. [22994]
    Mr. Khalid Mahmood: What diplomatic measures the UK Government are taking to encourage the Israeli Government to return to the peace process. [22998]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): Her Majesty's Government are fully engaged with the United States and our European Union partners in trying to move the peace process forward. The recent reduction in violence in Israel and the occupied territories is encouraging, but this must be sustained. Both parties should take the opportunity to move towards the implementation of the Mitchell and Tenet plans and the early resumption of negotiations. The Palestinian Authority should bring terrorists to justice and dismantle the infrastructure of terrorist organisations. Israel should withdraw its military forces from area A, lift restrictions and closures and freeze all settlement activity in the occupied territories.
    Mr. Clappison: What is the Foreign Secretary's response to the letter that he received from Shimon Peres about the call from Mr. Rafsanjani, one of Iran's leaders, for jihad operations against Israel to continue until Israel no longer existed? Given the vile propaganda that keeps coming out of Iran, the widespread suspicion that Iran had a hand in the attempted smuggling of 50 tonnes of rockets and other weapons aboard the Karin and the need for our struggle against international terrorism to be consistent, can the Foreign Secretary clarify where yesterday's Government announcement of a £28 million export credit guarantee for Iran fits into all of this?
    Mr. Straw: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the ingenuity of his question. We condemn those who believe
    398
    that the state of Israel should not exist. Indeed, there will be an effective peace process only if the state of Israel recognises the right of the Palestinians to their own viable state. At the same time, not only the Palestinians but everyone else in the Arab and Islamic world, which includes the state of Iran, must recognise the right of Israel to live safely within secure borders. That is fundamental to our approach towards the peace process, the approach of the United States and that of the European Union.
    As for the question about relations with Iran, about which I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to ask me, we believe that we can make these points better through dialogue with Iran rather than, as I think was implicit in his suggestion, by withdrawing diplomatic relations.
    Helen Jackson: What possible justification was there for trying to prevent the leader of the Palestinians from attending the inter-faith Christmas mass at Bethlehem? What representations did the Government make to Israel about this? Is it not extremely dangerous, in the current situation, for anyone in the Israeli Government to present President Arafat as being the same as the terrorist organisations Hamas or Jihad?
    Mr. Straw: We did not think that this restriction was justified. Our position is that closures should be lifted; that must apply to the leader of the Palestinian Authority, as it must to all residents within the occupied territories.
    Mr. Mahmood: I wholly agree with my right hon. Friend in condemning all terrorism, but does he agree that the time has come for the debate to move forward and for people to start addressing these long-standing issues and the problems that have existed between the state of Israel and Palestine? Until we have a viable discussion on how to move matters forward, the issues that will extinguish the roots of terrorism will not be addressed. As one great statesman in this House once said, we need more jaw-jaw, not war-war.
    Mr. Straw: Of course there has to be a political process towards a settlement of this long-standing conflict in the middle east, but a reduction in violence and terrorism is a pre-condition of any peace process. In that context, we greatly welcome the reduction of violence since President Arafat's speech on 16 December, in which he called for a halt to all military operations, especially suicide bombings. Since that date, just one Israeli has been killed and 15 Palestinians have died. That is a very significant reduction from the previous levels of violence.
    We support the peace process and we support negotiations, but better efforts must also be made by both sides in the current context, particularly by the Palestinian Authority, to restrain the terrorist organisations based in the occupied territories from acting in Israel.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I welcome the Secretary of State' s even-handed approach to the problem. However, if we look at the Palestinian problem historically, does it not behove the Government to make extra efforts to ensure fair play for the Palestinian people? The issue has rightly been brought into focus because of the war on terrorism but many people outside this place believe that all the Palestinians get paid is lip service.
    Mr. Straw: I fully understand the need for fairness towards the Palestinians. That is essentially and actively the approach adopted by Her Majesty's Government, not least in the context of the European Union, which is providing more aid to the Palestinian Authority, with our full support, than any other international donor. We are doing a great deal else to support the Palestinian Authority's legitimate activities and to relieve the humanitarian situation in the occupied territories. That is essential, as is a recognition by those who lead the Palestinian Authority and the rest of the Arab world of the right of Israel and Israelis to live in peace, with security.
    Mr. Alan Duncan: Does not the Foreign Secretary accept that the peace process requires Palestine Liberation Organisation cum Palestinian Authority structures that offer strong leadership and the ability to control their citizens and uphold an agreement? What recent assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of Yasser Arafat's position in the PLO? When the Prime Minister next visits Israel and the middle east, will he deign to take with him the Foreign Secretary or, indeed, any other Foreign Office Minister; or with foreign policy now being entirely conducted from Downing street, will he and his Foreign Office colleagues continue to be sidelined and ignored?
    Mr. Straw: On the serious part of the hon. Gentleman's question, we will continue to do all that we can to work for a settlement inside the occupied territories. The hon. Gentleman asks me about the position of the leader of the Palestinian Authority. He is the elected leader, and we work on the basis—it is wise for any hon. Member to do so—that we should deal with him as that elected leader. That is exactly the point that we have urged on the Government of Israel.
    Ms Christine Russell: Following the question asked by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), may I ask my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary whether the Israeli authorities have furnished him with any evidence to show that the arms being carried by the cargo ship that was apprehended by the defence forces were destined for the Palestinian Authority, rather than another terrorist group in the middle east?
    Mr. Straw: The Israeli Government have passed to the United States Administration and ourselves information that they claim to have received about the destination of that ship and those who were sailing on it. The position of the US State Department and the United Kingdom Government is that we continue to assess all the information that we have received about the origin of that ship and its destination, but we have yet to reach firm conclusions.

    Zimbabwe
    Mr. Michael Moore: What recent discussions he has had with Commonwealth counterparts on Zimbabwe. [22995]
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: When he next expects to visit Zimbabwe to discuss the Abuja agreement with the Government; and if he will make a statement. [23003]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): Since the House last discussed Zimbabwe and despite the Abuja agreement of 6 September, political violence, including deaths, the occupation of property and the harassment of independent journalists, has continued. The situation overall in Zimbabwe constitutes a serious and persistent violation of the Commonwealth's political values and the rule of law, as enshrined in the 1991 Harare Commonwealth declaration. That is our view, and it was also the unanimous conclusion of the meeting of the Commonwealth ministerial action group, which was held in London on 20 December. At that meeting, CMAG decided, because of its deep concern about the conditions, to place Zimbabwe on its formal agenda and to review the situation at its next meeting on 30 January.
    Mr. Moore: The Foreign Secretary is correct to say that, since the Abuja agreement and the Commonwealth ministerial meeting, intimidation, torture and violence against political opponents and the press have increased substantially. In those circumstances, will he tell us exactly what Mugabe has to do before the Commonwealth will introduce sanctions? Is he confident that the advice that he is giving to the Home Secretary will ensure that people from Zimbabwe who oppose the regime there will not be deported back to that country, where they face almost certain personal physical danger, or possibly death?
    Mr. Straw: Let me deal with the hon. Gentleman's final specific point before I deal with the general situation. On the deportation of failed asylum seekers, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary exercises the same very great care as I did and officials in the Home Office did to ensure that, wherever humanly possible, no failed asylum seeker is deported—even though their claim for asylum has failed—if they are to be in danger when they are returned. That remains the position. In the case to which I think the hon. Gentleman refers, the asylum seeker had his application turned down by officials and by an independent judicial tribunal and leave to appeal was then refused by a further appeal tribunal. However, the matter is still being considered by my right hon. Friend.
    The main issue that the hon. Gentleman raises is the position of the Commonwealth. He will know that it consists of 54 member states of which we are simply one. One of my key aims has been to ensure that the issue ceases to be a bilateral one and is made an issue of shared concern by the international community. However, as far as the position of the United Kingdom is concerned, if the situation in Zimbabwe continues to deteriorate, Britain will argue for Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in March.
    Mr. Bellingham: The Foreign Secretary said that opposition politicians had been intimidated, and they have also been arrested on trumped-up charges. Is he aware that, today, President Mugabe presented a Bill to Parliament to ban foreign journalists and to ban

    401
    independent foreign observers from the country? All that is taking place while the economy of Zimbabwe is sinking to its knees. If the United States Congress can introduce measures against despots such as Mugabe and can freeze their bank accounts and prohibit their foreign travel, surely our Government can do the same. Surely the Government must now get off the fence and start to get tougher.
    Mr. Straw: I think that the hon. Gentleman wrote that supplementary before he heard my remarks. On Zimbabwe, no one could accuse me of having been on the fence from the very moment I took this job or since. I was extremely anxious at the Abuja meetings on 6 September to ensure that the concern about Zimbabwe that had long been felt in this country and on both sides of the House was shared by other Commonwealth countries and particularly by African Commonwealth countries. The hon. Gentleman refers to the condition of the Zimbabwe economy. It is very serious and, in turn, it is seriously affecting the economies of other south African states.
    The question of sanctions will come up before the European Union at the meeting of Foreign Ministers on 28 January. It will be before the meeting of the Commonwealth ministerial action group on 30 January, although decisions have to be made at the full Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting at the beginning of March.
    On the United States, I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that the law that has been passed simply empowers the President to consult other members of the international community. No decisions to impose sanctions have yet been taken and are not likely to be taken in the short term by the United States Administration. However, we continue to keep the question of sanctions under very close review.
    Mr. Peter Pike: I recognise that my right hon. Friend has referred to issues of great concern and note that the presidential election is less than three months away. However, can anyone be sure that there will be a free and fair election for the President of Zimbabwe? If we cannot be sure, should we not have Commonwealth and other observers in place now to examine what is taking place there at this time?
    Mr. Straw: No, we cannot be sure that there will be free and fair elections in Zimbabwe whenever they take place at some time in, what I imagine, will be the next two or three months. However, we can be sure that, if the elections are not free and fair, Zimbabwe will be in the clearest and most flagrant breach of declarations to which it signed up in, ironically, Harare in 1991, in Millbrook in New Zealand in 1995 and again when it recommitted itself to both those declarations on 6 September in Abuja, the capital of Nigeria.
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: Have we done any research into whether President Mugabe has laundered money either through the City or through Switzerland?
    Mr. Straw: I have seen no evidence to that effect.
    Mr. Michael Ancram: The people of Zimbabwe must have been mightily reassured last Friday
    402
    to learn that, far from resenting the Prime Minister running his own foreign policy, the Foreign Secretary is enjoying
    "ensuring that we are well developed in other areas of foreign policy, for example over Zimbabwe."
    On the day that Mugabe and his henchmen are forcing through legislation destroying the freedom of the press, forbidding independent electoral scrutiny, cancelling the Abuja commitment to freedom of expression and at a time when intimidation is institutionalised, murder of opposition members is commonplace and the democratic process is being dismantled, could the Foreign Secretary tell us what on earth his well developed policy is actually achieving?
    Mr. Straw: Again, someone wrote a supplementary question before hearing the answer.
    I repeat that I have been trying to ensure that Zimbabwe, not Britain, is isolated for the terrible actions that President Mugabe and his henchmen are taking. That has received the approbation of many Conservative Back Benchers, as well as Labour Members. The right hon. Gentleman wants us to follow a policy that is the exact reverse, in which Britain is isolated and we play into Mugabe's hands so that he can parade himself as the anti-colonialist hero against the former colonialist power. That would be the worst possible approach, and it is of course the one that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to follow.
    Our approach has been to internationalise the issue, while taking a firm lead within all the international forums in which we speak. That is why the General Affairs Council—the Foreign Affairs Council—of the European Union is in train to take firm action on this; why I called a meeting of Commonwealth Ministers for 20 December; and why I have spelled out to the House that if the situation in Zimbabwe continues to disintegrate we will argue for Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth.
    Mr. Ancram: May I say that I listen carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman says, but all I hear is him talking about talks in the future, more promises and more talks after that? We want to hear about effective action. Does he remember stating on 6 September last year that the Abuja agreement would be regarded as a positive step forward and that he was pleased with it? Does he agree that in practice it has not added up to a row a beans and that the situation in Zimbabwe has deteriorated since then? Why has he proved so toothless and left it to the Americans to take the lead by imposing personal sanctions on Mugabe and his henchman, which have been welcomed by Morgan Tsvangirai? Regardless of what he said a minute ago, why are we not helping to bring pressure on Zimbabwe, but instead are busy deporting Zimbabweans, such as Gerald Muketiwa, back to Zimbabwe, where he is now the victim of Mugabe's violence, as we learned from The Observer on 30 December? When will he stop faffing about and start putting together an international coalition to bring real pressure to bear on Mugabe and his henchmen, or is he waiting for the Prime Minister to take that over from him as well?
    Mr. Straw: The United States has done no more than bring the powers that are available to its Executive into

    403
    line with those that are already available inside the European Union. None of those powers has been implemented.
    As for Abuja, I made it clear on the very evening that the statement was signed that it would be judged not by the words on the paper, but by whether action followed it, especially by the Government of Zimbabwe. It is a matter of record that action by President Mugabe has not followed the agreement. The crucial thing about the Abuja settlement is that it provides us with a template—a yardstick—against which to judge the action or inaction of the Government of Zimbabwe. The right hon. Gentleman talks about putting an international coalition together; that is exactly what I have done. I note that whenever he is asked what else he would do or what he would do differently, he has no answer.

    Afghanistan (Women)
    Mr. Bill Olner: What representations he has made to encourage equality of treatment for women in Afghanistan. [22996]
    Mrs. Joan Humble: What representations he has made to the Government of Afghanistan to encourage equality of treatment for women. [22999]
    Jane Griffiths: What steps he is taking to assist the participation of women in the future Government of Afghanistan. [23002]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs(Mr. Ben Bradshaw): We are strongly committed to the equal treatment of women in Afghanistan. We are extremely pleased that the chairman of the Interim Authority, Dr. Karzai, pledged to uphold the rights of women at the authority's inauguration on 22 December, and that two senior members of that authority are highly distinguished Afghan women.
    Mr. Olner: I thank the Minister for his encouraging reply. Does he agree that although the events of 11 September were an evil act of terrorism that we all abhor, the repression of women in Afghanistan during the Taliban regime is an equally evil act against human rights, especially against women? Will he ensure that the good work that we are doing with non-governmental organisations such as Oxfam will continue and will receive our full support long after the glare of publicity has gone? It is easy to do things now, but in several years' time there will still be a need to support the human rights of women in Afghanistan and surrounding areas. Will he assure me that we will do that?
    Mr. Bradshaw: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. He may be interested to know that the Prime Minister met a group of Afghan women during his visit to the region yesterday. We continually stress that this is a long-term project, and we cannot repeat the mistakes that the international community made with Afghanistan in the early 1990s, when we simply walked away from the problems. There have been encouraging signs such as women returning to education and work. As my hon.
    404
    Friend rightly said, women suffered terribly under the Taliban, and we will of course ensure that we keep up the good work that we have been doing in that respect.
    Mrs. Humble: I thank my hon. Friend for that very encouraging reply. I urge him to draw to the attention of the Afghan Government the recent Brussels proclamation by more than 30 Afghan women's organisations and NGOs, which not only urges Afghan women to be part of the peace process but calls for them to be allowed to work and to use their undoubted skills, experience and expertise to rebuild their economy and their country.
    Mr. Bradshaw: We fully support the declaration. Women in Afghanistan are now going back to work and are being given access, which was denied them under the Taliban, to education and health care, which are perhaps two of the most important factors. As I said earlier, two women are leading members of the Interim Authority; indeed, one is a vice chair. We hope that when the transitional authority is established in June women will participate and that when free and fair elections are held in Afghanistan in two years—which will be a remarkable achievement—women will play their full part in that process too.
    Jane Griffiths: My hon. Friend will be aware that literacy levels among women in Afghanistan are worrying low, possible as low as 4 per cent., as a result of the policies not only of the Taliban but of the Rabbani regime. What steps can be taken to promote literacy and education for women so that future generations of women will be able to play a full part in the life of the Afghan nation?
    Mr. Bradshaw: We are playing a leading role in that, both through our new diplomatic representation in Kabul and through the good work, which has already been alluded to, being carried out by British and British-supported NGOs. My hon. Friend is right: the denial of education to women in Afghanistan will leave a terrible legacy for some time to come. We need to get girls back to school and to offer adult education to women so that they can play a full role in society that will be good for Afghanistan and for the international community.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: I suspect that there is little difference between hon. Members on either side of the House about what the Minister has said, and I applaud the Government's position on the matter. However, when democratic elections take place in Afghanistan, as we all hope and trust they will, will the Government play their part, through the United Nations, in ensuring that women who are illiterate, who are in purdah or who wear the burqa have the opportunity to express their opinion freely?
    Mr. Bradshaw: Yes. The nature of any Government in Afghanistan in two years' time is a matter for the Afghan people, but the hon. Gentleman will remember that in 1964 women in Afghanistan had the vote, and certainly to deprive them of it now would be an extremely retrograde step.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: When did the Minister last meet his counterpart in the Department for International Development to discuss the empowerment

    405
    of women in Afghanistan? Will he assure the House that he will work closely with the Department—that has not always happened in the past—to make sure that we are drawing on the wisdom and knowledge of NGOs, charities and DFID and are doing the right thing to empower women in Afghanistan, and not just what the Foreign Office thinks is the right thing?
    Mr. Bradshaw: Foreign Office Ministers have been working extremely closely with Ministers from DFID. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has told me that he will have another such meeting with the Secretary of State for International Development tomorrow to discuss the very issues raised by the hon. Gentleman.
    Tony Baldry: Better education, health and employment opportunities for women in Afghanistan will be largely dependent on the international community committing substantial sums to the country's reconstruction. Is the Minister convinced that the international community, including the United States, has the determination to commit the sums necessary over the time necessary to ensure that there is decent reconstruction in Afghanistan?
    Mr. Bradshaw: Yes, I am confident of that. All the statements made by our Prime Minister, President Bush and Secretary of State Powell have made it clear that the international community will not walk away from Afghanistan. There is huge job of work of reconstruction to be done. The evidence so far is good: when the UN has called for an international response in terms of donations from various countries, those donations have been forthcoming extremely quickly.
    Joan Ruddock: Does my hon. Friend agree with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which says that gender
    "is central to our understanding of complex emergencies and the effectiveness of humanitarian action"?
    Does he know that the Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action, which covers the major donor agencies, has found that two thirds of the evaluation reports on humanitarian action make no reference to gender? Will he ensure that as the international reconstruction money going to Afghanistan is spent, there is proper monitoring of gender?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I assure my hon. Friend that the British Government are keen to ensure that the whole reconstruction effort in Afghanistan involves the sort of monitoring she suggests. The UN is also committed to that. I was sorry to hear the disappointing figure she quotes; if she will allow me, I shall look into it and write to her about it in more detail.

    Afghan Refugees
    Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: What recent discussions he has had with the Government of Pakistan about the movement of Afghans across their border. [22997]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): The movement of Afghans across the border into Pakistan is one of the many issues relating to Afghanistan about which we are in constant touch with the Government of Pakistan. I discussed that with President Musharraf on 28 November, and over Christmas with Foreign Minister Sattar; the Prime Minister did so during his visit to Islamabad yesterday. We welcome President Musharraf s statement at the end of his meeting with the Prime Minister. The security of Pakistan's borders, east and west, is of crucial importance in the fight against terrorism.
    Mr. Dhanda: The Government should be congratulated on the role that they have played in ensuring a new and representative Government in Afghanistan, but there is great uncertainty about the whereabouts of Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden. Will my hon. Friend tell the House what discussions he has had on securing the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, especially at a time of heightened tension in the area, when Pakistan might be considering redeploying some of its troops toward the border it shares with India?
    Mr. Straw: Security of that border is extremely important, not least to efforts to prevent infiltration into Pakistan by al-Qaeda fighters from Afghanistan. In that context, I am glad to report to the House that yesterday, during his press conference with our Prime Minister, President Musharraf said that Pakistan remains conscious of its responsibilities on the western borders and of the importance of troops deployed there to seal the borders. He also expressed the hope that it would not become necessary to move those troops as a result of the conflict and pressure in Kashmir.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House roughly how many Afghans are currently refugees in Pakistan and whether there is an ordered policy for their return to their homeland? Does he accept that if too many were to return too quickly, they might find themselves in a worse position than their current one, which is grave, and that intelligence and the knowledge of many experts will be demanded to ensure that the great movement back is carried out in an ordered way during the reconstruction of Afghanistan?
    Mr. Straw: The estimate taken before the end of the conflict—the hon. Gentleman appreciates that it was a rough one—was that about 2 million Afghans were to be found on the eastern border of Afghanistan adjacent to Pakistan, and between 1.5 and 2 million on the western border adjacent to Iran. Our understanding is that up to 5,000 Afghans are returning home every day. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern to ensure that such movements are organised properly, so far as is possible. That runs into the overwhelming case that the international community's commitment to Afghanistan should be long term and backed by funds. For that reason among many, we welcome Japan's call for a donors conference at the end of the month. It will be attended by senior Ministers from this country, the United States and many other major donor countries.
    Mr. Piara S. Khabra: What action is Pakistan taking against organisations known to be based in Pakistan that support terrorism across the border?
    Mr. Straw: Since the outrageous assault on the Indian Parliament on 13 December, Pakistan has taken increasing action against terrorist organisations masquerading as freedom fighters that have been operating in the state of Pakistan and in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. President Musharraf has banned two of the worst organisations, Jaish e Muhammed and Lasjka e Toiba. He and his security forces have also arrested a number of people known to have been involved in terrorism across the border or within Pakistan. We welcome those steps, but we also look forward to further steps being taken by the Government of Pakistan fully to implement United Nations Security Council resolution 1373.
    Mr. Alan Duncan: In applauding President Musharraf's determination to crack down on terrorists and militants in his own country and prevent al-Qaeda terrorists from infiltrating that sensitive region, will the Foreign Secretary take the opportunity to give the House the Government's assessment of President Musharraf s ability to control elements of his own armed forces, specifically the Inter-Services Intelligence? What assessment has he made of any destabilisation in Pakistan that might result from large numbers of Afghan refugees who could do rather more than simply sit in refugee camps?
    Mr. Straw: We welcome the action taken by President Musharraf so far and look forward to further firm action from him, the whole Government and the security forces of Pakistan. In our judgment, President Musharraf is very much in control of that Government, and the hon. Gentleman will know that he fired the previous director general of Pakistan's intelligence service because he was not satisfied with his loyalty. As for the infiltration of refugees by terrorists across the borders, that is one of many reasons why we are looking to the Government of Pakistan to maintain its garrison of troops and its patrolling of its western border with Afghanistan, as well as its eastern border with India.

    Laeken Summit
    Mr. Wayne David: If he will make a statement on what was agreed at the Laeken summit with regard to the establishment of a convention to prepare for the next IGC. [23000]
    The Minister for Europe(Peter Hain): I refer my hon. Friend to the statement on the Laeken European Council made by the Prime Minister on 17 December.
    Mr. David: I thank my right hon. Friend for his response. Given the need to reconnect the European Union with its citizens, does he agree that national Parliaments have a crucial role to play in the forthcoming convention?
    Peter Hain: Yes, I do. That is why representatives from our Parliament will attend the convention. The encouraging thing from Laeken was the recognition, probably for the first time, by the European Council that
    408
    member states' powers should be not be further encroached on. On the contrary: there should be an examination which could lead
    "to restoring tasks to the Member States and to assigning new missions to the Union",
    or to the extension of existing powers. In other words, the European Union recognised that the process of centralisation had to be reconsidered and reversed as a result of British influence there. However, our Parliament should certainly have its voice heard at the convention.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: In view of that, will the Minister give the House an unequivocal, unconditional, unambiguous guarantee that the parliamentary representatives will be chosen by Members of Parliament, not by members of the Executive?
    Peter Hain: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter, on which we have received representations from the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Leader of the Opposition. Consultations are taking place and we are sympathetic to the views expressed to us.
    Mr. Graham Allen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, within two to three years, there will be a written constitution for this country? It will be drafted in Brussels as a result of the Laeken summit. Early drafts of that constitution are already being penned by Valery Giscard d'Estaing. Does he share the feeling that it is very important that our British representatives be appointed quickly to the constitutional convention? Will he also make a point of consulting the Speaker and any other necessary authorities so that the two representatives of the British Parliament are seen to represent all parties in this House and carry the full weight of the British Parliament as well as the British Government?
    Peter Hain: I well understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. We are anxious that the representatives to the convention should represent the House. There will be consultations, as there already have been. We are listening very carefully to representations made to us from the House.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: With his newly acquired Euro-enthusiasm, will the Minister tell us whether this convention will be likely to discuss the new proposal for an elected Euro-president? What particular powers would the new president of Europe have, and where precisely will his base be located? [HON. MEMBERS: "Southend.] Will he have a palace in one country or separate palaces in each member state?
    Peter Hain: I think that the election of a president of the European Union, especially, as is proposed by some, by the citizens of the European Union, is frankly a barmy idea. It will be opposed by the British Government and any such suggestion that is made through the convention will not fly at the intergovernmental conference. I ask hon. Members to remember that the convention does not

    409
    bind the intergovernmental conference that will probably occur early in 2004. We will have a say there and, if necessary, we will exercise a veto there.
    Donald Anderson: My right hon. Friend rightly implied that the representatives of Parliament should be seen not as placemen or placewomen, but as proper representatives. He went on to say that there had already been consultations. With whom have those consultations been held and in what circumstances?
    Peter Hain: My right hon. Friend has, as he well knows, written to us.
    Andrew Mackinlay: He has not had a reply.
    Peter Hain: I know, but Christmas has intervened and we are considering the issues. No game is being played here. We are anxious that the very strong views that have been represented by my right hon. Friend and others should be taken into account. Can I say too—
    Hon. Members: Answer!
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should let the Minister answer in his own way.
    Peter Hain: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker. Consultations occurred when a convention was held some years ago on the charter of rights. In addition, we have had representations that we are taking very seriously indeed.
    Mr. Michael Ancram: The Minister's definition of consultations does not bode well for the consultations that are to take place at the convention. Does he agree that, if the convention is to have any value, it must encompass and consider more than one model of the future structure of Europe? Would it not be unthinkable for such a convention not to include proposals for a flexible Europe of nation states—proposals that reflect the views of the vast majority of the British people and the position of the Opposition?
    While it should finally be a matter for the House to decide who the representatives are, will the Minister press the Prime Minister to respond positively to the written offer made by the Leader of the Opposition on 19 December for my party to play a full and constructive part in the convention, promoting those positive views to which I have referred—[Laughter.] I listen very carefully to the laughter and note whence it comes. Or will the convention be just another stitch-up to drive forward the European superstate regardless of the genuine views of the peoples of Europe?
    Peter Hain: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman started very well. He began constructively and I hoped that he would continue in that vein. The answer is yes: the Leader of the Opposition will, of course, be fully responded to and his representations will be listened to. We will not always respond negatively to the Leader of the Opposition, although, frankly, that is very tempting. On the serious point that he made about the superstate, it is very interesting that we ensured with virtually
    410
    unanimous support the insertion in the Laeken declaration of, for the first time, a rejection of the idea of a superstate by the European Council. The declaration states that what the citizens of Europe expect is
    "more results, better responses to practical issues and not a European superstate or European institutions inveigling their way into every nook and cranny of life."
    It is exactly that model of the European Union—based on intergovernmentalism, supporting its citizens and reflecting their practical daily-life wishes—for which we are pressing. We are confident that it can be secured at the intergovernmental conference, not least because Britain under this Government is a leading European power, not a marginal power as it was under the previous, Conservative Government.
    Andrew Mackinlay: May I take the Minister back to his statement that there had been consultation with the Leader of the Opposition? Apart from the cosy choreography that goes on between those on the two Front Benches, who else has been consulted about the arrangements for appointing Parliament's representatives to the convention? What is to be done, given that there are alternate members? Will my right hon. Friend make it abundantly clear to the people here and to the Sunday press, which has got it all wrong, that while the rubrics for choosing these people may be a matter for the Leader of the House, the question of who should represent this Parliament—as distinct from the Government's representatives—is for this House to decide, not those on the Government Front Bench?
    Peter Hain: My hon. Friend is a good and fiery democrat and he is right to keep pressing that issue. His voice will be listened to—[Interruption.] It is being listened to and it has been in the past minute by my good self. His colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson), Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, has put a series of strong points to us on behalf of that Committee, as has the Leader of the Opposition, and those representations are being considered.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: While we are on the subject of constitutions and conventions in Europe, is it not premature of the European Union to be pressing ahead for a new IGC and, presumably, a new treaty when the last one has not even been ratified, by virtue of the negative vote of the Irish people democratically expressed? Or will it be a case in future of pressing ahead regardless?
    Peter Hain: The answer to that question is no. There is an important initiative here. For the first time, the European Union has agreed to set up a convention and consult the people of Europe about the future. That is welcome and I would have thought that it ought to be welcome to the hon. Gentleman and all Opposition Members, as it is welcome to the Labour party. There is an enormously worrying and growing gap between the institutions and the people of the EU. It is the task of the next IGC, which will not take place for at least two years, to try to close that gap and to ensure that the leaders of the EU follow the wishes of its citizens.

    Iraq (Weapons Inspection)
    Jim Knight: What recent discussions he has had with the US Government on the (a) proliferation and (b) international inspection of chemical, biological and radiological weapons, with particular reference to Iraq. [23001]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs(Mr. Denis MacShane): We frequently discuss issues relating to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction with the United States Administration. The United Kingdom and the US are committed to securing full Iraqi compliance with its United Nations disarmament obligations.
    Jim Knight: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that we must make every effort internationally to prevent the proliferation of those weapons? Would he agree, therefore, with Graham Pearson, former director of Porton Down, the chemical and biological weapons establishment, when he said last autumn that
    "the US should urgently reconsider its rejection…of the protocol to strengthen the biological weapons convention"?
    Should that reconsideration be a prerequisite to the US taking any action against Iraq because of its activities in that area?
    Mr. MacShane: We regret the failure of the United States to ratify the latest protocol. We are looking forward to working with the US through to the next meeting on the convention in November to arrive at a satisfactory international agreement. The events of recent weeks and months have shown that we need the strongest national security arrangements in that area and the strongest international verification procedures.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: On Iraq and foreign policy in general, is it not something of a hostage to fortune to use terms such as a "pivotal role for Britain", which may come back to haunt those who use them—rather like talking of a foreign policy with an "ethical dimension"? Will it not be a clear indication of the United Kingdom's influence over the United States if we continue successfully to discourage the Bush Administration from precipitate military action against Iraq unless there is incontrovertible evidence of Iraqi involvement in terrorism, or alternatively, if it becomes abundantly clear that the policy of deterrence and containment successfully followed since December 1998, when the United Nations inspectors were withdrawn, has ceased to be effective?
    Mr. MacShane: As the Prime Minister and the Government have made clear, there is no evidence linking Iraq with the events of 11 September. The fight against terrorism will have to take on board all who support terrorism, all who continue to defy the international rule of law, and all who refuse to obey UN resolutions on this issue. We cannot speculate on any further action that may
    412
    be necessary, but until Iraq complies with its United Nations and international legal obligations, it remains a menace to the region and to the world.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: On these legal obligations, would it not at least be prudent to talk to Hans von Sponeck and Dennis Halliday—senior officials at the United Nations who resigned their posts on matters of principle to do with Baghdad—before getting involved in the precipitate and disastrous folly of attacking Iraq?
    Mr. MacShane: The requirement that the international community, through the United Nations, has placed on Saddam Hussein is to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions. Different positions have been taken by different UN officials on this over the years, but I cannot believe that any Member of the House has any doubt that Saddam Hussein remains in violation of international law and of his obligations under United Nations Security Council resolutions.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: On 5 December, the Foreign Secretary told the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs:
    "We are very concerned about Iraq's development of these weapons and believe action must be taken."
    What action does the Minister believe will work?
    Mr. MacShane: That is why we have strengthened resolution 1284, and why Britain has taken the lead in ensuring that sanctions do not harm the Iraqi people directly. It is also why our pilots fly over parts of north and south Iraq to ensure that the Iraqi regime cannot attack its own people. The action of this Government and other democratic Governments around the world is very clear indeed.
    Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: Is it not ironic that while we discuss with the United States Administration the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, that Administration seem hell bent on delaying, inhibiting or destroying every international agreement and convention that underpins that non-proliferation? Is it not true that the present Administration of the United States, and the right-wing ideologues who control them, do not give a tinker's cuss about international co-operation or international opinion when it comes to these issues, unless they meet their own immediate political objectives?
    Mr. MacShane: It is no secret in the House that Her Majesty's Government do not share the approach of the United States when it comes to strengthening international conventions and agreements to reduce proliferation, but the dialogue must continue. We welcome the fact that, although it was not possible to reach a conclusion at the fifth review conference on the biological and toxin weapon convention in Geneva last year, we are engaged in a dialogue to achieve that final agreement. Events in the United States—not least the anthrax scare—have reinforced public opinion in America as to the importance of national and international agreements in this important field.
    Mr. David Chidgey: On the question of the reintroduction of international inspections in Iraq, the

    413
    Minister must be aware that the Iraqi regime has made it clear that it is adamantly opposed to that reintroduction. In those circumstances, will he tell us under what conditions he would support and condone the use of force to reintroduce those inspections, as advocated in some quarters of the American Administration?
    Mr. MacShane: The decision has to be clear: either we believe in international law, which requires forms of enforcement, or we do not. I think that the House, the country, and all parties quite clearly do. Speculation at the Dispatch Box about further pressure on Saddam Hussein is pointless. It is important that every Member of this House give him no comfort, and make it quite clear that compliance with the international rule of law and with United Nations Security Council resolution 1284 is indispensable if we are to see peace and security in the region.

    Russia/North Atlantic Council
    Mr. Robert N. Wareing: What discussions he has had with his Russian counterpart in respect of the proposal to establish a Russia/North Atlantic Council; and if he will make a statement. [23004]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs(Mr. Ben Bradshaw): The Foreign Secretary met Foreign Minister Ivanov at the NATO Foreign Ministers' meeting on 6–7 December. NATO and Russian Foreign Ministers agreed to work towards a new council bringing together NATO member states and Russia to identify and pursue opportunities for joint action.
    Mr. Wareing: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but how will a Russia/NATO council differ from the Russia/NATO permanent consultative council in powers, functions and composition? Is it not essential that Russia be involved in determining policies to tackle drug trafficking and terrorism, and problems that may arise in parts of Europe such as the Balkans? Would it not be disastrous for the spirit of co-operation that has been created between our two countries if NATO ever took action contrary to the interests of Russia?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I am not sure that I agree with my hon. Friend's last point, but I share his welcome for the new relationship that the west, and NATO in particular, is enjoying with Russia, especially since 11 September. He asks what the difference with the new set-up is. The difference is considerable in the quality and depth of our co-operation with Russia in respect of tackling many issues that he has raised and more—counter-terrorism, drug trafficking, international crime and security.
    David Burnside: The Foreign Secretary has recognised the deep connection between drug trafficking and international terrorism, so does he share my concern about the report in The Times today that Sinn Fein-IRA's involvement in Colombia amounted not
    414
    to three or four representatives, but to 24? Will he speak to the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is out of order. Mr. Lloyd.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: My hon. Friend recognises that the modern threats to our society—drug trafficking of different kinds and trafficking in people—are central to the problems that also affect Russia, so the opportunity exists to forge a new security relationship with Russia—but may I add a word of caution? Are the Government prepared to take the lead in ensuring that we understand the huge diversity of opinion in modern Russia? We must allay the legitimate fears of a nation that has considered itself, rightly or wrongly, under threat from NATO for the past 50 years. We must move NATO on if we want to move Russia on.
    Mr. Bradshaw: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. Russian public opinion in many respects still lags behind the forward-looking and progressive approach adopted by President Putin. We shall work hard to allay the fears and concerns that some ordinary Russians and, indeed, some Russian politicians may still have about NATO's role, but there can be no Russian veto over NATO action or its expansion, which we hope will go ahead later this year.

    Israel
    Richard Burden: What efforts he is making to help to ensure that Israel implements international law on the obligations of occupying powers and the provisions of UN resolutions 242 and 338. [23007]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs(Mr. Ben Bradshaw): The Government have repeatedly called on Israel to respect international law, including the fourth Geneva convention. High contracting parties to the convention met in Geneva on 5 December and called on the parties in the region to ensure the protection of the civilian population, and on Israel to refrain from violations of the convention. The Government continue to work towards a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the middle east on the basis of UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338.
    Richard Burden: I thank my hon. Friend for reaffirming UN resolutions 242 and 338, which, as he knows and among other things, call for Israel's withdrawal from the west bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem. Does he agree that it is ironic that while Israel stays in an area in which it has no right to be, a Palestinian from another part of the west bank is liable to be arrested if he or she sets foot in east Jerusalem? That happened to Dr. Mustafa Barghouti of the Union of Palestinian Medical Relief Committees just last week—he was arrested and his knee caps broken by Israeli troops. Italian MEP Luisa Morgantini was also thrown to the ground.

    415
    Will my hon. Friend join me in looking into what happened to Dr. Barghouti and call on Israel to refrain from such breaches of human rights?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I will certainly look into the case that my hon. Friend has raised. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear earlier, the British Government deplore the Israeli policy of closures,
    416
    although it must be said that during the last few days, as we have enjoyed—relatively speaking—the quietest period since the beginning of the latest intifada, the closures have eased somewhat. Israel is entitled to its security, however. It should withdraw its troops from area A, but its total withdrawal from the occupied territories must be part of an overall peace settlement in the region, which I think all Members support.

Control of Fireworks
3.30 pm
Mr. Barry Gardiner: I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision with respect to the sale and use of fireworks; and for connected purposes.
I am by no means the first Member to seek to introduce legislation such as this. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan), for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy) and for Lincoln (Gillian Merron). I pay particular tribute to my hon. and good Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty). We share a constituency border, and in our campaign against the abuse of fireworks we have always shared a common cause.
I also pay tribute to the campaigning work done over many years by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). He is proof that it is possible for Members in all parts of the House to join in support of sensible and much-needed social change, whatever other political differences they may have.
Let me also apologise to the 36 Members whom my office welcomed as sponsors of the Bill when they telephoned, before the Public Bill Office explained that there was a limit of 12. I am sure that they will find ways of expressing their support on another occasion.
A little over two years ago, on 8 December 1999, I had the good fortune to secure an Adjournment debate on the subject of fireworks. That good fortune appears to have rubbed off on the Minister who replied, for she is now Secretary of State for the entire Department—the Department of Trade and Industry, that is. I trust that my right hon. Friend will not consider me unduly pedantic if I seek today to remind her officials of some of the undertakings and opinions that she gave on that occasion.
First, let me set out the reasons why I consider my Bill to be necessary. It may surprise Members to learn that the law allows a private individual to take delivery of 20 tonnes of fireworks—indeed, of any quantity, unlimited—and to store them for up to 14 days, with no obligation to notify a competent authority and with no official record being required. Nor is the firework company under any obligation to ensure that the person taking delivery is competent to handle such an enormous amount of explosives. There is no licence and no registration; there is only a rather loose insistence that the fireworks be kept in a safe and suitable place.
The Explosives Act 1875, which permits this monstrous state of affairs, does not define what a safe and suitable place might be, but if it did the definition would now almost certainly be obsolete. Firework technology has moved on somewhat in the 137 years since the Act received Royal Assent. We are subject to inadequate and archaic legislation that leaves the public at substantial risk.
When I raised the issue with the Secretary of State, as she now is, in 1999, she reassured me by saying:
"the Health and Safety Executive is reviewing existing explosives legislation and the review may result in changes to existing conditions for the keeping of fireworks for private use. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend is kept up to date as the review progresses."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 8 December 1999; Vol. 340, c. 271WH.]
418
The HSE review ended on Friday 18 February 2000. Now, nearly two years later, the HSE's report has yet to be published. How long it would take for any of its recommendations to be implemented is a matter that I leave to the House's conjecture.
I am happy to acknowledge that in 1997 the new Labour Government passed the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations, as set out in SI 2294. All fireworks sold to the general public must comply with those regulations and must accord with British standard 7114. The minimum age for purchasing fireworks was rightly raised from 16 to 18 years and various powerful fireworks such as maroons-in-mortar, aerial shells, aerial maroons and those fireworks of erratic flight such as helicopters, squibs and jumping jacks were all banned from public supply.
In my previous debate, I congratulated the then Minister on the fact that those measures had resulted in an immediate 26 per cent. drop in the number of injuries requiring hospital treatment to 908 in 1997. However, that positive trend was reversed in 1999, pushing the figure up to 1,056. My right hon. Friend's successor, the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North in October last year, took comfort in the idea that the blip could be accounted for by the millennium celebrations, which had pushed the volume of sales up. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend's logic was flawed, because although the subsequent year saw a drop of 8 per cent. to 972 injuries, the drop in the volume of sales was 30 per cent, so, proportionately, the number of injuries was much higher. There was also a substantial rise in the number of injuries to those aged between 13 and 15
The Under-Secretary also remarked that the voluntary code of practice whereby the industry restricts sales to the public to a three-week period around 5 November, though not perfect, "has generally worked well." Those of us who have been campaigning for many years for better controls on fireworks know that that is a unique code in the sense that it is distinguished by being more often broken than observed. My constituents have been subjected to a constant unabated barrage of fireworks from early October of last year through to the new year. They do not find the idea that the voluntary code has "worked well" laughable, but they certainly find it ridiculous.
The Under-Secretary stated:
"No fireworks may be sold to anyone under 18 years of age. That rule is also enforced by the trading standards department. Those who break the rules are subject to prosecution."
Those words caused nothing but despair to many at trading standards, who comment wryly:
"There never has been a maximum penalty imposed, or a custodial sentence … the penalties tend to be at the lower end of the scale and it is arguable over whether such a penalty is viewed as a deterrent at all."
The point is that there is no power under current legislation to revoke a vendor's registration. What is required, and what trading standards has repeatedly asked for, is a proper system of licensing that would enable it to enforce the laws and ensure that such a sanction applied to those traders who flout the regulations. My Bill will provide that.
On 27 October last year, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals received a telephone call from a parent whose small son had been traumatised

419
by seeing a cat blown up by a firework on the school playing field. When the RSPCA went to inspect, it found the dismembered leg of a dog nearby. One child was traumatised. Two animals were dead. That was just one incident. Three days later the Under-Secretary stated:
"Legislation also deals with distress to any domestic or captive animal, under the Protection of Animals Act 1911."
My hon. Friend called that
"a legal underpinning for effective action".—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 30 October 2001; Vol. 373, c. 232–34WH.]
"The Fireworks Bill—a private Member's Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy)—would have introduced many sensible additions to the regulatory package now in place for the control of fireworks. The Government supported her Bill, and I greatly regret that two Conservative Members chose to talk it out. It would have given the necessary powers to provide for mandatory training of people who operate large public displays. It would have dealt with the times during which fireworks could be sold—now purely a matter for the industry's voluntary code of practice—and provided powers to limit the letting off of fireworks except at specified times. These problems cannot be tackled under the current powers available to us".
Those are not my words, although I agree with every one of them. They are the words of the current Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she replied to my debate two years ago. She concluded by saying
"It is a pity that that private Member's Bill failed. I hope that in a future private Members' ballot, any hon. Member who has an interest in this issue will succeed in reviving the Bill."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 8 December 1999; Vol. 340, c. 271–72WH.]
My Bill does precisely that. It builds on the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton. It revives her Bill and it would bring enormous relief to thousands of people in constituencies around the country where fireworks are no longer enjoyed but loathed and dreaded.
Given the words of the Secretary of State that I have just quoted, I trust that I have her support.
3.39 pm
Mr. Robert Key: I rise to oppose the Bill, for reasons that I shall explain. First, let me say how delighted I am that the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) has raised this issue.
I oppose the Bill for two reasons. First, I do not like banning things without extremely good reason. As a Conservative, I believe in more, rather than less, freedom, and I certainly do not like banning things unless I am certain that the legislation will work, which this Bill will not. Secondly, I represent in my constituency the excellent organisation Pipedown, the campaign for freedom from piped music, which has asked me to raise this issue in the House. The honorary secretary wrote to me saying:
"I myself have always loved fireworks, but they have become, over the years, bigger and noisier and are let off far, far more frequently, almost all the year, so needlessly upsetting small children, animals and people who just want to sleep."
I agree.
My constituent Caroline Currie of Salisbury wrote to me in these terms:
"Firework nuisance. Right that's it. I started to write this letter on Sunday 11th November, the eleventh night in a row that enormous echoing bangs have sent my cat flying downstairs in tenor to hide under the dresser. During the small hours of Friday 9th November
420
I was awakened by two explosions. Are we at war? We know we are, and that is all the more reason to control this increasing menace…It's the noise I object to; nobody grudges children the sparklers and catherine wheels."
The existing regulations are quite draconian. All fireworks have to meet British standard 7114. Fireworks are protected under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, the Firework (Safety) Regulations 1997 and the General Product Safety Regulations 1994. In addition, the importation of fireworks can only be authorised by the Health and Safety Executive pursuant to the Placing on the Market and Supervision of Transfers of Explosives Regulations 1993.
The use of fireworks by the public is regulated by the Explosives Act 1875 as modified by the Control of Explosives Regulations 1991 and as amended by the Explosives (Age of Purchase) Act 1976 and the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
All the examples that the hon. Gentleman gave could be covered by amendments to existing legislation. His proposals will change nothing, not even cruelty to animals, which is an important issue.
The hon. Gentleman's main proposals should be seen in perspective. First, public displays are not the problem. Storage of fireworks is already controlled under existing legislation. The hon. Gentleman's proposals on public displays will not prevent the abuse of people's privacy and quiet.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman wants the Government to restrict the times of year at which fireworks can be bought. Great! On 4 November people will stock up with fireworks for the year. Nor do I wish to be a spoilsport. I love seeing fireworks all the year round—at birthday parties and celebrations for all sorts of very good reasons. It is only the British who celebrate 5 November; the rest of the world has fireworks all the year round. People just have a different approach.
Can hon. Members imagine statutory instruments deciding the times of year when people can set off fireworks, as the hon. Gentleman proposes? They would have to vary from summer to winter and between Land's End and John O'Groats according to the daylight hours.
The licensing of vendors would not control the main problem, which is noise. People object to the volume of explosions. Old people loathe it, especially if they are hard of hearing. Children loathe it, as do shift workers and night workers. Of course, so do cats and dogs. The hon. Gentleman has given us examples of that. Vets will confirm the distress caused to animals.
Last Saturday I was with a group of farmers on Salisbury Plain. We were not just taking the air; I admit that there was a certain amount of noise involved in our activities. The farmers said that they, too, think that the noise of modern fireworks is distressing to their cattle and sheep, and above all to their hens. Those farmers farm around the Salisbury Plain military training area. The Royal Artillery can fire tanks and guns; the Royal Air Force can fly over the Hercules; Boscombe Down can fly out its Tornadoes from the Empire test pilots school and the Army Air Corps can fly its helicopters—but set off a firework in Amesbury and Richard Crook's hens stop laying.

421
On 26 November 2001, the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), said that the Government
"have no plans to ban the sale of fireworks to the general public."
Quite right. She also said:
"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 others. We will, of course, consider any representations that are made."—[Official Report, 26 November 2001; Vol.375, c. 672W.]
The key to the problem is to amend existing regulations. We all agree that fireworks have become too noisy and that the bangs are too big. Constituents who write to us and talk to us in the streets say that they are concerned about the noise.
If the Government were concerned about safety they would have a different attitude. No one disagrees that too many people are injured by fireworks, but the regulation proposed in the Bill is preposterous. There is a mass of legislation that could be suitably amended. With a simple statutory instrument, the Government could resolve the noise problem.
Noise is the main problem. It is not dealt with by the Bill, and that is why I oppose it.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Barry Gardiner, Linda Gilroy, Linda Perham, Mr. Harry Barnes, Sir Teddy Taylor, Shona Mclsaac, Siobhain McDonagh, Dr. Nick Palmer, Joan Ryan, Ross Cranston, Mr. Martin Salter and John Barrett.

CONTROL OF FIREWORKS
Mr. Barry Gardiner accordingly presented a Bill to make provision with respect to the sale and use of fireworks; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 March, and to be printed [Bill 78].
Orders of the Day

  Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.47 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department(Mr. Michael Wills): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  In introducing this Bill, the Government have one aim—to address the problems faced by far too many residential long leaseholders. I know that hon. Members from all parties are sympathetic to this intention and that many have received representations from disgruntled constituents who have wrestled with the difficulties of the leasehold system.
  At this point, I declare a potential interest, in that my wife and I own a long leasehold on commercial property in London.
  The Bill is divided into two parts. Part 1 introduces commonhold, a robust and effective alternative to long leasehold. Because of a long-standing division of labour between Departments, this part of the Bill, which is about land law, is the responsibility of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, and I shall deal with it during its passage through this House.
  Part 2 of the Bill will help relieve the plight of those who hold long residential leases by reforming the existing leasehold system. The law relating to leaseholds is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), will deal with that and will wind up the Second Reading debate this evening.
  The problems of long leasehold provide the impetus for the Bill. They are the wrong that the provisions of this Bill are intended to put right.
  The underlying necessity for the Bill stems from a historical quirk of freehold land. Over time, the common law developed a rule that the burden of a positive covenant—that is, a promise to do something or to take on some obligation—does not run with land. That is not the case with a restrictive covenant, which is a promise to refrain from doing something. With a positive covenant, the burden does not pass from the seller to the buyer of freehold land, and successive owners of freehold land cannot enforce positive covenants when that land is sold. It is possible to enforce positive covenants only while the original covenantors retain the land.
  It is therefore highly inadvisable to build freehold flats, as each flat depends on those around it for support and shelter. Similarly, the stability of the building depends on the maintenance of the flats and the common parts. A duty to support a flat above one's own would be a positive obligation, as would a duty to contribute money to repair and maintain the common parts. The recognition and enforcement of this duty would need to be realised through positive covenants, with all the consequent and serious drawbacks that I have described.
  Mr Oliver Heald: Does the Minister agree that the duty to insure is particularly

  423
  important and that it would not be possible to enforce that on a freehold owner of a flat, whereas it would be with a leasehold owner?
  Mr. Wills: I will come on to the problems of leasehold, but the problems of positive covenants are not associated with freeholds, as I shall describe shortly.
  A flying freehold is a freehold above another property, so called because it relies on positive covenants of support from the owner of the property below. At some point in the future, when the original owners move, the covenants will no longer be enforceable. As a result, mortgage lenders are reluctant to lend on the security of such properties and it is extremely difficult to sell them.
  Leasehold presents no such problems. A lease is a form of contract, and contract terms pass from successive sellers to buyers. This means that, in practice, when a developer sets up a scheme with ownership of interdependent properties and maintenance of common parts, it is based on leasehold ownership. Leasehold properties change hands subject to positive and restrictive covenants in the lease and the problem with freehold covenants is circumvented. However, in its place arise the drawbacks of long leasehold.
  A long lease is a wasting asset. This is because a lease is granted for a defined duration, a specific term of years. However long the period, at the end of the lease the property reverts to the freeholder. Even before reversion, the gradual reduction of years left to run is significant for the long leaseholder. As the years remaining in the lease diminish, so the value of the leaseholder's interest decreases. From the moment the lease is granted, it wastes away. The problem is indiscernible at the commencement of a long lease but becomes acute as the date of reversion looms.
  In many circumstances, the lease may be renewed but the landlord may charge leaseholders a great deal of money or refuse the extension. Leaseholders are understandably distressed by this, as a long leasehold costs nearly as much a freehold, yet must ultimately be returned to the freeholder who can sell another lease at the going rate. It can be difficult for a leaseholder to accept that the amount paid for a long lease does not leave one the outright owner of the property.
  Leaseholders invariably pay a service charge to their landlord. That is an amount of money levied by the landlord and used legitimately to maintain, repair and run the development. Leaseholders complain that they do not participate in determining the amount, and rightly protest when the service charge they pay is used in a manner they consider inappropriate. For example, the leaseholders pay a service charge for regular works but the landlord may execute the works himself or herself to a questionable standard or install features that are not required or desired by the leaseholders.
  Our approach to tackling these long-standing problems has been based on keeping provisions as simple and flexible as possible to provide quick and practical solutions and avoid over-elaborate proposals that could have unintended consequences.
  Let me turn to the first part of our solution —commonhold. Commonhold land is freehold land with certain special statutory attributes for which the Bill will
  424
  make provision. Commonhold provides for the individual ownership of the freeholds of interdependent properties and the corporate management of associated common parts by the freehold owners. Every commonhold comprises units and common parts. Each property within a commonhold is a unit, and a "unit-holder" is the owner of a freehold unit.
  As a freeholder, the unit-holder will not suffer any diminution of the unit's value. The asset will not waste. At no point will a unit-holder relinquish the unit to a higher authority. The unit belongs entirely to the unit-holder. No one has a greater interest in a unit than the registered unit-holder; no landlord will interfere with the unit-holder's enjoyment of the unit.
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: The Minister rightly describes all the benefits of commonhold versus leasehold tenure. However, how does he expect commonhold to take hold in this country if he still maintains that existing developments should require 100 per cent. consent of all interests and that in new developments it should not be mandatory to have commonhold from day one?
  Mr. Wills: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall come to that point. That is a familiar argument, and it was rehearsed extensively in another place. I will come to that point; I want to spend a little time addressing those concerns, but in their proper place, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for just a few moments. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman would listen to me, he might learn a little more about our proposals for commonhold. It is important to understand exactly what the new form of commonhold will entail.
  Mr. Tim Boswell: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Wills: I will give way in a moment, but I shall explain a little more about the concept of commonhold, then interventions may have a little more purpose.
  Each unit-holder, and only the unit-holders, will be members of the commonhold association, which will govern the community and manage the common parts. The commonhold association will be a private company limited by guarantee. In another place, the Government were questioned about choosing that vehicle as the basis for commonhold, rather than another Companies Act company, a limited liability partnership or a tailor-made corporation.
  The Government believe that, rather than creating a new corporate body for the commonhold association, it is preferable in the interests of simplicity and familiarity to build on existing provisions. We believe that a company limited by guarantee will offer the most appropriate route. Legal professionals are adept at working with the existing corporate structure, so advice will be available for potential unit-holders and commonhold developers from the start. Many leaseholders have already elected to enfranchise in that way. Using the existing corporate structure throughout the Bill will standardise the commonhold and leasehold reform procedure.
  I now come to the commonhold community statement. Each unit-holder member will sign up to rules and regulations similar to covenants. Those rules will appear in

  425
  the commonhold community statement and the memorandum and articles of association, and each unit-holder will be bound by those documents. The commonhold scheme will provide for the enforcement of rights and duties between unit-holders and the commonhold association. Where internal disputes arise, we intend that the commonhold association and unit-holders should undertake a three-step process, including alternative dispute resolution, to resolve any conflict.
  Assuming that the informal processes fail, the first formal process will be an internal complaints procedure. Secondly, under clause 41, we will prescribe the use of the commonhold ombudsman. The commonhold ombudsman will be modelled on the independent housing ombudsman, who has a wide range of dispute resolution procedures at his disposal, including arbitration, mediation and adjudication. The last recourse available will be to the courts. The commonhold rules, coupled with the dispute resolution procedures, will ensure that positive and negative obligations can be imposed on unit-holders and that they can be enforced by the commonhold association.
  Ms Ann Coffey: As the Minister will be aware, leasehold valuation tribunals are a very formal forum, and both parties are usually accompanied by very expensive lawyers. Has he considered strengthening the more informal independent arbitration procedures as a way of resolving disputes between landlords and leaseholders? He will know that landlords are not now obliged to go to independent arbitration even if the leaseholders would like to do so. I should be grateful if the Minister would consider some of my constituency correspondence, between the Tatton Court residents association and Peveril, which shows the current problem with using leasehold tribunals to try to solve such disputes, and makes a good case for strengthening independent arbitration.
  Mr. Wills: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, and if she would like to give us that constituency correspondence, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who has responsibility for leasehold reform, and I will certainly consider it. Of course, we would always encourage people to try to resolve disputes before they go to a tribunal. We are carefully considering the working of the leasehold valuation tribunals, and I shall say something about that later in my speech. We are trying to encourage greater use of pre-trial hearings in that procedure, and I hope that that will address many of my hon. Friend's concerns.
  Mr. Boswell: I make no particular claim to expertise in these matters, except perhaps to say that, like many hon. Members, I am a long-leaseholder. I am grateful to the Minister for explaining in a reasonable way what he seeks to do. Given the exchanges that have already taken place, is he not a little concerned that the programme motion requires the Bill's Committee stage to be completed by the end of January? Although I have no particular wish to be associated directly with that process, given all the angles and extreme legal complexity of the issues, is it really common sense to rush on with that process and try to get it completed in three weeks? Would it not be much better to take a considered look, so as to make absolutely sure that the wrinkles that remain in a matter as complex as this are properly ironed out?
  Mr. Wills: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making his point in such a reasonable way. He is right that this is a complex matter and that is why the provisions in the Bill are simple, practical and designed to be flexible. That is why we have also made provision for the use of regulations to deal with what will inevitably be a complex and fast-evolving property market. However, even with the good will of the House and all the time that he wants to scrutinise the Bill in Committee, there is no way that the Committee could possibly iron out all the potential wrinkles in such a complicated subject.
  We believe that the Bill will provide quick, practical remedies for long-standing problems and that we have allocated enough time for its consideration. Many of the arguments were extensively rehearsed in another place and I have yet to hear arguments that have not already been extensively considered. I am sure that we shall return to them in Committee and I am confident that, with good will on both sides, we shall have time to give the Bill the proper scrutiny that it deserves.
  Mr. William Cash: Does the Minister recall that the Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee considered regulations relating to commonhold? Even though they involved Henry VIII provisions that restrict the opportunity to examine them properly but can allow for the amendment of an Act of Parliament—which would be a major step—there was much discussion and the Government accepted the Committee's recommendations. The Committee declared itself to be satisfied with the Government's response which was that they would introduce draft regulations so that the House would have an opportunity to see exactly what was going on. Unfortunately, my latest information, as of about an hour ago, is that no such draft regulations have been introduced. If I am wrong, I am open to correction but that is the information that I have just received from the Library.
  Mr. Wills: I hesitate to say this, but my information is slightly different from the hon. Gentleman's. If he can bear with me, I shall try to resolve the question of whose information is more accurate and provide him with a more definitive answer. At 4.3 pm, I cannot say precisely where we are on that point, but I shall try to find out. I assure him that it is our intention to introduce such regulations. We have always been open and laid the alternatives before the House, and we shall continue to do that. I can reassure him on the general point, but will have to return later to the point of detail.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: The Minister has been generous with his time and, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), he said that the Bill's whole purpose was to make the issue simple. I am certainly no expert on leasehold and commonhold, which is why I have come to listen to the Minister's speech. The explanatory notes run to 75 pages. I have seen many Bills, but never 75 pages of explanatory notes, so how can he argue that the subject is simple? Surely, we need longer in Committee to discuss the Bill intelligently. A swift timetable motion will mean that it will be driven through with many clauses not being discussed.
  Mr. Wills: I think that I have already answered that question. I note the hon. Gentleman's view, but I do not

  427
  think that he has quite understood my point about the need to produce quick, practical solutions to long-standing problems. Even with all the time in the world in the House, we will not be able to iron out all the wrinkles that might occur. I am sure that he has carefully read the 75 pages of explanatory notes and I am deeply flattered that he has taken the trouble to come here to listen to me in the expectation that I can add something to them. I am grateful for his confidence in me on that point at least.
  The so-called 100 per cent. rule for commonhold, to which the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) referred, has concerned many people. We received a number of representations on it, it was exhaustively debated in another place, and I shall explain the reasons for adopting our approach. For those hon. Members who are not familiar with the rule, the Bill allows for the conversion from leasehold to commonhold to accommodate those leaseholders who want to move beyond enfranchised leasehold to commonhold.
  The Bill requires that 100 per cent. of those with a substantial interest in the land that is to be registered as commonhold land are to be required to consent to conversion. That includes the freeholder, whose interests would probably have to be bought out, anyone holding a lease that is granted for 21 years or more, and others such as those holding certain charges over the land. The written consents of persons falling into those categories must be lodged with the Land Registry before land can be registered as commonhold land and the conversion process gets under way. Leaseholders who are not required to consent—that is, those who do not have a substantial interest in the land—will be compensated if they suffer loss as a result of conversion.
  We have been criticised for that. We recognise that obtaining the necessary consents is a high hurdle for leaseholders, but we do not believe that it is impossibly high. We acknowledge that take-up for commonhold will probably be greatest in new-build developments and we anticipate that commonhold will become standard for new-build developments that consist of interdependent units and common parts. However, we expect a unit that is owned freehold to become more desirable and trade at a premium compared with equivalent leasehold properties. That should improve the chances of achieving 100 per cent. consent as hesitant leaseholders see the practical benefits of commonhold.
  We have never said that it would be impossible to devise a system that requires fewer consents than 100 per cent. However, we believe that the difficulties that would ensue, both during the conversion process and when attempting to manage a hybrid commonhold, would far outweigh the perceived advantages. Inevitably, that will give rise to a set of complex and technical arguments, and I have no doubt that we will consider those in Committee. However, I ask the House to consider what might happen if the 100 per cent. rule were not in place. Without it, there would be two different classes of occupants and two different streams of management under two statutory regimes; two different sets of money to collect and two different sets of accounts to produce; and an infinite variety of different tailor-made schemes to draft and administer.
  428
  In short, anything less than a 100 per cent. rule for commonhold will involve schemes that are more bureaucratic, costly and complex than necessary. In addition, they will ultimately be unnecessary because there is an alternative if fewer than 100 per cent. of leaseholders want to change their method of tenure. Part 2 sets out a new improved scheme for collective enfranchisement. The enfranchisement scheme is tailor-made for that purpose. To push for commonhold with fewer than the necessary consents would be to reinvent collective enfranchisement needlessly.
  Mr. Mark Field: My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) made a clear point on the 100 per cent. rule. One thing strikes me as odd. What is to stop an unscrupulous freeholder in a large block of flats providing a lease to a relative to ensure that he gets around the provision, and therefore preventing all other dissatisfied leaseholders from taking the commonhold route?
  Mr. Wills: I have endeavoured to explain the basis on which we are approaching the problem. Two routes are available to leaseholders who want to change their method of tenure. We expect the commonhold route to be taken primarily in respect of new-build developments, although it is possible that groups of leaseholders and existing leaseholders will also want to do that. Although that option is open to them, there are other routes that give them many advantages. Part 2 covers schemes for collective enfranchisement. They clearly offer huge advantages over the current situation and will deal with many of the problems of leasehold.
  Mr. Waterson: I shall try to restrain myself from now on.
  I do not necessarily accept what the Minister says about existing blocks, and those are perhaps detailed matters for consideration in Committee, but none of the objections that he listed can possibly apply to brand-new developments, so what is the objection to making commonhold mandatory for new developments if the Government intend that in the medium or long term commonhold should supplant leasehold?
  Mr. Wills: I am glad that we have moved from the 100 per cent. rule to another area of concern. I understand the arguments, and obviously we believe that commonhold offers enormous attractions, but it would be wrong of us to prescribe it at this stage. The property market is complex and fluid, and we think that the scheme should have time to bed in. We want to see how the market responds to commonhold, so the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is, in short, "Let the market decide." We believe that it will make the appropriate decision and recognise the full advantages of commonhold.
  Mr. Cash rose—
  Mr. Wills: Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman, I can tell him that I have in front of me a note saying that he is right about the laying of draft regulations, and I can assure him that they will be laid before a Committee.
  Mr. Cash: I am grateful both for that assurance and, I hope, an answer to the question that I am about to ask.

  429
  I am sorry to disappoint the Minister, but we have not quite got off the 100 per cent. rule because, in the proceedings on 5 July, the Lord Chancellor made an extremely interesting point about it. He said:
  "However, if a well-judged amendment were put forward, for which there was substantial cross-party support, the Government would listen to the debate and consider it very carefully."
  He made it clear that
  "there is undeniable merit in not allowing one person out of step"
  to obstruct the entire scheme, and said that the sensitivities involved
  "may be an overriding consideration the other way. But the Government will listen."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 July 2001; Vol. 626, c. 887.]
  I say to the Minister, and I am sure that he will understand my meaning, that although he is, understandably, putting forward the best case, we will have to probe this question in Committee because it is important and the Lord Chancellor has made it clear that he understands how important it is.
  Mr. Wills: I am delighted to repeat the Lord Chancellor's assurance: of course we will listen, and we will consider any well-judged amendment. I am afraid that we have not yet seen such an amendment, but if one is forthcoming, we will of course consider it carefully. I have no doubt that we will return to the subject in Committee at some length.
  In the perhaps vain hope that we have now dealt, temporarily, with the 100 per cent. rule, I will move on to other features of the new system. Another standard feature of any commonhold development will be the common parts, which are any part not designated a unit. As commonholds could encompass a wide spectrum of developments, the common parts are defined negatively to ensure the flexibility necessary for commonhold to be an option in a range of circumstances. Members will realise that commonhold has greater potential than simply for replacing long leasehold in blocks of flats. The possibilities for it to be a vehicle for development are vast, and we have tried to reflect that in the Bill by not limiting them unnecessarily. The commonhold association will be responsible for the repair, maintenance and insurance of those common parts.
  We will look to standardise commonhold documents in the commonhold community statement, which will regulate the rights and duties of the commonhold association and the unit-holders. One standard feature will be the regulation of leasing within commonholds. We intend to prescribe that any lease that a unit-holder grants in his or her unit cannot be sold for a premium or be for a duration longer than seven years, although it will be renewable. That, as hon. Members will recognise, is to prevent long leasehold creeping in through the back door. I have already alluded to the fact that the Bill does not, as hon. Members may have noticed, contain precise details about the management and day-to-day running of a commonhold, as that information will be contained in the commonhold community statement and regulations.
  We are aware of the scarcity of parliamentary time for amending primary legislation. Commonhold will be a completely new facet to our land law, and we recognise that despite all the hard work and extensive consultation on the Bill, when commonhold comes on line, some provisions will inevitably be found to be capable of
  430
  improvement. We want to be able to react rapidly in such circumstances and secondary legislation affords us the opportunity to do so. We have made progress in drafting the commonhold community statement and the memorandum and articles, and we shall place them in the Library before Committee.
  Within the parameters provided by the Bill and associated regulations, every commonhold association will be permitted to add extra rules and regulations to their commonhold community statement specific to any unique need of the individual commonhold community: for example, to allow for the running of a communal swimming pool or sports hall. The character of each commonhold will be shaped by the decisions of the unit-holders through the commonhold association. Commonhold will afford control of the management of a development so that whether the development is a block of flats, an estate or even a complete town, commonhold will give control to the community.
  Mr. Charles Hendry: The Minister will be aware that under the Rentcharges Act 1977, estates were exempted from the right of redemption from a rentcharge because it was deemed that there was no alternative means of running the common interests. Commonhold appears to offer such an alternative. Does he agree that it would be proper to allow estates exempted under the 1977 Act to transfer to commonhold, or at least to provide that those within a rentcharge are liable to the same degree of public accountability?
  Mr. Wills: Rentcharges are not an issue that can be dealt with under the Bill, which deals with commonhold and leasehold reform, but we acknowledge the importance of the issue and will consider it.
  A commonhold community statement must make provision about the commonhold assessment. Unit-holders will be required to pay commonhold assessments to fund expenditure on the management of the commonhold and on maintenance, repair and insurance of the common parts. They will be involved in approving the sum to be levied from them. The directors of the commonhold association will be responsible for calculating a budget and the details of the assessment required to meet the budget for the next year's running costs, and for setting an assessment for any reserve fund.
  Mr. Adrian Sanders: Will guidelines be published on the conduct of meetings, covering matters such as secret ballots, availability of papers and due notice of when meetings are to take place?
  Mr. Wills: I am happy to give an assurance on the details. The essence of commonhold is that there will be a standard form of procedures applicable comprehensively and universally. That is one of the great advantages of the form: it is extremely simple, standardised and common.
  Glenda Jackson: The Government believe that commonhold will, in the first instance, be reserved to new build—to new blocks of flats. I am perplexed about how the tenants—the commonholders—are to have a voice in devising the articles of association. Are they to be imposed? A block of flats is not sold in its entirety in one fell swoop, so when are the people involved to meet to express their

  431
  point of view to, I presume, the developer of the block of flats? Is there to be an imposition? Are not wide variations in the charges likely? There must be a way to ensure that what is currently iniquitous between leaseholders and freeholders is not passed on by developers in what the Government hope will be, in the main, commonhold property.
  Mr. Wills: I should stress that although we envisage that the primary take-up of commonhold in the short term will be in new-build development, that will not necessarily be exclusively the case. We believe that existing leaseholders will occasionally convert to commonhold.
  Commonhold community statements and memorandums and articles of association will be in a standard form—we shall lay the latest draft before the House—so everyone will sign up to a standard, common form of arrangement. That is the essential simplicity of the system. We believe that fairness and straightforwardness are two of the main advantages of the commonhold form of tenure. I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured.
  I was running through the budget obligations, which will be important to commonholders. The directors of the commonhold association will be responsible for calculating a budget, the details of the assessment required to meet the budget for the next year's running costs and setting an assessment for any reserve fund. The unit-holder members will then be able to vote on the proposals; the Bill and secondary legislation will allow unit-holders acting corporately absolute control over decisions relating to their commonhold assessment.
  At every stage in the development of part 1, we have striven to consult and involve people whom commonhold will affect. We undertook an extensive consultation with leaseholders, leaseholder organisations, property developers and other interested parties, and that is continuing. We met interested parties through the commonhold working group and, more recently, have had meetings with individual groups to discuss their concerns and suggestions. Although we regard commonhold as the long-term solution to the problems of the leasehold system, we need to protect existing leaseholders who, for whatever reason, cannot convert to commonhold. Part 2 therefore introduces a wide range of measures that are intended to resolve the problems of a wasting asset and poor management.
  I shall now summarise the main provisions of part 2. The right to manage is intended to provide an effective long-term solution to management problems that will be easy to exercise. Leaseholders of flats will be able to take over the management of their building without having to prove shortcomings by the landlord or pay compensation. Leaseholders generally have a much larger stake in the building than the landlord and we consider it only right that they should be able to take responsibility for managing their investment. The new right will give leaseholders the chance to make a better job of managing the property. Its very existence should help to concentrate landlords' minds on giving their leaseholders better value for money. The eligibility conditions are designed to be as simple as possible to minimise the scope for legal challenges. They mirror the proposed new rules for collective enfranchisement, which I shall come to shortly.
  432
  To ensure clear allocation of responsibility, democratic management and effective dispute resolution, the right will be exercised by a company limited by guarantee with a prescribed constitution suited to the task of residential property management. It will be a right-to-manage company. All leaseholders will have the right to be members which, I stress, is a no-fault right. Although leaseholders will exercise it because of the landlord's shortcomings, they are not required to prove those shortcomings. We must therefore incorporate suitable safeguards for the landlord's legitimate interests. We have tried to strike a fair and workable balance. In other areas of the Bill, we are making it easier to use existing rights if the leaseholders wish to remove all responsibility from the landlord.
  We therefore propose to simplify the eligibility rules for collective enfranchisement in respect of blocks of flats, which have proved to be an unnecessary barrier to leaseholders' legitimate expectations. The changes will enable many more leaseholders to qualify. The Bill will abolish the residence test and remove the requirement that at least two thirds of the leaseholders in a block must participate. The existing requirement that the participating leaseholders hold leases on at least half the flats in the building will be retained because we do not consider it right to allow a minority of interests to take over.
  The Bill will raise the proportion of the building that can be occupied for non-residential purposes from 10 to 25 per cent, and remove the low rent test in the few circumstances where it still applies. It will also restrict the existing exemption for converted houses with resident landlords to houses that they owned at the time of conversion. We propose to require the use of a company limited by guarantee with a prescribed constitution to buy the freehold and manage the building along similar lines to those proposed for the right to manage and commonhold; it will be a right-to-enfranchise company.
  Mr. John Taylor: Will the company limited by guarantee that undertakes management be the same company that will own the freehold? Is that the Minister's intention?
  Mr. Wills: No. There is no reason why it should not be, but the two are not linked; they are alternative routes for leaseholders to get control over their flats. One is a more limited measure in which a company limited by guarantee manages the building. The other involves setting up a right-to-enfranchise company, also limited by guarantee, which owns the building on behalf of all the leaseholders who have a stake in it through the company.
  Mr. Taylor: Does the Minister agree that it would not be unusual for long leaseholders who want to manage then to want to own the freehold as well? If they have an existing vehicle for the first purpose—a company limited by guarantee—can they not conveniently use it for the second?
  Mr. Wills: Of course, I agree that that may well happen, as the process and vehicles are in place. The Bill provides for that possibility. We are trying to give existing leaseholders a variety of mechanisms to deal with the problems that they currently suffer.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) made

  433
  another point. Many people are concerned that the Bill alters the way in which our great leasehold estates are managed in relation to the former estate management scheme in the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. The right-to-manage company will have to incorporate the provisions on how the leaseholds are managed, but how will the company be negotiated in the first place, what rights will there be in the absence of agreement and how will appeals be managed? Furthermore, what rights will there be to alter the right-to-management agreement once it has been made?
  Mr. Wills: This is a very important point. We are aware of the concerns about estate management schemes and have received a number of representations about them. However, we cannot simply abolish them. They are often needed to ensure the maintenance of common facilities on an estate. I understand that the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises affects a significant number of people. We will continue to consider carefully the representations that we have received. I am afraid that I cannot give any commitment at this stage, but we may return to the matter in Committee and I should be happy to discuss it further.
  Let me return to the right-to-enfranchise company. The point is that it will ensure democratic management and an effective mechanism for resolving disputes. It will help leaseholders to progress from the right to manage to enfranchisement if they wish to do so. The hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) is no longer in his place, but I was about to reassure him that the provisions also enable leaseholders to transfer to commonhold if they wish to do so. All long leaseholders will have a new right to become members of the right-to-enfranchise company. That is an improvement on the current position. At present, leaseholders can be and are unfairly excluded from an enfranchisement once the required majority has been achieved.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Minister said that all commonholders would have the right to enfranchise. Why will commonholders who hold leases under the Crown not be given similar rights?
  Mr. Wills: The hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood me. I was talking about leaseholders rather than commonholders. If he would like to return to the point later, perhaps in Committee, I should be happy to try to clarify the matter. I fear that he may be labouring under a misapprehension.
  I turn now to the valuation rules. We share the concern that has been expressed by many leaseholders about the cost of enfranchisement, but we must also recognise that landlords have legitimate interests, and we consider that they are entitled to a fair market price for those interests, including a share of any marriage value. However, we know that disputes about the price can ensure that leaseholders incur costs that may amount to as much as the price itself. We intend to make it easier and quicker to determine a price that is fair to both sides and that will reduce the scope for well-resourced landlords to drag out the process to their advantage.
  The Bill provides that where marriage value exists, it will be divided equally between the parties. When the unexpired term of a lease is long, marriage value is likely
  434
  to be minimal. The Bill therefore provides that no marriage value will be payable when all the leases in a block have more than 80 years to run. According to the survey of English housing, about three quarters of leaseholders have leases with more than 80 years to run. The Bill also provides that the valuation date will be the date of the initial notice. That follows the approach for leasehold houses. It provides more certainty and removes any incentive for landlords to delay proceedings in a rising property market.
  Finally, the Bill introduces a requirement to obtain permission to appeal against any decision of the leasehold valuation tribunal. Some landlords routinely appeal to the Lands Tribunal to persuade leaseholders to settle at a higher price. The Bill would amend the right of individual leaseholders of flats to buy a new, longer lease. Many of the changes reflect those proposed for collective enfranchisement. For example, any marriage value would be shared equally between the parties and no marriage value would be payable where the unexpired term of the lease exceeded 80 years.
  The Bill would remove the existing three-year residence requirement to help leaseholders who occupy their flats as a second home or sub-let. To prevent the possibility of short-term windfall gains by speculators, however, leaseholders must hold a long lease for a period of two years before being able to exercise the right. There are special provisions to help the personal representatives of deceased leaseholders.
  The Bill amends the rules for enfranchising leasehold houses under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 along similar lines to those for flats. It grants new rights to leaseholders of houses who have extended their leases under the 1967 Act. They will be able to buy the freehold after the extended lease has commenced and they will be entitled to remain, under an assured tenancy, when that lease expires. The Bill also amends the procedures for acquiring the freehold of a leasehold house where the landlord cannot be found, to bring them in line with those applying to flats.
  The Bill will extend and improve leaseholders' existing remedies against unreasonable charges and other abuses. It amends the definition of a service charge under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to cover improvements, where those are payable under the terms of the lease. That change will help leaseholders of social landlords in particular.
  The Bill gives leaseholders new protection against unreasonable administration charges, including charges for granting approvals and providing information—for example, for prospective purchasers—and penalties for late payment of rent or service charges. There is widespread concern about such abuses and the Bill will tackle that.
  The Bill will improve security and accountability for service charge moneys, which will normally have to be held in a separate designated trust account for each property. Accounting requirements will be revised to provide greater transparency and there will be a new, specific right for leaseholders to withhold service charge payments if key requirements are not met.
  The Bill extends the existing requirements under the 1985 Act to consult leaseholders on proposed works. There will be a new requirement for the landlord to consult leaseholders before entering into any contract for

  435
  the provision of works or services lasting for more than 12 months. For specific works, consultation will be required when the costs payable by any leaseholder exceed a prescribed sum.
  The Bill will make it easier to remedy defective leases. The grounds for seeking a variation under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 will be extended and clarified and jurisdiction transferred from the courts to the leasehold valuation tribunals. The Bill provides that ground rent will be payable only when the landlord has sent a notice to a leaseholder in a prescribed form. Provided that payment is made within 30 days of the notice, the landlord will be prevented from making any additional charges or starting any proceedings.
  The Bill will also introduce new restrictions on the commencement of forfeiture proceedings for breaches of covenants or conditions under a lease. Landlords can use the threat of forfeiture, sometimes based on spurious or non-existent grounds, to persuade leaseholders to pay unreasonable sums of money. Landlords will be prohibited from commencing forfeiture proceedings for any breach of a covenant or condition in a lease, unless a leasehold valuation tribunal or court determines that a breach has occurred.
  The Bill will make a number of changes to the jurisdiction and procedures of the leasehold valuation tribunals. The changes are intended to improve the effectiveness of the tribunals and to speed up the resolution of disputes. Together with the administrative changes, they will implement the recommendations of the financial management and policy review that were published last year. Taken together, those changes will greatly enhance the rights of leaseholders. They will redress the current unfair balance that exists between landlords and leaseholders, but at the same time they will respect the legitimate rights of landlords. Together with the proposals for commonhold, they will implement the Government's commitments and put us on course for a fairer system of land tenure that is far more appropriate for the times in which we live.
  Consultation has shown a broad consensus in support of the Government's proposals. Due to the conflicting interests, there are inevitably differences of opinion on particular aspects. Some leaseholders have complained that the proposals do not go far enough. We have tried to strike a fair balance. I believe that we have done so. Our proposals are aimed at resolving the main difficulties that face most leaseholders in England and Wales and I believe that they will do so. The Government believe that this is a good Bill and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree.
  4.34 pm
  Mr. William Cash: I rise to welcome the Bill, which brings together a process that has lasted for more than 30 years. In the House of Lords, the Bill had innumerable readings, including two First Readings, two Second Readings, a lengthy exercise in the Moses Room and discussions during its unfinished Report stage. It subsequently had its other Readings during its second round. With the number of noble and learned Lords in the other place, therefore, nobody can say that the Bill has not been given the most careful consideration. It does not
  436
  follow, however, that all the matters relating to it have been resolved, and there will no doubt be issues into which we shall have to dig deeper in Committee.
  We are in favour of the Bill as a whole, subject to what I have just said. I should declare an interest, not only as a solicitor, but as one who lives in a block of flats that are on long leaseholds. I am not at present contemplating informing myself of the provisions for commonhold, but—who knows?—it might be suggested by tenants in the other flats.
  As the Minister said, flats in blocks are at present invariably sold on long leases. This leads to two problems. First, such flats are a wasting asset. As the leases grow shorter, it becomes increasingly difficult to mortgage the flats, which is a serious consideration for the people living in them—particularly with mortgage rates as they are now, and with people being anxious to get in on the act if they possibly can. Secondly, the flat-owner is in a continuing relationship with the landlord, who has a duty to maintain the building and needs to raise money from the lessees to carry out that function. An adversarial relationship is, therefore, implicit in the arrangements from the beginning.
  The commonhold provisions of the Bill are intended to address the problem of a leasehold flat being a wasting asset, by giving flat-owners full tenure of their flats. The leasehold reform provisions are intended to deal with the second problem by allowing lessees in blocks of flats to take over the management of the flats. Those provisions are also intended to alleviate the problem of shortening leases by easing the provisions for lessees purchasing the freehold and obtaining lease extensions.
  The reason that so many flats in blocks are sold on long leases is a technical one. A block of flats obviously needs repairing from time to time, and the only way for that to be done in practice is for all the flat-owners to club together to pay a reasonable service charge. Sometimes the service charge is not reasonable, but that is a separate question that we shall no doubt consider in Committee. A flat is dependent for support on the flats beneath it, and dependent for protection from the elements on the flats above it. Thus are flat-owners bound together in a relationship of mutual interdependence.
  Unfortunately, one of the long-established principles of English common law—which, of course, I support on all conceivable occasions—is that positive covenants do not run with the land. In practice, that means that if a block is sold off with each flat a freehold, the flat-owners can agree among themselves to contribute a fair amount to the service charge and to support each other's flats. If a flat-owner sells his flat, however, that obligation is not automatically passed on, for the reason that I have given. In other words, a later purchaser will have no obligation to his fellow flat-owners to pay the service charge or even to support the flats above him. That is the defect in law to which the Minister alluded—perhaps not in quite such detail—and it is important to get it in front of the House, because it is a practical problem of the first importance and it must be dealt with.
  The defects of the system were first shown, surprisingly, at Lincoln's Inn. At the end of the 17th century, the benchers who ran Lincoln's Inn decided to go in for a bit of property development. The result is the attractive buildings on three sides of New square. Unfortunately, the benchers, no doubt being somewhat

  437
  Grasping—[Interruption.] Say no more. The benchers decided to sell off the flats in the new buildings in New square as freeholds, and the result was as I have described. After a few years, none of the freeholders had any liability for any repairs and the buildings were kept in repair only because they were still part owned by the Inn and rented out. It is, of course, ironic that the home of English conveyancers produced that completely foreseeable disaster.
  Eventually, the matter could be sorted out only by the Inn itself obtaining a private Act of Parliament, which happened in the 19th century. I must make the point that if elite lawyers—those responsible for the great developments of the law on conveyancing, equity, trusts and the rest of it—can get into such a tangle, that is a salutary lesson to us all.
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the problem could be resolved in this country under English law if positive covenants were allowed to run with land, as they do in other jurisdictions where there are commonhold and strata title associations? Part of the problem with the Bill is that, having incorporated English company law as the basis for commonhold, one runs into such difficulties, which will be overcome, one hopes, only when the Law Commission produces its report on flying freehold.
  Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. If so much of the Bill depends on the problem arising over positive covenants and given the fact that the Law Commission could have made proposals to deal with it, that difficulty might have been resolved, but that is a hypothesis and we face the reality before us. We are considering the Bill and no doubt we shall have an opportunity to discuss his point in Committee, but if he tables an amendment that the Bill should not proceed unless the Government make a proposal on changing the law on positive covenants, I suspect that he will receive a simple answer: that is outside the scope of the legislation. He makes an interesting hypothetical point, but I shall leave it at that.
  Having made my point with respect to the lawyers in Lincoln's Inn, I must make the general point that we are no longer dealing with the elite. Following the development of enfranchisement, property rights and the relationship between voting and democracy as well as the passing of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and subsequent events, it is fair to say there are many more property owners, many of whom have the benefit of property ownership as a result of the right-to-buy proposals conferred by the Conservative Government under Baroness Thatcher, than in the mid-19th century.
  Having said that, many of those voters have reverted to new Labour or, indeed, the Liberal Democrats. I hasten to add that I say that without enthusiasm. They may find that that was a mistake, but, none the less, it has happened, so there is a general point to make with respect to the Bill: all parties accept that it is in the national interest and that it will benefit people from all walks of life. There are many more flat owners these days, and all political parties are supported by such people.
  In other countries, the problem of freehold flats has been met by legislation introducing a condominium system, sometimes known as a strata title. That gives flat
  438
  owners the management of their blocks and gives each flat owner the equivalent of a freehold of their flat. As long ago as 1987—I say this with pride—the Conservative Government produced a report from an interdepartmental working party proposing a form of commonhold. That was positively received and the late Lord Hailsham, the Lord Chancellor, asked the Law Commission to produce a report and a draft Bill. The Law Commission reported back in late 1990. After further consultation, the Lord Chancellor announced that commonhold legislation would be introduced as soon as parliamentary time could be found for it.
  Progress was then halted by the 1992 general election. Immediately after the election, the Conservative party devoted the available parliamentary time to the cause of leasehold reform, but by 1996 a draft Bill and consultation paper on commonhold had been prepared. The Bill was proposed in the Queen's Speech in October 1996, but never progressed owing to the general election of May 1997. The rest is history.
  Originally, the Labour response to the idea of commonhold was apathetic. In October 1997 the right hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), then Parliamentary Secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department, told the British Property Federation
  "The pressure of other business … means that there is no likelihood of legislation being introduced on this topic in the near future."
  That disappointed those of us who were hoping that the new form of tenure would be introduced.
  In the event, it was only in December 2000 that the Government introduced a commonhold Bill in the other place. Unfortunately that Bill failed after the calling of a general election in May last year, despite having been given a Third Reading in the other place. The Government are to be commended on nevertheless reintroducing the Bill after the election. It is a pleasure to see them fulfilling long-standing Conservative commitments.
  Less commendable, I regret to say, is the Government's response to suggested improvements in the Bill. In the case of a largely technical Bill such as this, it might be hoped that an element of bipartisanship would exist. I have referred to the national interest, and to cross-currents in the population and different demographic considerations. I must also reiterate what a number of my hon. Friends have said about the programme motion.
  This Bill deserves examination of a kind that would be possible within a reasonably limited amount of time, but not the limited amount that the Government are providing. It needs proper consideration, but it is clear that the Government do not intend to provide time for such consideration. I have no doubt that we will oppose the programme motion.
  Sadly, in the other place the sponsoring Ministers considered it a matter almost of personal honour to refuse to accept any amendments tabled by the eminent lawyers, on both the Opposition and the Cross Benches, who opposed their proposals. A very obstinate attitude has been taken to important amendments. I shall return to the unanimity rule in a moment, as it illustrates the fact that, although the Government indicated that they were prepared to listen, absolutely nothing came of it.

  439
  The Minister has no direct responsibility for that, but he has influence. I look to him in the hope that, if we table amendments, he will be as good as his word and not only consider them carefully, but go beyond consultation to acceptance.
  Mr. Robathan: Is not the main point the fact that, if the motion is passed, various amendments and new clauses that I am sure will be proposed in Committee will not even be reached? The Minister has not addressed that. He says that the position is simple, but amendments tabled in good faith and not on a partisan basis will not be reached, however important they may be.
  Mr. Cash: That returns me to a point I made earlier: this Bill should be bipartisan. If assurances given by the Lord Chancellor in the other place are not followed by proper and adequate consideration because not enough time has been provided, inadequacies and deficiencies in the Bill will result in protests not only from those who happen to be members of the Conservative party, but from those with an interest in commonhold and leasehold matters who would like the Bill to be improved to respond to important questions in respect of which amendments will be tabled but, apparently, not considered. Those protests will fall heavily on the Government, and I ask them to reconsider the programme motion.
  Mr. Andrew Love: In past Parliaments, there were three separate attempts by the then Government, now the Opposition, to reform leasehold, all of which failed. Was there any attempt during consideration of any of those three Bills to adopt a bipartisan approach?
  Mr. Cash: It speaks for itself that there has been a natural progression from the dates that I gave earlier. We have tried to arrive at the position that I think we are on the threshold of achieving: a Bill that will go through with all-party endorsement. However, for reasons to do with the programming motion, it will be the responsibility and liability of the Government if proper consideration is not given to important amendments that are in the interests of persons throughout the United Kingdom.
  Andrew Selous: My hon. Friend has already referred to the complexity of the legislation. Does he agree that careful thought needs to be given to how the measures are explained to members of the general public? As a new Member of Parliament, I am looking for a second home in London. I have been struck by how the information—not the advice—that I have sought from different estate agents has ranged from non-existent to entirely contradictory. There are 75 pages of explanatory notes to the Bill. Does my hon. Friend agree that thought needs to be given to ensuring that information on the Bill can be put over simply to members of the public?
  Mr. Cash: It may be necessary to make such information available to Members of Parliament as well. My hon. Friend has almost selected himself for the Committee stage, as a result of which he will discover even more. The Minister and I get on quite well for a fair
  440
  amount of the time, although not all the time. In our contests over the past few months, he and I have established an understanding about transparency of information. He has been forthcoming. It would be helpful—perhaps the Government already have it in mind—to produce a layman's version of what the Bill involves: to put it in simple language so that the public at large will be able to understand it after it has gone through. It is very important. It affects so many people.
  Mr. Peter Pike: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cash: I shall for the last time for a while, because I must make some progress. I still have my marker for five minutes before me.
  Mr. Pike: Some of the things in the Bill, including leasehold enfranchisement, were moved as amendments in 1993 by the then Opposition and voted against by people such as the hon. Gentleman on the Government side.
  Mr. Cash: I am delighted, if that is a factual point, to concur with it. After all, as I keep on saying, we are adopting a constructive position with respect to the Bill. If it so happens that at that point in time good points were made by the then Opposition, so be it. If the consequence is that we end up with a better Bill, that is the object of the exercise. In matters of this kind, where there is no substantial philosophical or principled distinction between the parties, we should do nothing other than seek to arrive at the best possible solution for all our constituents.
  However, as I have said, there have been inadequate responses by the Government to suggested improvements to the Bill. Although it has been examined at length twice in Committee in the other place and gone through Report and Third Reading twice, the Government have doggedly refused to make improvements to it. I find that difficult to accept and I hope that the Government will bear it in mind.
  Let me turn to two particular matters where obstinacy seems to have ruled. Obviously, commonhold is a new form of tenure. It is unfamiliar to lawyers who deal in conveyancing let alone to the general public. The point about managing agents is also important. The extent to which the Government have not dealt with these matters is covered in the Library research paper published on 14 December which refers to the regulation of managing agents. Nothing in the Bill deals with that problem, yet on Report and on Third Reading Lord Williams of Elvel moved an amendment to provide for the establishment of a professional regulatory body for property managers, or a licensing scheme or other arrangements deemed appropriate by regulation after consultation. Lord Falconer set out the Government's position in a nutshell, saying:
  "Obviously I am not in a position to say when that would be"
  —in respect of producing some form of legislation to deal with those issues.
  "We should hope that it would be in the next Session, but plainly that would depend on a whole range of unpredictable issues on which I am not in a position to comment."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 November 2001; Vol.628, c.942.]
  In response to my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) who raised the matter, managing agents, surveyors and others who do a

  441
  good job, sometimes in difficult circumstances, may have some difficulty in dealing with the complications of the Bill and it is certainly in mind that there will be legislation and indeed some attempt to improve the information available not only to Members of Parliament and the public at large, but to those who deal with these matters on a daily basis. I am sure the Minister agrees that if the matter is not dealt with properly there will be real problems.
  Mr. John Taylor: Before my hon. Friend concludes, let me draw his attention to a point that has not so far been covered. The Bill could win itself plaudits in the leasehold enfranchisement area if it had a patent, transparent price calculation mechanism for the acquisition of a freehold. The Leasehold Reform Act 1967 failed in that respect. Could not this Bill be commended for getting it right?
  Mr. Cash: I am sure that the matter deserves further consideration and that we shall examine it in Committee. Any improvements that produce an accurate value of an interest will obviously be relevant.
  We shall need clear rules to calculate and establish ownership of the different units. Valuation tribunals may offer one route to achieve that, but I suspect that there will be many disputes. No doubt we shall return to the issue in Committee if hon. Members table amendments on arbitration ombudsmen and so on.
  I was drawing attention to the Government's failure to improve the Bill. If, as Conservative Members hope, commonhold is successful, it is important that it develops a degree of momentum so that it becomes the preferred form of tenure for blocks of flats. If only a few commonholds are established, lawyers will not gain the necessary practical familiarity with the new concept and the momentum for adopting commonhold as the standard method of flatholding will be lost. That is a serious point. At present it is quite common for developers to sell flats on long leases and give the lessees shares in the management company so that the lessees manage the block. Indeed, developers will often grant the freehold to the lessees. The selling of flats on 999-year leases is not dissimilar to the commonhold idea.
  Opposition Members believe that it is vital that commonhold should add to what exists. It seems that the Government have not yet fully come to grips with the need to make commonhold attractive. That is a key point.
  First, the Government have sought deliberately to restrict the availability of commonhold. If a block of flats is to be converted from leasehold to commonhold, the unanimity of all those with an interest in the building is required. All the flat owners must agree. The freeholder must agree. All the mortgagees must agree. Anyone who has registered a caution on the Land Registry must agree. Even people with a right of way or some easement over the property must agree.
  In practice, therefore, in all but the smallest blocks, there is no realistic scope for converting from leasehold to commonhold. I trust that the Minister is giving that serious matter a great deal of thought.
  442
  Earlier, I mentioned the remarks made by the Lord Chancellor on 5 July. For the purposes of the record, I shall repeat what he said:
  "Let me stress that the Government are taking careful note of all the arguments put against the rule which requires the consent of 100 per cent of the prospective unit holders for conversion from leasehold to commonhold. We doubt that allowing long leaseholders to continue physically within, but legally at least semi-detached from, the commonhold arrangement would be a sensible way through. The only alternative, which would bring a non-consenting minority within the new arrangements, might be characterised as expropriation.
  However, if a well-judged amendment were put forward, for which there was substantial cross-party support, the Government would listen to the debate and consider it very carefully."
  I sense from the mood of the House that that substantial cross-party support exists, but the inference that the Government have not listened carefully can be made from the fact that no movement has taken place.
  Mr. Wills: That does not follow at all.
  Mr. Cash: I am glad to hear the Minister say, from a sedentary position, that that does not follow at all, as that is a good indication that we will have an opportunity to consider—and agree—the amendment in Committee.
  The Lord Chancellor continued:
  "That said, the position which the Government have hitherto maintained, and to which they still adhere unless persuaded to the contrary, is that, although there is undeniable merit in not allowing one person out of step with the proposed new regime to obstruct the entire commonhold arrangement agreed upon by the others, the sensitivities inherent in expropriating that one person may be an overriding consideration the other way. But the Government will listen."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 July 2001; Vol. 626, c. 887.]
  That is a sensible and constructive approach. We now know, and the Minister has agreed, that the Government will listen to the arguments that are advanced in this House. However, the unanimity of flat owners is not the only requirement. For all the reasons that I have given already, the process will affect mortgagees, those who put on cautions, and those with easements and rights of way.
  Cautions can be put on for all sorts of reasons. The other day, the Minister and I spent several happy hours dealing with the Land Registration Bill. Perhaps we should have discussed this one at the same time. Easements are also prone to complication. One person prepared to be difficult in this respect can create so many practical difficulties that there must be some way of relieving the obstruction that can be caused.
  Although the precedents and analogies may not be precise, I recall drafting legislation and looking at matters relating to frontages. For example, the law covering changing or extending the frontage arrangements applicable to the alley running behind stables that had been converted into new residences provided that only a certain percentage of the people involved had to agree. When that percentage was secured, the other people had to go along with the decision. If the Minister were to do a bit of digging in that area—
  Mr. Heald: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Don Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cash: I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald).
  Mr. Heald: Has my hon. Friend been able to identify any detriment that would be suffered by a non-consenting

  443
  unit-owner? Clearly, one would not want greatly to disadvantage an individual, but it is hard to imagine what the detriment to an individual would be if his opposition was overborne.
  Mr. Cash: Plenty of people might say no—perhaps not for good reasons. Many personal considerations might come to bear. I do not want to generalise, but things can get personal in a block of flats. Many objections could be vexatious and frivolous, although there might be other substantial issues. As I have already pointed out, somebody with no more than a minimal interest could veto a range of matters. We need to look at that carefully in Committee, and I am extremely glad that the Minister is showing such a constructive interest.
  Mr. Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman looks for examples where 100 per cent. agreement is not required. May I draw his attention to the most relevant example—large-scale voluntary transfers whereby council house tenants can choose a different social landlord? In those cases, 100 per cent. agreement is definitely not required.
  Mr. Cash: That is most helpful. As we proceed, other examples will no doubt be offered. The unanimity test has been exaggerated by the Government. I am not sure about their reasons as we have not been given a full explanation, but we shall doubtless have a chance to consider the matter in Committee.
  As I have a number of things to say, I shall turn from the problem of unanimity to the extension of the commonhold. We should like the commonhold system to apply to all residential flats after the Bill becomes law. Allowing conversion from leasehold to commonhold would require a careful scheme. The freeholder could not have his interest expropriated, so provision would need to be made for those who did not want to convert. None the less, the Government should be able to propose a workable scheme for the conversion of existing properties. I hope that they will respond favourably to any amendments on that subject that we might table in Committee. Indeed, perhaps they will have the good sense to introduce amendments to deal with the matter themselves.
  Secondly, the Government also want to restrict the ability of unit-holders—flat owners—to rent out their flats. Clause 17 gives the Lord Chancellor Henry VIII powers to make regulations to stop flat owners being granted residential leases for flats. In an intervention, I referred to the problem of regulations. I am glad to know that they will be published in draft in future.
  In the other place, the Government suggested that they propose to limit renting to leases for no more than five years at a rack-rent without taking a fine. We agree that, in the abstract, it would be nice to have a commonhold association if all the members lived in the block, and stopping unit-holders renting out their property on other than short leases would contribute to that. The issue cannot, however, be viewed merely in the abstract. As a result of the Conservative reforms that culminated in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, there is now a thriving private rental market. Equally, there is a thriving market for flats—not to occupy but to rent out.
  444
  Someone buying to rent will have a choice: a block sold as commonhold or as leasehold. If restrictions are placed on investors renting out commonhold flats, they will inevitably buy leasehold flats. That is an important consideration. We have to deal with the practicalities of the marketplace.
  Thirdly, the Government have not given commonhold associations sufficiently strong powers to enforce the terms of the commonhold community statement. With leasehold property, the landlord has a right of forfeiture if the lessee breaches the lease. At first blush, that sounds extremely harsh, but in fact forfeiture is very much a last resort.
  If a tenant is simply behind with the rent, all he has to do to obtain relief from forfeiture is to pay off the arrears. If he is in arrears with the service charge, the landlord must obtain a statement from the leasehold valuation tribunal that the service charge is reasonable. If the tenant has broken some other term of the lease, the landlord must serve a special notice under section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925 requiring the tenant to remedy the breach, and even then the tenant can apply for relief of forfeiture. So there are plenty of safeguards, and very few long leases are forfeited. That is a fact. However, this weapon of last resort means that lessees and their mortgagees can be forced to pay.
  With commonhold, the Government take the view that moneys owed by way of service charge should simply be enforced as normal debts. In other words, the commonhold association would have to take the defaulting unit-holder to court to obtain a judgment and then enforce that judgment. The Government envisage that a judgment will be enforced in the ordinary way. The standard method will be to put a charging order on the unit-holder's unit and then sell it if the unit-holder continues to be recalcitrant. However, the Government are ignoring the fact that a defaulting unit-holder will probably already have a mortgage on his flat and may well have a second or even a third mortgage. This means of enforcement will therefore work only if there is equity in the flat. With leaseholds, the landlord will usually be paid by the first mortgagee, who does not want to forfeit its interest in the flat. With commonhold flats, that will not apply. That is another practical point. I ask the Minister to consider these matters carefully, because if we are to make the system work it must not be snarled up by practical problems on which there should be no party political difference.
  The absence of adequate enforcement provisions will, in our view, lead to disaster sooner or later. If a block requires extensive works and the tenants are already heavily mortgaged, it will take only a small number of defaulters to make the block unmanageable.
  Fourthly, so-called ungrounded developments will not be permitted. That means that it is not possible to have a mixed development in which there are shops on the ground floor and a common residential area above. Surely it would be sensible for the Bill to provide maximum flexibility to encourage commonhold development. If developers have no choice but to make the whole of a mixed development commonhold, they may be reluctant to adopt commonhold due to the perceived reduced investment value of the commercial elements.
  Let me turn to flying commonholds—flats over shops. The Bill does not allow flying commonholds where residential properties exist on the upper floors of a

  445
  property only, such as flats over shops. That is in line with the law on leasehold. Currently, no more than 10 per cent. of the whole block must be commercial if residential leaseholders want to purchase their freeholds. We support the raising of this hurdle, and as much as 25 per cent. has been suggested. That will encourage people to live above commercial property. Mixed-use schemes such as "Living Over the Shop" should be promoted, as that will assist urban regeneration and the provision of affordable housing in our towns and cities. I think that the Minister may recognise some of that language.
  Glenda Jackson: Not emanating from the mouth of Conservative Members.
  Mr. Cash: It certainly is, because the point has just been made.
  Fifthly, the Bill prohibits commonhold associations from charging the common parts of blocks. That may prevent commonhold associations from borrowing to finance emergency works or works of improvement. In jurisdictions elsewhere in the world, it is common for the equivalent of commonhold associations to borrow against future service charge income, and in our view it would be desirable for something similar to be made permissible under the Bill. Thus we welcome that form of tenure, but we believe that the Bill can be improved.
  We also broadly support the provisions on leasehold reform. Again, however, there are problems with matters that the Government have simply not thought through. The most glaring example is that they propose that lessees should be entitled to establish a right-to-manage company. We support the right-to-manage proposals, although some of the detail needs to be considered more closely, and we shall do so in Committee. However, it is proposed that council premises, where the landlord is a local authority, should be excluded from the right to manage. Some 12 per cent. of right-to-buy sales have involved leasehold flats. Public sector tenants should not be excluded simply because of Labour's anti-right-to-buy dogma.
  When the appropriate procedure has been followed, the right-to-manage company will take over the block's management from the landlord. So far so good, but there obviously has to be some means to hand over the management from landlord to the right-to-manage company. In any block, many people, ranging from the caretaker to a building company retained to carry out works, are likely to have a contractual relationship with the landlord. Some means of regulating the handover must be required—another practical consideration.
  Astonishingly, the Bill as originally drafted made no provision for handover: it merely provided that, one month after the relevant notices had been served, the management should be taken over by the right-to-manage company. Despite the central issue of handover being discussed twice in Committee in the other place, it was on the Bill's Third Reading in November last year that the Government were obliged, by the arguments of Lord Kingsland, to recognise that there was a problem, and they finally decided to hold a consultation exercise. I hope that we shall not experience such resistance in this House. However, it is said:
  "Joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance."
  The difficulty, as the Government were repeatedly told, is that there are only three possibilities. First, the contracts could be transferred automatically to the right-to-manage
  446
  company by a statutory novation. Secondly, the contracts could be terminated automatically. The last possibility would be to allow a sufficiently long handover period to allow contracts to come to a natural end, as would ordinarily be the case with building repair works.
  The problem with statutory novation is that the right-to-manage companies will be extremely weak financially. The Government intend that they should be companies limited by guarantee, with lessees being liable for the grand sum of £1 each in the event of the company going into liquidation. That is obviously extremely unsatisfactory from the point of view of anyone who entered into a contract in good faith with a financially solid landlord.
  The alternative—an automatic termination—is equally unsatisfactory, for the right-to-manage company could be held to ransom by a builder halfway through the works. That is another practical point. The only workable proposal may be to allow a longish handover, but I have listened with interest to the results of the Government's consultation exercise, and we shall examine their proposals with care.
  Chapter 2 deals with collective enfranchisement by the lessees of flats. We welcome the principle of those proposals. In the other place, we suggested various technical improvements. Again, those suggestions fell on stony ground, but we may return to some of them on Report.
  In conclusion, we are concerned that the Government are once more showing their contempt for Parliament by providing for so much of the Bill's contents to be made by regulation, but I am glad to hear that the proposed regulations will be made available to us fairly soon. We believe that it is time to consolidate the various measures that relate to the ownership of leasehold land into a much clearer, single Act. It is time that we consolidated all that law in a way that is comprehensible and transparent for the benefit of our constituents. The Opposition support the Bill, but we will make constructive proposals in Committee.
  5.19 pm
  Mr. Kevin Barron: I completely agree with the final comment of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). The law on leasehold is confusing on occasion even to lawyers. It should be consolidated. Although we cannot do that in this Bill, time should be provided for both Houses to consider the whole issue of leasehold and to ensure that people are made aware of their rights.
  I disagree with the hon. Gentleman that the Government have not moved in another place. I have read the proceedings that have taken place in another place since the general election and, on more than one occasion, Opposition Members have thanked the Government for moving on particular issues. They may have been obscure points of law which the hon. Gentleman is more likely to understand than I am, but the Government have responded to the arguments made. It is wrong to suggest that they have not moved at all.
  I welcome many of the changes in part 2 that try to clarify the position of leaseholders. Like our constituents, many of us have been confused over the years and are sometimes angered by what happens.

  447
  I declare an historical interest. Eight months after my wife and I married in 1969, we had scraped together £150 for a deposit on a home. We went to an estate agent in our village who told us that that the property that we wanted to buy was leasehold. I had worked in industry and I did not know what the term meant, so we put down the deposit and moved into the house. When I asked what leasehold involved, I was told that it meant £6 a year ground rent and, although I was not earning a lot of money at that time, that was not going to stop me buying the house.
  We bought the property in 1970 and I subsequently found out that the lease was to run for 800 years. I paid the initial £6 a year—the sum went up to £8—to a landowner who used to live locally but who now lived in the Isle of Man where he presumably avoided certain levels of tax. I sent my cheque off every year and thought that that was the end of the matter.
  However, a few years later, we wanted to improve the property. By then we had three children and I had also bought a motor car, so I wanted to put a garage on to what I believed was our property. I applied to the local planning authority, an architect drew up the plans and they were approved. A neighbour told me that I should write to Mr. Parkin to tell him what I was doing because he would want money off me, but I said I did not know why I should do that because I had already obtained planning permission and gone through what I thought was the law. So the garage and kitchen extension were built. Although I now suspect that I should have been, I was not in correspondence with the landowner at that time because I thought that it did not matter. I believed that, to all intents and purposes, I had kept within the planning law, so we carried on with the work.
  However, when we came to sell the house in 1985, there was a big dispute about retrospective permission for the building of the garage and the kitchen extension. Months later, I received a letter from my solicitor saying that he had spoken to the landowner who was adamant that he wanted £100 to give retrospective consent for the building of the garage and kitchen extension. My solicitor also wrote:
  "As previously mentioned to you he is entitled to charge the costs of a Surveyor inspecting the extension confirming that it corresponds with the plan and reporting accordingly.
  We would estimate that this would be in the region of £50."
  That angered me a little. The planning authority inspects the work that is carried out, yet the landowner had what I thought was the right to extort money from me. He had me on the end of a hook, because I had moved into another home and wanted to sell my property, for which I had a buyer.
  In the end, we sent a letter to the solicitors and the prospective buyer saying that we would ensure that they would have no costs to incur because of our dispute with the landowner. That was in 1985, and I have heard nothing since. The £100 charge and the cost of the surveyor seem to have disappeared.
  Mr. Gardiner: Wait until Friday morning.
  Mr. Barron: I cannot.
  448
  I then moved into a freehold property. However, the last flat that I bought in London is in contrast to the leasehold property. It is in Abbey Court on Macleod street SE17 and, when it was built in 1986, a small management committee was put together comprising the tenants who moved in. Within about six months, the tenants offered to buy the freehold off the developer. It was the first time that he had built a block of flats and the freehold was duly bought. The flats are now run by Suthwalk management company. It is a limited company of the type described by the Minister which should be created under the Bill. There are 21 shares in the company and there are 21 flats. Each flat owner is a shareholder. The company secretary is Mrs. Shelagh Farren, who does a great job looking after all 21 of us, including four Members of the House and a leading tabloid journalist who is an eminent Lobby correspondent. Those interests are undeclared in the Library, so I might get into trouble for mentioning them.
  We run a committee within the company which deals with problems. The Minister mentioned matters in which the management committee could get involved. It deals with problems such as people making noise next door, and calls people together to get things sorted out. We have no problems with parking next to the flats. The garden is looked after and the stairwells are tended and decorated. We pay a monthly service charge and an annual ground rent, but sometimes neither is requested, depending on the balance of the account. If we do not have to expend the money, we do not call it in. Most people would accept that to be a civilised way in which to organise one's life. People want to have somewhere for them and their families to live and to be able to go out to work. The way in which we manage our flats is a civilised way to achieve that.
  Commonhold should be supported in the Bill. However, although the measure introduces commonhold tenure, it will, I fear, remain only a theoretical possibility for current flat owners. As we heard, existing leaseholders will have to obtain 100 per cent. agreement of all those with an interest in their blocks, including that of existing landlords, to achieve a transfer to commonhold. Moreover, fewer new developments will take place on a commonhold basis because no developer in his right mind would sacrifice the rich pickings of the leasehold system, even with the changes in part 2. I am not convinced that we are right in this regard.
  On Second Reading in the other place, the Earl of Caithness said:
  "I did not like the provision that required 100 per cent. agreement to move from leasehold to commonhold. It seemed to defeat the object of moving to commonhold in the first place and I felt that it could not progress all that far."
  I agree with him. In the same debate, Lord Goodhart, who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, said:
  "there are a number of problems, some of them serious. As the Bill now stands, the main problem is the requirement for 100 per cent. consent from all interested parties—freeholders, leaseholders, chargees—before the conversion of existing properties to commonhold is possible. This will make it very difficult to convert existing leasehold blocks to commonhold. It might be possible in some small buildings containing, say, no more than three or four flats, but hardly any larger blocks would be likely to convert."— [Official Report, House of Lords, 5 July 2001; Vol. 626, c. 890–894.]
  I agree with that analysis. To take another situation, if someone with a vested interest in getting money from a lease owns a flat in the building concerned, should there be a right of veto? We must consider these issues seriously.

  449
  In winding up the debate in the other place, the Lord Chancellor said:
  "When the Bill was last considered, there were some who suggested that we should forbid any further leasehold development and require existing leasehold developments to be converted to commonhold. But we shall continue to maintain the position that stopping leasehold in its tracks is not the most prudent way to proceed. Instead, we shall continue to attempt to win the hearts and minds of potential developers, investors and buyers to ensure that commonhold is established as the preferred alternative for those building interdependent properties."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 July 2001; Vol. 626, c. 889.]
  I suspect that most people who have had problems with landowners will think that statement a bit naive and in need of further explanation.
  I described a problem that I had when I was a leaseholder many years ago. There are not many leasehold problems in my constituency, but many hon. Members have many constituents who are trapped in leasehold situations, so I must tell the Minister that I am a little disappointed by the Government's reticence in introducing commonhold, particularly as it is the most successful form of flat ownership outside England and Wales, whereas leasehold has consistently been shown to provide the worst form of flat ownership and management. The key to commonhold is that it removes third-party landlords and gives full control of a block of flats to the flat owners. That is the arrangement that we have at Abbey Court in SE17, and the House should be introducing it more widely so that existing owners of flats, as well as new owners, can benefit from it.
  Both the Lord Chancellor and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary have said that we should leave it to the market. We can do that if we genuinely believe that people are not prepared to give up the money that they can make from leasehold. However, the House could take other action. I suggest that the Government consider providing more powers in the Bill to introduce commonhold, at least for new build, if the market does not do so. If people want to continue to build leasehold flats and use them as a form of profit generation, as they have done in the past, the Secretary of State should have the power to take action. We should not have to wait five, 10 or 15 years for a parliamentary slot to introduce further legislation. It would be reasonable for us to consider the introduction of such powers during the proceedings on the Bill.
  To some extent, I accept what the Minister says about the extension of enfranchisement for current flat owners in part 2. However, the issue of valuation is very important, although it is a little embarrassing for Labour Members. On 19 November, Lord Jacobs spoke on Third Reading in the other place. I believe that Lord Jacobs was recently appointed by the Commission for Public Appointments, and I am not sure whether he has a political affiliation. He said:
  "It is true that leaseholders will gain from enfranchisement or lease extension. As the Government have indicated before, in the former case they can grant themselves a 999-year lease. But we are talking about people's homes. Why should they not have virtual outright ownership? I fear that the weakness of the Government's argument is the belief that landlords and tenants are two sides of the same coin, when the truth is that the landlord's interest increases in value, excluding inflation, on a daily basis, while the tenant's value—I remind your Lordships that this is his home—decreases in value on a daily basis."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 November 2001; Vol. 628, c. 921.]
  450
  The Bill will still require leaseholders to pay more than open market value when acquiring their freeholds, even though the freeholder would have paid no more than its open market value when acquiring the freehold and contributes nothing towards the repair and maintenance of the property. I believe that that is true in most cases, although the Minister may want to correct me if I am wrong. That situation arises because leaseholders will have to pay 50 per cent. of the so-called marriage value in addition to the open market value of the freehold.
  This issue is extremely embarrassing to Labour Members of Parliament—look at what we said in opposition, not so many years ago. In 1995, the then shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), and the shadow housing Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), declared in their proposal—I think it was a policy paper—on leasehold reform, entitled "An End to Feudalism":
  "Since the 1967 Act, which provided a simple and fair basis for valuation, the process has become progressively more convoluted … we believe that it is right to go back to the fundamentally sound logic behind the 1967 Act, which did not include 'marriage value' in the valuation process."
  The paper continues:
  "The concepts of 'marriage value' and 'injurious affection' are the two elements most likely to cause problems for leaseholders seeking to enfranchise … the easiest solution would be to scrap the two concepts entirely. They were not included in the 1967 Leasehold Reform Act and they certainly should not apply to leaseholders in houses."
  Many believe that they should not apply to leaseholders in flats either.
  I hope that the issues will be addressed seriously. It is many years since we have been able to get our hands on this area of law and make major changes, and many years will pass before another opportunity arises. I hope that the Government will take the Bill seriously in the few weeks available for consideration, and that the Opposition take seriously their own arguments that there is not much time—although there was more time in another place, because the general election interrupted the Bill's passage through that House. We must focus on the real issues and ensure that we have opportunities to vote on them.
  There are many good things in the Bill, especially part 2, which deals with leasehold valuation tribunals. I accept that relevant criteria, scope and access are being considered, but it is important to note that access is all about who can afford it. Even if we broaden the tribunals, many people will not be able to afford access to them unless we do something else to ensure fair access. For many years, people hiding behind money and lawyers have prevented others from getting justice, and it would be fundamentally wrong if we missed an opportunity to ensure fair access. I am not talking about means-testing. We must establish a system that enables people who believe that they are being treated wrongly by the property owner to get justice.
  My speech has been quite critical even though I accept the majority of the Bill. We must face the hard reality of what has been out there for many years. We must tackle the injustice that many have suffered because of leasehold reform. If we are to introduce a system that resembles the one governing my London dwelling in Abbey Court—

  451
  I hope that we are, especially for flat owners—we should do it now, get it out of the way and move on to making more progress and more improvements to people's lives.
  5.38 pm
  Mr. Adrian Sanders: I declare an interest as a freeholder receiving ground rent.
  John Stuart Mill described the leasehold landlord as
  "a sinecurist quartered on the land",
  and Gladstone spoke of ground rents as "great unearned increments". When introducing his unsuccessful leasehold enfranchisement Bill in 1884, Lord Randolph Churchill asked
  "Where was freedom of contract, where the whole of the property in an area was owned by one man?"
  It was in response to such informed 19th century distaste for what has been described as "urban farming" that in 1883 the first Leasehold Enfranchisement Association was formed. More than 100 years on, with more than 16 Acts passed to try to remedy the situation, the Government, who have a big majority and a long history of opposition to leasehold, are asking the House to support a Bill that will give continued life to that feudal form of tenure. Regrettable as that is, the Bill at least seeks to improve the situation, although for many leaseholders the abolition of leasehold was the very least that they expected from the Government.
  The Bill is not the measure that many leaseholders were expecting. Some, such as those represented by the Leasehold Enfranchisement Association, would prefer the Bill to be defeated. It is certainly not a Bill that a Liberal Democrat Government would propose to the House because it does not go nearly far enough. Many improvements are necessary, and some of them were mentioned by the hon. Members for Stone (Mr. Cash), speaking for the Conservative Opposition, and for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). Liberal Democrat Members strongly favour the introduction of commonhold and a further stage of leasehold reform.
  We welcome the principle of commonhold. Freehold ownership of flats is impracticable and long leaseholds also present serious problems, especially the difficulty of obtaining mortgage finance when the outstanding term of a lease falls below 30 or 40 years. Various forms of collective ownership have been developed in other parts of the world, the most relevant of which perhaps are those in the USA and Australia. They have undoubtedly worked there and there is no reason whatever why they could not work here. We therefore warmly welcome the introduction of commonhold.
  The hon. Member for Rother Valley referred to Lord Goodhart, who mentioned a number of problems with the Bill in the other place, notably the 100 per cent. consent of all interested parties provision. Those interested parties are not just the leaseholders, but the freeholders and the chargees. If any one of them is opposed to changing the management of the property, they have the right of veto; that is not right. If that provision remains in the Bill, the great majority of commonhold is likely to be on new build. It is perfectly possible to devise a workable scheme in which a small minority of leaseholders, perhaps no more than 20 per cent, refuse to give consent. That would
  452
  involve the commonhold association acquiring the freehold and simply leaving the leases of non-consenting parties outside the commonhold scheme until they expire.
  There are no formal structures for voting in the Bill. Is that to be part of the commonhold association's rules and regulations? Rules are needed on quorums, the conduct of meetings and the method of voting, but we have yet to see any of those details in print. There is no power in the Bill to divide commonholds to encourage diversity of use and investment, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Stone. The contribution that that could make to economic regeneration schemes and the creation of housing should not be underestimated. The Government talk about joined-up thinking, so surely they acknowledge the need for more diverse housing provision for economic regeneration, which we hear about from many branches of government. The Bill could preclude good things in that direction if it remains unamended.
  Another serious problem with commonhold is the recovery of arrears of service charges and other liabilities due to the commonhold association from unit-holders. At present, with leaseholders, the threat of forfeiture is usually enough to secure payment. However, if forfeiture is not available—in the case of unit-holders, it is not—that is not possible. It is true that a charging order can be obtained for arrears, but that involves an application to the court, which is likely to take some time. Of course, existing charges on the property take precedence over a charging order. That could mean serious cash-flow problems for commonhold associations, even if they eventually get their money back. Prompt payment is vital but will not occur without effective mechanisms for securing it. We would like arrears of service charges to be treated as priority debt, so that if mortgagees sell commonhold units, they must pay off the arrears before reimbursing themselves.
  The question of the best corporate structure for commonhold associations has been mentioned. The Government propose a company limited by guarantee. Some critics have objected that the structure is too formal and complicated. We accept that there must undoubtedly be a corporate structure for commonhold associations, but believe that the structure and administration of limited liability partnerships under the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000 is likely to be a good deal simpler. For commonhold associations with no more than 10 members, a limited liability partnership could well be more appropriate than a company limited by guarantee.
  Limited liability partnerships are a novel form of incorporation. It may be premature to provide them as an alternative at present, but the Government should at least include powers in the Bill to enable the introduction of a limited liability partnership at a later date if it appears likely to benefit small commonhold associations. That point applies also to the right-to-manage and right-to-enfranchise companies as well as to the commonhold associations.
  On leasehold reform, we support the principle of extending the right to manage to enable tenants to form a right-to-manage company without having to prove mismanagement by the landlord. The matter has been a bone of contention for many years. When a property is well managed, lessees are probably unlikely to want to take over the management themselves, but the need to prove

  453
  mismanagement has deterred lessees from claiming the right to manage where management has been unsatisfactory or incompetent rather than grossly oppressive.
  The Bill gives landlords an automatic right to be members of a right-to-manage company. Such companies should represent tenants and be able to deal at arm's length with the landlord. We accept that when the landlord is also the occupier of a flat it may be reasonable that he should be a member of the right-to-manage company, but allowing non-resident landlords the right to be members of the company gives them an unjustified advantage.
  We also believe that the Government have not dealt properly with the position of management contracts subsisting at the time when management is taken over by a right-to-manage company. There was a confused debate on the matter in Committee in the other place. It appears that the Government assume that existing management contracts will be terminated on the taking over of management by a right-to-manage company, although that is a matter of general law rather than the consequence of any provision in the Bill. That may be technically correct, but if so, it seems to us to be undesirable. Management contracts may be held with a cleaning company for the cleaning of the common parts of the building or with a gardener for looking after the garden. The basic principle should be that such contracts should continue with the substitution of the right-to-manage company for the landlord. That rule should be adopted in the Bill, subject to the right of the right-to-manage company to terminate contracts in cases in which, for example, the landlord has given a contract to a friend or relative who is providing services at an excessive cost.
  We welcome the provision that extends the right of collective enfranchisement. It extends the right to join in such enfranchisement to a number of leaseholders who did not have it previously, but there is one defect of fundamental importance. The Bill does not require the automatic transfer of membership of a right-to-enfranchise company on the assignment of a lease. That seems to us to be essential if the purpose of the right-to-enfranchise company—to give leaseholders the right to participate in ownership—is to be achieved. We see a right-to-enfranchise company as an embryo commonhold association. If the leaseholder can sell his or her lease, but retain an interest in an RTE company, we will simply recreate the problem that the legislation was designed to remedy. In other words, we will create a new set of absentee landlords.
  The only issue that raises a conflict of principle between the Liberal Democrats and the Government is the inclusion of marriage value in the computation of the price to be paid to the landlord on enfranchisement and on the extension of a lease.
  The basic price to be paid is what the freeholder loses—that means the market value of the reversion being required by the leaseholder or an RTE company, or the reduction in the market value of the reversion as a result of the grant of an extended lease.
  We have no quibble with that principle. We are not pressing for the extension of the artificially reduced value that was originally provided for in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. That provision could well be contrary to the Human Rights Act 1998, although the case of the Duke of Westminster indicated that at the time it was thought not to be. However, the market value paid to the
  454
  freeholder is increased on the basis that the leaseholder is a special purchaser and will be willing to pay more than someone buying the freehold as an investor. That concept is fundamentally unfair. Leaseholders are in a weak bargaining position in that notional market. Unless they buy the freehold, or obtain an extended lease, they will face inconvenience, disturbance and the distress of having to move home. It is wrong in principle that the freeholder should be allowed to take advantage of that weakness in the bargaining position of the leaseholder.
  Marriage value should be eliminated from the equation. The leaseholder should have to pay what the investor would pay for the property and no more. We will fight throughout the proceedings on the Bill for the abolition of the marriage value.
  The Bill as it stands is a step forward, but it is an enormous disappointment and could be a great deal better.
  5.52 pm
  Mr. Peter Pike: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. I broadly support the Bill, but I hope that some improvements will be made and some amendments agreed.
  I congratulate the Government on being bold enough to introduce the commonhold proposals. They have been discussed for many years. The previous Conservative Government considered commonhold, but never did anything about it. At least a Labour Government are now introducing the proposals and going ahead.
  I want the Government to do two things, which have already been touched on in the debate. The 100 per cent. rule is a worrying factor, because the agreement requires unanimity on the part of the people who live in a property as well as the owner or of the leaseholders and the freeholder, and because other interested parties are also involved. We need to consider more closely the definition of interested parties. Clearly, we need to consider those aspects as the Bill progresses in Committee and on Report. The provision would make it easy for someone to put a veto on an agreement and stop progress being made, which might not be in the best interests of the majority.
  As the Bill is drafted, the majority of commonhold properties will initially be new build. Again, the Government could be a little bolder. They could make it clear that if a property is not to be freehold, commonhold should be the preferred option for the developers, unless there are good reasons why that should not be the case.
  I hope that the Government will consider those two matters. Virtually every hon. Member who has spoken, apart from the Minister, has expressed concern about them.
  On the leasehold provisions, as I told the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), the Bill will go a long way towards introducing some of the measures that we tried to include through amendments to the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Bill in 1993. At that time, we were well briefed by the Leasehold Enfranchisement Association, which also has concerns about this Bill. Many of the provisions that we tried to introduce in 1993 are involved today.
  I want the Government to accept that leaseholds in the south and London are very different from those in Burnley and other parts of the country. The problems in my part of the country are different from those in London.

  455
  My only dealings with a London leasehold property were while my daughter was out of the country last year, when I had to sell her flat. I had to buy an extension of the lease before I could sell it as the building society would not give the purchaser a mortgage without an extension. It seemed crazy to have to pay several thousand pounds to extend the lease to complete the sale. The property in which I live in London is not leasehold.
  In my constituency, the leaseholds are not short and the property is not as valuable. Nearly all the leases are for 999 years, with minimal ground rents and, in many cases, minimal conditions attached. In the past few years, I have studied many leasehold documents. Although the handwriting is good, many of the leases drawn up in 1887 are difficult to deal with, as they are extremely lengthy. It is hard to follow the exact conditions laid down and to decide whether the provisions that the present freeholder claims are contained in the documents are there. They are not always there. I have had to tell several people who have implied that a lease contains conditions relating to insurance, for example, that the document in question gives them no right to do what they are trying to do. One has to spend a lot of time studying each document, as they are not all exactly alike.
  I have bought the freehold of the property in which I live in Burnley. For many years, I advised people not to bother to buy the freehold. I said, "Why bother to buy, when you are only paying £1, or £5 a year and you have 800-odd years to go?" Also, the conditions were minimal. Why did I decide to buy my freehold? I was fortunate enough to be able to do so and I saw the problems of my constituents. I did not want to suffer a similar hassle or problem and I could afford to buy, so I paid £250 plus the legal costs and bought it out. I was paying only £4 a year. Even then, the landlord was overcharging. The lease stated that it should be £3.87, but I never argued about the extra 13p; I always coughed up the £4 when he asked for it.
  Mr. John Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has effectively pointed out that leasehold traditions in different parts of the country are very different. He talks about 800-year leases in Burnley. In contrast, in the west midlands, residential leases are almost always 99 years. There is a different sort of pressure on the leaseholder as the 99 years contracts to 60, 50 or 40 years and the lease becomes difficult to dispose of.
  Mr. Pike: The hon. Gentleman has a valid point. The majority of hon. Members who speak today will be talking about that sort of problem. A number of Members who represent London will highlight the problems with 90-odd year leases when they are reduced to 60 or 30 years. As the number of years reduces, the value that my hon. Friend the Minister mentioned is reduced and it becomes increasingly difficult to sell the lease. The person who is looking for a mortgage is not prepared to take such a lease on.
  I am trying to highlight the problem that my constituents face. What is their particular difficulty? The ground rents are not significant. The problem is that people are now being told, "You must insure with us and buy this particular insurance." The people who have now bought the freeholds are in most cases no longer local—
  456
  they are either from London or, in some cases, Wales. They can make more money from the commission that they get on the insurance than they can from the ground rent.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) mentioned that people make alterations to a property without having obtained permission to do so, and that a charge might then be made for retrospective approval. In some cases that could be £250, and I have heard of cases in which £600 or so has been charged. That nearly always comes to light when the person concerned wants to sell the property and has found someone who is willing to buy. Nine times out of 10, they pay, whether their solicitors advise them that it is a reasonable figure or not. They pay because, in Burnley, if people want to sell a house, they sell it as soon as they have somebody willing to buy. There are 4,000 houses standing empty there.
  The other week, during a by-election, I canvassed someone who told me, "I bought my house five years ago for £24,000. When you knocked on my door in May it was worth £16,000; last week, when I asked the solicitors what it was worth, they told me it was worth £6,000." People just cannot sell their houses, so if they find someone who is willing to buy, and they are told by the freeholder to pay £250 or £600, they cough up, fair or not, to get the sale. They know that far too much time will be taken up arguing about fairness and unreasonableness if they do not. That is the difficulty that we have to deal with.
  Although I accept that part 2 addresses the problems that exist in the south, and that other aspects of the Bill are important to many people in London, Brighton and other areas where such problems exist, there are other issues that we must deal with as the Bill progresses through the House.
  I have had a lot of dealings with various local solicitors, and with the Burnley and Pendle Law Society. I would like to quote from a briefing that the society sent me the other day. It emphasises the points that I have already made, but it is interesting to hear what its members, as legal professionals, have to say. The briefing states:
  "The problems arise out of leases that were created in the 1880s and 1890s in particular and of a long leasehold nature of 999 years plus and with what are now nominal ground rents. I acknowledge that the ground rents when created could be compared to a week's wage whereas nowadays the same rent would not even buy a pint of beer."
  That is a significant point, and very true. The briefing continues:
  "The covenants contained in the leases are the biggest problem with which we have to contend. Most leases created over a hundred years ago contain very few covenants and the few that did exist were rarely enforced, e.g. insurance, approval of change of external appearance by additions. However, these covenants have now proved to be a major problem in that the ground rents held by local landlords have now been sold to commercial companies that read through the leases with a fine tooth comb to see what can be gleaned in the form of fees—the ground rents are a minor issue. Where any lease contains any provision about approval of insurance, it leads straight to the property owner having to insure the property through the freeholder or alternatively paying an administration fee for releasing the provision—these fees can be quite expensive. A similar situation applies where a house owner wishes to erect e.g. a kitchen extension—if the lease makes provision for approval being required then the freeholder will charge a fee for the approval."
  In many cases, those fees are neither reasonable nor fair, and that is why we need to make changes. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), who

  457
  is going to speak in this debate, has called such freeholders "ground-rent grazers", and that is exactly what they are. They look through leases and try to make extra money from them in different ways. That is what they are doing in many cases in Burnley. Thousands of my constituents are affected in that way, and as the Law Society has pointed out, there are similar cases in Wales, Newcastle and other parts of the country. It is time that we did something about it. We must tackle the major issues to which the Minister referred, but we must also ensure that the people of Burnley, and their like, do not have to endure the problems caused by the present provisions on leaseholds.
  6.5 pm
  Mr. John Taylor: I intend to make only a brief contribution to this debate, because other hon. Members have been gracious enough to allow me to intervene on them, which has given me the opportunity to register a point or two.
  I should declare an interest at the outset. I am the owner of a residential long lease on an apartment in my constituency. I am therefore interested in such issues as management companies and, ultimately, I hope, the acquisition of our freehold. I should also declare that I am a solicitor, but I have not practised since 1988—I went straight 13 years ago.
  As a very young, recently qualified lawyer, I was involved in some of the early applications of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, which provided the first opportunity for people with residential leases—at that time only of houses—to acquire their freeholds. Indeed, I bought the freehold of the first house that I ever owned. However, one of the weaknesses of the 1967 Act was that the political process— which I blame collectively, rather than in a partisan way— fought shy of defining a price mechanism. There was no reliable formulation in the Act to enable either the holder of a long lease or the holder of the freehold reversion to work out exactly what sum of money could be expected to change hands for the enfranchisement. There was not even a near miss.
  Therefore, cases all of a sudden had to go, at some expense, to the Lands Tribunal. It was some time before the tribunal's decisions began to form a reliable pattern of precedent so that people could say, "Right, we've got the picture now. They have made so many hundreds of decisions and it is clear what the applicator figure should be." Initially, and perhaps rather innocently, thoughts on the valuation of the reversion turned on a simple question: what capital sum would have to be prudently invested to produce the same annual return as the ground rent? That produced some very favourable acquisitions of freeholds and, as an early enfranchiser myself, I took advantage of that thinking when it prevailed.
  However, with the passage of time, a different view began to be taken, using nuptial idiom— if I may say that— and the concept of the marriage value. The proposition was that the value of the whole might be greater than the sum of the values of the parts, in the hands, at any rate, of the leaseholder as purchaser. I am not supporting that proposition; I am saying that that is the way in which the thinking began to develop.
  I am reminded of the rule in estate duty law that the gift may not be the same at both ends. The gift may be more valuable to the recipient than it is to the donor.
  458
  My law lecturers, all those long years ago, used to give an example. If I owned 49 per cent. of the shares in a company, and someone who owned 2 per cent. of the shares gave me that 2 per cent., I should, as the new owner of 51 per cent. of the shares, have received something of infinitely greater value than it had enjoyed in the hands of the person who gave it to me.
  There are subtleties in those valuations and I do not want them to be worked out expensively by our constituents. The Bill has been criticised, but I am here only to promote and advance one point: all our constituents, whether they live in Burnley, London or Solihull, will be grateful to the House for its careful scrutiny if the Bill finally goes to the statute book with a perfectly clear mechanism telling people what to expect to pay if they act in concert as long residential leaseholders seeking the freehold.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) said in his comprehensive and elegant remarks that the relationship between landlord and tenant is inherently adversarial. Maybe it is, but, as far as we can, we should keep that to a minimum. I do not want the price for the freehold to become a ground for argument, bitterness and, ultimately, expensive litigation. The House has it in its power to keep that potential to an absolute minimum, bearing in mind that another matter will probably be considered at the same time.
  There have been discussions, not least those involving my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, about the various mechanisms for transfer of management functions, but if the long leaseholders are at war with the landlord over the price of the freehold, even when the management functions are being transferred, that will be as unpromising a recipe for fruitful negotiation that could possibly be devised.
  The final form of the Bill may go one way or the other, enhancing the potentially adversarial nature of the relationship between landlord and tenant or minimising it, providing good formulation and every prospect of satisfactory negotiation between the parties.
  Mr. Pike: As a solicitor, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that some people thought that they were buying out the freehold under the 1960s legislation, although all they bought out was the need to pay ground rent. Is it not important that we ensure that people know exactly what they are getting, and not only on that point?
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman obviously has extensive experience of those matters. As we agreed, he made the good point, which I acknowledged, that leasehold practice varies a great deal in different parts of the country. I am sure that the detail of what he describes from his experience is correct, but I shall answer in general terms.
  The clearer and more transparent the situation, the better, not merely in respect of what one gets for one's money. There should be a reliable formula that provides a fairly accurate estimate of the money likely to be needed to acquire that defined asset, which is my only reason for striking a slightly discordant note: good scrutiny and a good final product, which the Bill is intended to be, are not helped by limiting scrutiny by timetable.
  There is so much complexity here, but I detect a lot of good will and a lot of heads nodded on this side of the House when contributions were made from the other side,

  459
  and vice versa. Members want to get the Bill right, but the timetable is not helpful. It is a reality— there is nothing I can do about it— but we must make the issues as clear to our constituents as possible. We are not in the business of giving them law lectures, nor do we expect them to become amateur lawyers overnight. As the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) said, he earned his living doing something completely different, so he could not be expected to understand all these matters any more than I could be expected to do the job he did at that time.
  I wish the Bill well and hope that it reaches our constituents in the clearest possible form as the law governing their affairs.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. David Crausby: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to say a few words in support of an exceptionally important Bill. Nothing is more important than a measure that will deliver improved rights in the interests of everyday people. The desire to own one's home lies at the core of our natural instinct for independence and security, and it is both highly rewarding and emotive, but fulfilment of that desire cannot be complete without the principled right to buy the land on which that home stands— at a fair price, of course.
  I therefore warmly welcome the proposals for those who want to acquire control over their freeholds and commonholds, thereby improving their prospects for independence and individuality, but I shall concentrate my remarks on those who choose, for whatever reason, not to buy and to continue with a leasehold. I believe in the right to purchase a freehold, but I also defend those who do not want to go to what may be considerable expense.
  I have constituents in Bolton who are contracted to pay very small amounts in ground rent— sometimes little over a pound a year— and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), I must say that, financially, it is difficult to justify buying a freehold in such circumstances. Those people should not be pressured and their choice not to buy should not allow unprincipled landlords to mistreat them, thereby coercing them to buy.
  One such example of abuse by freeholders is a landlord insisting on the lessee purchasing household insurance from a specific company. I fully understand and accept that landlords have a legitimate interest in ensuring that their properties are properly insured, but, let us face it, the truth is that the motive for insisting on a specific company is almost exclusively related to securing commission from unscrupulous insurance companies. Such people do not buy up ground rents to collect a couple of pounds a year.
  My constituent, Mr. Raby from Harwood, wrote to tell me that, along with many of his neighbours, he had paid ground rent of £4.50 a year since moving into his terraced property n 1966. In recent years, his landlord, who lived close by, died. Mr. Raby tried in vain to find out how and whom he should pay. In 1998, he received a letter informing him that the freehold had been disposed of to a London company, which sent him a bill for just over £20. He promptly paid the new freeholder what he owned. Shortly after, he was offered his freehold for £500. He declined the offer. A year later, he was offered it for £350. Again he declined. Quite reasonably, he felt that he could not justify paying £500 or even £350 compared with annual ground rent of £4.50.
  460
  In the middle of 2000, Mr. Raby received a letter from a company called Terra Firma saying that his insurance did not meet its requirements. It claimed that his insurance was inadequate, despite the fact that it knew nothing of the terms of that insurance. It nevertheless felt able to demand that he insure in future with a company called Owners Combined Ltd. He initially put up a struggle, but the firm continued to harass him until he surrendered. As he put it in a letter to me,
  "They had me over a barrel".
  He tells me that he has now separated his buildings insurance from his contents insurance, and that he now has to pay an extra £60 a year— not much for a big insurance company, but an awful lot for my constituent.
  In my constituency, a company called Compton Insurance Services recently bought up freeholds in the area and now insists that residents use AXA Insurance. The company's main motive in buying up freeholds clearly relates to the insurance business that that will generate. It writes intimidating letters to my constituents, insisting that they fill in application forms for the new insurance.
  Mr. Warburton of Astley Bridge wrote in a letter to me
  "I was born at this address over eighty years ago and my parents and myself have paid the ground rent of £2 a year on this lease. I am insured with Age Concern and people especially at my age should not be subject to this aggro."
  Members may ask what kind of insurance company would put a man of Mr. Warburton's age under such pressure. AXA is a large and, on the face of it, respectable insurance company. It is big enough to sponsor the FA Cup, for example. I wrote to AXA complaining about the way in which Compton was, in my view, intimidating and virtually blackmailing people into using its insurance.
  Mr. Pike: I receive letters of exactly the same kind. Is it not worrying that, for every person who writes to my hon. Friend or me, there are a number of people who feel so pressurised that they cough up even when they cannot afford to do so?
  Mr. Crausby: Absolutely. Thousands of people are so intimidated that they feel there is nothing else they can do.
  When I requested a meeting with AXA to urge it to refuse such business, I naively assumed that it was unaware of the tactics employed by Compton— that it did not know what was being done on its behalf. AXA, however, refused to meet me, telling me that the matter was nothing to do with it and suggesting that I meet representatives of Compton instead.
  Mr. Andy Homer, AXA's chief executive, told my local newspaper, the Bolton Evening News, that he could not comment because the dispute was between Compton and its tenants. In other words, "It's not me, guv". I can only assume from AXA's behaviour, and from its lack of concern, that it is just as bad as Compton—interested only in profits from the insurance business. It is clear that it desperately wants to pour money into the pockets of multi-millionaire footballers, and is prepared to fund that by forcing pensioners in my constituency to buy its insurance.
  I spoke on the telephone to an elderly lady who had lived in the same property, with her husband, for more than 40 years. Throughout their married life, they had paid their insurance through the Co-op to an insurance

  461
  collector who called at the door. The couple had received a series of aggressive letters from Compton. When the lady raised the matter with her insurance agent, the man from the Co-op, he advised her to give in and take out insurance with AXA.
  That lady cannot believe that in this day and age, in Great Britain, it can be legal for her and her husband to be harassed and intimidated in such a way. To be honest, neither can I. It is fundamental to our freedom in this country that we should not be intimidated— that we should not be forced by those who are stronger or wealthier than us to do what they bid, especially when they act for no better reason than to make themselves even stronger and wealthier. It is the responsibility of democratic Government to ensure that the public are protected. The British public should be bullied by no one: they should not be bullied at school, they should not be bullied at work, and they certainly should not be bullied in their own homes.
  This sorry tale of intimidation by large, wealthy organisations or householders who have worked all their lives to buy their homes is bad enough, but when we consider that the freeholder is armed with the draconian measure of forfeiture and is prepared to use it—prepared, certainly, to threaten to use it—we can imagine the pressure that elderly residents will experience. It is no wonder that so many cave in.
  Forfeiture is just one example of the way in which the existing law is tilted in favour of landlords. Its use, or should I say misuse, to force leaseholders to take out insurance by people threatening the loss of their homes convinces me that it is a power that should be abolished.
  When the Bill's predecessor was discussed in the other place last March, Lady Hanham tabled an amendment to void provisions in a lease requiring a tenant to insure with a company nominated by the landlord. It was a simple amendment, intended to address a simple injustice. Why should anyone be forced to buy insurance from a company with which he or she does not want to deal? Lord Whitty expressed some understanding of the concerns behind the amendment, and said that he felt some sympathy with it. He promised that the Government would look at it in the longer term, outside the scope of the Bill.
  The problem is that, on a daily basis, poor people are being taken advantage of. To put it simply, they are being ripped off. If we do not stop these anti-competitive practices now, they will clearly increase to a point at which all insurance companies will feel compelled to become involved in what is a very seedy business.
  I strongly agree that the Bill takes householders' entitlements in the right direction. I hope very much, however, that in Committee we will take the opportunity to strengthen its proposals further in the interests of the people. We have a responsibility to prevent companies from being able to stipulate in lease agreements the firms through which buildings insurance should be organised. If we do not do that, the Government will be forced to return to the matter as they have so many times before.
  6.28 pm
  Mr. Oliver Heald: I welcome the Bill. I agree with the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) that the actions of some freeholders and managing agents are unacceptable: indeed, I think that much of the pressure for the Bill has
  462
  come from those who see commonhold as a way of escaping from certain managing agents and certain freeholders. I shall say more about that later.
  Of the Bill, I say "Better late than never". In 1996, when the Conservative Government presented a draft commonhold Bill for discussion, the Minister for Local Government, the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford)— the then Opposition spokesman— expressed criticisms. He said, nearly six years ago, that
  "Labour in Government will have no hesitation in introducing a comprehensive leasehold reform package including commonhold legislation".
  He went on to say how unacceptable it was to wait four and a half years, as the Tory Government had, to introduce the measure and to allow it to be properly debated within the term of a Parliament. Therefore, it was with certain wry amusement that I noted that, following Labour's election, almost exactly the same period elapsed before the Bill came before this place.
  I support the introduction of commonhold. Although I accept what the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East said —it is wrong for a landlord to insist on a long-lease tenant taking out insurance with a company that may not offer the best terms—it is important to realise that tenants have been trapped in leasehold for so long because the only way of ensuring that properties were insured was to have a system under which the positive obligations of ownership could pass from one owner to another. It was necessary for each unit to have positive legal obligations towards its neighbours and for those to continue generation after generation, owner after owner. It would not have been possible to insist on insurance for all properties, which is vital, if the leasehold system had not been in place. It was not open to freehold properties to continue with those positive legal obligations.
  That is why 1 million flats and 1 million homes are leasehold today. A majority of lessees would prefer to be freeholders or commonholders; the commonhold proposals will allow them to meet that aspiration. It is good that we are in a position to let so many people reach something that they have wanted for so long.
  There will be fewer opportunities for unscrupulous freeholders and managing agents to take advantage of lessees. We have heard personal examples from the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who was asked to pay a premium for putting up a garage and extension at his property. He had the ability to fight his corner and ended up not paying the money. However, many people would not have had the courage and fortitude to achieve that.
  The combination of the commonhold and right-to-manage proposals in the Bill will mean that there are fewer opportunities for the sort of misbehaviour that we have heard about and for other forms of misbehaviour by freeholders and their agents. The campaign for the abolition of residential leaseholds sent a list to us all, which criticises some of the behaviour by landlords.
  It is important to include the caveat that many freeholders and agents do an excellent and efficient job and behave entirely properly. One would not want to criticise them, but it is wrong that some landlords should steal money from maintenance funds that in law should be held on trust; falsify tenders for works to premises, which they are carrying out at a secret profit; make

  463
  leaseholders pay the landlord's legal costs even if the landlord is in the wrong; bully and intimidate; charge for services or work that has not been carried out; fail to carry out essential works until the costs become astronomical; fail to disclose money missing from maintenance funds in the annual accounts summary— apparently, according to the Institute of Chartered Accountants, it is legal to omit the fact that money is missing from the fund— create phoney management companies to levy unnecessarily high charges; and hold lessees to ransom when they sell their properties by imposing huge administration fees for answering queries.
  Some of those actions would be illegal under current law, but not all. If we move to a system where more long-term tenants are able to have commonhold and own the freehold in effect, or have the right to manage their properties, there will be less abuse of the system.
  I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) about the conversion rules. It will be possible to convert from leasehold to commonhold only if certain criteria are met. Among the details in the Bill is the 100 per cent. rule—the freeholder and each unit-holder would be able to object, as would cautioners and others with minor interests in the land.
  What worries me is that a cautioner could hold one unit-holder to ransom and everyone else would be denied the opportunity to become a commonholder. One can imagine circumstances where a caution has been entered on land in respect of a debt that is owed to one creditor. That creditor may have no hope of ever getting the money out of the unit-holder in normal circumstances. When the commonhold suggestion comes up, he may say, "I am not prepared to agree to the registration unless the caution is vacated and I get my money." For all we know, the unit-holder may not be able to pay. One hundred or 400 long-lease tenants in a block of flats could all be deprived of the opportunity of commonhold, which would avoid some of the difficulties that I have mentioned and which may be a long-held aspiration for many of them, just because of a dispute over a debt that cannot be resolved in relation to one unit-holder. The Committee will need to look at that. It is not right that all those people could be denied the opportunity of commonhold because of that sort of dispute.
  There may be an argument about a right of way. We all know that that happens. In my surgery, I get cases about disputed rights of way from time to time. Someone may own a right of way that is used by residents in a block of flats. Do we want that person to be able to stop 400 or 100 people becoming commonholders? Probably not. The Committee will have to look closely at whether the 100 per cent. rule is right, or at least at the categories of persons who can object. If it is to be every minor cautioner or every owner of a right of way, that is far too restrictive. There is cross-party consensus that commonhold should proceed. That could scupper it.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) said, there are already systems with long leases— 999 years, for example— where the freeholders have in effect contracted out the management of the premises to the tenants, or where the tenants are freeholders in a company and are able to manage the premises themselves. In those circumstances, there needs to be some attraction for commonhold to become the rule. If minor property
  464
  holders of the sort that I have described are able to scupper the conversion, that will defeat many attempts. That needs to be examined.
  My hon. Friend was on to a strong point when he said that it was wrong for the Government to be able to exclude local authority premises from the right to manage. The Government need to justify that. One of the complaints that one hears and is reported nationally from time to time is that local authorities are not always the best landlords of premises. One would want to know why local authorities should be exempted from the right-to-manage proposals. Surely if tenants are not happy with their current arrangements they should be able to obtain the right to manage the property themselves.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a curious anomaly in the Bill that local authorities are exempted from the right to manage, but housing associations are not?
  Mr. Heald: Yes. The Government say that they are in favour of transferring the entire stock of local authorities to housing associations. If they are prepared to trust housing associations in that way, why should there be one rule for housing associations and another for local authorities? Why should there be a lower standard for local authorities? Surely if we want to lever up the quality of public services, we should encourage local authorities to reach the same standards as housing associations and private landlords. They should be able to do that, particularly given all the examples that we have heard from hon. Members on both sides of the House of poor-quality private sector landlords.
  Surely the Government are not saying that local authorities cannot attain the standard of the private sector when it comes to property management. That touches on another point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone made about the regulation of managing agents and those who look after property. In her reply to the debate, will the Minister tell us what proposals the Government have for the regulation of managing agents?
  It is good that commonhold will enable more people to own the freehold of their properties. It is good that people will have the right to manage their properties, but the third leg of the tripod is to sort out the regulation of managing agents and to ensure that there is proper guidance and regulation.
  What should be done about the bad unit-holder who does not pay his rent or insure his property and does not behave in a neighbourly way? One can criticise the abuse of the right of forfeiture, as the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East did, but it is very important on grounds of safety as much as anything else that bad unit-holders should be made to maintain and insure their premises and to be as neighbourly as possible.
  In a block of flats people's lives can be put at risk by a bad unit-holder who does not fulfil his or her obligations. So it is not such a bad thing to have the ability to take draconian measures when an important covenant is breached. Although it should not be abused, in some cases the right of forfeiture is useful in concentrating the mind of the bad unit-holder or tenant and ensuring that properties are insured and maintained in the interests of everybody in the block. That option will not be available in the case of commonhold, at least as it is currently

  465
  proposed, but I hope that the Committee will consider seriously what leverage there will be to deal with bad unit-holders.
  I suspect that many unit-holders will not consider a charging order to be much of a threat or as significant a penalty as forfeiture. It should also be noted that one has to go through quite an expensive rigmarole in order to obtain a charging order. If a creditor or a commonhold association feels unable to become involved in a great deal of expense and inconvenience there may be a temptation to let certain issues slide. That would be bad for public health and public policy. I hope that the way in which the bad unit-holder is dealt with will be considered fully in Committee.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. He has touched on a very important point. Under a commonhold system, the rogue owners could effectively prejudice the interests of the majority. Therefore it is crucial that the commonhold association has powers to deal with rogue owners.
  Mr. Heald: I agree. The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) suggested that the commonhold association could be a priority creditor when the property was sold. I do not think that that goes far enough, but it shows that the issue has struck a chord with hon. Members from all parties—I notice the odd nod from Labour Members—and I hope that some way will be found to protect the innocent unit-holder who does everything right from the bad unit-holder who does not. That is one reason why responsible freeholders are keen to insist on the insurance obligation. If one tenant is not insured, it can often prejudice the insurance of everybody else in a block of flats. These are not minor issues; they are important considerations and I hope that the Committee will address them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) spoke about the need to have a clear price mechanism for enfranchisement. He said how important it was to have adequate time to deal with these issues in Committee and I echo that point. A million flats are in leasehold occupation; they could be home to 3 million people or more. An additional 1 million houses are in leasehold occupation. If we can solve some of these problems by developing a clear price mechanism for valuing a freehold or dealing with bad unit-holders, we will help millions of people. So to be less than generous with our time and say that we are only prepared to spend a week or 10 days on it is denying quite an important duty to millions of people.
  I hope that sufficient time will be provided for these issues to be dealt with properly, particularly as, as far as I can see, there is no real party political argument about the principle of the legislation. Our draft Bill was criticised for being far too late; the Government's Bill has been criticised for being five years too late, but we all agree on the principle, so it should be possible to sort out these technical issues, as 2 million households are looking to us to do just that.
  6.48 pm
  Glenda Jackson: With all due respect, I think that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) fell into a trap into which many speakers have fallen this evening in attempting to get to
  466
  grips with the Bill—that of being infinitely too detailed in attempting to protect someone who, by virtue of a lease, is outside our thinking in relation to home owners. I accept absolutely that people who live in flats are in a different situation from home owners who live in a row of terraced houses where everyone owns their properties. However, the damage that can be inflicted on a row of terraced houses by one rogue property owner can be just as great and just as disturbing as that caused by one rogue tenant or commonholder in a block of flats. I do not believe that the House would be prepared to pass legislation that was so detailed in that respect that it set out precise ways of preventing the appearance of a rogue householder. We would look to the existing tenets of the law to protect other people.
  The Bill gives the House another opportunity to solve a problem with which Parliament has been struggling ever since I entered the House in 1992. I was much encouraged to hear that the Conservative party has changed what I perceived to be its attitude to leasehold enfranchisement. Conservative Members now regard that as an issue of national interest that demands a bipartisan approach to the Bill. It is a shame that that was not the attitude of the Conservative Government in 1993 when they introduced their Bill on leasehold enfranchisement. If that Government had accepted some of the amendments tabled by the then Opposition, there would be no need for us to debate the matter this evening. The rumour in 1993 was that the then Conservative Government had been forced to emasculate their initial proposals on leasehold enfranchisement, not by lack of bipartisan support for the Bill but by fear of the major London ducal estates.
  I represent a London constituency, and I found that two of the most interesting of this evening's contributions were made by my hon. Friends the hon. Members for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) and for Burnley (Mr. Pike). They mentioned freeholds being offered for sale for £350, whereas in London it is par for the course for freeholds to be offered for £350,000. Such statements come as something of a shock.
  When it comes to enfranchising leaseholders and implementing the other provisions of the Bill, we must take national differences into consideration. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East crystallised the argument when he said that the aim of the House must be to balance up the gross inequity that exists between those who own freeholds and those who have leases.
  My constituents have given me examples of the difficulties that they face as leaseholders. I remember the evidence presented to the House in 1993 on this matter, and I do not think that I exaggerate when I say that the majority of the freeholders with whom my constituents have had to deal would not still have properties standing on the land that they own were it not for the fact that the leaseholders who live in those properties had maintained them, year in and year out.
  The leases involved may place various demands on the freeholders, but those demands have never been met. In contrast, my leaseholders have maintained the fabric of the buildings in which they live. They have engaged in major repairs when necessary, and in many instances have been responsible for the decoration, internal and external, of the properties.
  My hon. Friend the Minister said that, for all their investment and commitment, leaseholders have seen their right to live quietly, calmly and securely in a home that

  467
  they have created diminish every year. That is the problem that the House is attempting to solve with this Bill. We need to make the balance rather more equal, especially in London. The present imbalance persists, despite the improvements that have been made with regard to leasehold enfranchisement.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East said that the basic principle involved was one of human rights. We must ensure that, in the 21st century, no one in our society can be imposed on by the essentially uncaring but more powerful part of the leasehold equation. The Bill should be approached in that spirit.
  However, I must tell my ministerial colleagues that my constituents are extremely disappointed with the Bill's requirements regarding commonhold. I share their disappointment, especially over the requirement that 100 per cent. of leaseholders in a property must agree before that property can move to commonhold.
  I do not understand the Government's thinking on that matter. For example, the Bill has been changed to reduce the requirements that must be met before leasehold enfranchisement can be entered into. The Bill does not require 100 per cent. of leaseholders to agree before they can join together to buy the freehold to a property, so why does it do so over the introduction of commonhold?
  The Minister said that, if commonhold were dependent on something other than 100 per cent. agreement, the result would be that the block involved would have two strands of management. Yet that arrangement exists already in those local authority properties where not all tenants exercised their right to buy. Indeed, local authorities are obliged to buy back leases in order to maintain properties.
  I was amused to hear the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire mention the exclusion that precludes local authority tenants from exercising the right to manage. I presume that that provision exists because such tenants already have the option to create their own management structures. Moreover, the Government are encouraging local authorities to offer tenants the option of setting up their own management structures or of giving management responsibility for their property to another housing association. In either case, the clear understanding is that the majority of tenants must be in agreement.
  Given that that option is open to local authority tenants, why cannot it be open to potential commonholders? If a majority of tenants involved can make such decisions about local authority housing, it seems entirely feasible to say that a majority of leaseholders can do so in relation to commonhold.
  The Government believe that commonhold can make the sort of changes desired by hon. Members of all parties. However, I do not believe that they are right to rely on the initial steps being taken in relation to new build. That will not secure the results that all hon. Members want within the period of time that would be acceptable to my constituents.
  We are not talking rocket science. I think that Britain may be the only country in the world that does not have some form of commonhold. Commonhold works best when it has tradition behind it, and when people have
  468
  known each other and the blocks in which they live for a considerable time. To pin our hopes on new build for the first steps towards commonhold seems to me to be to neglect the fact that none of those supports will be in place.
  In an intervention that the Minister kindly allowed earlier, I asked about commonhold associations, and I am still somewhat perplexed. The Government expect that such associations will redress the imbalance between freeholders and leaseholders. What will be the contribution of individual commonholders to the management of the block in which they live, given that they will not all meet for a considerable time? I made the point earlier that all flats are not sold at exactly the same time and that all tenants do not automatically move in on the same date. Moreover, I expect that the amounts of money that developers determine must be paid each year to maintain properties will vary widely.
  People moving into a block of flats for the first time might read that the flats would be in a commonhold system and that there would be regulations to ensure the basis of the commonhold association, but if it were me, I should still feel that I was buying a pig in a poke because I would have had no say in the constitution of the future management system for the block.
  I hope that the Government will return to the issue of commonhold—certainly on the requirement for 100 per cent. agreement. They should certainly return to the issue if they hope that commonhold will be driven by new build—although very, very few developers in London will be willing to give up what they still regard as a sizeable investment: freehold. I hope that the Government will reconsider those points.
  I also want to raise with the Government issues relating to marriage value. I know that it is extremely difficult to reach agreement on that topic, but my constituents constantly raise it with me. I notice that there is no requirement for marriage value on leases that run longer than 80 years. However, I point out to my hon. Friends that some of my constituents who would dearly love to extend their present leases so that the need for marriage value is removed at present find that the freeholders vastly inflate the amount of money asked for the extension of the leases.
  Some of those constituents certainly feel that they are yet again being excluded from a measure that they believed would transform their situation. In essence, they feel that they are maintaining someone else's property and that when push comes to shove they will always be in the vulnerable position of having maintained that property— of having sunk not merely their life savings but their lives into it. They will always be vulnerable if the freeholder can see ways of squeezing yet more money out of the leaseholders. Heaven knows, many freeholders are immensely imaginative in doing that.
  Several hon. Members have spoken about insurance. I certainly recall the discussions of that topic when the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 was in Committee. An outrageous force majeure is being wreaked on tenants—especially the elderly, as was pointed out— whereby they must obtain their insurance from a particular company.
  I am sorry to repeat myself. It is par for the course not only for the management companies of blocks in London to charge sizeable amounts for insurance under their

  469
  agreements, but in the case of an accident for leaseholders to discover that the premiums have never been paid and that they are completely uninsured.
  I am sure that we could all produce for the benefit of the House horror stories of the realities of life for leaseholders. I am telling the stories that my constituents have told me about London, where, as we know, there are huge complexities owing to the shortage of affordable properties. I pointed out to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) that it came as a shock to hear such phrases emanating from the mouths of Conservative Members, but if they are moving in that direction it is to be welcomed. There are huge pressures in London; there is a desperate shortage of land.
  I end where I began. The reason why we are considering the Bill is the same one that has applied in all our discussions of the matter— certainly since I became a Member: to redress an unfair balance between people who own a freehold and those who buy a leasehold. In many cases, if the leaseholders did not give their commitment to the property, the freeholder would merely have an empty piece of land.
  Many aspects of the Bill are to be welcomed. However, opportunities have been missed and I trust that some of the Bill's inequities will be tackled in Committee. I was impressed to hear my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department say that the Government are prepared to listen. No doubt these arguments will be made again and I hope that the Government will accept amendments on some points.
  7.4 pm
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I declare an interest. I am the owner of a long lease in London, and from time to time I have advised, as a lawyer, on property matters.
  It is high time that we reformed the system of covenants running with land—the whole feudal system with which we are dealing today. There is unanimity on that throughout the Chamber. I do not want to get involved in discussion of how much time was taken by one side or the other; now, we are proceeding in the right direction.
  Leaseholders have typically been in a weak position in enforcing covenants against their landlords. Landlords have always had the whip hand in that regard. Earlier, the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned the dreaded flying freeholds and flying commonholds. I once languished in a law lecture hearing about a flying freehold, with the confident expectation that I should never be confronted by one. After only three months of legal practice I came across one, and although that was 20 years ago I have never forgotten it.
  The land commonhold system in England and Wales really needs improvement. There are no colleagues representing Scottish constituencies in the Chamber— understandably, because their system is better than ours.
  The Bill is most welcome, although obviously there are still matters that must be addressed. Members on both sides of the House have referred to various problems. I listened intently to the powerful speech made by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who spoke strongly from a personal point of view about certain problems. I suspect that he might not be serving on the Standing Committee— although I may be wrong.
  470
  In 1985, I acted for a small carpet retailer who was buying small warehouse premises in Llandudno in north Wales. He wanted to open a small retail outlet in the town in a leasehold property that had been a commercial warehouse for heaven knows how long. We had to apply to the landlord for permission to put in a small shop window and for retail premises to be situated in the building. Even at that time, the landlord asked for £7,000—for nothing. However, because of time constraints we had to negotiate for a sum approaching that figure. There were obviously problems.
  There are huge problems in the city of Cardiff, not only with commercial but with residential leaseholds, so I welcome the moves to reform leaseholding in general. I certainly also welcome the commonhold principle, but I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) and others about the unanimity rule. If a possible commonholder was in arrears with his or her mortgage payments it seems ridiculous that that might be enough to make the mortgagee decide that there was no compliance or agreement, so the whole scheme would fall flat.
  Mr. Cash: Given the hon. Gentleman's genuine enthusiasm for the principle of the Bill and also the fact that there is an element of national interest, does he agree that it would be an interesting test—in the light of the parliamentary reforms to the whipping system proposed by the Leader of the House—to propose that there should be proper representation on the Standing Committee and that it should include Members, such as the hon. Members for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and for Burnley (Mr. Pike), who expressed concerns similar to those that he is raising? That would ensure proper representation on the Committee.
  Mr. Llwyd: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I should be pleased to see the hon. Members for Burnley (Mr. Pike), for Rother Valley and for Hampstead and Highgate in the Standing Committee; I am sure that its proceedings would be much enhanced. My endorsement may be the kiss of death, of course, in which case those hon. Members can be confident that they will not serve on any Committee in the foreseeable future.
  Mr. Pike: I am always willing to serve on Committees. However, I am on the Chairmen's Panel and am also chairing another Committee. It is impossible to do everything that one would wish, as I am sure every Member of the House agrees.
  Mr. Llwyd: That must be right.
  Applying for a charging order against an errant commonholder is a difficult and expensive legal procedure. In any event, the charging order fails if the debt is small in comparison with the value of the leasehold interest. Charging orders are a total waste of time. However, I welcome the extended rights for leaseholders in the Bill. I also welcome unreservedly the relaxed conditions for leaseholders of houses to extend their lease or to enfranchise; the new right for individual leaseholders not to be excluded from collective enfranchisement; and the new right for leaseholders of flats collectively to take over the management of the block. All those proposals are to the good.

  471
  There are some good things about the Bill, which has been a long time coming, and which I am sure will be improved in Committee. I think that the commonhold system will be of considerable use and assistance to many tens of thousands of our constituents.
  I have some queries on commonhold, which the Minister will undoubtedly address at some point, although perhaps not this evening. I wish to know about the status of unregistered interests where consent to register is sought; the rights of mortgagees where the mortgagors vote to sell off common parts; whether leases should automatically terminate if the commonhold terminates; and the ability of a commonhold association to recover service charge arrears, particularly if a unit changes hands. That was mentioned earlier with regard to the charging order, nisi and absolute.
  The extended work load of the leasehold valuation tribunals is a good thing, and I am sure that the people involved will be trained appropriately. That is not meant to be patronising, but this is a fairly new area of law. It is a good idea for more applications to go to the LVTs rather than the courts. I should like the LVT procedure to be as informal as possible, although I know that that might be difficult to achieve bearing in mind the need for valuers.
  The Law Society contends that the LVTs should be able to deal with all residential leasehold issues and should act as a one-stop shop. At present, issues are divided between tribunals and the county courts. For example, the majority of applications concerning whether costs incurred in relation to services, repairs and maintenance works are reasonable are dealt with by LVTs, while judgments on arrears are made by county courts. Such duality is probably not in tenants' interests.
  I agree that the law needs to be consolidated. The hon. Member for Rother Valley and others have mentioned numerous pieces of legislation. It is a very complex situation and will remain so even after the Bill, amended or not, reaches the statute book. There are more than a dozen statues involved. They include the Landlord and Tenant Acts 1954, 1985 and 1987, the Rent Act 1977, the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 and the Housing Acts 1988 and 1996, to name but a few. Clearly, there is a crying need for consolidation.
  I cannot understand why we are not considering a form of mandatory introduction of commonhold with new build. The Minister said that the markets will be the determining factor. In other words, the benefits likely to accrue in a commonhold situation will in some way persuade developers and commonholders to adopt this particular model. I remind the House that the Land Registration Act 1925 introduced the registration of freehold and leasehold titles. Until the late 1980s, only a tiny proportion of rural properties had ever had registered title until it became compulsory. The benefits of registered title were obvious, not just to lawyers. It led to the simplification of conveyancing, but did not commend itself to people in general. This might be a comparable situation. Perhaps the Government should think again about a mandatory introduction of the commonhold with regard to new build.
  The unanimity rule has been dealt with eloquently by many speakers in the debate, so I shall not dwell on it. It is a very real issue. One errant commonholder with
  472
  mortgage arrears will apparently scupper the whole system for everyone in the proposed scheme. That must be addressed. The Minister said in his opening remarks that the Government were listening. With respect, had they listened to what was said in the other place, changes would already have been proposed. Even at this stage, and even with the restricted timetable that is a matter of some criticism, bearing in mind the ground-breaking nature of this important Bill, I hope that the Government will think again about this issue in Committee.
  On dispute resolution, clause 34(3)(b) provides that the directors of a commonhold association
  "shall have regard to the desirability of using"
  conciliation procedures. Some of us would like to see that provision strengthened.
  The Minister said that there would be draft regulations on delegated powers, which I welcome. I hope that those will be made available before the Bill goes into Committee. On the framework of delegated powers in general, the Bill was considered by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform in its fifth report. The Committee concluded that the regulations should be available as soon as the Bill was before the House.
  I echo everything that has been said about insurance arrangements and about freeholders determining which insurance company should be used. In addition, there should be better regulation of managing agents.
  I echo what was said by the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor). There is an obvious tendency for ground landlords to seek inflated valuations, knowing that the leaseholders are usually anxious to complete a purchase. It is known as the Delaforce effect. I do not see much change in the Bill. The freehold valuation is usually based on the percentage site value approach, which is often arbitrarily determined.
  I would like a change in the statutory fee for issuing a demand to purchase. It is routine for the leaseholder to pay the legal and surveying fees for both parties. How are those fees determined? I have been involved in situations in which ridiculous fees have been asked. I would like a mechanism in the Bill to put a stop to that without having endless correspondence about it.
  My comments are sincere and are meant to be constructive. This is a good Bill, but it needs improving, and I hope that that will happen in the coming weeks.
  7.19 pm
  Mr. Piara S. Khabra: It is easy, at present, to get swept away by the constantly changing events overseas and their implications for this country's interests at home and abroad, yet it is essential that we do not neglect day-to-day legislation, which, although possibly not so dramatic, has the power to affect the lives of many people in this country. The Bill will address some of the issues faced by many people.
  I am not an expert in the intricacies of housing legislation, and many hon. Members have a great deal more knowledge and expertise in this matter, but the Bill will affect leaseholders in constituencies across the country, especially in London and the south-east, which contain more than half the United Kingdom's leaseholders. I am therefore glad that the Government

  473
  have reintroduced the Bill at the earliest opportunity. I participated in previous debates on such matters, and I am happy to do so again today.
  Although leasehold suits some, it has many drawbacks for long-term residential occupiers in England and Wales. Many people, including some in my constituency, experience serious difficulties with their landlords, who neglect their obligations under the lease, either wilfully or because they are absent. The Bill will go some way to redress the balance of power between landlord and tenant, and, arguably, it will better reflect the relative investment values in the property.
  I welcome the changes being introduced to create the new commonhold tenure for blocks of flats and other multi-unit properties, as well as further reform of residential leaseholds, particularly in respect of making it easier for people to purchase the freehold of their properties.
  The introduction of commonhold should provide a better system for the future management and ownership of blocks of flats and other interdependent buildings with shared services and common parts, and it is designed with the admirable intention of giving people in commonhold the opportunity to own the freehold of their homes. Commonhold is a new concept for the United Kingdom, and thus may take some time to be accepted, but it should prove a popular option for new developments.
  The Bill will provide an option to convert from leasehold to commonhold, but it is likely that many leaseholders will find that their concerns are sufficiently addressed by the proposed leasehold reforms. For leaseholders, one of the most welcome aspects of the Bill is that proposed under the chapter entitled "Right to Manage".
  The Leasehold Advisory Service has said that it receives a large number of inquiries that relate to complaints about service charge abuses and overcharging, mismanagement and the neglect of properties by landlords. I sometimes receive complaints from my constituents on such matters. The Bill will provide tenants with further powers to address those problems. So long as certain reasonable conditions are met, such as the building, or part of the building, being self-contained and containing at least two flats, tenants will be given the power to manage the property without the need to buy the freehold. They also need not prove fault on the part of the landlord, as would be the case if they were applying for a management order under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.
  I also approve of the improvements in the rights of those who inherit a leasehold house from a deceased leaseholder, provided that the tenant had certain rights immediately before his death and that they do not serve the notice any later than six months after the grant of probate or letters of administration.
  I should like to ask the Minister to consider a point that appears to have been missed: what happens when a long lease— one over 21 years— expires? Robert On-Ewing, a leasehold reform specialist, has pointed out that when a long lease expires, the leaseholder has the right to remain as an assumed periodic tenant under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. However, leaseholders have the right only if they qualify as tenants, but people do not qualify as tenants if they pay more than £25,000 per annum. That may sound like a great deal, but
  474
  it is not really that much in some areas, especially central London. Thirteen years after the relevant Act was passed, I wonder whether that ceiling should be removed, or at least raised.
  Overall, I am positive about these reforms. I agree with Ray Walker, a housing and planning specialist who has worked closely with the Co-operative Bank and written a pamphlet for the Mutuo think tank on the issue. He argues that if the regulations are to work, leaseholders will need extra support, including better guidance on how to form and run effective management companies, and details of accredited solicitors and other experts who can help prevent abuses in the system. However, I believe that we are taking important steps, that this important Bill will take us forward and that leaseholders and freeholders will get a good deal from the reforms.
  Finally, I am impressed by what seems to have been an outstanding level of co-operation and consultation with the public and professional bodies to find resolutions to the issues that have been raised. I support the Bill.
  7.26 pm
  Mr. Robert Syms: I intend to make a brief contribution, but first, like many hon. Members, I declare an interest as the director of a family property and building company and the owner of a flat with a long lease in Poole and another in London. Several other hon. Members are in similar situations.
  I congratulate the Minister on the manner in which he opened the debate and took many interventions— rather more than I might have done in his position in discussing a technical and complex subject. The Bill has been a long time coming. It is easy to make political statements about wanting reform, but rather more difficult to determine the details and come up with the goods. The delay has produced one benefit in that widespread consultation has taken place. I welcome that because improvements have been made, but as an Opposition Member, I regret the fact that there is a programme motion, under which proceedings in Committee must be concluded by the end of the month.
  We can all agree on the principles behind much of the Bill, but the devil is in the detail. I fear that if the Bill is rushed and some clauses are not fully debated in Committee, there will be more work for the lawyers, of whom I have seen many in the Chamber today. It is important to get the Bill right, even if that takes a little longer, and I hope that the Government will take that into account.
  There are rather more hon. Members present than during some debates, because, as we have heard, there are 2 million residential leaseholders in the United Kingdom. Almost all of us have heard in our surgeries about examples of bad practice with freeholders or managing agents. All of us have had to wring our hands and give advice about the state of the law, which has not always adequately protected our constituents. However, we are dealing with two sides of a bargain— there are freeholders. Although we have discussed many bad landlords, there are also many very good landlords. Indeed, many pension funds, which are owned by the people, own freeholds and develop property in the United Kingdom. We must get the balance right. We must not draft the law so that it discourages legitimate pension funds that invest in property companies from producing the physical capital that the country needs to be a competitive and first-rate economy.

  475
  As I have said, there are many bad landlords involved in the misuse of maintenance funds, dodgy tendering systems for building work, failure to carry out work and hitting people with large repair bills that they find difficult to meet. We have all heard of such examples, so I broadly welcome the Bill and any proposals that will make it easier for leaseholders to become enfranchised and to take over the freehold of their flats.
  When that has happened in my constituency under the existing legislation, which was introduced by the previous Government, people are on the whole happy. They have managed to buy freeholds, have usually granted themselves a longer lease, set up a company to own the freehold and then found managing agents to run it. That system works very well, but it is a long, tortuous process and it takes someone to drive it through. It usually happens when one of the leaseholders gets the bit between his teeth and pursues the matter for the several years that it sometimes takes to reach the end of the process. Any changes to legislation that will make it easier for leaseholders to get on with the process and to take proper control over their lives must be welcomed, but difficulties will still arise.
  We all welcome the principle of commonhold, but I wonder whether the concept will take off. The Bill's 100 per cent. rule for existing blocks sets a very high hurdle. We have heard about lower hurdles, such as for the transfer of local authority stock, so I wonder whether we should not reduce the figure from 100 per cent. Commonhold will not take off if we rely purely on new building projects. People are conservative about property matters and commonhold will take off only if people see many examples of it happening very quickly. To make commonhold a success, existing flats must transfer to the new system.
  As the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) pointed out, there are real problems with new developments. The properties in blocks of 10, 20 or 30 flats sell one at a time and, to a large extent, any new scheme may well be set by the developers and that fact may concern the purchasers. The first person to buy a flat in a block that will be commonhold may not be sure quite what they will get. Indeed, some commonhold blocks may not even be physically finished before the units start to be sold. The time at which a building project is completed is not always entirely clear. There will, therefore, certainly be problems with commonhold.
  Under the leasehold system, if tenants do not pay legitimate service charges, a procedure can be used so that the threat of forfeiting a flat can force them to pay up. As far as I can see from the commonhold system, if members of a commonhold block do not pay the charge, they will not have to pay a price for not doing so. That issue must be examined. If it is not, the system will not work very well.
  Broadly speaking, I support the Bill, but the devil is in the detail. Much of the real work will have to be done in Committee and I regret the fact that the Committee stage will last for only three weeks. Unless the members of the Committee work extraordinarily long hours, I do not see how all the details in the Bill can be considered. There will be snags and, given the scale of the Bill and the
  476
  timetable for its consideration, we may have to return to this issue again before the end of this Parliament. That would be a terrible pity and a waste of time.
  7.33 pm
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: Hon. Members come into the House because we believe that some things are right and that some things are wrong. We come into the House because we want justice for those that the law has been unable to protect. We come to make law and also to change law; we come to improve it and thereby to improve the lives of the people whom we represent. It is for that reason that I wish to speak in this debate.
  Since 1884, when the first Leaseholders (Facilities of Fee Simple) Bill was introduced and defeated, hon. Members have sought justice for leaseholders in this country. In the 118 years that have elapsed since then, they have introduced 31 different Bills dealing with leasehold reform. All but two of those 31 Bills have been defeated and, of those two, only one managed to achieve fundamental reform that gave— and then only to a very limited group of leaseholders— the full benefit of home ownership. Such has been the power of property and the landed classes in this country, and such is the injustice that so many people outside Parliament have hoped for years that a Bill might overcome.
  For the past five years people in the media, such as Mira Bar Hillel, Sarah Pennels and Karen Wolfson, have campaigned for the Bill. Peter Haler and Tony Essien from LEASE—the Leasehold Advisory Service—have also campaigned for the Bill and all of them would want me to pay tribute today to the years of their lives that Stella Evans, Charlotte Martin, Neil Mulcock, Joan South, Shula Rich, Owen Humphries, Nigel Wilkins, Joyce Glasser, Terence Michael, John Patterson and Muriel Guest-Smith have devoted to trying to achieve justice for leaseholders through legislative change.
  Not all those individuals agree with each other— let alone with the Government— and I will freely and honestly say, with some of them overhearing me, that on many occasions most of them have succeeded in being a complete pain. They have certainly refused to let successive politicians off the hook. However, for those of us working in Parliament on the issue of leasehold, they have kept us focused on the problem. Whatever merit there may be in the Bill is due to them. I have the greatest admiration for them all and believe that they deserve the gratitude of the whole House. The faults in the Bill must rest, I fear, with us politicians.
  There is both merit and fault in the Bill. It is of course in the nature of Parliament that we are quick to point out the fault and happy to take the merit for granted. However, we should recognise that the Government have sought in the Bill to achieve three important changes. First, commonhold is a form of tenure that is used all over the world. It enables a flat owner to enjoy the full and inalienable benefits of ownership rather than having the mere right to inhabit a property for a designated period of time. Until now, this form of tenure has not existed in England and Wales. The Bill will introduce it, and that is good.
  Secondly, the no-fault right to manage that the Bill will give establishes the principle that the leaseholder—the person who lives in the property and who pays the bills— has the right to determine what work needs to be done and how their money is to be spent. That, too, is good.

  477
  Thirdly, the process of enfranchisement under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 has been too complicated and too expensive. It has left many leaseholders no better off because of onerous qualification and residency requirements. The Bill will reduce that burden and simplify the process. That, too, is good.
  My hon. Friend the Minister will rightly expect that my remarks will focus on an examination of the Bill's defects. He will know too that I wish to suggest ways in which these may be remedied in Committee. I hope that he will take comfort from the fact that I and others acknowledge the progress that has been achieved and welcome the central benefits that I have just outlined.
  At the time that the House was breaking up for the Christmas recess, an application for forfeiture was heard in the county court. The freeholder who made the application was the London borough of Camden and it related to unpaid service charge and ground rent in the sum of £1,266.38. The flat involved is one of three in a converted house and its market value is £350,000. On 13 December, the application for forfeiture was heard and, on 21 December, forfeiture was implemented. Neither the local authority nor the judge in this case appears to have made any inquiries as to the circumstances of the leaseholder or her whereabouts. Forfeiture was granted in a straightforward way and the London borough of Camden has recovered more than its £1,266.38. It has made a profit on top of the debt it was owed—a profit that amounts to £348,733.62. So let no one in the Chamber say that forfeiture is a reasonable penalty to be available in the hands of landlords.
  To its credit, the Camden New Journal noticed the case and made further inquiries. Unlike the council or the court, it bothered to check the land registry and discovered that the flat had no mortgage outstanding on it which suggested that, at the very least, the owner would have been easily able to secure funds against her equity in the property and pay the amount due. From talking to neighbours, it also discovered that the owner had not been seen for two years and was thought to have had a breakdown. If that is correct and the woman is in psychiatric care, she faces the prospect on her return to health of finding that she has no home to return to and has suffered the most enormous financial loss. That is what forfeiture means in practice. It is the power that a freeholder has to repossess a person's home in relation to what may be an insignificant debt. It is unjust and this Bill should abolish it. It does not.
  Of course debts must be paid, and the all-party group for leasehold reform and commonhold, which I chair, took evidence from building societies and other financial institutions on how such debts might be handled. They were of the view that such debts could be handled perfectly adequately through the small claims court in the first instance. Ultimately, it should be possible to force a sale of a property in order to pay a debt, but the balance of the funds after settlement of the debt should revert to the leaseholder.
  The Minister will argue that the Bill makes it more difficult for a landlord to implement forfeiture. Clauses 160 to 162 do indeed insist, for example, on a determination of the breach before a landlord can serve a section 146 notice for forfeiture under the Law of Property Act 1925. However, such arguments are fundamentally flawed in two respects. First, they fail to
  478
  understand that many unscrupulous landlords use the threat of forfeiture as a means of polite extortion. I call such landlords, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) remarked, the ground-rent grazers. Grazing animals require vast areas to feed on and they make up in bulk what they lack in quality. Siemarc, Castle New Tower Holdings, the Compton Group, Helpfavour, Shenstone's and Estate Management Ltd. are all ground-rent grazers which have bought up tens of thousands of freehold interests, usually at auction and very cheaply in the north of England.
  The freehold interests are sold for a few pounds each. Unlike London and the south-east, most of the properties are leasehold houses rather than flats. The ground-rent grazers have little interest in the ground rents themselves. They are usually a nominal sum of only a few pounds per annum. Unlike a service charge, however, a ground rent is due whether demanded or not, and on a house the right of forfeiture can be pursued by the landlord for arrears of ground rent. For the sake of a £4 ground rent that is a day overdue and has not been demanded or invoiced, the ground-rent grazer can start recovery proceedings. On top of the £4 ground rent, recovery costs are then invoiced. That is what those companies want.
  I will not forget the case of Mr. Mitchell of Rugeley in Staffordshire who told me that he had paid his ground rent of £20 promptly when reminded, but that his freeholder, Castle New Tower Holdings, had demanded £698.78 for its time and trouble in sending him an overdue notice in which it pointed out that his home was under threat of forfeiture. For many elderly people in such a situation it is the threat that they might lose their home that frightens them into paying such extortionate charges. It is simply no use for the Minister to insist that the Bill will require notification of ground rent or that forfeiture will be made more difficult, because as long as forfeiture exists unscrupulous landlords will use it to extort money from elderly and vulnerable people.
  The second reason why such arguments are flawed is perhaps even simpler to understand. It is against natural justice that a creditor should be allowed to recoup vastly more than the amount that they are owed by selling another person's home from under them. It is particularly intolerable when there are perfectly effective alternative means for enforcing the debt without such disproportionate suffering and loss. I urge the Minister to assure the House that this matter will be given the closest scrutiny in Committee, with a view to ending such clear exploitation. Forfeiture should be abolished.
  On commonhold, I have welcomed the principle behind it and commented that we lag behind the rest of the world in introducing it. I can now add that we have gone about it in a peculiarly British way. Commonhold is not the completely new and separate form of title that it is in other countries and that campaigners hoped it would be here. It is defined in clause 1 as
  "a freehold estate in commonhold land".
  That is to say that it is the ownership of a unit or flat in perpetuity with community ownership of the structure of the building, land and common parts through a commonhold community association.
  Commonhold unit-owners are, therefore, freeholders. The fact that the commonhold community association must form itself as a limited company under company law has made the Bill unnecessarily complicated. Good

  479
  examples of simpler systems are available off the peg from Australia and the United States. I regret that we in this country did not have the humility to learn from them.
  I wish to focus on two aspects of the introduction of commonhold which can more easily be remedied and on which I hope there may be more chance of changing the Minister's mind. They are the unanimity requirement for conversion to commonhold and the failure to insist that commonhold becomes the default tenure for all new-build blocks of flats or conversions of houses. Before the 1997 election, the Labour Party published a policy document entitled "An End to Feudalism". Some say that it has become quite scarce these days in Government circles, but I am pleased to quote from it. It says:
  "Labour will introduce legislation creating the commonhold tenure. Our proposal is that this should apply where new tenancies are created and where existing leaseholders wish to transfer from their current status. In such cases the support of a majority of the leaseholders will be required to effect the transfer."
  Why that eminently sound position has been changed is a matter for conjecture. I simply say this: the decision in the Bill to allow transfers from leasehold to commonhold only when there is 100 per cent. agreement of the leaseholders is the death knell of commonhold. That is an impossible hurdle to overcome.
  In any large block of flats, such as those that make up most of the great estates in London, there are, at any given time, people who are trying to sell their property and who will have no interest in converting to commonhold. There will be elderly people who consider it not worth the investment for the relatively short period of the rest of their lives or who are too ill to get involved in such an undertaking. There are also absentee leaseholders who are sub-letting the premises as an investment and have no interest in participating in a commonhold association. By their insistence on unanimity, the Government have at once held out commonhold as the panacea for the ills of leasehold tenure and simultaneously made it unattainable for all existing leaseholders. It is a quite staggering achievement to neuter one's own Bill before it ever gets on the statute book, but that is quite simply what clause 3 ensures.
  Ministers have sought to justify that provision in another place by expressing their concern about possible legal challenge to any interference with an individual's property title against their will. I simply point out that such provision already exists in our law. Under section 36 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 there exists the provision for the county court to make an order amending all leases in a building on the basis of the majority support of the leaseholders. There is no reason why similar constraint could not apply in this case.
  Conversion to commonhold should be available on the same terms as the majority consent for leasehold enfranchisement. The spectre of challenge under human rights legislation is one that a Labour Government have seen off in the past. Indeed, the Minister will recall that when the Duke of Westminster challenged the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 in the European Court of Human Rights, it ruled:
  "Eliminating social injustices is an example of the functions of a democratic legislature. More especially, modern societies consider housing of the population to be a prime social need, the regulation
  480
  of which cannot entirely be left to the play of market forces … even where such legislation interferes with existing, contractual relations between parties".
  That is paragraph 47 of James v. United Kingdom on leasehold enfranchisement.
  Put in common parlance, a Government with, shall we say, less timidity faced down the legal challenge and gave the noble Lord a good whipping. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister not to wreck the centrepiece of his Bill because some duke shakes a legal opinion at him.
  This is a fundamental flaw, which the Government must seek to redress in Committee.
  Even more timid is the refusal to end leasehold tenure for all new build or conversions to flats. The Government state that the new commonhold legislation needs time to bed down before the option of leasehold is cut off. They ignore the fact that commonhold already works perfectly well in every other legal jurisdiction in the world without the safety net of leasehold. The Government even refuse to introduce a sunset clause for leasehold.
  Ministers have stated that developers will prefer to build for commonhold as a premium will attach to it, and leasehold will therefore wither on the commercial vine. That is what Christine Hamilton, and Jeremy Bentham before her, would have called "nonsense on stilts". Any examination of the leasehold market will reveal that there is absolutely no difference in the purchase price paid for a property on a 99-year lease and that paid for a property on a 99-year lease with a share of the freehold. The market just does not recognise any premium, albeit for what is clearly a superior title.
  The thought that developers will be tempted to forgo all the financial benefits from lease extension and enfranchisement on a leasehold block in favour of a non-existent premium is ministerial self-delusion on a grand scale. The Bill both precludes existing leaseholders from converting to commonhold and ensures that there will be precious few opportunities for would-be purchasers to take up commonhold tenure in new developments or conversions.
  If Ministers are adamant that they will not dispense with leasehold for all new build, I would still offer them one way in which they might honourably cling on to their drug of choice. They should consider including in the Bill a provision that any new build or conversions sold on a leasehold basis are sold only as leasehold with a share of the freehold. There can be no objection to that as it is an existing and proven tenure, but it would deny the landlord the additional opportunity for financial gain from the leasehold system through ground rent, eventual lease extensions and, ultimately, enfranchisements. By taking away that opportunity for exploitation of the tenant, the Government would at least create the chance that some commonhold developments will get built. I urge the Minister to indicate in the wind-up whether the Government are prepared to consider such a compromise, to give commonhold some chance of establishing itself.
  I have one final consideration about commonhold. I ask the Minister to liaise with his colleague, the Minister for Housing and Planning, to make provision that the type of property tenure can be admitted as a relevant and material consideration for planning authorities. If the Government are serious about wishing to advance commonhold over leasehold, it would be prudent to allow planning

  481
  authorities to discriminate in its favour. I trust that the matter may be considered in the context of the current planning White Paper.
  Turning to the provisions on leasehold, I welcome enthusiastically the principle of the no-fault right to manage that the Bill introduces. Over 60 per cent. of all correspondence received by the all-party group in the past four years related specifically to problems and complaints about management. The fundamental reason why reform is necessary is that leasehold confers on the freeholder exceptional and unwarranted privileges and powers. Those powers fundamentally distort the relationship of investment and control in a property. Power should be related to the equity stake that one has in a property; under leasehold tenure it is not.
  Imagine that I purchase a new car for £12,000 or £15,000 under a leasehold scheme, only to find that the garage recalls it after a month to fit it with a new set of tyres. "Don't worry, they're not needed," I say, "I've only done a 1,000 miles." "That may be so," says the garage, "but we've decided that we want to fit them and we're going to charge you £600 for the privilege." "But it's my car," I protest. "No," says the garage, "you merely own the right to drive around in it for 99 years." We would not consider that a sensible way to own a car. Nor is it a sensible way to own a home.
  The value of the freeholder's interest on a property with a 999-year lease is no more than a couple of hundred pounds. By contrast, the leaseholder may have paid hundreds of thousands of pounds for his lease. Yet it is the freeholder who has the effective power in the relationship and who decides how the property is to be run and managed on a daily basis. I repeat: the proper relationship of power and investment has been distorted. It should be that the greater the equity, the greater the control; in fact, it is the reverse. The freeholder decides when a new roof is to be put on or when the heating system is to be overhauled. It is the freeholder qua manager who puts out the tender and chooses the contractor. Yet it is the leaseholder who foots the bill and pays a service charge commission, typically 15 per cent., for the privilege of not being in control of his own home.
  Existing legislation gives unscrupulous managers enormous opportunities to exploit the vulnerable. Managers derive their income from commissions received on a building's capital works. It is therefore in the manager's interest to increase the capital cost of work done to maximise their income. The all-party group heard horrifying accounts of corrupt managing agents from a number of witnesses including the police: managers who had failed to maintain properties in accordance with the lease; managers who over-specified contracts and used arm's-length contracting companies to undercut genuine quotations, which they then carried out to cowboy standards, charging exorbitant costs for second-rate work; managers who absconded with leaseholders' funds, and managers who set up their own in-house insurance brokers so as to receive two lots of commission, charging one-off retail-price premiums for property insurance concluded on a wholesale basis.
  Adam Smith may not be the most frequently quoted economist on the Labour Benches, but never was a truer word written than when he set down in "The Wealth of Nations":
  "Landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed."
  482
  The no-fault right to manage justly gives leaseholders the power to take over the management of their own property without having to go to the considerable expense and trouble of proving fault against the landlord at a leasehold valuation tribunal. That is very much a remedy for abuse rather than the preventive medicine that is represented by enfranchisement, but it is an effective remedy, and I commend it. Or it would be effective if the Bill did not reintroduce the villain by the back door.
  The Bill gives the freeholder the right to be represented on the board of the right-to-manage company. Worse, it insists that the no-fault right to manage can be exercised only by a limited company— something that will deter many leaseholders from availing themselves of their right in the first place. The freeholder has recourse under the Bill to refer any dispute to a tribunal, and many tenants organisations have made it clear that they consider that large estates will be able to use the threat of legal action once more to impose their will on the right-to-manage company. Leaseholders do experience intimidation by landlords. That is a fact. Giving the landlord the right to sit on the board will inevitably curtail the very freedom of leaseholders to manage their own affairs that the Bill has so properly sought to bestow on them. I urge the Minister to consider what safeguards can be introduced when the Bill goes into Committee.
  Before moving from the subject of the right to manage, I must welcome schedule 9. Public sector leaseholders who, under the right to buy, purchased flats situated in council blocks have fared badly. In the 1980s, councils were encouraged to sell off defective housing at the same time as honey-trap legislation encouraged council tenants to avail themselves of the right to buy. They were given council-guaranteed mortgages when commercial lenders would not lend without a full structural survey. Subsequently, right-to-buy leaseholders found themselves paying service charges for what is often an extremely poor standard of service to them as council leaseholders.
  Those works designated as improvements have not been challengeable under section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985; consequently, council landlords have been inclined to designate works as improvements rather than repairs. Council leaseholders are deeply unhappy that the Bill does not enable them to seek the same redress as their private sector counterparts through exercise of a similar right to manage, but they will welcome clause 147 and schedule 9 with their provisions to ameliorate their position.
  I turn now to enfranchisement and the question of valuation. The Bill simplifies certain of the previous regulations governing residency and qualification. That is a good thing and I welcome it. The only way to ensure that all forms of exploitation related to leasehold tenure are finally done away with is to give leaseholders the opportunity to own their own homes absolutely by enabling them to acquire a share of the freehold interest in their property through enfranchisement.
  Cost has always been the major obstacle to enfranchisement, and the major element in that cost– at least since 1974—has been what is known as marriage value. Under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, passed under a Labour Government, marriage value was not deemed to be part of the valuation of the freehold interest. The leaseholder was obliged to pay only the capitalised value of the ground rent plus the reversion of the site value. Subsequently, the 1969 Lands Tribunal ruled in

  483
  Custins v. Hearts of Oak Benefit Society that marriage value be calculated as part of the valuation. Immediately, the Labour Government introduced further legislation to overturn that perverse decision. The then Secretary of State for Wales made the Government's position clear when introducing the new provision, stating:
  "It is really a corrective Clause which will be welcomed by one million householders in the country, for it removes the misunderstanding which has existed ever since the Custins decision by the Lands Tribunal".— [Official Report, 22 May 1969; Vol. 784, c. 738.]
  It has been said that the issue of marriage value is more complicated than the Schleswig-Holstein question, which only three people understood: one was dead, one was mad and the third had forgotten. I have not forgotten marriage value, and I am evidently not dead; I leave it to the House to form its own conclusions about my state of mind. On one thing I am clear: marriage value lies at the heart of the reason why leasehold is an unjust form of tenure.
  I do not seek to embarrass Ministers by quoting their own words back at them—at least I do not seek only to embarrass them; it is just that they stated matters so much more clearly and better when we were in opposition. In the policy document "An End to Feudalism" prepared by my right hon. Friends the Members for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) and for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), the case was stated succinctly, as follows:
  "one of the most complex elements is the provision for 'marriage value', the added value of owning the property and the land together. This has played an increasingly significant role in valuations in recent years. To streamline and simplify the valuation processes, we believe that it is right to go back to the fundamentally sound logic behind the 1967 Act, which did not include 'marriage value' in the valuation process. Its subsequent appearance has tilted the balance significantly in favour of the landowner and there is a strong case for it to be deleted."
  The fact that the Bill accepts the principle of marriage value is seen by leaseholders as a betrayal of all that they believed the Government would do to redress the fundamental and enduring exploitation that they have suffered. It saddens me that that should be so. I know from many hours spent in comradely debate with successive Ministers that it is not an issue on which the Government are likely to concede during the Bill's passage, but one of the functions of this House is to be a debating chamber in which arguments are presented for public consideration irrespective of the likelihood of their gaining ministerial favour.
  Under the leasehold system, a freeholder can sell a property for its full market value—there is no difference between the price of a 99-year lease and the share of the freehold interest—yet after a period of time that property reverts to the freeholder who can sell it again for its full market value. That happens despite the fact that throughout the period of the lease the freeholder has made no contribution to the maintenance and upkeep of the property. In its simplest form, the argument against marriage value is that the freeholder has already received the full market value for his freehold interest. The calculation of marriage value is worked out by reference to the depreciation in the leaseholder's asset. It is that discrepancy between the full market value of an unencumbered 99-year lease and a depreciated lease that represents the marriage value. The leaseholder is therefore
  484
  asked to pay a second time through marriage value the loss that he has already sustained from the depreciation of his asset.
  The overwhelming number of representations received by the Government during their consultation on that issue urged them to scrap marriage value. They should have done so. They are not simply morally wrong to permit it; they are, ironically, technically wrong also. The Government have stated that
  "Most compulsory purchase regimes are based on full open market valuation, and the government does not see a persuasive case on public interest grounds for departing from that principle in this instance."
  The Government's error is revealed by an examination of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors statement of what constitutes the open market value of a property. It defines that value as follows:
  "An opinion of the best price at which the sale of an interest in property would have been completed unconditionally for cash consideration on the date of valuation, assuming:

  a. a willing seller;

  b. that, prior to the date of valuation, there had been a reasonable period (having regard to the nature of the property and the state of the market) for the proper marketing of the interest, for the agreement of the price and terms and for the completion of the sale;

  c. that the state of the market, level of values and other circumstance were, on any earlier assumed date of exchange of contract, the same as on the date of valuation;

  d. that no account is taken of any additional bid by a prospective purchaser with a special interest; and

  e. that both parties to the transaction had acted knowledgeably, prudently and without compulsion."

  The leaseholder is clearly
  "a prospective purchaser with a special interest".
  As George Thomas intimated back in 1969 in this very Chamber, it is difficult to have more of a special interest in a property than that it has been one's home for the past 20 or so years. Equally, to suggest that an elderly leaseholder whose lease is about to expire and who cannot afford a rack-rent is acting without compulsion is to ignore the tragic reality that faces many individuals today.
  The RICS practice statement makes it absolutely clear that a leaseholder in a collective enfranchisement must be regarded as a special purchaser— that is, someone to whom the property has a particular attraction that it does not possess for the market in general. According to that statement:
  "The special purchaser is, in almost every case, the owner of either:

  i. an interest in land which has or could have a particular relationship with the property concerned, e.g. the owner of an interest in a nearby or adjacent property; or

  ii. another interest in the property being valued, e.g. a superior landlord or an under-tenant".

  The practice statement goes on:
  "A superior landlord or a sitting tenant may be a special purchaser because the merging of the two interests might liberate 'marriage value' which would justify a higher price than any other purchaser could afford to pay".
  If, as they say they do, the Government believe that the basis for valuation of the property in collective enfranchisement cases should be that of full open market value, the RICS code of practice makes it clear that they should reject the inclusion of marriage value, which arises out of the special purchaser status of the parties involved.

  485
  I am confident that the Government will not reject it, but I am now content that they persist not in ignorance, but in wilful wrong.
  I earnestly hope that all my criticisms of the Bill are ill-founded. I honestly hope that the Bill will achieve its stated aims. The first of those aims is to encourage the growth of a new property tenure of commonhold for new-build flats and conversions to flats. If more than 60 per cent. of new-build flats in the next five years are commonhold, and leasehold withers as Ministers predict, I will be delighted to eat my words.
  The second aim is to enable existing leaseholders to transfer through to commonhold community associations and gain the benefits of an inalienable title to their home. If even 10 per cent. of right-to-enfranchise companies succeed in effecting that transfer, I shall rejoice at my own folly for ever doubting Ministers and their civil servants.
  The Bill's third aim is to enable existing leaseholders to throw off the yoke of landlords' managing agents and avail themselves of the no-fault right to manage. If only 10 per cent. of current residents associations successfully establish themselves as right-to-manage companies, I will be astounded by the Bill's success.
  The fourth aim is to enable existing leaseholders to enfranchise more easily. In that respect, my threshold drops lower still, to a mere 5 per cent. increase in the number of leasehold blocks that are able to enfranchise. I would be prepared to acknowledge that as a real success for the Bill. The House and the Minister will recognise that I have set exceedingly small benchmarks by which to measure its success. They are a measure of my pessimism and do not in any way reflect the enormous good will that I wish him on the success of the Bill, for which I have campaigned assiduously over the past four years.
  I trust that the Under-Secretary will say in her winding-up speech whether her expectations are any higher than mine and whether she accepts that the targets that I have set are fair. The virtue of setting them is that we can assess properly the extent to which the Bill fulfils its purpose. I am confident that in perhaps six or seven years' time we can begin afresh the enterprise of making radical and comprehensive reform to the laws governing property tenure in this country. After all, what is six or seven years between comrades? Leaseholders have been waiting since 1884.
  8.11 pm
  Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: I fear that the Government will get an easier ride from me than they have from their own Members in the debate. However, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) gave an impassioned and elegant speech.
  I wish to make the obvious point that people enter into leases of their own volition. No one forces someone to take a lease, and although the hon. Member for Brent, North made several interesting points, that is essentially the position and has always been so. If, in a more global sense, there is something good about the Bill, it is that we are at least looking forward, and I accept that the hon. Gentleman recognised that. Rights and obligations on property in this country are well established. Over the years, they have supported wealth creation and have been vital to the growth of our businesses and therefore our economy. To a greater or lesser extent, they have ensured
  486
  effective stewardship of our land. It is important that any tinkering with those rights is undertaken with great caution.
  The legal system on leasehold is unique to this country and has both merits and problems. Over the years, it has made the property market fluid and adaptable; in its time it was revolutionary. However, I appreciate that times change, and as they do, we need to change our thinking on property laws. We have a right and obligation continually to review the position. On the practicalities, more and more single people are looking for housing; families are smaller; and there is a shortage of homes, which at the moment is getting worse. That problem is particularly concentrated in our cities, but is now spreading to our towns. Especially in cities but to a lesser extent in towns, houses have been split into houses in multiple occupation. In London in the past 20 years, a great many such houses have been characterised by high quality, especially in the private sector. In such private sector accommodation, dealing with common parts has become much more important in recent years. That lifestyle tends to suit people living an urban life, especially young working people.
  The concept of house conversions into HMOs is relatively new, and our legislation needs to cater for it. About 11 years ago, a situation that I witnessed at first hand persuaded me that changes to the law were necessary. I was a councillor in an inner-city borough, where were three streets, although not in my ward, with mansion blocks, each of which was owned by separate company. As it turned out, those companies were owned in common by one owner. The problem is well documented and ended up in court. I am pleased that the family who owned all the companies were successfully prosecuted; they were making management charges on all the flats and putting them into the companies. They then shuffled the money around the companies and, of course, it eventually disappeared into their own pockets, creating misery for their tenants and enormous problems for the streets' environment, which deteriorated dramatically leading to all sorts of associated social problems.
  That made me realise that change was needed. I do not support all the views of the campaign for the abolition of residential leaseholds, but it has given examples of problems that persist, such as holding lessees to ransom when they come to sell their properties by imposing large administration fees; creating management companies to order unnecessary levies and management charges; failing to disclose money missing from maintenance funds and annual accounts; and failing to carry out essential work until the cost of repairs became astronomical. I have witnessed examples of all those problems, which happen in real life.
  The Conservative Government's reforms were of course important in tackling such problems. Many of the problems that now arise are as a result of violations of the existing law, which is not being enforced, rather than the law not being there in the first place. Much has already been done for tenant protection and enfranchisement. Although I was not in the House at the time, I followed the debates; there was great concern about the implications for freeholders, which I would have shared. The law was changed, and it is fair to say that, overall, it is working fairly and the valuation provisions have worked well enough. Many rights were given to leaseholders, including the right to information about the

  487
  landlord; the right to seek recognition for tenants' associations; the right to information about service charges; the right to challenge unreasonable demands; the right to be consulted about major works; the right to information about insurance for the property; the right to a management audit; and, where the landlord has failed in their duty to manage the property, the right to seek the appointment of a manager and, ultimately, the compulsory acquisition of the landlord's interest in the building in certain circumstances.
  It can hardly be said that we have not moved significantly on leaseholders' rights. The reforms were necessary to give tenants the right to an increased say in their own lives, to check management costs and to run the common parts of their buildings. However, that was necessary not because of the leasehold system per se. Indeed, for every one rotten landlord, I am sure that there are 1,000 conscientious and honest landlords who take care of their properties, look after their tenants and appreciate their obligations as much as their entitlements. We are now looking at new legislation to deal with the same sort of considerations; we are taking the ball game forward. When legislation such as this last came before the House, some people would have said—I am sure they did—that it should have gone further. I disagree with that view. In terms of leasehold reform, the incremental nature of the change is important: people must retain confidence in the system, which is long-established and must be changed slowly.
  With regard to the need to deal with existing problems, it is fair to say that some of the legislation that was introduced 10 years ago has subsequently been shown not to be as complete as it could have been, even though it was heading in the right direction. I have personal experience with regard to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 and the right of refusal that it contains. The Act ensures that in most circumstances, a landlord who wishes to dispose of property containing flats must give qualifying tenants the opportunity to buy it and tell them the price and other principal terms on which he is prepared to sell it. In practice, however, the Act has relatively few teeth and contains nothing that forces such notice to be given, so it does not enforce the ability of tenants to stop a sale occurring over their heads. That is an important example of how the current situation needs to be improved. The process continues, and the Government are now promoting commonhold—a new form of tenure that enables people who live in flats to own their homes individually and own the whole property collectively. The Government put it in the following terms:
  "Commonhold will provide a better system for the future ownership and management of blocks of flats … Conversion from leasehold to commonhold will only be possible where all of the leaseholders agree to participate and buy out any other interests involved."
  As we have heard throughout the debate, the Opposition do not have any conceptual problem with the thinking behind the Bill. As many hon. Members have said, the devil will be in the detail. I hope that in a Committee stage that will inevitably be complicated, the Government will listen and work to the greatest possible degree on a bipartisan basis. Many hon. Members have expressed concerns about the programme motion and the timetabling of the Committee stage. I share those
  488
  concerns. My current experience of serving on a Standing Committee to which a programme motion has been attached has not been especially edifying: the Committee considering the Adoption and Children Bill has failed to cover some 25 per cent. of the clauses that have come before us. The Bill was introduced on a pretty much bipartisan basis and contains relatively little politics, and is also very technical. Consideration in Committee of the Bill that is before us will also be technical. I think that the Adoption and Children Bill has been given two or three months, whereas three weeks will be a very tight timetable for considering the complicated clauses in this Bill. Perhaps a reconsideration of that schedule is in order.
  The provisions on conversion mean that it will be possible to convert from leasehold to commonhold, but only if certain criteria are met. Details will be set out in regulations that we have not seen. I believe that the Minister said that those details would be made available to the Committee. I hope that that is the case, as it is important for the Committee to review them. We must return to the question of consent for conversion of 100 per cent. of the existing leaseholders. The concept is basically sound and should be put in place. In some years' time, it must be subject to a review of the sort that we are now giving to leaseholder questions that came before the House not so many years ago. I accept that that is a developing process.
  Commonhold is a new idea and I hope that it will be applied to new properties. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) made a valid point in that regard when he asked what would happen if a landlord's family had moved into his property, thereby enabling him to stop the 100 per cent. ownership. Whether or not the 100 per cent. figure is considered in Committee, the question of frustration must carefully be addressed. Another question arose with regard to the use of positive covenants—a matter which it was suggested was not within the scope of the Bill. I think that this would be good opportunity to address the law on positive covenants and to enable them to run with the land. I do not see why that matter should not be dealt with in the Bill, especially as it will be an essential component in the new concept of commonhold ownership.
  We also need to keep it in mind that ownership is not the be all and end all in terms of commonhold. I should like to give a few examples to illustrate that point. In relation to nuisance neighbours, more than 70 per cent. of people who own the freehold of their blocks of flats are apparently finding that ownership is not the answer to all their problems. According to a survey conducted by a certain firm of specialist insurers, those people are still having to deal with neighbours who fail to fulfil their obligations as leaseholders and the problem is getting worse. The survey, which was completed by people who act as voluntary directors and officers of their residents' management companies, showed that only 40 per cent. of those surveyed felt that their neighbours were aware of their responsibilities as leaseholders, compared with 49 per cent. in 1998, when the previous survey had been conducted. More than half the respondents said that dealing with unsociable neighbours was a bugbear and the most difficult aspect of management. A full 70 per cent. said that they had experienced major problems. Collection of service charges, the sub-letting of flats by leaseholders to unsuitable tenants and the hogging of car parking spaces stand out as the most common areas of conflict.

  489
  In addition, there is a problem for managers who are facing litigation. Individuals acting as directors and officers of residents' management companies are increasingly likely to find themselves falling foul of the law, which recognises no difference between them and directors of big commercial companies. Increasingly, they are having to take out liability insurance to cover them against that possibility. It would be helpful if the Bill could deal with that problem, which will get worse as a result of the proposed legislation.
  Finally, I must mention the problem of investors being put off investing as a result of the legislation. Investment is at the heart of urban renaissance, which is supposed to be about having mixed-use buildings. To achieve that, one must find investors who are prepared to invest in the commercial part of such buildings, which is usually the ground floor and, perhaps, the floor above. Such investors like to have some control over their investment and to be able to redevelop where necessary.
  While it has been relatively easy for investors to keep control of a building, it has still been hard to find backers for that type of venture. The Government will find that life will be even harder for investors as a result of two measures that the Bill will introduce. First, it will increase the threshold of commercial space in a building for which leaseholders can buy the freehold from 10 per cent. to 25 per cent. Secondly, the Government appear to be proposing to do away with the low-rent test. Often the rents of city-centre buildings are too high for the buildings to be caught by the legislation. Those two provisions will result in virtually all mixed-use buildings being caught under it. The proposal to remove the low-rent test remains in the published Bill.
  I have listed some issues with which the Government should deal in the Bill. The final question is one that many hon. Members have raised. Once the Bill has been enacted, will the Government have legislation that will make commonhold attractive? If it is not attractive, we will not be moving forward with this legislation.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. David Lepper: I pay tribute to the excellent and eloquent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner). I endorse many of his positive comments on the Bill, as well as his criticisms.
  The city of Brighton and Hove has about 25,000 leasehold tenancies, some in purpose-built blocks and some in Regency and Victorian conversions. The symbol of all that has been wrong with leasehold legislation is Embassy court on the border of my constituency and Hove. It is a grade 1 listed building and one of the few surviving examples of the work of the 1930s architect Welles Coates. I remember it from the late 1960s with its gleaming white exterior and plush interior. It was home to Keith Waterhouse and other celebrities of the time. Now, the constant refrain that I hear from visitors is, "When is that eyesore going to be demolished?" It has a history of 30 years of shameful neglect by a succession of incompetent and unscrupulous managing agents and freeholders.
  The leaseholders faced a legal maze that made the case of Jarndyce and Jarndyce look open and shut. Embassy court became Bleak House over that 30 years, despite the pride and best efforts of many leaseholders, often of
  490
  advanced years. A number of those leaseholders have enfranchised, but the costs of refurbishment—in particular, late in life as many of them are—are prohibitive after the years of neglect.
  The no-fault right to manage that the Government have introduced in the Bill would have been a real help to my constituents in Embassy court, but it was not available. It will be now, but it is too late for them. The majority of the people who come to my surgery or write to me about leasehold are concerned about management. They do not necessarily want to enfranchise and they might or might not be interested in commonhold. Management is the issue.
  Although I welcome the proposals for a no-fault right to manage, two issues must be considered. One, which has already been touched on, is the landlord's right to be a member of the right-to-manage company not only in his own right but in respect of the leases that he has.
  The fact that the Bill does not contain a provision to allow for the regulation and registration of managing agents is a major omission. In Brighton and Hove we have, I believe, the only pilot scheme for the registration of managing agents in the country. It is a voluntary scheme. Our partners are the council, the leaseholders association, the Association of Residential Managing Agents and the Leasehold Advisory Service. About 17 or 18 local managing agents have signed up to the scheme's basic charter of minimum standards. However, the council officer, Kathryn Greig, who has done sterling work on behalf of leaseholders within the council, tells me that because the scheme is voluntary it is somewhat toothless. Some agents have been excellent and have responded to complaints within days. Others have chosen to leave the scheme rather than be asked to answer for their behaviour. One ignores correspondence that it does not like.
  All that points to the need for a statutory scheme. I welcome the fact that the noble Lord Falconer said in the other place on 19 November that the Government would consult on the need for a statutory scheme. However, there is no need to consult. The new right to manage will be weaker without legislation to back it up. Lord Falconer's answer also made it clear that if there was legislation after that consultation it would be at the earliest opportunity. Now, I have only been here for five years, but I know what a moveable feast "the earliest opportunity" can become when it is mentioned in this Chamber or in the other place.
  I pay tribute to Shula Rich of the Brighton, Hove and district leaseholders association, and to Kathryn Greig and her colleagues on Brighton and Hove city council, for the work that they have done to support leaseholders. What is happening in Brighton and Hove—despite some criticisms—is probably a model for other parts of the country.
  Under the current proposals in the Bill, the chances of commonhold thriving face many obstacles, and I believe that there is a need for a sunset clause. We should let commonhold bed down, but give a clear signal that after, say, five or 10 years, all new developments must be commonhold or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North suggested, give planning authorities the power, based on their understanding of their own areas, to make commonhold a requirement. We allow them to specify the proportion of affordable housing in planning schemes, and we expect them to fulfil a presumption in favour of

  491
  brownfield sites over greenfield sites. Why should we not give them this additional power, to be used in the light of local circumstances? I know that the chair of the planning applications committee of Brighton and Hove city council has suggested that, and would welcome its introduction.
  I welcome the proposals to make enfranchisement easier. However, many hon. Members have pointed out that in circumstances in which people wish to convert, the requirement for 100 per cent. agreement is unreasonable. We do not require it for enfranchisement; why should we do so for conversion to commonhold? The requirement offers a loophole to unscrupulous landlords to take leases—even one lease—to scupper a conversion. Let us make the qualifying proportions for conversion the same as for enfranchisement. That would call the bluff of the property companies who have been buying up leases in blocks. It would also test the resolve of those who claim that they wish to convert to commonhold, because it would present them with some problems. We should, however, let the leaseholders make that decision, rather than have the Government set parameters that form an obstruction to conversion.
  Shula Rich has drawn to my attention an important issue about forfeiture that has been mentioned often in this debate. Both LEASE and Ministers say that the incidence of people losing their homes through forfeiture is very small. However, the Brighton, Hove and district leaseholders association tells me that it has helped thousands of leaseholders over the past five years, and that the majority of the cases that it has dealt with have, at some stage, involved the threat of forfeiture—even cases involving some of the most reputable solicitors in Sussex. I shall name one: DMH. In a letter sent to a leaseholder on behalf of one of its clients, it states:
  "You have received a demand for payment of Ground Rent and Service Charge from the freeholder's agent in the sum of £1,105.32 … we are now instructed to instigate proceedings against you.
  This action will involve the preparation and service of a notice under Section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925 … We point out that you are responsible for the costs … You should be aware that such action could result in the forfeiture of your lease and the loss of your home."
  That was all for the sake of £1,105.32.
  As has been pointed out, there are other means of debt recovery—such means must exist; that is only fair—that are much fairer than the threat of forfeiture. It is the threat that is insidious, particularly when accompanied by certain other refined practices. For example, leaseholders might return home to find the door of their flat superglued up. Alternatively, the landlord may move in belligerent neighbours next door to threaten them and make their life hell. The phone calls that I receive do not always suggest that people will really lose their homes, but the elderly in particular are frightened by such threats, so I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North said about the end of forfeiture.
  Other hon. Members rightly talked at length about the injustice of marriage value, so I shall concentrate on a problem for leaseholders to which I was first alerted 20 years ago—the threat of forfeiture. I welcome the proposed recourse to a leasehold valuation tribunal. That is a safeguard, but it does not remove the threat posed by
  492
  the armoury of the unscrupulous landlord or managing agent and there are already remedies through debt recovery.
  Although I welcome much of the Bill, especially the right to manage on a no-fault basis and the introduction of commonhold, I am less sanguine than my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North about its chances of success. However, those who call for it to be withdrawn—scuppered completely—are politically inept and do nothing to help the majority of leaseholders. We have probably the only opportunity in this Parliament to legislate. We say that we are taking our time because we want to get the legislation right, yet in many ways we have made a pig's ear of it. We have a legislative slot, however, so I ask Ministers to go the extra mile and put an end to feudalism.
  8.42 pm
  Sue Doughty: Affordable housing is a major problem for many of our constituents, particularly in the south-east, and as a result there are many leasehold properties, especially in my constituency where, despite what the public appear to think, a lot of people live in small leasehold properties. It is often said that beggars cannot be choosers and there is a shortage of property in the area, so I disagree with the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), because people do not always choose to live in a leasehold property. It may be the only one that they can afford and if they have to live in a leasehold property to stay in the area, that is what they do.
  We have our share of poor landlords and managing companies that take unfair advantage of people for whom leasehold properties are the only option, so, on the whole, we welcome the proposed reforms and hope that the issues, which are long outstanding, can be resolved. However, time in Committee is short, especially given the many concerns and the technical nature of some measures, and work remains to be done to protect leaseholders from exploitation by unscrupulous landlords and management companies.
  The hon. Member for Huntingdon said that there are 1,000 conscientious landlords to perhaps one bad one, implying that the rotten apple in the barrel causes the problems, yet time after time hon. Members have told us about large companies with responsibility for tens, hundreds or thousands of properties that use the nature of the leasehold to extort money from people for whom there are few remedies. I do not suggest that every large company is unscrupulous; I am sure that that is not the case.
  We have talked about forfeiture, but less about what happens when people sell their properties, although the insights of the hon. Members for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby), for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) were helpful.
  The Bill provides for appeals, through tribunals, for more information about how management charges have arisen. That is not so easy when a leaseholder wants to sell and move. As I am sure the Minister will appreciate, when a property such as a flat is on the market, a huge amount of pressure is put on both buyer and seller to push through the legal procedures. After all, those who sell properties do so for a reason: they may want a better

  493
  property, to move because of a new job, have embarked on a new relationship or need to downsize. In any event, for those who are selling, time is of the essence, and the same applies to buyers.
  This is a time at which people are under extreme pressure, and will often accept what they would not accept if they had time to consider. They need to resolve the business to mutual satisfaction, and sometimes they will pay money just to escape from a situation. That is well known and exploited by management companies and landlords.
  I have a letter about a property owned by one of my constituents, Mr. Kiley, and his partner Ms Ivory. It is from Mr. Kiley's solicitor, and what it contains is typical of what happens when a solicitor tries to resolve matters. Part of what is involved is trying to find out how much a leaseholder owes, so that contracts can be exchanged and the move can get under way. We have all been there: we know the pressure people are under. Delays cost money, often for those who can least afford it.
  The letter, which was sent to the management company DGA plc, related to 20b Martyr road, Guildford. It contained the following passage:
  "Over the last two or three weeks in particular you have continually assured me that the long awaited fax was to be sent imminently. You finally confirmed to me on Friday morning, 2nd November, that Mr Kiley was in credit with your company to the extent of approximately £250; faxed confirmation would 'definitely' be with me during Friday; at 2.30 pm on Friday I was to have faxed confirmation within 10 to 15 minutes."
  The letter was written on the following Monday.
  The letter continued:
  "Notwithstanding all of the above, I enclose copy of the faxed statement received from your company … later on Friday afternoon showing two sets of 'yearly service charge in advance' and (notwithstanding no expenditure)"—
  by the management company, that is—
  "two 'end of year balancing charge' figures and an alleged net balance due by Mr Kiley of £704.28."
  Mr. Kiley had been in credit to the tune of £250 in the morning, but by the end of the day he owed £704.28.
  That is not untypical. When a flat is to be sold, the solicitors acting for the buyer—especially when the buyer has a mortgage—must serve notice on the landlord or the management company that the flat has been sold, and mortgaged. They must obtain a receipted copy of such a notice. In the ordinary course of events, a landlord or managing agent can legitimately refuse to receipt such a notice if there are arrears of rent or service charges. It is a heaven-sent opportunity.
  Because solicitors acting for a lender have a duty to the lender to obtain the receipted notice, they almost invariably insist that the seller of the flat must discharge the service-charge arrears—whether or not there are any—before they can advise their client to purchase. It is at that stage that an unscrupulous landlord can recover unjustifiable sums from flat owners. Although the Bill provides for the provision of full information about management charges, and for the resolution of disputes, it is when a sale is in the offing that there is not enough time to bring about such a resolution. Time is of the essence. The Bill does not deal with that problem; nor does it suggest any penalties for landlords who use such opportunities to recover unjustifiable sums.
  494
  I am advised that some landlords regularly use the device when a property is being sold, and vendors have no option but to pay. If there are no penalties to deal with what, if it did not take place in this way, would be seen by some as a criminal activity, people will continue to engage in that activity. I urge that in Committee amendments be tabled to exact real penalties on landlords. I suspect that landlords and agents are acting in that way in respect of thousands of properties. These are not small fish and they need to be dealt with. It is extortion; there is no other word for it.
  In another case, it is possible for dubious charges to be levied regularly on the purchaser. At one group of properties in Guildford managed by a separate company of managing agents, the leases of the flats contain a requirement that when the flat is sold the incoming owner should enter into a covenant with the landlord to observe the terms of the lease. The leases do not state that the covenant has to be in a specific form or that any costs have to be paid to the landlord in relation to it.
  Nevertheless, the management company stipulates that it does not have to approve the deed of covenant and that an administrative charge of approximately £100 plus VAT has to be paid to it. It always collects. It says in linked correspondence that unless the covenant fee is paid to it, it will refuse to register notices of transfer and mortgage. By that means it does very nicely. Every time a flat changes hands, it receives £100. It is not a large sum of money, and we have heard of much worse incidents, but it is a constant cause of aggravation and it is wrong.
  The Bill fails to provide remedies to avoid those sharp practices. It fails to provide penalties to deal with those landlords and that is a regular swindle. Such action by a landlord needs to be circumscribed. It is criminal. I hope that the Minister will look at what should be done. The right to manage would remove the problem for some people but it will not be universally available. We cannot say that that will provide the remedy. Can we look at that matter in Committee to rectify that injustice?
  8.52 pm
  Gareth Thomas: I shall confine my remarks since a number of hon. Members who have a real interest in the subject, which affects many of our constituents, wish to be called to speak.
  The House has grappled with the fundamental issue of how to deal with the imbalance of power between landlords and leaseholders for many years, and I suspect that we will have to revisit the subject. I also suspect that although it would be eminently sensible to codify this area of law, in view of its complexity and the difficulties in acquiring parliamentary time, it will not be possible to codify it. However, it is a far from esoteric subject. As we have heard, no fewer than 2 million households live in homes under leasehold tenure.
  The Bill is welcome and it will go some way towards redressing the imbalance to which I have referred. That imbalance arises from the practical difficulty ingrained in our land law, which does not allow positive covenants to run with land. That difficulty has created the imbalance to which so many hon. Members have referred.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) on an impassioned and cogent speech. I will not go as far as him. I believe that the Government are right to proceed in a more cautious and

  495
  pragmatic manner than some would like. Clearly, the Government must balance various interests and tread carefully.
  I believe that the Bill takes a sensible approach to enabling a greater take-up of commonhold tenure. Having said that—and the Minister will appreciate that I support the Bill—my hon. Friends the Members for Brent, North, for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) and for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) made a strong argument for the Government to look again at the question of unanimity before conversion from leasehold tenure to commonhold tenure can occur. That is a fundamental problem and I welcome the fact that in another place the Lord Chancellor has professed to be open-minded about accepting a well-judged and carefully worded amendment.
  I anticipate that the Government will be concerned about the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998, but surely it is possible to look again at the issue. If commonhold is to be a successful and popular form of tenure that redresses the imbalance that we have heard so much about, unanimity is an obstacle that must be done away with.
  Part 2 of the Bill dealing with leasehold reform contains a number of extremely welcome measures. The right to manage will become an absolute right that is not based on the need to establish fault on the part of the landlord. That will substantially improve the position of many people I represent. Although it is a problem that affects London and other big cities, it is an increasing concern for retirement leaseholders, of whom there are some 100,000 living in purpose-built retirement blocks, subject to age restrictions. Some of these elderly people are subject to abuse and exploitation which is why the Government are entirely right to facilitate the right to manage and collective enfranchisement.
  I congratulate the Government on tightening up the regime of service charges. The Bill provides protection against unreasonable administration charges and strengthens the requirement for greater consultation and improved accounting with regard to service charges which are an important issue for elderly people. However, I have some misgivings about certain details. I find it rather odd that the Bill will require a representative of the landlord to have voting rights in the right-to-manage company. I agree with the comment made in the other place that that will send confusing signals and may hamper the operation of right-to-manage companies.
  I am also concerned that, at least at the moment, the Government are not prepared to introduce legislation to regulate managers. That is particularly relevant to retirement leaseholders on the north Wales coast who may not be sufficiently active or, frankly, may not want to be involved in the hassle of running a company. In those circumstances it is reasonable for them to want to appoint a manager. They need assurances that the right-to-manage company will operate in a robust way and that any professional managers who are appointed operate in a professional and honest manner. So there is a need for regulation in that regard.
  I expect that amendments will be tabled in Committee to deal with some of the issues to which I have referred. I welcome the Bill but, like most Bills, it is capable of improvement.
  9 pm
  Mr. Bill Wiggin: Thank you for calling me to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I wish you a happy new year.
  I should start by declaring my interests. My wife and I own a leasehold flat in Ifield road. It is currently for sale, and would make an excellent starting point for anyone hoping to begin in commonhold. Also, my home in Fulham, which I bought as a freehold property, has a large advertising hoarding on one wall that was leased by the previous owner to a billboard company. About 89 years remain on that lease which, relatively speaking, depletes the value of the house.
  My concern with the Bill stems from the good intentions with which the Government have set out to right perceived wrongs in earlier legislation. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), for whom I have the highest regard, revealed the depth of passion and sense of injustice that people feel about the constrictions of a leasehold tenancy.
  The debate has focused on many examples of constituents being horrified by the variety of costs that have emerged when they have lifted the lid on the legal details of the deals that they have cut with regard to their homes. The devil is in the detail, as the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) illustrated with his own sad tales about what happened when he sallied forth into the world of property development.
  Therefore, when we set out to hammer out some of the problems involved in creating a better law, we must be careful that we are not overegging the pudding and making the current situation worse. That is possible with this Bill, which is 134 pages long. The helpful little handbook that comes with it comprises a further 75 pages. If the devil truly is in the detail, as hon. Members of all parties seem to agree is the case, we may find that a whole tribe of devils is lurking in the detail of this Bill.
  All hon. Members have a horror of legislation that is hard to read and to explain. I draw the Minister's attention again to the 100 per cent. conversion criteria. The provision has the potential to inflict much misery, and will cause leaseholders to argue whether conversion is sensible or worthwhile, given the way in which property prices change. The need to understand the complexity of leasehold law will shift as a result. Although it is entirely laudable and worthy to support an increase in home ownership, it is possible that property prices will be affected and will benefit one party at the expense of the other.
  The Bill is a knife that cuts both ways. It belies the Government's soft tones, and leads me to believe that it will become just another method of wealth redistribution. That is in the finest traditions of old Labour, as Labour Members have described. I therefore have the gravest doubts about the Bill's ability to succeed, especially in view of its size. The principles of home ownership set out in the Bill and the destruction of so many unfair practices that it promises are a good start, but they are typical of the good intentions with which we know that the road to hell is paved.
  The concept of commonhold flats may well be the holy grail for housing in London. I hope that it is, but what a shame that the Bill is to be rushed through with a programme motion. What a shame that no provision was made for homes over shops. Such homes are often the

  497
  first to be left empty when areas start to decline. That offers a challenge to legislators. If an area begins to decline, home owners are left with negative equity, irrespective of whether they are freeholders or leaseholders.
  The Bill misses the chance to incentivise in the case of homes over shops. It misses the chance to consolidate current leasehold law. It misses the chance to pave the minefield of legislation that lessees currently have to consider and which simply increases their costs.
  What a shame about the bulging Bill. What a shame that it was not more concise. What a shame that there is so much leasehold law that it was necessary to introduce such a plump measure.
  What a shame about the programme motion. After listening to the heartfelt and sensible suggestions made on both sides of the House, what a shame that there is a programme motion to push through a Bill that is supported by so many good intentions. However, once again, good intentions are no substitute for informed debate.
  9.6 pm
  David Wright: I do not want to detain the House for too long. I shall focus my comments on the broad details of the Bill, while also drawing out specific points that need to be considered in detail. When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions winds up the debate, I hope that she can give us some reassurance on the detailed issues. I shall return to them in a few moments.
  In general, the strength of the Bill is that it provides new ownership solutions that can be comprehensively applied. We should acknowledge that for most people their home is a statement of their personal identity and, importantly, it is a tool that ensures that they have a stake in the future of their community. The Bill enables people to take a more effective stake in the environment around their homes and, through the ensuing legal structures, will—I hope—provoke the creation of more proactive communities.
  One of the key issues raised with me as I travelled about Telford knocking on doors during the general election was the condition and continuing maintenance of communal areas in many blocks of accommodation. Such buildings were not owned exclusively by one landlord. They were not exclusively non-local authority or privately owned. There was a general malaise in the condition of property in the town—as there is throughout the country. The Bill provides us with a platform and an opportunity to start to make comprehensive investment in a partnership between landlords and local communities.
  I hope that we shall see a greater commitment from residents to improving the general condition of their environment. That point has been drawn out in the debate so far.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) focused on the key question at the centre of the debate and the main priority to be considered in Committee: why should people be beholden to absentee private landlords who are often unwilling to invest in their asset at the expense of lessees? That is the main problem with the current structure and it should be addressed in the Bill. Too often, we hear horror stories about communities
  498
  where people genuinely want their living space to be changed and improved, but the landlord lives many miles away and does not care.
  A couple of years ago I visited Budapest in the post-communist era, where there was a terrible system. Local authorities and indeed the state seemed to have no capacity to deal with the problems encountered by people living in large blocks. I do not suggest that the situation in this country is similar, but that system threw into stark relief the problems of people suffering from underinvestment in large accommodation blocks.
  In relation to commonhold, part 1 gives a new solution that aims to provide people with a greater stake in their homes, along with a positive approach to the management of common areas. It is important to note that commonhold does not reduce the scale of disrepair in properties. It does not deal with disrepair; it is not a short cut for lower maintenance bills.
  In the United Kingdom, we already spend far too little on general day-to-day maintenance of accommodation. The Bill will in general make people feel that they have an opportunity to invest and a stake in their property. However, it will not mean that their repair bills are reduced or that general disrepair will be resolved. I am fearful that many people will try to take the opportunity of employing the commonhold solution as a means of reducing their repair bills. That could pose a serious problem in the long term when it comes to housing investment.
  The Bill is a challenge to housing, legal and development sector professionals to ensure that fair practices are employed in the initial disposal and continuing management of property. Importantly, I hope that it will also begin to impact on the design and planning of housing development projects. It will be important for developers and their architects to engage with their project managers and legal teams at the stage when buildings are conceived and designed, not as an afterthought. A more comprehensive approach to the concept of sustainable development in every sense needs to be provoked when the Bill is implemented.
  It is important to think through the implications of scheme designs, with greater care taken in relation to areas intended for collective use and enjoyment. We are trying to encourager higher density urban living in our large towns and cities, with a focus on quality design. The use of commonhold in such new developments will be important and should help us, through a genuine feeling of ownership, to avoid some of the problems of the past. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) that we should at least look at getting commonhold principles adopted for all new developments. That would be key in encouraging developers to move forward.
  On the need to secure 100 per cent. consent for conversion to commonhold, some have argued that it will be virtually impossible to secure that scale of involvement. Clearly, that will depend on the number of units involved. However, I accept the Minister's point that we could end up with a twin-track problem in terms of people managing blocks. That needs to be considered in Committee.
  I believe that commonhold will probably start to be deployed in new developments. However, I hope that we can return to this point. There seems to have been a

  499
  consensus in the Chamber today about the need to consider the 100 per cent. barrier and think about mechanisms to provoke commonhold as a new form of tenure.
  In conclusion, I wish to comment on the procedures to ensure that the costs of proposed works to blocks are laid out clearly and logically to leaseholders. The current exclusion of improvement costs from the service charge definition is confusing for leaseholders. The change proposed in the Bill which, as I understand it, will mean that such costs must be disclosed and people will have a right to challenge their reasonableness, will have a bigger impact than has been recognised during this debate. Once again, tenants and landlords must work in partnership to define what investment is needed in the fabric of buildings to ensure their longevity.
  I welcome the Bill. I hope that it progresses rapidly through the House and that it is implemented as soon as possible.
  9.13 pm
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: I am not a housing expert, and I represent a rural constituency where problems with leasehold are rare, as is demand for leasehold reform or commonhold. However, I have followed this issue in the past. I start by declaring an interest: I am a director and shareholder in a property company that owns mainly commercial but some residential property. However, none of it is let on a long lease.
  Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have said how complicated, technical and detailed much of the Bill is. Why, then, is there a programme motion? There is so much agreement between the parties; everyone is agreed that we need to get on with considering the Bill and that it is vital to get the technical detail right. I should have thought that this was the last Bill to be timetabled. I shall certainly vote against the programme motion this evening because it is a disgrace to curtail debate on this important Bill.
  Obviously, there have been several Bills on leasehold reform in the past, and I well remember the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, which was passed during the last Parliament of which I was a Member. At the time, I had serious reservations about the way in which the Act disrupted contracts that had been freely entered into. I was sympathetic to the argument that several large London estates were able to provide absolutely first-class planning and management policies that were beneficial to the wider environment and positive in terms of planning generally.
  I entirely accept that, although the best landlords in London and other cities were excellent, the worst were quite appalling. That point has been made by several hon. Members, especially by Labour Members. In particular, in a very detailed and expert speech, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) outlined many of his concerns about some of the antics and behaviour of the worst landlords in this country. However, the world has obviously moved on, and the large landlords in London have certainly adjusted their strategy to accommodate the current legislative framework.
  I welcome the fact that the Government are moving forward cautiously on the leasehold reform front. Without doing anything too dramatic, they are building on the
  500
  previous Government's reforms. I also welcome the fact that leasehold will not be abolished. Like the Lord Chancellor, I very much hope that leasehold will wither on the vine and that the vast majority of new developments will indeed use commonhold.
  I welcome the commonhold provisions. To allow those who occupy property the right to own it absolutely and to manage the common parts through a common association must make sense. That reform is long overdue, and it obviously draws on patterns of land ownership in the United States, New Zealand and Australia. Perhaps one of the advantages of the lengthy delays in introducing the Bill is that we have been able to draw on the best of breed elsewhere.
  I also welcome, with one reservation, the right to manage. It makes sense for tenants to be given the right to manage their buildings. They will not have to prove any shortcoming on the part of the landlord, and they will be given a chance perhaps to do a better job of managing their block or building. That is why the Opposition support the right-to-manage proposals, although some of the detail needs to be considered very closely.
  I am sorry that the right-to-manage provisions exclude council premises, where the landlord is the local authority. Some 12 per cent. of right-to-buy sales have involved leasehold flats, and it is a great pity that public sector tenants should be excluded from the right-to-manage provisions. We need a new framework so that people can get on and manage the premises in which they live. That will always be a difficult job.
  A great deal of research has shown that, very often, when people collectively buy the freehold of their flats and manage the building, many problems set in, a lot of disillusionment arises and many disputes take place. As one Lord said, we cannot legislate for people to love their neighbours, but we can legislate to make it easier for them to get on and co-operate. I very much hope that those provisions and especially the regulations and the manual of guidance will allow that to happen.
  My final point is technical and relates to mixed developments. There is obviously a tendency for planning consent to be granted for new developments on condition that they include social housing. Great emphasis has rightly been placed on including affordable housing, housing association homes and council housing in housing developments. Planners often rightly insist on mixed tenure, which helps key workers in some cases. How much more preferable that is to the old-fashioned segregation of council housing from owner-occupied housing, which all too often led to the growth of large council estates, concrete jungles and the resulting social polarisation.
  Mixed tenure presents a big challenge for the commonhold and right-to-manage legislation. Traditional tenants—they are not long leaseholders or commonholders—may live in blocks of flats or dense developments that are made up predominantly of owner-occupied housing and they will also have views on how the block or housing development should be managed. Those tenants will have priorities and ideas, but their views cannot be taken on board under the Bill as it currently stands. I hope that the Minister will consider that point and accept the crucial need to develop sustainable forms of governance. If we can develop them, commonhold and the right to manage will play an important part in the urban renewal in which the Government believe.

  501
  I believe strongly in urban regeneration and I do not want any more greenfield sites to be developed than is strictly necessary. I want much more development to take place on brownfield inner-city sites such as the Nar-Ouse regeneration area scheme—the NORA scheme—in my constituency and the Anglia Canners scheme in King's Lynn. However, we need a framework for regeneration and, if the Bill goes some way to creating it, it might do a good job and more development might take place on brownfield sites.
  9.21 pm
  Shona McIsaac: Given the time available, I shall concentrate on one aspect of the Bill that has not been explored in the debate—its proposals on leasehold houses. There has been much discussion about commonhold and flats, but half the leasehold properties in this country are houses that are completely different from the flats on the market in London. Such houses are often in industrial areas where property values are very low.
  Very few clauses in the Bill will change the legislation for houses, but I hope that we shall be able to consider those changes in more detail in Committee. However, I am pleased that the period for the residence test is being reduced from three to two years.
  When a leaseholder passed away, the right of the family to purchase the freehold did not exist, so I welcome the changes that the Bill will make to allow families to enfranchise. In many cases in my constituency, families lost the home in which they grew up when the parent who was the leaseholder passed away.
  The extension of the lease by 50 years is probably one of the most pertinent issues in the Grimsby and Cleethorpes area, where thousands of leasehold houses were built in the early 20th century. Given the nature of the area, many elderly people cannot afford to buy the freehold of their property. I have said to Ministers on previous occasions that many of the prices quoted are incorrect, but many people simply say, "I can't afford that." They therefore extend the lease not realising that they are like tenants and the house goes out of the family when the leaseholder passes away. I welcome the fact that people will be able to enfranchise when they extend the lease for 50 years.
  I understand from my inquiries that the cost of enfranchising will be assessed on the special valuation basis and will include marriage value for lease extensions for houses. In effect, that may mean that the landlord will win yet again, so I would like that issue to be considered in detail. The original valuation basis could be used, but it might also be possible to have a lease extension of 99 years because that would take marriage value out of the equation.
  I want briefly to mention the costs that are quoted in my area when people apply to buy the freehold of their houses. Such people have often paid their mortgages and everything else that the properties have required over the years. Leasehold houses are different from leasehold flats in that there is no obligation on the freeholder to do anything to such properties.
  An average three-bedroom terrace house in north Cleethorpes can be bought for £20,000 to £25,000. I know that that is very different from the situation in the south-east. People in my area are being quoted prices for
  502
  conversion that are almost the value of the property. I came across one case in which the leaseholders were quoted £20,000 to buy the freehold of a property worth £30,000.
  I have been told that special valuation basis and marriage value should not apply to small Victorian terraced properties in my constituency. However, they are being quoted by freeholders time and again. The complexity of the mathematics, which other hon. Members touched on, in working out the prices means that leaseholders do not realise that they are being taken to the cleaners. As going to a leasehold valuation tribunal is daunting and expensive, no one in my area has been to one to establish a price. Unscrupulous landowners and landlords keep fleecing people. They simply open the cash tills, and that has to end.
  We have to remember that leaseholders are home owners. That is how they perceive themselves. I hate using the word "tenant" for people who have paid a mortgage, funded all the home improvements and paid every bill over the years. In the recent census, such people put themselves down as home owners, not tenants. In any other legal form that they fill in, they are home owners. They have paid for everything and it is simply wrong that the law will still make them pay a bounty to remain living in their own homes. The freeholder has already benefited. I am afraid to say that the Bill will allow freeholders of leasehold houses to continue to benefit when all the money has been paid by the home owner, not the person who owns the freehold. That has to change. We have to stop people being fleeced. They have a right to live in a home for which they have paid.
  9.27 pm
  Dr. Brian Iddon: First, I want to take issue with the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), who popped into the Chamber, made a brief speech and then left. Unfortunately, he is not present now. He said that leasehold is a choice. I want him to consider the situation in my constituency, where it is difficult to find a freehold house to purchase. Large landowners such as Bridgewater Estates have rented, not sold, huge tracts of land. In most north-west towns such as Bolton and Bury, the choice is leasehold, leasehold, leasehold.
  Secondly, Estate Management Ltd., which my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) mentioned only briefly, has sent out thousands of letters in my constituency demanding ground rents of £1.50 and £2.50, but charging anything between £45 and £110 administration fees for doing so. I have even caught it sending them to the odd constituent who has no legal connection to it. Is it a statutory duty for the people who graze ground rents to write to every householder whose freeholds they are purchasing? If it is not, it ought to be and, if it is, leaseholders should know about it.
  I turn now to the Compton Group, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) has already referred. As hon. Members have heard, that company has written letters to hundreds of people throughout Bolton, demanding that leaseholders take out insurance policies with AXA Insurance. That subject has been well covered, but I took the trouble to look at one of these ancient deeds. As my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) said earlier, many of them are

  503
  difficult to read, where indeed they exist at all, because they are handwritten. One set of deeds concerning which AXA, through the Compton Group, is demanding money says that buildings insurance should be
  "in some insurance office to be reasonably approved by the company to the full value thereof."
  I do not know a great deal about the law, but to me that means that one can use whichever insurance company one likes. People who have been insured with the same company for 25 or 40 years are being forced to choose another insurer. I ask the Minister to stop that practice.
  Finally, I am against leasehold. Its time is up, and we should ban it.
  9.31 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: This has been a long, complex debate. We have heard 15 speakers, and I pay tribute to them all, but I am sure that you will understand, Mr. Speaker, if I am unable to deal with every speech in detail.
  Before I go any further, I should declare my interests. I own one long leasehold flat in London. I have various freehold properties, to which I do not think the Bill will apply, and I am one of only four members of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in the House, who will undoubtedly have some work as a result of the Bill.
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department gave the Bill a balanced, worthwhile introduction and, by contrast, it was interesting to hear some Labour Members talking about that old dinosaur the wicked landlord. Anybody who thought, like me, that old Labour was dead would have reassessed that view this evening.
  There were some excellent speeches from hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, and I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor). He is a lawyer and I am a valuer, and I have full sympathy with his comments about the difficulties concerning valuations under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, which were complemented by the right to manage introduced in the Housing Act 1996. That point was emphasised by the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), who is not in her seat at the moment, although she opposed the idea of the marriage value, whereas my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull commended the Bill for introducing some simplicity to the marriage value provisions. I agree that for too long the marriage value has been a stumbling block to leasehold enfranchisement and the creation of commonholds.
  We must not forget that 1 million flats and 1 million leasehold houses may be subject to the Bill's provisions, so some 4 million people may be affected by it. It is therefore an important Bill. It is also a complex one, with 174 clauses and 14 schedules. On the whole, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) said in his
  504
  excellent, comprehensive speech, the Opposition welcome it, although there are a number of shortcomings that I should like to address in the very short time available.
  Roger Casale rose—
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I shall give way only once because I do not have much time.
  Roger Casale: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the Bill and his understanding of the practical need for reform, but does he not understand that there are important democratic principles underlying the Bill, which will empower leaseholders and help to renew our communities and entrench the important principles of openness, transparency and accountability in a more modern society?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I agree entirely. In welcoming the introduction of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone made it clear that the system of leasehold was designed in another age and that things had moved on. We welcome the concept of commonhold and consider it especially appropriate for new developments. However, the Bill must address the important issue of developments that have not yet been built and so cannot be subject to its provisions. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that in relation to the increasing tendency to buy residential properties from plan, before they are built. It would be a pity if the Bill could not be made to apply to buildings that have not yet been built. I welcome the intervention from the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale). Over time, the Opposition expect leasehold to die out—although I expect that to take some time.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stone made some important points that were echoed by other speakers. I was especially impressed by the speech of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who movingly described his experiences of trying to purchase a leasehold flat. We all hope that the Bill will make it easier for those who want to enfranchise their leasehold property to do so. Like many speakers, I suspect that the no-fault right to manage introduced under part 2 will prove to be a more popular course of action. Perhaps people will start with right to manage and then decide to enfranchise. We welcome that.
  The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders), who I suspect is a professional accountant, criticised the right-to-manage provisions. He asked about how individual companies would be organised, the provisions of the Companies Acts, the treatment of defaulters, and mechanisms to deal with people involved in management companies who default. The latter is an important subject and was mentioned by several speakers. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the possibility of using existing provisions for debt collection through the county courts, which might be a good mechanism, although others are possible. I have no doubt that the matter will be debated in Committee.
  The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) made an impassioned speech about rogue landlords and excessive insurance premiums. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) also mentioned rogue landlords, and several other speakers referred to forfeiture. Forfeiture is an extreme provision of the

  505
  current Landlord and Tenant Acts and is used sparingly. I accept that it is a blunt weapon, and I am sure that the Committee will discuss other ways of dealing with defaulting members of commonhold associations. As I said in an intervention, a defaulting member of a commonhold association places an additional burden on all the other members, so there must be a swift and sharp method of dealing with defaulters.
  The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) also mentioned insurance and forfeiture. I want a provision to be inserted into the Bill that allows lessees to insure with an insurance company approved by the landlord, thus giving them control over insurance, and enabling the landlord to ensure that the property has been insured properly merely by inspecting the insurance policy. That strikes me as providing good protection for existing lessees. In no-fault right-to-management companies, the commonhold community statement will lay down the powers of insurance.
  In my own block of flats, residents used the provisions of the Housing Act 1996 to take over the management in part because all the long leaseholders were vexed by issues of insurance and cost of management. Now, we are able to obtain far cheaper insurance; in addition, rebates that did not come back to us before are now coming back to the long leaseholders. No doubt, with the increasing use of the no-fault right-to-manage companies, people will get a better deal on the management of their property. I agree with the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) that people might think that the Bill is an excuse to reduce property management costs. That may well happen; but the job of the commonhold association and any management consultants appointed to help them will be to point out realistic management charges.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) rightly pointed out, in contrast to some of the old Labour dinosaurs who are not private rental landlords, the importance of getting institutional investment into the residential sector. Unless we get such investment, we will not meet the Government's target of an affordable and decent home for all by 2020, or anything like it. Labour Members need to consider that very carefully indeed when they knock the role of private landlords.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) emphasised the length of the Bill and the difficulty of converting, in the Government's wording, the 100 per cent. requirement to commonhold. Many Members spoke about that, especially my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire. Somebody with a relatively minor financial interest in a leasehold property—my hon. Friend mentioned cautioners; I mention people with a lien or mortgage on a property or someone with a minor interest—could block the whole commonhold application on a block of properties. Many Members mentioned that; I hope that in Committee the Parliamentary Secretary will consider it very carefully indeed. As the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors made clear, that is effectively a wrecking provision because in virtually every case it will be impossible to get 100 per cent. agreement. Both the Parliamentary Secretary and the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) will have heard the widespread concern of Government Back Benchers and Opposition Members about the provisions of the Bill as drafted.
  506
  It is curious that there is a 100 per cent. threshold for the requirement for commonhold agreement, yet there is only an 80 per cent. threshold when a commonhold community statement is to be terminated. Those two different thresholds make an interesting contrast in the Bill. A threshold nearer the termination provisions for CCS may be more correct, but no doubt we shall have some interesting debates, and probably votes, on the matter in Committee, on Third Reading and on Report. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can be flexible, as that seems to be a major lacuna in the Bill.
  We need to return to a number of more minor matters in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), who has great knowledge of the whole subject, made an excellent and rapid speech towards the end of our debate. Like me, he was involved in introducing the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. Sadly, he was not involved in introducing the Housing Act 1996, but we are delighted that he is back in the House today; long may he remain here. He, too, commented on the welcome introduction of commonhold and said that hopefully over a period it would become the more likely form of tenure for all non-freehold residential properties in this country.
  There are one or two things that I should like to mention in summing up. It is particularly unfortunate that a Bill of this size and complexity, which has received a general welcome throughout the House, should be subject to the timetable set out in the Order Paper. For a Bill of 174 clauses to have a Committee timetable of just two weeks is inadequate; it does no service either to our constituents or to democracy. The Government should be ashamed of themselves, and I hope that on future occasions they will think about whether it is necessary to have a timetable of that sort. I have now been involved in two Bills on which there was no timetabling whatever, the last of which was the Homelessness Bill. The Under-Secretary, who is to make the winding-up speech tonight, led the Committee that considered that Bill. It was conducted perfectly satisfactorily, just as the Bill that is before us could be conducted satisfactorily. A number of weaknesses on which all-party agreement has been evident could easily have been sorted out in Committee.
  This has been a comprehensive debate and this is a welcome Bill. Many people in this country will welcome what we are doing tonight. They will not welcome it, however, if the Bill that is put on to the statute book is wrong, inadequate, has shortcomings and imposes increased costs for leaseholders and commonholders because it has flaws. I hope that, in future, when we consider such Bills, we will not have a timetable such as that which is on the Order Paper today.
  9.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions(Ms Sally Keeble): I am grateful to the many hon. Members who contributed to this detailed and interesting debate. Like many other hon. Members, I must first declare an interest, as my husband and I own a leasehold house in London.
  We have heard a good deal about the difficulties of long leasehold tenure and the imperfections of the remedies that are available under the law as it stands. The debate has been well informed and technical. I accept that

  507
  the Bill is a complicated and technical measure, but its underlying objective is very simple: to give people more security in their own homes. It will achieve that in two ways. First, it introduces a new form of tenure—commonhold—which will eliminate the problems inherent in the leasehold system. Secondly, it will bring the leasehold system into the 21st century by giving more rights and choices to leaseholders, so that they can enjoy the same degree of security and control over their homes as other home owners.
  I shall turn shortly to some of the specific points that have been made. I am sorry that there will not be time to deal with them all or indeed to deal with them as fully as I would have liked. However, I am sure that we will return to many of them in Committee. I shall also be happy to deal with some issues in correspondence if hon. Members wish me to. Underneath criticisms of the detail of the Bill, I believe that there is general sympathy in all parts of the House for what we are seeking to achieve. Indeed, the principles have been welcomed on both sides of the House.
  First, there has been great support for the principle of leasehold reform, although I recognise that many would argue that we should have gone further. Secondly, there seems to be general agreement that it is high time to introduce a new tenure that is purpose-built to the requirements of multi-unit development, taking into account the experience of the many other countries that have already introduced their own particular variations on the commonhold theme.
  Let me deal with some of the issues that were raised. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) recognised the benefits that the Bill will bring to people from all walks of society, as he put it. He is absolutely right about that. In particular, the Bill will protect some of the most vulnerable householders. Similar points were made by many of my hon. Friends. The hon. Gentleman also spoke about the rocky path that it has been necessary to take to get the legislation even to this point. Given the history that he set out, I urge the House to get a move on and to accept that the issues have been repeatedly aired and discussed. The programme motion is wholly appropriate. I should point out that it provides not two, but three weeks.
  The hon. Gentleman raised many technical issues that will also be discussed in Committee, including the requirement for 100 per cent. support for conversion. The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), repeated the commitment given by the Lord Chancellor to listen and consider any well-judged amendment on the 100 per cent. rule. As he said, however, any such amendment must tackle the problems that he mentioned, including that of running two systems in one development.
  The hon. Member for Stone also raised issues about remedies for non-payment. Such issues were mentioned by other hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) and for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). The hon. Member for Stone argued that the remedies available under commonhold in respect of service charges, for example, are not adequate. Like several other hon. Members, he argued in favour of some variety of charge over the commonhold unit. That would be a complicating and limiting factor. It would also run
  508
  the risk of bringing in forfeiture by the back door—something that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have opposed.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) set out some of the practical problems of leasehold owners and opposed the 100 per cent. rule for conversion to commonhold, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson), for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) and for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas). I am sure that that issue will be revisited at a later stage.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley also mentioned valuation and marriage values, as did many hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Government have carefully considered the forceful representations of leaseholders on marriage value. However, we remain of the view that in a compulsory purchase situation, landlords should receive compensation for the loss of their interest similar to what they would have received in a sale between willing parties. The Bill reflects that principle and, in our view, strikes a correct balance between the competing interests of landlords and leaseholders.
  We have taken action to remove scope for unnecessary and costly arguments over the determination of marriage value. At present, landlords are guaranteed a minimum 50 per cent. share, but they can and do argue for more. The Bill will provide that that is shared equally in all cases. It also provides that no marriage value will be payable when the unexpired term of the lease exceeds 80 years. It has been argued that the cut-off point is too high. People will always argue about where the point should be applied and those who fall just outside it will feel aggrieved. Some people have argued that it should be 90 or 100 years. We have chosen 80 as a point above which some experienced valuers have told us that any marriage value is likely to be marginal.
  The hon. Member for Torbay committed the Liberal Democrat party to support for the introduction of commonhold and reform of leasehold, which we certainly welcome. He asked about voting methods. The details of the commonhold association will be in the regulations. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said, they will be put in the Library before the commencement of the Standing Committee.
  The hon. Member for Torbay also mentioned limited liability partnership and asked why we were opting for a commonhold association that would be a company limited by guarantee. As such a company, a commonhold association will be firmly rooted in company law, with adjustments to take account of the objects of the association. Both limited liability partnership companies and commonhold associations have the same origins—they are in the same family tree, but occupy different branches. If a limited liability structure were used, it would steer the provision back towards aspects of the Companies Act 1985 that are vital to commonhold. That is not the only problem that we perceive if commonhold associations are set up as limited liability partnerships. There are many others and I am sure that that matter will be raised in Committee.
  Mr. Bellingham: Will the Minister give way?
  Ms Keeble: No, I will not. I will deal with as many of the points made as I can in the limited time available.

  509
  My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) pointed out the different positions of leaseholders in the north and in London. One matter that he highlighted was insurance—
  Mr. Bellingham: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Keeble: No. The hon. Gentleman made a point in his speech, which I will deal with later.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) also dealt with insurance and spelled out clearly the nature of some of the scams. We are well aware of concerns about anti-competitive practice. He is one hon. Member who has been vociferous in pressing that point. I can assure him and other hon. Members that we will carefully consider the strong representations that have been made on the issue to find out what more we can do to help leaseholders, although it is not possible to give a definite commitment on that this evening.
  Mr. Bellingham rose—
  Ms Keeble: I made it clear that time is limited. I will deal with as many of the arguments as possible, including those of the hon. Gentleman.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East also mentioned forfeiture, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North, who has been a leading opponent of what he terms the "ground rent grazers" for a number of years. I appreciate that many leaseholders consider forfeiture a draconian measure, but the law on this issue is complex and we have not been able to provide for more comprehensive reform in this Bill. The Law Commission is continuing to work on broader reforms in this area.
  The hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) raised the possibility of a formula for the cost of enfranchisement. We commissioned research to find out whether there was a fair way of dealing with some of the key factors involved but, sadly, it did not prove fruitful. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire welcomed the Bill and made the point that the right to manage should apply to local authority leaseholders. A broad range of options is already open to all local authority tenants, and we do not believe that it would be right to overlap those with a further right that could be exercised only by local authority leaseholders. That would lead to competition, and probably conflict, between different groups of tenants and between the existing broader rights and the narrow one proposed by him. Such competition or conflict would not be to anyone's advantage.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate gave welcome support to the Bill. She also raised issues about meetings, and those will be dealt with in the regulations. She said that she still felt that she would be buying a pig in a poke. In fact, she would be buying the individual ownership of the freehold of her unit, and the corporate management of the commonhold part.
  The hon. Members for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), for Poole (Mr. Syms), for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) and for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) all welcomed the Bill, but with reservations. The hon. Members for Poole, for Leominster and for North-West Norfolk also said that we were rushing
  510
  the Bill, although the evidence from the speeches all around the House is that the changes are long overdue and that people want to see them on the statute book.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) raised issues about security of tenure for high-rental properties, but we cannot deal with them within in the scope of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North made an impassioned speech that has been recognised on both sides of the House as important. He dealt in particular with a requirement for developers to offer management responsibility or a share of the freehold from the outset. Many already do so.
  The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) raised a number of technical issues based on his constituents' experiences, including that of positive covenants. That is another issue that the Law Commission is reviewing. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) has been consistent in arguing the case of his constituents on a number of issues, and mentioned the need for sunset clauses. We would be prepared to consider that in more detail in Committee if a workable amendment were tabled.
  The hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) made a welcome contribution, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd, West, for Telford (David Wright) and for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac). My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes raised a number of important issues about leasehold houses, and I can assure her that the provision of clear public information, especially to protect very vulnerable leaseholders, is very much one of our priorities.
  The Bill is the careful culmination of years of effort and consultation. It will build on the best of the overseas experience of producing commonhold, and make some important amendments to the law on leasehold. Those include introducing the right to manage, opening up the right to collective enfranchisement, improving the right to a new lease, strengthening the protection for leaseholders, introducing more effective arrangements for consulting leaseholders and many other measures that will benefit millions of people up and down the country. Those changes will bring our system of land tenure into the 21st century and ensure that all home owners of houses or flats have the same security. I commend the proposals to the House.
  Question put and agreed to
  Bill accordingly read a Second time

  COMMONHOLD AND LEASEHOLD REFORM BILL (PROGRAMME)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [28 June],
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [Lords]:

  Committal
  (1) The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
  Programming of proceedings
  (2) All proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) shall be programmed.

  Proceedings in Standing Committee
  (3) Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 31st January 2002.

  (4) The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

  Consideration and Third Reading
  (5) Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Six o'clock on that day.

  (6) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the day on which proceedings on consideration are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Seven o'clock on that day.

  (7) Sessional Order B (programming committees) made on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.—[Mr. Caplin.]

  The House proceeded to a Division.
  Mr. Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
  The House having divided: Ayes 324, Noes 172

  Division No. 123

  [9.59pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Caplin, Ivor

  Ainger, Nick

  Casale, Roger

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Caton, Martin

  Alexander, Douglas

  Cawsey, Ian

  Allen, Graham

  Challen, Colin

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  (Swansea E)

  Chaytor, David

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Clapham, Michael

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clarke, Rt Hon Charles

  Atkins, Charlotte

  (Norwich S)

  Austin, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Barnes, Harry

  Clelland, David

  Barron, Kevin

  Clwyd, Ann

  Battle, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Beard, Nigel

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Cohen, Harry

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Colman, Tony

  Benn, Hilary

  Connarty, Michael

  Bennett, Andrew

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Benton, Joe

  Corston, Jean

  Berry, Roger

  Cousins, Jim

  Best, Harold

  Cox, Tom

  Blackman, Liz

  Crausby, David

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cruddas, Jon

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cummings, John

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Browne, Desmond

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bryant, Chris

  David, Wayne

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Davidson, Ian

  Burden, Richard

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Burnham, Andy

  Dawson, Hilton

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Cairns, David

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Dobbin, Jim

  512

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Kemp, Fraser

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Doran, Frank

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dowd, Jim

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Drew, David

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Edwards, Huw

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Ennis, Jeff

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Etherington, Bill

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Farrelly, Paul

  Laxton, Bob

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Fisher, Mark

  Lepper, David

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Leslie, Christopher

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Levitt, Tom

  Flint, Caroline

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Flynn, Paul

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Follett, Barbara

  Linton, Martin

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lloyd, Tony

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Love, Andrew

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lucas, Ian

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Luke, Iain

  Gardiner, Barry

  Lyons, John

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gerrard, Neil

  McCabe, Stephen

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Gilroy, Linda

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Goggins, Paul

  MacDonald, Calum

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McDonnell, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  MacDougall, John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McFall, John

  Grogan, John

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McKechin, Ann

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hanson, David

  McNulty, Tony

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Havard, Dai

  McWilliam, John

  Healey, John

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mann, John

  Hendrick, Mark

  Marris, Rob

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Heppell, John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Heyes, David

  Martlew, Eric

  Hill, Keith

  Meale, Alan

  Hinchliffe, David

  Merron, Gillian

  Hodge, Margaret

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Miller, Andrew

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Mole, Chris

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Moran, Margaret

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Morgan, Julie

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Morley, Elliot

  Hurst, Alan

  Mudie, George

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Illsley, Eric

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jamieson, David

  O'Hara, Edward

  Jenkins, Brian

  Olner, Bill

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Owen, Albert

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Perham, Linda

  Joyce, Eric

  Picking, Anne

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pickthall, Colin

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Pike, Peter

  513

  Plaskitt, James

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Pollard, Kerry

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Pond, Chris

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Pope, Greg

  Stringer, Graham

  Pound, Stephen

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Tami, Mark

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Purchase, Ken

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pumell, James

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Rammell, Bill

  Timms, Stephen

  Rapson, Syd

  Tipping, Paddy

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Todd, Mark

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Touhig, Don

  Robertson, John

  Trickett, Jon

  (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Rooney, Terry

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Ross, Ernie

  Tynan, Bill

  Roy, Frank

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Ruane, Chris

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wareing, Robert N

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Watson, Tom

  Salter, Martin

  Watts, David

  Savidge, Malcolm

  White, Brian

  Sawford, Phil

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Shaw, Jonathan

  (Swansea W)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Wills, Michael

  Simon, Siôn

  Winnick, David

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C),

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Woolas, Phil

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wray, James

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Soley, Clive

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Wyatt, Derek

  Squire, Rachel

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Angela Smith and Dan Norris

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Cash, William

  Amess, David

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Clappison, James

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Bacon, Richard

  Collins, Tim

  Baron, John

  Conway, Derek

  Barrett, John

  Cran, James

  Beggs, Roy

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Bellingham, Henry

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Bercow, John

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Boswell, Tim

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Doughty, Sue

  Brady, Graham

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Brazier, Julian

  Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Fabricant, Michael

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Fallon, Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Burt, Alistair

  Flight, Howard

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Flook, Adrian

  Cameron, David

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  (NE Fife)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Francois, Mark

  514

  Gale, Roger

  Paice, James

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Paterson, Owen

  Gibb, Nick

  Pickles, Eric

  Gidley, Sandra

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Gray, James

  Price, Adam

  Grayling, Chris

  Prisk, Mark

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Randall, John

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Greenway, John

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Rendel, David

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hammond, Philip

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Hayes, John

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Heald, Oliver

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Heath, David

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Hendry, Charles

  Sanders, Adrian

  Hermon, Lady

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hoban, Mark

  Selous, Andrew

  Holmes, Paul

  Simmonds, Mark

  Horam, John

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

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

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Soames, Nicholas

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Spink, Bob

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Key, Robert

  Steen, Anthony

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Streeter, Gary

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Stunell, Andrew

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Swire, Hugo

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Syms, Robert

  Lansley, Andrew

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Laws, David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher &Walton)

  Leigh, Edward

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Tredinnick, David

  Lidington, David

  Trend, Michael

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Tyler, Paul

  Loughton, Tim

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Luff, Peter

  Viggers, Peter

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Waterson, Nigel

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Watkinson, Angela

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Webb, Steve

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Whittingdale, John

  Malins, Humfrey

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Maples, John

  Wiggin, Bill

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Wilkinson, John

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Willetts, David

  Mercer, Patrick

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Willis, Phil

  Moore, Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Yeo, Tim

  Norman, Archie

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Öpik, Lembit

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Ottaway, Richard

  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan and Dr. Julian Lewis.

  Page, Richard

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  COMMONHOLD AND LEASEHOLD REFORM BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with Bills),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—

  515

  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) financial assistance given by the Lord Chancellor in relation to the provision of advice, and

  (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which under any other Act are payable out of money provided by Parliament, and

  (2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund—[Mr. Caplin.]

  Question agreed to

  DEREGULATION AND REGULATORY REFORM
  Ordered,
  That Dr. Ashok Kumar be discharged from the Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee and Mr. Mark Lazarowicz be added—[Mr. Caplin.]

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Ordered,
  That the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) (Amendment) Order 2001, (S.I., 2001, No. 3561), dated 4th November 2001, which was laid before this House on 5th November, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation—[Mr. Caplin.]

  PROCEDURE COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That, Standing Order No. 147 (Procedure Committee) be amended as follows:
  Line 10, at end insert,
  'and to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available, or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference—[Mr. Caplin.]

  HUMAN RIGHTS (JOINT COMMITTEE) (POWERS TO TRAVEL OUTSIDE THE UNITED KINGDOM)
  Ordered,
  That Standing Order No. 152B (Human rights (joint committee)) be amended as follows:
  Line 47, leave out from second 'place' to 'and' in line 50—[Mr. Caplin.]

  Postal Services
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Caplin.]
  10.20 pm
  Mr. Colin Challen: I begin by thanking you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise the important issue of competition in postal services. This is the first Adjournment debate of 2002 in this Chamber, and it could not be more opportune.
  We have just come through a record-breaking Christmas period, in which the Royal Mail delivered 50 million more items than in the same period of the previous year. That took the total number of cards and letters delivered to well over 2 billion. The tens of thousands of post men and women achieved that in all weathers, generally without any significant hitches and generally on time. They should be congratulated.
  However, it is also important to raise this matter in the House now because alarming reports—subsequently denied—have emerged in recent weeks that tens of thousands of post men and women were to be sacked. There has also been the ongoing Postcomm consultation on competition in postal services, the responses to which were published on 28 November. Notwithstanding that consultation, I note the concern of the Communications Workers Union that Postcomm had pre-empted the conclusions by beginning the process of issuing licences to competitors. Some consultation that is turning out to be.
  Since the general election, there have also been two early-day motions—one in my name—supporting a universal postal service. They have attracted widespread support. Last but not least, there are continuing and disturbing reports that, although Consignia's postal business has been granted a 15-year licence, it is being considered by some as ripe territory for that worst of all privatisations—dismemberment by outsourcing.
  Before I look at some of those issues, I want to acknowledge the support that the Government have given to the Post Office. Although I shall be talking primarily about postal services, I confess that I shall use the shorthand term "Post Office" instead of Royal Mail, Parcelforce or Consignia, as that is how my constituents recognise and refer to the business. Perhaps I and they are being old fashioned but, if so, I offer no apology. Some of the standards that we expect from the Post Office are decidedly old fashioned—if that means quality as opposed to mission statements, mail delivered on time as opposed to value-added services, or a universal postal service as opposed to a system based on "you pays your money and takes your choice".
  For the first time, the Government have enshrined in law the principle that there should be something called the universal postal service. I admit that the proposal is not that the universal postal service should be publicly owned, nor that it should necessarily be delivered by one business.
  I share the concerns of Age Concern, which have also been expressed by Postwatch. Age Concern sought clarification of what Postcomm meant when it used the term "universal postal service" in its consultation document. The minimum definition provided by the Postal Services Act 2000 seems clear enough, but the fear is evident that the universal service could merely become

  517
  what some people might call the "bog standard" service and that it could be, as Postcomm suggests, in need of subsidy. A minimum level of service is just that—a minimum: like a speed limit, it is not necessarily a target to be worked towards.
  Thankfully, the Government have kept faith with the British people by rejecting the Tories' proposal for outright privatisation of the Post Office. It comes as no surprise that the Conservatives want to sell off a service that has been part of the fabric of our country for more than 350 years, and it will come as no surprise when they return with the same policy in a couple of years' time, as they no doubt will. I understand that the Centre for Policy Studies is working on it already.
  The Government can be congratulated too on maintaining the current licensed area—that is, the limits on competition for items under £1 in value, or under 350 g in weight. They are also to be congratulated on lifting some of the borrowing constraints on the Post Office and on lifting the external finance limit, which had effectively prevented the Post Office from investing in new machinery, buildings and information technology.
  Giving the Post Office more financial freedom was the biggest step forward in allowing it further to develop and enhance its services. For too long, it had been a milch cow for the Treasury, delivering billions in revenue. Since the 1970s, we had been beholden to the idea that somehow the Post Office had to pay back earlier subsidies from the taxpayer from the time when it was, in effect, a Department and run like one.
  Everyone is content that Post Office has moved on from that mindset, but the question we face at present is whether we must say goodbye to the public service ethos altogether, or say hello to the service industry ethos that is, in my experience, something very different. The Post Office's competitors certainly want what they describe as a level playing field across Europe, allowing only minimum state intervention but maximum competition. That is the view of the CBI, trade bodies and others. For them, the liberalisation of trading services is a holy grail. Perhaps the only thing preventing the progress of so-called competition in postal services is that those bodies have not yet quite figured out how to dismantle the necessarily large national postal services into pieces small enough for them to digest. They also know that throughout Europe politicians—let me rephrase that: European citizens—do not want myriad services at different prices, from different outlets and with different delivery mechanisms to complicate their lives further. If they wanted such services, why have postal volumes stagnated in Sweden, where there is a fully liberalised market?
  The universal postal service is as natural a monopoly as they come. That should not be seen as a failing but as a strength—suitably regulated, of course. What do we face at present? Partly in response to single-market pressures—which I acknowledge are genuine, as cross-border trade and postal volumes are increasing—and partly, no doubt, due to behind the scenes lobbying in Brussels by such bodies as the LOTIS—liberalisation of trade in services—Committee, predatory campaigns are being mounted to top slice some types of postal business and give them up to so-called competition.
  My use of the phrase "so-called competition" is a reference to the type of revenue-generating business that can be handled without large overheads: urban, big-city
  518
  business mail as opposed to rural, domestic mail. The arguments are well known and I do not want to go over them again; nor, it seems, does Postcomm, which clearly feels compelled to give licences to so-called competitive services, thereby denying yet more of that profitable work to the Post Office.
  There is a big question that must be answered urgently: how far down that road do the Government think it possible to travel before we end up with a basket case postal service for everybody else? The loss of such revenue to the Post Office will have a disproportionately large impact on its profits.
  We seem to have decided that we want a Post Office, but I am not sure that current trends would permit it to be a profitable one—unless, of course, we take the route of back-door privatisation, which is sometimes known by the euphemism "outsourcing". For example, given a full head of steam and, presumably, without any need for intervention from the Post Office's single shareholder, the management of the Post Office could choose to outsource the fleet management of their 30,000 Royal Mail vehicles and their 10,000 Parcelforce vehicles.
  I am sure that it would look good on paper to create a stand-alone fleet management business, with staff sent across to the new business clutching their TUPE fig leaves. Eventually, of course, such a business would start employing new staff at lower rates of pay, with worse terms and conditions and worse outcomes. For example, that is what happened under many hospital cleaning contracts.
  I have no doubt that, eventually, it would be necessary to wait longer and longer for work to be done, because the whole business philosophy of just-in-time delivery—the effort to reduce overheads—would inevitably take its toll.
  Fleet management is one sector that appears to be in contention for outsourcing. Sortation might be more contentious. The manufacturer of sortation equipment might be asked to lease the equipment to the Post Office on the basis of a private finance initiative, complete with staff to run the whole process in an area. The staff, naturally, would not be Post Office employees. They would not necessarily be on the same terms or conditions or even working exclusively on the Post Office contract. That would certainly reduce the Post Office's overheads, and what a marvellous entrée it would make for competitors which might contract to use the same equipment for their own services. Is there any way of preventing that from happening, except by saying that what we mean by a universal postal service includes the word monopoly?
  What I have described is not such a far-fetched proposition. Already the name of Siemens, which manufactures such equipment, has been linked with something like this scenario, except I have read that postal delivery staff may be asked to wear Siemens logos as part of a sponsorship deal.
  What else could be outsourced? Everything, in reality. We could have partnership deals, sponsorship deals, holding companies—indeed, that is all that Consignia actually is. A few years down the road—15, perhaps—we would have a Post Office that was unrecognisable and could easily be 50 or 75 per cent. privatised in effect. The staff would notice the change, of course. They—those that remain after natural wastage— will not have very

  519
  encouraging prospects. Let me quote from a report called "The Impact of Competition in the Postal Sector" by the Association of International Couriers and Express Services. In consultant-style speak, it addresses the impact of market features which need to be considered:
  "Hiring qualified delivery staff and establishing a network which provides a suitable service quality can be a very time consuming exercise. Furthermore, without substantial volumes the ability to recruit full time employees is often too risky for a market entrant. Flexible working conditions are, therefore, an important factor in affecting market entry."
  That is the problem in a nutshell. However, I would say to the author of that piece that it does not apply simply to new entrants. Look at the way in which Post Office staff are increasingly employed. Flexible working is the order of the day and I suppose we must call a spade a spade. "Flexible" generally refers to part-time work and the very nature of such work means more casualisation and the necessity for working men and women to take on other part-time jobs to secure a reasonable standard of living, not to mention having to rely on the working families tax credit to top up their earnings.
  None of that features in my vision of what a modern Post Office should look like. I realise that we may no longer be employing postmen and women who had to sign the Official Secrets Acts before they could start work or had to sign for their brass security badges, along with their uniforms. Those requirements were designed to reassure the public about the security of their mail. The idea was, I believe, that they were people who could be trusted and respected. They were not transient employees, demotivated and anonymous.
  In my vision of what we should be seeking, the notion of the public service ethos still looms large. Why, when we talk about community safety, do we never assume a role for the largest uniformed service in the country, whose members walk every street in every town and every village and pass every letter box of every house every morning six days a week? Has the public service ethos of the Post Office become so invisible in this competitive age that we cannot harness sufficient imagination to see what a gem we possess?
  In all my reading in preparation for this debate, I have seen no lateral thinking about how we can develop our publicly owned universal postal service. If we do not, I fear that we could witness a disaster of Railtrack proportions—a disaster for which we never intended to legislate.
  10.33 pm
  The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Douglas Alexander): I begin by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen) for securing this debate. I know of his interest and long-standing commitment to our postal services. He has raised a number of important issues, and I shall endeavour to address each of them. Let me begin my response by setting the debate in context and explaining the Government's approach to this important issue.
  When the Government took office in 1997, one of our first priorities was to address the failure of the previous Administration to give the Post Office the greater
  520
  commercial freedom called for by Post Office management and unions and deemed vital if it was to invest in new services and address the needs of its customers. In January 2000, the Postal Services Bill was introduced. Derek Hodgson, then general secretary of the Communication Workers Union, said of the Bill:
  "It secures the union's major objective of securing a long-term future in the public sector for the post office, and offers the business commercial freedom we believe it needs."
  In March 2001, Consignia therefore became a plc, with a newly redefined relationship with Government as the sole shareholder, no longer operating as a statutory monopoly, but in a regulated postal market. Other elements of the freedom include the right to retain a greater share of the profits to reinvest in its core business and the ability to borrow to finance strategic investments.
  In addition, regulatory reforms introduced under the Postal Services Act 2000 were specifically designed to promote the interests of consumers in a framework that will ensure that the universal service, of which my hon. Friend spoke at such length, is safeguarded. In recognition of its social and economic importance, the Government have for the first time, as my hon. Friend kindly acknowledged, enshrined the universal service obligation in primary legislation.
  The Postal Services Act states that the universal service consists of a postal service provided at an affordable price, determined by a public tariff, which is uniform throughout the United Kingdom and includes daily delivery to the home or premises of every individual in the United Kingdom and daily collection from access points. The Act established an independent regulator, known as Postcomm, to oversee the postal market and a consumer council, known as Postwatch, to protect the interests of consumers.
  Postcomm is an independent body responsible for regulating the United Kingdom postal market. It operates through a licensing regime for the area of the market broadly equivalent to the Post Office's former statutory monopoly. Within those limits, some exceptions—for example, document exchange services—are excluded from the licensing regime. Above the limits, there is a deregulated market fully open to competition.
  I emphasise that Postcomm's primary duty is to ensure the provision of the universal service. It is the regulator's responsibility to determine how the universal service obligation is implemented in the interests of consumers. It is also responsible for promoting the interests of consumers, where appropriate, through the introduction of more competition.
  Postcomm has met its duty to ensure that a universal service is provided throughout the United Kingdom by issuing its first licence to Consignia. Under the terms of that licence, Consignia has to provide a range of services in the context of a general obligation to provide a universal postal service at an affordable uniform tariff.
  Postcomm has indeed initiated early consideration of the controls that should apply to Consignia's prices from April 2003. In November last year, it issued a public consultation document to invite initial reaction to the appropriate objectives and approach that Postcomm ought to have in mind when formulating revised price control arrangements. The document outlines a number of options relating to the structure, form and duration of the revised price control, while highlighting the importance of

  521
  safeguarding the quality of service. Postcomm aims to publish initial proposals for Consignia's revised price control in the summer this year.
  Subject to Postcomm's primary duty to ensure the provision of the universal service, it is also under a duty to further the interests of users of postal services, wherever appropriate, by promoting effective competition between postal operators. Postcomm can therefore consider applications for other licences, provided that it is satisfied that the universal service can be maintained.
  While considering how more competition might be introduced to the market, Postcomm initially published a statement of its interim licensing policy in April 2001. In its document, "Interim Approach to Licensing", Postcomm outlined that the licence applications most likely to succeed in the interim period, until it has formalised its long-term approach to the introduction of competition, are those to certain niche services, provided that they do not affect the maintenance of the universal postal service. When issuing new licences, Postcomm must be satisfied that the universal service can be maintained.
  Six very specific interim licences have been issued while Postcomm consults on the framework for a longer-term policy on the introduction of competition. Postcomm has also undertaken a wide-ranging consultation on competition based on the consultation document it issued in June last year. It is expected to produce its proposals early in 2002. Those proposals should be viewed in the context of a likely European agreement progressively to reduce the price-weight limits to reservation. In developing its longer-term policy on competition, Postcomm will consider whether there is scope for the United Kingdom to open up the market further.
  The proposals will be subject to a further period of consultation, with the aim of finalising a longer-term competition and licensing policy by April 2002.
  As my hon. Friend said, however, competition cannot just be seen in a United Kingdom context. In 1997, in response to the developments in the wider European postal market, the European Union established a framework for the regulation of postal services that allowed certain letter services to be reserved to universal service providers, but only to the extent necessary to ensure the provision of the universal service. The EU agreed on maximum limits for the services that could be reserved, but made explicit provision for those limits to be reduced and for competition to increase.
  In considering the scope and timing of further reductions, the Council has reached political agreement on a framework systematically to lower the price and weight levels. This is now being considered by the European Parliament. The framework envisages a reduction in services that may be reserved from 350g to 100g in 2003 and to 50g in 2006. Following a review in 2006 that will focus on the impact of further reductions on the universal service, the European Commission may then propose either to phase out reservation in 2009 or to take other appropriate steps. This final stage will be subject to co-decision between the European Parliament and the European Council.
  As a Government, we support the European Council agreement to establish a timetable for progressive liberalisation in Europe that is consistent with maintaining
  522
  the universal service. We believe that it is important to move quickly to reach agreement to provide market certainty and to allow companies to prepare and to adjust to market changes. In the absence of any agreement, the current EU postal directive will lapse in 2004 with resulting market uncertainties.
  It is important that, as the UK market becomes more open to competition, the wider European market also opens up. That will provide opportunities for British companies, including Consignia. The larger European post offices, such as Deutsche Post and La Poste, are active competitors in this market. Postal services are not only a domestic interest particularly for business. Indeed, the international mail market is one of the fastest growing parts of the sector.
  I shall now try to place those policy developments in context. The postal market is, in general, becoming more and more diverse. "Post" does not just mean the personal letters, greetings cards or postcards that we all send and receive as individuals. In addition to the letters market, there are thriving markets for packets and parcels and for express services and for logistics. If the market is diverse, so are postal users. Businesses—large and small—are the main generators of mail, but many of their customers are individual consumers who not only receive but generate mail in response.
  Customers are becoming more discerning and demanding about the services that they want and most particularly about business mail services. Therefore, there is increasing demand for more targeted, faster, more reliable and better quality services and for new postal services such as through the development of hybrid mail services using other communication technologies, time delivery services and track and trace so that it is possible to know where an item is at any stage of the delivery process. There is also demand for other products that facilitate business contact with customers.
  Customers increasingly have a choice. Companies make greater use of electronic services, but individuals have access to a wider range of options, whether it is to send their greetings cards electronically or to pay their bills online. Sending things by post is no longer the only option for both individuals and business consumers and postal services have to compete for their place in the market.
  As well as competition from new communication services and new technologies, outside the regulated letter market in the United Kingdom there is a thriving competitive market of 4,000 companies that operate in the wider distribution market. They offer a range of courier, express and logistics services and they range from the large international carriers to small local dispatch companies. They all compete to offer the services that customers want. Many of the larger competing companies are owned by or are in partnership with Post Office companies.
  As customers have more choice—whether from direct competition from other service providers or from alternative means of communication—Consignia must make rapid progress to improve its performance and to give customers what they want, namely a better range of high-quality, reliable and well-priced services. Current poor performance is the result of its failure to resolve these problems in previous years when, as my hon. Friend acknowledged, the future of the Post Office was placed

  523
  in limbo following the Conservative's failed proposals. However, as a result of recent reforms, Consignia now has the greater commercial freedom sought by management and, indeed, by unions to respond to a more competitive environment.
  As shareholder, the Government are obviously disappointed by Consignia's present financial performance. It is clear that the company urgently needs to improve its performance and we are taking steps actively to strengthen its management.
  Early last year, a new finance director, Marisa Cassoni, joined the board. That was followed by the appointment of Allan Leighton to the non-executive team to take a special interest in the post office network. A new chief executive of Post Office Counters Ltd. is being recruited and arrangements are in hand to appoint a new chairman of the company.
  Consignia clearly needs to stem its losses and improve its performance. Its proposals on cost cutting are still at an initial stage. It will be vital, therefore, that as they are developed management works effectively with the work force to achieve the necessary changes. The Government were encouraged to see that Consignia and the Communication Workers Union have reached agreement on the basis for developing a framework for handling job reductions in the company. Although industrial relations and the resolution of disputes are, of course, a matter for the management of the company and the unions, the Government have consistently encouraged both sides to work in partnership.
  Since the publication of the Sawyer report in July last year, which highlighted the real problems on both sides within Royal Mail's service delivery operation and made
  524
  recommendations to try to resolve them, progress in developing a partnership approach to industrial relations within the company has been encouraging and should be used as the foundation of a long-term solution to the difficulties that have dogged it for so many years. A more efficient company, providing high-quality competitive services, is in the strong interests of consumers and the taxpayer. The postal market will not stand still and it is necessary to have a framework to allow consumers the benefits of competition while ensuring that the universal service is maintained at an affordable uniform tariff.
  It is for the consumer that services are provided and it is the consumer who will look elsewhere if those services do not provide the quality and reliability required. We want consumers to benefit from the choice afforded by competition, but they will also benefit from a strong postal service as represented by a competitive and efficient Consignia that is able to provide not only the traditional universal postal service that we all value, but a wide range of competitive products and services.
  The reforms that the Government have put in place include in particular the introduction of a new regulatory framework to provide the benefits of competition, with the universal service at its core, the establishment of an independent regulator and a new council for consumers, and the provision of a new framework of support for the post office network. We have also given Consignia the commercial freedom that it wants and needs to develop the company. All those initiatives together provide the necessary framework for a customer-focused approach and ensure that there is a strong postal services market for the benefit of all.
  Question put and agreed to
  Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Eleven o'clock

London Underground
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Pearson.]
9.30 am
Harry Cohen: During my speech, I shall refer in a political context to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. At the outset, I want to express my deepest sympathy to him and his wife Sarah on the tragic loss of their baby. I am sure that all Members will want to express their condolences.
I thank Mr. Speaker for again granting me an adjournment debate on the important matter of London Underground. I initiated a debate on the subject on 17 October, and I shall try not to repeat what I said then despite the fact that several of my concerns remain. I have also corresponded with the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devon Port (Mr. Jamieson), and I thank him for his informative and helpful letter to me of 22 November, to which I shall refer in due course.
The public-private partnership proposal continues to develop, and I should like the Minister to explain the latest situation and tell us of London Underground's investment plans. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary rightly said on 17 October that
"London Underground is a vital national asset"—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 17 October 2001; Vol. 372, c. 278WH.]
It is also essential for those Londoners who use it regularly and who rely upon it. Sadly, it has been starved of sufficient investment for more than two decades, and it shows.
The Government have promised big money—£13 billion over the next 15 years—and that commitment is most welcome. However, it must be regarded as a one-off chance significantly to upgrade the tube. It is unlikely that such an investment will be repeated for several decades if it is done wrongly now. It must be got right. The investment could help to create a first-rate transport system in London; but it might not have the impact necessary to prevent the present deterioration continuing. That deterioration has a high cost for passengers, business and employment, and for London's environment as the roads become more over-burdened, and for the nation's economy.
Several aspects of the Government's currently preferred method of investment remain of concern. The first is safety. In his letter to me, the Under-Secretary wrote:
"The Government has always made clear that safety is the first priority for the Underground, and that modernisation plans will only proceed when the independent Health and Safety Executive has accepted the necessary safety arrangements. Clearly that is something that must be got right."
My hon. Friend added that a decision on the current safety case was expected before Christmas, with a decision on the revised safety case, which reflects the role
138WH
of the private sector infrastructure companies, being expected this financial year—that is by the beginning of April. Will the Minister give us more information about that? The question of safety is important, because the public are not yet convinced.
A report in The Independent on 7 December referred to the disclosure that safety chiefs are not expected to clear the project for its scheduled start date next year. It stated:
"The Health & Safety Executive is 'highly unlikely' to accept the revised safety proposals for the PPP in time for the 1 April deadline set by Ministers".
The main reason for the delay is London Underground's failure to compile its final so-called safety case, which covers the full handover of the system to commercial firms. The article went on to say that
"the HSE is understood to have indicated that its own assessment of London Underground's safety case would not be governed by the 1 April date."
The paper also said
"The independent safety watchdog accepted this week the latest version of safety plans for the shadow PPP structure set up for the Tube."
However, I have not seen such a report from the HSE or, indeed, the railways inspectorate, in the public domain. Will the Minister explain what those bodies have declared and arrange for their full reports to be published and placed in the public domain?
In his November letter, the Under-Secretary responded to my concerns about the Parsons Brinckerhoff report on safety management, which was prepared for the Transport Commissioner for London, Bob Kiley. The Minister said that the infrastructure companies could not
"simply change standards at will"
and that they
"must comply with the requirements of their safety case and other controls."
However, in a letter to me on 19 November, Bob Kiley stated that Parsons Brinckerhoff's
"findings made clear that the current standards are inadequate and inappropriate to serve as an effective management control mechanism in the context of privately owned infracos. With the Standards being incomplete, LU itself has acknowledged (and continues to acknowledge) that bringing them up to date could take approximately three years. This timeframe would obviously go well beyond the closing dates anticipated for the PPP contracts".
He emphasises the point, saying:
"There is no disguising the fact that the current state of the Standards do not form the safety net that PPP advocates claim them to be and whether one likes the PPP or not, they should be fixed before the contracts are finalised".
Ministers should take that serious point into account and should perhaps, even at this late stage, arrange for an urgent standards rewrite; otherwise, a potentially serious safety loophole could emerge.
In its written testimony to the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions, Parsons Brinckerhoff recommended, first, that the standards update process be accelerated and completed in about 18 months; secondly, that a top-level suite of standards be provided that was appropriate to London Underground Ltd's need to control standards of workmanship and associated safety under PPP

139WH
contracts; thirdly, that the issue of non-compliance be reviewed to ensure that the concessions process was not open to abuse; fourthly, that a single authority for all standards be set up and led by LUL, but include infracos and third parties, to maintain consistency of standards across the system; and fifthly, that PPP contracts contain owner-variation and directive rights to permit LUL to change standards when warranted by the public interest. Do the Government propose to respond to those recommendations?
I come to the question of what levels of investment should be implemented and by whom. At the Labour party conference, the Chancellor categorically said:
"we plan to invest an extra £13 billion of public funds".
That was in the context of public spending on public services. The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has diluted that commitment. The Under-Secretary told me that 20 per cent. of that £13 billion would
"be provided by the private sector, with the remainder coming from London Underground fares and Government grant".
Is he saying that the Chancellor was incorrect at the Labour party conference? What does the reference to £13 billion of public funds mean? Does it mean that 20 per cent. will come from the private sector?
On fares, the Minister told me in a parliamentary answer that the value-for-money evaluation that London Underground is carrying out on PPP bids assumes that fares will do no more than keep pace with inflation, whether tube improvements are financed under PPPs or by direct government borrowing.
A value-for-money exercise is not the same as actuality. Will the Minister write to me indicating his Department's estimate of the maximum contribution of fares income to the investment programme without fares having to rise beyond inflation? The arrangements for paying the infracos from the public purse need to be clarified. Will London Underground or Transport for London have a role? Will either of them be an agent for handing over the capital to the infracos? Will they be able to hold back payments if they are dissatisfied with performance, or have any capital of their own that they can use independently for the tube?
It is known that the private sector often makes careful "accounting for profit" judgments before releasing investment money. What arrangements are proposed to avoid the investment hiccups and delays that that might cause?
I understand that, by now, the PPP contracts should have been completed and the final bids submitted, and that all these things should now be on the Minister's desk for assessment and decision. Is that so? If that is the case, can the Minister give us his first impressions of the bids and contracts? Will he explain what process the Government are adopting to ascertain whether they represent value for money or constitute an unacceptable risk? Will such an assessment consider the implications for the public sector of being committed to a specific contractor for 30 years, and what could happen at the reviews at the seven-and-a-half-year intervals? What information about the bids and contracts does the Minister think can be released into the public domain before the contracts are signed? How will the London Mayor get a look in on the process?
140WH
The Minister will know that Bob Kiley has complained about the complexity of the contracts, which involve 135 documents, many more than 2,800 pages, thousands of cross-references, close to 2 million words, and a web of hundreds of complex formulas. The performance regime, by which the Government set such great store, is not even in a single volume. It can be accessed only by extensive cross-referencing of lengthy and complex schedules, models, tables and codes. It seems to be a bureaucratic nightmare and a lawyer's dream. Worse still, it looks unworkable. Mr. Kiley has observed that the performance regime is riddled with loopholes and rife with opportunities for the infracos to play the system. They can delay being held accountable for any incident, go into protracted disputes over contracts and be paid bonuses despite service failures, as well as being tested using performance criteria that they have the ability to influence to their advantage. In some instances, those situations are worse than the current criteria. Will the Minister consider those points in his assessment of the contracts?
At Transport Questions in November 2001, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), the Opposition spokesman, talked of £90 million of bonuses being paid to contractors regardless of whether there are any tube improvements. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions told him to await the final outcome of the negotiations. If the contracts are now at the Department, a response on whether they include such gratuitous payments would be of interest.
In his letter, the Under-Secretary of State stated
"The Government's position is not simply that the private sector takes the risk but that the approach is to achieve the optimum sharing of risk".
He added:
"The risk allocation is made quite clear in the contracts."
In that case, will the Minister please explain it? Risks arising from a discriminatory change of law, terrorism or the rising water table remain with London Underground. I remind the Minister that it was a major structural problem—the Austrian tunnel collapse—that contributed to the Jubilee line extension cost overrun, and that that led to the Government's policy of paying the private sector to take on risk. Who would be responsible for a similar unforeseen major structural problem? If London Underground and the public sector would be responsible, the raison dêtre for the policy would collapse. I hope that the Minister will set out clearly and specifically who takes what risk.
Management is a crucial issue. In the debate in October, the Under-Secretary said:
"The underground needs a new way to manage investment".— [Official Report, Westminster Hall, 17 October 2001; Vol. 372, c. 280WH.]
He concluded his letter to me by stating
"LU will transfer to the control of TfL once the competitions for the modernisation of the Underground have been completed. The detailed management arrangements would then be a matter for TfL, accountable to the Mayor and GLA".
Will the Minister provide his estimated time scale for the handover? Will the infracos remain autonomous or be integrated in the overall management? If the latter, how is that envisaged? When will London Underground come under the control of Transport for London? Once

141WH
the contracts were signed, what reason would there be to delay the transfer? Is there concern that because the Secretary of State sacked Bob Kiley from the London Underground board at the behest of its directors, he would sack them if he took over? Delay of a takeover would divide and damage the management of the tube. How do the Government propose to deal with the conundrum to which they have contributed? Have they discussed with the Mayor the subject of appointees running the service on behalf of the public sector?
The most important issue is that described by Bob Kiley as "management obfuscation". Is there to be an integrated system of democratic control, or a fractured one where no one has overall control and in which different, perhaps competing, policies are set by different groups of institutional managers? If the Government insist on the current form of PPP, with contracts and infracos beyond the reach or influence of the Mayor, they should address how the system can be coherently and accountably run, rather than saying that the matter is for a Mayor whom they have made powerless.
The concern is about the form of PPP, not the principle of PPP. In The Observer on 23 December, the Mayor pleaded with the Government to reinstate the rebuilding of Wembley Park station into London Underground's long-term business plan and the PPP contract, from which it was dropped. It is needed to accommodate the plans for a new national football stadium at Wembley, which he supports. A system that incorporates private sector involvement is reasonable, but it must be under full public sector control so that priorities are clearly set and achieved, there is no management division or obfuscation, and the money is properly invested and not wasted. The Government still have to provide evidence of strategic command of the problem, and to give answers to the many unresolved questions. Time is running out. In our second term in office, we must ensure that the Government deliver a first-class underground system for London.
Dr. John Pugh: The hon. Gentleman has made several astute technical points. His point about fares was especially pertinent, and would carry some weight with all users of the underground. Is he aware that the current level of fares exceeds projections of income from London Underground fares? The take-up of fares is declining, as are the sums that London Underground collects. Is it not critical that the Minister makes what will happen to fares clear when the PPP takes off, if it ever does so?
Harry Cohen: The Minister told me that the evaluation of PPP compared to direct Government borrowing was made on the basis that fares would not rise above inflation. Can the Minister confirm, as far as possible, that fares will not rise above inflation over the period of this investment? Our fares are among the highest for capital cities in Europe. Although the great demand for the tube persists, fares are too high.
Mr. Eric Pickles: The hon. Gentleman has considerable expertise in these matters. Having considered fare revenue, does he agree that little or no leeway is given by fare revenues for significant
142WH
improvements to be made to the tube network? The income would not be sufficient even if a decision were taken to increase the level of fares above inflation.
Harry Cohen: That is a reasonable point. Fares are already very high. There is no objection to the existing income being used for the ordinary operation of the system and investment purposes, when that is possible, but Londoners would look askance at the notion that fares might rise further.
It is important that in their second term of office the Government deliver a first-class underground system for London. We must ensure that Londoners get what they want, and it is in the national interest that we have a first-class London underground.
9.51 am
Mr. John Wilkinson: May I associate myself with the words of condolence to the Chancellor so movingly expressed by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen)? I thank him, too, for his diligence in representing the interests of his constituents and Londoners in general on the question of the future of the London underground.
It is noticeable that the hon. Gentleman is yet again isolated, being the only Labour Member present apart from the Minister and the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary. It would seem that the Labour party has abandoned hope for the London underground and is, rightly, ashamed of the Government's performance. The Labour party's 1997 manifesto unequivocally supported the idea of a public-private partnership, modernising the London underground system and improving the service for Londoners. The manifesto commitments have still not been honoured and in the intervening years the service has steadily deteriorated in terms of fare increases, reliability and overall service to the public.
The situation is wholly shameful, and cannot be justified in any way. The Secretary of State should have returned from India to attend the debate, because he is ultimately responsible. Of course, it is nice to see the Minister of State here; he must regard his time at the Ministry of Defence as a happy experience when compared with the woeful responsibilities that he now has to face, not least over the London underground. Clearly, however, the buck stops with the Secretary of State.
Londoners expect manifesto commitments to be honoured and expect to have a system of public transport that lives up to the standards of other systems in the world. I have just returned from Chile; the underground system in Santiago is infinitely better than London's. It is clean and reliable and the standard fare costs about a fifth of that for central London. The perpetual increases in fares above inflation are hitting living standards in the capital but are also symptomatic of a failure to deliver the integrated transport strategy that would provide a cost-effective improvement in transport for Londoners. It was the Government's strategic promise to put in place an integrated strategy under the overall political command of the Mayor. To date, neither the Mayor nor the Government have been able to deliver, and London is very much the worse for it. Business is suffering—that is the constant refrain of

143WH
business organisations in London, including the London chamber of commerce. The tourist trade is also suffering. It is intolerable that visitors to our capital should have to endure the current standards of unreliability and squalor on the tube. In addition, the environmental damage to the capital is profound.
The Government's approach should have been to improve the public transport system first and then set in place road-user charges. Instead, the Mayor proposes that, from next year, Londoners will suffer the additional misery of road charges, which can only make a very unsatisfactory situation on the tube worse, as people who have previously used their cars take to the tube in ever greater numbers to exacerbate the problem of overcrowding. We have the worst of every possible world.
Today's Metro newspaper says
"Tube commuters have been hit with inflation-busting fare rises of up to 11 per cent. The revised charges, which were introduced at the weekend, included an increase in the cost of a single fare outside Zone 1 from 90p to £1 and a 7 per cent. rise for single journeys in central London, from £1.50 to £1.60."
A cost of £.1.60 to get from one tube station to another just down the line in central London is intolerable. From the outset of the mayoralty, there should have been a much more imaginative fare structure. The Mayor should have introduced early-bird and night-owl fares to encourage passengers to use the tube system outside peak hours. Such fares have not been introduced. There is a new all-day travelcard, which can be used before 9.30 am, but it costs £1.20 more than its off-peak rival.
In short, the Government's approach has been be devilled by their blinkered adhesion to the public-private partnership. The evidence is clear that the public-private partnership approach is wrong. There must be a clear political and managerial chain of command, and that can be brought about only by maintaining the London underground in the public sector or by privatising it in its entirety. Either of those courses of action would be clear and logical and would lead to the single management control that is essential if the safety standards to which the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead referred are to be maintained, if confidence in the system is to be enhanced and if the advantages of modernization—a more cost-effective and reliable system—are to be produced.
When will Transport for London take over London Underground? We asked that question during debates on the Greater London Authority Bill. We received no answers then and we seem to be further away from receiving any answers now. It is fair to ask why the expert brought in as Transport Commissioner for London—Mr. Kiley—has been treated so atrociously by Ministers. Mr. Kiley has spent the greater part of his career bringing into effect significant transport improvements in New York and has greatly enhanced the reliability of the underground system there. Yet all his criticisms and advice have been set aside by the Government in their petty spite and malice, which they continue to display towards the Mayor just because he happened to be directly elected by the people of London in a process that, unlike that used to select Labour's candidate for the mayoral election, was transparent and clear.
144WH
In short, the London underground is daily showing Londoners, and those who have the misfortune to visit our capital and use the system, all that is worst in new Labour. The Government are demonstrating an unwillingness to take political responsibility, an inability to fulfil manifesto promises and a tendency to put their own political interests first by trying to blame the Mayor because he has moved away politically from the Labour party. Last, but not least, the matter demonstrates the Government's inability to prove themselves trustworthy.
When manifestos are brought before the public at election time, the public have an entitlement to expect them to be carried through into action. When a Parliament elapses in which a key manifesto commitment is not met, and when we find ourselves almost a quarter of the way through the succeeding Parliament without any change on that commitment, its honouring being as remote as ever, Londoners have no alternative but to seek redress at the ballot box. It is my hope that they will do so, at least at the borough elections in May. They must do it in the mayoral elections thereafter.
In the meantime, the Government have an obligation to explain to the House, as I trust the Minister will shortly do, what on earth they are going to do to restore public confidence in their proposals. That confidence has evaporated. The Government seem to be more in thrall to the unions—if the dispute between the RMT union and South West Trains is anything to go by—and their own dogmatic ideas than to sensible policies such as those put forward by the Transport Commissioner for London, Mr. Kiley. Londoners deserve better.
The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the unions in London do not support Government policy on the PPP. We think that they are wrong about that and I will explain why in my main response. On South West Trains, the dispute is a matter for the company and the RMT union. The hon. Gentleman will have seen the comments made by the Prime Minister's official spokesman yesterday, which indicate that the Government are not in thrall to the unions. He should get out of the old rhetoric and deal in contemporary arguments.
Mr. Wilkinson: I am grateful to the Minister for his intervention, because the arguments are all over the press and the boss of South West Trains has spelt them out in a full-page advertisement. We were led to believe that new Labour's relationship with the unions was one of amity and mutual trust—that the bad old days of the unions holding the public to ransom would be gone for good. That is clearly not the case, as the rail dispute shows.
In my constituency, as in many parts of London, it is impossible for people to commute to London by rail if there is a dispute on the tube. There are no rail stations at hand. In other parts of London, such as the south-west, the tube services are inadequate. It is crucial that there be a good relationship between London Underground and railways management and the trade unions and between the Government and the unions. That does not seem to be the case. We had thought that the bad old days had gone for good under new Labour,

145WH
but they have returned with a vengeance and I am sure that the public will seek redress at the ballot box at the earliest opportunity.
10.5 pm
Mr. Mark Field: I congratulate the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) on securing another debate on this important issue. I fill in my slips on a week-by-week basis and never seem to have any luck. I will have to get some advice on lottery numbers from the hon. Gentleman.
Often, people in politics are criticised for not using public transport. With that in mind, I display my moth-eaten annual zone 1 ticket. It is one of the disadvantages of representing my constituency that, unlike Members whose far-flung constituencies permit them large first-class allowances to go to all parts of the country, my constituency is entirely within zone 1 of the underground system.
There is little doubt that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) pointed out in his excellent speech, things have got worse since 1997, and I shall explore that in a moment.
If animals were herded into carriages on the underground as human passengers are, that would be considered a national disgrace. The way in which passengers are herded into carriages, not only at the height of rush hour but often in the middle of the day, is a disgrace. I do not say that to make a narrow point, because the underground has had substantial problems for many years. However, when it works, the tube, considering the confines and difficulties that it faces, works reasonably well. It simply has insufficient capacity to do the job well, particularly in central London.
London is the economic powerhouse of the United Kingdom. It is disgraceful that there has not been sufficient investment. I am sure that the Minister will point out that the picture was not entirely rosy before 1 May 1997, but only in the early 1990s was significant investment made, as we headed into recession. The last Conservative Government were brave not to slash the budgets immediately in the period 1991 to 1993, when it might have been easy to do so.
However, there is no doubt that the London underground requires substantial investment. It needs long-term vision. There are no short-term solutions. I have been concerned for the past five years that no strategy has been put in place. There was great talk in the 1997 Labour manifesto of an integrated transport policy. However, that soundbite was simply repeated endlessly, year on year.
In London we now face—I feel strongly about this, as I represent the centre of the city—the introduction of a congestion charge within the next 13 months. It is clear that there will not be a sufficient increase in capacity on the underground or the buses to absorb the notional increases that will occur in the use of those public services if people are taken out of private cars. The policy will work only if there is a prolonged economic downturn, which will cause demand in the transport system generally to fall. That does not seem a sensible way of developing a congestion charging system that will be seen as the vanguard for similar systems throughout the United Kingdom.
146WH
What is the way forward? The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead made a valid point about risk being the key issue. If too much risk is transferred back to the public sector, the very raison d'être of a PPP is undermined. Politically, it is not a saleable option. Given the events since 7 October, when Railtrack was put into administration, a PPP system would not be right. Conservative Members want to see the London underground succeed, and we want to play our part in supporting the long-term investment that is the key to a successful transport system.
It is blindingly obvious that if PPP were implemented in its current form and there were a Railtrack mark 2, not only Opposition Members but powerful, high-profile trade unions and a raft of consumer and passenger bodies would argue against it. If PPP were implemented in its current form it would not work, not least because of the risk issue. Given the continuing debacle in relation to Railtrack, City investors would be willing to take a punt only if a large premium were paid in relation to risk, which would not make sense for taxpayers in the medium to long term. We must build a structure for the next three decades, but it would be a disaster if we made that decision with our sight fixed only on what has happened in the past three months.
Like many Conservative Members, I am concerned about the elected London mayor. I did not want to see a London mayor, but the people of London have spoken by electing an individual who has a long-standing commitment to and involvement in London politics. As has been pointed out, he has brought in at great expense Bob Kiley, who has a track record of success in Boston and New York. It is now incumbent on all London politicians in the House of Commons, who have little authority in this matter except in relation to strategy, to exert whatever pressure we can on the Government to ensure that Mr. Livingstone and Mr. Kiley are given the tools to get on with the job. However, I recognise the point raised by both the Treasury and the Minister's Department that the Government must set parameters if we are to hand authority to Transport for London.
The current position is difficult. It would be no use giving the Mayor full authority and enormous amounts of cash because he would have an eye on his re-election in two and a half years' time. There would be short-term, high-profile fare cuts and other gimmicks, which would return us to the mid-1980s position when he was leader of the Greater London council. We must ensure that public money put into the underground system is invested for the long term. As five years have been wasted since mid-1997, things will get worse before they get better whatever investment decisions are made now—whether a PPP is implemented or power is passed to Transport for London, which must be a temptation for the Government. Mr. Kiley has made it clear that for at least the next three to four years the nature of the long-term infrastructure project will ensure longer delays, greater safety concerns and larger areas of the network out of commission.
Many hon. Members are concerned that London has had a raw deal, which is something that has become evident in recent years, but the roots of the problem go back many years. Decision making must be diversified if devolution in London is to mean anything. We must devolve financial powers to regional representatives such as the Mayor of London, the Greater London

147WH
Authority and local authorities. The Mayor of London is a high-profile figure—admittedly he has limited Powers—and we have devolved government in London. If one compares devolved government in London with that in Scotland, which has its own Parliament, it is clear that Londoners are in a difficult position. Although they have a high-profile figurehead, he has one hand—if not both hands—tied behind his back. The financial wherewithal is lacking with which to make necessary long-term investment decisions.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood pointed out, London is, and must remain, the economic powerhouse of this country. There is a real fear that we will lose some of the international investment that has helped to ensure London's pre-eminence in the past decade and a half, particularly in respect of financial services. Our city is of global importance, but it has a third-world infrastructure, and that cannot be right.
I encourage the Minister to tell his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and all those in central London who are playing a part in the matter that we must get people round the table and put in place a sensible, long-term solution. Such a solution must also be politically saleable, and for that reason alone I fear that the PPP proposal simply will not wash, because it will be seen as no more than Railtrack mark 2. Every day's delay in committing ourselves to the major investment that the London underground requires is a kick in the teeth for those unsung heroes of the economy, many of whom work in central London and depend on the tube system to travel to and from work.
10.16 am
Tom Brake: I congratulate the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) on securing another debate on this subject, and I echo his words of condolence to the Chancellor. The hon. Gentleman is doing an excellent job in single-handedly representing Londoners in the debate on PPP and the tube. I wish that his colleagues would offer such support, although I suspect that he offers his at the expense of a future ministerial career.
I welcome these debates because they allow us to question Ministers. I shall not dwell on the history of the underground—30 years of under-investment by Conservative and Labour Administrations—which is set out in Lord Birt's report. There is no point wasting time discussing a subject that we know well, and given that the purpose of Adjournment debates is to allow hon. Members to put questions to the Minister, I hope that he will use his time to focus on those that have been asked this morning.
The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) made what I think was a plea for first-class carriages on the London underground. However, he also had some interesting things to say about the need to devolve financial responsibilities, and in that respect I support him entirely. Given that we have set up a Greater London Authority, with a Mayor and elected Assembly Members, it should surely take much greater financial responsibility. That is what devolved government is supposed to be about.
148WH
I am one Member who, for his sins, travels almost daily not just on the tube but by train, and I am afraid to say that the transport system is absolutely and totally pathetic. There is no other way to describe it. This morning, the trains were in complete chaos. The train that I intended to catch was supposed to arrive at 8.22, but it was running 12 minutes late. The earlier service—the 7.38—had also yet to materialise, having been delayed who knows where along the line. When I arrived at Victoria, the tube station gates were closed because of overcrowding, so no one could get on to the platforms. That, I am afraid, is the commuter's daily experience.
Belatedly, the Government are waking up to this crisis. In his new year message, the Prime Minister said:
"We are also determined in our plans to modernise the Tube, again a large and sustained increased investment to be taken forward by public-private partnership that would ensure the money is spent properly."
I am concerned that the Prime Minister seems to have prejudged the outcome of the Ernst and Young report into value for money. Is he saying that the Government are committed to the PPP whatever the conclusions in that report? Perhaps the Minister will explain how there can be a full examination of the PPP's value for money when the report was started before contracts had been finalised. We know that a lot of work was still being done on the detail of the contracts in December.
Will the report take account of the changed financial climate for private investment in transport? According to Lord Birt, the decision to put Railtrack into administration has had an impact on the financial attraction of transport for private investment. If the Ernst and Young report has not taken that into account, its validity must be questioned. The Secretary of State promised the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions that the report would be delivered between 10 and 14 January. Can the Minister confirm that that is so?
The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead spoke at length, rightly, on safety, which is a matter that I took up with the Minister. I wrote to him on 7 August and received a reply dated 28 December, which may suggest how much thought he had to give to my original question. During those five months he had a long time in which to consider the issues. The letters referred to the impact of Lord Cullen's inquiry on the PPP contracts. The inquiry made a number of recommendations on maintenance contracts and changes to them. Have those recommendations been taken into account in relation to the PPP contracts? Lord Cullen's report also made a number of recommendations on accident investigations. Have those issues been taken up and worked into the PPP contracts?
Hon. Members will have read in the newspapers during the past few days that the Jubilee, Northern and Piccadilly lines may be given to Ken Livingstone to run because Tubelines' bid is too expensive. That was reported in The Independent on 4 January and The Times suggested yesterday that all the network could be handed over to Mr. Kiley. Can the Minister confirm whether that is so? It would be the best late Christmas present that Londoners have ever received. If the Government intend to give responsibility for part or all of the tube to Transport for London, will it be bound in the same way as private consortiums to specific targets? Will it be fined if it fails to reach its targets? Will it be

149WH
allowed to issue bonds to finance the chunk of lines that it may be given? Will it be allowed to use congestion charges to put money into the contracts?
If the Government can already say that Tubelines' contract does not provide value for money even before contracts are signed—that is the message that is leaking into the newspapers—hon. Members may wonder how Londoners can be certain that the other contracts, if they are signed, will represent value for money in practice. The Deputy Prime Minister has promised that huge savings will arise as a result of PPP, and I have tried to get the Government to confirm that. Will the Minister do so today? Will he also confirm whether those savings will be increased or decreased if part or all of the contract to run the system is handed over to Bob Kiley and Transport for London?
A further matter that the Government have been unwilling to discuss is how much cost will have been incurred if PPP does not proceed. We know how much has been spent on consultants, but how much has been spent through the involvement of other Departments and outside bodies such as Transport for London? The figure for consultants is around £100 million. Can that figure be, say, doubled if one takes into account the time that the Government have devoted to PPP? Londoners and hon. Members are entitled to know how much has been spent on the project and how much will have to be written off if the Government pull the plug on it. If Ministers do not know, why not?
I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to inform hon. Members about the current timetable for PPP. Many deadlines have gone past. I was told in a meeting that the Tubelines contract was due to be signed on 4 January, but that clearly has not happened. When will the contracts be signed? When will the Ernst and Young report be handed over? When will the decision on whether PPP contracts provide value for money be taken?
Does the Minister agree with Lord Birt, who said in his leaked report that a more realistic funding regime for London Underground required an adequate and predictable contribution from the public purse? I have attempted to extract from the Government exactly how much public money they are committing to London Underground over future years, but I am afraid that the figure is not forthcoming. When I approached Ernst and Young, I was told that that information was for the Government's eyes only. Will the Minister reveal the figure?
There has been so much in the newspapers recently that it is hard to know what to believe.
Dr. Pugh: As my hon. Friend said, in a recent quote the Prime Minister appeared to prejudge the matter in favour of PPP, yet when the Secretary of State appeared before the Select Committee he seemed to display a genuine open mind. Is it not important that the Minister should clarify precisely who is determining transport policy—the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State or Lord Birt?
Tom Brake: I thank my hon. Friend. I was about to come to that.
Is the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—who, when in opposition, was well known for saying, "Our air is not for sale"—lined up to take over the Secretary of State's
150WH
job? Are the Government trying to bring in someone who supports PPP, as, coming from the Treasury, the Chief Secretary presumably does? Neither the Secretary of State nor the Deputy Prime Minister is terribly keen on PPP, so are the Government trying to firm up support for it in the Department?
There have been numerous debates on the subject and unfortunately many questions have, all too often, been left unanswered. As the deadline approaches, stonewalling seems to be more, rather than less, pronounced. I hope that the Minister will give some specific responses, rather than tell us how many people travel on the London underground daily. Otherwise, we will leave the debate knowing full well that Labour has let Londoners down, and that will not be forgotten.
10.30 am
Mr. Eric Pickles: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) on his remarkable luck in securing yet another one and a half hour debate on the London underground system. I associate the Opposition with the hon. Gentleman's kind words about the sad plight of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his wife.
Against that background, it might seem churlish to disagree straight away with something that the hon. Gentleman said, which was that there had been under-investment in the rail for 30 years. That is not correct. As you recall, Mr. Olner, you and I served on the Select Committee that examined the tube system, and it was clear that there had been under-investment for 50 years. The only time when there was significant investment was during Mr. John Major's Administration.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) is right to point out that we are having yet another debate about the London underground system and yet again, with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead, there are no Labour Members present—the Minister is here because we called him. They have no concern about the tube. Their constituents are crying out for a solution and complaining daily about the inadequacies of the system, yet none of those hon. Members can be bothered to turn up. It is left to the Conservative party and Liberal Democrats to try to make sense of the matter.
My hon. Friend referred to travelling on the Santiago underground. I had the opportunity to travel on it a couple of years ago and can confirm that it is an efficient system. To take another extreme, the Moscow metro is run considerably better than is the London underground system. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood is right to talk about the petty slights directed against Mr. Kiley, a distinguished public servant, and Mayor Livingston. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), brandishing what he described as his tatty underground pass, is also right repeatedly to talk of the transfer of risk in the public-private partnership and to refer to the large premium that will have to be raised. It may be possible to raise £13 billion, but a considerable amount will be spent on premiums and interest payments. He was right to say that the situation of the London underground is a kick in the teeth for those trying to earn their living in London.

151WH
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) said we should not talk too much about how many people travel on the underground. However, it needs to be emphasised that the number of people travelling on it per day is about 3 million. That is the number of those on the rest of the railways combined, so we are talking about a significant part of our country's infrastructure. We know that 80 per cent. of people coming to work in London travel by public transport and that that figure increases to well over 90 per cent. within the City. Those good folk are travelling not because they think that the underground or other public transport is wonderful, but because no other forms of transportation are viable. In effect, they are trapped into using public transport.
I cannot think of a better way to describe the situation than what was set out in the editorial of yesterday's Evening Standard. It refers to the underground and railways, and is headed, "Blame Labour for the railways". The story is easy to spot on the page, as it is next to an article by Professor Anthony King entitled, "Why there are so many duds in Cabinet?". Despite the fact that the Minister is at the centre of the accompanying picture, I am sure that Professor King did not mean to refer to him directly. The editorial refers to the condition in which passengers travel by rail and asks:
"Is this the image New Labour wishes to be remembered for: its ministers reclining in the back of limousines while ordinary men and women travel in cattle trucks?"
That seems a most reasonable way to express the dilemma that faces the tube.
While the unseemly argument between the Government, London Transport and the Mayor continues, delays on the underground have risen sharply during the past year after an upsurge in track and signal failures. The failure rates on some lines have almost doubled. A good example is the District line, on which I frequently travel. It has roughly 600,000 users a day. Compared to the 1999 figures, track defects rose by 116 per cent. Delays of 15 minutes or more increased by 35 per cent., while investment levels have been heavily cut. The average annual investment in the tube since 1997–98 has been less than during John Major's years in office.
Transport for London, which was set up as part of the Government's commitment to devolution, has found that Labour's control freakery stifles its efforts to improve the tube. The Government even went to the High Court to suppress the Deloitte and Touche report that said that the PPP gave poor value for money.
According to the annual report of London Underground, which was published in August, seven clear performance targets were set. It is sad to say that every one was not met, including those on safety and security. Investment is not the only area in which there has been a decrease, and nor is performance. Industrial disputes have increased, and absenteeism is worse than it has been for five years. That is the backdrop against which we are considering the PPP. To be blunt, the PPP is nothing more than a glorified leasing deal that offers little or no help to passengers.
Various Members have referred to speculation in the press about whether the Mayor will be offered the Jubilee line, the Northern line or the entire network, and
152WH
whether there is value for money. I shall put my neck on the line: I suspect that the stories have no truth. If they do, the Government are acting in bad faith. From other press reports, we know that intense negotiations are taking place between the various bidders, and that the Government are considering different conditions to protect them from the Mayor and Mr. Kiley. I cannot believe that we have arrived at a position in which the Government would be able to act. I suspect that the stories are about the fact that the Government said, before the election, that no one should worry and that the PPP deal would not take place. They said that they would consider ways to involve the relevant people in a much greater way and that the matter would be put off until after the borough elections, when the PPP deal would be put through.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington raised an important point about Ernst and Young. He talked about the time scale. I think that the time specified was the middle of January, but that is what the dates he gave amount to. He said that the Ernst and Young review would be made available for a period of wide-ranging consultation, after which a final decision on value for money would be taken. If that is so, we had better be given the Ernst and Young report now. If it is to be anything like the contracts, which are 2,000 pages long, it will take a little time to read it and to put something together. Is the report on the Secretary of State's desk, and when does he intend to publish it?
I was slightly confused by the remarks of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington about Lord Birt's position. While the hon. Gentleman was struggling to get to this debate, I heard the Secretary of State say, on the "Today" programme, that Lord Birt was studying not the matters that the hon. Gentleman was considering, but problems of railways and transportation 15 years from now. Perhaps the Minister will tell us why Lord Birt has strayed from his mandate to examine the present contract.
I shall try to leave the Minister time to answer in full the questions that he has been asked. I have counted 27, so the first of mine, which has been asked before, is number 28. When do the Government intend to transfer London Underground to Transport for London? What rate of return do they think would be acceptable for the private infracos? That is relevant to the earlier points about value for money. What steps were advocated by Mr. Kiley to ensure that safety under the PPP has been incorporated in the proposed contracts?
We would like to know what general advice the Government have received from the Health and Safety Executive and the National Audit Office with regard to the PPP. More important, however, in the context of the question of fares raised by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead, is the level of Government support through the PPP. What level of Government grant or revenue support would be invested during the period of the PPP?
It would be useful to know what efforts London Underground is making to improve its performance. It failed its operating targets. Given the fate of the Jubilee line, it would be good to know the average number of trains operating on the Jubilee line between Green Park and Stratford from January 2000 to date. What is the average number of speed restrictions that apply for longer than seven days, for the whole of the

153WH
underground, for each of the past five years? I should happily accept that information in writing if the Minister does not have it now.
What Government targets were set for London Underground in 2000–01? How widely were those published, and were they met? Where is the money to pay for the current London Underground "Your Tube" advertising campaign coming from? When did London Underground last conduct an audit of its assets? When are we going to see the merger between London Underground and Transport for London?
If we had suspicions last year about a lack of direction on the part of London Underground, the troubles over the Christmas period and the new year confirmed them. The problems of the underground are many and varied. Our capital city is sinking under its core transport difficulties; and the Government seem transfixed, like a rabbit caught in a car's headlights, and unable to make a decision.
10.45 am
The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) on securing a further debate on London Underground. Secondly, like all other hon. Members, I echo his condolences to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer at this sad time.
It is self-evident that the future of transport in London, and of London Underground in particular, is of great interest to the people of London and to the many people who visit the capital or work in it. That is especially so because, as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) said, London has a significant role as a world city. It is also a topic of considerable interest to hon. Members, which is demonstrated by the number of times that it is debated.
Today's debate threw up some interesting points. For example, Opposition Members expressed the wish to dissociate themselves from Railtrack and said that they did not want Railtrack mark 2—an appropriate comment on a system set up by a Conservative Government. They also dissociated themselves from public-private partnerships, but that underestimates the success of the PPP on the Northern line, where reliability and other improvements should be noted. Opposition Members have found previously undiscovered merits in the Mayor of London, which were not noticed in his previous incarnations. I am sure that he will appreciate the irony, if not the conversion.
The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), apologises for not being able to add today to the considerable number of adjournment debates to which he has replied. In response to the previous adjournment debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead in October last year, my hon. Friend noted that far from being required to offer his commiseration, he was pleased to have an opportunity to explain the Government's plans.
154WH
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary reminded hon. Members that the Government have invested almost £1 billion more in the tube than was planned by the last Tory Government. He explained that a new approach was needed to improve the tube's infrastructure, and to avoid the cost and time overruns of the Jubilee line extension. Hon. Members should remember that when examining the need for a new approach. My hon. Friend made it clear that our approach was not driven by dogma, but was the result of a careful examination of all the options for modernising the tube.
London Underground has been working to ensure a better service for today's passengers, but we must recognise the pressures under which it operates. It now carries 1 billion passengers a year. That is the most ever, and it represents an increase of more than 25 per cent. over the past four years. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster alluded to that when he said that we could relieve the tube of some of that pressure if we had an economic downturn. Indeed, much of that pressure, particularly at rush hour, is associated with a considerable increase in economic activity. One has only to look at London's skyline, and the number of cranes, to see that. As the Mayor of London consistently points out, London has seen a sizeable increase in its population over the last decade, which is a reversal of previous trends. And, as the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) said, as many travel on the underground as on the whole of remainder of the rail network.
We recognise that the quality of service declined noticeably last winter. However, London Underground has actively been tackling the key issues that affect service quality and reliability. Measures taken by London Underground—for example, on the availability of train operators—have resulted in some improvements, but more needs to be done. The Government are keen that those achievements should be built on and that further initiatives to improve performance and customer service should be introduced.
I mentioned the considerable improvements on the Northern line. When I last checked, the figure for reliability was 98.5 per cent. under the PPP. Furthermore, peak-time train cancellations this year are the lowest on the network and, at just 1.1 per cent., the rate is half that for last year. I do not want to be complacent, but we should offer the management of London Underground some congratulation on that, although we look to it to do better.
Across the network, the problems that emerged with escalators last year have been vigorously tackled. Unplanned station closures have been reduced, and extra station staff have been brought in to help customers. There have also been considerable improvements in targeting by the British Transport police, which will make for a safer underground. Further improvements are under way, and hon. Members will have seen publicity for the modernisation of ticketing and revenue-collection systems on the underground and, incidentally, on London Transport buses, under the Prestige PFI project. Measures will include the introduction of new automatic ticketing machines to reduce queuing.

155WH
The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster referred to integrated transport. There has been a considerable improvement in the bus service in London, a substantial increase in the use of buses and considerable investment. We should also bear in mind the light rail systems, and I pay tribute to the previous Administration for starting the Croydon tram link system, which is extremely successful. There have been several improvements in integrated transport, and we are considering how it can be developed further. Many other initiatives are in hand, and the overriding aim is improving service to customers.
We are all aware that many of the current problems with the underground are the result of three to five decades of under-investment, although there is some argument among Opposition Members about that period. However, we all recognise that decades of under-investment have led to a deterioration in the quality of the infrastructure. Equally, we all recognise that London Underground needs a massive investment programme to bring it up to scratch and a new way to manage the work.
Mr. Pickles: When did the Minister last travel on the underground during peak hours? Did he enjoy the journey?
Mr. Spellar: I cannot remember when I last travelled during peak hours, although I travelled off-peak about three or four weeks ago. I used to travel on the underground and on Southern region services; indeed, I used to go to school on Southern region services. We have heard about the halcyon days of uncrowded transport in London, but there have always been difficulties with travel in London at peak hours. If anything in the system goes wrong, the problem quickly snowballs. We have identified that issue, and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) referred to the need to close the gates at Victoria for a short period when there are pressures there.
I think that we all agree on the need for additional investment, and we are considering the most efficient and effective way of managing it. As I said, the Jubilee line demonstrates that London Underground can be well focused on running trains, which is its core competence. However, it has demonstrated serious deficiencies when it comes to enhancing the infrastructure and, in particular, managing all the infrastructure contracts. That is precisely why we considered the possible mechanisms to harness the skills and abilities of the private sector and introduce private capital into the London underground system.
Contrary to allegations made by Opposition Members and by some in the media, the various consortia have managed to secure the necessary finance for their proposals. That is the best way to enhance the infrastructure of London Underground. We want to ensure that the improvement works are completed on time and to budget. We want to ensure also that essential maintenance work is not overlooked and that the resources required to provide the public service are not diverted to pay for more massive cost overruns, such as those that were incurred in connection with the Jubilee line extension.
156WH
That is why London Underground has developed modernisation plans whereby three companies will be dedicated to fixing and improving the infrastructure. Those companies will work for the public sector.
Tom Brake: The Minister has been speaking for 10 minutes. He has only five minutes in which to complete his speech, yet he has not answered any of the questions raised by hon. Members.
Mr. Spellar: I thought that I was dealing with many of the questions that have been posed, not least why we believe that there is a need for increased infrastructure for the tube. There are several transport priorities throughout the country relating to rail and other modes of transport. Even in London, there is considerable pressure from the Mayor for additional investment in buses and pressure from elsewhere for investment in light rail. However, we believe that substantial investment in infrastructure, including investment for maintenance of the current tube infrastructure, is required. Having decided that such investment was necessary, we adopted the mechanisms to which I have referred to ensure that we achieve the most cost-effective and timely method of delivery. Those points relate to important questions raised by hon. Members, who have questioned the basis of the PPP, as well as the timing.
Mr. Wilkinson: On the question of timing, will the Minister say whether the Government will honour their manifesto pledge of 1997 to transfer London Underground to Transport for London? Will they do so before or after the fifth anniversary of their election in 1997, especially as that anniversary more or less coincides with the May elections?
Mr. Spellar: Yes, I am looking forward to commercial close on the project before the end of the financial year, although I had hoped that it would happen slightly sooner. The Department is putting in a great deal of work, and is putting pressure on all concerned to sort out the details, which it is important to get right. Equally, we want to secure close on the arrangements, following consultation and publication of the Ernst and Young report on value for money. That information will be put in the public domain before a final decision is taken. Then, under the Greater London Authority Act 1999, the intention is to transfer the running of London Underground to the Mayor and Transport for London. Like the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood, we hope that that will happen as soon as possible.
I shall move back to my main theme of London Underground and the development of modernisation plans whereby three companies will be dedicated to fixing and improving the infrastructure. These companies will work for the public sector. The operation and management of the system will be in the hands of London Underground. The public sector will monitor that work and payment will be linked to results. The companies will be required to deliver the improvements demanded by the public sector. Many commentators overlook the fact that several private sector companies already work for London Underground. We believe that this scheme will ensure a more efficient method of managing those contracts, ensure a better connection between the installation and

157WH
maintenance of services, and, therefore, ensure the ultimate delivery of a successful scheme. At present, there is a considerable gap between the companies that put in the service and the final output.
The reality is that about 80 per cent. of the investment work already undertaken—
Mr. Bill Olner (in the Chair): Order. We must move to the next business.

Rural and Island Transport
11 am
Andrew George: I am sure that I speak for all right hon. and hon. Members today when I pass, via the Minister and others, our thoughts and support to the Chancellor and his wife following their tragic news. As well as offering our private support to them at this difficult time, we hope that they will not suffer public or media intrusion.
I am delighted to have secured this debate on island and rural transport. It is an opportunity to raise several issues, and I have informed the Minister's office about the line of questions that I shall pursue. The first matter is island transport, which is a particular issue in my constituency. No doubt others will wish to express their concerns about islands in their constituencies. With regard to the Isles of Scilly, I am not asking for special or favourable treatment; I ask merely for parity with other areas, particularly Scottish offshore islands, with which the Isles of Scilly can most closely and appropriately be compared.
The Isles of Scilly are five inhabited islands out of 200 islands and rocks—the nearest, St. Mary's, being 30 miles off Land's End and 42 nautical miles from Penzance in my constituency. The population of the Scillies is 2,000. The islands enjoy ferry transport from Penzance provided by the Isles of Scilly Steamship company, which also offers a freight service. Helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft fly there from a number of airports.
I shall deal first with sea transport. The Isles of Scilly Steamship company provides a ferry, Scillonian III, which carries 600 passengers. It was purpose-built in 1977, with some support from the then Labour Government, who supplied a £1 million loan towards its purchase and construction. It can take limited freight and, for seven months of the year, operates one return trip per day for six days a week. From early November until late March there is no passenger ferry service to and from the islands. The ferry is laid up during that time partly because of low demand, and also because it must, of necessity, have a flat bottom, and the prevailing inclement south-westerly winds in the winter months make for an unpleasant journey for people travelling in a flat-bottomed ferry. The freight service, on the Gry Maritha, takes freight to and from the islands three times a week. That loads and unloads by crane; unlike many Scottish ports, it has no roll on/roll off service.
With regard to air transport, British International has two Sikorski helicopters that provide services for between 26 and 30 passengers, depending on the amount of freight being carried, and costing about £96 for a period return. Two services out and back are run during the winter months when the ferry does not operate, which are clearly lifeline services to the islands. I am told that the company cross-subsidises what would otherwise be a loss-making service during these winter months with its other operations.
A fixed-wing aircraft is operated by Skybus for several destinations, including Land's End, Newquay, Exeter, Bristol and Plymouth. There is an eight-seater service from Land's End and a 16-seater service from other areas. All those services together provide 250,000 passenger journeys per year for people travelling from

159WH
and to these small islands. The helicopter service provides 47 per cent. of those journeys and the ferry provides 35 per cent.
Hon. Members may wonder why I am describing the situation in such detail, but it is important that they understand the services that are provided to the Isles of Scilly, as I shall go on to compare them with those provided in Scotland. I do not begrudge my Scottish friends and colleagues those services, but the comparison should be made.
In Scotland, the Government have been empowered through the Highlands and Islands (Shipping Services) Act 1960 to provide a deficit grant subsidy for transport links to offshore islands. That is now the responsibility of the Scottish Executive. The subsidies have been given to Caledonian MacBrayne, which has been wholly owned by the Secretary of State for Scotland since the 1970s. The company has to fulfil demand for specific services, including 23 lifeline routes, with a public subsidy of £21.4 million. A subsidy of £11 million is given to the Orkney and Shetland group, which is currently operated by P&O. The subsidies are EU-approved as state aid, subject to the services' being put to tender. The Treasury has always calculated funding for those services as part of the Scottish funding bloc. Air services are also supported with subsidies, which have been given to Highlands and Islands Airport Ltd. since the 1980s.
I have already given the Minister some comparisons in terms of cost subsidy per nautical mile and air mile between the services provided to the Isles of Scilly and those for Scotland. For example, the 42-mile ferry service from Penzance to St. Mary's costs the passenger 86p per nautical mile, whereas the 30-mile ferry service to Islay costs the passenger 23p per mile. The helicopter service for passengers in my constituency is £1.45 per air mile, compared with the cost of the Glasgow-Campbeltown service, which is 98p. Similarly, freight costs to the Isles of Scilly are more expensive, as well as being restricted.
I am aware that the subsidies for Scotland are put through the public service obligation test, which asks whether the market would operate the service on its own, without a subsidy. However, the Isles of Scilly face major dilemmas and opportunities, and decisions must be taken soon about whether the services that they currently enjoy can be sustained and extended. I would argue for extension, especially during the winter months.
As far as the PSO test is concerned, there is no question but that the island economy would almost totally collapse without existing services. However, the Isles of Scilly Steamship company cannot afford a new boat and cannot invest in ro-ro facilities. Last year, the company lost more than £100,000 merely on inter-island services, for which the Council of the Isles of Scilly provided a subsidy of £19,000. The company told me this week that it makes marginal profits in a good year and loses heavily in poor years. As a consequence, it does not have the capability to replace its ageing assets without support. Objective 1 money needs to be matched by support from the United Kingdom Government to replace the Scillonian III, and the loss-
160WH
making inter-island freight operation needs revenue support and grant aid for future vessel replacement if it is to continue at all.
What assessment has the Minister made of the comparison between the costs and quality of services provided to the Isles of Scilly and those in Scotland, which I am sure are richly deserved? What discussions has she had with the Treasury or the Scottish Executive on parity of public support for such services? What advice would she give me, and therefore the island communities, on meeting future needs? I do not expect the Minister to have come to the Chamber with a cheque book as well as a speech, so I do not expect her to answer my questions in financial terms. However, I hope that she at least agrees to follow up the questions that I raise with further meetings, so as to help, advise and support the fragile island community on the Isles of Scilly as it deals with the issues.
I also want to raise issues about rail, but I understand that several hon. Members want to speak, so I shall try to be brief. I am especially interested in the mainline service between Paddington and Penzance. My constituency experiences the same problem as any community at the end of a main line. If there is a problem anywhere along such a line, the people at the end of it always get the worst deal.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Is my hon. Friend aware that Railtrack threatens to make the whole of Cornwall an island during the Easter weekend, as it proposes to close the Brunel bridge over the River Tamar? Does he agree that that shows ludicrous contempt for the Cornish holiday industry, and more generally displays a lack of awareness of the importance of encouraging rail transport for holiday purposes to rural areas throughout the country? Will he join me in making representations—I have made some already—to the Secretary of State and Railtrack to reverse the decision?
Andrew George: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue. Not only have he, other colleagues and I raised the issue, but The Western Morning News has galvanised support locally to raise concern about the closure on that weekend, which was announced only recently. I had intended to raise the matter with the Minister. There will be other closures on the line in the coming months.
The closure is due to welcome investment in services, which has been long overdue. It is good that money is to be spent on the bridge. Brunel's generation recognised that it needed genuine investment and regular maintenance, but generations of recent Governments have not, hence the delay. The investment is welcome, and disruption is inevitable, but why choose to close the bridge on the most symbolic weekend of the year for the future of the summer tourist season? Many in Cornwall worry when England finds itself shut off. We worry about how it will manage without us, but we hope that it will cope for the few days that the bridge is to be closed. However, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that another time should be chosen.

161WH
On the broader strategic issues affecting Penzance commuters and passengers, I know that the Minister has experience of the rail journey to Newlyn, as she accompanied me on a Select Committee visit there to examine the fishing industry. On that day, the service ran on time—I do not know about the journey back—but that is not always the experience of those who travel to the far end of my constituency. In 1906 the scheduled journey time between Penzance and Paddington was six hours 35 minutes. It now takes approximately five hours, which is an improvement, but the journey from Exeter to Penzance takes as long—about three hours—as it did in 1906.
In 1997, Railtrack produced a trans-European networks study, funded by European TENs money, entitled "A Vision for a World Class Rail Transportation Network for the South West". It states:
"Railtrack is investing in 'core enabling' works to facilitate performance improvements and remove bottlenecks in the Great Western Main Line…over the next five years."
Railtrack claimed that it could cut journey times by up to 30 minutes, but five years on, as a result of disruptions and delays, some 30 minutes has been added, on average. In the past two years, services have gone from bad to worse. In the case of Cornwall, a vision for world class has turned into the nightmare of a third-world service.
As I sent her the relevant quote, the Minister will be aware that on 24 October, Sir Alastair Morton—former chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority, and a Government appointee who presumably spoke for the Government—told a business gathering in Plymouth that the
"South West Rail network falls way behind other parts of the country in the Government's schedule for change. You are not near the top of the pecking order when seen from the centre. The region does not meet any of the Government's measurable criteria for priority funding."
Is that still the position? What must Cornwall and Devon do to improve their chances of securing vital investment and support? Lack of investment in rail infrastructure in Cornwall is a cause for concern. It is having a visible effect on levels of service, on customer confidence and patronage, and on Cornwall's credibility as a location for new and continuing business investment. Passengers are unhappy with the caretaker franchises that the SRA promotes through two-year extensions.
Disruption has been caused by many factors, including Virgin's withdrawal of services in Cornwall while driver retraining is undertaken. The introduction of 1960s rolling stock has added discomfort to a generally unpunctual service. What comfort can the Minister give to rail passengers at the end of the line in my constituency, and to passengers throughout the region? What will be done to get our services up the pecking order, to increase investment, and to improve the punctuality and comfort of those services?
In view of time, I shall not detain the Chamber much longer, but I want to raise one or two other matters. I should point out to the Minister that, although there are problems, the prospect of objective 1 funding for a further five years presents a major opportunity. I realise that, with our support, the Government have taken Railtrack into administration, but a great deal of
162WH
uncertainty has none the less been created. Urgent decisions are required to bring forward projects that make the necessary infrastructure investments and improvements and take advantage of objective 1 funding, which is available for a limited time only.
What comfort, support and advice can the Minister give me so that I can tell the project operators and managers in Cornwall how to achieve the essential project progress that is required? Investment is needed in the branch line to the new university in Falmouth, for redoubling the track throughout most of Cornwall, and in signalling. Journey times must be improved. It takes two hours just to get from Penzance to Plymouth, let alone to get out of Cornwall and on to the track to London.
I do not want my speech to be simply a list of whinges. I congratulate the Government on what they have achieved through the rural bus services grant, which is significantly improving bus services in Cornwall, and I welcome many of the aspirations in their 10-year plan. It is important for rural communities in my constituency and throughout Cornwall that the fuel duty rebate should be extended to more informal community transport services such as voluntary car services and community bus services. The Government said that they would free up opportunities for community transport services to step in where bus services are not available. What progress is being made in achieving the targets in the 10-year plan?
I welcome this opportunity to raise matters of great importance to my constituents. We must ensure not only that there is parity between Scottish islands and the Isles of Scilly, but that rail services to the far west of Cornwall are at least brought up to national standards—even though those are not acceptable—before they go beyond them to achieve the levels of service that people in rural areas richly deserve.
11.22 am
Mr. David Drew: I am grateful to be called to speak in this important debate and associate myself with the comments made by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George). I remind him that the last time that we were both in this Chamber we were talking about the south-west, defending initial moves towards regional government, although we approached the subject from slightly different areas and perspectives. I cannot comment on the second part of the title of the debate because we have not yet found an island in Stroud, but we are a rural area and I can comment on that basis.
I shall mention a few local issues in the hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take them up on my behalf, but I also want to consider the wider terrain in terms of what needs to be done about transport in rural areas. Although I have some criticisms of the Government's approach to the issue, they clearly recognise its importance and have addressed some of the underlying factors.
Five aspects are worthy of mention. First, rural transport grants have helped the bus industry. They have made a difference in my area, where we have a bus service that works on an interactive basis, which means that people may telephone for a bus. We must do more in that regard because there is pleasing evidence that that scheme allows people in the most rural parts of my

163WH
constituency to have access to a bus for the first time. We must convert more people to wanting to use the bus and we must run the system more effectively because communications can make the difference. Not everyone in rural areas has a telephone, and if a bus does not arrive we must have a way in which we can tell people at what time it is likely to arrive. Sometimes buses do not arrive at all, although it is not a common occurrence.
The second aspect is the increase in rail investment, which is still insufficient. My constituency is linked to that of the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) by a railway line on which I am pleased to say that the rail operating companies are trying to run more trains. However, they have made promises that I am not sure that they can keep because we are now looking forward to more trains by next Easter, which means a delay. The existing services, which are well used, have improved when they run on time and when there are no problems further down the line—there have been such problems on several occasions.
The third area concerns transport in rural areas, which often depends on volunteers. Investment in voluntary bus services, and especially in voluntary minibus services, has increased, and it has made a difference. However, a great deal more needs to be done to build on that progress.
Fourthly, some parish councils have taken the £15,000 challenge. I am proud to say that I am still a town councillor, but I wish that more parish and town councils would take up that challenge because they are slow to come forward. If they did more work in that area they would make a difference to their communities, which would be preferable to the current diminution in that layer of local government. Parish councillors would be appreciated by their communities if they sorted out transport.
Fifthly, initiatives such as jumpstart, which also applies to the Cotswold constituency, have been implemented. We have identified that transport makes a difference because it allows people to attend work and training, which can make a difference to their lifestyle. The jumpstart initiative involves the provision by the Employment Service of free mopeds and training to help people to learn to drive. I believe that we must get people off the road, but there are situations in which, if one does not have a car, one does not work.
Transport has created various running sores in my constituency, such as the long-term problem with unacceptable traffic noise in Upton St. Leonards near the MS. Like my predecessor, I felt that I was banging my head against a brick wall on that issue, but the Government have listened. I should like to claim responsibility for that achievement, but it was not down to me; it was down to community effort. If one puts a good case to the Government they tend to listen; they deserve to be congratulated on that.
We must address the main factors. Transport is important to people who live in rural areas because it relates to their ability to work, to access shops and to send their children to the school of their choice. If transport is not available it bears down on people's ability to choose, which relates to their quality of life. We must recognise that we differ from urban Britain in the scale and nature of our problems.
164WH
We need greater resources, but we must deal with those resources in a sensitive way that is determined by individual demand. I stress the word "individual" because we are collecting together groups of individuals to make such services viable, and it is that process that allows services to run. That point relates to anti-poverty strategies, and I am pleased that the Government have highlighted their recognition that we must deal with the transport issue if we are to get to grips with the reasons why some people in rural areas have no quality of life and live in poverty. That will give greater opportunity to people, which has been borne out by the many reports, countryside agencies and organisations that examine poverty in rural and urban Britain.
I wish that it were just a question of introducing more buses and trains and better roads, but it is not. We must consider ways to improve quality. If we want people to use public transport, it must be reliable. The age of vehicles matters, as do bus shelters, particularly those in the more urbanised parts of rural areas, because no one wants to stand for a quarter of an hour waiting for a bus in the pouring rain if they do not have to. I do not suggest bus shelters for every village bus stop, but sensible use of small amounts of investment will make a significant difference to people's willingness to use public transport.
I fervently believe that we do not need more roads. We have had arguments on the subject recently, as the hon. Member for Cotswold knows; incidentally, I support the idea of the missing link just outside his neck of the woods. We need to improve by ensuring that the road network is completed. In the main, people in rural areas want not more roads but improvement of the quality of existing roads by proper surfacing—they want horrible potholes filled in before someone is knocked off their bike or worse. More money is coming through, but we have such a legacy of disrepair that more must be done.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my neighbour for giving way. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need more flexible rural bus services? People tend to run bus services because they have always been run, but routes, services and, above all, the size of bus used must be reviewed. If it is uneconomic to run a full-sized bus, a smaller community bus should be used.
Mr. Drew: I totally agree with my neighbour. I thought I knew a bit about rural Britain, but only after I was elected as MP did I understand why, in the most isolated of places, one sees bus stops at which buses never stop. It is because we have the wonderful system whereby, when a bus goes past such a bus stop, the company can claim subsidy or some form of support. That system dates from the dark ages and no one has changed it or can explain it. It is time that we considered sensible approaches and had flexible responses.
Andrew George: Would the hon. Gentleman like to expand on that point? In the past, bus subsidies have applied to a particular route although, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, they should apply to an area so

165WH
that the system responds to the needs of that area over time and does not serve to perpetuate one route with a rigid scheduled timetable.
Mr. Drew: I entirely agree with that. The hon. Gentleman may also want to comment on the system of the traffic commissioners. It is not good enough that money is available to save rural buses if those buses cannot be saved; a new route can be created, but money cannot be put into an existing route because of the current subsidy regime and regulations. That needs consideration because it might lead to ludicrous situations in which a route is lost and, later, an improved variation of it introduced. That is not sensible.
I am satisfied that the 10-year transport plan is right, but we need to consider the action that follows. I will pose some difficult questions not just to the public sector but to the private sector. I am not satisfied that the private sector has played fair or is aware of its responsibility to rail and road, especially with regard to buses that use the roads.
We must accept that we shall not go backwards. It would be nice to re-regulate some of the bus services in rural areas because that made a significant difference to the number of buses and routes that were used during the past 10 years or so. We do not necessarily want what happened to Railtrack to happen to the rest of the industry, but we need rationalisation so that we may talk to fewer people. As MPs, we become frustrated with the number of different companies that we must deal with, which make promises but do not always deliver on them.
There is a problem and it is shared between the public and private sectors. If the private sector cannot do the job, we must look for alternatives—the public sector or even greater use of the voluntary sector. The shame is that the voluntary sector is often looking for such work, but must not do it on the cheap, must not be ripped off and must do it as part of a proper strategy. We could have a fast minibus link between the hospitals in our county—I am looking at the hon. Member for Cotswold—to ensure that people without transport can get to the towns and hospitals where their nearest and dearest are. That may be idealistic, but we should be looking for such ideas and I am sure that the voluntary sector would be pleased to participate in such provision.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my neighbour for giving way again. I do not know whether he is aware of the community bus service that was founded by the late Trevor Baxter near Stow-on-the-Wold. It was one of the first community bus services in the country and does exactly what the hon. Gentleman described. It is staffed by volunteer drivers and links local hospitals and doctors' surgeries. If enough notice is given, the route can often be varied to accommodate people who want to go to the doctor, post office, hospital and so on. A little public pump priming would help the volunteers to buy the buses, which they could then run. That would be an excellent community service.
Mr. Drew: I am aware of the late Mr. Baxter, who did excellent work. It can be done, but the problem is often that the initiative runs out of steam because the voluntary sector is taken for granted and resources are not forthcoming in the long term. I shall move on
166WH
quickly because other hon. Members want to speak and it would be wrong for me to take more time than is due to me.
I shall give an example from my constituency of the need for proper planning. The Minister's predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson), met us three years ago and agreed to allow Gloucestershire county council to borrow money for a rail-bus interchange at Stroud. I could bore the Chamber for the next half hour on why that did not happen and I point the finger at public authorities and the private sector, including Railtrack, for their inability to reach agreement not on the service but on land swaps and arrangements for building facilities. The Government must be cuter when considering how to push things along more quickly and sometimes use direct intervention. It is our money that is being forwarded for such projects, but they take too long and there are too many frustrations. I am sure that the Minister will take note and look into the matter urgently to ensure that different authorities do what they are asked to do.
Safety is sometimes underestimated. In urban Britain the number of casualties has declined, pleasingly, because of the action taken by the Government and their predecessor, but sadly the number of accidents in rural Britain has increased. Unfortunately, speed reflects people's frustration when they are held up, and they drive more quickly on rural roads.
We must also consider greater coherence in traffic calming, which was the subject of a debate in Westminster Hall some months ago. I am referring not just to road humps but to the way in which people who do not use a car get about. I am a keen cyclist and it used to be a pleasure to ride my bike around the rural parts of my constituency. That is still usually so, but if someone drives up behind at 60 mph in a narrow lane it makes one think carefully about cycling there. The Government should address that problem with an education programme, if nothing else, to persuade people to drive more considerately in rural areas.
I turn to some specific issues; I make no apology for doing so because I said that I would. One thing that the Government can do to make a significant difference to people living in rural areas is to ensure that the train system is improved in such a way that people want to use it, and—by providing more trains—that they can use it. We are talking about a £50 million investment that would dramatically improve the way in which people travel from Gloucestershire to London, for instance from the constituency of the hon. Member for Cotswold, where there is currently only a single line between Kemble and Swindon. It will not just be an improvement for ordinary passengers, but will make a significant difference for business. I have spoken about that subject before and make no apology for raising it again.
There is also a strategy in the south-west known as SWARMMS—the south-west area multi-modal study. I shall not dwell on the acronym. It is very important, but it tends to leave out the county of Gloucestershire. My hon. Friend the Minister might like to consider that. In a number of cases we are not looking for great expenditure in the county, but are asking for things like the doubling of the track between Kemble and Swindon. That issue should be addressed.

167WH
In conclusion, much has been done. The issue is micro-management, not big expenditure. We need to get on with doing things at ground level and to ensure that we continue to do things on a scale that is sensitive, takes account of what rural people want and attends to their demands. Our actions should follow that strategy.
11.41 am
Mr. Alan Reid: I begin by joining other hon. Members in expressing my condolences to the Chancellor and Mrs. Brown on the tragic loss of their baby daughter.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) on securing this important debate. In rural and island areas, transport is vital; it impinges on all services.
I should like to refer to the efforts to re-establish the ferry service between Campbeltown and Ballycastle in Northern Ireland. It is important both to the economy of the remote Kintyre peninsula and to the Moyle area of Northern Ireland. The efforts to get the service up and running are in danger of floundering in a bureaucratic muddle. When I wrote to the Prime Minister, his written answer was that the ferry service was the responsibility of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, because it runs between two different countries in the United Kingdom. However, letters to the Secretary of State in that Department are transferred to the Scotland Office, on the grounds that that office acts as the Department's agent. The Scotland Office, of course, says that it does not have a budget for such a service; that is because the budget rests with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.
The Scottish and Northern Ireland Executives have indicated that they are willing to pay to meet the cost of the service. What is required is for this Parliament to make an order to transfer to the Scottish and Northern Ireland Executives the power to pay the subsidy. That, apparently, will take time. It is important for the tender documents to be issued now, so that the service can start in the summer. Many of the people who will use the service will be tourists, and there is no point in starting a service in the autumn. It is vital for it to be up and running by 1 July at the latest.
I suggest to the Minister that tender documents be issued urgently by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, because that Department does have a budget. In parallel, an order can be passed that transfers to the Scottish and Northern Ireland Executives the power to pay the subsidy, so that the order has been passed by the time that the tender documents are returned, enabling those Executives to accept the best tender and enabling the service to be in place by the summer. It is vital, and I hope that that course of action will be taken.
Islanders suffer tremendously high fuel costs compared with those paid by people living in the rest of the country. On Mull and Islay, in my constituency, the cost of fuel is 20p a litre higher than it is on the mainland. My constituents deserve parity with the rest of the country, not least because the taxation that is being paid to the Treasury, particularly on the island of
168WH
Islay, far exceeds any money that comes back in the form of services. The people there are paying more in VAT on petrol because of the higher cost. Also, a tremendous contribution is made to the Treasury because of the number of distilleries and the large tax on whisky.
I want to make two suggestions. First, variable rates of duty should be charged on petrol on islands. That would require a derogation from a European Union directive, but I would encourage the Government to apply for such a derogation and levy different rates of fuel duty on islands to bring the price down to that on the mainland.
Mr. Andrew Turner: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that I agree with that proposal. However, does he accept that it might also be fair to apply it to certain remote rural areas that are far from the motorway and the principal road network, on which most of the money is spent?
Mr. Reid: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, although the price difference between the islands and the mainland is more than 20p a litre, there is also a difference of a good few pence a litre between normal mainland prices and those in remote areas. Although my suggestion would be of more importance to the islands, it should also be applied to parts of the mainland.
Another reason for the high cost of petrol is the small turnover. My second suggestion is that the Government give transport agencies the power to buy petrol in bulk, thus obtaining a lower unit cost, and to sell it on at that cost to island and rural filling stations.
11.46 am
Mr. Andrew Turner: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) on securing it. I was interested that he introduced his remarks by mentioning constituencies with islands in them. My constituency is an island, as the Minister well knows, so I feel particularly well qualified to speak.
I begin by admitting to some ignorance. I am glad that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) spoke about the position that has been reached on the Campbeltown to Ballycastle service. I read, back in 1999, that his predecessor was making the case for the subsidy to that service to continue. The lifeline ferry services are of particular importance to island residents. Tourism services are very important, but lifeline services are even more so.
My second obligation is to put on the record the information that has been given to me by those who operate the ferry services to the Isle of Wight. They complained to me, perhaps rightly, that I had presented the island as having ferry services among the most expensive in the country. The operators have kindly supplied me with some figures. The cost per kilometre of Wightlink—hon. Members will forgive me if the figures do not compare with those presented by the hon. Member for St. Ives—is £1.55 for the car ferry service, and 54p for the passenger service. Red Funnel costs £1.05 per kilometre. The Cowes chain ferry, which is operated by Isle of Wight council, costs £9.29 per

169WH
kilometre. The Red Funnel high-speed service costs 29p per kilometre and the Hovertravel hovercraft service 57p per kilometre.
I have put those figures on the record partly to show how successful the private sector has sometimes been, without any subsidy from the Government, in providing cross-Solent services. I emphasise that those are the lowest fares available, some of which require a person to buy a book of 24 tickets, which must be used in six or 12 months. Not everyone can afford that. The other day I had to bring a car across—fortunately, from my point of view, at public expense—and it cost £50 for a return trip involving travelling on one day and coming back on another. That illustrates the concern felt by many of my constituents that we should not simply compare the lowest costs, because few people—perhaps only one fifth of the island's population—make frequent and regular journeys to the mainland. However, they must occasionally make urgent journeys, and they feel that the cost of those is unfair.
The island is taking the initiative in three areas as a result of an invitation given by the Minister's predecessor to my predecessor to consider the cost of travel for the purposes of health, education and seeking jobs.
Andrew George: I was fumbling through my notes to find the comparable costs for the Isles of Scilly. During the height of the season, the return ferry journey between Penzance and St. Mary's for a foot passenger—one cannot take one's car—is £78. It would be useful, perhaps after the debate, for the hon. Gentleman and I to compare the costs of ferry services to the mainland in our constituencies.
Mr. Turner: I will gladly share with the hon. Gentleman the figures that Wightlink gave me. Its list includes Caledonian MacBrayne and the Scottish islands routes, the Irish sea crossings and the services to the Isle of Man but, for reasons best known to Wightlink, it does not mention the Isles of Scilly.
It appears from the hon. Gentleman's earlier comments that the Isles of Scilly benefit from at least a fairly regular air service, unlike the Isle of Wight. To some extent, that reflects the fact that we already have relatively swift communications with London. For the benefit of anyone who wants to visit the island for a holiday or for other purposes, I should emphasise that it takes me only two hours to get from my front door in Cowes to Waterloo station on the scheduled service, all things being equal. For the most part, the service has operated reasonably well, given the obstacles that the Government and others have put in its way recently. However, we would benefit enormously from assistance with air services because people from parts of the United Kingdom outside London and the south-east also want to come to the island.
I revert to the issues of most concern, the first of which is health. As in the Isles of Scilly and other remote rural areas and islands, our hospital cannot provide every necessary service. I compliment the bodies that support people who have treatment on the mainland, including the Wessex Cancer Trust and Heartcare, which assist people who travel to Southampton or the King Edward VII hospital at Midhurst for the services that they need.
170WH
June Ring, in particular, has worked tirelessly for the trust over many years to assist people who visit the Southampton hospitals for treatment. She has accompanied many of them and has arranged taxis and minibuses at the other end. The King Edward VII hospital does the same for those with coronary care needs.
Residents are concerned that coronary services may be transferred to Brighton, which is a long way away, without the advantages of transport being in place. I put on record my thanks to David Crawley for his work for the Isle of Wight primary care trust to ensure that proper transport links are in place when the service is transferred. People do not always need accompanied transport, but they do need simple transport. We are taking the initiative on that, but we may need the Government to make a little contribution towards the cost.
Secondly, there are education services. We are fortunate to have a further education college on the island, but it clearly cannot provide every service, and many people must travel to the mainland. Thirdly, there are people who are seeking work. On the island, we have commissioned a survey into reducing the cost of cross-Solent travel for those particularly needy groups. I hope—in fact, I am sure—that in due course we shall make proposals for the Government to assist us, through the Isle of Wight partnership and the Isle of Wight council, in reducing those costs.
It is easy to criticise the Government and the relevant companies, and then to present a wish list to which even the Minister, with her customary generosity, would be unable to respond instantly. However, I want to mention how pleased I am about the level of subsidy and support provided by the ferry companies for island people—particularly the ice hockey team, the Isle of Wight Raiders, which has been subsidised until recently by Wightlink. I appreciate the support given to sports people, bands wanting to play on the mainland and a range of other people.
The ferry companies are part of the community. They are not simply leaching it. However, there are problems with the oligopoly. We have only two major ferry companies. Of course, Hovertravel also provides the hovercraft service from Southsea to Ryde. Will the Minister examine, in particular, the open port regulations? During the previous Parliament, I wrote to her predecessor, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson), asking her to do so.
The regulations rightly require those who operate an open port to make space available to anyone, but do not ensure that the same space is always made available to operators wanting to provide regular services. At the time in question, Red Funnel was owned by Associated British Ports, which also owned the entire waterfront in Southampton. It had an interest in maintaining the Red Funnel monopoly on the route to Cowes, and one way of doing that was to deny other companies a regular landing slot on the waterfront at Southampton. I hope that the Minister will attend to the matter.
I emphasise the need for flexibility in other respects. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute referred to fuel costs. Until recently there were three suppliers of fuel on the island but, thanks to various takeovers, we now have

171WH
a monopoly supplier. The effect has been to push up the cost of agricultural fuels—that is the example that I have been given—and perhaps other fuels, in comparison with the mainland.
We also need flexibility with respect to taking animals to slaughter. We do not have a slaughterhouse on the island. We consider that that is largely the result of legislation derived from Europe, which was gold-plated by the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. With the National Farmers Union and other agencies, we are looking towards the creation of a slaughterhouse on the island, perhaps associated with an outlet for island produce. It would be helpful if the Government would suggest some support for more slaughterhouses, particularly in rural areas, because there are animal welfare benefits in providing them.
Finally, I shall say a word or two about assisted area status.
Mr. Bill Olner (in the Chair): A word would be better.
Mr. Turner: I apologise for taking too much time.
We need assisted area status. Perhaps that is the simplest way to put it. The Isle of Wight is one of the poorest areas in the south-east—certainly among the 10 poorest constituencies. It has high unemployment and the lowest gross domestic product in the south-east—less than 75 per cent. of the national average—yet we are unfairly associated with wealthier areas such as Hampshire for the purpose of assisted area status. We need to be considered independently of the mainland so that we can qualify, if not for objective 1, at least for objective 2 status. If the Minister can promise nothing else, I hope that she can promise that.
11.59 am
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. In the interests of brevity, I merely associate myself with many of the remarks that have been made, particularly those made by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George). I congratulate him on securing the debate, because the chance to discuss island issues in the House is rare.
I associate myself also with the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) on the cost of petrol and diesel in island and rural communities, and I agree with much that was said by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), particularly about the need for rural slaughterhouses. We in Shetland are familiar with that problem. The hon. Gentleman and I are two of only three Members who have entirely island constituencies, so we have a particular contribution to make to a debate such as this—although I envy the hon. Gentleman for having a constituency with only one island.
Naturally, much of the debate on island transport has centred on ferry services. In the brief time available to me, I ask the Minister to turn her attention to air services to island communities. They are particularly important to my constituents. Journeys from Orkney involve a two-hour ferry trip to the mainland followed by at least
172WH
a four-hour journey by road to reach any sizeable town, and it is a 14-hour ferry journey from Shetland to Aberdeen.
Air travel is immensely important to people requiring hospital treatment in Aberdeen, and to those who need to travel for educational or job-seeking purposes. When I checked this morning, I was told that the standard full fare from Sumburgh in Shetland to Aberdeen was £294, and that the cost from Kirkwall in Orkney to Aberdeen was £277. That is a significant burden on local people who have one-day hospital appointments and those who need to travel with them, on those who serve on the local health board, and on local businesses. Apex fares are available, but extra conditions always require to be fulfilled, including staying away on the Saturday, which is not suitable for many island businesses.
Our particular problem is that the air services to the northern isles operate on a marginal profit. I suspect that any route could be operated profitably if one was prepared to tolerate a low standard of service and high fares. It is therefore important to establish what sort of benchmark service should be provided. To that extent, I should be interested to hear the Minister's views on the application of public service obligation orders to services such as those to Orkney and Shetland.
A few days ago, a travel agent in my constituency told me something about the Saab planes that are used on the northern isles routes. They are often smaller than needed and are clearly unsuitable in many ways, but they are being used because of the marginal nature of the routes. Those planes do not have the necessary capacity; technical difficulties and breakdowns often result. Another plane that would be much more suitable for the northern isles routes would be the Dash 7, but that is not open to us because of the small margins available to those operating on those routes. I suggest to the Minister that the imposition of public service obligation orders would allow improvements in the quality of the service.
We all accept that subsidy should be given to transport in the rest of the country, in the form of roads and railways. Why should those island communities who have to rely on ferries and air services be treated any differently? When one lives on an island, Mr. Amess, transport becomes something of an obsession. I could bore those in the Chamber for the rest of the day with this subject, but I see that I have had my five minutes.
12.4 pm
Tom Brake: I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) that one need not live on an island to become obsessed with transport. It can become an obsession even for a Member who represents Carshalton and Wallington, which is in suburbia.
I shall confine my remarks to a few points, as the Liberal Democrats have made a heavyweight contribution to the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) on securing the debate and raising his concerns in a constructive way. The general tone of the debate has been constructive and I now feel much better informed about services to the Isles of Scilly. My hon. Friend spoke eloquently about the problems with those services and I shall listen carefully to the Minister's response to see whether she can assist him and his constituents.

173WH
I echo my hon. Friend's concerns about Railtrack's plans to shut England off from Cornwall over the peak Easter holiday period and I hope that the Minister will give a commitment to talk to Railtrack, which is in administration, about those plans to see whether those important works could be undertaken sooner or rescheduled for a time that would be more convenient to the tourist trade. I also hope that the Minister will have time to respond specifically to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) regarding an urgent request for tender documents to be issued to enable the ferry service to which he referred to proceed.
There is no doubt that rural areas—where up to one in five people do not have access to a car—suffer disproportionately from poor access to transport. It is clear that the way to solve the problem is through bus and community transport services, as there are no rail services at all in many rural areas.
Although the number of passengers using buses has declined, we should not accept that that decline is inevitable. In London, where bus regulation was retained, the number of bus users has increased by 8 per cent., whereas outside London, where bus services were deregulated, the number of bus users decreased by 9 per cent.
Mr. Andrew Turner: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right about rural areas, but does he accept that the same does not apply to some urban areas outside London?
Tom Brake: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. I am simply saying that we should not assume that bus use will decline, because there are measures that can halt such a decline. For example, bus regulation or reform of quality partnerships and quality contracts could allow for changes in fares and frequency of services and ensure the greater flexibility that some hon. Members have requested. In that way, bus services could change according to demand, rather than relying on a top-heavy or contractual process that puts the brakes on new bus services. It should be possible for new services to be provided almost immediately in a way that cannot be achieved with other services, such as rail and light rail.
On rural transport regeneration, we support the fact that the Government have provided additional funds for bus services, but we would like them to go further. We put forward proposals in our costed manifesto for a total of £200 million to be spent each year on a rural transport regeneration fund. We estimate that that would allow about 2,000 new or improved bus services to be provided each year. In considering the introduction of such services, one may also take into account the savings to the national health service that would result from a consequent reduction in road accidents. The average cost of an accident is £140,000; if one reduces road accidents, additional savings can be made elsewhere.
The Government could introduce other measures. They could extend fuel duty rebate to community transport, as other hon. Members have suggested. They could cut car tax to make people pay little or nothing on the least polluting cars. The price of public transport is
174WH
a problem, and something must be done to assist bus customers, even when such services are available. I suggest free off-peak travel on local buses and reductions for students.
I can see that the Minister wants me to draw my remarks to a conclusion. Before I do, I want to ask what progress has been made on increasing access to bus services, a measure used as an indicator in the Transport 2010 plan. Of the 500 or so rural transport projects due within three years of the plan's launch, how many have been delivered? Are the Government on track to deliver all 500?
12.10 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I extend the compliments of the season to you, Mr. Amess, and to all hon. Members present, including the Minister. I also express my party's commiserations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his wife on their sad news today. We wish them well in future.
I shall keep my remarks brief, because I want the Minister to have a chance to reply fully. I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) on obtaining the debate, which has thrown up much interesting information, not least from some of the remote parts of the United Kingdom, which are often forgotten. He has done the House a service by raising the matter, which especially interests me because his constituency and mine belong to the south-west region. It is a huge region, extending from the Isles of Scilly to the constituency of my neighbour in the north, my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson). If ever there was an example to show why regional government does not work, this is it. In many respects the requirements of our areas are as different as chalk and cheese.
The hon. Member for St. Ives did not draw hon. Members' attention to a matter to which I shall refer. In a letter dated 21 December 2001, Louisa Britten, the deputy policy adviser for the south-west region, stated:
"Following the announcement, on Wednesday 5th December 2001, a meeting of all local authorities in the South West was held to discuss the implications of the provisional announcement."
The implications were that the settlement for the southwest region, as announced that day in the House, was pretty poor. Further meetings are being arranged with the relevant Ministers in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to discuss the settlement. If we do not have a reasonable settlement, the transport services in my constituency and that of the hon. Member for St. Ives will suffer, compared with those in the rest of the country. The issue is not only more money but equity of distribution in the formula. That is why we look forward to the Government's redistributing the formula. We want that to be done as soon as possible; we do not want to wait two or three years.
The hon. Member for St. Ives raised some interesting points, which I have time only to skate over. As he is aware, there has been significant investment in road networks in his region during the past two decades. The motorway network extends from Exeter, with two trunk roads—the A30 via the Okehampton bypass and the A38 via Plymouth—into Cornwall. My area has had no similar investment in road infrastructure, and urgently

175WH
needs it. The A417 and A419, which is now a national network road—a vital short-cut road—that extends from the M4 to the M5, needs a so-called missing link. One can travel from the island of Sicily in Italy to Glasgow on dual carriageway, with a little missing link in the middle of my constituency. My constituency suffers serious accidents and fatalities because of that missing link. The DTLR has put in place a study under the Babtie Group. I urge the Department to act quickly on its findings.
In the short time left to me, I want to mention trains, as have many hon. Members. Train infrastructure is important in all rural areas. I have a huge rural constituency which extends to 1,000 square miles and contains 110 villages and 10 market towns. Trains are a vital form of transport there, as they are for the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), who made an excellent speech. Will the Minister consider those rural services, which could be improved for relatively small sums?
My neighbour, the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), referred to the upgrade of the single-track line from Swindon to Kemble and Cheltenham. That would be a huge infrastructure boost for his constituency and mine. Another rail infrastructure improvement would be the upgrading of the Hereford line via Moreton-in-Marsh. The hon. Gentleman did not refer to the possibility of reopening some rural stations, but I have been involved in a campaign to reopen the Chipping Campden station on that line, for example.
The industrial action that is affecting South West Trains will mean that falls in service will continue to be experienced by those in the south-west, who have already experienced falls since 2000 from 84.3 per cent. to 73.6 per cent. That is bound to get worse as a result of the industrial action. We want proper, forward-looking decisions to be taken on investment in our railways. As a result of Railtrack's being put into administration, such forward planning does not exist. I have asked many detailed questions about the Virgin Cross Country franchise route, which might help the south-west, but have not received any satisfactory replies. Will the Minister address that issue, as it is an important national infrastructure project?
I am fully in favour of beefing up bus services in rural areas, which was another issue referred to by the hon. Member for Stroud. We received a briefing from the Disability Rights Commission on the matter. Bus and rail services should be fully accessible to disabled people. It is curious that the Government have a 10-year target for increasing bus services by only 10 per cent., whereas the target for increasing rail travel over the same period is 50 per cent. Will the Minister address that problem?
I must leave the Minister time to reply, as she has been asked a range of questions about ferries, rail and roads in our more remote areas, which are wonderful places to travel and have some excellent facilities. I can tell the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) that I enjoyed a very acceptable dram of Highland Park whisky over the recess. I encourage all hon. Members to boost tourism in rural areas by paying such visits, as that is one way in which we can help those areas.
12.17 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Ms Sally Keeble): I am grateful to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) for securing the debate and to all hon. Members who have taken part. The debate has been helpful, positive and constructive. If I do not answer all the questions, it will be only because of time constraints, but I will deal with as many as I can.
First, I join with all other hon. Members in expressing my sincere condolences to the Browns for the loss of their daughter, which was a dreadful tragedy for them.
I shall consider what we are doing to improve rural transport while addressing specific local issues, including strategic issues for Cornwall and the south-west connected with that area's location, which has done much to cause transport problems. I shall also refer to ferry services.
The Government are determined to improve transport as much in rural areas such as Cornwall as in big cities. We want rural communities to be thriving and prosperous, and we recognise the importance of transport's role in that. We want, too, to boost tourism, as the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) said. Our vision of how transport can contribute to a rejuvenated rural England was set out more than a year ago in the White Paper entitled "Our countryside: the future". It emphasised the need for locally provided services in rural areas to reduce long-distance travelling and, in particular, for better quality public transport provision that is flexible enough to be truly responsive to the needs of rural communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and the hon. Member for Cotswold emphasised the importance of bus services in achieving that.
Much has been done over the past year to implement the White Paper's vision for rural transport. More than £40 million will be spent during this financial year alone on the rural bus subsidy grant to provide extra local bus services to rural communities, and we are providing more flexibility within that grant scheme so that 20 per cent. can go to existing services. Nowhere can our drive to improve rural public transport across England be better seen than in Cornwall. Last year the county was acknowledged by my Department as a centre of excellence for rural transport.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud mentioned the need for more demand-responsive services, especially in relation to buses. I want to highlight the role of the rural bus challenge in stimulating innovation in the provision and promotion of rural public transport, including new services of that type. In last year's challenge competition we gave £21 million of funding for 51 innovative rural bus projects, from novel bus infrastructure improvements to flexible, demand-responsive minibus and taxibus schemes. We shall announce the results of the latest challenge competition shortly. That will be another big boost for the more innovative types of rural bus service.
Earlier in the current financial year, the Government established through the Countryside Agency two important rural transport programmes—an enhanced rural transport partnership scheme and the new parish transport fund—to enable rural communities to develop transport solutions to meet local needs. Over the next

177WH
three years those two programmes will together spend £47 million on a range of projects. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) asked whether the Government were on target in respect of the 500 new schemes that were proposed in the policy statement, and the answer is yes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud referred to community transport. We recognise that that sector plays a vital role in catering for needs that cannot be met by scheduled commercial public transport services. Above all, it provides flexible solutions that are tailored to meet the needs of local people. We made it clear in the rural White Paper that we wanted an expansion of the community transport sector, and we will shortly publish a consultation paper on the changes that might be made to reduce barriers to its expansion. We are also committed to extending the bus fuel duty rebate scheme to a wide range of community transport services, and we shall introduce regulations shortly. I hope that that reassures hon. Members who are interested in such services.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on his remarkable diligence in always pressing the concerns of his constituency. He has raised the profile of the Isle of Wight as never before. He is an island in himself. I shall deal with his points about ferry services later. On port regulations, I shall give him a considered written response. I shall look at the statistics on disadvantage in his area. I am aware, partly due to his pressing of the matter, that there are problems in his constituency arising from the number of prisons, but I was not aware of the other factors, and I shall send him the details that we have.
The hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) and for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) raised some important points about ferry services and illustrated extremely well the disadvantages that people in rural and island communities can face. I shall take the matter up with the Scottish Executive, who are responsible for the bulk of such issues. On public service obligations, I shall give the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland a considered written response.
I want to deal with some of the south-west issues, but as I have only a few minutes left, I must go through them at a canter. I shall send a written response to the helpful note that the hon. Member for St. Ives sent to my office.
Andrew George: I appreciate the Minister's response to the issues that she has raised, but there were three specific questions that I outlined both beforehand and in the debate: the Easter bridge closure, the ferries and improvements to rail services in east Cornwall.
Ms Keeble: The hon. Gentleman raised issues concerning regional transport links. Each English region is required to develop a regional transport strategy that sets out key regional transport priorities. These will be informed by multi-modal studies, which will provide integrated solutions to major transport problems around the country. As I am sure the hon.Gentleman is aware, the south-west area is subject to a multi-modal study and the report is due in April. It will recommend improvements to reduce journey times
178WH
to Cornwall and to increase the reliability of such journeys. I am sure that it will address the strategic regional issues that underlie his remarks this morning.
Many hon. Members have raised issues relating to railways, and I should point out that a statement from the Strategic Rail Authority is due next week in which it will set out its investment plans. Sir Alastair Morton is no longer the chairman of the SRA, and we shall be examining the way in which that investment plan addresses the issues raised this morning.
On the reports about the closure of the bridge over the Easter weekend, Railtrack has consulted the train operating companies, as it is required to do. It has made arrangements to ensure that the closures will not affect the Friday and Monday of the bank holiday weekend, which are the peak travelling times. The train operating companies were satisfied that these closures were the best solution to the difficult choice that occurs when one must make improvements to infrastructure that require possession of the railways. I shall write to the train operating companies involved to establish whether there was consultation and whether mechanisms exist for consulting passengers and other stakeholders such as tourist agencies about the timing of such closures. It is in everybody's interests to work together to ensure that the commuter services keep operating to make the most of that peak tourist period. It is a question of all stakeholders working together to find the best possible solutions.
Finally, I want to turn—I recognise that this will be brief—to island transport. Ferry services in the United Kingdom are expected to operate on a commercial basis unless there is a compelling reason why they cannot do so. As a general rule, my Department does not directly subsidise ferry services in England, but English local authorities have the power to subsidise local ferry services if they wish, and several do. I understand the point about the replacement of the passenger vessel to the Isles of Scilly. The Council of the Isles of Scilly is hoping to seek a European objective 1 grant for a replacement passenger vessel. It would be premature to discuss its proposal in detail, but I am sure that the Cornwall objective one partnership will look sympathetically at any grant application.
There will, however, be issues to address involving eligibility and value for money. I know that officials in the Government office for the south-west are looking forward to seeing shortly the report on the consultancy study commissioned by the Council of the Isles of Scilly, which we hope will make clearer the extent to which there is a case for supporting a replacement vessel. I say to the hon. Member for St. Ives that it is important that we receive that consultancy report at an early date so that we can assess it properly.
In conclusion, I hope that I have addressed the main concerns that were expressed by Members of all political persuasions, and shown that we understand the difficulties in rural areas. We have put in place the planning, some of the money, and innovative small schemes—micro-management, as it was described—that can indeed make a difference to the quality of life of people in rural areas.

Barry Donnan
12.30 pm
Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: I raise the sad case of Barry Donnan, who joined the Royal Highland Fusiliers in 1987 as a 16-year-old. As a young soldier, he was sent to Lockerbie in 1988 to pick up pieces of bodies that had fallen from the sky. After that he was sent to the Belize jungle, where he was accused of murdering an Army cook—a foreigner—who in fact died of a heart attack. The case was dealt with not by the Army, but in a civil court. After an eight-week trial, he was eventually found not guilty. On his return home in 1991, he was sent immediately to the Gulf. One of the many events he witnessed there was the burial of hundreds of Iraqi soldiers in a mass grave. Such events traumatised him, but he argues that inoculations and tablets supplied to the troops also contributed to his suffering post-traumatic stress disorder, among other disorders.
As a former trade union official, I had to represent social workers in the aftermath of Lockerbie. Six months after the disaster, not a single social worker was still in employment. All of them had to be pensioned off because of the stress that they experienced. Nor does a single policeman or fireman who served during the events of Lockerbie remain in service. As a 16 or 17-year-old boy, Barry Donnan was sent into the very middle of that disaster, but the Army gave no counselling. Nor did the Army offer the necessary support during his time in Belize and in the Gulf. As he says in his book, "Fighting Back" a copy—of which I have given to the Minister—he just lost it. After a break, he went absent without leave for some six months. On being captured, he was court-martialled and sentenced to 112 days in Colchester. No counselling was offered, and no attempt was made to look at the mental state of this youngster.
On his release from Colchester, he was immediately sent into the trauma of Northern Ireland. By his own admission, he had no clue where he was or what he was doing. Before being allowed on to the streets of Northern Ireland, every trooper normally completes an intelligence threat analysis course, but Barry did not have that certificate. I find that rather surprising, and it illustrates the events that surrounded the fusilier at that time.
Barry first came to my surgery on 14 March 1997. On 24 March, I wrote to the then Minister for an immediate review of his case. I have made subsequent representations to the present Minister and to his predecessor, but to no avail. Aspects of the case greatly concern me. When Barry applied for legal aid, his solicitors were informed that because the War Pensions Agency had given information to suggest that he was time-barred he would get no form of support from the Legal Aid Board. I have established that that was misinformation, but young Barry's situation still gives cause for concern.
In 1999, after three years of dealing with other matters, he came to tell me that his disability living allowance had been withdrawn. After a protracted fight with the then Minister with responsibility for social security, I established that that should not have happened and ensured that the disability living
180WH
allowance was put back in place; however, it was at a lower rate. Barry's most recent argument is that he believes that his war pension is under threat. He says so on the basis that while he was in the ex-services mental welfare place in Hollybush, Ayrshire, he discovered that statements were being sent to the War Pensions Agency about how he was doing. He is of the opinion that that was threatening his war pension and is concerned that reports are being sent from the Ex-Services Mental Welfare Society to the War Pensions Agency. I have been told by the commodore in charge that that is normal because the armed forces are paying for his time in the Hollybush centre.
I am looking for two possible solutions. There is no doubt that the Ministry of Defence must change the way in which troops are dealt with and fully recognise that although their physical state is looked after well by the Army, their mental state is equally important to them. During developments in the deployment of armed forces around the world—the latest of which has been in Afghanistan, and before that they were in Kosovo—there does not seem to be the commitment that there should be to the mind of the individual and the traumas seen. One could argue that the lad was immature from the outset, but there is no difference between someone who joins the armed forces and someone who becomes a policeman or joins a local authority as a social worker. The experience of Lockerbie was so traumatic for the police and social workers that not one of them was still in that employment six months after the event. It surprises and appals me that the armed forces do not treat that mental element as they should; they must do so, and settle the case of Barry Donnan. I appeal to the Minister on that point.
Arguments that have been presented in correspondence suggest that another option is open to young Barry. He could join a group of some 30 ex-service men who are in some form of joint application to the Ministry of Defence and through that to the courts for a settlement. However, in his letter dated 27 August 2001, Barry states:
"The group action issue is nonsense, the time scale is too long, only 30 ex-servicemen are being heard in the first instance, of which I don't belong, then, what ever the judge says is binding. So, maybe I won't ever get a fair hearing. My solicitors have made and struck many deals with the MOD lawyers, I am sure they will know the outcome before it even gets to the High Court. Perhaps, that is why the MOD are so keen to railroad me down that line."
He now has no confidence in the system, which is what led me to apply for this Adjournment debate. I want the Minister and the civil service to wake up to the mental health issue in the armed forces and, particularly in Barry's case, to make some form of compensation. I look forward to the Minister's response.
12.39 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) for initiating this debate about his constituent, Mr. Donnan, and the important issues surrounding his claim for compensation against the Ministry. My hon. Friend will understand that because Mr. Donnan's case is due to be heard as part of a wider post-traumatic stress disorder group action in the High Court in early March, it would be inappropriate for me

181WH
to discuss the details or to re-examine Mr. Donnan's case ahead of the judgment. The group action, of which Mr. Donnan's claim is a part, is significant litigation. The trial is likely to last up to five months with written judgment to be handed down in the autumn. I understand that Mr. Donnan will give evidence at the trial.
While recognising the emotive and sensitive nature of the issues raised by group actions, it is important that they are set within a factual context. I have corresponded with my hon. Friend about the case on several occasions, as have my predecessors. The way in which he approaches the debate is constructive and far removed from the lurid headlines favoured by some when dealing with similar cases.
I have read Mr. Donnan's book, "Fighting Back: One Man's Struggle for Justice against the British Army". He has endured a series of terrible personal tragedies that have contributed to his present suffering and I have considerable sympathy for his current plight. Stress-related medical disorders are recognised by the armed forces as potentially serious and disabling conditions. Post-traumatic stress disorder—PTSD—was not recognised internationally as a medical condition until the 1980s, but methods of treatment have subsequently developed in the medical world and the armed forces. The measures now in place to combat PTSD in the armed forces have evolved and been enhanced over a number of years to reflect our improving knowledge of the condition, its effects and the best methods of remediation. Each service runs active programmes aimed at prevention and treatment. Measures include pre-deployment and post-deployment briefing and, when practicable, availability of counselling in theatre.
The strategic defence review recommended that psychiatric services be enhanced and a review of the defence community psychiatry service has been completed. That resulted in proposals to enhance existing defence community psychiatric centres and the formation of two new centres: one in Scotland and one in England. Additionally, the armed forces are exploring ways of detecting PTSD at an early stage and of managing the condition according to the best clinical practice. That involves training service line managers so that they are better able to detect symptoms of stress-related conditions in their units and to act positively with individuals to resolve problems before seeking outside professional assistance from the defence community psychiatry service. A pilot programme was set up by the Royal Marines and has provided positive results.
Turning to litigation, the Ministry has received about 1,500 claims for post-traumatic stress disorder from former members of the armed forces, mainly relating to service during the Falkland and Gulf conflicts, and in Bosnia and Northern Ireland. Many of the claims contain similar allegations, so the Lord Chief Justice set up a group action in 2000. The allegations, in general terms, are that the Ministry was negligent in that it failed properly to recognise, diagnose and treat those said to be suffering from PTSD. The action consists of two groups. In group one the Ministry's alleged failure occurred before 15 May 1987 and in group two the earliest alleged failure took place after 15 May 1987. The reason for the two groups, as I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, is that prior to 15 May 1987 service personnel
182WH
were prevented from pursuing claims against the Ministry of Defence under section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. That section was repealed on 15 May 1987 and it was logical to separate the claims into those arising from incidents occurring before and those occurring after the repeal. Mr. Donnan's case forms part of the second group.
Compensation claims received by the Ministry of Defence are considered on the basis of whether the Ministry has a legal liability to pay compensation. Where there is a proven legal liability, compensation is paid. The amount of compensation is determined by common law principles which, broadly speaking, take account, as appropriate, of the individual's pain and suffering, the degree of injury, past and future financial losses, the level of care required and so on. The level of compensation can vary according to the individual's circumstances.
That Mr. Donnan suffers from PTSD is not questioned. I acknowledge that he receives a 100 per cent. war disablement pension and a service pension under the armed forces pension scheme. The nature of Mr. Donnan's disability is, therefore, not the issue to be determined by the court. It is important to emphasise that this litigation is not about the validity of PTSD as a psychiatric disorder—the Ministry accepts its validity—or about soldiers unjustifiably suing in respect of the natural and probable risks incidental to their calling. The claimants' case is that PTSD can be detected and prevented, and that proper systems would or should have achieved those objectives in the vast majority of cases.
The parties have agreed that the judge be invited to adjudicate on a range of generic issues that form the basis of the allegations. Those issues include: screening to exclude those vulnerable to PTSD from combat in the first place; briefing to prepare soldiers psychologically for combat; detection to enable the early identification by properly educated commanders and medical officers of those who are either at high risk of a PTSD or who suffer from one; debriefing to allow for the deployment of psychological intervention post trauma to ventilate or defuse its adverse effects, to educate the individual about those effects and enable him to seek help if necessary and to enable the employer to detect early or incipient morbidity; cumulative exposure, or the deployment of troops beyond their expected breaking point; our duty at discharge and the failure to carry out a thorough medical examination at discharge from the armed forces, and, therefore, to detect and treat psychiatric morbidity at that stage; the failure to deploy effective treatment modalities; Crown immunity and the question of whether section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, which is relevant to breaches of duty that arose before May 1987, is appropriate in the light of the human rights that are now enshrined in British law; and causation, or the extent—if any—to which alleged breaches of duty caused or materially contributed to the claimants' psychiatric condition. The claimants' case highlights alleged failures in the Army, although their solicitors recently confirmed that the Royal Navy and the RAF were equally targets of criticism.
The Ministry acknowledges that some members of the armed forces may be subjected to traumatic experiences during their careers and may suffer stress as a result, but

183WH
that does not necessarily mean that it has been negligent. However, it has a duty to ensure that service personnel receive proper treatment. If we fail in that respect, and the individual suffers loss or damage as a result, he or she may be entitled to compensation.
If I may, I shall leave PTSD to one side, and turn to matters that arise from Mr Donnan's service in the Gulf. The Government accept that some Gulf veterans have become ill and that many believe that their ill health is unusual and is related to their Gulf experience. There is now scientific evidence that Gulf veterans report more illnesses than other comparable groups, but there is no medical or scientific consensus about the causes of those illnesses. We remain open minded about the causes, and important research is under way.
Mr. Donohoe: What are the time scales for that exercise? When will we have the final reports?
Dr. Moonie: It might be helpful if I point out to my hon. Friend, since the matter is one of my responsibilities, that some 12 research studies are still proceeding. Most of them will report during the coming year. Some of them are very detailed, others much more general. The various problems should be resolved within the next 12 months or so. However, we are afraid that we will again find that there is nothing specific involved after having expended a great deal of time, effort and money—resources have not been stinted in our attempts to identify the cause of the conditions that are complained of. We may be left with an inconclusive result and have to recognise that we will never get to the bottom of the matter. However, I assure my hon. Friend that any suggested causes will be actively followed up and that we will do our very best to find the cause, if there is one to be found.
As my hon. Friend is aware, we encourage all Gulf veterans who are concerned about their health to attend the Gulf veterans' medical assessment programme. That programme was set up in 1993 to provide as full a diagnosis as possible to veterans who were concerned about their health. Following consultation with the medical assessment programme, the examining physician writes to the doctor who referred the patient to provide diagnostic information and recommend any appropriate treatment. It is then that doctor's responsibility to take forward and monitor the treatment as he or she would for any other patient. Veterans who have left the armed forces will normally have a GP as their doctor and any recommended treatment will therefore be carried out within the NHS. Veterans can be referred to the medical assessment programme more than once.
Last year we re-issued our Gulf veterans' illnesses information pack. Copies of the pack have been sent to all GPs in the United Kingdom, service medical officers, prison medical centres and other interested parties. I understand that two appointments were made for Mr. Donnan at the medical assessment programme on 18 October 1999 and 16 November 1999, but that for reasons that are unknown to me he declined to attend both of them, or was unable to do so. He was referred by his GP because he was suffering from depression. The medical assessment programme provided advice in
184WH
writing to the GP and offered to help in any way they could. I would take this opportunity to urge Mr. Donnan to make use of this facility, because it might still be of some benefit to him. The people have a great deal of experience in handling those who have had similar experiences to him.
Gulf veterans' illness issues remain a high priority for the Government, as evidenced by the Gulf veterans' medical assessment programme, the continuing support for research and the publication of new information whenever it becomes available. The Government have demonstrated their commitment to addressing Gulf veterans' concerns openly, honestly, and seriously and I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to do so.
The Ministry's Gulf veterans' illnesses unit is drawing together a document for publication later this year which will identify the key health lessons arising from the aftermath of Operation Granby and the subsequent investigation of Gulf health issues. It will set out developments that have contributed to improved performance since 1991. Planned publication of this paper further underlines our commitment to address the concerns of veterans' groups who have expressed the worry that the shortcomings in the Gulf may be repeated in future. We are determined that that will not happen and that the lessons must be applied to future deployments.
As my hon. Friend knows, early in 2001 I was appointed Minister with responsibility for veterans' affairs. I have spent most of the intervening months improving my contacts with all the veterans' organisations in the UK, so far as I am able, and setting up a proper structure for the handling of veterans' matters. As a physician, qualified in psychiatry and public health, I can assure him that medical matters such as Mr. Donnan's case are high on my list of priorities. I shall be taking a personal interest in the development of the community psychiatry programme and in the development of means to identify some of the factors that I have outlined; that may prove part of the case that the judge will review in the action later in the year.
Mr. Donohoe: The Ministry of Defence could use other approaches to the matter, besides going to court. It seems to want to hide from its obligations. While the Minister's remarks have been encouraging in a general way, they will do nothing to help Barry Donnan. On past experience of dealing with the Ministry of Defence, most cases are settled before they reach court. I wonder whether the Ministry would want to move from a reactive approach—of driving matters towards the courts—to a proactive approach of solving problems.
Dr. Moonie: I have to say three things in reply to my hon. Friend. First, Mr. Donnan has chosen to have his case included in the group action. I am therefore constrained in what I can say, because of the legal proceedings. Secondly, treatments are available for Mr. Donnan's condition. The Gulf veterans' medical assessment programme might be able to direct him towards further help. It is not true that we are doing nothing for Mr. Donnan. As I have suggested, we have provided a reasonable pension. I am conscious of the adjectives used to describe pensions, but the general procedures have been followed.

185WH
We operate a generous scheme in the armed forces of both attributable and non-attributable benefits, through the War Pensions Agency, which is now, of course, part of my rapidly increasing area of responsibility. Mr. Donnan can rest assured that his pension is not subject to the reports on him supplied by the facility that has been treating him. Rather, the procedure was used by the association to justify his continued treatment and costs at the facility. Obviously it is necessary to show whether he would derive further benefit from treatment.
I cannot comment in detail on the case, but, to summarise, I have great sympathy for Mr. Donnan's predicament. I do not like our soldiers to suffer as he has done. Unfortunately, when the Ministry is accused of negligence and I consider that unjustified, it is necessary to take a robust stance. In the present instance, that is my general view, which is why the actions are proceeding. Generally, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am conscious that people can be mentally as well as physically damaged by their service to the Crown, and I shall ensure that the services that we provide to them in turn are as good as they can be to deal with any future problems that they experience.

Cirencester Hospital
1 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to have been able to secure this debate, and am pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), here to answer the debate. I have always regarded her as one of the more able Ministers in her Department and it is a pleasure to be here with her. She may know that I shall see her colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), for a private meeting about this matter next week. I hope that the debate will be a useful preliminary discussion of some of the issues and that we shall perhaps be able to go into more detail next week.
I am sure that the Minister is well aware of the context, but it might help if I set that out. Cirencester is the largest town in my highly rural constituency, but the hospital is not typical. It is not as small as a typical rural community hospital nor as large as a normal district general hospital; it is in between. There are not many models for a hospital of that size in this country. That is why we begin to encounter the problems that we have. It is a delightful hospital, very well run by a matron who knows the name and medical condition of every single patient. It is spotlessly clean and people are treated with the highest possible care.
Nothing that I say implies any criticism whatsoever of the staff or administrators at the hospital, which provides 22 medical beds on Stratton ward, 50 assessment and rehabilitation beds on Colm and Windrush wards, 18 surgical beds on Beeches ward, 19 beds for mental health patients on Bourton ward, six endoscopy beds, a comprehensive range of out-patient services, 24-hour accident and emergency cover, an assessment and rehabilitation unit, a radiology unit and a phlebotomy department.
Our problem is that the range of accident and emergency services could be curtailed by the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of General Practitioners, which have recommended that the senior house officer posts at Cirencester hospital be withdrawn in the next few months because they do not offer adequate training. Although that recommendation has not been received formally, it is expected imminently. The problem, as I shall demonstrate, is with the ability to maintain full 24-hour accident and emergency cover when the senior house officers are withdrawn, because no surgery can take place unless there is proper medical cover.
While activity at the hospital has fallen by just under 1,000 cases—from 5,204 to 4,312—in the last three years, in the similar hospital at nearby Stroud it has increased by 25 per cent. Indeed activity at the maternity unit in Stroud has increased by 30 per cent. as the result of very diligent activity by the authorities in that area. When Cheltenham district general hospital and the Gloucester infirmary district general hospital are at breaking point, it makes eminent good sense—in fact it is a win-win situation—to increase activity at Cirencester and reduce the stress, strain and overstretch at those two district general hospitals.

187WH
Cirencester has a catchment area of some 25,000 to 30,000 people. The task is to persuade all the GPs when referring people to a consultant with the possibility of medical procedures to follow, and everybody who lives in that area when being referred, to consider Cirencester seriously. The theatre in Cirencester hospital is capable of some 2,000 operations, yet it is achieving only 1,000, or 50 per cent. of capacity. The answer is not to curtail and close facilities at Cirencester hospital; it is to use them better. The same applies to the cottage hospitals in my constituency—there are excellent, small cottage hospitals at Fairford, Bourton-on-the-Water and Moreton-in-Marsh. They should not be closed, but used better.
The funding formula does not fully reflect the circumstances of a highly rural area. As my neighbour, the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) knows, it costs more per head on the capitation formula to provide services in a rural area precisely because of the distances and the sizes of units involved. I ask the Minister seriously to consider that factor. I also ask her to look at whether the capitation formula adequately reflects the costs of treating elderly patients. My constituency has the third highest number of over-85-year-olds of any in the country. Cirencester has to deliver services that are particularly geared towards elderly people. It is a truism—the Minister will correct me if it is not—that half the cost of providing health care for any individual is incurred in the first year and the last year of his life. Clearly, a hospital like Cirencester can provide a very valuable service in that respect.
The reason for this debate is the threat of curtailment of the accident and emergency department at Cirencester. The local press has run a very high-profile campaign on the matter. Before Christmas, 3,000 people came to a demonstration in Cirencester town centre. Only a few times in its ancient history—Cirencester was the second largest town outside London in Roman Britain—has the town centre been closed to through traffic, but it was on that occasion. That suggests the severe concern of local people on the subject.
Whatever the future holds for Cirencester hospital—I hope that the Minister will assure me that it is rosy and that services are moving forward and increasing rather than decreasing—the annual worrying of my constituents must stop. Every time changes occur, the local press finds out, huge campaigns are whipped up, and elderly people in particular become worried. With the advent of the running of the primary care trust on a more local basis from 1 April, I hope that we can have a proper public relations explanation of what goes on in the local hospital in language that those people can understand, so that they are reassured.
I would like to refer to the sad case of the treatment of a Mrs. Clark at Cheltenham general hospital. On the whole, the east Gloucestershire NHS health trust, which will soon be merged with the Gloucestershire royal NHS trust, has run a superb ship. Cheltenham general hospital gives good treatment to my constituents in the main, but Mrs. Clark's letter to me of 19 July suggests what can go wrong. She says that she is an elderly patient, and was to have fairly invasive surgery. She was asked to walk to the theatre, to which she objected strongly. I agree. No elderly patient should be asked to
188WH
walk to the theatre. She details inadvertent circumstances that I shall not describe, but states that her purse was not available to her for five days. She was not fed properly for six days, and was not looked after adequately in her bed, stating:
"I had on several occasions requested that I be helped to sit up in bed as my legs have been paralyzed and each time I was told to do it myself as they were busy".
The letter points out what happens in our larger district general hospitals. People do not have time to treat patients with the necessary care and attention. I make no special criticism of Cheltenham general hospital, as all our district general hospitals are under the same stress. However, the case for Cirencester hospital is strengthened by the argument. If we can reduce the number of patients who go to Cheltenham through increased use of Cirencester, it is a win-win situation.
I return to the subject of the loss of junior doctors at Cirencester. As I said, there are two options as to how the cover can be maintained. A rota of general practitioners could provide resident on-site medical cover, or resident on-site medical cover for up to four nights of the week could be provided by staff grades or other medical grades, with non-resident GP on-call cover.
The first option is preferable, as it would enable the range of services currently provided at Cirencester to continue unchanged, with the exception of a small number of emergency cases. It would provide a more experienced level of cover, compared to that which would be provided by the relatively inexperienced senior house officers. I shall come back to the subject of experience. The second option would require a reduction in elective surgical activity, as it would not be possible to have in-patient cases when there was no resident medical cover, as is self-evident. A cessation of emergency admissions would also be required, as in the first option. In addition, it would be necessary to review the clinical protocols governing accident and emergency admissions, and it is likely that a few conditions would be excluded from admission during the night and at weekends. However, attendances during those hours are few. We all understand that accident and emergency services must be governed by protocols. Of course, the more serious and life-threatening cases will go to the district general hospitals, even during the day but especially at night, because those hospitals have intensive care beds and full consultant cover, but my constituents want 24-hour accident and emergency cover to be maintained at Cirencester.
The matter was due to be concluded last night, but unfortunately was not. This is what happened. The project director of the Cotswold and Vale primary care trust, Richard James, said:
"We remain extremely optimistic following yesterday evening's meeting but it is clear that a number of detailed tasks need to be completed in order for this agreed approach to be implemented successfully. Everyone left the meeting feeling positive that we could conclude the detailed work successfully and that the necessary medical cover could be put in place."
That has been the situation for two months. We still have no agreement and we know that cover is likely to be withdrawn on 1 May, if not sooner. Furthermore, I was told this morning that it takes at least a year to train doctors for the residential qualification necessary to

189WH
provide hospital cover. If it takes a year to train doctors and there is no agreement in place about whether they will provide that cover, it is difficult to see how the gap will be filled. I seek an assurance from the Minister this morning that she will do her best to ensure that SHOs are retained at Cirencester hospital until properly qualified doctors are available to continue that cover so that there is no break in the service, because I fear that if there is a break in the service, it will never be restored.
This is a question of allocations, and I have already alluded to the fact that the Cotswold and Vale primary care trust is perceived to have spent more than it should have done. However, the reason why it has spent more than it should have done is because it is in a rural area and has a higher percentage of elderly patients. That means that the number of patients per GP is higher than the national average. Another relevant factor is that, in the health service, the requirements of elderly people are often overlooked. When elderly people go to see their doctor or consultant or go into hospital for a medical procedure, they are often confused and not as articulate as younger people. They are not as quick at explaining their problems or understanding what their GP or consultant tells them. We sometimes do not give elderly people the respect that they deserve in the health service.
The people of Cirencester love their hospital. They want all services there, especially the accident and emergency cover, to be maintained. They are looking to the Minister for reassurance today, especially about the need for trained doctors to take over from SHOs. I hope that that reassurance will be forthcoming and I look forward to continuing this discussion with the Minister's colleague at next week's meeting.
1.13 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) on securing a debate on the future of Cirencester hospital, which is held in high regard by his constituents. I welcome the tribute that he paid to the staff at Cirencester hospital. I wish to respond as far as I can to the points that he raised, but I shall also ensure that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), is aware of the issues raised in the debate so that she can follow them up in more detail.
As the hon. Gentleman will know, responsibility for deciding what services are provided at the hospital and how they are delivered rests with the local NHS bodies in Gloucestershire, in particular with the East Gloucestershire NHS trust and the Cotswold and Vale primary care trust. The key decisions about Cirencester hospital must be taken locally and where appropriate with proper public consultation. Ministers become involved only when a matter is referred to them by the local community health council—or, in future, by the scrutiny committees of local authorities. Nevertheless, I am aware of the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I shall respond, as far as I can, about the local position; and I will place it in the context of the national approach to the provision of acute care.
The provision of acute services, in hospitals large and small, is one of the central pillars of the NHS. We must clearly ensure that those services are the very best
190WH
possible, and that they provide modern patterns of care fit for the 21st century. When we talk of modernising medical care, it is easy to think of sophisticated, high-tech treatments being provided in large, specialist hospitals. It is certainly true that many complex services and high-risk conditions require a critical mass that can be found only in larger centres. However, that is only part of the story.
In determining care for the new century, it is critical that we place at the centre of our thinking the views of the people and patients that the NHS is here to serve—including the hon. Gentleman's constituents. The public place a high value on locally available acute care, which means providing treatment as close as practicable to where they live, given the constraints of quality and safety. They want hospitals to serve local communities and to be focused on their needs.
We need to strike an appropriate balance between the convenience of having local services and the requirement to concentrate expertise for reasons of safety and quality. We should not fool ourselves into thinking that the best that the NHS can offer can always be provided on our doorstep. However, many needs can and should be met locally—close to home—by delivering care through networks of skilled providers working together and not in isolation. It is a strategy that is based on local solutions in a national framework. It is a strategy that recognises that small units such as Cirencester hospital have a vital role—not only today but in future—in delivering high-quality care.
I turn to the specific issues that the hon. Gentleman raises. Current public concerns about the hospital focus on the probable removal, later this year, of the junior doctors who provide overnight and weekend medical cover. I know that that is perceived to be a threat to the services at the hospital, particularly to the accident and emergency department. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I have been assured today that the East Gloucestershire NHS trust and the Cotswold and Vale primary care group are fully committed to maintaining the current level of services at the hospital.
I understand that a meeting yesterday between the trusts and local general practitioners may have gone a long way towards meeting local concerns, enabling Cirencester hospital broadly to maintain its current level of services despite changes to the way in which junior doctors work within the trust. I am concerned by the points made by the hon. Gentleman, because they do not entirely fit with the briefing that I received of that meeting. The matter may need to be discussed in further detail with my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, but I will say more about that shortly.
I am advised that the current pressure for change at Cirencester has arisen as a result of medical staffing and clinical governance obligations. At issue are questions about the increasing specialisation of clinical staff, rising standards, minimising clinical risks—and, perhaps most important, changes to the training regimes and hours of work of junior medical staff. Four senior house officers are based at Cirencester; they provide the resident medical staff overnight and at weekends, supported by on-call GPs.
The Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of General Practitioners have recommended to the Specialist Training Authority, which recognises the

191WH
senior house officer posts at Cirencester hospital, that the experience offered at Cirencester is not adequate for training purposes. The Specialist Training Authority has not yet made a decision on whether to continue to recognise the posts for training purposes, but it is expected to be received later this month. However, I understand that the post graduate dean for the south and west region is concerned that middle and senior medical cover and support for those junior trainee doctors is not adequate, and that the associated clinical governance risks do not need to be taken.
The outcome, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, is likely to be the withdrawal of senior house officers from Cirencester and their relocation to Cheltenham in February 2002. That will enable their basic training and support from senior doctors to be enhanced, so that they can gain a wider range of clinical experience. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that it is important that junior doctors should be properly trained, have the necessary experience and be able to provide the high-quality care that is expected by not only his constituents but patients across the country. Under those circumstances, the key issue is to secure alternative medical staffing arrangements overnight and during the weekend period for Cirencester hospital. Daytime cover is adequately provided through a combination of consultant presence, GP clinical assistance and staff grades.
East Gloucestershire NHS trust and the Cotswold and Vale primary care group are in discussions with medical staff to ensure that alternative arrangements are in place to provide medical cover. As the hon. Gentleman says, the preferred option is for the rota of GPs to provide resident on-site medical cover. That option would provide a more experienced level of cover compared to the relatively inexperienced senior house officers. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the reports that I received from the meeting that took place yesterday said that broad agreement on the proposed new arrangements was reached with local GPs by the trust and primary care trust. Although some contractual details remain to be worked through, it is anticipated that the new arrangements will start on 1 May. To ensure continuity prior to the establishment of the new arrangements, the trust has advertised for four locums to provide cover from February. However, in the light of his comments, I shall discuss the matter again with the regional office and the local people who advised us to ensure that the situation is as I understand it. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford will be able to discuss it in more detail with him and provide him with the reassurances that he seeks.
The proposed new arrangements will mean that services at the hospital remain substantially unchanged, with a doctor-led accident and emergency department open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and the continuation of the in-patient medical and surgical services. As a result, patients attending accident and emergency are likely to see more experienced doctors than they do at present. I am told that there will be a small reduction in emergency admissions as a result of changes to clinical protocols on admittance, but that the reduction would have occurred because of the demands of clinical governance even were junior doctors to remain at the hospital.
192WH
The trust is working to maximise nurse-led services and to use telemedicine links effectively to maximise the scope of services. All beds will continue to be provided, and beds released by the changes will be used to provide increased elderly care rehabilitation and intermediate care services. The post-graduate dean for the south and west region is currently considering the creation of GP registrar posts in intermediate care. If that is agreed and posts are allocated locally, it would provide an additional level of medical cover to the hospital.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: There is one other aspect of medical cover that I did not mention, but would be grateful if the Minister could address. Some consultants are resistant to maintaining lists in Cirencester hospital, because it is more convenient for them administratively to have people travelling to the district general hospital in Cheltenham. That is unacceptable to my constituents. If there are the required number of people in need of treatment in Cirencester, the consultant should be prepared to travel. It should not be the case that the list at Cirencester hospital is cancelled at the first opportunity.
Yvette Cooper: I shall ensure that that issue is examined by the time the hon. Gentleman meets my hon. Friend. When it is clinically safe and high-quality care can be provided, we want to provide as much care as possible in local areas for the convenience of patients.
The presence of doctors in training is not essential for the provision of strong and vibrant local hospital services. I believe that the local NHS community is committed to ensuring that Cirencester hospital continues to provide a wide range of acute services for the people of the Cotswolds. The Government's view is that smaller units such as Cirencester have a vital role to play as part of the national health service.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the increasing focus on local decision making through the primary care trusts. He is right that the shift of power and resources towards the primary care trusts means that decisions about local hospitals can increasingly be taken with the interests of the local population in mind. We must also move away from the idea of hospitals as stand-alone institutions, each providing a specialist set of services. Instead we should ensure that the comprehensive range of services is provided across a diverse mix of institutions, be that primary care, care in the community, or care in a local hospital such as Cirencester and in the larger district general hospitals. Cancer networks have been developed to improve linkages across hospitals and between acute and primary care. That needs to take place in many other areas. It provides many opportunities for small hospitals across the country, many of which are working hard to develop their role and to embrace new ways of working. The challenge is to deliver the right care, in the right place at the right time. That means making maximum use of those local resources, but also of the primary care centres, to deliver and co-ordinate a local population's care.
As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the care of older people requires close working between hospitals, primary care and social care. He also expressed concern about the funding formula. As he will be aware, the funding formula is under review and the NHS plan

193WH
committed us to introduce a new and fairer funding formula for the NHS and to get resources to areas of greatest need. He will also be aware that we have representations from every part of the country, all raising their local concerns and pressures. In my own area, the concern is that there are fewer elderly people than in other parts of the country because life expectancy is considerably lower. Ensuring that those factors are included as part of the funding formula is clearly a complex matter, which is why such a major review is taking place.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me to confirm whether the most expensive care was provided in the last year of someone's life. That is true. The beginning and end of life are the most expensive times in terms of health care provision, and when the NHS understandably invests most in providing support. He also asked about the case of a constituent in Cheltenham hospital. He should refer his constituent to the NHS complaints procedure, as there may well be issues that should be taken up properly by Cheltenham hospital.
The Government are committed to having a mix of levels of care provision, not simply in the Cirencester area, but across the country. That care will be provided at the specialist level but also at the local level. We clearly do not simply want giant hospitals as isolated centres of excellence. We are entering a new era of health care provision where new technologies offer clinicians the opportunity to work together, to share expertise and to give clinical opinions to their peers, not necessarily through face to face contact but perhaps via phone, video conference or telemedicine links. The increasing use of modern technology to improve communications between consultants and medical professionals should provide even greater opportunities for smaller hospitals and local centres of care to provide all kinds of care that they could not provide in the past.
In conclusion, there are huge opportunities for the people of Cirencester and the local NHS to look at new and different ways of providing care. Clearly they have already been doing so by considering ways in which they can respond to the challenges posed by changes in junior doctors' hours and their training needs. I hope that we will be able to resolve the issue of last night's meeting and ensure that a satisfactory decision is taken rapidly to reassure the hon. Gentleman's constituents about the kind of care that will continue at Cirencester, and to ensure a viable and healthy future for that hospital.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I thank the Minister for her sympathetic and comprehensive reply. The debate has been useful and I look forward to continuing the discussion with her colleague next week.

Methane Drilling (North Staffordshire)
1.30 pm
Paul Farrelly: Thank you, Mr. Amess, for presiding over the debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for attending on this first day of the parliamentary Session in the new year. I am deeply sad, as are we all, that the day is overshadowed by the tragic news received by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. My constituents and I offer him and Sarah our sincere condolences at this painful time.
I have requested the debate because of massive opposition in north Staffordshire and Shropshire to plans by StrataGas plc to crack into virgin coal seams in precious greenbelt and special landscape areas in order to drill for coal-bed methane. StrataGas's planning application for four test wells, to be followed by up to 1,000 production wells—barbed wire, rig and concrete blots on our landscape—has been opposed by Labour-controlled Newcastle-under-Lyme and Staffordshire councils. Local parishes are against the plans and more than 1,000 letters of protest have been written. The planning issues involved will be heard at an appeal at the end of this month.
The Department of Trade and Industry, as the arbiter of national energy policy, is one of many interested parties. Coal-bed methane plans are, of course, nothing new. Licences envisaging CBM exploitation have been issued by the DTI since the start of the 1990s. One of my hon. Friend's predecessors, Tim Eggar, the Conservative Energy Minister, was effusive about CBM as long ago as 1992. StrataGas's plans could create a huge conflict between pressing local environmental and national policy issues, which needs to be resolved during this debate.
I would appreciate the Minister's advice on several issues relevant to StrataGas's controversial scheme. What is the DTI's current stance on CBM schemes in general and how does that fit into the current energy review? To what extent, in what time scale and under what conditions is CBM seen by the DTI as "needed"? What stance will the DTI take on StrataGas' plans in Staffordshire and Shropshire, and on what grounds? Will it take into account local environmental issues and public opinion in deciding whether to support the scheme, and will its decision be influenced by this debate? Given the many reservations local people have about the suitability of StrataGas, how does the Department vet licensees on an on-going basis?
Before I address those points, perhaps I could just briefly set the scene. Newcastle-under-Lyme has always been a coal-mining town, until recently when all our pits shut down. It is, however, surrounded by wonderful, unspoilt rolling Staffordshire and Shropshire countryside to the south and west and by the Staffordshire moorlands to the north. If the Minister were to visit, I am sure that he would appreciate that for himself, as did a planning inspector last year who ruled against a gas extraction scheme near Biddulph in the Staffordshire moorlands. I hope that the DTI will consider his findings carefully for their relevance to the StrataGas plans. The Minister would also find much to admire about the great efforts that Newcastle and Staffordshire councils have made to regenerate vast areas of brownfield pit and opencast sites to attract thousands of new jobs.

195WH
StrataGas is a spin-off from Midlands Mining, the company that brutally shut down our last colliery, at Silverdale, in 1998. It also made a hash of its other pit, Annersley Bentinck in Derbyshire. More than 800 jobs were lost owing to the failings of directors and shareholders of StrataGas.
It is deeply offensive that people who failed to invest in mining coal underground now seek to get rich quick by cracking into coal seams above the ground, while creating very few jobs. It is equally offensive that, given all the possible drill sites, they are seeking to do so by spoiling precious greenbelt. The Minister may be interested to know that at a public meeting over a year ago, StrataGas managing director, Mr. Andrew Purcell, told local people, in his trademark listening style:
"The Government has given us the right to drill whether you like it or not."
I am sure that the Minister will find it as galling as local people that StrataGas was implying DTI support, long before all the issues even started to be aired.
I should like to digress, but with a purpose. Mr. Purcell also told me:
"We made no money out of Silverdale."
I have been through the accounts. The company made pre-tax profits of £5.9 million from 1996–98—the period of its ownership. It also took out £4 million—more than was needed to invest in opening up new seams—in dividends by stripping the assets of the mine. What we hear from the company's management is not what we get. The mines and StrataGas investors learned that, and it is what local people fear if that small, financially weak company is given the go-ahead with its CBM plans.
In its prospectus, StrataGas admits that there are significant environmental considerations, such as adverse visual impact, water and methane discharge and land restoration. Locally, we have identified many more, including traffic, children's safety at the nearby Edenhurst school, effects on local wildlife, housing blight and general harm to local business and tourism in a quasi-rural area. Therefore, much of the planning inquiry will focus on whether there is a national or local need for the CBM scheme. We would like to hear the Minister's views on that, and the current position on national policy guidance.
I must admit that we are fumbling in the dark. We have not yet seen the performance and innovation unit's energy project report. However, we are aware that the report says that new energy capacity could best be delivered through energy efficiency, combined heat and power systems and renewable energy. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed that that is the current thinking.
It is important to distinguish between coal-bed methane and coal-mine methane. The latter is tapped off to prevent its escape from mineshafts—rightly so, as it is a greenhouse gas—but coal-bed methane is present naturally in stasis in virgin, uncracked coal seams. The geologists' report and the StrataGas prospectus make it clear that the seams in the north Staffordshire coalfield lie beneath clay—the Etruria formation—which is an effective seal and stops CBM escaping. Therefore, there
196WH
is no environmental argument for StrataGas tapping CBM in our area in order to stop it escaping as a greenhouse gas.
As for local gas needs, StrataGas, as the former owner of Silverdale, already has a coal-mine methane operation at the mine; indeed, it is its only source of revenue. The gas is supplied to local business. Over the past year, StrataGas performance—surprise, surprise—has not been up to its directors' publicly expressed expectations. Results have suffered because take-up of the company's gas supplies has fallen. That is hardly surprising in a country awash with gas in which there is fierce gas competition. In short, we feel that there is no national need for the CBM scheme, which would override local environmental, planning and public concerns. Furthermore, as the company's performance shows, there is no overriding local need for the gas.
I would also be grateful to the Minister for information about the conditions that attach to the granting of exploration licences and how the DTI monitors adherence to them. The DTI granted licences to Midlands Mining, the parent company of StrataGas, in 1998. They have since been passed on to StrataGas. The company itself made it clear that the conditions laid down by the DTI for the transfer of the licences included raising a minimum of £4 million on its flotation and admission to the City's OFEX market, which happened in December 2000. StrataGas in fact raised £4.9 million but fell well short of its target of £5.6 million. It has since been consistently over-optimistic to its investors about the timetable for the CBM project, which is now a year behind because of huge local opposition.
The company has not revealed its current cash position but, from the most recent accounts and likely cash burn, we estimate that it is likely to be down to its last £2 million. That is about half the amount it originally said was needed to develop all the test wells. Therefore, the Minister will appreciate local fears that the company is too weak financially, not only to carry through its pilot scheme but to satisfy us that it could withstand any accidents caused by the new, largely untried technology and restore sites properly. Given the company's performance to date and lack of assets, there are concerns about its ability to raise further money in order to do so. Therefore, we would be grateful if the Minister would investigate whether StrataGas is still complying with its licence conditions, including any timetables set for initial well drilling.
A year ago, I raised concerns about disclosure in the StrataGas prospectus with the Financial Services Authority, which subsequently contacted StrataGas advisers, Matrix Securities. Yesterday, I wrote again to the FSA asking it to investigate statements made since by the company's chairman, Mr. Francis Gugen, about its performance, which appear to be at odds with its prospectus.
What you see and hear from StrataGas is not what you get. The public in Staffordshire and Shropshire are concerned because there is no overriding need for the CBM scheme and StrataGas is a wholly unsuitable company to pursue it.
1.39 pm
Mr. William Cash: I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), who is my constituency neighbour, on securing the

197WH
debate. I support him in his opposition to the coal-bed methane proposals. As Member of Parliament for Stone, I have been actively involved in the issue for an extended period, and I am deeply opposed to the proposals. They raise the most serious problems for the environment in my constituency, especially in and around Whitmore, and, as the hon. Gentleman said, they are vitiated by the grave uncertainties of the status of StrataGas.
I should like the Minister to explain how the Secretary of State for the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, having granted the licences in his former capacity as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, can now call in the application? How can he reconcile his quasi-judicial functions in his present capacity in respect of granting the licences with his previous granting of those licences? It creates a very difficult situation, which is made worse by the fact that the former Minister of State for Energy, the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), has already stated on the Floor of the House that the Government regard coal methane projects as in the national interest. Those inconsistencies raise serious doubts about the efficacy of the process, even before the inquiry has begun.
The pilot proposals for four wells are clearly intended to extend to 200 and would cause the gravest damage to the communities and the environment in my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme.
Ms Joan Walley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is widespread fear throughout north Staffordshire about the implications of the incremental planning applications?
Mr. Cash: I most certainly endorse what the hon. Lady says. The matter is also of concern to my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), because the proposal extends to Woore, which is in his constituency. It affects a wide swathe of our constituencies and it is important that the Minister accepts that our constituents are gravely concerned about the issue and will fight hard to prevent implementation.
1.42 pm
The Minister for Industry and Energy (Mr. Brian Wilson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) on securing the debate and on the manner in which he presented his case. Judging from what he said and from the interventions of hon. Members representing constituencies in the same part of the country, I acknowledge that the issue gives rise to strong local feelings and is therefore a suitable subject for debate.
The debate provides an opportunity to discuss some of the issues involved as they relate to energy policy, the possible role of coal-bed methane energy generation and local issues. My hon. Friend is active and successful in seeking the regeneration of industrial sites in the Staffordshire area with a view to ensuring an inflow of investment. His anxieties about the proposal for investment and coal-bed methane drilling in and around his constituency stem from genuine feelings on the matter and reflect the views of many of his constituents.
198WH
As my hon. Friend said, a planning appeal is under way. I am sure that he and others present recognise that that significantly constrains what I can say about some aspects of the application. I can, however, describe the regulatory framework that underpins the United Kingdom's petroleum licensing system and the activities that take place under it, and it would be helpful to do so. I hope to show that a robust regulatory framework controls those activities and to set my hon. Friend's mind at rest on some of the points he made.
Companies that want to search and bore for and get petroleum in Great Britain or on the United Kingdom continental shelf need under the Petroleum Act 1998 to hold an appropriate licence, which is issued by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. For the purposes of the Act, petroleum includes coal-bed methane and mines vent gas.
The principal licence under which companies may explore for and exploit those coal-mine gases in Great Britain is the petroleum exploration and development licence, which grants the holder exclusive rights over an area specified in the licence. The Secretary of State invites applications for such licences in regular licensing rounds. To allay the concerns that have been expressed, I stress that those licences confer no right of access to land, save with the landowner's permission, and do not remove the need to comply with the requirements of the local planning authority, the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency.
Applications for petroleum exploration and development licences are made by companies, on their own or in partnership, and are assessed against two key criteria: the financial and technical capabilities of the applicants in relation to any proposed work under the licence, and the way in which any exploration or development of petroleum is to be carried forward. Unless companies can pass the financial and technical thresholds, they will not be considered eligible for a licence award. StrataGas, the company that holds the licence for the area that my hon. Friend mentioned, holds a number of those licences, having been thoroughly assessed against the criteria. Currently, we have no grounds on which to revisit the criteria, but I assure my hon. Friend that we shall consider carefully what he said.
The award of a licence is the beginning of the process. Once a licence is granted, any activities carried out under it are subject to a range of measures to safeguard particular interests. Before any exploration or development drilling can take place, the Secretary of State must grant consent. Our objective in considering applications for consent is to ensure that all economic petroleum in Great Britain and on the UK continental shelf is produced in an efficient, responsible and timely manner.
The team of geologists and engineers in the oil and gas directorate of the Department of Trade and Industry will seek to ensure that the proposed project is sufficient to maximise the recovery of the target gas, but is not gold-plated as regards the number of wells drilled or processing plant provided. I am now speaking generally about applications rather than in any way prejudging the one under discussion.
In addition, the licence holder must obtain the relevant consent from the appropriate planning authority. The authority will consider the proposed

199WH
project's impact on a variety of issues, including the environment, on which it takes advice from the Environment Agency and the relevant statutory nature conservation bodies. If approved, the activity will be subject to normal environmental controls.
Mr. Cash: The Minister has said that when a licence is granted, account will have been taken of environmental questions, following discussions with the Environment Agency. I return to a point that I made in my short speech. Given that the functions of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions—the former Trade and Industry Secretary—are indivisible constitutionally, how will it be possible to achieve fairness and justice on such questions? The licensing arrangements made by him in his former post must be dealt with in the making of decisions regarding the environment—by the Secretary of State at the DTLR.
Mr. Wilson: I did not say that licensing was subject to environmental consultation; I said that licensing was then subject to normal planning procedures, and that the planning authority was obliged to consult the Environment Agency and other relevant environmental bodies.
To return to the hon. Gentleman's point about the former Secretary of State at the DTI now being Secretary of State at the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the office is charged with such responsibilities, not the individual. It is pretty naive to suggest that individuals move around making decisions in their own name and that those decisions are thereby invalidated, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would want to advance that as a substantial part of his case.
The final stage that a licence holder has to surmount is that the Health and Safety Executive must be satisfied that licensees have assessed risks to persons and have demonstrated that adequate measures have been taken to ensure the health and safety of people who could be affected by the proposed project.
Taken together, the measures mean that the UK's long-established onshore oil and gas industry is tightly regulated at a number of different levels, all of which aim to ensure that operations are carried out efficiently and safely and with minimum disruption to interested parties and the environment. The licensing process, the planning process, environmental safeguards and the health and safety check must all be gone through before matters can proceed.
The system has a track record of ensuring that hydrocarbon extraction co-exists harmoniously in the countryside without damage to the community. Significant oil production in Nottinghamshire, Sussex, Hampshire and Dorset has been under way for many decades with very little disruption to any of the local stakeholders. It is not widely recognised that one of the largest oilfields in the UK—the Wytch Farm development—has successfully and unobtrusively produced from under Poole bay near Bournemouth for more than 20 years. I am in no way prejudging issues that are subject to planning appeal, but the system has
200WH
safeguards to deal with any project that is environmentally irresponsible or is not undertaken by a company with a strong financial and technical base.
I turn to the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme about our general approach to energy supply and the potential place of coal-bed methane within it. The overall aim of our energy policy is to work to ensure competitive energy markets while achieving safe, secure and sustainable energy supplies. In support of that, our objectives are to maintain the security and diversity of the UK's energy sources and to contribute to meeting the UK's environmental emissions targets. Potentially, coal-bed methane has a part to play in achieving both those objectives.
Local environmental issues for landward projects are taken into account during the planning process, but we need to consider the impact that projects, especially those in the energy sector, are likely to have on the national or international scene. The Government are committed to taking action to tackle climate change—indeed, the UK is one of the few countries to have published a strategy for doing so. Our current energy review is aimed specifically at determining how we can best meet the twin obligations of securing supply from diverse sources and meeting our Kyoto targets.
In that context, the development of coal-bed methane as a fuel, albeit on a small scale, will supplant the use of more carbon dioxide-aggressive resources such as oil and coal. Coal-bed methane is a very pure form of natural gas which burns more efficiently than other hydrocarbon resources with low CO2 emissions. Moreover, it is essentially a local fuel, so the CO2 transportation burden is much lower than that of oil or, in most cases, coal.
The Government's policy is to encourage the development of cleaner coal technologies for application in both home and overseas markets. In 1999, a review of energy sources was carried out, and during the consultation phase coal-bed methane was identified as one of the alternative ways of obtaining energy from coal without mining. As I keep emphasising, I am talking in general terms, rather than dealing with a specific application. I shall not accept the invitation to rule out coal-bed methane as an energy source in general, for the reasons that I have stated.
In the context of the UK's overall energy supply, the potential importance of coal-bed methane production has not been tested. My hon. Friend asked about its significance in the energy mix, and the simple fact is that its current significance is small, but that does not prejudge its potential significance. There is only one coal-bed methane field in production in the United Kingdom, which is at Airth in Stirlingshire. Estimates of the national coal-bed methane resource vary widely, and it is too early to put a figure on the level of production that could be expected. The UK's coal seams could, however, provide a considerable amount of methane and it is important to test that resource. It is worth noting that coal-bed methane has been successfully developed in the United States where it provides a small but significant input to that country's energy needs.
In the absence of a clear estimate of the size of the coal-bed methane resource, one can look to another area of coal-gas exploitation that has been

201WH
demonstrated to work in Great Britain: the capture of the methane that is continually released from abandoned mineshafts. There are already several such projects up and running, including one in north Staffordshire at the Silverdale pit to which my hon. Friend referred, and there are many more proposals to take such activity forward. In some cases, the projects combine gas exploitation with on-site electricity generation or direct feed into the premises of energy users. The success of those commercial projects has demonstrated to both the energy industry and the financial markets that there is potential in small-scale CBM schemes.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of an appeal by StrataGas against the local authority's decision to turn down its application to drill several wells to test coal-bed methane potential in his constituency and the surrounding area. As he acknowledged, a public inquiry will convene later this month before an independent inspector, which means that the appeal is on-going. The inspector will submit a report to my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, who will decide whether the appeal is to be upheld or rejected. Officials in my Department have made a submission to the inquiry, as have many other interested parties. Although I do not want to impinge on my right hon. Friend's responsibilities—I am talking in general terms rather than specifically considering the application—I shall re-state in summary the key points from that submission, which reflect the general policy points that I have made.
The UK's energy self-sufficiency will decline as, over coming years, we become increasingly dependent on imports of fuel, particularly gas. The Department's oil and gas directorate is anxious to ensure that all economic petroleum in Great Britain and on the UK continental shelf is exploited in an efficient, responsible and timely manner.
202WH
Britain's coal reserves offer considerable potential for the development of a viable coal-bed methane industry. However, not all coal seams are identical: they need different techniques to make the gas flow. Although useful, lessons learned from the United States do not provide all the information necessary to underpin technical decisions about exploitation in the UK.
Again, I make my next point as a general statement of fact rather than an opinion on the specific application: the gassy coals of north Staffordshire make it a promising area for the production of mines-related methane. There are seven extant petroleum licences covering acreage in the northern half of Staffordshire, each of which is targeting coal-mine methane, either through the exploitation of vent gas—Silverdale is one of those projects—or through accessing gas trapped in unworked coal seams as is proposed by StrataGas.
Paul Farrelly: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's information and his assurances that my remarks about StrataGas will be carefully considered. I have not seen the DTI's submission to the inquiry, but from his summary I take it that the submission is a statement of general policy and cannot be taken as backing a specific scheme against local concerns, because that is a matter for the planning inquiry. I take it that it would therefore be wrong for any company to imply that it had specific support from the DTI for a specific scheme.
Mr. Wilson: We have 60 seconds of the debate left, and I do not want to waste them by playing with words. If the DTI has offered a licence, that represents support within the licensing context. I am trying to distinguish between the licensing process and the planning process. I have set out, as best I can, the sequence of events that mean that licensing does not imply approval under the planning process—
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on progress towards meeting the revised Public Service Agreement target for internet connections in public libraries. [22554]

  Dr. Howells
  The proportion of public libraries in the UK with public internet access reached 67 per cent. in August 2001, on course for meeting the target of 100 per cent. access by the end of 2002.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on performance against the target to improve her Department' s procurement practices. [22569]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department has increased its use of ICT in procurement and has undertaken Gateway Reviews of procurement projects where required.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if she will make a statement on the funding for digitisation which has so far been awarded; [22576]

  (2) if she will make a statement on progress towards the target to develop and introduce the Library element of the New Opportunities Fund Lottery funding stream for literacy learning. [22577]

  Dr. Howells
  All public library authorities have submitted plans to the New Opportunities Fund (NOF) Community Access to Lifelong Learning programme for ICT infrastructure and for staff training. All libraries will have completed network installation by the end of December 2002. Training for 40,000 public library staff is under way. Fifty-four awards have been made under the NOF Digitisation programme totalling £45 million. Projects will be completed by December 2004 with first materials available by December 2002.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the performance target is for the Public Service Agreement target of facilitating and promoting competitiveness in the creative industries. [22548]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department tracks a range of indicators of the economic performance of the creative industries, baselines for which were established in the creative industries Mapping Document published by DCMS. The Department's 2001–04 Service Delivery Agreement includes a target comparing the productivity of the creative industries with the all-industry average.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the progress towards the target for the payment of undisputed invoices. [22581]
  546W
  Dr. Howells
  The outturn for the 2000–01 financial year was 99 per cent. of undisputed invoices paid within 30 days.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if she will make a statement on performance against the target for the reduction of sickness absence in 2001; [22573]

  (2) what steps she is taking to meet the Department's target for reduced sickness absence by 2003. [22572]

  Dr. Howells
  The figure for the first 11 months of 2001 is 7.3 days sickness absence per staff year. The Department will continue to monitor trends and address any particular areas of concern. The Department has recently introduced a revised sick absence policy and will support managers to manage attendance and ensure that the policy is implemented. We will also continue to offer health awareness and health care information to staff.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on progress towards the Public Service Agreement target to promote the competitiveness of UK broadcast-related industries and the early take-up of digital broadcast services. [22545]

  Dr. Howells
  Results of enhanced Government/ industry co-operation include a better statistical base, improved overseas promotion, a stronger trade association and increased opportunities in new media.

  The Government published a draft Digital Television Action Plan on 12 October 2001, setting out a series of actions to be undertaken by Government and industry to achieve switchover from analogue to digital television. Further to this Action Plan, on 11 December, the Government published a consultation paper on planning the digital television spectrum. Nearly eight million UK households (about 30 per cent. of the total) have switched on to digital television since 1998.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport for what reason the Public Service Agreement target for Lottery distributing bodies to develop strategic plans does not apply to the Millennium Commission. [22562]

  Dr. Howells
  The target does not apply because by April 1999 the Commission had already committed almost all of its funds.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on progress towards the Public Service Agreement target to maintain standards and diversity of broadcasting output and ensure that content is socially inclusive to secure wide access to broadcast material. [22556]

  Dr. Howells
  The Broadcasting (Subtitling) Order 2001, which increases the target for subtitling on digital terrestrial television to 80 per cent., came into force on 4 July 2001. The targets will be extended to digital cable and digital satellite services as part of the forthcoming Communications Bill. A conference in October 2001 of the Cultural Diversity Network reported on the progress made by the signatory broadcasters in the first year of operation.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on progress towards the Public Service Agreement
  547W
  target to develop proposals for a future regulatory system for broadcasting which recognises market and technological developments. [22546]

  Dr. Howells
  The Office of Communications Bill was introduced to the House of Lords on 12 July 2001. The Bill allows for the establishment of the Office of Communications (OFCOM) which will prepare itself to take on the duties proposed to be conferred upon it later as the new single regulator for the media and communications sector. A draft Communications Bill, containing the Government's proposals for the regulatory framework which OFCOM will apply, is to be published in this Session of Parliament.

  Libraries
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many public libraries there were per head of population for each year since 1979. [23071]

  Dr. Howells
  The answer is as follows:

  Population per library in England (total population divided by the number of public libraries open 10 hours plus per week, including mobiles)

  Year

  Number

  1999–2000

  14,211

  1998–99

  14,125

  1997–98

  13,953

  1996–97

  13,742

  1995–96

  13,550

  1994–95

  13,425

  1993–94

  13,369

  1992–93

  13,290

  1991–92

  13,170

  1990–91

  13,069

  1989–90

  11,461

  1988–89

  13,915

  1987–88

  13,545

  1986–87

  13,781

  1985–86

  13,189

  1984–85

  13,317

  1983–84

  13,004

  1982–83

  13,006

  1981–82

  13,054

  1980–81

  12,986

  1979–80

  12,725

  The figures exclude special services offered by library authorities to members of the public, for example, homes and hospitals. Across England these services have increased from 9,806 in 1979–80 to 14,617 in 1999–2000.

  Millennium Commission
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how many projects have been given grants by the Millennium Commission; what proportion of the projects have been completed on time; how many Millennium Commission projects are yet to be completed; if she will list those projects which are(a) more than 12 months behind schedule and (b) which have been aborted, along with their value; and if she will make a statement; [24135]

  (2) how much has been spent by the Millennium Commission; what amount the Commission has allocated but is yet to distribute; what amount is available and unallocated to projects; and if she will make a statement; [24136]
  548W
  (3) when she expects the Millennium Bridge to re-open; what the total cost of this project has been; what the cost of repair work carried out on the bridge has been; who is responsible for the extra cost; and if she will make a statement; [24134]

  (4) what proportion of total Millennium Commission expenditure has been spent in the Greater London area; and if she will make a statement. [24137]

  Tessa Jowell
  This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I will write to the hon. Member in my capacity as Chair of the Commission, and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether residential homes have to purchase television licences for televisions that are watched by residents over the age of 75 years and other people. [24226]

  Dr. Howells
  Residents aged 75 or over living in residential homes are entitled to a free television licence to cover the installation or use of television in their private accommodation. Such licences do not extend to cover television sets in the communal parts of a residential home, which require a separate, full fee licence. However, we have received representations on this subject and our policy is currently under review.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people benefit from the £5 concessionary television licence scheme; and, in the last year for which figures are available, how many people stopped being entitled to a reduced fee licence because the(a) social mix and (b) level of warden cover at their accommodation changed. [24225]

  Dr. Howells
  At the end of October 2001, there were a total of 633,000 units of accommodation covered by the Accommodation for Residential Care concessionary television licence scheme, of which 200,000 were occupied by residents under 75, who pay a £5 fee, and 433,000 by residents aged 75 or over, who pay no fee. An accurate breakdown of the number of people who have ceased to be entitled to the concession because of changes to the social mix or the level of warden cover is not currently available, but we have contacted the BBC to request the information required and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as it is available, placing copies of my letter in the Library.

  Tourism
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what assessment she has made of the cost of implementing the English Tourism Council's "Sea Changes" document; [24144]

  (2) what funding the English Tourism Council has allocated to implementation of its "Sea Changes" document; [24149]

  (3) what progress has been made in establishing a Government unit to co-ordinate the case for resorts within Government; [24148]
  549W
  (4) if she will list her Department's priorities for action on the implementation of the English Tourism Council's "Sea Changes" document. [24143]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 19 December 2001]The Government have welcomed the publication of "Sea Changes" and we are working with the English Tourism Council (ETC) to take it forward. The ETC is consulting closely with the British Resorts Association and relevant local authority tourism officers.

  The ETC does not have a specific budget for implementing the report since its role is to inform and help develop the strategies of public agencies and the private sector, predominantly at local and regional level. The Government have not set out specific priorities for action in relation to the report and have not made any assessment of the potential cost of implementation. We are awaiting a preparatory assessment from the ETC and will then be in a better position to consider how best an impact can be made.

  We do not propose to establish a separate unit toco-ordinate the case for resorts within Government. This is already the responsibility of my Department and we have raised the profile of resort regeneration in discussions both at national level at the March 2001 inter-Ministerial Tourism Summit, shortly after "Sea Changes" was published, and in ministerial meetings with Regional Development Agency (RDA) chairmen since then. We have also ensured that the new draft corporate planning guidance for RDAs asks them to work with regional and local partners on sustainable tourism strategies which should include the promotion of coastal resort regeneration.

  Golden Jubilee
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what arrangements have been put in place for public holidays relating to the Queen's Golden Jubilee. [24417]

  Mr. Caborn
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 23 November 2000,Official Report, column 294W, Tuesday 4 June 2002 will be a bank holiday in place of the Spring Bank Holiday, which would otherwise fall on 27 May. Monday 3 June will be an additional Bank Holiday for the Golden Jubilee.

  Sports Clubs (Charitable Status)
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many community and amateur sports clubs will benefit from the revised Charity Commission guidelines on charitable status. [25001]

  Arts Council

  £000

  Funding in each year since 1995 (grant-in-aid and lottery combined)

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  GIA and Lottery funding

  435,327

  426,013

  454,788

  400,904

  416,271

  420,584

  Proportion spent on salaries (percentage)

  0.8

  1.0

  1.3

  1.6

  1.3

  1.6

  How much spent on salaries

  3,481

  4,351

  6,020

  6,457

  5,603

  6,615

  Average salary of ACE employee

  21

  21

  22

  23

  28

  33

  550W
  Mr. Caborn
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), on 13 December 2001,Official Report, column 1029W.

  Museums (Buckingham)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the museums in the Buckingham co nstituency that have received funding from her Department allocated to cutting museum entry fees; and the amount awarded in each case. [23744]

  Dr. Howells
  No museums in the Buckingham constituency have received funding from my Department allocated to cutting museum entry fees. None is sponsored by my Department.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the museums based in the Buckingham constituency which have received funding from the Designated Museums Challenge Fund indicating(a) the nature of the project, (b) the date of the award and (c) the amount of funding provided in each case. [23717]

  Dr. Howells
  There are no designated museums within the Buckingham constituency.

  Arts Bodies
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of staff turnover at(a) regional arts boards and (b) the Arts Council of England since the proposals outlined in `Working Together for the Arts' were made; and if she will make a statement. [23572]

  Dr. Howells
  Staff turnover at the Arts Council of England in the period 1 April 2000–31 March 2001 was 28.4 per cent. In the first quarter of 2001–02, turnover reduced to 25 per cent. and reduced again in the second quarter to 20.5 per cent. Policies have been prepared to maximise staff retention, and these have been taken to the local union/management groups for ratification and workplace-based application.

  The Regional Arts Boards are autonomous organisations, which report to their own boards about the turnover of staff.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what has been the funding for the Arts Council of England in each year since 1995; what proportion of that funding in each of those years has been spent on salaries; what the Arts Council of England has spent in each year since 1995 on salaries; what the average salary of an Arts Council of England employee has been in each year since 1995; what the average salary of an employee of a regional arts board has been in each year since 1995; and if she will make a statement. [23573]

  Dr. Howells
  The following information has been supplied by the Arts Council of England, in answer to the question:
  551W

  Regional Arts Boards

  Average salary in year

  Percentage of total expenditure spent on salaries

  1995–96

  East England

  19,402

  13

  East Midland

  15,606

  14

  London

  22,794

  7

  Northern

  17,856

  9

  North West

  21,111

  7

  Southern

  18,985

  15

  South East

  18,583

  16

  South West

  16,731

  11

  West Midlands

  18,699

  11

  Yorkshire

  17,368

  10

  1996–97

  East England

  18,085

  11

  East Midland

  15,898

  13

  London

  23,270

  6

  Northern

  19,585

  8

  North West

  15,308

  8

  Southern

  17,998

  12

  South East

  20,388

  14

  South West

  17,489

  12

  West Midlands

  18,757

  10

  Yorkshire

  17,689

  9

  1997–98

  East England

  18,828

  13

  East Midland

  16,599

  14

  London

  22,332

  7

  Northern

  18,774

  9

  North West

  18,003

  7

  Southern

  20,990

  15

  South East

  19,509

  16

  South West

  17,586

  11

  West Midlands

  18,479

  11

  Yorkshire

  19,095

  10

  1998–99

  East England

  21,194

  15

  East Midland

  16,670

  14

  London

  23,463

  7

  Summary of RAB audited accounts

  Total funding from ACE

  £

  All RABs

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  East England

  5,011,053

  5,109,835

  5,248,710

  5,322,280

  6,152,450

  9,718,024

  East Midlands

  4,480,158

  4,443,540

  4,502,900

  4,938,120

  6,454,107

  9,682,517

  London

  14,157,380

  13,762,832

  13,789,202

  14,603,194

  16,284,439

  32,014,120

  Northern

  6,209,766

  6,353,287

  6,212,970

  6,353,287

  7,399,758

  11,714,473

  North West

  8,099,977

  8,028,610

  8,441,000

  8,515,529

  9,766,313

  18,039,684

  Southern

  3,598,450

  3,839,771

  3,918,786

  4,267,846

  5,159,652

  11,192,305

  South East

  2,907,688

  2,931,214

  3,109,264

  3,319,040

  4,216,479

  6,999,710

  South West

  4,577,422

  4,516,883

  4,972,630

  5,084,757

  6,027,128

  9,133,900

  West Midlands

  5,955,357

  5,853,052

  6,169,350

  6,388,082

  7,545,188

  13,598,401

  Yorkshire

  7,173,613

  6,988,962

  7,316,013

  7,296,347

  8,513,200

  12,458,582

  Note:

  These are total figures, both GIA and Lottery combined.

  Royal Armouries (International)
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport for how long the PFI contract her Department holds with Royal Armouries (International) for the management of Leeds Royal Armouries exhibition runs; what the total cost of the project has been to her Department; what funding was required to rescue the project; what estimate she has made of the future costs of 552W

  Regional Arts Boards

  Average salary in year

  Percentage of total expenditure spent on salaries

  Northern

  19,272

  9

  North West

  19,334

  9

  Southern

  21,021

  14

  South East

  20,802

  17

  South West

  17,803

  11

  West Midlands

  18,458

  11

  Yorkshire

  18,779

  10

  1999–2000

  East England

  21,542

  14

  East Midland

  17,042

  14

  London

  25,625

  7

  Northern

  20,560

  8

  North West

  18,963

  8

  Southern

  20,461

  13

  South East

  21,531

  20

  South West

  17,968

  12

  West Midlands

  19,371

  11

  Yorkshire

  20,372

  10

  2000–01

  East England

  22,629

  12

  East Midland

  19,367

  12

  London

  24,181

  5

  Northern

  21,363

  6

  North West

  19,888

  5

  Southern

  24,046

  9

  South East

  22,530

  15

  South West

  19,730

  10

  West Midlands

  21,054

  7

  Yorkshire

  21,951

  8

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much the Arts Council of England has distributed to each of the regional arts boards in each year since 1995. [23574]

  Dr. Howells
  The Arts Council of England has been supplied the following information, which includes grant-in-aid and lottery funding combined:

  the project to her Department; what estimates she has made of the value of RAI's new contract; under what terms the nature of the initial contract was changed; and what assessment she has made of the performance of RAI. [23568]

  Dr. Howells
  Under their current 57 year contract with the Armouries, Royal Armouries (International) plc (RAI) are responsible solely for providing catering, corporate
  553W
  entertainment and car parking. The responsibility for managing the museum and its retail outlets was transferred to the Royal Armouries in 1999.

  The total cost of the project to build the Royal Armouries museum at Leeds was £43 million. Over £14 million of the construction cost was met by RAI. The Government contributed £20 million via the Royal Armouries, and Leeds city council and Leeds Development Corporation together provided £8.5 million.

  As part of the renegotiation of the original PFI-type deal, RAI's outstanding debt of £21 million was borne by the private sector. To cover the additional responsibilities assumed by the Royal Armouries my Department has provided additional grant of £1 million a year since 1999. The future cost to my Department is £1 million a year in additional grant. My Department has not provided any funding to RAI.

  The value of RAI's new contract is a matter for RAI. Under the new arrangements agreed in July 1999 RAI retains responsibility for the repayment of its debt of £21 million. RAI also retains responsibility for the provision of corporate entertainment and catering services for a period of 40 years and car parking for a period of 57 years, together with the income from those functions. The Royal Armouries took over responsibility for all other operations and retail outlets. The Armouries stands to receive 20 per cent. of RAI's turnover from corporate entertainment and catering activities once RAI has paid off its debt plus 20 per cent. of its car park income after 40 years.

  The current agreement between RAI and the Royal Armouries sets out the standards of performance required. This is a matter between RAI and the Royal Armouries.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Tanzania
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her priorities are for development projects in Tanzania.[25198]

  Hilary Benn
  Our Tanzania Programme supports the implementation of the Government of Tanzania's Poverty Reduction Strategy, in line with the Millennium Development Goals. Priority sectors identified in the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper are health (including HIV), education, rural water, rural roads, agriculture, and the judicial and legal systems.

  The Department for International Development assistance to Tanzania is now provided through a single medium term budget support instrument (about £40 million a year), with a complementary programme of technical co-operation (circa £30 million a year). This is designed to increase Government capacity to improve economic management and deliver public services, support private sector development and pro poor growth, and to help the Government improve their accountability to civil society.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what priority her Department accords to a military air traffic control system for Tanzania in plans for that country's development. [25171]
  554W
  Hilary Benn
  Development priorities for Tanzania are set out in the Government of Tanzania's Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper which my Department is supporting, along with other donors.

  Iran
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many Afghan refugees have been deported from Iran.[24930]

  Hilary Benn
  The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has received periodic reports of the deportation of small groups of Afghans over the past few months but does not have precise figures. It also estimates that over 140,000 Afghans returned home voluntarily from Iran during 2001, one-third of them since Herat city fell on 12 November 2001.

  We continue to do all we can to ensure that Afghan refugees are properly cared for and give neighbouring countries the necessary support to cope with the burden of refugees, for whom they have generously provided for so long.

  Sudan
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent representations she has made to all sides in the conflict in Sudan to establish a permanent ceasefire and humanitarian access to those living in the Nuba mountains.[25003]

  Hilary Benn
  We regularly press for independent humanitarian access to the Nuba mountains, both directly and through the British ambassador and his staff in Khartoum. At present there is a ceasefire in place in the area and humanitarian access has improved as a result.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is visiting Sudan from 6 January and will discuss the Nuba mountains situation during her meetings with the representatives of both sides.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of humanitarian access in areas of Sudan, with particular reference to the southern Blue Nile; and what steps she is taking to encourage all parties in the conflict to agree to long-term and unimpeded humanitarian access to Sudan.[25004]

  Hilary Benn
  We regularly press the Government of Sudan and the rebel forces to remove obstacles to independent humanitarian access to all areas including the southern Blue Nile. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is visiting Sudan from 6 January and will raise the issue of humanitarian access with the leaders of both warring sides.

  Afghanistan
  David Cairns
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what help the Government are giving to sustain supplies and services to Afghanistan over the winter.[25416]

  Hilary Benn
  We have so far allocated £60 million for the provision of financial, technical and in-kind support for humanitarian and recovery assistance in Afghanistan. Almost £40 million of this UK support has been provided
  555W
  to United Nations agencies, the Red Cross movement and NGOs, including support for the provision and stockpiling of assistance for the winter.

  With our help, the UN, under the leadership of the World Food Programme, is maximising food delivery through both road and air routes and is prioritising deliveries to areas where access may become more difficult over the continuing winter, including the Central Highlands, the Panjshir valley and the north-east of the country. It has deployed specialist equipment and personnel to keep routes to these areas open as long as possible.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to include the states surrounding Afghanistan in the reconstruction plan for that country. [24275]

  Clare Short
  Both the recovery and reconstruction strategies will be informed by a regional approach, as the support of neighbouring countries will be crucial for long-term stability. Neighbouring countries have been invited to attend the Afghanistan Reconstruction Steering Group meeting, which is taking place in Brussels this week.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to prevent the export of heroin from Afghanistan to surrounding areas. [24273]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I have been asked to reply.

  With strong British support it was agreed at the Bonn Conference (27 November to 5 December) that the Interim Administration would co-operate with the international community in the fight against drugs. The UK will play a significant part in reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan. We think that this should include the promotion of economic and law enforcement policies in Afghanistan which encourage and support opium poppy farmers in pursuing other livelihoods.

  We are providing assistance to Afghanistan's neighbours such as Iran, Pakistan and the Central Asian Republics to help them prevent drugs from being trafficked from Afghanistan. In financial year 2001–02 we are providing over £2 million worth of equipment to assist the local law enforcement agencies in these countries to detect drugs and drug traffickers.

  Central Asia
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent representations she has made to the EU regarding development assistance to(a) the Kyrgyz Republic, (b) Tajikistan and (c) Uzbekistan. [24272]

  Clare Short
  I have discussed future EC assistance to Central Asia with Chris Patten, Commissioner for External Relations. My officials have also discussed this on a number of occasions with Commission staff. I am very pleased that EU development assistance to the region, which includes the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, is to double.
  556W
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has made to the British Council to open an office in the Kyrgyz Republic. [24274]

  Clare Short
  I have not made representations to the British Council. I understand, however, that if a bid for funds is successful, the Council plan to open an office in the Kyrgyz Republic in 2004–05.

  Hearing Aids
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has(a) received and (b) made to (i) the EU and (ii) the WTO regarding the provision of hearing aids to the deaf and hearing impaired in developing countries. [24270]

  Clare Short
  My Department has received two representations, neither of which has been from the EU or the WTO, on the provision of hearing aids during 2001. I have not made any representations on this subject, as they are not part of my Department's priorities for health, which are in line with the Millennium Development Goals.

DEFENCE

  Procurement
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on major procurement plans relating to land-based projects. [18757]

  Dr. Moonie
  We are investing in a number of new systems which will ensure that the Army's capability is maintained at the highest level. Plans for future equipment include the WAH-64 attack helicopter; improvements to the range and accuracy of our artillery weapons; a fully integrated fighting system for the infantry; a new range of armoured fighting vehicles; and new armoured engineering vehicles. We are also planning to procure a number of systems to improve logistics and combat support.

  In addition, we have taken decisive action to rectify two long-standing equipment problems by undertaking a successful modification programme for the SA80 rifle and by placing a contract for the Bowman radio.

  Our service personnel have excellent equipment that is the envy of most other armed forces. We are continually looking to modernise this equipment to ensure that our soldiers are fully able to meet the challenges of the 21stcentury.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason the question tabled by the hon. Member for Lewes on 23 October relating to the cost at that point of Operation Enduring Freedom, Ref. 8769, has not yet been answered; and if he will make a statement. [24398]

  Mr. Hoon
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 19 December 2001.
  557W

  Far East Prisoners of War
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total cost to date of the ex-gratia scheme for ex-prisoners of the Japanese; and what would have been the additional cost of allowing the applications of those barred following the clarification of the definition of British earlier this year. [24728]

  Dr. Moonie
  The ex-gratia scheme to make payments to those held prisoner by the Japanese during the Second World War is administered by the War Pensions Agency. As at 21 December 2001 there had been 22,794 payments made at a total cost of £229,940,000. At the same date, there had been a total of 4,019 applications rejected, of which 1,097 were on grounds of nationality. Assuming that the 1,097 rejected applicants met all other criteria for the ex-gratia payment, the additional payment cost would be £10,970,000.

  Territorial Army (Medals)
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will announce that service in Category C of the Territorial Army is reckonable service for the efficiency decoration and the efficiency medal as recommended by the Joint Service Review of Honours and Awards. [25130]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence, in conjunction with other Departments, is currently considering this recommendation of the Joint Services Review of Honours and Awards.

  Crimean-Congo Haemorrhagic Fever
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures his Department is taking to prevent the spread of Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever to special forces personnel operating in Afghanistan. [24998]

  Mr. Hoon
  Crimean-Congo Haemorrhagic Fever is a tick-borne virus; most patients are animal husbandry workers and it is uncommon in the winter months. The overall risk of Crimean-Congo Haemorrhagic Fever to UK troops is perceived as low. However, recommendations have been made to protect UK personnel from tick bites including the wearing of appropriate clothing, the treatment of clothing and the use of repellents.

  Afghanistan
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total cost has been to the UK of(a) the military and (b) the humanitarian campaign in Afghanistan. [25203]

  Mr. Hoon
  £100 million has been made available by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to cover new equipment and immediate Operational requirements needed for operations in Afghanistan and the campaign against international terrorism. Up to 31 October 2001, the net additional costs of Operation Veritas were £14.5 million. The Department for International Development (DfID), which is responsible for the humanitarian campaign, has set aside £60 million of which almost £40 million has already been allocated to UN agencies, the Red Cross movement and NGOs to support their response to the current crisis, both in 558W
  Afghanistan and in the region. As well as financial assistance, DfID is also providing technical, personnel, logistical, material and other practical support.

  MOD and Military Police (Retirement)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel have retired from(a) the Military police and (b) the MOD police in each of the last five years. [15166]

  Mr. Ingram
  The number of personnel who have retired from the Military police and the Ministry of Defence police by financial year is as follows:

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Naval

  Service

  16

  20

  22

  33

  20

  Army

  59

  47

  38

  25

  24

  RAF

  109

  77

  93

  76

  72

  MOD police

  38

  41

  28

  24

  27

  Total

  222

  185

  181

  158

  143

  Retirements have been defined as personnel leaving at the end of an agreed period of service

  Porton Down
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many films are held by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down of its biological warfare trial known as Operation Cauldron; and if he will place a list of the titles and dates of the films on this trial in the Library. [23129]

  Dr. Moonie
  During the late 1940s and early 1950s the Ministry of Supply undertook a series of major sea trials of the dissemination of biological warfare agents. It is believed that films, each consisting of several reels, were taken of the individual trials, including Operation Cauldron, which was conducted in 1952. Porton Down holds a videotape, entitled "Operation Cauldron—1952", which contains approximately 20–30 minutes of footage extracted from that shot during the trial. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 9 May 2001,Official Report, column 197W, in which I explained that the titles of the 1,200 films in the archive at Dstl Porton Down have not been catalogued and in many cases are not very informative. It would involve disproportionate cost to collate a list of films. Therefore we cannot say if reels of film containing footage of Operation Cauldron are held in the archive at Dstl Portdon Down. Films held in the archive are gradually being transferred to the Imperial War Museum where they are being reviewed and catalogued. This is being undertaken in accordance with MOD policy.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a list of the common and chemical names of the incapacitants which have been tested on service volunteers at the chemical defence establishment, Porton Down, during the Service Volunteer Programme; and how many service volunteers were tested with each of these incapacitants. [22932]

  Dr. Moonie
  Agents known to have been used at Porton Down during the Service Volunteer Programme, and which are generally considered to be incapacitants include those listed.
  559W
  Sensory irritants:

  CS (orthochlorobenzylidine malononitrile) and its ortho-bromo ortho-nitro, ortho-hydroxy, ortho-cyano, meta-hydroxy, di-chloro and di-ethyoxy derivatives;

  CN or CAP (chloroacetophenone) and its ortho-nitro, meta-fluoro, and 2-hydroxy-5-methyl derivatives;

  Benzyl bromide derivatives including para-bromo, para-nitro, para-cyano, ortho-cyano and bromo-cyano; para-nitro and para-bromo benzyl iodides;

  BBC (bromobenzlcyanide);

  ethyl bromoacetate;

  ortho-xylene dibromide and derivatives;

  bromo-p-toluamide;

  CR (dibenzoxazepine);

  methoxycycloheptatriene;

  fumaronitrile;

  ammonia;

  ethyl alcohol;

  tri-n-propyl lead beta chloropropionate;

  DA (diphenylchloroarsine);

  DM (diphenylamine chloroarsine) and a range of chloroarsine derivatives;

  Capsaicin.

  Centrally acting agents such as:

  LSD (D-lyseric acid diethylamide);

  BZ (3-quinclidinyl benzoate) and a range of other glycollates; oripavine and its derivatives;

  a range of morphine derivatives and Pyrexal.

  However, definitions of what constitutes an incapacitant vary and there are many agents used in the Service Volunteer Programme on which information is not readily available. Precise numbers of volunteers exposed to the various agents are not known. Collation of such data would involve extensive detailed searches of all the Porton Down record books. It is hoped that this information will become available as a result of the proposed research into the health of Porton Down Volunteers.

  Local Overseas Allowance
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if local overseas allowance is payable to air crews on exercise Saif Sareea and Operation Veritas; what the weekly value is of the(a) welfare package offered to air crews during Saif Sareea and (b) local overseas allowance; and if he will make a statement. [24373]

  Mr. Ingram
  No Local Overseas Allowance (LOA) was payable to personnel, including aircrew, for Exercise Saif Sareea II, nor is it payable for those deployed on Operation Veritas. In both cases deployed personnel have been eligible for the Operational Welfare Package (OWP).

  LOA is not part of the military salary or a reward for overseas service. It is a cost of living addition paid only in circumstances where personnel are likely to incur greater day-to-day expenditure overseas than they would in the UK. This is not generally the case for those deployed on operations or major exercises in remote locations.

  A comprehensive OWP was made available to deployed personnel engaged in Exercise Saif Sareea II. I refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State for the Armed
  560W
  Forces gave on 19 March 2001, Official Report, column 12, to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) which covered the welfare arrangements for exercises lasting for two months or more. The package provided a personal allowance of 20 minutes of publicly funded telephone calls per week; free forces aerogrammes and concessionary parcel rates; access to the internet and e-mail; newspapers and book packs; BFBS TV and Radio; televisions, video recorders and video tapes; Expeditionary Forces Institute shops; publicly funded laundry, fitness equipment and a Combined Services Entertainment show. Similar facilities are being made available to those deployed on Operation Veritas.

  The cost of providing the OWP to Exercise Saif Sareea II is estimated to be £8.5 million, but it is not possible to quantify the value to an individual where there is no comparable local market for the services provided. If LOA had been judged appropriate for those exercising in Oman, examples rates are £67.97 per week for an RAF Corporal and £80.71 per week for a Squadron Leader.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department has spent to date, including research and development and manufacturing costs, on the(a) Type 45 and the PAAMS system, (b) CVF, (c) Astute class SSN and (d) Merlin ASW helicopter. [23622]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information is as follows.

  Expenditure on research and development and manufacturing costs (VAT inclusive) as at 31 March 2001

  £ million

  Type 45 and PAAMS

  1491

  CVF

  18

  ASTUTE Class SSN

  490

  Merlin ASW helicopter

  3,507

  1This figure includes Type 45 warship development plus the UK element of research and development costs on the Principal Anti Air Missile System (PAAMS), the Horizon Programme and WR21 gas turbine development.

  Costs are not recorded by the Ministry of Defence under headings of "Research and Development" and "Manufacturing". They are divided into five project phases: Concept, Assessment, Design and Manufacture, In-Service and Disposal, with Assessment being the closest to R&D.

  Forces Mail
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if letters and parcels from services personnel on active service overseas are carried free of postage; if letters and parcels for families to service personnel at BFPO addresses are carried free of postage; if he will call for a report about postal services offered free of charge to US services personnel; and if he will make a statement. [24032]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 18 December 2001]The Review of Operational Welfare, the results of which my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State for the Armed Forces announced on 29 March 2001,Official Report, columns 731–32W, concluded that the best method of maintaining communication between personnel deployed on operations and their families is to provide a

  561W
  comprehensive package across a range of media which is common to all operational theatres. Consequently, the new arrangements we introduced in April provide a full package—free 'blueys' (forces aerogrammes), free 'e-blueys', other mail and parcels at forces concessionary rates (which are considerably lower than normal rates), publicly funded telephone calls (20 minutes per week) and internet access. We have provided some £60 million of additional resources over a four year period to support these enhancements. As part of the review we did examine the US model of welfare support to deployed forces—as well as canvassing the views of several hundred British service personnel on operations.

  Older People
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out for each of the conclusions in section 6.4 of the Performance and Innovation Unit report, `Winning the Generation Game',(a) what progress his Department has made and (b) what future plans his Department has for acting on them; and if he will set out against each of the conclusions the targets and deadlines that have been set. [24201]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 19 December 2001]I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 335W, by the Minister of State, Cabinet Office.

  Cruise Missiles
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost of maintaining and servicing the cruise missile arsenal has been in each year since 1983. [21551]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 11 December 2001]The Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) system which entered service in 1998 is the first, and currently only, cruise missile in service with UK armed forces. Delivery of the missiles commenced in 1997 and the cost of maintaining and servicing the arsenal in each of the financial years since then is as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  1997–98

  0.100

  1998–99

  0.120

  1999–2000

  0.140

  2000–01

  0.160

  2001–02

  10.180

  1Estimated

  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the total cost of a cruise missile over the lifetime of its use. [21550]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 11 December 2001]The Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) system is currently the only cruise missile in-service with UK armed forces. The estimated total cost of a TLAM missile over its in-service life is £1.4 million.

  Anti-ship Capability
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Merlin helicopter will be fitted with the Sea Shire 562W
  missile; what other anti-ship capability it will have; and what anti-ship capability (a) Type 23 frigates and (b) Type 45 destroyers will have. [24024]

  Dr. Moonie
  I assume the hon. Member refers to the Sea Skua missile, currently fitted to the Royal Navy's Lynx helicopter. There are no plans to fit the Sea Skua to the Merlin helicopter. The helicopter has a state of the art, integrated mission system, and an extensive array of on-board sensors. These not only give Merlin an independent capability to search for, locate and attack submarine targets, but can also be used to detect ships and provide targeting information for attack by other units.

  The Type 23 frigate's anti-ship capability is provided by the Harpoon anti-ship missile, the Sea Skua missile fitted to its Lynx helicopter, the 4/" Mk8 gun, and twin 30mm guns. It is planned that the Type 45 destroyer's anti-ship capability will be provided by the Sea Skua missile, fitted to its Lynx helicopter, together with the ship's medium range gunnery system, the 4/" Mk8 Mod 1 gun and twin 30mm guns. The Type 45 is being designed to facilitate the incremental incorporation of additional capabilities, and as such allows for the fitting of a surface to surface guided missile, should the requirement for one be demonstrated.

  Astute
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the research and development costs are of the Astute class; and what the estimated cost of construction is for each Astute class submarine. [23616]

  Dr. Moonie
  The cost of research and development of the Assessment Phase of Astute Class was £29 million. Subsequently the prime contract was placed in March 1997 for the design, build and initial support of three submarines. Unfortunately it is not possible to separate out the development costs in this phase, or the construction cost per boat, from the other costs in the overall price. This is because the contract is placed for a total price, with no itemisation against the categories of the hon. Member's request.

  HMS Ambush
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when HMS Ambush's keel will be laid. [23615]

  Dr. Moonie
  HMS Ambush is currently expected to be laid down during the second half of 2002.

  Base Dispositions
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies the NAO has made of the(a) closure, (b) partial sale and (c) move of military bases since 1997. [24055]

  Dr. Moonie
  On 17 June 1998, the National Audit Office published a report entitled "Identifying and Selling surplus Property" (HC 776), which considered (in Section 5), a number of individual property disposals of former Ministry of Defence (MOD) sites during the financial years 1995–96 and 1996–97, including that of the HM Naval Base, Rosyth. In addition, the National Audit Office in their report on "Training New Pilots" (HC 880 published on 14 September 2000) referred to the MOD's decision to concentrate flying training at fewer
  563W
  locations resulting in the closure and disposal of surplus sites, although the report did not directly consider the disposals themselves.

  Casualty Ships
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to place an order for primary casualty receiving ships; and if he will make a statement. [23620]

  Dr. Moonie
  We are continuing to define the requirement for a new primary Casualty Receiving Capability, to enhance afloat medical support. A range of different procurement options are under consideration, ranging from modules embarked as and when required on existing host vessels, to an integrally fitted vessel. An initial study contract for Assessment Phase work was placed on 21 December.

  HMS Triumph
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate has been made of the danger the(a) HMS Triumph and (b) crew of HMS Triumph were in as a result of the incident which led to the court martialling of Lieutenant Ian Tabberer and Lieutenant Ashley Philpott; and if he will make a statement. [23303]

  Mr. Ingram
  The damage to HMS Triumph was minor. She surfaced normally and proceeded to the nearest Naval Base without difficulty. Neither the ship's company nor HMS Triumph were at any risk as a result of the grounding.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what opportunities for service are left in the Royal Navy for Lieutenant Ian Tabberer and Lieutenant Ashley Philpott; and if he will make a statement. [23304]

  Mr. Ingram
  Depending on the findings and sentence of the court-martial it is perfectly possible to continue a career in the Royal Navy. Any sentence would be taken into account, along with any other relevant factors, when considering aspects such as future appointments.

  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the incident involving HMS Triumph which took place on 19 November 2000 and on the nature, time scale and cost of repair work required. [24914]

  Mr. Ingram
  On Sunday, 19 November 2000, HMS Triumph made glancing contact with soft sand and shells on a shelving seabed when under way submerged. An immediate inspection was undertaken following which the boat proceeded on the surface to Faslane, as programmed. The superficial damage identified was repaired in January 2001 during a period of planned maintenance, at a cost of approximately £6,000.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action will be taken in regard to the Commanding Officer of HMS Triumph in relation to the events leading to the court martialling of Lieutenant Ashley Philpott and Lieutenant Ian Tabberer; and if he will make a statement. [23301]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Naval Prosecuting Authority, which is independent of the Chain of Command, considered all of the evidence of the Board of Inquiry following the 564W
  grounding and specified, after careful consideration, those officers that were found to have committed offences that should be dealt with by way of court martial.

  Royal Ordnance Factories
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give guarantees on the security of supply of ammunition in the United Kingdom from Royal Ordnance factories. [23553]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence entered an innovative partnering agreement with Royal Ordnance Defence (ROD) in December 1999 to ensure security of supply of ammunition and related services while at the same time achieving best value for the taxpayers' money. We remain confident that ROD will continue to be a major supplier of munitions to the Ministry of Defence.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what bids were submitted to provide maintenance and support services for the EJ200 engines for the Royal Air Force Eurofighters; what was the cost of these bids; what timescale was given; and if he will make a statement. [24155]

  Mr. Hoon
  The prime contract for initial maintenance and support of Royal Air Force EJ200 engines was awarded to Rolls-Royce in November 2001 following a non-competitive tender. The initial contract is valued at approximately £12 million and will run until December 2003. Long-term support will be the subject of a subsequent contract employing a number of `Smart Acquisition' principles such as partnering and incentivisation to maximise through life value for money.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what meetings he has had with Army officials about the implications for the armed forces of cannabis being reclassified as a class C drug. [24412]

  Mr. Ingram
  The misuse of drugs (whether Class A, B or C) is incompatible with service in the armed forces. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has discussed this subject generally with officials, including the Chief of the General Staff. He will, of course, consider the implications of any recommendation on cannabis reclassification that may be made in due course by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.

  Tanks
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many UK tanks are based in each country(a) inside and (b) outside the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [24091]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 19 December 2001]Of the 355 UK Challenger 2 Main Battle Tanks currently in service, 107 are in England, 216 are in Germany and 32 are in Batus.

  Recruitment
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) costs and (b) benefits are of recruiting soldiers from (i) Fiji and (ii) the British Isles. [244006]
  565W
  Mr. Ingram
  The Army accepts applications from Commonwealth citizens, including those from Fiji, but does not actively recruit from these countries. However, in response to the large number of applications received from Fiji, the Army sent a selection team to that country in late 1999 at a cost of some £97,000. These costs are not directly comparable with those for recruiting in the UK. The total budget for the UK recruiting operation in 1999–2000 was some £56.5 million.

  We believe that the addition of the Fijians to its strength increases the diversity of the force, provides a positive image to other Fijians and other potential applicants from the Commonwealth, and further demonstrates that the Army is an equal opportunities employer. The selection visit to Fiji had the advantage of reducing nugatory costs to the individuals ensuring that all aspirants had the opportunity to apply.

  Operation Enduring Freedom
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what had been the cost on 31 December 2001 of Operation Enduring Freedom; and how much of the total cost has been met from pre-set departmental budgets. [24427]

  Mr. Hoon
  This information is not yet available. I will write to the hon. Member in due course. A copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Defence Procurement
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much outstanding offset there was for(a)the USA, (b) Germany and (c) France in each of the last 10 years. [25116]

  Mr. Hoon
  The current amount of outstanding offset (referred to in the UK as Industrial Participation) for the USA, Germany and France is, respectively: £2 billion, £137 million, and £314 million. German and French industries have had Industrial Participation obligations to UK Ministry of Defence only since 1996. Information relating to previous years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  QinetiQ
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been paid by his Department to(a) PricewaterhouseCoopers and UBS Warburg,(b) Simmonds &Simmonds, (c) Arthur Andersen and (d)Willis in connection with the proposed flotation of QinetiQ in each of the last two years. [24521]

  Dr. Moonie
  Payments to advisers in connection with the QinetiQ transaction are made under the terms of the relevant commercial contracts with these companies. I am withholding details of payments in accordance with Exemption 14 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much (1) QinetiQ has spent on advice with respect to its flotation in each of the last two years; [24520]

  (2) his Department has spent on advice on the flotation of QinetiQ in each of the last two years. [24519]
  566W
  Dr. Moonie
  The total cost of advice the Ministry of Defence received in respect of QinetiQ was some £1.4 million in 2000 and £3.6 million in 2001. The total cost of advice received by QinetiQ was some £1.5 million in 2000 and £6.2 million in 2001. These figures cover the cost of advice on all aspects of the DERA PPP, as it is not possible to separate out that spent on advice relating specifically to the transaction. These costs have been scrutinised to ensure that the services of advisers offer value for money.

  Defence Aviation Repair Agency
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the annual cost was of inter-site travel by personnel of the Defence Aviation Repair Agency in(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01. [25131]

  Mr. Ingram
  The travelling expenses details for personnel travelling between the sites of the Defence Aviation Repair Agency are not recorded separately and the information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Government Defence Logistics
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are employed in Government defence logistics work in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Telford. [25108]

  Mr. Ingram
  As at 19 December 2001, the number of people employed in the Defence Logistics Organisation (DLO) in the United Kingdom is 31,829. The number of people employed in the DLO in the Telford area is 2,544.

  Cluster Bombs
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 4 December 2001,Official Report, column 223W, on cluster bombs, if he will include unexploded ordnance clearance in the package of measures he supports aimed at minimising the risk to civilians; if he will support measures to restrict the targeting of cluster bombs so as to protect civilians; and if he will consult Landmine Action before finalising his policy towards discussions on a new protocol addressing explosive remnants of war. [24510]

  Mr. Ingram
  It is entirely appropriate that cluster bombs should be included in international discussions in the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons aimed at minimising the hazard to civilians from explosive remnants of war. International law already exists to restrict the targeting of cluster bombs and other munitions so as to protect civilians, in the form of Article 51 of the First Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions, to which the United Kingdom is a State Party. The Ministry of Defence will consult widely in developing policy towards discussions on a new protocol addressing explosive remnants of war.

  Naval Vessels
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what means of inspection and deduction were used to determine the safety case for HMS Sovereign, HMS Superb, HMS Sceptre, HMS Spartan, HMS
  567W
  Splendid, HMS Trafalgar, HMS Turbulent, HMS Tireless, HMS Torbay, HMS Trenchant, HMS Talent and HMS Triumph. [24912]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Reactor Plant Safety Justifications for Royal Navy submarines aims to demonstrate, through detailed calculation and reasoned argument, that the risks of operation are acceptable and as low as reasonably practicable. The large suite of documentation that forms the safety case is structured around a detailed and comprehensive set of Safety Principles and Safety Criteria. These prescribe the aspects to be considered and include such items as: the basis of design; use of proven engineering practice and technology; system integrity; maintenance and testing; reliability; inspection and results; human and equipment failures; and operation in conditions where a fault has occurred. A range of different tests and inspections are used to certify key components of the reactor plant.

  RAF Cottesmore (Joint Harrier Force)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the percentage serviceability is of the joint Harrier force based at RAF Cottesmore. [24990]

  Mr. Ingram
  On 18 December 2001, 73 per cent. of the Harriers used in the three front line squadrons, including those for training at RAC Cottesmore, were fully serviceable, 6 per cent. were undergoing minor scheduled servicing and the remaining 21 per cent. were unserviceable with faults that could be resolved within the squadrons' own capability. All those aircraft not fully serviceable could have been made so within three days, if required.

  Brigade Reorganisation
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many extra deployable troops will result from his reorganisation of(a) 52 (Lowland) Brigade and (b) Headquarters 2 (South East) Brigade. [25100]

  Mr. Ingram
  The two light infantry brigade headquarters (52 Lowland) Brigade and 2 (South East) Brigade) are being re-roled from regional brigade headquarters to provide better command and control arrangements for the light infantry role battalions, all of which are currently deployable. Thus the reorganisation of the two brigades will not result in an increase in the number of deployable troops. The change will bring greater coherence to the way that these units prepare for operations, through improved co-ordination of training.

  Deployment
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to reduce British forces in(a) Germany and (b) Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [25038]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Strategic Defence Review made it clear that the forward basing of ground forces in Germany would remain a key aspect of British defence policy. In order to create a better balance between 1 (UK) Armoured Division stationed in Germany and 3 (UK) Division based in the United Kingdom we decided to withdraw around 2,500 troops from Germany. Phase one of the withdrawal was completed at the end of 1999. The remaining elements will take some years to complete.
  568W
  There are no immediate plans for troop reductions in Northern Ireland. The force levels within Northern Ireland are kept under constant review and are dependent on the Police Service of Northern Ireland's threat assessment and used for support. The Army's counter-terrorist and public order role in the Province will remain for as long as the police require military support to maintain law and order.

  Garrison Radio Stations
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to support garrison radio stations. [24991]

  Mr. Ingram
  On 1 July 2001, a two-year pilot project was initiated to provide Army radio broadcasting in Aldershot, Bulford/Tidworth, Catterick and Colchester. By 7 January 2002, all four garrison stations will be broadcasting full time and are funded to remain on air until 1 July 2003. The radio stations will be broadcast predominantly on AM with some trial broadcasts being made in FM in accordance with radio authority regulations.

  Garrison Radio Ltd., the contracted radio service provider, is offering a comprehensive local communication and welfare radio service at the four locations. Gurkha language services are also broadcast in appropriate garrisons.

  In addition to broadcasting around the clock, a variety of news and features packages concentrating on local garrison items are compiled on a daily and weekly basis and made available as an audio download package on the Internet. All these news and features packages are accessible through the Army website at www.army.mod.uk.

  A400M
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on when the Government will sign the contract for the A400M. [24180]

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with partner countries on the announcement of the signing of the contract for the A400M. [24513]

  Mr. Hoon
  On 18 December 2001, I signed an inter-Governmental memorandum of Understanding to allow the A400M contract to be placed. The contract itself was signed on the same day by the Organisation for Joint Armaments Co-operation (OCCAR), on behalf of the partner nations, and by the contractor Airbus Military. It provides for the development and manufacture of 196 aircraft in a single launch order. The UK's share is 25 aircraft. OCCAR will manage the programme to standards agreed by the partner nations.

  The A400M contract will enter into force once final Bundestag approval has been given to the German commitment. The agreement of other nations, including the UK, is subject to the German signature becoming effective. If this has not happened by the end of January 2002, these authorisations will lapse, providing a further opportunity to review the position.
  569W
  I am content that the programme now agreed with Airbus Military satisfies the conditions that I set out in my announcement to the House on 16 May 2000 for our participation in the A400M programme. Specifically:
  Programme commitments now total 196, well above the notional level of viability of 180 aircraft.
  The price negotiated with Airbus Military is affordable and represents value for money.
  Achievement of contract signature on 18 December is consistent with the UK's In-Service Date. This is planned to be 2010.
  The commercial terms and conditions of the contract are acceptable.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many armour piercing and hard target penetrating warheads containing depleted uranium have been tested in(a) Scotland and (b) Dumfries and Galloway in each of the last 10 years. [18233]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 26 November 2001, pursuant to the reply, 5 December 2001, c. 342]With reference to the number of depleted uranium projectiles fired in Scotland in each of the last 10 years, it has been brought to our attention that there is a typographical error against the figure quoted for 1994. The correct figure should read 455 and not 4,555. All other information contained within my reply of this date is correct.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people were employed in her Department in each of the last four years. [23801]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 18 December 2001,Official Report, Column 256W.

  Correspondence
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Walsall, North of 15 November regarding fireworks. [24358]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I replied to my hon. Friend on 19 December 2001.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the target on routine procurement of goods to be conducted electronically was achieved. [23157]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) on 20 July 2001, Official Report, Column 597W.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on progress with the public service agreement target on the overall 570W
  international ranking of the science and engineering company base in terms of quality, relevance and cost-efficiency. [23171]

  Ms Hewitt
  The most recent measurements of the international ranking of the Science and Engineering Base (SEB) in terms of quality, relevance and cost-effectiveness indicate that, the UK continues to maintain its position relative to other G7 nations. The details are as follows:The quality of the science and engineering base is measured by the UK's world ranking in terms of citations of published papers. Over the period 1981–2000 the UK received a 9.1 per cent. share of the citations in the international Science Citation Index, second only to the US. The UK was second in 'citation shares' for 15 out of 20 scientific fields with the lowest placing being fifth.
  One measure of relevance is the UK's world ranking in terms of the proportion of university research funding from non-governmental sources. For the latest year for which data are available (1997), the UK was again ranked first among the G7 countries.
  Cost-effectiveness is measured by the UK's world ranking in terms of the number of papers published per £1 million of public expenditure on science. In 1990, 1993, 1996 and 1999, the UK was the leading country in the G7. For the latest year (2000) the UK was again ranked first.

  These measures were put in place at the time of the Comprehensive Spending Review and were continued for the period of the 2000 Spending Review (2001–02 to 2003–04).

  While the public service agreement targets described here provide a valuable indication of the strength of the UK science base relative to our competitors, other indications are also available. The results of the latest Research Assessment Exercise were published on 14 December and show that, since 1996 when the last study was carried out, many university research groups have significantly improved their performance.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Armed Theft (Belfast)
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what assessment has been made of responsibility for the armed theft of electrical goods from a warehouse near Belfast on 21 November; [24141]

  (2) what assessment has been made of responsibility for the armed robbery of cigarettes at Belfast docks in June. [24097]

  Jane Kennedy
  The police believe that the robberies involved well-organised criminal gangs with association to republican paramilitary groups.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress with the PSA target to limit the number of prison escapes. [24830]

  Jane Kennedy
  There have been no escapes from any Northern Ireland Prison Establishment during the period 1 April 2001–27 December 2001.
  571W
  There have been three escapes involving medium/low risk prisoners during this period from external hospitals. To reduce the likelihood of further escapes the following action has been taken
  Trained prison staff are deployed to outside hospitals when it is necessary to produce prisoners for medical treatment. These staff are now given more detailed briefings.
  The procedures relating to the escorting of prisoners at outside hospitals have been reviewed and the operating instructions to officers have been revised.
  In consultation with the Commissioner for Nursing and Heads of Nursing in relevant hospitals we are carrying out a review to ensure that the maximum use of medical facilities in prisons is made and that hospital escorts are restricted to essential cases only.
  Prison security managers and hospital staff are reviewing the physical security of wards used for accommodating prisoners.

  The Key Target for high/top risk prisoners as set out in the Northern Ireland Prison Service Corporate and Business Plan is 100 per cent. security and this target is currently being met.

  The Key Target for medium/low risk prisoners is 99.7 per cent. security and the current rate is 99.6 per cent. security, therefore the target is not currently being met.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress with the Public Service Agreement target to increase overall confidence in the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. [24833]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Public Service Agreement target requires that an annual survey measure the level of confidence of both main parts of the community in the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. The Community Attitudes Survey, which is conducted independently of the Northern Ireland Office, will provide baseline figures during this year for both sections of the community's level of confidence in the Northern Ireland criminal justice system.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress with the PSA target to reduce the rate of increase of overall crime. [24831]

  Jane Kennedy
  Baselines to monitor the target of a reduction in the rate of increase in overall crime are currently being established. Recorded crime figures for the current year, 2001–02, will be included in the calculation of the baseline to monitor this target. This baseline will be the average annual increase in crime from 1997–98 to 2001–02.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress with the Public Service Agreement target to secure ongoing efficiency savings in core departmental administration costs for each year of the planning period. [24829]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Northern Ireland Office's SR2000 PSA target 8 is:"To secure ongoing efficiency savings of 3 per cent. in core departmental administration costs for each year of the planning period while maintaining levels of quality of service".

  The Department is currently on course to meet this target.

  Anti-drugs Strategy
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the results of the use of the additional funding allocated in the 2001 Budget to tackle drug-related crime and drug abuse. [24835]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Chancellor awarded £9.347 million over three years to Northern Ireland in the 2001 Budget. Of this figure £6.23 million will be transferred to the NI Executive, the remainder being retained by the Northern Ireland Office. Both administrations are currently developing action plans to identify the key focus of the support programmes to tackle illicit drug use. It is too early to specify the impact of this additional funding.

  Visiting Heads of State
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the protocol to be followed by visiting Heads of State to Northern Ireland in respect of(a) official visits and (b) private visits. [23567]

  Dr. John Reid
  When a Head of State makes an official visit to Northern Ireland full protocol is observed. The visitor is met by the lord-lieutenant of the county or county borough. The sheriff for the county or county borough, the mayor of the borough or chairman of the district council, the chief executive of the council and the Member of Parliament for the constituency are invited to take part in the presentation lines. Northern Ireland Office Ministers and devolved Ministers are also invited to take part in presentation lines as appropriate.

  Where a visit is private, there is no requirement for protocol.

  When a visit is classed as a working visit, a lord-lieutenant greets the Head of State. Members of Parliament, Northern Ireland Office Ministers and devolved Ministers are advised, for information only, of the Head of State's attendance at public venues within their constituency or areas of responsibility.

  Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the religious affiliation is of those employed in the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland; which groups were consulted prior to the creation of the Office; what the breakdown is by postcode of where complaints were made from since the creation of the Office; and what costs were incurred by the Office in the last year. [20371]

  Jane Kennedy
  The religious affiliation of the Police Ombudsman's office which currently employs 108 staff is 46.2 per cent. Protestant, 34.6 per cent. Catholic and 19.2 per cent. others.

  Before the Office of the Police Ombudsman was set up, the Northern Ireland Office set up a steering group which was representative of all the main stakeholders, including the police, police staff associations and the Police Authority.

  The costs incurred by the Police Ombudsman's Office January 2001 to October 2001 are £3.74 million.
  573W
  The table shows the breakdown by postcode of complaints received to date:

  Postcode

  Number of complaints

  BT1

  56

  BT2

  1

  BT4

  46

  BT5

  86

  BT6

  38

  BT7

  90

  BT8

  40

  BT8

  92

  BT10

  12

  BT11

  85

  BT12

  183

  BT13

  130

  BT14

  262

  BT15

  169

  BT16

  20

  BT17

  80

  BT18

  28

  BT19

  66

  BT20

  44

  BT21

  8

  BT22

  27

  BT23

  100

  BT24

  30

  BT25

  9

  BT26

  3

  BT27

  23

  BT28

  67

  BT29

  13

  BT30

  119

  BT31

  7

  BT32

  34

  BT33

  20

  BT34

  62

  BT35

  39

  BT36

  87

  BT37

  36

  BT38

  76

  BT39

  25

  BT40

  48

  BT41

  80

  BT43

  75

  BT44

  19

  BT45

  34

  BT46

  8

  BT47

  95

  BT48

  128

  BT49

  45

  BT51

  38

  BT52

  58

  BT53

  18

  BT54

  2

  BT55

  7

  BT56

  15

  BT57

  2

  BT60

  34

  BT61

  38

  BT62

  91

  BT63

  34

  BT64

  4

  BT65

  42

  BT66

  33

  BT67

  24

  BT70

  20

  BT71

  42

  BT74

  1

  BT75

  3

  BT76

  2

  BT77

  56

  BT78

  61

  BT79

  63

  574W

  Postcode

  Number of complaints

  BT80

  10

  BT81

  87

  BT82

  54

  BT92

  18

  BT93

  7

  BT94

  21

  Outside Northern Ireland

  5

  Unknown

  220

  Police Service
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what date new recruits to the reformed Police Service of Northern Ireland will complete their training in 2002. [22921]

  Jane Kennedy
  The first intake of new recruits to the Police Service of Northern Ireland will complete their initial training on 4 April 2002. Those that complete the training successfully will be attested as Constables on 5 April 2002, and will then undergo an eight week period of combined operational training. This will be followed by a period of 'tutorship' in District Command Units, beginning on 10 June 2002, before recruits are posted to their individual stations on 19 August 2002.

  Further tranches of recruits will complete this training schedule approximately every five weeks thereafter.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Race Crime
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many cases of(a) incitement to race hatred and (b) racist violence have been brought before courts in England and Wales; and of these how many have been successful in each of the past three years. [25229]

  The Solicitor-General
  Records for prosecutions for incitement of racial hatred under part III of the Public Order Act 1986 have been kept since 1988. The records relate to the year that the application for consent to prosecute was dealt with and so it is not possible to state with any certainty how many prosecutions resulted in convictions in any given year. The number of applications for consent to prosecute for each year since 1999 and the number of convictions resulting from the prosecutions are summarised in the table.

  Consent applications and prosecutions since 1999 under part III of the Public Order Act 1986

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Number of Attorney-General consent applications1

  4

  5

  8

  Withdrawn

  —

  —

  —

  Not granted

  —

  —

  —

  Prosecuted

  4

  5

  8

  Convicted2

  3

  32

  4—

  1 Per defendant.

  2 Not necessarily in same year.

  3 One result outstanding. One prosecution stayed on ill health grounds.

  4 Results awaited.

  575W
  Note:

  1. Data for prosecutions of racist violent offences are included in figures published annually by the Home Office. The offences covered are racially aggravated offences under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which came into force on 30 September 1998. The racially aggravated (RA) offences are:

  (i)RA wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm.

  (ii)RA actual bodily harm.

  (iii)RA common assault.

  (iv)RA intentional harassment alarm or distress.

  (v)RA offence of harassment.

  (vi)RA putting people in fear of violence.

  The figures supplied by the Home Office for 1999 and 2000 (data for 2001 not available) are given as follows on a principal offence basis.

  Year

  Prosecuted

  Convicted

  1999

  1,330

  451

  20001

  2,342

  878

  1 Staffordshire police force was only able to submit sample data for persons dealt with at 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.

WALES

  Abandoned Vehicles
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the cost was to each county council in Wales of removing and disposing of abandoned vehicles in the last year. [25139]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  That is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what steps his Department is taking to ensure delivery of energy efficiency services to rural areas; [23948]

  (2) what representations he has received concerning constraints on delivery of energy efficiency services to rural areas. [23951]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  General energy efficiency advice is available through Energy Efficiency Advice Centres (EEACs). A network of 52 centres around the country provides advice to all areas. In addition, the Environment and Energy Helpline is available for businesses, whatever their location, to provide guidance and advice.

  The Government's main grant programme for improving the energy efficiency of private sector households is the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES). The two scheme managers—Eaga Partnerships Ltd. and TXU Warm Front Ltd. —are responsible for marketing the programme across the country. Both scheme managers provide regular progress reports on the effectiveness of these programmes.

  They use a variety of methods including working with health professionals such as practice nurses and health visitors together with social workers and others involved in the health or welfare of vulnerable clients. The scheme managers also enter into partnerships with bodies such
  576W
  as travelling libraries, which visit rural communities on a regular basis, and Meals on Wheels. In addition, a travelling bus has been used as a focal point to reach those in outlying areas.

  One of the five Warm Zones the Government are piloting has been set up in Northumberland to test an area, rather than a referral-based mechanism, for reaching the fuel poor. The purpose is to test whether this improves the take-up of the scheme in rural areas.

  The Government are aware that the construction of some rural properties coupled with lack of access to the main gas network can make it difficult to make homes energy efficient. The Fuel Poverty Strategy sets out our intention to carry out large scale pilots using renewable energy sources and micro combined heat and power to explore how these technologies could be used to help the fuel poor.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on UK participation in peacekeeping activities in Afghanistan. [23008]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  As outlined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence in a statement to this House on 19 November 2001, the United Kingdom has agreed to take on the lead nation role in the International Security Assistance Force. The core mission of the ISAF will be to assist in the maintenance of security in Kabul and the surrounding area so as to help in the establishment of the Interim Authority and the initial activities of the United Nations.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the political settlement in Afghanistan and its impact on international terrorism. [23012]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said on 5 December,"The signing on 5 December of the Agreement on Afghanistan's future is a significant achievement. It is a victory for the coalition against terrorism. A stable Afghanistan, with a broad-based government, is as important to our own security as it is to the Afghan people."

  The new interim administration has already indicated its willingness to co-operate with the UK on information-sharing on alleged terrorists.

  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the President of Pakistan on the future Government of Afghanistan. [23031]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  During his visit to Pakistan on 22–23 November, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the situation in Afghanistan with President Musharraf. The Secretary of State expressed our continuing appreciation for President Musharraf s courageous decision to support the fight against terrorism and the practical assistance that Pakistan has provided. The Secretary of State also discussed the situation in Pakistan and sought President Musharraf s advice on how
  577W
  best to achieve our shared objective of a broad-based multi-ethnic Government in Afghanistan. The Prime Minister also met President Musharraf on his visit to Pakistan on 7 January and paid tribute to President Musharraf s role in the international coalition.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the level of the cultivation of heroin poppy crops in Afghanistan in(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04; and what the level was in 2001–02. [24390]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  It is impossible to predict what level of opium cultivation there will be in Afghanistan in 2002–03 and 2003–04. We hope the economic reconstruction programme will develop alternative livelihoods for opium poppy farmers. Under the agreement reached in Bonn the Interim Administration would co-operate with the international community in the fight against drugs. We now look to the Interim Administration to live up to this commitment with the help of the international community.

  The planting season for the 2001–02 opium poppy crop is now drawing to a close. No reliable estimate of the level of cultivation will be available until February 2002 when UNDCP propose to conduct a limited survey. The results of the comprehensive UNDCP survey will not be available until September 2002.

  EU Enlargement (Poland)
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Polish Government on EU enlargement. [23009]

  Peter Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited Warsaw in October for talks with Foreign Minister Cimoszewicz. They discussed the importance of Poland making early progress in the negotiations in order to make the first wave of accession in 2004.

  Drug Trafficking
  Ann Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further measures he proposes to clamp down on international drug trafficking. [23010]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We will continue to work closely with the Governments and law enforcement agencies of the key countries on the main trafficking routes for illegal drugs to the UK. The heroin trade from Afghanistan remains a particular concern. We welcome the recent agreement in Bonn that the Interim Authority shall co-operate with the international community in the fight against terrorism, drugs and organised crime, and look forward to playing a key role in this process.

  Cuba
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Cuba; and if he will make a statement on the UK's relations with Cuba. [23011]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no present plans to visit Cuba, but looks forward to further developing the good relationship following his 578W>
  successful meeting with the Cuban Foreign Minister in the margins of the UN General Assembly in New York in November 2001.

  Laeken Summit
  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the conclusion of the Laeken Conference, with specific reference to the creation of a convention to discuss the future constitutional arrangement of the EU. [23013]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David), on 8 January 2002,Official Report, columns 407–08.

  Anti-terrorism Campaign (Russia)
  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the role of Russia in the campaign against terrorism. [23014]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Russia is an important partner in the international coalition against terrorism, as was demonstrated by the announcement of the UK/Russian Joint Working Group on International Terrorism on 21 December during President Putin's visit. This underlined our shared commitment to fighting terrorism by diplomatic, military and economic means.

  Lusaka Peace Process
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made with the Lusaka peace process in the Great Lakes region. [23015]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  A key element of the peace process, the Inter Congolese Dialogue, is due to start in South Africa at the end of this month. Foreign troops are being withdrawn and there has been some progress in the disarmament and demobilisation of rebels operating in the DRC. We hope that the Foreign Secretary's visit to the region with his French counterpart later this month will help push forward the process still further.

  Kazakhstan
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's relations with Kazakhstan. [23017]

  Peter Hain
  Our relations with Kazakhstan are excellent. We are developing bilateral co-operation over a wide area including the political, commercial, defence, cultural and educational fields.

  West Bank/Gaza
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with(a) the Government of Israel and (b) the Palestinian Authority concerning population settlements in (i) the West Bank and (ii) Gaza. [23018]
  579W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  Our view on Israeli settlement activity is clear, and has often been expressed to both the Israel Government and the Palestinian Authority. Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories are illegal, and an obstacle to peace.

  EU Enlargement
  Mr. Luke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what role Britain is playing in helping to prepare those countries applying for accession to the EU. [23019]

  Peter Hain
  Since 1989, the UK has provided £350 million through the Know-How Fund to help the candidates prepare for accession. We have "Action Plans" with 11 of the 13 candidates, and will launch another soon. The plans bring together the UK's practical assistance to the candidates across a range of activities involving all Whitehall Departments.

  Under the Commission's "Twinning" programme, over 40 British civil servants are seconded as long-term pre-accession advisers to Ministries in the candidate countries. Since 1998, the UK has won involvement in over 90 twinning projects—the third highest number of any member state—targeted on each candidate's priority areas for EU accession.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made towards EU enlargement. [23022]

  Peter Hain
  The enlargement negotiations have made good progress under the Belgian presidency, in line with the roadmap (timetable) for negotiations agreed at Nice. The Laeken European Council (14–15 December) confirmed its objective to complete accession negotiations by the end of 2002 with those candidates that are ready, so they can participate in the 2004 European Parliament elections as members.

  Yemen
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent consultations he has had with the Government of Yemen about the international coalition against terrorism. [23020]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are in regular contact with our many international partners in the coalition against terrorism. I met the Yemeni President's envoy, Dr. Iriyani, when he visited London in October 2001. We discussed the international coalition against terrorism and the Yemeni Government's views towards terrorism.

  The Government of Yemen have Her Majesty's Government's support in their efforts to combat terrorism.

  Kyoto Protocol
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent discussions he has had with the United States on the ratification of the Kyoto protocol. [23021]

  Peter Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has concentrated on the war against terrorism in his recent discussions with the US. Other senior members of this Government have continued to raise the importance of the 580W
  Kyoto protocol at every appropriate opportunity. My right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have both recently visited the US, where they met senior US politicians. They emphasised the UK's commitment to ratifying Kyoto and encouraged the US to take domestic action to tackle climate change in the short term and to re-engage with the international process in the longer term.

  Middle East Peace Process
  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on developments in the middle east peace process. [23023]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in the middle east. [23030]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), on 8 January 2002,Official Report, columns 397–98.

  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the US Administration about their role in securing peace in the middle east. [R] [23025]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have regular discussions with both the US and our EU partners on the subject of the middle east peace process. We stand ready to do all we can to help both parties return to negotiations, and particularly welcome the role of the US envoy to the region, General Zinni.

  EU Enlargement (Turkey)
  Mr. Bryant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had regarding Turkey's candidacy for membership of the EU. [23024]

  Peter Hain
  During his visit to Turkey on 17–18 October where he met President Sezer, Prime Minister Ecevit and Foreign Minister Cem, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary welcomed Turkey's recent constitutional changes as progress towards meeting the Copenhagen criteria, and encouraged the Turkish Government to continue their efforts to reform. As the Laeken European Council of 14–15 December noted, this progress has brought forward the prospect of opening accession negotiations with Turkey.

  Colombia
  Paul Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received on human rights in Colombia. [23026]

  Mr. MacShane
  We continue to receive numerous representations from Members of Parliament, leading UK non-governmental organisations such as ABColombia, CAFOD and Peace Brigades International, and members of the public about human rights in Colombia. Several UK trade unions have recently expressed their concerns. I met a number of peace activists and human rights NGOs
  581W
  during my visit to Colombia in October 2001. We continue to make representations to the Colombian Government about human rights. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office co-sponsored a Forum on Human Rights in Colombia in London on 31 October 2001.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last had discussions with the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth about the situation in Zimbabwe. [23027]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The latest discussion on Zimbabwe with the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth took place at the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) meeting held on 20 December.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many UK citizens will assist in ensuring that the Zimbabwe 2002 Presidential elections are free and fair. [23883]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have not yet received an invitation from the Government of Zimbabwe to send observers to this year's Presidential election. It is therefore too early to say how many UK nationals may or may not be deployed as election observers.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Libyan involvement in Zimbabwe. [24926]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Relations between Libya and Zimbabwe are a matter for those two countries. We have seen no evidence to support recent speculatory press articles on Libya's involvement in Zimbabwe.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with Southern African Governments about the situation in Zimbabwe. [23006]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are in regular dialogue with Southern African Development Community (SADC) countries about the situation in Zimbabwe.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Abuja Agreement following recent events in Zimbabwe. [24940]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  At Abuja, Zimbabwe agreed that its land reform programme should be fair, just and sustainable and in the interest of all the people of Zimbabwe. It also committed itself to restore the rule of law to land reform and to respect the Harare Commonwealth Declaration. The Government of Zimbabwe's actions over the past few months show their scant regard for these commitments. They have seriously undermined the Abuja agreement.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Governments of Turkey and Greece regarding the future of Cyprus. [23028]

  Peter Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discusses Cyprus regularly with Turkish Foreign Minister Cem. He visited Ankara 17–18 October and met Foreign 582W
  Minister Cem at UN General Assembly on 12 November. The Foreign Secretary's last formal bilateral with Greek Foreign Minister Papandreou was on 4 October, at which Cyprus was discussed, but they also have discussions regularly in the margins of EU and other international meetings.

  Angola
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the situation in Angola. [23032]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We continue to be concerned by the human consequences of the civil war in Angola, which include widespread suffering, internal displacement and the violation of human rights.

  We urge dialogue, involving all parties to the conflict, as an essential first step towards addressing these problems. We welcome the growing contribution of the churches and civil society to finding a sustainable solution.

  Terrorist Networks
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on diplomatic action he has taken to eliminate terrorist networks in countries other than Afghanistan. [23016]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Diplomatic action to eliminate terrorist networks is one of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's priorities. We regularly raise counter-terrorism issues with a wide range of Governments and in many international organisations and have an active programme of international co-operation in this area. This activity has increased significantly since 11 September. We consistently call for an end to state sponsorship and for firm action to root out terrorist networks on the part of Governments which unwillingly host terrorists.

  Arms Embargoes
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries are subject to(a) an EU arms embargo and (b) a UN arms embargo. [23685]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Countries subject to a United Nations arms embargo are Afghanistan (territory under Taliban control), Angola (UNITA), Iraq, Liberia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone (non-Government forces) and Somalia. There are also restrictions in place on Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Tanzania and Uganda where arms and related material are intended for use in Rwanda.

  Countries that are not subject to a UN arms embargo that are subject to European Union restrictions are Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burma, China, Democratic Republic of Congo, Libya and Sudan.

  A full account of the sanctions operated by the United Kingdom, including the United Nations and European Union measures, can be found on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website at http: //files.fco.gov.uk/und/sanctions/list.pdf.
  583W

  Egypt
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Egypt. [23776]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have a strong relationship with the Government of Egypt: interests in the region are often parallel and Egypt has, in particular, played an important role in the Middle East Peace Process. UK/Egypt trade relations are also very strong and continue to grow. We have concerns about individual cases of human rights abuse in Egypt. We shall continue to encourage the Egyptian authorities, both bilaterally and through the EU, to work towards improving their human rights record.

  Capital Assets
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's answer of 12 December 2001,official Report,column 889W, on capital assets, if he will place in the Library information on the accounting treatment of the public private partnership projects relating to (a) the Berlin Embassy, (b) the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Telecommunications Network, (c) GCHQ Building, (d) car leasing and (e) IT Registry (Minerva); and if he will make a statement. [24257]

  Mr. MacShane
  The accounting treatment of all public private partnership projects within the Department is in line with relevant generally accepted accounting practice, in particular FRS5 and also with specific HM Treasury guidance.

  The GCHQ building is not funded by the FCO, all other projects listed are treated as operating leases and are, therefore, not included in the Department's balance sheet.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Government will be responsible for(a) overseeing and (b) drafting the terms of a referendum of the people of Gibraltar on a change in sovereignty. [R] [24511]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on 12 December 2001,official Report,column 853W.

  Since any change to the Gibraltar constitution could trigger primary legislation in the UK, Her Majesty's Government would, in consultation with the Government of Gibraltar, expect to oversee the organisation and timing of any referendum of the people of Gibraltar on a change in sovereignty, and to propose and endorse the terms of any such referendum.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent developments in the sovereignty of Gibraltar. [23005]

  Peter Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) on 20 November 2001,Official Report, column 187W.
  584W
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent briefings have taken place with the Financial Times over the future of Gibraltar. [24978]

  Peter Hain
  There have been no recent briefings with the Financial Times over the future of Gibraltar.

  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place about using the model for Andorra as a model for joint sovereignty of Gibraltar. [24977]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) on 20 November 2001,Official Report, column 187W. A copy of the joint press communiqué issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs when they met under the Brussels Process in Barcelona on 20 November has been placed in the Libraries of the House. The Ministers discussed the full range of issues set out in the November 1984 Brussels Communiqué Their discussions did not include the Andorra model.

  Forced Labour
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Governments of(a) Bangladesh, (b) India and (c) Pakistan regarding forced labour in their countries. [24271]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We continue to raise human rights concerns, including bonded and forced labour, with the Bangladesh, Pakistan and Indian authorities. We remind the authorities of the need to uphold the basic rights of all people, particularly the poor and disadvantaged who are most vulnerable to forced/bonded labour. We welcome the three countries' ratification of International Labour Organisation (ILO) conventions which encourage equal pay among men and women. We also welcome Bangladesh's and Pakistan's ratification of ILO conventions that protect the labour rights of children.

  President Mugabe
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to his Spanish counterpart over President Mugabe's recent medical treatment in that country. [24927]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  None.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received on the meetings between President Mugabe and the Spanish Government during the President's recent trip to Spain. [24925]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Spanish Government have told us that there were no meetings between the Spanish Government and President Mugabe during his recent trip to Spain.

  Iraq
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the suspected activities at the Salman Pak training camp in Iraq. [24941]
  585W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Salman Pak "camp" is a group of facilities close to Baghdad. We are aware of press reports that claim Salman Pak is used as a terrorist training camp. We take these reports seriously, however, there is currently no direct evidence linking al-Qaeda to Salman Pak.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Sierra Leone and the progress of the British military mission. [24972]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government's strategy towards Sierra Leone was set out in the Foreign Secretary's statement to the House on 6 June 2000. The effectiveness of that strategy has been demonstrated by the progress we have made towards peace and stability in Sierra Leone.

  Since the beginning of 2001, over 40,000 former combatants have disarmed. They are now being reintegrated into society. A new, more effective and accountable Sierra Leone army, trained by UK forces, is deploying with civil administrators throughout the country. This has signalled the visible restoration of Government authority. Supported by the international community, the Government of Sierra Leone are preparing to hold elections in May 2002.

  The situation in Sierra Leone will, however, continue to be fragile, at least until ordinary Sierra Leoneans are able to enjoy the benefits of peace. The Government of Sierra Leone need rapidly to mobilise substantial additional resources to rehabilitate the country's devastated communities, institutions and economy. As Sierra Leone's largest bilateral donor, the UK will continue to help the Government of Sierra Leone through a wide-ranging programme of assistance.

  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence indicated in a written statement to the House on 18 December, our military training and assistance programme continues to make good progress towards its goal of developing professional, accountable and effective Sierra Leone armed forces, better able to protect the security and integrity of Sierra Leone. The people of Sierra Leone are increasingly confident of the new Sierra Leone armed forces. We will, through the International Military Advisory and Training Team, continue to work to raise the standard and develop the capacity of the Sierra Leone armed forces.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many NDPBs there were in the United Kingdom in 2001; and how many(a) paid and (b) unpaid quango appointees there were. [25118]

  Mr. Leslie
  Information on advisory and executive non-departmental public bodies, tribunals and other public bodies is published in the annual Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies". This includes the location of the bodies concerned, their terms of reference, expenditure, appointments and remuneration. The next 586W
  edition of Public Bodies will be published shortly, and a copy will be placed in the Library of the House in the usual way.

  Civil Service Management Code
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which Minister has responsibility for the Civil Service Management Code. [25011]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Civil Service Management Code is issued under the authority of the Civil Service Order in Council 1995 under which the Minister for the Civil Service has the power to make regulations and give instructions for the management of the Home Civil Service. This includes the power to prescribe the conditions of service of civil servants. The Prime Minister, as Minister for the Civil Service, delegates this power through Lord MacDonald of Tradeston to me.

  Inter-Ministerial Group on Ageing
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many times the Inter-Ministerial Group on Ageing has met in this Session of Parliament. [23099]

  Mr. McCartney
  I have been asked to reply.

  Under paragraph 2 of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, information about Cabinet Committee business is not released.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Departmental Consultants
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 22 November 2001,Official Report, column 390W, on consultants, if he will list for each of the consultants and advisers named (a) the length of their contract including start and finish dates, (b) whether they were appointed after open competition, (c) the job specification for their contract, (d) the cost to his Department of their contract, (e) other contracts which they have with his Department and (f) other contracts held with other Government Departments. [19781]

  Mr. Byers
  For(a), (b) and (c), the information requested is as follows:

  AEA Technology Rail

  This contract, which related to rail passenger demand profiles and lasted for one month in July 2001, was let by the Association of Train Operating Companies.

  Allen and Overy

  (a) Four years three months from January 1998 to March 2002

  (b) No

  (c) Advice on the Channel Tunnel Concession Agreement

  AON

  This contract, which relates to insurance advice on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, was let by Schroder Salomon Smith Barney.
  587W
  Arthur Andersen

  (a)On going from September 2001

  (b)No

  (c)Accountancy advice on matters relating to Railtrack

  Booz Allen and Hamilton

  This contract, which related to Eurostar passenger and revenue forecasts and lasted for 15 months from February 2000 to May 2001, was let by Mott Parsons Gibb.

  Clifford Chance

  (a)Two years from October 1999 to October 2001

  (b)Yes

  (c)Legal advice on the Transport Bill

  CMS Cameron McKenna

  (a)On-going from May 1996

  (b)Yes

  (c)Legal advice on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, extended to advice on matters relating to Railtrack in August 2001

  Deloitte and Touche

  This contract, which concerns accountancy advice on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, was let by Schroder Salomon Smith Barney.

  Ernst and Young

  (a)Six weeks from August to October 2001

  (b)No

  (c)Accountancy advice on matters relating to Railtrack and (as a contingency in the event of the Secretary of State refusing Railtrack plc's request for additional funding and of a railway administration order being made) on administration matters generally.

  Eversheds

  (a)Call-off contract on-going from October 1999

  (b)Yes

  (c)Advice on rail pension issues

  KPMG

  (a)On-going from June 1992

  (b)Yes

  (c)Accountancy and taxation advice on the implementation of rail privatisation; currently advising on post-privatisation, residual taxation matters

  MDS Transmodal

  (a)Six weeks from August to September 2001

  (b)No

  (c)Multi-modal freight forecasts

  Mercers Management Consulting

  (a)On-going from August 2001

  (b)No

  (c)Management consultancy advice on matters relating to Railtrack

  Mott Parsons Gibb

  (a)On-going from May 1996

  (b)Yes

  588W

  (c) Project representatives for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link

  NERA

  This contract, which concerns economic advice, was let by Mercers Management Consulting.

  Oscar Faber

  (a)On-going from April 2001

  (b)Yes

  (c)Development of a national rail model

  Peter Davidson Consultancy

  (a)On-going from July 2001

  (b)No

  (c)Updating of 1997 rail ticket sales data profiles

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  This contract, which concerned a Freightliner grant application, finished in August 2000.

  Saunders and Dolleymore

  (a) Six years from April 1997 to March 2003

  (b) Yes

  (c) Trade mark services in connection with the "double arrows" logo

  Saxton Bampfylde Hever

  (a) Call-off contract; advice from June to October 2001

  (b) Yes

  (c) Advice on senior recruitment

  Schroder Salomon Smith Barney

  (a) On-going from June 1996

  (b) Yes

  (c) Financial advice on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link

  Schroder Salomon Smith Barney

  (a) On-going from August 2001

  (b) No

  (c) Financial advice on matters relating to Railtrack

  SEMA Group UK

  (a) On-going from July 2001

  (b) No

  (c) Provision of an extract of 2000 rail ticket sales data

  United Kingdom Accreditation Service

  (a) One year from November 2001 to October 2002

  (a) No

  (c) Development of an assessment regime for applicants for appointment as notified bodies for the High Speed Rail Interoperability Directive (Council Directive 96/48/EC).

  For individual consultants and advisers, the information requested under (d) is commercially confidential but, for all of them together, just over £10 million has been spent in the last twelve months.

  Information on (e) and (f) is not recorded centrally.

  London Underground
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant
  589W
  to his answer of 19 November 2001, Official Report, column 35W, on London Underground, what action has been taken against Westinghouse Rail Systems in response to the number of signal failures in the three years since that company introduced the new signalling system. [22753]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is a matter for London Underground who are wholly responsible for the management of contracts with their suppliers.

  Ferry Services
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the restoration of regular ferry services between Newhaven and Dieppe; and if he will make a statement. [22684]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The ferry service has been restored. The vessel concerned was withdrawn from service while serious safety deficiencies identified by the UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency and its French counterpart were rectified. The safety of passengers is my paramount concern.

  Congestion Charging
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whom he has met to discuss the implementation of the Mayor of London's proposed congestion charging scheme; and what was discussed at these meetings. [23139]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Ministers meet a variety of people to discuss a variety of issues including congestion charging. Any congestion charging scheme in London is a matter for the Mayor. The Government's involvement is with respect to exemptions policy and value for money in the use of the net proceeds.

  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many representations he has received on the Mayor of London's proposed congestion charging scheme. [23140]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Between May 2000 and 18 December 2001 we had received about 70 letters. However, the proposed congestion charging scheme for central London is a matter for the Mayor.

  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what(a) responsibilities and (b) powers he has with respect to the implementation of a congestion charging scheme in London; and if he will make a statement. [24377]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government's powers in relation to congestion charging in London extend to ensuring that the net revenues from any scheme are spent on value for money transport measures and to national exemptions policy.

  I understand that the consultation period on the scheme does not close until the middle of January 2002 and that the Mayor is aiming to announce his decision in mid February. The Government will consider the final version of the spending plan once Transport for London has finished the consultation process.
  590W
  Regarding exemptions policy, we have already announced that there will be England-wide exemptions from both road user charging and the workplace parking levy for ambulances and for police and fire emergency vehicles, and for at least some disabled people; and some form of England-wide exemption or concession from the workplace parking levy for NHS hospitals. We have no plans at present for any further England-wide concessions or exemptions.

  It will be open to local authorities, including the Mayor in London, to grant additional concessions or exemptions in their schemes, if they judge it appropriate to do so.

  Staff Parking
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many staff parking places are provided in central London by his Department. [23137]

  Dr. Whitehead
  49, across our six buildings in central London. It is our policy however to allow staff parking only for those with disabilities affecting their mobility, or for medical or exceptional operational requirements.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many people were employed in his Department in each of the last four years. [23795]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office on 18 December 2001,Official Report, column 256W.

  Local Government Finance (Devon)
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the value was of the Government's local government financial settlement for the(a) East Devon district council and (b) Devon county council in each year from 1978–79 to 2001–02; and what the percentage increase was on the previous year. [23753]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Information on allocations to individual authorities in years before 1990 is no longer held centrally. The table gives figures for Standard Spending Assessments (SSA) for the two authorities from 1990–91 to 2001–02, and the percentage increase in each year after adjusting for changes in function or funding responsibilities. Local government restructuring applied to Devon from 1998–99 so it is not possible to calculate a meaningful increase for the county in that year.

  Year

  SSA (£ million)

  Percentage increase

  Devon CC

  1990–91

  486.1

  —

  1991–92

  573.4

  17.9

  1992–93

  613.9

  7.1

  1993–94

  590.8

  3.8

  1994–95

  614.0

  1.0

  1995–96

  592.0

  1.7

  1996–97

  627.9

  3.7

  1997–98

  646.3

  2.4

  1998–99

  424.0

  —

  591W

  Year

  SSA (£ million)

  Percentage increase

  1999–2000

  448.2

  3.2

  2000–01

  470.7

  5.7

  2001–02

  493.0

  5.0

  East Devon DC

  1990–91

  6.9

  —

  1991–92

  8.8

  28.5

  1992–93

  9.4

  6.5

  1993–94

  9.8

  4.1

  1994–95

  10.6

  8.2

  1995–96

  10.7

  0.6

  1996–97

  10.5

  -1.3

  1997–98

  10.3

  -1.9

  1998–99

  10.2

  -1.0

  1999–2000

  10.7

  4.3

  2000–01

  11.0

  2.9

  2001–02

  11.6

  5.0

  Objective 1 Funding
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what percentage of European funding available to(a) Cornwall, (b) South Yorkshire, (c) Merseyside and (d) West Wales and the Valleys under the Objective 1 Programme has been committed to projects in the respective areas. [24157]

  Ms Keeble
  The table gives the information requested for the three Objective 1 areas in England as at the 20 December 2001. The implementation of the Objective 1 programme in Wales is a matter for the National Assembly but I understand that as at the end of November, 23 per cent. of the funds available to the programme had been committed.

  Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly

  South Yorkshire

  Merseyside

  Commitments so far as a proportion of total allocation1

  20.9

  24.2

  15.9

  Value of grant committed so far2

  64.6

  172.2

  134.1

  1Percentage

  2£ million

  SRB Funding (Cornwall)
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much funding from the Single Regeneration Budget was granted to projects in Cornwall between 1997 and 2001. [24159]

  Ms Keeble
  The total grant from the Single Regeneration Budget between financial years 1996–97 and 2000–01 was £8,999,461.

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much funding from the Single Regeneration Budget was granted to projects in Cornwall between 1994 and 1997. [24160]

  Ms Keeble
  The total grant in financial years 1995–96 and 1996–97 was £1,271,805. The programme was then known as the Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Fund and expenditure commenced in 1995–96.
  592W

  Motorcycles
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress towards better integration of motorcycles into overall transport planning. [24161]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government recognise that motorcycles have a part to play in a national transport strategy. My Department is actively seeking to include them in all relevant transport planning and policy documents.

  The Government's White Paper on the Future of Transport, "A New Deal for Transport: Better For Everyone", recognised that mopeds and motorcycles can provide an alternative means of transport for many trips. It acknowledged that where public transport is limited and walking unrealistic, motorcycling can provide an affordable alternative to the car, bring benefits to the individual and widen their employment opportunities.

  Our Guidance on Full Local Transport Plans built on this. It stated that local authorities should take account of the contribution powered two wheelers can make in delivering integrated transport policies and should consider specific measures to assist motorcyclists in making integrated journeys. Indeed, it advised that all relevant aspects of LTPs—including road safety, planning and social policies—should take account of the needs of motorcyclists.

  The Government's 10-Year Plan for transport highlighted advantages of motorcycles over cars and the Government's Planning Policy Guidance, which concerns planning as applied to land use and transport, also includes references to motorcycling. It recognises a role for motorcycles as an alternative to the car, particularly where public transport is limited and walking unrealistic, and advises local authorities to consider such measures as appropriate motorcycle parking and the inclusion of motorcycles in park and ride schemes.

  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what progress he has made towards reducing the number of people killed and seriously injured in road accidents involving cars and motorcyclists over the past 12 months; [24162]

  (2) what measures he is taking to ensure that local authorities introduce motorcycle safety programmes and car driver targeted motorcycle awareness campaigns in local authority areas. [24164]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The number of motorcyclists killed and seriously injured in accidents with cars rose from 4,195 in 1999 to 4,508 in 2000. We are seeking to address this at a local and national level. The Local Transport Plan process requires local authorities to produce a local road safety strategy. This should set out how authorities plan to tackle road traffic casualties in their area, including the current road accident casualty problem. Measures to be pursued will be for the local authority to determine in the light of local circumstances. The local safety strategy should also outline what education, training and publicity work will be undertaken by the authority.
  593W
  At a national level our Road Safety Strategy includes a number of measures to improve motorcycle safety. We have already replaced the one-year ban for learners who do not pass the motorcycle test within two years with a further training requirement. We have introduced a training requirement for newly qualified drivers wishing to ride a moped and ended the exemption from the motorcycle theory test for those holding a full car licence. The theory test for drivers also now includes more questions about motorcyclists. We have also co-operated with industry in the production of codes of practice for motorcycle couriers and fast food delivery riders.

  Other measures we are pursuing include issuing advice to car drivers and motorcyclists about the vulnerability of motorcyclists, improving training for all riders, establishing a register of accredited motorcycle instructors, and engineering and technical measures which may protect motorcyclists better.

  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he intends to publish guidance for local authorities about the installation of secure parking facilities for motorcycles in towns and cities. [24163]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department is preparing a Traffic Advisory Leaflet setting out advice to local authorities and others on providing high quality, secure and accessible parking for motorcycles. This is planned for publication by Easter.

  Vehicle Lights
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many vehicles in the UK are fitted with daytime running lights; and what percentage this represents of the total vehicle fleet. [24292]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Such details are not held by central Government.

  On the basis that only certain vehicle manufacturers have consistently fitted such lamps as a production feature, a motor industry estimate is that some 970,000 passenger cars fitted with daytime running lamps are currently registered in Great Britain. This represents approximately 3.5 per cent. of all passenger cars registered.

  These figures do not include Northern Ireland where there are an estimated 10,500 such passenger cars currently registered. Northern Ireland statistics do not provide sufficient information to express this as a percentage of the total passenger cars registered.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he had made of the impact on fuel consumption of the introduction of mandatory daytime running lights on all vehicles. [24295]

  Mr. Jamieson
  European Commission estimates suggest that mandatory use of daytime running lights could increase fuel consumption and CO2, emissions by 0.21 per cent. to 1.38 per cent.

  No separate UK assessment has been made.
  594W

  Bull Bars
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many people have(a) died and (b) suffered injuries through accidents associated with vehicles fitted with bull bars in each year since 1995. [24288]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Figures for accidents associated with vehicles fitted with bull bars are not recorded separately. The Transport Research Laboratory carried out a special study of a sample of police reports of accidents involving bull bars and estimated that in 1994 there were around two additional deaths in Great Britain due to bull bars. However, TRL did not find any single case in the sample where a bull bar had definitely caused a death.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many vehicles in the UK are fitted with bull bars; and what percentage this represents of the entire vehicle fleet. [24289]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The number of vehicles fitted with bull bars is not officially recorded. In 1997 we estimated that there were around 620,000 vehicles fitted with bull bars in Great Britain. This would have equated to 2.3 per cent. of total licensed vehicles.

  Pedestrian Safety
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many representations the Government have received on its consultation document on pedestrian safety; and if he will make a statement. [24278]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There were a total of 42 formal responses to our consultation exercise on pedestrian protection. A list of those who responded, together with a summary of the responses, has been placed in the Library. The full responses can be viewed, by prior appointment, at the DTLR Library, Ashdown House, 123 Victoria Street, London SW1E 6DE (telephone 020 7944 6107).

  Transport Projects (Buckingham)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much funding has been awarded to projects affecting the Buckingham constituency from the(a) Rural Transport Partnership, (b) Parish Transport Grant scheme, (c) Rural Bus Challenge Fund, (d) Rural Transport Development Fund, (e) Rural Bus Subsidy Grant and (f) Urban Bus Challenge fund in each year since their inception; and what the nature of the project and level of funding was in each case. [24844]

  Ms Keeble
  Of the funds mentioned,(b) the Parish Transport Fund and (f)the Urban Bus Challenge were launched in 2001 by the Countryside Agency and DTLR respectively. No funds have been awarded in Buckinghamshire by the Parish Transport Fund, and Buckinghamshire county council did not submit a bid for Urban Bus Challenge.

  Details of awards within the county of Buckinghamshire for the other grants or funds mentioned are set out in the tables. Records are not kept of awards by individual parliamentary constituencies.
  595W

  Year

  Amount (£)

  Purpose

  (a) Rural Transport Partnership1

  2000–01

  31,448

  Establishment of the Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Rural Transport Partnership

  2001–02

  27,562

  Support for the RTP for 2001–02

  25,990

  Dial-a-ride services

  12,034

  Car sharing schemes

  3,376

  Internet based alternative transport guide for socially excluded groups

  10,000

  Delegated fund to support small-scale projects

  (c) Rural Bus Challenge2

  1998–99

  985,000

  County wide project to provide wheelchair accessible buses to operate new and enhanced services for the mobility impaired, school transport for children with disabilities and the general public, including dial-a-ride on Saturdays

  1999–2000

  100,500

  Community minibus service for Winslow area

  2000–01

  0

  No award to Buckinghamshire in 2000

  (d) Rural Transport Development Fund

  1999–2000

  7,136

  Support for a community transport officer in Buckinghamshire

  2000–01

  2,356

  Support for dial-a-ride services

  1The Rural Transport Development Fund was merged with the Rural Transport Partnership fund in April 2001

  2The results of the 2001–02 Rural Bus Challenge will be announced shortly.

  Amount (£)

  (e) Rural Bus Subsidy Grant1

  1998–99

  561,112

  1999–2000

  561,112

  2000–01

  561,112

  2001–02

  716,497

  2002–03

  820,087

  1RBSG is primarily for the support of new or enhanced rural bus services. In 2000–01 Buckinghamshire provided 28 services with the aid of the grant.

  Homelessness
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many night shelter beds were available in(a) London and (b) cities outside London in each of the last 10 years. [25013]

  Ms Keeble
  To date information on the number of hostel bedspaces in London and nationally has not been collated centrally. However, the DTLR has committed that the new Homelessness Directorate will collate information on hostel bedspaces.

  Between 1999 and 2002, the Government's Rough Sleepers Unit provided over 1,000 additional hostel spaces in London specifically for rough sleepers.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on what dates the Inter-Ministerial Group on Older People has discussed homelessness in the past 12 months. [24189]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 19 December 2001]Under Exemption 2 of Part 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, details of Cabinet Committee business is not released.

  Older People
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will set out for each of the conclusions in section 6.4 of the Performance and Innovation Unit report, "Winning the Generation Game",(a) what progress his Department has made and (b) what future plans his Department has for
  596W
  acting on them; and if he will set out against each of the conclusions the targets and deadlines that have been set. [24198]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 19 December 2001]I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 19 December 2001,Official Report. column 335W, by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office.

  Firemen (Attacks)
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many attacks there have been on firemen in the course of their duties in each year since 1997 in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) the North East and (c) South Tyneside; and what plans he has to address this issue. [24411]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Statistics on attacks on firefighters in the course of their duties are not held centrally. The cost of obtaining them would be disproportionate. Attacks are rare and there are procedures in place to protect firefighters when they are carrying out their duties. We do not have any plans to change existing arrangements.

  Terminal 5
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many letters he has had from residents of the Battersea constituency about(a) Heathrow Terminal 5 and (b) nightflights. [24409]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This information is not held in the form requested and could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  Light Pollution
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement of his policy on light pollution and its control by the planning system. [24457]

  Ms Keeble
  Light pollution from development can be a material consideration in planning decisions. In recognition of this, the former Department of the
  597W
  Environment published in 1997 "Lighting in the countryside: towards good practice". This guide was based on comprehensive research including a desk study of existing policies, controls, procedures, standards and advice, consultations and structured interviews with planning and highway authorities and a wide range of other interested parties. It provides a valuable reference source and tool for preventing and alleviating the adverse effects of poorly designed and installed lighting schemes on the English countryside. The good practice it sets out can, where appropriate, be material to individual planning decisions by local authorities, inspectors and the Secretary of State.

  Coalfields Regeneration Trust
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for what reasons and with what aims his Department decided to establish the Coalfields Regeneration Trust to support the regeneration of former coalfields areas. [24150]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 19 December 2001]The Coalfields Regeneration Trust is an independent, UK-wide, grant-making body launched in 1999 as part of the Government's response to the 1998 Coalfields Task Force report. The Task Force concluded that the problems of the coalfields were unique, due to a combination of factors that included concentrated joblessness, physical isolation, poor infrastructure and severe health problems. These factors, coupled with the speed of the collapse of the coal mining industry, meant that special measures were needed to bring about the physical, social, economic and environmental regeneration of these areas.

  The Trust's remit is to support the range of community initiatives identified by the Task Force as being key to rebuilding healthy and prosperous communities. It also sponsors projects targeted on workers displaced from mining-related industries, who have been unemployed for a long time and who face particular disadvantages at getting back to work. In addition it has an important role to play in community capacity building, providing a forum for good regeneration practice to be exchanged across the coalfield communities.

  Disability Vehicle Stickers
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many local authorities provide a disability vehicle sticker for people with temporary disabilities; and what plans he has to encourage more authorities to provide such a service. [24739]

  Ms Keeble
  The Blue Badge scheme of parking concessions for disabled people is available only for people whose disability is long-term and substantial. Badges can be issued only for a minimum period of three years. Any stickers which local authorities issue for people with temporary disabilities are therefore outside the statutory scheme and no statistical records of their issue are kept by this Department. Extending the Blue Badge scheme to people with temporary disabilities is one of a number of possibilities currently being considered as part of a review of the scheme which the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) is co-ordinating on behalf of the Government.
  598W

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many motorists bought a VED licence in the year starting July 2000 with a single payment. [24414]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The total number of annual licences taken out in the UK in July 2000 was some 1.8 million. Of this total, some 1.5 million were vehicles licensed in the Private Light Goods tax class (mainly private cars and light vans).

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations his Department has made to the Chancellor on rebates for vehicle excise duty under the Finance Act 2001. [24283]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The normal consultations took place prior to the Budget.

  Fatality Statistics
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many people in the age groups(a) 0 to seven, (b) eight to 13 and (c) 14 to 18 years died as a result of fires in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [24560]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The table shows the number of children who have died in fires attended by local authority fire brigades in the United Kingdom from 1996 to 2000 in the following age groups: 0–7, 8–13 and 14–18.

  Age

  0–7

  8–13

  14–18

  1996

  54

  15

  21

  1997

  49

  10

  28

  1998

  55

  19

  12

  1999

  36

  7

  10

  20001

  28

  8

  23

  12000 data are estimated, and are subject to revision as later information from inquests and death certificates confirming cause of death is received

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many people in the age groups(a) 0 to 7, (b) 8 to 13 and (c) 14 to 18 years died as a result of road crashes in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [24559]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The table shows the number of young people killed in road accidents.

  Fatalities in road accidents: Great Britain

  Accident year

  Age of casualty

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  0 to 7

  78

  71

  70

  68

  59

  8 to 13

  101

  125

  91

  97

  83

  14 to 18

  405

  354

  286

  310

  298

  Council Housing
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what
  599W
  changes he proposes in the borrowing arrangements for English local authorities to enable the construction of new council housing; and if he will make a statement. [25233]

  Ms Keeble
  The current arrangement whereby central Government approval is required for borrowing will be replaced, for local authorities in England, by a system where authorities are free to determine the amount of borrowing they undertake, subject to having the necessary resources to meet the costs of the borrowing. The change requires primary legislation and we are aiming to implement the new system by April 2004, or earlier if possible.

  It is a matter for local authorities to decide how these and other capital resources are used, based on the needs of the area. However, we expect the provision of new social housing to be provided through Registered Social Landlords rather than by the council itself as this provides a greater number of units from the available resources and increases choice and competition between social sector landlords.

  Council Tenants
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many council tenants in each English local authority have been evicted for racist behaviour in each of the last three years. [25230]

  Ms Keeble
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Road Safety (Drugs)
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of causal links discovered in studies in the United Kingdom and elsewhere between the use of(a) cannabis, (b) alcohol, (c) amphetamines and (d) anti-histamines and the incidence of road accidents. [24999]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The causal link between alcohol and road accidents has long been established through research and evidence. The impairing effects of drugs, whether medicinal or illegal, on road accidents are not so well understood. Research demonstrates that cannabis affects driving but the effects may not be as severe as for alcohol. Amphetamines act as a stimulant but their effect may be very unpredictable, and repeated use can lead to fatigue. Anti-histamines can cause sedation and thus driver drowsiness.

  The issue for road safety is the impairment that drugs may cause to drivers. That is why the Department has supported the police in the training of officers to recognise the outward signs of drug consumption and in using field impairment tests to help them judge whether a driver may be impaired due to drugs.

  Air Traffic Charges
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on what legal basis NATS charges private aircraft weighing less than 100 tonnes for night and IFR flights outside controlled airspace.
  600W
  Mr. Jamieson
  In accordance with section 73 of the Transport Act 2000, the Civil Aviation Authority specifies the charges which are to be paid by users of air traffic services. These charges are published in the London, Edinburgh and Belfast Gazettes, and are to be paid to Eurocontrol or to National Air Traffic Services Ltd. (NATS), depending on where the flight to which they relate took place. The Eurocontrol route charges system, of which the UK is a member, exempts flights performed by aircraft of which the Maximum Take-Off Weight Authorised is less than two metric tonnes, but provides that flights made under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) shall be subject to charges. Member states of the Eurocontrol route charges system have discretion as to whether to exempt flights made under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) and the UK does exempt these flights where they are undertaken by aircraft of which the maximum total weight authorised is 5.7 metric tonnes or less. This has been UK practice for many years.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much was top sliced from funds allocated to the local transport plans for inclusion in the discretionary element of the Single Capital Pot. [24515]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The total Transport provision for local authority basic credit approvals (BCAs) for 2002–03 is £1,064 million. Of this, 5 per cent. (£53 million) has been top sliced to form part of the discretionary element of the single capital pot.

  The discretionary element has been allocated to local authorities on the basis of performance following assessment of their plans for transport, housing and education and their capital investment and corporate asset management plans.

  Drink Driving
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of(a) the maximum permitted blood alcohol level for driving on public roads and (b) the penalties for breach thereof in each of the 15 EU member states; and what proposals for changes in either (a) or (b) have been made by (i) the Commission affecting all EU member states, (ii) the United Kingdom Government affecting the United Kingdom only and (iii) other national Governments affecting their individual countries. [24984]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government have been keeping the blood alcohol content (BAC) limit under consideration but have not made any proposals to change it. The Review of Road Traffic Penalties consultation contained some proposals to increase penalties for drink driving offences but no final decisions have yet been made on these.

  In the European Union three member states in addition to the United Kingdom have a BAC limit of 80mg alcohol per 100ml of blood; these are Luxembourg, Ireland and Italy. We do not have a systematic comparison of anti-drink-driving enforcement measures in other countries. Member states have tended to develop different alcohol detection procedure, penalty regimes and approaches to publicity, education and rehabilitation. These reflect their

  601W
  own national legislation and the capacity of the police and medical authorities in each country to conduct alcohol tests.

  The European Commission adopted a recommendation on 17 January 2001 which proposed harmonisation of the BAC level at 50mg or below, as well as other aspects of control but not penalties. Such a measure is not binding on the member states.

  I am not currently aware of proposals for changes in other member states but some countries have been considering measures such as lower limits for younger drivers.

  Planning Applications
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many Article 14 notices have been issued on planning applications before Wandsworth borough council in(a) 1995, (b) 1997, (c) 1998, (d) 1999, (e) 2000 and (f) 2001. [25847]

  Ms Keeble
  I regret that comprehensive information prior to April 1999 is not available. No Article 14 directions were issued to the London borough of Wandsworth between April and December 1999. Three Article 14 directions were issued in 2000 and five were issued in 2001.

  Taxis
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to introduce(a) a minimum age for applicants for a taxi driver's licence and (b) a minimum period of years in which an applicant for a taxi driver's licence has to have held a driving licence. [25122]

  Ms Keeble
  In England (outside London) and Wales, the legislation governing taxi licensing does not stipulate a minimum age which applicants must have reached in order to be granted a taxi driver licence. We do not have any plans to introduce a minimum age limit. Such an applicant must, however, have held a full driver licence for at least 12 months.

  Landing Slots
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when his Department will announce a determination on the application for a Public Service Obligation protection for the slots used for air services between Inverness and Gatwick. [24396]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We are continuing to analyse the application for a Public Service Obligation (PSO) for the Inverness—Gatwick route within a more general review of policy on the protection of London airport slots for regional services. We will announce the decision on the PSO application as soon as practicable.

  Traffic Wardens
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what guidance he gives to local authorities on the employment of traffic wardens. [25142]
  602W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Local authorities are responsible for the employment and conduct of their staff, including parking attendants whose sole role is to enforce parking restrictions in contrast to police traffic wardens who may undertake other traffic management duties as well. For authorities adopting decriminalised parking enforcement (DPE) powers under the Road Traffic Act 1991, Local Authority Circular 1/95 (Welsh Office Circular 26/95) "Guidance on Decriminalised Parking Enforcement Outside London" includes a section dealing with the duties, conduct and training of parking attendants. The employment by an authority adopting DPE powers of former police traffic wardens is a matter for settlement between the local authority, the police and the employees concerned and will be covered by Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations. Guidance on parking in London is now the responsibility of the Mayor.

  Community Strategies
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what steps he has taken to require community strategies prepared by local authorities under section 4 of the Local Government Act 2000 to be amended; and which strategies were affected and for what reason; [24922]

  (2) how many community strategies are expected to be prepared by local authorities, pursuant to section 4 of the Local Government Act 2000; and how many have been approved and adopted; [24920]

  (3) what procedures he has set in place for monitoring progress on the completion of community strategies, pursuant to section 4 of the Local Government Act 2000; [24919]

  (4) what plans he has to publish a timetable for the completion by local authorities of their community strategies, pursuant to section 4 of the Local Government Act 2000. [24921]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Every principal local authority is under the duty to prepare a community strategy. The Government's statutory guidance on "Preparing Community Strategies" (DETR December 2000) explains that the timetable for the development of the community strategy and its contents are at the discretion of each local authority in consultation with its partners and local people. Through discussion with the local community, they will be best placed to prioritise local needs and devise the most effective means of delivering them. Accordingly, the Government will not be imposing a timetable for preparing strategies nor do the Government intend to vet them or require councils to amend them. Proposals for a revised Best Value Performance Indicator on community strategies for 2002–03 were set out in a recent consultation paper "Best Value Performance Indicators 2002–03: Consultation"—DTLR November 2001. Local authorities' performance against these indicators are published. The Government will announce their conclusions on the consultation soon.

  Multi-Modal Studies
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he
  603W
  will list by location the number of Multi-Modal Studies commissioned by his Department; and what the anticipated timescale for their completion is. [24924]

  Tranche 1 contains 11 studies which commenced in 1999–2000

  Multi-modal study

  Date expected to report

  Access to Hastings

  Reported December 2000

  Decision announced in July 2001

  Cambridge to Huntingdon (A 14)

  Reported 20 August 2001

  Decision announced in December 2001

  South East Manchester (Stockport, Manchester airport Link West, Poynton)

  Reported September 2001

  West Midlands Area (M5/M6 and M42 between M40 and M6)

  Reported October 2001

  West Midlands to North West (M6)

  Early 2002

  A453 (M1 to J24 (Nottingham)

  Early 2002

  Tyneside Area (A1/A19)

  Early 2002

  South and West Yorkshire Motorway Box (M1 J30 to A1 West Yorks/M18/M62 and A1(M)

  Early 2002

  North/South Movements in East Midlands (M1 Junctions 21 to 30)

  Spring 2002

  London to South West and South Wales (A303, M4)

  Spring/summer 2002

  ORBIT- Transport Solutions around London (M25)

  Summer/autumn 2002

  Tranche 2 contains eight studies which commenced in 2000–01

  Multi-modal study

  Date expected to report

  Hull (East/West) Corridor (A63 and A1033 to Port of Hull)

  Spring 2002

  A1 (North of Newcastle)

  Spring 2002

  London to Ipswich (A12)

  Spring 2002

  South Coast (Southampton to Folkestone Coastal Corridor)-(M27, A27 and A259)

  Spring/summer 2002

  M60 Junction 12–18 (West to North Manchester)

  Summer 2002

  London to South Midlands (A1, M1, M11, A5 and A421)

  Autumn 2002

  London to Reading (M4)

  Autumn 2002

  West Midlands to East Midlands (A42/M42 to M6 Corridor and M69 and A38)

  April 2003

  Tranche 3 contain three studies (Norwich to Peterborough (A47)), A34 North from Southampton and A52 Corridor (Clifton Bridge to A1 (Bingham)). We expect these to commence in 2001–02 and they are expected to report in 2004.

  Sub-regional Studies
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list by location the number of sub-regional studies he has authorised; and what the expected timescale is of each of the studies. [24923]

  Dr. Whitehead
  This question is broad in scope and therefore covers a very large number of pieces of work, across the whole of the range of the Department's responsibilities. Information on these is not collated centrally.

  Nuclear Transportation
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what modes of transport are used to transport radioactive materials; and what is provided for in terms of(a) security and (b) safety. [25250]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Radioactive material is transported by air, sea, rail and road. Such transport is permitted subject to safety regulations which are based upon the standards recommended by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and implemented internationally by the appropriate modal authorities. These standards are reviewed and, when necessary, revised on a regular basis to ensure an acceptable level of control of hazard to persons, property and the environment.
  604W
  Mr. Jamieson
  A list of the Multi-Modal Studies and when they are expected to report to the respective Regional Planning Bodies are set out in the table.

  The security of radioactive material in transport is ensured through a range of measures and checks appropriate to the nature and quantity of material and the mode of transport.

  Novice Drivers
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he plans to consult on measures to improve the safety of novice drivers. [25254]

  Mr. Jamieson
  As stated in the Government's Road Safety Strategy "Tomorrow's Roads—Safer for Everyone", we want to ensure that new drivers have a broader and more extensive experience of driving conditions before they take the practical driving test. We therefore plan to consult soon on options for improving the safety of novice drivers.

  Rail Franchises
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what is his latest estimate of the completion date for the new franchise agreements for(a) Chiltern, (b) South West Trains and (c) South Central. [21852]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It is not generally helpful to speculate about franchise completion dates as this may constrain the Strategic Rail Authority in negotiations with train operators and thus make it more difficult to achieve best value for public money.

  Railway Services
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what
  605W
  assessment has been made by his Department of the progress made by the Strategic Rail Authority since April 1999 to (a) protect the interests of users of railway services, (b) contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, (c) promote efficiency and economy on the part of persons providing rail services, (d) promote measures to facilitate journeys involving the use of services of more than one passenger service operator, including through ticketing, (e) impose on the operators of railway services the minimum restrictions which are consistent with the performance of the Authority's functions, and (f) enable persons providing railway services to plan the future of their business with a reasonable degree of assurance; if he will place copies of reports published in the Library; and if he will make a statement; [23150]

  (2) what steps his Department (a) has taken and (b) plans to take to (i) protect the interests of users of railway services, (ii) contribute to the achievement of sustainable developments, (iii) promote efficiency and economy on the part of persons providing rail services, (iv) promote measures to facilitate journeys involving the use of services of more than one passenger service operator, including through ticketing, (v) impose on the operators of railway services the minimum restrictions which are consistent with the performance of the authority's functions and (vi) enable persons providing railway services to plan the future of their businesses with a reasonable degree of assurance; and if he will make a statement; [23192]

  (3) what steps his Department (a) has taken and (b) plans to review the performance of the Strategic Rail Authority against the directions and guidance provided by his Department in (i) September 1999 and (ii) July 2001; if he will provide details of the conclusions of the reviews which have taken place; and if he will make a statement. [23517]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Railways Act 1993, as amended by the Transport Act 2000, requires the Strategic Rail Authority to make to the Secretary of State an annual report on its activities and the Secretary of State to lay a copy of every such report before Parliament. The Authority's first overall strategy, due to be published on 14 January 2002, will set out its future plans. A corporate plan for 2002–3 will also be published in due course.

  The Secretary of State may give directions and guidance to the Authority in relation to its strategies and as to the manner in which it is to exercise its functions. A draft was issued for consultation on 29 June 2001. We are currently considering the responses received.

  Train Punctuality
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he received between June and December relating to the publication of monthly train punctuality statistics from(a) train operating companies, (b) Railtrack, (c) the Rail Passenger Council, (d) rail passenger committees and (e) others; and if he will make a statement. [23521]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I am not aware of any such representations.
  606W

  Railways (Overcrowding)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations his Department has received from, and what discussions his Department has had with(a) train operating companies, (b) Railtrack, (c) the Rail Passenger Council, (d) rail passenger committees, (e) the Strategic Rail Authority and (f) others on the measure of overcrowding levels of rail passenger services used by the Strategic Rail Authority; and if he will make a statement. [23505]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This issue was raised in a number of responses to our consultation on draft Directions and Guidance to the Strategic Rail Authority. We will respond to the consultation in due course.

  Rail Delays
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many delays on the rail network there were in the three months(a) before and (b) after the Hatfield crash. [23413]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The figures are contained in the Strategic Rail Authority's National Rail Trends published 13 December.

  Automatic Train Protection
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects the automatic train protection scheme will come into effect throughout the system. [23612]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Health and Safety Commission will advise the Government next spring on the recommendations on train protection systems arising from the public inquiry chaired by Lord Cullen and Professor Uff.

  Railtrack
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many managerial grade employees of Railtrack have tendered their resignation since 7 October. [24171]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department does not hold this information. Following the entry of Railtrack plc into administration, staffing is a matter for the administrator. I understand that turnover remains at its normal level.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 13 December 2001,official Report,column 1015W, what variations in budget have been recorded in management accounts provided by Railtrack under section 8.1.6.(a). [24252]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I am advised that this information is market sensitive.

  European Rail Research Advisory Council
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on UK involvement in the European Rail Research Advisory Council. [24123]
  607W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The European Commission has established the European Rail Research Advisory Council to improve synergy between European Union national and private rail research, to serve better society's needs, to lead to sustainable transport and to strengthen the competitive leadership of the European rail industry. The first meeting of the council was held in Cologne on 26 November 2001. The United Kingdom's designated member is the Technical Director of the Strategic Rail Authority. In addition, Roger Goodall, Professor of Control Systems, Loughborough University has been nominated as one of the two Council members from academia.

  Train Operating Companies
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which senior executives of train operating companies he has held discussions with since 7 October. [24170]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My right hon. Friend maintains regular contact with representatives of the Train Operating Companies, including the Association of Train Operating Companies.

  COTIF
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on UK involvement in COTIF. [24124]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The UK is one of 40 signatory states to COTIF—the convention concerning international carriage by rail. Rail passengers and freight shippers therefore benefit from a uniform set of rules for international rail journeys, including conditions of carriage and compensation in the event of loss or damage. The UK is a member of the Administrative Committee of OTIF (the intergovernmental organisation comprising the COTIF signatory states) for the period 2001–05.

  A new protocol amending the COTIF convention was agreed by the member states in 1999. This protocol is not yet in force and cannot be until it has been ratified by two thirds of the member states. New primary legislation is needed before the UK can ratify this protocol and we expect to seek these powers in due course.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions who has responsibility for ensuring that the gap between platform edge and carriage running board at Lymington Town station is safe. [24873]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Responsibility for the day to day safety, welfare and convenience of passengers using Lymington Town station rests with Railtrack and South West Trains.

  Railways (Electrification)
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment his Department has made of the costs of electrifying the rail link between Wolverhampton and Shrewsbury. [25110]
  608W
  Mr. Jamieson
  No such assessment has been made. Any proposal for investment in infrastructure would need to be justified in terms of economic benefit. The Strategic Rail Authority will set out the priorities for investment in railways in the Strategic Plan it intends to publish on 14 January.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if, under current regulations, business loans from banks or charities preclude people from claiming(a) council tax rebates and (b) housing benefit. [18256]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I have been asked to reply.

  To ensure equity of treatment between people claiming income-related benefits, all capital is subject to the same rules, regardless of how it has been acquired. No benefit is payable if capital exceeds the higher capital limit, which is currently £16,000 for council tax benefit and housing benefit.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Joint Residence Orders
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment she has made of(a) the use and (b) the effectiveness of joint residence orders. [24517]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Joint residence orders are rare because, if parents are able to agree a regime of shared care, a court order is unlikely to be necessary. However, in "Re: D (Shared Residence Order) 2000" the Court of Appeal decided that, in this case, it was in the child's best interests for the court to recognise the living arrangements brought about by a shared parenting regime. Although no formal assessment has been undertaken, the courts have found that shared residence arrangements can be problematic, especially if parents find it difficult to agree matters between themselves. Shared residence can sometimes be disruptive to children's educational and social development, particularly if parents live some distance apart.

  Access of Justice Act
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what has been the saving to public funds so far from the implementation of the Access to Justice Act 1999; and if she will provide a breakdown of that saving. [25256]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Access to Justice Act 1999 brought about reform over a wide range of publicly funded services, amendments to the law of legal aid in Scotland, provision about appeals, courts, judges and court proceedings. The Act also amended the law concerning magistrates and magistrates courts proceedings, and made provision for immunity from action and costs and indemnities for certain officials exercising judicial functions. As such it is not possible to quantify the savings to public funds from its implementation.
  609W

  Access to Public Records
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, for what reason the Public Record Office has not released files (a) CO 733, vol. 495, (b) CO 926 vol. 2084, (c) FO 492 vol. 11, (d) FO 487 vol. 11, (e) DEFE 7/389, (f) CO 537/3848, (g) CO 537/3851 and (h) CO 537/3854 for public access; and if she will make a statement.[25520]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  All the files listed are open to inspection at the Public Record Office except FO 492/11 and FO 487/11, which were not selected for permanent preservation

  Researchers who require access to records held by the PRO and catalogued as closed, or to historical records held by Departments, should first ask the PRO to check their status. If the records are closed or retained, researchers can apply for a review of access restrictions. They should write to the Departmental Record Officer of the Department that created the records (or its successor) quoting the PRO reference where this is known. Such
  610W
  requests are handled in the order in which they are received except where information is urgently required for legal purposes.

  Judge Hutton
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, when the report the Lord Chancellor has requested into the halting of a trial presided over by Judge Gabriel Hutton will be produced; if it will be made publicly available; and if he will make a statement. [25706]

  Mr. Wills
  An initial report is currently being prepared by officials for the Lord Chancellor's consideration. It brings together statements from a range of people who were present in court at the point when Judge Hutton is alleged to have fallen asleep, including the Judge himself. The Lord Chancellor would not normally publish the contents of such a report. However, he will make public his final decision about the Judge's conduct once he is satisfied that the matter has been fully investigated and he has been able to consider all the relevant facts and considerations
  611W

HEALTH

  Research and Development
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many research and development projects will be affected by changes in regional funding for research and development in England; [9057]

  (2) which research and development projects will be affected by changes in regional funding for research and development in the South-west. [9062]

  Mr. Hutton
  Changes made to regional research and development schemes will not affect the current funding of research projects already supported through those schemes. New research projects will continue to be commissioned through the national health service research programmes, which are open to all.

  Diabetes
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many new patients have been diagnosed with diabetes in the East Gloucestershire NHS Trust area in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; [16151]

  (2) what has been the cost to the NHS of treatment of diabetes in the East Gloucestershire NHS Trust area in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; [16150]

  (3) how many diabetic patients have died from heart-related conditions in the East Gloucestershire NHS Trust area in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [16152]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were waiting in accident and emergency units in the South Cheshire health authority in October(a) 1997 and (b) 2001. [16533]

  Ms Blears
  It is not possible to record data on patients waiting in accident and emergency units as it is a constantly changing situation. However data are collected on the number of patients admitted via accident and emergency units in South Cheshire health authority, which are shown in the table.

  Emergency admissions via A&E

  Qtr 2

  1997–98

  2001–02

  Number of patients admitted via A&E in Quarter

  6,823

  8,837

  Number of patients admitted to a ward within two hours

  6,637

  7,697

  Number of patients admitted to a ward within two to four hours

  167

  838

  Number of patients not admitted to a ward within four hours

  19

  302

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients (1) were waiting(a) between 13 and 25 and (b) over 26 weeks for appointments in the Portsmouth Hospital Trust area; [22213]
  612W
  (2) were waiting for in-patient treatment in each quarter of (a) 2000 and (b) 2001 in Portsmouth Hospital Trust area. [22214]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 11 December 2001]In the second quarter (July-September) of 2001—02, 4,231 patients had been waiting between 13—25 weeks and 1,249 had been waiting over 26 weeks for out-patients appointments at Portsmouth Hospitals National Health Service Trust. Information on the numbers of patients waiting for in-patient treatment is in the table.

  Total number of patients on in-patient waiting list at Portsmouth Hospital/NHS Trust 1999–2000 to 2001–02

  Number of waiting list

  1999–2000

  Ql

  7,984

  Q2

  7,771

  Q3

  8,152

  Q4

  8,442

  2000–01

  Ql

  8,957

  Q2

  8,882

  Q3

  10,246

  Q4

  10,307

  2001–02

  Ql

  11,587

  Q2

  11,409

  Source:

  KH07

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many employees of(a) his Department and (b) agencies sponsored by his Department work in(i) London, (ii) areas benefiting from EU Objective 1 status, (iii) areas with Objective 2 status and (iv) other areas. [16106]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 19 November 2001]Answers to (i) and (iv) for the Department and its agencies are shown in the table.

  London

  Other

  Total

  (a) Department of Health1

  1,983

  1,652

  3,635

  (b) Medical Devices Agency

  129

  8

  137

  (b) Medical Controls Agency

  432

  23

  455

  (b) NHS Estates

  20

  303

  323

  (b) NHS Purchasing and Supplies Agency

  0

  292

  292

  (b) NHS Pension Agency

  0

  445

  445

  Total

  2,564

  2,723

  5,287

  1Excluding agencies

  Source:

  Departmental statistical return to Cabinet Office 1 April 2001

  Answers for (ii) and (iii) cannot be provided. The Department of Health, like other Departments, collects data by Government Official Regions. These are not in the same detailed level as areas for EU Objective 1 and Objective 2.

  Food Poisoning (Deaths)
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the annual number of deaths in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) the European Union and (c) the United States of America per 100,000 people from food poisoning in the last 12 months. [16746]
  613W
  Ms Blears
  The table sets out the annual number of reported deaths from food poisoning per 100,000 people in the year 2000 for the United Kingdom and for the United States. The United Kingdom figure is based on the annual corrected notifications of deaths attributed to food poisoning organisms reported to the Office for National Statistics in England and Wales and the General Register Offices for Scotland and for Northern Ireland.

  The United States figure is based on deaths reported to the Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet) within the United States of America.

  Figures for the European Union are not available in the form requested as the data gathering process varies between member states.

  Annual number of reported deaths from food poisoning in 2000

  Country

  Deaths per 100,000 people

  United Kingdom

  0.05

  United States

  0.18

  European Union

  Not available

  Notes:

  The UK and USA figures are not directly comparable because of differences in the surveillance systems.

  The figures for both the UK and US underestimate deaths associated with food poisoning. A larger number of deaths are categorised as infectious intestinal disease (IID) and a proportion of these will result from food poisoning. The UK figure for deaths for IID was 0.99 per 100,000 persons in 2000. Comparable figures for IID in the US are not available.

  Sources:

  England and Wales: Office for National Statistics (ONS)

  Scotland: General Register Office Scotland (GROS)

  Northern Ireland: General Register Office Northern Ireland (GRONI)

  US: Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet)

  NHS Dentistry
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average level of remuneration for NHS dentists. [18478]

  Ms Blears
  Salaried national health service dentists are paid according to set salary scales. Information on individual salaries is not available.

  Dentists providing general dental services (GDS) are remunerated on the basis of fees set out in the statement of dental remuneration. Under their terms of service, GDS dentists are not required to work a set number of hours and information is not collected on the average number of hours they work in the GDS.

  However, a survey carried out by the Office of Manpower Economics in March 2000 provides some limited data on this area. The survey reported:
  the average number of hours worked for single handed dentists at 43.1 hours per week.
  full time practitioners wholly committed to the GDS reported total gross fee earnings averaging £163,900 in the most recently completed financial year. These figures are affected by transfers of payments from associate dentists to practice owners.

  Average net income for all dentists wholly committed to the GDS in the latest 12 months would be about £65,000 after allowing for an average of £2,600 for other payments to dentists, an average expenses ratio for all
  614W
  dental work of 54.1 per cent., subsequent fee increases and the introduction of the dentists' commitment payments scheme.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the number of NHS dentists due to retire over the next 10 years. [19945]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]A review of the dental workforce is under way and due to report to Ministers in spring 2002.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the availability of NHS dentistry in Fareham; [22378]

  (2) how many NHS dental practices there were in Fareham in (a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000. [22379]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 11 December 2001]One practice in Fareham is currently taking national health service patients. The others have closed their NHS lists temporarily but will be opening them again in the new year. NHS Direct is working closely with the dental access centre in Fareham to ensure patients are able to access NHS treatment.

  The number of dental practices in the Fareham constituency, for the years requested, is not available centrally.

  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS dentists are in practice in the town of Workington; and if he will make a statement. [23102]

  Ms Blears
  There are currently 12 dentists, in four practices, in Workington providing full national health service services

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many formal notices his Department has received in the last year from the Parliamentary Ombudsman expressing an intention to carry out an investigation; and in respect of each notice how long it took to respond. [18768]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 27 November 2001]Information on the outcome of statutory investigations which were concluded during 2000–01 is set out in the Parliamentary Ombudsman's annual report for 2000–01, copies of which are available in the Library, or on the Parliamentary Ombudsman's website at www.ombudsman.org.uk/pca/document/para01/index.htm. Between 1 April and 31 October, the Department has received two new statutory statement of complaint from the Parliamentary Ombudsman. Replies were sent in 13 and 15 working days.

  Salt Consumption
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Government's policy with regard to the health(a) risks and (b) benefits of salt consumption. [18860]

  Ms Blears
  Salt is the main source of sodium in the diet. Scientific evidence suggests that sodium is one of the important determinants of blood pressure which is a risk factor for heart disease and stroke. National surveys
  615W
  show that the average intake of salt in the United Kingdom is more than twice the amount that is needed on health grounds. 75 per cent. of salt in the diet is obtained from processed foods.

  Our policy is to seek reductions in the salt content of processed foods where it is present beyond technical, safety and palatability needs. Our commitment to working with industry to reduce the salt content of the diet was outlined in "Our Healthier Nation" (1999) and the "NHS Plan" (2000). The Department of Health, jointly with the Food Standards Agency, is in discussions with industry about reducing the salt content of these foods.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he plans to(a) alter and (b) review the list of exempted conditions for prescription charges. [18891]

  Ms Blears
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on 6 November 2001,Official Report, column 228W.

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will request the Prescription Pricing Authority to enable pharmacists to be informed of the specific reasons for transferring individual prescription items from exempt to chargeable groups without requiring them to travel to health authority premises to obtain the information. [19809]

  Ms Blears
  The monthly payment statement which the Prescription Pricing Authority (PPA) sends to community pharmacies provides summary information on the number of prescriptions transferred from exempt to chargeable (and vice versa) and the reason in broad groups. It is not practicable for the PPA to provide routinely details of individual prescriptions switched. Community pharmacists can, however, ring the PPA's helpline to discuss forms that have been switched. In many cases this resolves the problem without any need for the pharmacist to inspect the forms.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason the fee paid for dispensing NHS prescriptions has been changed; and what assessment he has made of the impact of the change upon the provision of community pharmacy services. [20282]

  Ms Blears
  The fee paid to pharmacies in England and Wales for dispensing national health service prescriptions has been changed as a consequence of the recent decision to set the Global Sum for 2001–02 at £806.6 million (an increase of 3.7 per cent. over the previous year). The Global Sum is the amount to be paid to pharmacies overall for the NHS pharmaceutical services they provide each year. The dispensing fee is one of a number of fees and allowances by which the Global Sum is distributed between pharmacies. Such fees are reviewed each time the annual Global Sum is set. Our assessment of the effect of the settlement for this year is that it appropriately remunerates community pharmacies for the service they provide

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the most recent review of the prescription system that he has carried out. [20860]
  616W
  Ms Blears
  "Pharmacy in the Future—Implementing the NHS Plan", published in September 2000, set out our proposals for changes to the prescription system. These include:better access to medicines out of hours;
  the introduction of repeat dispensing, beginning next year;
  the introduction of electronic prescriptions with the vast majority of prescriptions being electronic by 2008;
  schemes across the country by 2004 under which people will get more help from pharmacists in using their medicines, and
  extending prescribing responsibilities to new groups of health professionals.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the(a) projected percentage volume change in prescriptions to be issued in 2001–02 and (b) the percentage change in the fee per prescription payable to pharmacy contractors in 2001–02 after allowing for clawback of payments related to 2000–01 activity; and if he will make a statement; [21081]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the cost to a pharmacy contractor of supplying a prescription. [21079]

  Ms Blears
  We forecast that the number of national health service prescription items dispensed by community pharmacies in England and Wales in 2001–02 will be 6 per cent. higher than in 2000–01.

  The fees paid to pharmacy contractors vary according to the item prescribed. However, the majority of prescriptions attract a basic dispensing fee. From July 1999 to October 2001 that fee was 97.5p. From November 2001 to March 2002 it will be 87.4p. We therefore forecast that the average value of the basic dispensing fees paid to pharmacy contractors for prescriptions dispensed in 2001–02 will be 93.2p, a reduction of 4.4 per cent. compared with 2000–01.

  The basic dispensing fee is one of a number of fees and allowances by which the global sum for community pharmacies is distributed between pharmacy contractors. The global sum is the amount to be paid to contractors overall in the year in question. The global sum for 2001–02 for England and Wales is £806.6 million, an increase of 3.7 per cent. over 2000–01.

  If remuneration is expressed as the global sum divided by the number of prescription items dispensed, then the remuneration per prescription in 2001–02 is forecast to be 135.4p, a reduction of 2.2 per cent. compared with 2000–01.

  Actual payments will be different because there was an overpayment of £8.1 million in respect of 2000–01, which is to be recovered by reducing this year's payments. Taking that overpayment and recovery into account the actual payment per prescription item for 2001–02 is forecast to be 134.1p, a reduction of 4 per cent. compared with the actual payment per prescription in 2000–01

  While we take information and arguments about pharmacy contractors' costs into account when setting remuneration, we have made no assessment of the cost to a pharmacy contractor of supplying each individual prescription.
  617W

  Haemoglobinopathies
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people in the Wycombe constituency are affected by(a) sickle cell, (b) thalassaemia and (c) other haemoglobinopathies; [18890]

  (2) what partners in the community and voluntary sector are working with his Department on the neonatal screening programme for haemoglobinopathies in the Wycombe constituency. [19104]

  Ms Blears
  The Department's hospital episodes statistics provide information on hospital treatment of beta thalassaemia and sickle-cell anaemia with crisis. No other information on haemoglobinopathies, including the information requested on screening, is held centrally.

  Information on the number of finished consultant episodes (FCE) for patients resident in the Wycombe local authority area, treated in national health service hospitals in England during 2000–01, indicates 90 episodes of beta thalassaemia and seven of sickle-cell anaemia with crisis. Information is not available by constituency area.

  The NHS plan sets out our commitment to introduce by 2004 a new and effective screening programme for women and children including a new national linked antenatal and neonatal programme for haemoglobinopathies. In order to ensure close involvement of voluntary sectors NHS Haemoglobinopathy Steering Group has representatives from the Sickle Cell Society and the United Kingdom Thalassaemia Society. These national support groups have membership at local, national and international level.

  Notes

  i.An FCE is defined as a period of patient care under one consultant in one health care provider. The figures do not represent the number of patients, as one person may have several episodes within the year.

  ii.The main diagnosis is the first of seven diagnosis fields in the HES data set, and provides the main reason why the patient was in hospital.

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

  Lost Medical Notes
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action is being taken to reduce the incidence of patients' medical notes being mislaid. [19182]

  Ms Blears
  The NHS Plan, "Information for Health" and "Building the Information Core" made a clear commitment to providing electronic records for everyone in England, the aim being that, over time, on-line patient records will be accessible by all members of the national health service family such as family doctors, hospitals, NHS Direct, the ambulance service and patients. Electronic records play a crucial role in underpinning modern person based services.

  "Information for Health" set out a number of local and national targets around the development of electronic records (Electronic Patient Records (EPRs) and Electronic Health Records (EHRs)). The development of organisational based EPRs will ensure all healthcare professionals involved in the provision of care for an individual have secure access to his/her full electronic medical record. This means that data will be entered once and available to all professionals in a format that best suits their practice. The record will minimise repeated
  618W
  collection of the same information, eradicate illegible writing, and most important of all avoid records being misplaced or lost. Similar electronic records are being implemented in primary and community care.

  The successful implementation of EPRs in acute, primary care and social care environments will be a pre-requirement to successful implementation of the first generation EHR by the end of 2005. The EHR will be a summary of the data contained in the numerous organisational-based EPRs (hospitals, primary care, community, etc.).

  Cloned Human Embryos
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what techniques are available to distinguish between a blastocyst stage cloned human embryo and a blastocyst stage embryo created by fertilisation in(a) the petri dish, (b) the cryopresentation facility and (c) the womb of a woman. [19753]

  Ms Blears
  The Department has, in its evidence to the High Court in the judicial review proceedings brought by ProLife Alliance, provided expert evidence that human embryos created by cell nuclear replacement (cloning) would be morphologically and physiologically indistinguishable from those created by fertilisation.

  Chiropody
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of chiropody services in Buckinghamshire. [19802]

  Ms Blears
  Provision of chiropody services in Buckinghamshire is the responsibility of the local health authority.

  The NHS Plan contains the commitment to increase staff in the Allied Health Professions (AHP), including Chiropodists and Podiatrists. £3 million was earmarked this year to modernise AHP education and training programmes. Chiropody and podiatry were among the first group of specialities to addressed.

  Deaf Patients
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department is taking to ensure that deaf patients who seek treatment with an NHS dentist have access to an interpreter. [19415]

  Ms Blears
  Provision of interpreter services is commissioned locally through health authorities. To assess the availability of interpreter services, we commissioned a survey 'An Integrated Strategy for Language and Communication Support' in January 2001 and the final report has now been completed. Commissioning of interpreter services will be included in the remit of primary care trusts when they take over the responsibilities of health authorities, and they will be able to draw on the analysis of the national survey when planning communication strategies as part of their health improvement and modernisation programmes

  Fast Food and Drink Machines
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the provision of fast food and drinks machines in school corridors. [19537]
  619W
  Ms Blears
  It is for schools to determine for themselves whether or not there should be any provision for fast food and drinks machines in school corridors. The Department has no authority over what is sold in these machines. It would however encourage all schools to follow healthy eating principles and to ensure consistency of messages within the school about nutrition and food. We are working with the Department for Education and Skills, within the Food in Schools programme, on a number of issues, including vending machines.

  Abortion
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on those health authorities which offer a choice between early medical and surgical abortion. [19454]

  Jacqui Smith
  This information is not collected centrally at present. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists clinical guideline "Care of Women Requesting Induced Abortion" recommends that, ideally, abortion services must be able to offer a choice of recommended methods for relevant gestation bands. The sexual health and HIV strategy, which is currently out for consultation, recommends that services should be developed to provide national health service funded abortions in line with the Royal College's recommendations. Following the consultation, we will decide an implementation plan for the Strategy, including the arrangements for monitoring progress towards the new targets and other commitments made by the strategy.

  Strategic Health Authorities
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the appointment process for the senior positions on the new strategic health authorities was started; and which stages have been completed. [19576]

  Ms Blears
  A national advertisement for chief executives of the new merged health authorities which will be created in April 2002 (and subject to legislation will become strategic health authorities in October 2002) was placed in September. Following assessment against criteria, individuals have been placed on a national shortlist. No appointments can be made until decisions are made on boundaries and chairs have been appointed. Once chief executives have been appointed, the process of appointment of their senior teams can start

  Prices for methadone and diamorphine products used to price prescriptions dispensed in November 2001

  Generic-Drug tariff

  Product

  Pack size

  Price of pack (£)

  Brand Physeptone (£)

  Methadone hydrochloride BP

  2g

  9.61

  —

  Methadone inj BP 10mg/ml 1ml ampoule

  10

  8.59

  8.58

  Methadone inj BP 10mg/ml 1ml ampoule

  100

  —

  82.16

  Methadone inj BP 10mg/ml 2ml ampoule

  10

  14.5

  14.78

  Methadone inj BP 10mg/ml 3.5ml ampoule

  10

  17.83

  17.03

  Methadone inj BP 10mg/ml 5ml ampoule

  10

  19.23

  18.37

  Methadone linctus BP

  500ml

  5.25

  —

  Methadone mixt 1mg/1ml

  100ml

  1.45

  1.45

  Methadone mixt 1mg/1ml

  50ml

  0.73

  0.73

  Methadone mixt 1mg/1ml

  30ml

  0.44

  0.44

  Methadone mixt 1mg/1ml

  500ml

  7.59

  7.25

  Methadone mixt 1mg/1ml sugar free

  30ml

  0.44

  0.44

  Methadone mixt 1mg/1ml sugar free

  50ml

  0.73

  0.73

  Methadone mixt 1mg/1ml sugar free

  100ml

  1.45

  1.45

  620W
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many shortlists have been drawn up for Chair (designate) and Chief Executive (designate) for the proposed strategic health authorities in England. [20013]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 5 December 2001]Following a process of open competition, a national shortlist of candidates who meet the criteria for new chief executive posts has been drawn up. Following advertisement, the National Health Service Appointments Commission has provisionally identified candidates for each of the geographical areas covered by the proposed health authorities. No appointments will be made until decisions on boundaries have been made. Initially appointments will be to the new larger health authorities which will come into existence in April and will then, subject to legislation, become strategic health authorities in October.

  Residential Treatment Courses
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the percentage of dropouts from residential treatment courses in(a) the first week of treatment,(b)the first month of treatment and (c) in subsequent weeks. [19713]

  Ms Blears
  The periodic information requested is not held centrally. However, the latest report of the National Treatment Outcome Research Study (NTORS) showed that after a year from entering a residential treatment programme over half of the sample of clients was abstinent from all types of illicit opiates.

  NTORS is a research project set up by the Department in 1995 which was established with the aim of gathering information about the treatment outcomes of a large sample of drug misusers who had been through a treatment programme.

  Drugs
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the calculated weekly cost of drug treatment programmes, using(a) injectable heroin, (b) oral heroin,(c)injectable methadone and (d) oral methadone. [19715]

  Ms Blears
  The infonnation requested is not available centrally. However, the table gives all prices for the various methadone and heroin products that appear in the drug tariff and which may be used in drug treatment programmes.
  621W

  Prices for methadone and diamorphine products used to price prescriptions dispensed in November 2001

  Generic-Drug tariff

  Product

  Pack size

  Price of pack (£)

  Brand Physeptone (£)

  Methadone mixt 1mg/lml sugar free

  500ml

  7.25

  7.25

  Methadone tab BP 5mg

  50

  2.97

  2.97

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made of the use of naltrexone in drug treatment programmes for heroin addicts. [19714]

  Ms Blears
  The expert group that produced the Department's guidelines "Drug misuse and dependence—guidelines on clinical management" (1999) reviewed the evidence for the use of naltrexone in drug treatment programmes for heroin addicts. The group concluded that because of the uncomfortable or severe opiate withdrawal symptoms if taken by an individual dependent on an opiate, naltrexone-assisted relapse prevention should be initiated only by specialists and specialised generalists experienced in this technique. More work needs to be undertaken before firm conclusions can be reached regarding how appropriate it is to use naltrexone within a community setting.

  Health Bodies
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the(a) membership and (b) remit of the National Co-ordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment. [19925]

  Ms Blears
  The Department holds a contract with the University of Southampton to provide a National Co-ordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment (NCCHTA) which gives expert research management and scientific secretariat support to the health technology assessment (HTA) programme. NCCHTA staff are employed through the University. It has no membership. The membership of the HTA prioritisation and commissioning groups can be found on the NCCHTA website (www.ncchta.org) along with details of its remit and the research management processes employed.

  Mixed Sex Wards
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress he has made to eradicate mixed sex wards in the hospitals which serve Stourbridge constituents. [20369]

  Ms Blears
  We have set three specific objectives to meet our manifesto commitment to eliminate mixed sex accommodation in 95 per cent. of health authorities by the end of 2002:

  1) Ensuring that appropriate organisational arrangements are in place to secure good standards of privacy and dignity for hospital patients;

  2) Achieving fully the Patient's Charter standard for segregating washing and toilet facilities across the NHS; and

  3) Providing safe facilities for patients in hospital who are mentally ill which safeguard their privacy and dignity.

  I am informed that the Dudley Group of Hospitals National Health Service Trust, which serves the majority of Stourbridge constituents, has achieved objectives 1 and 3 and will achieve objective 2 by the end of December 2001.
  622W

  Accident and Emergency Ambulances/Units
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many accident and emergency ambulances/units are available broken down by(a) county and (b) London boroughs; [20619]

  (2) how many of the total number of accident and emergency ambulances/units are in active service; [20620]

  (3) how many ambulances were in road accidents while on operational duty in (a) 1994, (b) 1995, (c) 1996, (d) 1997, (e) 1998, (f) 1999 and (g) 2000; and if he will make a statement; [20622]

  (4)how many of the available accident and emergency ambulances/units are (a) less than one, (b) one to three, (c) three to five and (d) over five years old; and if he will make a statement. [20618]

  Ms Blears
  There are around 5,500 ambulance vehicles currently in service in the National Health Service. Information on the number of ambulance vehicles broken down by county, London boroughs and age and details of how many ambulance vehicles have been involved in road accidents is not collected centrally by the Department.

  London Ambulance Service
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times the London Ambulance Service called on the services of the(a) St. John Ambulance and (b) British Red Cross Society to assist in (i) 1994, (ii) 1995, (iii) 1996, (iv) 1997, (v) 1998, (vi) 1999 and (vii) 2000; and if he will make a statement. [20621]

  Ms Blears
  Figures are not held for the number of times the London Ambulance Service have called upon the individual services of St. John's Ambulance and the British Red Cross Society between 1994 and 2000.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to evaluate the pilot of body armour being conducted by the London Ambulance Service. [20833]

  Ms Blears
  The pilot of body armour for London Ambulance Service frontline staff was completed during the summer and the results have been evaluated by the national health service trust. The evaluation shows that the majority of staff feel more confident in dealing with volatile incidents when wearing the garments, and that wearing stab vests does not hinder staffs ability to provide clinical care. The London Ambulance Service had pledged to provide stab vests to all frontline staff.

  Rural Health Care
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) of 27 November 2001,Official Report, columns 859–60W, on the Rural White Paper, how many

  623W
  (a)primary care one-stop or mobile units and(b)intermediate care beds have been made available in 2001–02; and how many will be made available in each financial year until 2004. [20031]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]: Data on the number of rural one-stop centres and mobile service units will be collected from next year.

  A recent survey indicates growth of around 1,000 national health service intermediate care beds during the course of this year. Further growth of 1,300 beds is planned in each of the next two years in order to meet the NHS Plan target of an extra 5,000 intermediate care beds by 2003–04, compared to the 1999–2000 baseline.

  Endometriosis Treatment
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many endometriosis patients from Dorset were referred out of county for laser treatment during the data years(a) 1998–99 and (b)1997–98. [19992]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]Information from the Health Episode Statistics database shows that no patients from Dorset were referred out of the health authority area for laser treatment for endometriosis in 1998–99 and 1997–98.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many endometriosis patients received laser treatment at Princess Anne's Hospital, Southampton during the data years(a) 1999–2000, (b) 1998–99 and (c)1997–98. [19994]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Accident Victims
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the cost of health care of accident victims other than road accidents in circumstances where the accident is likely to be covered by third party insurance; [20850]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the cost of hospital health care of road accident victims since the recoupment scheme commenced; [20849]

  (3) how much has been recovered from insurance companies in respect of repayment of health care costs of road accident victims in each year since the commencement of the recoupment scheme; [20847]

  (5) what plans he has (a) to review the maximum charges recoverable from drivers in respect of road accident victims and (b) to extend the scheme to other types of accident; and if he will make a statement. [20851]

  Ms Blears
  From 5 April 1999 a new system of centralised collection of national health service charges following road traffic accidents was introduced. The system is administered by the Compensation Recovery Unit, (CRU) which is part of the Department for Work and Pensions, on behalf of the Department of Health.

  In the first year of operation the CRU recovered and paid NHS trusts in England a total of £26.4 million. The following year (2000–01) ꀓ67 million was recovered for NHS trusts in England. The total amount collected from April to November 2002 is £58.9 million
  624W
  There has been no increase in the tariff or ceiling of charges since the scheme commenced nearly three years ago. However the Department is planning to increase the tariff in line with hospital and community health services (HCHS) inflation and increase the ceiling of charges early in the new year. This means that the charge for treatment without admission will rise from £354 to £402 and the daily rate charge for treatment with admission will rise from £435 to £494 per day. In addition the ceiling of charges will rise from £10,000 to £30,000.

  Information on the total cost to the NHS of treating all road traffic accident victims, including those who do not subsequently receive personal injury compensation, is not held centrally.

  In 1999 the Law Commission recommended that the NHS should have the right to recover its costs in all cases where a payment of personal injury compensation was made. The Department is considering the Law Commission's proposal and is currently assessing the cost of treating victims of accidents other than road traffic accidents that are likely to result in personal injury compensation and plans to publish these costs in a public consultation document in the new year.

  Patients Forums
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients forums he expects to be created under the NHS Reform Bill. [20894]

  Ms Blears
  The National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professionals Bill provides for a Patients Forum to be established for every NHS trust and primary care trust.

  We feel that it is important that local patients and users have the ability to directly influence local NHS services

  Dispensing
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to amend arrangements for original pack dispensing to bring England into line with the 1994 EU Directive. [R] [20786]

  Ms Blears
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) on 3 December 2001,Official Report, columns 125–26W.

  Residential Special School Inspections
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which care standards will be used for welfare inspections in residential special schools operating 52 weeks a year. [20686]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]The Care Standards Act 2000 provides that when boarding schools (including residential special schools) provide accommodation for more than 295 days a year, then they are required to register as children's homes. Thus, the Children's Homes National Minimum Standards will apply.
  625W
  While we cannot change the provision in the Care Standards Act 2000, there are various issues, arising from the recent consultation process, about the suitability of some standards which are to be used in both School and Children's Homes settings. We are conscious of the practical difficulties involved and we are, therefore, reviewing the comments made by respondents and, where appropriate, will revise the standards.

  Health Care (Isle of Wight)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients on the Isle of Wight waited

  Quarter

  Total in-patient waiting list

  3+ month waiters

  Percentage of total waiting list

  12+ month waiters

  Percentage of total waiting list

  Isle of Wight HA

  March 1997

  4,229

  2,585

  61.1

  277

  6.6

  June 1997

  4,343

  2,534

  58.3

  337

  7.8

  September 1997

  4,289

  2,590

  60.4

  455

  10.6

  December 1997

  4,546

  2,657

  58.4

  428

  9.4

  March 1998

  3,864

  2,307

  59.7

  178

  4.6

  June 1998

  3,844

  2,089

  54.3

  145

  3.8

  September 1998

  3,911

  1,884

  48.2

  116

  3.0

  December 1998

  4,264

  2,250

  52.8

  147

  3.4

  March 1999

  3,552

  1,584

  44.6

  104

  2.9

  June 1999

  3,912

  1,724

  44.1

  130

  3.3

  September 1999

  3,714

  1,861

  50.1

  153

  4.1

  December 1999

  3,670

  1,744

  47.5

  105

  2.9

  March 2000

  3,522

  1,703

  48.4

  143

  4.1

  June 2000

  3,223

  1,850

  57.4

  200

  6.2

  September 2000

  3,372

  1,656

  49.1

  196

  5.8

  December 2000

  3,449

  1,822

  52.8

  155

  4.5

  March 2001

  3,392

  1,764

  52.0

  192

  5.7

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and Hampshire HA

  June 2001

  14,932

  7,585

  50.8

  1,046

  7.0

  September 2001

  14,876

  7,761

  52.2

  977

  6.6

  Notes:

  In April 2001 Isle of Wight HA (QD4) merged with Portsmouth and South East Hampshire HA (QD2) to form Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and Hampshire HA (QEV).

  Data for 2001–02 are therefore presented for Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and Hampshire HA (QEV).

  Source:

  QF01 Quarterly Return

  GP Vacancies (Isle of Wight)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many unfilled GP posts on the Isle of Wight there were in November(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000 and (e)2001; and what proportion each figure represents of GP posts on the island. [20381]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]The information requested is not available centrally.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are employed by the Department under the new deal for young people; and at what cost to public funds. [21274]

  Ms Blears
  The Department's most recent statistics on new deal staff covered the period 2 July to 1 October. During this period four staff were employed by the Department and its agencies under the new deal for young people at an annual salary cost of £41,300. This excludes any training and development that may have been needed.626W
  over (a) one year and (b) three months for an operation in (i) 1997, (ii) 1998, (iii) 1999, (iv) 2000 and (v) 2001; and what percentage each figure constituted of the number of operations in each year. [20382]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]Information on waiting times for all operations (in-patient, day case and out-patients) is not collected centrally. The table shows information on in-patient waiting lists for patients in the Isle of Wight health authority area for each quarter between March 1997 and March 2001 and the Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire health authority area for quarters ending June and September 2001.

  A further four new deal recruits came into the Department through generalist entry routes, costs for these cannot be identified.

  External Consultants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost was to his Department of the use of external consultants in each of the last four years. [21262]

  Ms Blears
  Expenditure by the Department on external consultants is as follows:

  £ million

  Cost

  1997–98

  11.848

  1998–99

  7.181

  1999–2000

  7.991

  2000–01

  6.531

  627W

  Departmental Sickness
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many days were lost due to sickness absence in the Department in each of the last four years. [21340]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is shown in the table

  Year

  Average1 days lost per employee through sickness (per staff year)

  1997

  7.8

  1998

  29.2

  1999

  6.6

  2000

  3—

  1Working days absences exclude weekends and bank holidays for staff working a "Monday to Friday" week.

  2 Based on pre-audit data and methodology. In 1998 civil service Departments and agencies undertook an audit of their monitoring systems following the "Working Well Together" report. The reworked figures were not submitted in time for publication of the 1998 report and unadjusted figures were published in this year.

  3Not yet published.

  Source:

  Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service BMI Health Services report (1997 Table I, 1998 Table K) and Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service BIOSS report Table H (1999)

  The Department is committed to meeting its Public Service Agreement targets for reducing sickness absence and will be conducting a review of its guidance for both long-term and short-term sickness absence management.

  Alpha-l-antitrypsin
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the(a) creation and (b) use of alpha-1-antitrypsin; and what Government research has been conducted into the effect of humans using the compounds. [20918]

  Ms Blears
  There are two sources of alpha-1-antitrypsin (AAT) that have been used for therapeutic purposes. Partially purified AAT may be manufactured from pooled human plasma. Recently, AAT has been synthesised with the use of recombinant technology.

  Clinical trials have been undertaken in North America and Europe to evaluate the safety and efficacy of therapy with partially purified human AAT given by intravenous infusion in patients with emphysema.

  More recently clinical trials of partially purified human or recombinant AAT administered by aerosol therapy to the lungs have been undertaken.

  Details of these trials may be found on the websites www.aventisbehring.com/aventisbehring/newsandevents/alphaclintrial. asp. and www.ppl-therapeutics.com/Welcome/Products/Product1/bodyproduct1. html.

  There have been several trials in national health service hospitals on various aspects of the use of AAT. Details of projects, completed and ongoing, can be found on the National Research Register, which is available on the internet at http: //www.doh.gov.uk/research/nrr.htm.

  Medical Staff (Assaults)
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many assaults there have been on 628W
  (a) ambulance staff/paramedics and (b) clinical staff in accident and emergency departments in hospitals in each year since 1997. [20832]

  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) health service staff working in accident and emergency departments and (b) ambulance staff have suffered (i) verbal and (ii) physical abuse while carrying out their duties in each of the last five years. [21467]

  Ms Blears
  Information on the levels of verbal and physical abuse by individual staff group is not collected centrally, but may be held at a local level by national health service employers. Data on violent incidents involving all staff in the NHS were not collected centrally for 1996–97 or 1997–98.

  The Department conducted a survey of NHS trusts in England in 1998–99. The survey found that, on average, seven violent incidents were recorded each month per 1,000 staff. This is equivalent to approximately 65,000 violent incidents against NHS trust staff each year. Details of the survey can be found in Health Service Circular 1999/229: "Managing Violence, Accidents and Sickness Absence in the NHS", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Figures for recorded violent incidents in 2000–01 are currently being analysed by the Department.

  Pharmacy Staff
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received concerning the availability of(a)trained pharmacists and (b)other staff within pharmacy. [21080]

  Ms Blears
  The Department has received a number of representations from organisations with an interest in pharmacy.

  We recognise that, in spite of increasing training places and introducing recruitment and retention initiatives, there have been problems in recruiting pharmacists particularly over the last year. This is a result of the switch from a three to a four-year undergraduate pharmacy course in 1997 and growing demand for pharmacists, particularly in primary care. Skill mix initiatives have increased the demand for other staff within pharmacy leading to shortages in some areas.

  The increases in pharmacy student intakes—27 per cent. more new students started training in 2000 than in 1993—point to a significant medium term-growth in the pharmacy workforce despite the change to a four-year undergraduate course. Workforce modelling undertaken by the Department suggests that there will be a 12 per cent. increase in the pharmacy workforce across the national health service and private sector between 1998 and 2003.

  Food Supplements
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the prospect of securing an extension to the deadline proposed in the forthcoming European Directive on Food Supplements for the submission of detailed safety dossiers to the Scientific Committee for Foods in relation to safe nutrients which are available in the United Kingdom but which are not provided for in the proposed Directive. [21695]
  629W
  Ms Blears
  The Food Standards Agency, which is responsible for negotiating this Directive on behalf of the Government, has been unable to secure an extension of this deadline.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what position his Department has taken in relation to amendments to European medicines directives that would require food supplements to be considered to be medicines; and if he will make a statement. [21696]

  Ms Blears
  The European Commission sent their proposals to amend the European medicines legislation to the European Parliament and to the Council of Ministers on 26 November 2001. formally launching the legislative process. The Medicines Control Agency (MCA) will be leading for the United Kingdom Government in the forthcoming negotiations on the European Commission's proposals. The MCA is currently considering the implications of the European Commission's proposals, and is consulting other Government Departments with an interest in the proposal to amend Article 2.2 of the Human Medicines Code. The MCA will also be undertaking a wide-ranging public consultation on the proposals in the new year.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to meet(a) Consumers of Health Choice, (b) the National Association of Health Stores and (c) the Health Food Manufacturers Association to discuss the implications of the proposed EU Food Supplements Directive for United Kingdom (i) consumers, (ii) retailers and (iii) manufacturers. [21682]

  Ms Blears
  None. Officials from the Food Standards Agency, which is responsible for negotiating this Directive on the Government's behalf, are in regular contact with all interested parties to discuss progress on and interpretation and implications of the proposed Directive.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to ask the European Commission to indicate the way in which it intends to interpret Article 5 of the proposed European Directive on Food Supplements; [21722]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the extent to which the forthcoming EU Food Supplements Directive would (a)permit and (b) require the setting of maximum permitted levels for vitamins and minerals at or close to the upper safe level for such nutrients; [21693]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the meaning and practical implications of the requirement in Article 5 of the proposed European Directive on Food Supplements to take account of specified factors. [21721]

  Ms Blears
  Article 5 of the Directive, which lists a number of matters which need to be considered when setting maximum limits, would permit but not require maximum limits to be set at levels close to the upper safe level. Upper safe levels are listed as the first consideration, but it is not clear to what extent other factors, like measures of supposed need, will influence the Commission's proposals. We currently have no plans to press for clarification of this point. The Food Standards Agency, which is responsible for negotiating this Directive on the Government's behalf, has sought clarification without success, and is now concentrating on 630W
  pressing the Commission to base its proposals on thorough scientific risk assessments, and arguing this case with other member states.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of the proposed EU Food Supplements Directive on the United Kingdom specialist food supplement(a) market and (b) consumers; and if he will make a statement. [21686]

  Ms Blears
  The Food Standards Agency, which is responsible for negotiating this Directive on the Government's behalf, has consulted widely on its likely impact. There would be labelling costs falling on manufacturers of all food supplements, but these would be substantially offset by a two-year transitional period. For the specialist food supplement sector and consumers of these products any additional impact would depend on future developments on lists of permitted nutrients and maximum limits.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the timetable for the publication of the proposed(a) draft and (b) final versions of the forthcoming report from the Ad Hoc Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals; what the scope is of that report; and what steps he is planning to take to promote its findings to (i) the European Commission, (ii) the European Union's Scientific Committee for Food and (iii) other member states of the European Union. [21694]

  Ms Blears
  The risk assessments for vitamins and minerals being undertaken by the Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals will be issued for public consultation in early 2002, with a view to publishing the final report in the spring. There is cross-membership between the Expert Group and the Scientific Committee on Food which has already received all papers prepared for consideration by the Expert Group. The European Commission, EU member states and the Scientific Committee on Food will be sent copies of the report at both stages. The final report will inform the United Kingdom position in respect of the EU Directive on Food Supplements.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) nutrients and (b) nutrient sources would be permitted under the forthcoming European Directive on Food Supplements; what steps he is taking to identify safe nutrients which are available on the United Kingdom market but are not on the lists in the Directive; and how he plans to ensure that United Kingdom (i) manufacturers, (ii) retailers and (iii) consumers may use these nutrients once the Directive is implemented. [21691]

  Ms Blears
  The Directive lists nutrients and nutrient sources permitted for use in food supplements; the lists currently include 28 nutrients and 112 nutrient sources. We are aware that many nutrients used in the United Kingdom are not on the lists and plan to allow additional substances to be used by all parties during the optional seven year transitional period which was written into the Directive at our request. We have no plans to prepare a list of these substances; manufacturers and retailers are understood to be compiling such lists and co-operating over submission of dossiers supporting addition of these substances to the 'permitted' lists. These substances would then be available for use throughout the European Union.
  631W
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on protecting the existing United Kingdom market in safe higher potency vitamins and minerals in negotiations on the interpretation of Article 5 of the forthcoming proposed European Directive on Food Supplements. [22368]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 11 December 2001]We oppose any unnecessary restrictions on the range of products available to consumers. We are therefore pressing the European Commission to propose maximum limits for vitamins and minerals in food supplements which are close to the upper safe levels.

  A and E Statistics
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients received treatment in the accident and emergency departments of UK hospitals in each of the last five years. [21468]

  Ms Blears
  Information on the number of patients receiving treatment in accident and emergency departments is not collected centrally. Quarterly figures for the number of accident and emergency attendances in England for each of the last five years are shown in the table

  Quarter

  Year

  Accident and emergency first attendances

  Ql

  1996–97

  3,083,523

  Q2

  1996–97

  3,210,720

  Q3

  1996–97

  3,067,462

  Q4

  1996–97

  2,954,319

  Ql

  1997–98

  3,226,753

  Q2

  1997–98

  3,294,802

  Q3

  1997–98

  3,108,151

  Q4

  1997–98

  3,036,088

  Ql

  1998–99

  3,233,468

  Q2

  1998–99

  3,339,658

  Q3

  1998–99

  3,133,095

  Q4

  1998–99

  3,071,753

  Ql

  1999–2000

  3,281,133

  Q2

  1999–2000

  3,391,828

  Q3

  1999–2000

  3,216,036

  Q4

  1999–2000

  3,140,760

  Ql

  2000–01

  3,310,133

  Q2

  2000–01

  3,320,537

  Q3

  2000–01

  3,181,424

  Q4

  2000–01

  3,072,924

  Ql

  2001–02

  3,296,833

  Q2

  2001–02

  3,340,808

  Note:

  Previous years figures have been adjusted to allow direct comparison with 2001–02 data.

  Source:

  Common Information Core

  Dental Access Centre, Kington
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action the Government are taking in relation to progress with the development of the dental access centre in Kington, Herefordshire. [21004]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]We have made it mandatory for all health authorities to produce a dental action plan to ensure access to national health service dentistry for everyone within the local community.
  632W
  The first phase of Herefordshire health authority's dental action plan is complete. This includes the provision of nine dental access centres throughout Herefordshire, including two in Leominster.

  In addition, the development of the new community hospital in Kington will include access to dental services and from the new year dental services will be available to Kington residents, provided from a mobile unit until the new hospital development is complete.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidance he has given to community health councils to assist them in advising self-funders in nursing homes of the decision in Coughlan v. North Devon health authority, C.A. 1999; [21392]

  (2) when community health councils were given the information about Coughlan v. North Devon health authority, C.A. 1999 contained in circular HSC 1999/180: LAC (99) 30 of 11 August 1999; [21395]

  (3) if health authorities pass confidential medical information to social services about potential self-funders before any decision accepted by the patient has been taken to withdraw free continuing care; [21394]

  (4) if health authorities obtain the consent in writing of patients to become self-funders before free continuing care as defined by Coughlan v. North Devon health authority is withdrawn; [21396]

  (5) if he will list the health authorities which have sought his Department's advice over applications for refunds made by self-funders since the decision in Coughlan v. North Devon health authority, C.A. 1999. [21391]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]Guidance regarding continuing care "Ex parte Coughlan: Follow up action", Health Service Circular 1999/180: Local Authority Circular (99) 30, was issued on 11 August 1999. Further guidance "Continuing Care: NHS and Local Councils' responsibilities" HSC 2001/015: LAC (2001)18 was issued on 28 June 2001. Guidance on "Free Nursing Care in Nursing Homes" HSC 2001/17: LAC(2001)26 was issued on 25 September 2001. Copies of all sets of guidance were sent routinely to community health councils' chief officers. No other guidance or advice has been has been specifically issued to CHCs.

  It is for individual health authorities to ensure that their criteria for continuing national health service health care comply with guidance issued by the Department and to obtain their own legal advice where necessary. Since August 1999, only two health authorities have sought the Department's advice on the issue of 'refunds' for self funders: West Surrey health authority and South Essex health authority.

  The determinations of any individual's requirement for continuing NHS health care or free nursing care are made on the basis of an assessment to determine individual needs. The introduction of free nursing care may lead to the identification of individuals with exceptional health needs who may now qualify for continuing NHS health care.
  633W
  Health authorities neither obtain consent in writing, nor do they pass confidential medical information to social services before 'withdrawing' continuing care; it is not envisaged, nor has it ever been brought to the Department's attention, that any health authority has behaved in the way described in the two questions. Once provided, continuing health care should continue to be provided unless and until the individual's healthcare needs change.

  Departmental Staff (Home Working)
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to encourage staff to work from home; and how many staff do so on a regular basis. [21830]

  Ms Blears
  The Department has for some time had a flexible working patterns policy and actively encourages and supports its staff and managers to work flexibly. A range of flexible working patterns including part time working, job sharing and home working is available to staff by arrangement with their management.

  The Department recognises the advantages that home working offers such as retention of valued and skilled staff who have domestic commitments, and a saving on travelling time and costs, and provides appropriate information technology equipment and a supportive personnel and management structure to enable staff to work from home.

  The Department also sponsors a home working staff support group which comprises home workers and their managers.

  As home working is an arrangement that staff and managers make locally we do not centrally record information on the numbers of staff that home work on a regular basis.

  NHS Reform and Health Care Profession Bill
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what circumstances he will alter the name of a strategic health authority created under the NHS Reform Bill. [22328]

  Mr. Hutton
  Among the circumstances in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State might consider exercising his powers to change the name of a strategic health authority created under the National Health Service Reform Bill are:where the boundary of the strategic health authority changes substantially due to reconfiguration or merger;
  where the name of a coterminous local authority changes; and
  at the request of key local stakeholders.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what increase in volunteer input he expects to occur as a result of the NHS Reform Bill; what form it will take; and what(a) financial value and (b) financial savings he expects. [22366]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 11 December 2001]Subject to parliamentary approval, the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Profession Bill will enable us to set up a patients forum in every national health service trust and primary care trust as independent statutory bodies. It is expected that the members of the 634W
  forums will be volunteers drawn from patients, carers, and from local voluntary organisations. As members of the patients forums, they will represent the views of local communities to trusts about the quality and configuration of health services; monitor the delivery of services from the patients perspective; and inspect every aspect of NHS care from the perspective of the patients experience of the service.

  Voluntary participation in the patients forum is not intended as a means of producing financial savings. The main benefit to the NHS is that local people will be able to make a difference to the services provided and ensure that local services are more responsive to the needs of patients. The volunteers will benefit from knowing that they are making an important and worthwhile contribution to the service; they will also have the opportunity to acquire new skills which may benefit them in their employment or other aspects of their lives.

  Nursing Vacancies (Hampshire)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of nursing posts are vacant in the Portsmouth and South-East Hampshire health authority; and if he will make a statement. [21797]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department of Health Vacancy Survey, March 2001, indicated a three month vacancy rate of 3.4 per cent. That equates to 60 vacant posts across the health authority area. We have introduced a number of initiatives to increase the number of nurses in the national health service, most recently funding for additional nurses in accident and emergency.

  Emergency Healthcare
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to reform emergency healthcare [22301]

  Ms Blears
  On 25 October 2001, we announced the "Reforming Emergency Care" Strategy which provides the first steps to a new approach to reform emergency care services in the national health service.

  It is supported by £68 million investment, £40 million of which will be used to fund an additional 600 accident and emergency nursing posts, £10 million to pay for local emergency care leaders to properly coordinate emergency care at local level, and an additional £18 million capital investment to begin implementing new rapid assessment systems.

  The "Reforming Emergency Care Strategy" is available on the internet at www.doh.gov.uk/capacityplanning.

  Pharmaceutical Advertising
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what her policy is on direct pharmaceutical advertising. [21861]

  Ms Blears
  The Medicines (Advertising) Regulations 1994, with the Medicines (Monitoring of Advertising) Regulations 1994 (Statutory Instrument 1994/1932–3, as amended), implement European Directive 92/28/EEC and regulate the advertising of all medicines in the United Kingdom. Medicines classified for supply over-the-counter may be advertised to the public although the regulations prohibit advertisements to the public in respect
  635W
  of certain diseases. Medicines available only on prescription may not be advertised to the public. We support the provision of factual information about medicines to patients and the public within the legal framework, in order to encourage safe and correct use.

  Recent proposals to amend European law relating to the advertising of medicines are being carefully scrutinised. We do not support lifting the prohibition on advertising prescription only medicines to the public.

  Teenage Pregnancies
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the extra funding under the Winter Supplementary Estimates to the Supply Estimates 2001–02 for the Department of Health Teenage Pregnancy Unit is to be spent. [22248]

  Ms Blears
  Funding totalling £4 million has been allocated through health authorities to support implementation of local teenage pregnancy strategies. Local teenage pregnancy partnerships, which include leads from health and local authority and other relevant agencies, will agree the most effective use of this additional funding.

  A further £1 million is being invested in work at national level to support implementation of both the prevention and support aspects of the teenage pregnancy strategy including the national media campaign for young people.

  Cirencester Hospital
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will reply to the petition presented on 13 November from the vendors of the Wilts and Gloucestershire Standard regarding Cirencester hospital. [22266]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 11 December 2001]The level of provision of health services at Cirencester hospital is a matter for the local national health service bodies to determine.

  NHS Appointments Commission
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what percentage of appointments by the NHS Appointments Commission have been of disabled persons; [22206]

  (2) how many and what percentage of the appointments made by the NHS Appointments Commission came from (a) business, (b) voluntary local organisations, (c) professions and (d) trade unions; [22207]

  (3) how many NHS appointments since the Appointments Commission became responsible have become due; and how many have been made; [22208]

  (4) what percentage of NHS appointments made by the Appointments Commission have gone to (a) women and (b) black and Asian candidates;

  (5) how many of the people appointed by the NHS Appointments Commission have declared a party political connection; and what parties they are connected with. [22211]
  636W
  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 11 December 2001]The National Health Service Appointments Commission has been operational since 2 July 2001. Since then it has made 597 appointments, of which 464 related to appointments which had come to an end. The remaining 137 are appointments to new NHS trusts and primary care trusts.

  Of those appointed 45.9 per cent. (274) were women, 9.4 per cent. (56) from the black and minority ethnic communities and 4.2 per cent. (25) declared that they had a disability.

  35.8 per cent. (214) of those appointed had declared political activity. A breakdown is given in the table

  Percentage

  Number

  Conservative

  5

  30

  Independent

  1.5

  9

  Labour

  23.4

  140

  Liberal Democrat

  5.4

  32

  Other

  0.5

  3

  Details of the information recorded by the NHS Appointments Commission about the primary background of those it has appointed is given in the table.

  Background

  Percentage

  Number

  Manager and administrator

  26.8

  160

  Other professional

  20.3

  121

  Health professional

  3.2

  19

  Teaching professional

  9.7

  58

  Science and engineering

  0.8

  5

  Associate professional

  4.5

  27

  Clerical and secretarial

  0.7

  4

  Craft and related

  0.2

  1

  Personal and protective

  0.5

  3

  Other

  0.2

  1

  Retired health professional

  2.2

  13

  Retired—other

  12.4

  74

  User/carer/voluntary sector

  18.8

  112

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many members of the NHS Appointments Commission are(a) women and (b) black or Asian [22210]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 11 December 2001]The National Health Service Appointments Commission has four members who are women and none from the black or Asian communities.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Chairman of the NHS Appointments Commission(a) is and (b) has in the past (i) been a member of a political party and (ii) made a party political donation in the last three years. [23813]

  Mr.Blears
  Applicants for posts on national health service boards are asked to declare any political activity in the last five years. Such political activity is defined by the Commissioner for Public Appointments and does not include membership of a political party. It does include information on political donations.

  The chair of the NHS Appointments Commission declared in his application for the post that he had not been politically active, nor had he made any party political donations, in the previous five years.
  637W

  Pseudoephedrine Hydrochloride
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what reports he has received on reactions to over-the-counter drugs containing pseudoephedrine hydrochloride; [22471]

  (2) what plans he has to issue revised guidance to patients from manufacturers on over-the-counter drugs containing pseudoephedrine hydrochloride. [22472]

  Ms Blears
  Pseudoephedrine hydrochloride (a decongestant) has been an ingredient of many over-the-counter (OTC) cold and flu remedies for many decades. There have been 757 suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) reported to the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) through the yellow card scheme in association with pseudoephrine containing products since 1965.

  The most commonly reported suspected ADRs with pseudoephedrine hydrochloride are allergic reactions (skin rash, facial swelling), cardiovascular reactions (increased or irregular heart rate), psychiatric reactions (depression and hallucinations), difficulty in passing urine, headache, insomnia, nightmares, nausea and vomiting. It is important to note that a report of a suspected ADR does not necessarily mean that it was caused by the drug and underlying conditions or concomitant medications may be implicated.

  Guidance on the use and side effects of medicines is provided to patients in the Patient Information Leaflet (PIL) which accompanies the medicine. The Medicines Control Agency and the CSM continually monitor the safety of all medicines to ensure that the product information contains appropriate and up-to-date guidance on safe, correct use at the recommended dose and warnings about side effects.

  Viagra
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects NICE to consider Viagra and its availability by NHS prescription. [22764]

  Ms Blears
  We have no plans to refer impotence treatments, including Viagra, to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. We recently announced that arrangements introduced in 1999 restricting the eligibility for these treatments on the national health service will continue. The extra cost of allowing unrestricted prescribing is likely to involve diversion of funds from other NHS priorities.

  Meat Industry
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the UK's progress towards meeting the EU's meat hygiene legislation with particular reference to the levels of(a) veterinary controls and (b) supervisory measures implemented. [22669]

  Ms Blears
  In 1998, following infraction proceedings against the United Kingdom by the European Commission, we agreed to bring veterinary supervision levels in licensed meat plants in Great Britain into line with the requirements of European Union meat hygiene rules, namely the Fresh Meat (64/433/EEC) and Poultry Meat (71/118/EEC) Directives. It was not possible to secure immediate compliance largely because of a638W
  shortage of veterinarians in Great Britain willing to undertake meat hygiene work. The Meat Hygiene Service (MHS), which provides veterinary inspection and supervision services in GB on behalf of the Government, therefore had to put in place a concerted and long-term campaign to recruit and train the required additional veterinarians. The aim was to achieve full compliance by 1 April 2001. During the next three years the MHS increased veterinary supervision in plants in a risk-based and staged process with incremental increases being introduced as and when additional veterinary resources became available.

  The MHS was well on course to meet the deadline when the foot and mouth outbreak occurred at the beginning of this year. This led to an unprecedented demand for veterinarians to assist in combating the disease and many practices which had contracted to supply additional resources to the MHS found themselves losing staff to the fight against the epidemic. These losses severely jeopardised the ability of the MHS to ensure full-time Official Veterinarian Surgeon supervision in all full-throughput slaughterhouses by the target date. Even so, the MHS was successful in arranging the required supervision in all but nine of the 305 full-throughput slaughterhouses operating in Great Britain as at 1 April 2001. Since then MHS has continued to introduce full-time supervision where possible, and full compliance was achieved in full-throughput slaughterhouses and cutting premises by November of this year. This achievement is due in no small part to the intensive and successful efforts of the MHS to recruit additional veterinarians.

  The UK authorities have notified the Commission of this position. The extensive, prescriptive and detailed inspection and supervisory measures required by the Directives are enshrined in national legislation, namely the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995 (as amended) and the Poultry Meat, Farmed Game Bird Meat and Rabbit Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 1995 (as amended).

  Social Services Tribunals
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has taken advice on the composition and independence of social services tribunals in the light of Beesson v. Dorset county council QB, 30 November; and what plans he has to issue a circular to local authorities on the matter. [22915]

  Jacqui Smith
  As part of the judgment in this case, the court decided that the system used by the council in determining the question of deprivation under regulation 25 of the National Assistance (Assessment of Resources) Regulations 1992 did not comply with article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court held that the system failed because the panel established under the social services complaints procedure did not amount to an independent review of the facts, and because there was no such review, judicial review was not an adequate means of appeal. But the judge made it clear that the statutory scheme was not incompatible with human rights.
  639W
  The judge granted leave to appeal on the article 6(1) point. The Department is currently considering making an appeal. We will consider whether revised guidance to local authorities is required.

  Pharmacies
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many community pharmacists there were in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000 and (e) at the latest date for which figures are available; [22099]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the number of community pharmacists who will leave the profession in the next financial year. [22092]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 13 December 2001]We do not collect information on the number of community pharmacists. However, the number of community pharmacies in England providing NHS pharmaceutical services during the years 1997 to 2001 is shown in the table.

  We do not expect the number of community pharmacies to change significantly in the year ending 31 March 2002.

  As at 31 March

  Number of community pharmacies

  1997

  9,775

  1998

  9,781

  1999

  9,785

  2000

  9,775

  2001

  9,774

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many small pharmacies have(a) closed and (b) opened in each of the last four years in England. [23396]

  Ms Blears
  Figures for the number of pharmacies dispensing national health service prescriptions which have opened and closed in the last four years are in the table. We do not collect information on the size of these pharmacies.

  Year

  Number of pharmacies opening

  Number of pharmacies closing

  1997–98

  46

  42

  1998–99

  46

  51

  1999–2000

  23

  33

  2000–01

  36

  37

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many pharmacies dispensing NHS prescriptions there were in Dorset in 1997; and how many there are now. [23395]

  Ms Blears
  At 31 March 1997 there were 139 pharmacies dispensing national health service prescriptions in Dorset. There are now 136.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the price per script paid to NHS pharmacy contractors for the first 1,700 items dispensed each month in(a)1992, (b) October 2001 and (c)now. [23397]
  640W
  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 17 December 2001]Between January and October 1992, the remuneration paid to pharmacy contractors in England for dispensing the first 1,700 prescriptions each month consisted of a fee of 151.2 pence for each of the first 1,500 prescriptions and 71.5 pence for each of the remainder. In addition, pharmacies were paid an on-cost of 5 per cent. of the basic price of the items dispensed.

  In November and December 1992, the equivalent fee for each of the first 1,700 prescriptions was 159 pence, and the on-cost was 2.5 per cent.

  In October 2001, the fee for each prescription dispensed was 97.5 pence. There was no on-cost, but the large majority of pharmacies dispensing 1,600 or more prescriptions in any month were eligible for a professional allowance of £1,460 per month.

  The equivalent fee is now 87.4 pence. The professional allowance has not changed.

  In each case, these figures exclude fees and allowances paid only for certain types of prescription.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy that the NHS should pay pharmacy contractors within 30 days of receipt of claims for the supply of drugs; and if he will make a statement. [23398]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 17 December 2001]We have no plans to alter the current timetable for paying pharmacy contractors in England for the national health service prescriptions they dispense.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) strengthened warnings, (b) restrictions on the terms of marketing authorisations and (c) revocations of medicines have been issued by the Medicines Control Agency in the current financial year. [22086]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 13 December 2001]In the current financial year (1 April 2001 to 10 December 2001), there have been 1,083 changes to individual sections of the summary of product characteristics to strengthen safety warnings and to restrict the conditions of their use; these relate to 805 licensed medicinal products. Of these, 595 amendments were initiated by the Medicines Control Agency while 488 were initiated by the marketing authorisation holder. In addition, five licences for two nationally authorised products, amfepramone and phentermine, and two products authorised through the European centralised procedure, Trovan and Turvel, have been revoked. Specific details of this large number of regulatory actions can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  999 Emergency Calls
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the change in the number of 999 emergency calls received by each NHS ambulance trust in the latest 12 months for which figures are available. [22877]

  Ms Blears
  Information about the number of emergency calls for all NHS ambulance trusts are contained in the Department of Health Statistical Bulletin
  641W
  "Ambulance Services, England 2000–01". A copy is in the Library and the bulletin is available at www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0115. htm.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has conducted in the last 10 years into illnesses caused by exposure to depleted uranium; what assessment has been made of the risks to health from exposure to depleted uranium used in munitions and military equipment; and if he will make a statement. [22314]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 13 December 2001]The Department is advised on matters of radiation risk by the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB). NRPB has not carried out any research specifically into illnesses caused by exposure to depleted uranium. However, NRPB has carried out research that is relevant to the assessment of the risks to health from such exposures. In particular NRPB has carried out extensive research into the distribution of uranium between body organs, its retention and excretion, following inhalation of a wide range of uranium compounds. It has also developed computer models that enable the concentration of uranium in the various organs and resulting radiation doses to be calculated. Depleted uranium is mildly radioactive, and NRPB's research programme on the effects of ionising radiation in general is therefore relevant to assessment of the radiological risks from exposure to depleted uranium.

  NRPB staff have also contributed to studies of the risks to health from exposure to depleted uranium carried out by working groups set up by the European Commission, the Royal Society, and the World Health Organisation. Reports from each have been published during 2001.

  The Department also knows of four academic groups which have been active in reviewing the risks from depleted uranium; they are the Royal Society Depleted Uranium Working Group, the British Geological Survey, the University of Bristol Department of Earth Sciences and the Southampton Oceanic Centre.

  Social Care
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to provide additional financial support for social care for vulnerable people in Somerset; and if he will make a statement. [22444]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 13 December 2001]The Department is planning to provide significant additional financial support for social care for the vulnerable people in Somerset. In 2002–03, Somerset County Council's social services standard spending assessment is set to increase to just over £77 million, this represents a 5.9 per cent. cash increase over 2001–02. In addition, they will receive increases in the overall level of the grants paid directly by this Department next year. This follows on from a 5.7 per cent. increase in their total social services resources in 2001–02.

  NHS Charges
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to remove charges on those NHS 642W
  (a) treatments, (b) services and (c) prescriptions for which a charge is payable by the patient at the point of use; [22238]

  (2) if he will list the NHS (a) treatments, (b) services and (c) prescriptions for which a charge is levied on the patient at the point of use. [22239]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 13 December 2001]A charge is made for dental treatment provided through general or personal dental services, and for some appliances provided to hospital outpatients, to patients who are not exempt from these charges.

  A prescription charge is made for most drugs and listed appliances supplied to outpatients, or in the community, to patients who are not exempt from these charges. 85 per cent. of items are dispensed free of charge.

  A charge is made for wigs and fabric supports supplied to outpatients who are not exempt from these charges.

  Patients who are not residents of the United Kingdom may be asked to pay for some NHS hospital treatment. Full details of the treatments and services subject to such charges are contained in the National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 1989, as amended.

  We have no plans to change these arrangements.

  Items which are considered additional to an individual's necessary care plan may be provided for a fee by a national health service trust using its income generation powers. There is no information held centrally on charges made in these circumstances.

  Patient Services (Buckingham)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the patient advocacy and liaison services that exist in the Buckingham constituency. [23718]

  Ms Blears
  There is a Patient Advice and Liaison Service (PALS) at the Vale of Aylesbury Primary Care Trust. PALS have also been established at Buckinghamshire Mental Health National Health Service Trust, Milton Keynes General NHS Trust, Milton Keynes Primary Care Trust and South Buckinghamshire NHS Trust.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) targets, (b) guidelines and (c) financial assistance his Department will provide to ensure health authorities under the single assessment process address the risk of homelessness and the health and social care needs of homeless people. [23289]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 17 December 2001]Guidance on the single assessment process sets targets for implementation which will raise the standard of assessment for all older people, wherever they present for treatment or help. There will be no specific targets in the guidance relating to homeless older people, but by providing a more standardised co-ordinated approach it should better address the needs of those who do not have consistent and regular access to health and social care facilities.
  643W

  NHS Complaints
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints have been made by NHS patients in Surrey in each of the past five years. [23409]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is contained in "Handling Complaints: Monitoring the NHS Complaints Procedures" statistical report. Copies are available in the Library.

  Private Care Homes
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds there were in the private care home sector in Surrey in(a) 1997 and (b) 2001. [23421]

  Jacqui Smith
  The table shows the number of registered beds in voluntary and private sector residential and nursing care homes in Surrey as at 31 March 1997 and 2001.

  Private sector care home beds—at 31 March

  Number

  Year

  Total private sector1care Private sector

  Private sector1residential care beds

  Registered nursing care beds2

  19973

  8,941

  5,547

  3,394

  2001

  10,923

  6,111

  4,812

  1Residential places in voluntary, private and small homes (with less than four places), including dual registered homes.

  2All registered nursing beds in nursing homes, private hospitals and clinics are in the private sector. Figures shown are for the health authorities of East Surrey and West Surrey.

  3Information on nursing beds relates to the period 1 October 1996 to 31 March 1997.

  Source:

  Department of Health annual returns

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department was informed(a) that the Food Standards Agency planned to make its statement regarding sodium in bread on 29 November and (b) of the contents of the statement ahead of its release. [23881]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department was aware that the Food Standards Agency had commissioned the survey on sodium in bread, and received prior notice of the FSA's intention to make a statement and its contents.

  Social Services Staff
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of those working in social services hold a listed qualification in(a) the UK and (b) each region. [23976]

  Jacqui Smith
  In England we have not been collecting data about the qualifications of all social services staff on a regular basis. There is an annual social services work force analysis report which has been considering the work force in local councils only.

  The information about staff qualifications in this report has varied from year to year, looking at staff dealing with different client groups each year. The latest published report is for 1999, the report for 2000 will be published in January 2002. A copy of the 1999 report can
  644W
  be found on the Employers Organisation website at: http://www.1g-employers.gov.uk/documents/esru/sswmain99.pdf.

  The report contains the following data about qualifications:

  Description of work undertaken

  Percentage of staff with a qualification

  Occupational Therapists

  98

  Community Workers

  38

  Day centres

  Mainly for Elderly People and Elderly Mentally Infirm People1

  39

  Mainly for People under 65 with Physical Disabilities1

  41

  Mainly for Adults with Learning Disabilities1

  35

  Mixed Client Groups1

  31

  Community Homes for Children Looked After1

  37

  1 The percentage relates to all care staff that are working in that day centre/home

  Data about the social care work force in the independent and voluntary sectors have been obtained through "ad-hoc" surveys which have concentrated on particular client group areas. However, from this year data will be collected from social care employers in the independent sector as part of the annual social services work force analysis report.

  Information relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for the devolved Assemblies.

  Agency Nurses
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the NHS spent on agency nursing staff in(a) the UK and (b) each component nation in the last year for which figures are available. [23979]

  Mr. Hutton
  The current provisional figure for expenditure on non-national health service staffing in England in 2000 –01, including the cost of nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff, is £447 million. It is not possible to identify separately, the cost of agency nursing staff with this total.

  The figures for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are matters for the devolved Administrations.

  Traditional Medicines Directive
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of the adoption of the proposed Traditional Medicines Directive on the future availability of products currently on sale in the UK. [23285]

  Ms Blears
  The European Commission has indicated that it plans to bring forward formal legislative proposals shortly. Once we receive these proposals we will need to consider them carefully. However, on the basis of an assessment of early informal drafts of the proposals, our provisional view is that a wide range of herbal remedies of the kind currently sold legally under Section 12(2) of the Medicines Act 1968 would continue to be available.
  645W

  NHS Training
  Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much it costs to train(a) a nurse and (b) a doctor. [23895]

  Mr. Hutton
  The latest year for which figures are available show that in 2000–01 the national average estimated cost of training a nurse was £13,000 per annum. These costs are inclusive of tuition, bursary and salary support costs. Most courses are of three years duration.

  In the period between entry to medical school and full registration, it is estimated that training a doctor costs between £200,000 and £250,000. Doctors generally continue training after full registration. As the duration and nature of post-registration training varies greatly and as service and training costs are closely related it is not possible to provide a meaningful estimate of the total cost of training.

  Ring-fenced Funds
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funds allocated by(a) his Department and (b) its executive agencies are ring-fenced for specific purposes; and if he will list the allocations of funds involved. [22954]

  Jacqui Smith:
  [holding answer 18 December 2001]The information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how long the Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust will remain in existence; and what will be the cost of(a) consulting on and (b) implementing a change of name.[23331]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 18 December 2001]The trust, to be named North West Surrey Mental Health Partnership Trust from 1 April 2002, will remain in existence for a minimum of one year. Between 1 April 2002 and 31 March 2003 the new strategic health authority will conduct a review of mental health services across West Surrey and will consult on the proposed changes.

  Information on the costs incurred from the change of name is not available centrally.

  National Care Standards Commission
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) health authority and (b) local authority inspection officers there are and how many of them have been matched to area manager positions in the National Care Standards Commission. [24185]

  Jacqui Smith:
  [holding answer 19 December 2001]The number of inspectors who have been identified as eligible to transfer to the National Care Standards Commission is 1,192, of which 931 are from local authority units and 261 are from health authority units. No inspection officers were matched to area manager positions in the National Care Standards Commission. The area manager position is a new level of post, with no comparable equivalent in local authorities or health 646W
  authorities. Posts were filled through a competitive recruitment exercise, with applications ringfenced to managers in the current 74 health authority, 123 local authority and 17 joint local and health authority registration and inspection units in England. 161 applications were received: 45 from health authority managers, 107 from local authority managers, and nine from managers of joint units. 15 applicants from health authority units were successful, compared with 54 from local authority units, and seven from joint health/local authority units.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) consultation has been undertaken by and (b) formal guidance and information his Department and the National Care Standards Commission have provided to health authorities and local authorities regarding the implementation of arrangements for the transfer of staff to the NCSC. [24182]

  Jacqui Smith:
  [holding answer 19 December 2001]The Department and the National Care Standards Commission have consulted widely over the summer of 2001 with staff in local authorities and health authorities who are eligible to transfer to the National Care Standards Commission, on the terms and conditions of employment, pay arrangements, and arrangements for assigning transferring staff to posts. Discussions have been held regularly with the trade unions (Royal College of Nursing, Unison, MSF, GMB), who have also consulted their members on proposals. Staff were invited to respond to the consultation exercises through a dedicated staff helpline, attendance at regional roadshows in July, or by correspondence directly to the Department or National Care Standards Commission. All staff eligible to transfer were issued with guidance on the assignment process on 24 August 2001.

  The Department has issued guidance on the transitional arrangements, including movement of staff into National Care Standards Commission offices, in Health Service Circular HSC 2001/011: Local Authority Circular LAC (2001)16 "Transition Arrangements for the Creation of the National Care Standards Commission", issued on 15 May 2001.

  Re-admissions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 15 October 2001,Official Report, column 1036W, what the four main medical reasons for re-admission as emergency within 28 days for those over 75 years of age were (a) in numbers re-admitted and (b) as a percentage in (1) Q3 2000 –01, (ii) Q4 2000 –01 and (iii) Q1 2001 –02, by (A) region and (B) health authority. [24044]

  Jacqui Smith:
  [holding answer 19 December 2001]The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Care Home Places
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health under what exemption in the Ministerial Code on Access to Information he declined to publish the results of the survey of local authorities undertaken by his Department in autumn 2000 to determine the available supply of care home places. [24184]
  647W
  Jacqui Smith:
  [holding answer 19 December 2001]The information related to incomplete statistics, where disclosure could be misleading (exemption 11(a)). The latest complete and validated data on the supply of care home places were published on 29 November in "Community Care Statistics 2001: Residential Personal Social Services for Adults, England", copies of which are available in the Library.

  NHS University
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to apply for the Royal Charter for the NHS University. [24440]

  Mr. Hutton
  Our aim is to create a university with award granting powers and a Royal Charter, with the same status as existing universities. Before a university can be created and awarded a Royal Charter, the Department for Education and Skills applies very rigorous processes and standards. It is recognised that this will take time. As the institution grows, we believe we can meet the required standards and at such time an application for a Royal Charter will be made.

  Kent Ambulance NHS Trust
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will announce the results of the review into the Kent Ambulance NHS Trust. [20410]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]The decision on the review will be announced shortly.

  Haemophilia Drugs
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what figures he has collated on the price paid in(a) the UK, (b) each other EU country, (c) the USA and (d) Japan for rcFVIII for the treatment of haemophiliacs. [22326]

  Yvette Cooper
  The current average price for a unit of Recombinant Factor 8 in England is approximately 58 pence, including value added tax. The approximate number of units used in the UK is estimated to be 110 million.

  Information is not available regarding other European Union countries, the United States of America or Japan.

  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many overseas patients in the UK(a) under and (b) over 16 years of age are being treated with rcFVIII products. [22276]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of total NHS spending on personnel expenditure on non-national health service nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff represented in the financial years(a) 1997 –98, (b) 1998 –99, (c) 1999 –2000 and (d) 2000 –01. [23661]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table shows the hospital and community health services expenditure on non-NHS nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff as a percentage of total revenue expenditure on salaries and 648W
  wages in England, for the financial years 1997 –98 to 2000 –01. The non-NHS staff figures include all nurses, midwives and health visiting staff not directly employed by the NHS. The 2000 –01 figures are the latest available and are provisional.

  Analysis of non-NHS nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff expenditure as a percentage of total revenue expenditure on salaries and wages 1997 –98 to 2000 –01

  Non-NHS nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff expenditure (£)

  Total revenue expenditure on salaries and wages (£)

  Non-NHS nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff expenditure as a percentage of total revenue expenditure on salaries and wages (%)

  1997–98

  216,338,567

  16,098,946,553

  1.34

  1998 –99

  272,225,162

  17,081,105,039

  1.59

  1999–2000

  361,656,683

  18,708,225,971

  1.93

  2000–01

  434,390,608

  20,481,862,060

  2.12

  Note:

  2000 –01 data are provisional.

  Sources:

  1. Annual financial returns of NHS trusts, 1997 –98 to 2000 –01

  2. Annual financial returns of health authorities, 1997 –98 to 2000 –01

  3. Annual financial returns of primary care trusts, 2000 –01

  British Overseas Territories
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on responsibility for health in British Overseas Territories. [24439]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I have been asked to reply.

  Health services are the responsibility of all the locally elected Governments in the territories. Some have entered into reciprocal Health Agreements with the United Kingdom for referrals of serious cases where inadequate facilities exist. These are: Gibraltar, Falkland Islands, Anguilla, British Virgin Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands, Montserrat and St. Helena.

  International Recruitment
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who has(a) ministerial and (b) operational responsibility for ensuring the implementation of the Code of Practice for Employers involved in the international recruitment of healthcare professionals; how implementation of the Code is being monitored; who is responsible for monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the Code by NHS trusts; and if he will publish details of (a) NHS trusts and (b) nursing agencies which do not confirm to the Code. [24033]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 19 December 2001]I have responsibility for international recruitment. I expect all national health service employers to adhere to the code of practice. A director of international recruitment and regional international recruitment co-ordinators have been appointed to work closely with the employers in their area to ensure that they are recruiting within the principles of the code, including how they are working with commercial recruitment agencies.

  Nutrition
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations(a) by region and (b) by health

  649W
  authority were (i) cancelled and (ii) re-scheduled due to poor nutritional status of patients in the age ranges (a) 0 –15 years, (b) 16 –59 years, (c) 60 –75 years and (d) 75 years over in each quarter of the last five years for which figures are available. [24035]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data on the number of operations cancelled at the last minute and on the number of patients not admitted within one month of their cancellation, by region and health authority, for the time periods requested, are available in the Library.

  Data are not collected on the reasons for last minute cancellations, or on the age range of patients cancelled.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 13 November 2001,Official Report, columns 682 –83W, on nutrition, what (a) targets, (b) guidelines and (c) financial assistance he will provide to ensure health authorities address issues of malnutrition under the single assessment process. [24041]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 19 December 2001]Guidance on the single assessment process sets targets for implementation which will raise the standard of assessment for all older people. Nutrition and diet are specified as one of the domains of need that are covered in the overview type of assessment, and which may go on to be explored in more detail in a specialist assessment. It is anticipated that resources for the implementation of the single assessment process will be found within existing budgets.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice his Department has given to the Department for Education and Skills regarding promoting nutrition in schools. [24671]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department works closely with the Department for Education and Skills on promoting nutrition in schools, principally through the Food in Schools programme. This aims to bring together all food

  Numbers of hospitals in the acute and non-acute sectors, by region where the six elements of the Better Hospital Food programme will be in place by 31 December 2001

  Region

  Element

  South West

  London

  Eastern

  South East

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Northwestern

  Trent

  WestMidlands

  Acute

  Number of acute hospitals/region

  41

  46

  35

  63

  52

  46

  26

  36

  Snack boxes

  20

  25

  15

  33

  28

  28

  20

  20

  Ward kitchens

  22

  24

  14

  38

  31

  26

  22

  24

  Move main meal

  16

  34

  7

  31

  34

  24

  17

  21

  Menu format

  11

  19

  5

  10

  22

  16

  6

  19

  Leading chef

  16

  27

  16

  21

  29

  26

  18

  17

  Additional snacks

  15

  29

  19

  37

  23

  26

  21

  25

  Non-acute and PCT

  Number of non-acute hospitals/region

  117

  69

  62

  105

  67

  56

  62

  63

  Snack boxes

  71

  16

  31

  33

  28

  27

  11

  20

  Ward kitchens

  100

  50

  53

  73

  40

  38

  30

  51

  Move main meal

  51

  34

  23

  23

  35

  18

  22

  29

  Menu format

  56

  18

  15

  45

  28

  4

  20

  38

  Leading chef

  71

  35

  35

  55

  45

  27

  37

  33

  Additional snacks

  89

  56

  42

  70

  42

  14

  55

  58

  Note:

  Certain non-acute hospitals have been given flexibility to vary the requirements of the programme to reflect the specific needs of elderly mentally ill, adult mental health and learning disabilities clients.
  650W
  related initiatives in schools and after-school clubs to improve both health and learning, and ensure consistent messages are being given about health and nutrition.

  In addition, the Healthy Schools Programme is a joint initiative between the Department and the Department for Education and Skills. This includes healthy eating as part of the National Healthy School Standard. To meet the standard schools need to present consistent messages about healthy eating, promote the consumption of healthier foods at lunch and breaktimes and include education on healthy eating in the taught curriculum.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have to increase the number of nutritionists in the NHS. [24303]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not collect data on the number of nutritionists employed in the national health service and has not set a target for increasing the number to be employed.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 13 November 2001,Official Report, columns 682 –83W, on nutrition, (a) how many and (b) which of the six key targets under the Better Hospital Food Programme by (i) region and (ii) health authority will be fully delivered by the end of December. [24040]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 19 December 2001]The information available, though not in the precise format requested, is shown in the table.

  The better hospital food programme forms part of the NHS Plan, and is a long-term programme designed to raise standards across the national health service, backed by the provision of an additional £38.5 million over four years. Much has been achieved since the publication of the programme in May 2001. Since hospitals started from different points, some have made faster progress than others, but the NHS has responded positively and will continue to work to implement the better hospital food programme for the benefit of all patients.
  651W

  GPs
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health with reference to the NHS (General Medical Services) Amendment (No. 4) Regulations (SI No. 3742) and the NHS (General Medical Services Supplementary List) Regulations 2001 (SI No. 3740), whether it is his policy that there should be a requirement on health authorities to provide information to general practitioners to support the allegations being made against them. [23821]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 19 December 2001]Before a health authority decides to remove a doctor from either the medical or supplementary list under discretionary powers the regulations require it to:

  (i) give the doctor notice in writing of any allegation against him;

  (ii) give the doctor notice of what action the health authority is considering and on what grounds;

  (iii) give him the opportunity to make written representations to the health authority;

  (iv) give him the opportunity to put his case at an oral hearing before the health authority.

  These matters are addressed more fully in advice, prepared in consultation with key stakeholders, including the British Medical Association. This advice was made available to health authorities on 30 November 2001 and explains that the doctor should be sent full details, including any written evidence, of the case against him no less than 14 calendar days prior to the date set for the panel.

  This advice is available on the Department's website.

  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health with reference to Regulation 6(2)(a) of the NHS (General Medical Services Supplementary List) Regulations 2001 (SI No. 3740), whether it is his policy to require a general practitioner, in order to gain access to a health authority's supplementary list, to provide evidence that he or she has performed general medical services for three out of the last six months; and what assessment he has made of whether this would disadvantage doctors who have not worked for three out of six months previously owing to(a) ill health, (b) maternity or paternity leave and (c) other valid reasons. [23823]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 19 December 2001]The regulations are intended to ensure that general practitioners who work as non-principals (for example, locums, assistants and salaried general practitioners) are picked up by a supplementary list based in the area in which they intend to work. They get onto that list, in part, by either demonstrating that they have worked in the area or by showing that they intend to work in that area. These arrangements are therefore not discriminatory.

  These matters are addressed more fully in advice to the national health service, prepared in consultation with key stakeholders, including the British Medical Association. This advice was made available to health authorities on 30 November 2001 and explains that satisfactory evidence of an intention to work in a particular area could include membership of the local medical committee or a written commitment from the practitioner that he or she intends to work locally coupled with any other matter which links them with the area such as a home within the health authority's area.

  This advice is available on the Department's website.
  652W
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many GPs he estimates will be 60 or above in each of the next five years. [24429]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Headcount

  Number

  All Practitioners1

  31,369

  of which aged:

  54

  822

  55

  716

  56

  764

  57

  606

  58

  532

  59

  449

  Total aged 54 to 59

  3,889

  Total aged 60 and over

  1,938

  All UPEs2

  27,704

  of which aged:

  54

  802

  55

  696

  56

  741

  57

  585

  58

  514

  59

  435

  Total aged 54 to 59

  3,773

  Total aged 60 and over

  1,764

  1Practitioners include UPEs, Restricted Principals, Assistants, GP Registrars, Salaried Doctors (Para 52 SFA), PMS Other and GP Retainers.

  2Unrestricted Principals and Equivalents (UPEs) includes GMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs and PMS Salaried GPs.

  Source:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham will receive a reply to his letter of 15 November, to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), regarding the exclusion of Worthing from his scheme to incentivise general practitioner recruitment. [24678]

  Mr. Hutton
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 19 December 2001.

  Surgical Instruments
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce standardised, mandatory training for(a) doctors and (b) surgeons in the use of re-usable surgical instruments. [24634]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Specialist Training Authority (STA) of the medical Royal Colleges is the com petent authority responsible for specialist medical training within the United Kingdom. Working with the individual medical Royal Colleges, the STA approves the curriculum for training in each specialty.

  Hodgkin's Disease
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) men and (b) women suffer from Hodgkin's disease in England. [24694]
  653W
  Yvette Cooper
  Recent information on prevalence of Hodgkin's disease is not available. The number of registrations of newly diagnosed cases of Hodgkin's disease in England in 1998 (the latest year for which figures are available) were 675 in males and 512 in females.

  Nurses
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many practice nurses are employed by general practitioners in(a) England, (b) West Midlands and (c) the Dudley area. [23704]

  Yvette Cooper
  The data for 2000 are shown in the table. The 2001 census will be published in February 2002.

  Practice nurses employed by unrestricted principals and equivalents (PEs)1 in England and West Midlands regional office as at 30 September 2000

  Headcount

  England

  19,200

  of which:

  West Midlands RO

  Birmingham HA

  426

  Coventry HA

  142

  Dudley HA

  100

  Herefordshire HA

  67

  North Staffordshire HA

  196

  Sandwell HA

  122

  Shropshire HA

  155

  Solihull HA

  77

  South Staffordshire HA

  261

  Walsall HA

  101

  Warwickshire HA

  144

  Wolverhampton HA

  113

  Worcestershire HA

  200

  West Midland total

  2,104

  1UPEs include GMS unrestricted principals, PMS contracted GPs and PMS salaried GPs

  Source:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics—February 2002.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses recruited into the NHS in each of the last three years have come from overseas. [24658]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department's non-medical work force census does not record how many nurses were trained overseas.

  In order to work in the United Kingdom foreign nurses have to be registered with the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing Midwifery and Health Visiting (UKCC). The UKCC register differentiates between nurses trained in the European Community and those trained elsewhere. Data for the last three years where analysis have been published are in the table.

  Nurses registered with the UKCC do not necessarily work in the NHS.

  Year to 31 March 1998

  Year to 31 March 1999

  Year to 31 March 2000

  EC initial entrants

  1,439

  1,412

  1,416

  Overseas initial entrants

  2,861

  3,568

  5,967

  Total

  4,300

  4,980

  7,404

  Source:

  UKCC statistical analysis of the professional register
  654W

  Cot Death
  Mr. Burns:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what systems and services are in place to help parents of cot death babies; [24657]

  (2) what services are available for families affected by sudden infant death syndrome; [24653]

  (3) what plans he has to ensure that all post-mortems on cot death babies are conducted by a paediatric pathologist. [24654]

  Yvette Cooper
  Families affected by the tragedy of cot death, also known as sudden infant death syndrome, receive help from a range of health and social care professionals. We are looking at ways in which a uniform approach to offering support, incorporating the best elements of current practice, can be further developed. As a part of this process we have invested £28 million over the last three years to modernise pathology services, also we are committed to increasing the number of pathologists, including those within paediatric pathology.

  Delayed Discharges
  Mr. Burns:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds in NHS hospitals in Greater London were occupied by delayed discharge patients at the latest available date. [24632]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information collected in Quarter 2 of 2001–02 (September 2001) showed a rate of delayed discharge of 6.5 per cent. (proportion of beds occupied by patients whose discharge is delayed) in the London Region.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the extent of bed blocking in(a) the south- east and (b) other regions in the United Kingdom. [24673]

  Jacqui Smith
  The table shows the rate of delayed discharge in each national health service region for quarter 2 of 2001–02:

  Delayed discharge rate for all ages per region for Q2 2001 –02

  Percentage

  Northern and Yorkshire

  5.6

  Trent

  3.3

  West Midlands

  7.7

  North-west

  4.1

  Eastern

  7.6

  London

  6.5

  South-east

  10.3

  South-west

  7.1

  655W
  We are investing an additional £300 million over this year and next as part of a radical 'cash for change' programme. This is aimed at further reducing delayed discharges and targeted on the areas with the most serious problems.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many delayed discharges there were in the Portsmouth, Isle of Wight and South East Hampshire NHS Trusts in(a)1997, (b)1998, (c)1999 and (d)2000. [22377]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 11 December 2001]Information collected centrally on delayed discharges for the years 1997–2000 in the Isle of Wight health authority and Portsmouth and South East Hampshire health authority areas has been placed in the Library. Information is also available for Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire health authority, which was formed in April 2001.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 15 October 2001,Official Report, column 1036W, what the five predominant reasons for delayed discharge of those over 75 years of age were (a) in number of cases for each reason and (b) as a percentage for (i)Q3 2000–01, (ii) Q4 2000–01 and (iii) Q1 2000–02, by (A) region and (B) health authority. [24045]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 19 December 2001]The information requested has been placed in the Library. This does not include information requested on quarter 1 2001 –02 figures for those over 75 years of age, since from April 2001 figures on reasons for delay are only collected on the basis of patients of all ages. The information has been supplied for patients of all ages in quarter 1 2001 –02.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 15 October 2001,Official Report, column 1036W, what the average length of delay for those over 75 years of age was in (a) Q3 2000–01, (b) Q4 2000–01 and (c) Q1 2001–02, by (i) region and (ii) health authority. [24043]

  Jacqui Smith:
  [holding answer 19 December 2001]No information was collected centrally about the length of delay for patients with delayed discharge until the first quarter of 2001–02. The information on the breakdown in length of delay for patients of all ages in quarter 1 of 2001 –02 has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 15 October 2001,Official Report, column 1036W, on delayed discharges, if he will set out (a) by region and (b) by health authority the mortality rate for those readmitted over 75 years of age (i) in re-admission and (ii) within 30 days of readmission in (A) Q3 2000–01, (B) Q4 2000–01, and (C) Q1 2001–02. [24046]

  Jacqui Smith:
  [holding answer 19 December 2001]The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Bed Blocking
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in the last two years in reducing incidents of bed blocking in the NHS. [23965]

  Jacqui Smith
  In September 1999 the rate of delayed discharge for patients over 75 was 12.8 per cent., while in September 2001 the comparable figure was 12.1 per cent. To increase the reduction further we are investing an 656W
  additional £300 million over this year and next as part of a radical 'cash for change' programme in England. This is aimed at further reducing delayed discharges and targeted on the areas with the most serious problems.

  Chronic Respiratory Disease
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the ratio of respiratory specialists in England to people suffering from a chronic respiratory disease; [24705]

  (2) how many respiratory specialists are practising in England. [24706]

  Mr. Hutton
  As at 30 September 2000, there were 950 hospital medical staff within the respiratory medicine speciality in England, of which 440 were consultants.

  Our projections show that there will be an increase of around 150 trained specialists in respiratory medicine available to take up consultant posts by 2004.

  Information is not collected centrally about the number of people suffering from chronic respiratory disease, so we are unable to provide the ratio requested.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates his Department has made of the number of people in England who will be(a) HIV positive and (b) suffering from AIDS in (i) 2008, (ii) 2012 and (iii) 2018. [24702]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is not available. Estimates of the projected prevalence of diagnosed HIV infection in England and Wales for the next four years are currently being made and will be published in the next few months.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many(a) men and (b) women in England are HIV positive; and how many were HIV positive in (i) 2000, (ii) 1999, (iii) 1998 and (iv) 1997; [24703]

  (2) how many (a) men and (b) women in England suffer from AIDS; and how many suffered from AIDS in each year since 1997. [24704]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is shown in the table. The latest complete year's data available are for 2000.

  Individuals with diagnosed HIV infection seen for related treatment and care who are resident in England

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  HIV

  Male

  14,273

  13,035

  14,389

  15,826

  Female

  3,294

  3,266

  3,991

  5,025

  Total1

  17,639

  16,306

  18,392

  20,855

  Adjusted total2

  20,091

  18,931

  21,114

  23,962

  AIDS

  Male

  3,545

  3,830

  4,010

  4,152

  Female

  779

  842

  967

  1,138

  Total1

  4,331

  4,672

  4,977

  5,290

  1 Includes reports with sex not known

  2 The adjusted total allows for estimated under-reporting and the fact that some patients do not attend for care in a given year

  Source:

  Public Health Laboratory Service
  657W

  Breast Cancer
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for the possible use of aromatase inhibitors in the treatment of post-menopausal women suffering from breast cancer; and if he will make a statement. [24720]

  Yvette Cooper
  Aromatase inhibitors (eg Arimidex, Femera) are licensed for use in the United Kingdom for the treatment of advanced breast cancer in post menopausal women and so can be prescribed for use in the national health service for patients who meet the licensed criteria.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the number of men who suffer from breast cancer in England. [24701]

  Yvette Cooper
  Breast cancer in men is very rare. Latest figures indicate 269 men were diagnosed with the disease in 1998.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for the last two months for which figures are available the number of people in the Mid-Essex Hospital Trust area waiting(a) for hospital treatment and (b) more than 12 months for hospital treatment [24711]

  The number of patients waiting more than 18 months, up to 18 months, up to 15 months, and up to 12 months for in-patient treatment at Mid-Essex hospital services national health service trust from June until the latest available monthly figures.

  June 2001

  July 2001

  August 2001

  September 2001

  October 2001

  Number waiting less than 18 months for in-patient treatment

  8,850

  8,898

  8,917

  8,968

  8,657

  Number waiting less than 15 months for in-patient treatment

  8,674

  8,723

  8,733

  8,828

  8,520

  Number waiting less than 12 months for in-patient treatment

  8,150

  8,184

  8,202

  8,285

  8,030

  Number waiting less than 6 months for in-patient treatment

  5,942

  6,001

  5,975

  6,113

  5,997

  These data are nationally published data, taken from Regional Offices Data Systems.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for each month since June how many people in Greater London

  In-patient data for London regional office (trust based)

  Of those waiting, number who have waited:

  Month

  Total in-patient waiting list

  Less than six months

  Less than 12 months

  Less than 15 months

  Less than 18 months

  Greater than 18 months

  June 2001

  160,591

  114,215

  150,431

  157,960

  160,572

  19

  July 2001

  160,865

  115,493

  151,134

  158,578

  160,840

  25

  August 2001

  161,446

  115,640

  151,772

  159,072

  161,425

  21

  September 2001

  159,094

  113,224

  149,597

  156,727

  159,067

  27

  October 2001

  156,720

  114,018

  148,275

  154,840

  156,692

  28

  source

  KHO7 Quarterly return/monthly waiting times returns
  658W
  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Total number of patients waiting and the number of patients waiting over 12 months for hospital treatment at Mid-Essex Hospital Services national health service trust in October 2001

  Month

  Total Waiting

  Number waiting 12months

  September 2001

  8,968

  683

  October 2001

  8,657

  627

  Source:

  Monthly waiting list return

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the Mid-Essex Hospital Trust area were waiting more than 13 weeks to see a consultant in each of the last two quarters for which figures are available. [24647]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Total number of patients waiting 13 weeks or more for an outpatient appointment at Mid-Essex hospital services national
  health service trust in Quarter 1 2001–02 Quarter 2 2001–02

  Number of patients waiting over 13 weeks

  Quarter 1 2001/02

  2,146>

  Quarter 2 2001/02

  2,439

  Source:

  QM08 returns

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each month since June the number of people in the Mid-Essex Hospital Trust area waiting up to(a) six, (b) 12, (c) 15 and (d) 18 months for hospital treatment. [24633]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  Were waiting up to(a) sixmonths, (b)12, (c)15 months and (d)18 months for hospital treatement. [24643]

  Mr.Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  659W
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish for the last two quarters for which figures are available the number of people in Greater London waiting more than 13 weeks to see a consultant. [24652]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Out-patient data for London regional office (trust based)

  Quarter

  Number of patients still waiting Quarter over 13 weeks

  June 2001

  62,575

  September 2001

  72,193

  Note:

  Data are number of patients still waiting over 13 weeks at quarter end for a first out-patient appointment following GP referral

  Source:

  QM08 quarterly return

  Surgeons
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the estimated number of consultant surgeons needed in the NHS in England by June 2002; [24718]

  (2) how many consultant surgeons he estimates will be practising in the NHS by June 2002; [24719]

  (3) what is the projected figure for the number of consultant surgeons due to finish training by 2009–10; [24716]

  (4) what is the estimated number of consultant surgeons needed in the NHS in England by 2009–10. [24715]

  Mr. Hutton
  The NHS Plan sets a target of 7,500 additional consultants by 2004, over the 1999 baseline, needed to deliver the service targets set out in the Plan. The NHS is currently identifying locally what consultants it needs to deliver the NHS Plan by 2004. We anticipate that by 2002 there will be an increase of around 340 trained specialists in the surgical specialties, over the 2000 baseline.

  The Department's demand analysis suggests that by 2009–10 there could be a need for around 3,000 (headcount) additional consultant surgeons in the NHS in England, over the 2000 baseline. Around a further 1,320 trained specialists are expected to be available to take up surgical consultant posts by 2009–10, over the 2000 baseline.

  We continually review future requirements for trained specialists as part of the NHS's new multi-disciplinary work force planning processes. These will look at the requirements for doctors alongside other staff focusing on the potential for new ways of working and developing new roles.

  Projections of need will change as modernisation of the work force progresses. Supply projections will also change as numbers in training are varied in response to identified need.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prospective surgeons are undergoing training in the United Kingdom. [24349]
  660W
  Mr. Hutton
  On 30 September 2000, the last available date for which data are currently available, there were 7,740 doctors training in the surgical group of specialties within the national health service.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the target is for recruitment of new surgeons in England and Wales for each year up to and including 2009. [24348]

  Mr. Hutton
  We do not have targets for the recruitment of consultants in individual specialty groups. The NHS Plan sets a target of 7,500 additional consultants by 2004 over the 1999 baseline, needed to deliver the service targets set out in the Plan.

  When retirements are taken into account, around a further 1,320 trained specialists are expected to be available to take up surgical consultant posts by 2009, over the 2000 baseline.

  We continually review future requirements for trained specialists as part of the national health service's new multi-disciplinary work force planning processes. These will look at the requirements for doctors alongside other staff focusing on the potential for new ways of working and developing new roles.

  Projections of need will change as modernisation of the work force progresses. Supply projections will also change as numbers in training are varied in response to identified need.

  The information relating to Wales is a matter for the devolved Administration.

  Dialysis
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in England need treatment involving a dialysis machine; and what is the ratio of patients to machines. [24651]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information from the 1998 renal survey, commissioned by the Department, is set out in the table.

  Adult patients

  Stations

  Centre based haemodialysis

  7,788

  1,890

  Home haemodialysis

  516

  516

  The centre-based patients have dialysis on average three times a week.

  In addition there were 5,101 patients receiving peritoneal dialysis, an unknown number of whom use automated peritoneal dialysis delivered by a machine. Furthermore, a number of kidney patients will require post-transplant haemofiltration and other patients admitted with acute renal failure, often associated with major trauma, will also need haemodialysis.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dialysis machines are operational in England. [24650]

  Jacqui Smith
  The latest information available is from the Renal Survey, commissioned by the Department, which shows that there were 2,406 dialysis stations operational in England at the end of 1998. Of these 1,021
  661W
  were situated in main renal units, 761 were located in satellite renal units, 516 in patients' homes and there were 108 temporary stations.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many residential and nursing home beds are available in each social service area in England; and how many were available in 1997. [24626]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on the total number of residential care in 1997 and 2001 is shown by local authority in table 1. Information on the total number of nursing care beds for the same years is shown in table 2.

  Table 1: Number of residential care places in England by local authority at 31 March

  Local authority

  1997

  2001

  England

  338,052

  341,175

  Barking and Dagenham

  688

  618

  Barnet

  2,124

  2,346

  Barnsley

  1,215

  1,758

  Bath and North East Somerset

  1,218

  1,267

  Bedfordshire1

  2,923

  2,056

  Berkshire

  3,944

  2—

  Bexley

  716

  914

  Birmingham

  5,540

  5,503

  Blackburn with Darwen

  2—

  1,329

  Blackpool

  2—

  2,068

  Bolton

  1,171

  1,583

  Bournemouth

  2—

  2,520

  Bracknell Forest

  2—

  433

  Bradford

  3,188

  3,183

  Brent

  762

  758

  Brighton and Hove

  2—

  2,195

  Bristol

  2,582

  2,568

  Bromley

  1,314

  1,568

  Buckinghamshire

  2,438

  2,603

  Bury

  1,582

  1,796

  Calderdale

  1,257

  1,207

  Cambridgeshire1

  3,629

  2,869

  Camden

  937

  803

  Cheshire1

  5,088

  3,827

  City of London

  0

  0

  Cornwall

  3,441

  4,762

  Coventry

  2,233

  1,875

  Croydon

  1,832

  2,065

  Cumbria

  3,937

  3,803

  Darlington

  2—

  813

  Derby

  2—

  1,439

  Derbyshire1

  6,246

  4,868

  Devon1

  16,006

  8,486

  Doncaster

  1,882

  1,861

  Dorset1

  9,242

  3,073

  Dudley

  1,633

  1,914

  Durham1

  4,469

  4,269

  Ealing

  1,316

  1,083

  East Riding

  3,786

  4,230

  East Sussex1

  10,774

  7,078

  Enfield

  1,422

  1,541

  Essex1

  10,296

  8,221

  Gateshead

  1,405

  1,525

  Gloucestershire

  3,737

  4,241

  Greenwich

  719

  613

  Hackney

  569

  616

  Halton

  2—

  830

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  490

  336

  Hampshire1

  11,926

  7,986

  Haringey

  1,001

  1,003

  Harrow

  959

  864

  Hartlepool

  652

  716

  662W

  Table 1: Number of residential care places in England by local authority at 31 march

  Local authority

  1997

  2001

  Havering

  1,150

  1,077

  Hereford and Worcester

  5,552

  2—

  Herefordshire

  2—

  1,550

  Hertfordshire

  4,653

  3—

  Hillingdon

  881

  915

  Hounslow

  584

  547

  Isle of Wight

  2,115

  2,010

  Isles of Scilly

  21

  22

  Islington

  680

  484

  Kensington and Chelsea

  557

  357

  Kent1

  16,009

  14,597

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  2,382

  2,250

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  762

  715

  Kirklees

  2,193

  2,488

  Knowsley

  640

  693

  Lambeth

  1,355

  1,031

  Lancashire1

  15,072

  11,638

  Leeds

  3,753

  3,951

  Leicester

  2—

  2,370

  Leicestershire1

  5,960

  3,995

  Lewisham

  1,027

  948

  Lincolnshire

  5,049

  5,425

  Liverpool

  1,888

  2,693

  Luton

  2—

  863

  Manchester

  2,493

  2,417

  Medway Towns

  2—

  1,331

  Merton

  620

  607

  Middlesbrough

  808

  1,014

  Milton Keynes

  2—

  823

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  1,545

  1,714

  Newham

  584

  581

  Norfolk

  7,057

  7,476

  North East Lincolnshire

  1,436

  1,469

  North Lincolnshire

  1,347

  1,295

  North Somerset

  2,232

  2,173

  North Tyneside

  1,771

  1,777

  North Yorkshire

  5,617

  5,093

  Northamptonshire

  4,534

  4,387

  Northumberland

  2,626

  2,845

  Nottingham

  2—

  2,022

  Nottinghamshire1

  6,432

  5,573

  Oldham

  1,385

  1,466

  Oxfordshire

  2,832

  2,721

  Peterborough

  2—

  709

  Plymouth

  2—

  2,500

  Poole

  2—

  1,049

  Portsmouth

  2—

  1,596

  Reading

  2—

  777

  Redbridge

  1,024

  1,054

  Redcar and Cleveland

  1,173

  1,172

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  909

  902

  Rochdale

  1,157

  1,304

  Rotherham

  1,369

  1,673

  Rutland

  2—

  275

  Salford

  1,324

  1,290

  Sandwell

  1,120

  1,239

  Sefton

  3,389

  3,132

  Sheffield

  2,788

  3,173

  Shropshire1

  3,085

  2,734

  Slough

  2—

  310

  Solihull

  764

  926

  Somerset

  3,380

  4,101

  South Gloucestershire

  1,224

  1,332

  South Tyneside

  1,282

  1,205

  Southampton

  2—

  1,527

  Southend

  2—

  2,059

  Southwark

  694

  701

  St. Helens

  750

  804

  Staffordshire1

  8,202

  4,825

  Stockport

  1,387

  1,756

  Stockton-on-Tees

  961

  969

  Stoke-on-Trent

  2—

  1,991

  663W

  Table 1: Number of residential care places in England by local authority at 31 march

  Local authority

  1997

  2001

  Suffolk

  4,355

  4,462

  Sunderland

  1,525

  1,878

  Surrey

  7,305

  6,628

  Sutton

  866

  851

  Swindon

  2—

  930

  Tameside

  1,209

  1,195

  Telford and Wrekin

  2—

  697

  Thurrock

  2—

  499

  Torbay

  2—

  2,706

  Tower Hamlets

  585

  468

  Trafford

  1,002

  1,286

  Wakefield

  1,312

  1,940

  Walsall

  848

  1,388

  Waltham Forest

  1,114

  1,261

  Wandsworth

  1,224

  1,156

  Warrington

  2—

  876

  Warwickshire

  2,741

  2,797

  West Berkshire

  2—

  630

  West Sussex

  8,234

  8,247

  Westminster

  597

  559

  Wigan

  1,456

  1,380

  Wiltshire

  4,513

  3,061

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  2—

  596

  Wirral

  2,748

  2,596

  Wokingham

  2—

  805

  Wolverhampton

  1,327

  1,120

  Worcestershire

  2—

  3,530

  York

  1,218

  1,101

  1Shire authority affected by local government reorganisation

  2Not applicable—authority affected by local government reorganisation

  3 Information not available

  Source

  Department of Health's annual returns

  Table 2: Number of residential care places in England by local authority at 31 March

  Health authority

  19971

  2001

  England

  197,514

  186,828

  Avon

  4,877

  5,125

  Barking and Havering

  647

  1,015

  Barnet

  1,031

  935

  Barnsley

  1,049

  792

  Bedfordshire

  998

  1,520

  Berkshire

  2,007

  1,879

  Bexley and Greenwich

  558

  867

  Birmingham

  2,966

  2,889

  Bradford

  3,230

  3,765

  Brent and Harrow

  906

  1,405

  Bromley

  1,094

  995

  Buckinghamshire

  1,735

  1,951

  Bury and Rochdale

  2,276

  1,647

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  2,389

  2,472

  Cambridge

  1,063

  2,042

  Camden and Islington

  265

  457

  Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly

  2,710

  3,180

  County Durham

  4,207

  3,251

  Coventry

  542

  630

  Croydon

  1,004

  1,013

  Doncaster

  971

  807

  Dorset

  3,656

  3,086

  Dudley

  1,045

  1,236

  Ealing. Hammersmith and Hounslow

  789

  1,250

  East and North Hertfordshire

  1,526

  1,184

  East Kent

  2,412

  1,892

  East Lancashire

  3,003

  1,957

  East London and The City

  635

  855

  East Riding

  1,856

  1,577

  East Surrey

  2,244

  2,617

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  4,628

  4,368

  664W

  Table 2: Number of residential care places in England by local authority at 31 March

  Health authority

  19971

  2001

  Enfield and Haringey

  904

  1,129

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  1,462

  1,363

  Gloucestershire

  4,047

  3,064

  Herefordshire

  532

  695

  Hillingdon

  455

  489

  Isle of Wight

  457

  356

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  1,582

  1,578

  Kingston and Richmond

  929

  842

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  1,592

  1,925

  Leeds

  2,321

  2,469

  Leicestershire

  2,463

  1,623

  Lincolnshire

  4,129

  3,185

  Liverpool

  2,734

  2,991

  Manchester

  2,169

  1,721

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  2,243

  2,540

  Morecambe Bay

  1,051

  1,138

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  1,749

  1,696

  Norfolk

  2,110

  2,959

  North and East Devon

  2,617

  2,020

  North and Mid Hampshire

  1,586

  1,731

  North Cheshire

  1,445

  1,467

  North Cumbria

  919

  831

  North Derbyshire

  2,101

  1,937

  North Essex

  2,590

  2,133

  North Nottinghamshire

  2,118

  1,781

  North Staffordshire

  1,743

  1,921

  North West Anglia2

  3,280

  3—

  North West Lancashire

  2,864

  2,515

  North Yorkshire

  4,782

  4,352

  Northamptonshire

  1,502

  2,334

  Northumberland

  831

  993

  Nottingham

  3,389

  2,857

  Oxfordshire

  1,516

  1,686

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  1,708

  1,689

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  723

  789

  Rotherham

  1,212

  1,124

  Salford and Trafford

  1,996

  1,762

  Sandwell

  995

  909

  Sefton

  2,408

  2,113

  Sheffield

  2,207

  2,705

  Shropshire

  1,916

  1,877

  Solihull

  433

  330

  Somerset

  2,626

  2,580

  South and West Devon

  3,413

  2,961

  South Cheshire

  4,049

  4,003

  South Derbyshire

  2,582

  2,327

  South Essex

  1,998

  1,314

  South Humberside

  1,357

  940

  South Lancashire

  1,779

  1,713

  South Staffordshire

  3,694

  3,300

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  1,658

  1,720

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  1,473

  1,259

  Stockport

  1,212

  1,010

  Suffolk

  2,293

  2,142

  Sunderland

  1,837

  1,243

  Tees

  2,998

  2,662

  Wakefield

  955

  1,110

  Walsall

  602

  714

  Warwickshire

  1,833

  1,855

  West Hertfordshire

  1,068

  1,476

  West Kent

  2,975

  2,976

  West Pennine

  1,622

  1,445

  West Surrey

  2,586

  2,195

  West Sussex

  4,703

  3,941

  Wigan and Bolton

  1,615

  1,714

  Wiltshire

  2,234

  2,057

  Wirral

  2,915

  2,211

  Wolverhampton

  797

  1,012

  Worcestershire

  2,511

  2,670

  1 Relates to the period 1 October 1996 to 31 March 1997.
  665W
  2As a result of health authority reorganisation, North West Anglia was split with Cambridge and Huntingdon becoming part of Cambridge HA and East Norfolk becoming part of Norfolk HA.

  3Not avilable

  Source:

  Department of Health's annual returns

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates his Department has made of the number of people who have had to sell their homes to pay for long-term care in each of the last five years. [24641]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average length of time is that an individual stays in(a) a residential care and (b) a nursing home in England. [24639]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who drafted the guidance under the Care Standards Act 2000 dealing with accommodation for residents of residential care homes. [24314]

  Jacqui Smith
  The National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for Older People and Care Homes for Younger Adults and Adult Placements were drafted by the Department. To aid the drafting of these standards, reference groups were set up which included representatives from the private, public and voluntary sectors, national organisations and service users. Both sets of standards were consulted upon publicly and we have listened to the representations made during consultation and made appropriate changes. No guidance under the Care Standards Act 2000, in relation to the accommodation of service users in care homes, has been drafted.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations he has received from local authority care homes concerning the Care Standards Act 2000; and if he will list them broken down by authority. [24299]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department does not hold information in the form requested. Representations about the effect of Government policy on local authority run care homes are generally made by local authorities as part of the comments they make in their role as regulators, providers and commissioners of social care. Local authorities have been involved in the development of our modernisation agenda, particularly in the development of national minimum standards where they were one of the groups consulted before and during the various consultation exercises on the national standards. The formal consultation documents were sent to all local authorities.

  Osteoporosis
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many(a) men and (b) women in England suffer from osteoporosis; [24695]

  (2) how many women in England suffer from osteoperia. [24696]
  666W
  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is not available. Individuals will generally not be aware of the presence of these conditions. It has been estimated that one in three women and one in 12 men over age 50 have osteoporosis.

  Age-related Macular Degeneration
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people in England suffer from age-related macular degeneration; [24692]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the possibility of using genetic engineering to restore vision to those suffering from age-related macular degeneration. [24691]

  Jacqui Smith
  It has recently been estimated that in the United Kingdom some 180,000 people suffer sight loss due to age-related macular degeneration (AMD). It is possible that gene therapy may indeed one day be used to halt or even prevent AMD. The results of a number of pre-clinical research studies have been published, and these studies do look promising. However, it is too early to say for certain whether these specific approaches will ultimately lead to cures for patients with AMD.

  Here in the UK, before moving into clinic to test such approaches in human subjects, the approval of our national supervisory body, the Gene Therapy Advisory Committee (GTAC) would be required. GTAC would base their decision as to the acceptability of any such trial on the medical and scientific merits of the research proposed and carefully weighing the potential benefits and risks to patients.

  Epilepsy Patients
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of epilepsy patients are photosensitive. [24697]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not collected centrally. However, scientific research suggests that up to 5 per cent. of people with epilepsy are photosensitive.

  Child Death Helpline
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many calls were made to the Child Death Helpline in 2001; and if he will make a statement. [24656]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Health Care Funding
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding for health care per patient there is in the parliamentary constituencies of(a) Sedgefield, (b) West Chelmsford, (c) South West Surrey and (d) North West Hampshire. [24631]

  Mr. Hutton
  Health authorities receive allocations to commission healthcare for their population. The health authorities for these parliamentary constituencies, and their allocations per weighted head of population in 2001–02, are shown in the table
  667W

  Parleamentary constituency

  Health authority

  2001–021(£)

  Sedgfield

  County Durham

  730

  West Chelmsford

  North Essex

  728

  South West Surrey

  West Surrey

  749

  North West Hampshire

  North and mid Hampshire

  736

  1 Allocation per weighted head of population

  Diabetes
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations he has received concerning the Diabetes National Service Framework; and if he will make a statement. [24713]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have received just over 300 letters about the Diabetes National Service Framework since 15 October when we announced the changed plans for its publication. The Diabetes NSF standards were published on 14 December and have been widely welcomed.

  Doctor Numbers
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the ratio of doctors to people in England. [24717]

  Mr. Hutton
  The data requested are shown in the table.

  England at 30 September 2000

  Number

  Numbers per 100,000 population

  All NHS doctors

  97,440

  194.9

  of which

  All GMPS (including GP Retainers)1

  31,370

  62.7

  All HCHS Staff2

  66,070

  132.1

  of which

  Consultants

  24,310

  48.6

  1General Medical Practitioners (including GP Retainers) inclused Unrestricted Principals, PMS Salaried GPS, PMS Contacted GPs, Restricted Principals, Assistants, GP Registrars, Salaried Doctors (Para 52 SFA), and PMS Others.

  2Excludes Medical Hospital Practitioners and Medical Clinical Assistants, most of whom are also General Practitioners working part-time in hospitals.

  Notes:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Unrounded figures were used in all calculations.

  These are NHS doctors only. These figures do not show private practice doctors or doctors that are registered but not working.

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many episodes of in-patient care were purchased by the NHS in the independent mental health sector in(a)1997–98, (b) 1999–2000, (c) 2000–01 and (d) this financial year to date. [24523]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information is not collected centrally on the number of episodes of in-patient care purchased by the national health service in the independent mental health sector.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what his estimate is of the(a) number and (b)proportion of people who suffer schizophrenia (i) at
  668W
  any one time, (ii) during the course of the most recent year for which figures are available and (iii) during their lifetimes; [24531]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number and proportion of (a) the general population and (b) the adult population with severe and enduring mental health problems; [24526]

  (3) what proportion of those suffering (a) a disabling anxiety disorder, (b) clinical depression, (c) manic depression and (d) schizophrenia were (i) men and (ii) women, in the most recent year for which figures are available; [24534]

  (4) what his estimate is of the (a) number and (b) proportion of people who suffer manic depression (i) at any one time, (ii) during the course of the most recent year for which figures are available and (iii) during their lifetimes; [24530]

  (5) what his assessment is of the proportion of people who will develop (a) a disabling anxiety disorder, (b) a phobia and (c) an obsessive compulsive disorder during their lives; [24528]

  (6) what assessment he has made of the prevalence of (a) psychosis, (b) psychiatric illness and (c) neurotic disorders among adults living in private households. [24524]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Office for National Statistics is responsible for compiling, analysing and disseminating information relating to United Kingdom economic, social and demographic statistics. Their report 'Psychiatric morbidity among adults living in private households, 2000' is available on the website at www.statistics.gov.uk. Along with others due for publication next year, the report contains valuable information about the prevalence of mental disorders among adults in private households.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what number and proportion of the(a) general and (b) adult population presented with mental health problems to the NHS in the most recent year for which figures are available. [24525]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Office for National Statistics is the Government agency responsible for compiling, analysing and disseminating information relating to estimates of numbers in the general population with mental health problems, and the proportion using specific services. Their recent report "Psychiatric morbidity among adults living in private households, 2000" is available on the website at www.statistics.gov.uk

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for the proposed Children's National Service Framework with regard to mental health services for children and young persons. [24522]

  Jacqui Smith
  One of the specific areas to be addressed in the Children's National Service Framework is child and adolescent mental health services. Detailed work to develop this strand of the service framework will take place in an external working group under the chairmanship of Mike Farrar, chief executive of Tees health authority, and Dr. Caroline Lindsey, consultant psychiatrist at the Tavistock clinic. The first meeting of the external working group is scheduled for January.
  669W
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health of those discharged from hospital in the most recent year for which figures are available after treatment for alcohol and drug related problems, what proportions of(a) men and (b) women were diagnosed as suffering from (i) disabling anxiety disorder, (ii) clinical depression, (iii) manic depression and (iv) schizophrenia. [24535]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information is not collected centrally by the Department, in the form requested.

  The table shows the estimated number of finished consultant episodes with a primary diagnosis of mental and behavioural disorder due to psychoactive substance use, in England, for 1999–2000, the latest year for which data are available. These figures have a provisional status as no adjustments have yet been made for shortfalls in data.

  Finished consultant episodes with a primary diagnosis of mental and behavioural disorders due to the use of psychoactive
  substances (excluding tobacco), broken down by sex, England,
  1999–2000

  Mental and behavioural disorders due to the use of psychoactive substances F10–F19 (excluding F17, tobacco)

  Persons

  Male

  Female

  Total F10–F19 (excluding F17)

  42,600

  29,360

  12,940

  Alcohol (F10)

  33,160

  22,740

  10,190

  Opioids (F11)

  4,300

  2,900

  1,380

  Cannabinoids (F12)

  630

  490

  140

  Sedatives or hypnotics (F13)

  250

  130

  120

  Cocaine (F14)

  170

  140

  40

  Other stimulants including caffeine (F15)

  640

  440

  190

  Hallucinogens (F16)

  210

  140

  60

  Volatile solvents (F18)

  70

  60

  10

  Multiple drug use and use of other psychoactive substances (F19)

  3,160

  2,320

  820

  Notes:

  1. Persons category includes 'Unknown' and 'not specified' sex categories.

  2. Data for 1999–2000 have not been grossed for coverage and have a provisional status.

  3. Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10 for confidentiality purposes.

  4.Figures may not add up due to rounding.

  5.Codes have been taken from the 'International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems' Tenth Revision (ICD-10).

  6.Of the 42,600 episodes detailed above 2,340 have a primary diagnosis of psychotic disorder.

  7. The diagnosis of psychotic disorder includes a cluster of psychotic phenomena that occur during or following psychoactive substance use but that are not explained on the basis of acute intoxication alone and do not form part of a withdrawal state. The disorder is characterised by hallucinations, perceptual distortions, delusions, psychomotor disturbances, and an abnormal affect, which may range from intense fear to ecstasy.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) number and (b) proportion of people who are homeless have a diagnosis of psychosis. [24538]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Eating Disorders
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital admissions there were in(a) 1997 and (b) in the most recent year for which figures are available in respect of eating disorders. [24533]
  670W
  Jacqui Smith
  In 1997–98 there were 1,990 admissions for people with eating disorders and 1,780 in 1999–2000. The data are taken from hospital episode statistics and relate to in-patients who have finished their hospital episodes under the care of a consultant. The 1999–2000 figures are provisional as no adjustments have been made for shortfalls in the data.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the number and proportion of(a) men and (b) women who suffer eating disorders; and how many have suffered from such disorders during their lifetimes. [24532]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on the number of people with eating disorders is not collected centrally by the Department.

  Tilt Report
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which recommendations in the Tilt report have been implemented [24527]

  Jacqui Smith
  The position regarding the implementation of the recommendations in the Report of the Review of Security at the High Security Hospitals (the Tilt report) is set out in the tables at Annex A, which have been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Hepatitis C
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are receiving the combination treatment, ribovarin plus alpha-interferon, for hepatitis C in the United Kingdom. [24885]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Stroke Treatment
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Scretary of State for Health (1) what action he is taking to ensure that stroke patients, regardless of age, have access to specialist stroke teams and are able to participate in a multidisciplinary programme of rehabilitation; [24361]

  (2) how he will ensure that younger people who suffer strokes receive the support they need to promote independence; and if he will make a statement; [24360]

  (3) what action he is taking to ensure that the standard for stroke care, published in the National Service Framework for Older People, will apply to stroke patients of all ages. [24359]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Stroke Standard in the National Service Framework for Older People, the service model it details for integrated stroke services and the milestones for action it sets should apply equally to all stroke patients, irrespective of age. Integrated stroke services will need to cover or link to prevention, acute care, rehabilitation and long-term support for stroke patients and their carers. April 2002 is the milestone for every general hospital which cares for people with stroke to have plans to introduce a specialised stroke service from 2004.
  671W

  NHS (Racism)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures the Government have taken to tackle racism in the NHS. [24325]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are fully committed to diversity and equality of opportunity for all health service staff and patients and we are taking vigorous action to achieve this. There is no place for discrimination or harassment in the national health service on grounds of race or ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability, religion, or age.

  The Improving Working Lives (IWL) Standard establishes targets and measures for promoting real improvements in the working lives of NHS staff. It makes it clear that every member of staff is entitled to work in an organisation which can prove that it is investing in, and improving, diversity and tackling discrimination and harassment.

  Activity to achieve this aim is occurring on a number of fronts. We have launched an equalities framework (`The Vital Connection') which incorporates clear requirements for the NHS in promoting equality and introduces a package of indicators, standards and monitoring arrangements to support progress and manage performance as part of human resources performance management. It includes specific measures on race and harassment.

  In addition, the 'Positively Diverse' programme is developing the knowledge and capacity of NHS organisations to build and manage a diverse workforce. It provides the process for achieving the equalities-related aspects of IWL and the targets set by the Equalities Framework and supports NHS organisations in meeting the workforce challenges set by the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.

  The programme is, at present, being extended to another 200 organisations. Work is also in hand to develop a mentoring and coaching scheme for black and minority ethnic staff; a trainers pack for working with race and racism and a personal work programme for examining individual attitudes towards race and culture. In addition, new guidance, aligned with the 'Zero Tolerance' campaign, on dealing with harassment from service users has been developed and will be launched in March.

  Locums
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many locums are working in NHS facilities in England and Wales. [24666]

  (2) how many locums secured substantive employment in the UK in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [24665]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data for locums are not collected centrally.

  European Health Services
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the European average for health spending as a percentage of GDP was in 1998, excluding the UK,(a) weighted and (b) unweighted. [24431]
  672W
  Mr. Hutton
  The latest figures for the weighted and the unweighted European average for 1998 excluding the United Kingdom are shown in the table:

  European average (excluding UK)

  1998

  Unweighted spend as percentage of Gross Domestic Product

  8.0

  Weighted spend as percentage of Gross Domestic Product

  8.8

  Source:

  OECD Health Data 2001

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to visit European countries to view their health services in 2002. [24685]

  Mr. Milburn
  I plan to visit Spain, and will visit other countries as appropriate.

  NHS Modernisation Agency
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how often the NHS Modernisation Agency meets; and when the last meeting took place. [24335]

  Mr. Hutton
  The NHS Modernisation Agency is a directorate of the Department of Health. Its Director, David Fillingham, is a member of the Department's board, which meets fortnightly. The Modernisation Agency's management team meets every month.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the head of the NHS Modernisation Agency. [24334]

  Mr. Hutton
  My right hon. Friend meets David Fillingham, the director of the Modernisation Agency, on a regular basis. They last met just before the Christmas break.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been appointed to the NHS Modernisation Agency; and at what remuneration level. [24333]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Health Service Modernisation Agency was formed in April 2001 through the merger of six pre-existing teams. Since April, 119 clinicians and managers have been appointed to the agency. Eighty-seven are on fixed term/secondment from the NHS and 19 have been appointed to the civil service. The total staff of the agency is 323 (NHS staff 250, Department of Health employees 73).

  Of the total staffing profile of the agency, 13 per cent. are senior manager or clinician level (£50,000 per annum plus), 51 per cent. are programme manager level (£30,000 to £50,000 per annum) and 37 per cent. are support staff (below £30,000 per annum).

  Hospital Cleaners
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are in place to vet hospital cleaners for criminal records. [24298]

  Mr. Hutton
  All national health service workers are asked to declare criminal convictions as part of the recruitment process. Currently checks are made against police records for all posts involving substantial unsupervised access to children. From 1 March the commencement of the Criminal Records Bureau
  673W
  disclosure service will allow checks to be made on a much wider range of posts including hospital cleaners who have access to patients in the normal course of their work.

  Children's Homes
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) local authority and (b) private children's homes have been (i) opened and (ii) closed in each year since 1997 in (A) England and (B) west Sussex. [24306]

  Jacqui Smith
  Table 1 shows the number of local authority and private children's homes (excluding independent boarding schools) at 31 March 1997 and 31 March 2000. Separate information on the number of homes(a) opened and (b) closed is available only for the years ending 31 March 1999 and 2000. Figures for England are shown in table 2. There was one new registration of a private children's home in west Sussex in 1999 and no closures in either 1999 or 2000.

  Table 1: Numbers of local authority and private children's homes(excluding independent boarding schools)—at 31 March

  England

  West Sussex

  1997

  Local authority children's homes

  838

  13

  Private children's homes

  283

  4

  2000

  Local authority children's homes

  721

  11

  Private children's homes

  310

  3

  Source:

  Department of Health statistical return CH1

  Table 2: Number of children's homes opened and closed in England—year ending 31 March

  New registrations

  Number of: Establishment closures

  1999

  Local authority children's homes

  5

  30

  Private children's homes

  30

  10

  2000

  Local authority children's homes

  10

  30

  Private children's homes

  40

  10

  Source:

  Department of Health Registration and Inspection Survey

  Private Sector Operations
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the operation of the concordat between the NHS and the private sector in the last year; [24351]

  (2) under the concordat operating between the NHS and the private sector, how many operations have taken place to date, broken down by (a) type and (b) average cost; and which private facilities have been used under the concordat with the NHS. [24323]

  Mr. Hutton
  The concordat has encouraged better use of spare capacity in the independent sector, which has allowed national health service patients to be treated more quickly.
  674W
  According to data collected from independent healthcare providers by the Independent Healthcare Association, since November 2000 at least 75,000 patients have been treated in the independent sector, paid for by the NHS. This figure includes out-patient appointments, day cases and in-patient treatment. A breakdown by type of operation will shortly be placed in the Library. The IHA does not collect cost information.

  The Department has recently surveyed health authorities and trusts on the amount of activity they are purchasing for NHS patients within the private sector and will make available key results in due course. The Department is also currently reviewing its information needs as far as NHS-funded activity in the private sector is concerned.

  The challenge remains to put NHS use of private sector capacity on a planned footing. Some health authorities and primary care trusts have made particular progress on this front, but overall the picture is still generally one of "spot" purchasing.

  The Department has recently announced a five point plan for expanding the role of non-NHS providers in the NHS, including up to £40 million for NHS-funded operations this winter, a national contract framework between the NHS and the private sector, inviting private companies to build and run diagnostic and treatment centres, dedicating existing private hospitals to NHS work and using overseas providers.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which private facilities have been used under the concordat with the NHS. [24541]

  Mr. Hutton
  Arrangements between the national health service and the independent sector under the concordat for the treatment of NHS patients are made locally. This information is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Paramedics
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many paramedics were employed in 2001 in(a) London and (b) West Sussex. [24330]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): ambulance paramedics within the London Regional Office, South East Regional Office areas and East Sussex, Brighton and Hove health authority area as at 30 September 2000

  Whole-time equivalents

  Headcount

  London Regional Office Area

  780

  780

  South East Regional Office Area

  1,050

  1,060

  Of which

  230

  230

  West Sussex HA

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove HA1

  1East Sussex, Brighton and Hove HA provide ambulance staff for the whole of Sussex, therefore, staff working within the West Sussex HA area cannot be separately identified.

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10

  Source:

  Department of Health non-medica workforce census.
  675W
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many paramedics retired from the service in 2001(a) in England, (b) from the London ambulance service and (c) from the Sussex ambulance service. [24331]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  CT/MRI Scanners
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) CT and (b) MRI scanners are in working use in the NHS. [24663]

  Yvette Cooper
  There are approximately 285 CT scanners and approximately 190 MRI scanners in working use in the national health service in England, as of December 2001.

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): Qualified nursing staff working within the community areas of work in England and Wales as at 30 September each year

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  All staff—whole-time equivalents

  48,930

  49,430

  50,810

  52,080

  53,530

  of which:

  Health Visitors

  10,780

  10,670

  10,710

  10,810

  10,640

  District Nurses

  12,860

  12,490

  12,410

  12,390

  12,310

  Other community nursing

  25,290

  26,270

  27,680

  28,890

  30,590

  of which:

  Community psychiatric

  9,230

  9,560

  10,000

  10,260

  10,860

  Community learning difficulties

  3,000

  3,130

  3,210

  3,410

  3,550

  Community services

  13,070

  13,580

  14,470

  15,210

  16,180

  All staff—headcount

  61,250

  62,870

  65,340

  67,220

  69,660

  of which:

  Health Visitors

  13,160

  13,220

  13,420

  13,620

  13,570

  District Nurses

  15,800

  15,740

  15,600

  15,640

  15,850

  Other community nursing

  32,290

  33,910

  36,320

  37,970

  40,240

  of which:

  Community psychiatric

  9,870

  10,320

  10,800

  11,140

  11,800

  Community learning difficulties

  3,320

  3,440

  3,590

  3,770

  3,990

  Community services

  19,100

  20,140

  21,930

  23,050

  24,440

  Notes:

  1 Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  2.Figures exclude learners and agency staff.

  3.Due to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts.

  Sources:

  Department of Health non-medical work force census

  NHS Staff Census—National Assembly for Wales

  Hospital Star Rating Scheme
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what choices for alternative treatment locations there are for patients whose local hospital has been given zero stars under the Government's hospital star rating scheme. [24312]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have made it clear that the ratings are not primarily about the quality of clinical care. They do not mean that a poorly performing hospital has low standards, is unsafe or does not contain some very good clinical services. Staff are often doing a good job but the assessments show that organisational performance does need to improve.
  676W
  By 2004, central programmes will provide a further 69 additional CT and 72 additional MRI scanners for the NHS in England, as well as over 130 replacement CT and MRI scanners.

  NHS Chief Executive
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the Chief Executive of the NHS. [24336]

  Mr. Milburn
  I meet Nigel Crisp, the Chief Executive, on a regular basis.

  District and Community Nurses
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many district and community nurses there are in England and Wales, and how many there were in each of the last five years. [24344]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Our new proposals on patient choice mean that from July 2002, if a patient with coronary heart disease has been on an in-patient waiting list for over six months, they will be able to seek swifter treatment in either the private sector, in another European Union country or in a different national health service hospital. This option is available regardless of a trust's performance rating and will be extended across England throughout 2002–03.

  Autism Awareness Year
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures the Government are proposing to help promote autism awareness year. [24247]
  677W
  Jacqui Smith
  We welcome initiatives which aim to improve our knowledge and understanding of autism. Autism awareness year is seeking to raise awareness, through voluntary sector partnerships, of the issues surrounding autism and to influence and inspire action to facilitate the changes needed to services and attitudes to autism. I was delighted to accept an invitation to speak at an autism awareness year conference to be held on 14 February.

  We will listen carefully to the messages which emerge from this and other current and recently completed initiatives in this field. These include the independent "National Initiative on Autism: Screening and Assessment" and the two reports commissioned by the Department of Health—from Dr. Tony Holland on Asperger's Syndrome and from the Medical Research Council on the epidemiology and causes of autism.

  Pathology Services
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many private providers of pathology services have renewed their contracts with the NHS since 1994; [24327]

  (2) if he will list private providers of pathology services under contract to the NHS. [24432]

  Mr. Hutton
  The national health service has for many years worked closely with private sector providers of pathology equipment, consumables, IT and transport. There are no centrally held statistical data on these arrangements.

  Two private sector companies are currently known to have contracts to provide laboratory medicine services to the national health service. These are Quest Diagnostics Ltd. at West Middlesex NHS Trust and The Doctors Laboratory at Ealing NHS Trust. Both of these are still in operation. Omnilabs had a contract at the Lister Hospital, Stevenage but this has recently expired.

  York Formula
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the York formula calculation for regional health funding. [24674]

  Mr. Hutton
  A wide ranging review of the weighted capitation formula used to allocate resources to health authorities and primary care trusts is currently taking place. The aim is to produce a fairer means of allocating resources. A key criterion of the new formula will be to contribute to the reduction of avoidable health inequalities.

  Student Doctors
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many students(a) completed degree courses in medicine and (b) carried on to work as doctors/ surgeons in the NHS in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [24350]

  Mr. Hutton
  3,980 students completed first degree courses in medicine in 1999–2000 in England. In the same year the NHS in England employed 3,540 pre-registration house officers—the first NHS job that new medical graduates take up.
  678W
  Graduates from medical courses do not all go on to become NHS doctors though the vast majority will spend part of their careers working in the NHS. Some choose to use their skills by working in the research, industrial or charity sectors. Some of those from outside England return home following graduation.

  European Hospitals
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his proposals are for payment of travel costs for NHS patients receiving treatment in continental European hospitals. [24317]

  Mr. Hutton
  Regulations have been laid before the House to amend the National Health Service (Travelling Expenses and Remission of Charges) Regulations 1988 to permit NHS bodies to pay for the travel of NHS patients going overseas for treatment funded by the NHS. The NHS will meet the cost of the patient's travel from the point at which they begin their international journey (the airport, ferry port or international train station) to the foreign provider. Reimbursement of travel expenses between the patient's home to the airport, ferry port of international train station will be governed by the same rules that currently apply to payment of travelling expenses to hospitals in England. This change will ensure that patients treated overseas under the auspices of the NHS will not be disadvantaged by having to travel further for that treatment.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what role will be played by GPs in the selection of European hospitals to be used for the treatment of their patients under the NHS. [24324]

  Mr. Hutton
  The hospitals to be used for national health service patients in the three test bed sites in the south east region are being selected by local commissioners, with clinical input. A practising GP has also been involved in providing input to the development of the three projects. There will be a competitive tender exercise in the new year to select approved foreign providers; again, clinicians will be involved in the selection of the final list of approved providers.

  Fly Sprays
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has commissioned on the use of chemicals in fly spray products linked to cancer. [24339]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department has commissioned no research on the use of chemicals in fly spray products. All such pesticide products have to be approved by Ministers before they can be sold and used in the United Kingdom. It is the responsibility of industry to provide the data necessary to demonstrate fully the safety and efficacy of their products before approval can be granted. The independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides advises Ministers on these matters.

  DDVP
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the safety of DDVP in relation to liver, skin and breast cancer; and what guidelines his Department has issued on the safe use of DDVPs in consumer products [24640]
  679W
  Yvette Cooper
  All pesticide products for use in agriculture and in the home have to be approved by Ministers before they can be sold and used in the United Kingdom. The products should always be used in accordance with label instructions specified as part of the approval.

  The independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP) advises Ministers on pesticide issues. A review of the safety of DDVP in non-agricultural pesticide products was carried out in 1994: the ACP concluded the chemical did not pose a carcinogenic risk to humans. A review of DDVP in pesticide products is currently being carried out, including a review of all data relating to possible mutagenicity and carcinogenicity, and I expect the ACP to make recommendations to Ministers concerning approval of these products early this year.

  Ultrasound Scanning
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice his Department has received about the possible effect of ultrasound scanning on brain damage in babies. [24680]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department has not received advice about the recent study from Stockholm which concludes that ultrasound exposure in fetal life increases the risk of left handedness in males. We would look to outside bodies such as the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the British Medical Ultrasound Society to assess the scientific validity of any research. The antenatal sub-group of the United Kingdom National Screening Committee keeps under review any safety issues relating to screening tests.

  Interbalkan European Medical Centre
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements have been made with the Interbalkan European medical centre in Thessaloniki for treatment of NHS patients; what discussions have taken place between his officials and the centre; and what visits have been made by his officials to the centre. [24321]

  Mr. Hutton
  A number of European health care providers have written to the Department expressing interest in providing treatment for UK patients. Exploratory discussions have taken place with several organisations, including the Interbalkan medical centre. However, no agreement has been reached with the Interbalkan medical centre, nor have officials visited it.

  National Service Frameworks
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list which national service frameworks are planned for 2002; and when in that year. [24679]

  Jacqui Smith
  Work is in hand to publish the Diabetes National Service Framework (NSF) Delivery Strategy; the first module of the Renal NSF; and the first module of the Childrens' NSF. The precise publication dates are not fixed at this stage as in selecting a topic for and developing and implementing a national service framework, account is not only taken of the importance of a health issue in terms of morbidity and mortality and the scope for service improvement but also of the capacity of the national health service and its partner agencies to implement the framework.
  680W

  NHS Leadership Centre
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the head of the national health service leadership centre. [24338]

  Mr. Hutton
  Barbara Harris stood down from her post as Director of the Leadership Centre on 14 December. The post is currently being filled on a temporary basis and will be advertised in due course.

  Children's Hospital Schools
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to support children's hospital schools for the hospitalised(a) over 16s and (b) children who are too ill to return home; and if he will make a statement. [22492]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I have been asked to reply.

  Local education authorities (LEAs) have a duty to provide suitable education for children of compulsory school age who cannot attend school due to illness or injury. This includes those children who are in hospital. The DfES jointly with the Department of Health published in November this year new statutory guidance "Access to education for children and young people with medical needs" which sets out minimum national standards for the education of children who are unable to attend school because of medical needs.

  (a)Local education authorities (LEAs) also have the power to provide suitable education for young people over compulsory school age but under the age of 19 who cannot attend school because of illness or injury. The new guidance makes it clear that LEAs are expected to be as helpful as possible to these vulnerable young people.

  The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) has a duty to secure the provision of proper facilities for the education and training of 16 to 19-year-olds including those who may miss out on education due to prolonged illness. The council will work with local agencies, including social services departments, local education authorities (LEAs) and hospital schools, where packages of care and learning appear the best approach.

  The Connexions Service will provide integrated information, advice, guidance and personal development opportunities for all young people aged 13–19 in England. Part of their service includes giving more in-depth support to those who are at greatest risk of not making a successful transition to adulthood.

  (b)The new guidance also makes it clear that all children of compulsory school age have an entitlement to education and that they should have as much education as their medical condition allows. This includes those children in hospitals who may have terminal or recurring conditions and who may be unable to return home.

  Infant Mortality (Burton)
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the infant mortality rate in Burton was in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [24073]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.
  681W
  Letter from John Kidgell to Mrs. Dean, dated 8 January 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question asking what the infant mortality rate in Burton was in each of the last 10 years. I am replying in his absence (24073).
  The figures requested are given in the table below.

  Infant mortality numbers and rates for Burton, 1991–2000

  Calendar year

  Number of infant deaths

  Rate1

  1991

  15

  10.8

  1992

  14

  10.1

  1993

  14

  10.7

  1994

  10

  8.2

  1995

  12

  9.5

  1996

  4

  3.4

  1997

  2

  1.7

  1998

  3

  2.6

  1999

  6

  5.2

  20002

  8

  6.8

  1Per 1,000 live births

  2Provisional.

  Source:

  Registrations of births and deaths

  Colon Cancer
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average survival rate was for cancer of the colon in each year since 1997. [24313]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Kidgell to Tim Loughton, dated 8 January 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question concerning what is the survival rate for cancer of the colon. I am replying in his absence. (24313)
  The latest available five year relative survival rates from cancer of the colon in England, for cases (aged 15–99) diagnosed in the period 1992–1994 and followed up to the end of 1999, are 42.6% in men and 42.1% in women (Source: Office for National Statistics `One and five year relative survival (%) [by sex and age group] for patients diagnosed during 1991–93 and 1992–94, major cancer sites, England').

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Long-term Unemployment
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment his Department has made of the effect the new deal has had on long-term unemployment. [13167]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The positive effect of the new deal is confirmed by independent research carried out by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. This found that, in the absence of new deal, long-term youth unemployment would be about twice as high as it now is.

  The number of 18 to 24-year-olds unemployed for six months or more has fallen by over 70 per cent. in the last four years. Some of this improvement reflects the delivery of a strong and stable economy, but the new deal has
  682W
  helped unmployment to fall even faster. The number of people of all ages unemployed for six months or more fell by 50 per cent. over the same period.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his statement of 28 November, what plans he has (1) for the long-term unemployed to be employed in the national health service; [20277]

  (2) for the Government to employ the long-term unemployed under his proposals. [20279]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The intention is to offer participants a range of jobs from which to choose. Many employment placements will be with locally based intermediate labour market operators working mainly in the public and community sectors. Work in these areas will generally be of community benefit but in jobs which would otherwise not be economically viable. It is also hoped that the scheme will attract other employers. Clearly the range of jobs available will depend on the local labour market, but it is hoped that this will include opportunities in both the private and public sectors. Government Departments and the NHS will not be under any obligation to offer jobs to participants but will be free to do so.

  South Tyneside
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what support his Department gives to those in South Tyneside with disabilities who cannot work. [13211]

  Maria Eagle
  We are giving people on benefits more choices and more help than ever before to move off welfare and into work, in return for greater responsibility to consider the help that is on offer. We recognise that some people will not be able to take advantage of initiatives to help them support themselves through work, so we are extending our support for them to ensure greater security.

  In April 2001 we introduced the Disability Income Guarantee (DIG). DIG provides an extra premium, paid with income related benefits, to severely disabled people on the lowest incomes. Nationally, we expect that DIG will help around 130,000 of the poorest severely disabled people under 60, and around 30,000 families with severely disabled children.

  Incapacity benefit helps people who satisfy the National Insurance contribution conditions and cannot be expected to work due to sickness or disability. In South Tyneside, which is composed of the parliamentary constituencies of South Shields and Jarrow, around 10,800 people are receiving incapacity benefit.

  Income support is also available to help those disabled people who are unable to work. In South Tyneside 5,600 people are receiving income support with either a disability premium or a severe disability premium. We have also increased the disabled child premium in the income related benefits by substantially more than the normal uprating. Since 1997 we have increased this from £20.95 to £30.00, and from April 2002 it will increase to £35.50. There are 400 families in South Tyneside receiving the disabled child premium.
  683W
  Disability living allowance helps those severely disabled people under the age of 65 with extra costs due to the effects of their disability and provides extra help for those disabled early in life. In South Tyneside 9,218 people receive disability living allowance. Attendance allowance helps disabled people over the age of 65 with extra care costs due to the effects of their disability. In South Tyneside 4,067 people receive attendance allowance.

  Benefits (Belgium)
  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he last met his Belgian counterpart. [17374]

  Mr. Darling
  I met Frank Vandenbroucke, Minister for Social Affairs and Pensions, and Laurette Onkelinx, Vice-Prime Minister and Minister for Employment, at the Employment and Social Policy Council on 3 December.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the extent of delays in the payment of housing benefit; and if he will make a statement. [17866]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Our housing policy statement "Quality and Choice: A decent home for all—The way forward for housing" (December 2000) recognised that the fundamental challenge facing housing benefit is its administration. Problems with administering housing benefit can result in unacceptable levels of fraud and error, as well as backlogs of delayed claims.

  Our immediate priority has therefore been to work in partnership with local authorities to improve standards of administration. For example, we have established the Help Team which offers practical advice and support to local authorities on ways to improve delivery. The team has already visited Hull, Lambeth, Bristol, Northampton, Derwentside and East Ayrshire. We have also set up a Help Fund to enable local authorities to formulate and implement improvement plans. In addition, we will introduce national performance standards to support the better administration of housing benefit from spring 2002.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans his Department has to increase funding for the Verification Framework. [20599]

  Malcolm Wicks
  There will be a 5 per cent. increase in Verification Framework funding from 1 April 2002. This applies to both set-up and on-going funding and is double the increase for 2001–02.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent assessment he has made of the Verification Framework for Housing Benefit. [20600]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Verification Framework is designed to secure the gateway on to Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit by defining the minimum standards for collecting evidence before a claim can be paid. As at 30 November 2001, 263 authorities have applied for or received funds to adopt the Framework. Of those 263 there are 240 authorities who are now fully compliant with the scheme.
  684W
  We continue to keep the Verification Framework under regular review. During the summer we worked in partnership with local authorities on proposals to simplify the Framework.

  From April 2002 we will split the Verification Framework into three modules which can be introduced in stages. This, combined with other smaller administrative easements, will make it easier for local authorities to introduce and administer the Framework while maintaining a rigorous approach to preventing fraud and error.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many local authorities are achieving the claim processing times for Housing Benefit that were in existence prior to the implementation of the Verification Framework. [20601]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Prior to the introduction of Best Value Performance Indicators in April 2000, information was not collected from local authorities on the length of time taken to process Housing Benefit claims. Under Best Value, information on average processing times is collected from English local authorities by the Audit Commission on behalf of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR). Final performance figures for 2000–01 will be published by DTLR early in 2002.

  Performance indicators for Scotland and Wales are the responsibility of the Accounts Commission for Scotland and the National Assembly for Wales respectively.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the impact of the Verification Framework on the number of claims being made for Housing Benefit. [20602]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Since 1997 there has been a year on year reduction in the number of people claiming Housing Benefit. It is not possible to determine how much of this reduction, if any, is due to the introduction of the Verification Framework. The fall can be attributed to a variety of factors including lower unemployment, demographic changes and our initiatives to secure the gateway on to Housing Benefit. The Department is currently carrying out an assessment of the impact of the Verification Framework which may provide more information as to its impact on Housing Benefit caseloads.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans his Department has to make the measures entitled Do Not Redirect in the Verification Framework compulsory [20603]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Verification Framework and the Royal Mail Do Not Redirect schemes are not at present compulsory. However, we are monitoring closely take-up of these schemes and we would not rule out this option, should take-up prove to be unsatisfactory over time.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many claims for housing benefit are waiting to be processed as a result of delays caused by the verification framework. [20607]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available.
  685W

  Benefit Errors
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the expected reduction in the monetary value of error(a) in income support and (b) jobseekers allowance in 2001–02. [18980]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We have set firm targets for reducing the amount of fraud and error in income support and jobseeker's allowance. The latest figures published by the Office for National Statistics on 29 November 2001 show that we have met our first milestone of a 10 per cent. reduction by March 2002 almost twice over. We are currently on track for meeting the targets for 2004 (25 per cent.) and 2006 (50 per cent.).

  Information for 2001–02 will be available later next year.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the cost of benefit fraud in each of the last four years. [19007]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar) on 30 November 2001,Official Report, column 1166W.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in the constituency of Buckingham were successfully prosecuted for(a) housing and (b) council tax benefit fraud in each year since 1992. [22534]

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in the Epsom and Ewell constituency were successfully prosecuted for housing benefit fraud in each year since 1992. [23432]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information on prosecutions for housing benefit and council tax benefit fraud is not available at constituency level.

  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in South Tyneside were caught involved in benefit fraud in(a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) 2001. [22761]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Figures for South Tyneside are not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the units in his Department or its agencies whose primary function is(a) counter fraud policy work and (b) fraud investigation and detection. [22893]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We set out our strategy for tackling fraud and error in the paper—A New Contract for Welfare: Safeguarding Social Security (CM 4276)—published on 23 March 1999. The overall aim of the strategy is to have a benefit system which is secure from first claim to final payment.

  The implementation of this strategy means that an anti-fraud focus is integral to the work of the whole Department, as is dealing with the wider agenda of error
  686W
  and incorrectness in benefit payments. However, there are specific units whose primary function is counter-fraud policy work and fraud investigation and detection.

  The Fraud Strategy Unit manages the setting and dissemination of fraud policy for the Department's Agencies. In addition the Fraud Head of Profession (through the Professional Standards Unit) sets standards for operational activity and manages guidance and training for investigators in the Department's Agencies.

  There are 14 groups of investigators in the Department. Serious and organised fraud is addressed by the Benefits Agency Security Investigation Service. This is the operational arm of the Counter-Fraud Investigation Branch, led by the Head of Profession, which includes other units concerned with intelligence, joint working and professional standards. In addition, each of the 13 Area Directors in the Benefits Agency manages a resource of investigators known collectively as the Benefit Fraud Investigation Service (in Scotland, the Benefits Investigation Service).

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will give the budget for(a) 2000–01 and (b)2001–02 for (i) the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate, (ii) BASIS, (iii) the Fraud Strategy Directorate and (iv) the Professional Standards Unit. [22899]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We set out our strategy for tackling fraud and error in the paper—A New Contract for Welfare: Safeguarding Social security (CM 4276) —published on 23 March 1999. The overall aim of the strategy is to have a benefit system which is secure from first claim to final payment.

  The implementation of this strategy means that an anti-fraud focus is integral to the work of the whole Department, as is dealing with the wider agenda of error and incorrectness in benefit payments. The remit of the four units specified in the question does not therefore represent the full extent of the Department's counter-fraud strategy.

  The information available is in the table.

  £

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Benefit Fraud Inspectorate

  5,866,200

  6,002,928

  BASIS

  13,200,778

  11,205,000

  Fraud Strategy Directorate/Unit

  1—

  2,463,209

  Professional Standards Unit

  1—

  2,734,000

  1Departmental re-organisation means it is not possible to compare directly one year with another nor to accurately break down the costs to allow an equal comparison.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much money has been recovered from persons believed to have fraudulantly obtained benefits in each year since 1997; and if he will give a breakdown of funds recovered as a result of(a) Benefits Agency fraud investigations, (b) local authority investigations and (c)other investigations. [23233]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given to him on 14 November 2001,Official Report, column 784W.
  687W
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the incidence of fraud in respect of(a) means tested and (b) other benefits in the last five years. [23234]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Our estimates of levels of fraud and error in income support and jobseeker's allowance are published in the series of reports "Fraud and Error in Claims for Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance" which are placed in the library.

  In April this year we also set up the housing benefit review which will deliver an on-going measurement of fraud and error in housing benefit. Fraud in other benefits is examined in our programme of national benefit reviews.

  Our most recent estimate is that £2 billion is lost annually through all benefit fraud. It is not possible to disaggregate this estimate in respect of (a) income-related and (b) other benefits.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in Hamilton, South constituency were caught in benefit fraud in(a) 1998, (b) 1999, (c) 2000 and (d) 2001. [23360]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information about benefit fraud at constituency level is not available.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target (1) for the timescale for processing minimum income guarantee claims following the submission of the required evidence; [19025]

  (2) for the percentage of computer systems supporting pensions and income support delivery to be replaced. [19030]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given to him on 11 December 2001,Official Report, column 779W.

  Ministerial Visits
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many times Ministers from his Department have visited(a) the Teesside area and (b) Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency to meet locally based businesses. [19072]

  Malcolm Wicks
  None, since the formation of the Department for Work and Pensions in June 2001.

  Benefit Reductions
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what reductions are applied to an entitled person's(a) housing benefit and (b) council tax benefit during a period of in-patient (i) NHS hospital treatment and (ii) private hospital treatment. [19115]

  Malcolm Wicks
  After six weeks of in-patient treatment in a national health service hospital people in receipt of housing benefit (HB) or council tax benefit (CTB), but who do not receive income support (IS), have their benefit reduced. This adjustment reflects the patient's lower day-to-day living expenses which result in more income being available to meet housing costs. At 688W
  this stage, no automatic reduction is applied to HB or CTB paid to people receiving privately funded hospital treatment.

  People who receive HB or CTB and IS will have an analogous reduction applied to their IS entitlement after six weeks of in-patient treatment in a national health service hospital. Their HB or CTB entitlement will remain unchanged at this point unless they cease to be entitled to IS. Where IS entitlement does stop, people affected can reapply for HB or CTB at the reduced levels.

  After 52 weeks, or earlier if the local authority decides that the person's absence from home is likely to be substantially more than 52 weeks or permanent, both HB and CTB are withdrawn for all hospital in-patients.

  Local Authority Fraud Investigators
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if the expenditure of £2 million for the training of additional local authority fraud investigators will be made in full in the current financial year. [19263]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Professionalism in Security (PiNS) was established in August 1998 to plan and implement Government proposals that would lead to the creation of a corps of highly skilled and motivated counter fraud staff in the Benefits Agency and Local Authorities. These fraud specialists would be working within a professional framework to the highest standards of performance and integrity.

  PiNS training courses have been scheduled until the end of March 2002. We forecast that 900 local authority investigators will complete their training resulting in expenditure of around £2 million by the end of the current financial year.

  Permitted Earnings
  Mike Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to review the rules on permitted earnings. [19380]

  Maria Eagle
  From 8 April 2002 we are introducing new permitted work rules for people who want to try some paid work while they are getting incapacity benefit, severe disablement allowance or income support because of illness or disability. The new arrangements will allow any person claiming benefit, based on incapacity, to try some paid work without the need for prior approval from a doctor.

  Any person will be able to work:
  (a) for less than 16 hours a week, on average, with earnings up to £66.00 a week for a 26 week period. The period can be extended for another 26 weeks if a person is working with a job broker, personal adviser or disability employment adviser who agrees that it will help towards work of more than 16 hours a week. There will be no limit to the number of times someone can do permitted work in this category during the currency of a claim, but there must be a gap of at least 52 weeks between periods; or
  (b) for earnings of up to £20.00 a week at any time.

  Someone who is already doing therapeutic work when the rules change can carry on doing it until April 2003. After that they can apply to do permitted work.
  689W
  There are special arrangements for those disabled people who work in the community with ongoing support or supervision from a professional caseworker (employed or engaged by a public body or voluntary organisation). They will not be subject to time limits. This is intended to help those people whose disability means that their work capacity is limited to less than 16 hours a week, but is more than the few hours covered by the £20 per week option. These are people with conditions that cannot be cured but may be amenable to control or management by medication or therapy. This category will also include people who work in a sheltered workshop or as part of a hospital treatment programme.

  We have been consulting disability organisations on these proposals and will be laying regulations before the House early in the new year.

  Mike Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what account is taken of the impact of(a) income support, (b) housing benefit and (c) council tax benefit thresholds when changes are made to the level of permitted earnings for those with mental health problems. [19391]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The permitted work rules allow people to try some paid work while they are getting a benefit based on incapacity. The new arrangements from 8 April 2002 will allow any person claiming benefit, based on incapacity, to try some paid work without the need for prior approval from a doctor.

  Income-related benefits are intended to help people whose resources are insufficient to meet their day-to-day living expenses. Any income which is available to meet those expenses is normally taken fully into account when working out how much benefit can be paid. Earnings in excess of the appropriate disregard are taken into account against benefit.

  The earnings disregard for people with disabilities was increased from £15 to £20 in April 2001. This disregard recognises the additional difficulties and expenses that these people are likely to face in taking up employment.

  Mental Health
  Mike Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will review the impact of the benefit system on people with mental health problems; and if he will make a statement; [19392]

  (2) if it is his policy to consult (a) individuals and (b) organisations representing people with mental health disabilities when sickness benefits regulations are (i) reviewed and (ii) implemented; and if he will make a statement. [19393]

  Maria Eagle
  We are committed to helping sick and disabled people back into work where they are able to do so, while providing support for those who cannot work.

  We have already increased the earnings disregards for disabled people, introduced the disabled persons' tax credit to help make work pay and the disability income guarantee which provides a guaranteed level of income for the most severely disabled people. From next April we are changing the permitted work rules to help more people try out some work without fear of it affecting their
  690W
  benefit entitlement. Guidance has recently been issued to Benefits Agency staff to help raise awareness about how they can help customers with mental health problems.

  We routinely consult with a wide range of interested organisations and individuals to help inform proposed policy changes. Piloting, with evaluation, is often used to refine services that will make a reality of our aim to promote opportunity and independence for all. The Department is statutorily required to put proposals for amendments to existing benefit regulations to the Social Security Advisory Committee for its consideration before they come before Parliament.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people with a mental health problem as the main reason for a claim to incapacity benefits were given a personal capability assessment last year; and of these, how many(a) were found capable of work and lost entitlement to incapacity benefits, (b) claimed other benefits instead, (c) were not entitled to benefits, (d) obtained employment and for how long, (e) did not obtain employment and (f) returned to a claim for incapacity benefit within a year. [20228]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Between 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001, 279,950 people claiming incapacity benefit because of a mental health disorder were referred for a Personal Capability Assessment. Information for a corresponding period is not available on(a) the number of these people who were found capable of work and were no longer entitled to incapacity benefit; (b) the number who successfully claimed other benefits; (c) the number who subsequently reclaimed incapacity benefit within one year. Such information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Information is not collected on the number of people leaving incapacity benefit who (i) are not entitled to other benefits; (ii) obtain employment; or (iii) do not obtain employment.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what(a) training and (b) guidance examining medical practitioners are given on assessing the effects of mental health problems on day-to-day living and mobility. [20232]

  Maria Eagle
  All Medical Services doctors undertake mandatory Continuing Professional Education training in the assessment of people with mental health problems, and in relating these, as appropriate, to the functional areas of daily living, completion of tasks, interaction with other people, and ability to cope with work. The assessment includes assessing memory, attention span, and ability to concentrate.

  Examining Medical Practitioners assessing day to day living needs in connection with claims for disability living allowance or attendance allowance, and mobility needs in connection with claims for the former, receive additional training in assessment of needs for guidance or supervision on account of mental health problems.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if examining medical practitioners receive(a) training and (b) guidance on the difficulty for mental health service users in communicating their needs to an EMP. [20233]
  691W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  All Medical Services doctors undergo mandatory Continuing Professional Education training in assessment of people with mental health problems, including training in establishing rapport, the use of appropriate interviewing skills and questioning techniques, and assessment of memory, attention and concentration. Doctors are advised to seek additional information from carers or relatives when appropriate.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what was the average (1) change of benefit income per person who last year failed to satisfy the personal capability assessment requirements to continue to receive incapacity benefit; [20229]

  (2) net income from wages of people who obtained employment after failing the incapacity test last year; and if this was on average higher or lower than their previous benefit income. [20230]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We are committed to helping sick and disabled people back into work where they are able to do so, while providing support for those who cannot work. Through our welfare reforms we have put into place measures to make work possible and to make it pay.

  As part of these reforms the Personal Capability Assessment (PCA) was introduced in April 2000 to allow additional information to be gathered about a person's capabilities, to assist a personal adviser in helping them plan a return to work. The PCA is about helping people into work, not making it harder to get benefit.

  Between 1 March 2000 and 28 February 2001 people who were found fit for work following a PCA (the All Work Test before 1 April 2000) saw an average benefit reduction of £39.60 per week.

  Information is not available on the average net income of people who were found fit for work following a PCA and are now in paid employment.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for each of the new Jobcentre Plus pathfinder areas, how many new claims for incapacity benefit have been made since the introduction of the scheme, and of these, how many(a) waivers and (b) deferrals for work-focused interviews have been made; how many work-focused interviews have taken place; and how many claimants have (i) refused to attend an interview and (ii) been subjected to benefit sanctions. [21961]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  Pensions
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to meet the Coalfields Community Campaign to discuss the issue of renegotiating the surpluses received by the Government for acting as guarantors to the BCSSS and MPS pension schemes. [23966]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.
  692W
  None. Any issues relating to the current Guarantee arrangements are matters for discussion between my Department and the Trustees of the BCSSS and MPS.

  New Deal
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many lone parents on income support have school age children; how many of these parents were on the new deal for lone parents in April; how many have attended a personal adviser interview since April, broken down into those who agreed to participate in the NDLP and those who did not; how many have refused or failed to attend a personal adviser interview since April; and how many have not yet been invited to a personal adviser interview. [7909]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  At August 2001, 638,6001 lone parents who receive income support had a child between five and 15 years old. Information is not available on how many of these people are participating in the new deal for lone parents (NDLP) programme.

  Since April 2001, lone parents with a youngest child of school age (at least five years and three months old) have been asked to take part in a meeting with a personal adviser to discuss the range of help available to move into work when they make a claim for income support. This requirement is being extended to all lone parents making a claim to income support, in pathfinder areas since October 2001, and nationally from April 2002.

  Lone parents already claiming income support are being invited to a compulsory personal adviser meeting, on a rolling programme, starting this year with those with a youngest child of 13–15 years.

  50,320 lone parents have attended a personal adviser meeting since 30 April 2001 of whom 16,080 have chosen to join the NDLP programme2.

  If lone parents fail to attend a compulsory personal adviser meeting their claim is disallowed or, if they are already receiving income support, their benefit is sanctioned. This has happened in 887 cases up to 30 November. If the lone parent subsequently participates in a personal adviser meeting then the sanction is lifted. Lone parents are not required to take further action beyond participating in a personal adviser meeting.

  Sources:

  1Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry (August 2001)

  2New Deal for Lone Parents and Personal Adviser Meetings Statistical First Release (statistics to September 2001)

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many lone parents have been sent an invitation to a new deal for lone parents interview since the scheme began; how many of these lone parents have attended an interview; and how many have then agreed to participate in the scheme. [7910]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Lone parents claiming income support, who are not required to attend a compulsory personal adviser meeting and who have a youngest child of at least three years old, are sent letters informing them about NDLP. These letters are not appointment letters but
  693W
  do give details of how lone parents can request an initial interview to find out more about NDLP and join the programme. By the end of September 2001 nearly 300,000 lone parents had chosen to attend an NDLP interview and nearly 85 per cent. of them chose to go on to participate in the programme.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion (1) of those leaving the new deal for the long-term unemployed aged(a) 25 to 29, (b) 30 to 49 and (c) 50+ years found (i) employment and (ii) sustained jobs in each year since 1998; [9331]

  (2) of those leaving the new deal for the long-term unemployed did so for (a) sustained jobs and (b) jobs lasting fewer than 13 weeks, broken down by region; [9421]

  (3) of the pre-April 2001 entrants to the new deal for the long-term unemployed who undertook (a) the employment option and (b) the full-time education and training option found sustained jobs on leaving the new deal. [9424]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  From April 2001 we have introduced a new, enhanced new deal 25 plus for those unemployed for 18 months or more which offers more intensive, individually tailored support to participants.

  The available information relating to the pre-April 2001 new deal for the long-term unemployed is in the tables. In addition to those recorded as leaving for sustained, unsubsidised jobs, we know from independent surveys that a significant proportion of leavers to unknown destinations will also have found work.

  Proportion of people leaving new deal for the long-term unemployed whose immediate destination was sustained, unsubsidised employment

  Percentage

  Age group on joining the new deal

  25–29

  30–49

  50+

  Overall

  19981

  34

  29

  17

  26

  1999

  19

  16

  9

  14

  2000

  18

  15

  11

  14

  20012

  18

  15

  11

  14

  Overall

  19

  16

  10

  15

  1From start July

  2To end September

  Proportion of people leaving new deal for the long-term unemployed whose immediate destination was sustained, unsubsidised employment (to end September 2001)

  Region

  Percentage

  Scotland

  12

  Northern

  10

  North West

  14

  Yorkshire and Humber

  14

  Wales

  14

  West Midlands

  13

  East Midlands and Eastern

  15

  South West

  20

  London/South East

  17

  Total

  15

  694W

  Proportion of people leaving the pre-April 2001 new deal options whose immediate destination was sustained, unsubsidized employment (to end September 2001)

  Option

  Percentage

  Subsidised employment

  11

  Education and training

  15

  Note

  By definition, all jobs gained by new deal leavers are sustained, unsubsidised jobs (ie to have left the programme they must not re-claim jobseeker's allowance within 13 weeks).

  Source

  New Deal Evaluation Database

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what information is given to new deal personal advisers on the opportunities that exist for new deal participants within Government Departments. [18042]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  All public sector vacancies notified to the Employment Service by various Government Departments are treated in exactly the same way as all others placed by public and private sector employers. Those new deal clients who then wish to apply for civil service opportunities are matched and screened against the desired recruitment criteria by the new deal adviser. Information on those Departments which have signed up to new deal is made available to all new deal advisers through the Employment Services' internal communications system (ESCOM).

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to the answer of 19 November 2001,Official Report, column 160W, what proportion of the number of people leaving for (a) employment and (b) sustained employment in Government Departments represents the (i) total number of people leaving the new deal for young people and (ii) number of people leaving the new deal for young people for employment. [18060]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of individuals (1) in(a) the constituency of Buckingham and (b) total UK population have found permanent employment as a result of the new deal for (i) the long-term unemployed 25+, (ii) lone parents, (iii) disabled people and (iv) 50+ in each of the years since they were introduced; [22536]

  (2) in (a) the constituency of Buckingham and (b) total UK population are participating in the new deal (i) for the long-term unemployed 25+, (ii) for lone parents, (iii) for disabled people and (iv) for 50+. [22537]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Information is not available in the format requested.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in Hamilton, South constituency found permanent employment as a result of new deal for(a) long-term unemployed 25 plus, (b) lone parents, (c) disabled people and (d) 50 plus in each of the years since they were introduced. [23358]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The available information is in the table.
  695W

  Number of people helped into sustained jobs in Hamilton, South by year

  Programme

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Total

  New Deal 25 plus (July 1998–eptember 2001)

  6

  19

  36

  33

  94

  New Deal for Lone Parents (October 1998–eptember 2001)

  12

  36

  62

  44

  154

  New Deal 50 plus Employment Credit starts (April 2000–October 2001)

  —

  —

  37

  34

  71

  Notes:

  1.Sustained jobs are those lasting more than 13 weeks. No information on whether jobs are permanent is available for new deal for lone parents.

  2. Figures shown are therefore for lone parents into employment.

  3. Information at constituency level is not available for the new deal for disabled people.

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database

  ONE Programme
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of lone parents participating in the ONE Programme has obtained employment. [9644]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Survey evidence from the ONE evaluation found that 14 per cent. of lone parents were in work of over 16 hours a week, four to five months after having begun their claim. Further information can be found in DWP Research Report No. 156, copies of which are in the House of Commons Library.

  Unemployment (Disabled People)
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many unemployed disabled people there were expressed(a) numerically and (b) as a percentage of the total unemployed in each month since January 1997 (i) nationally and (ii) in the south-west. [11375]

  Mr Nircholas Brown
  The available information is in the table:

  ILO Unemployed

  Total Working-age

  Working-age disabled people

  Percentage

  Great Britain

  1998

  1,703,266

  332,768

  19.5

  1999

  1,678,741

  348,153

  20.7

  2000

  1,551,454

  348,813

  22.5

  2001

  1,343,345

  279,795

  20.8

  South-west

  1998

  107,276

  25,656

  23.9

  1999

  115,601

  24,262

  21.0

  2000

  100,126

  25,039

  25.0

  2001

  85,043

  19,913

  23.4

  Notes

  1. Information is from the Labour Force Survey (LFS), which uses the International Labour Organisation (ILO) measure of unemployment.

  2. People are ILO unemployed if they are out of work, want a job, have actively sought work in the last four weeks and are available to start work in the next two weeks.

  3. Information is not available by month because seasonally adjusted information from the Labour Force Survey is only available once each year. Therefore, the table provides information on Great Britain and the south-west for the spring quarter of each year since 1998.

  4. Information before 1998 is not comparable due to changes in the health and disability questions asked in the LFS.

  Source:

  LFS Spring Quarters 1998–2001.

  Vocational Rehabilitation
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to develop the role of 696W
  care managers (a) in vocational rehabilitation and (b) in developing appropriate (i) training and (ii) qualifications for them. [20805]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]We are still establishing our strategy on the provision of a vocational rehabilitation service. We will consider the role of a care manager in any possible future service. No decision has been taken on any appropriate training and qualifications that may be needed.

  Departmental Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many days were lost due to sickness absence in the Department in each of the last four years. [21339]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Such information as is available is in the table.

  Year

  DSS

  ES

  1998

  1,130,000

  431,158

  1999

  1,046,000

  479,157

  2000

  1,082,000

  405,272

  Note

  Figures relate to the former Department for Social Security and the Employment Service.

  Small Businesses
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what structures exist to facilitate communication between his Department and small businesses. [21805]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Meeting the changing needs of small businesses will be critical if we are to succeed in maintaining economic growth and providing people with greater opportunity through work. We are very keen to listen to the views and ideas of small businesses to ensure that we succeed.

  The National Employer Panel is an employer-led body which provides independent advice to Ministers on the design, delivery and performance of our welfare to work services. Three of the Panel's members are from the small business sector. The Panel also has a sub-committee on small business issues.

  In addition to these formal arrangements, the Department works with the small business sector through a range of initiatives and forums. Small businesses participate in the Employer Coalitions we have set up in several major cities and in the many New Deal Steering

  697W
  Groups up and down the country. Their participation helps ensure that our approach to helping people back into work is responsive to the needs of small businesses.

  Asylum Seekers
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the total cost of benefits paid to people applying for asylum in the UK was in 2000–01. [23429]

  Malcolm Wicks
  From 3 April 2000 the Home Office is responsible for supporting and accommodating asylum seekers awaiting a determination of their case. Those asylum seekers in receipt of benefits prior to 3 April 2000 continue to be eligible to claim income support, income-based jobseeker's allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit. Provisional estimates are that benefit totalling £185 million was paid to these asylum seekers during the financial year 2000–01.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what is the estimated amount of money paid to asylum seekers by way of benefit in 2000. [17880]

  Malcolm Wicks
  From 3 April 2000 the Home Office is responsible for supporting and accommodating asylum seekers awaiting a determination of their case. Those asylum seekers in receipt of benefits prior to 3 April 2000 continue to be eligible to claim income support, income-based jobseeker's allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit. Provisional estimates are that benefit totalling £215 million was paid to asylum seekers between 1 January and 31 December 2000.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in the Epsom and Ewell constituency received the minimum income guarantee in each year since 1998. [23431]

  Mr. McCartney
  The latest figures as at August 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 for pensioners in the Epsom and Ewell constituency receiving minimum income guarantee are as follows:

  Thousand

  Number of claimants

  August 1998

  1.2

  August 1999

  1.1

  August 2000

  1.1

  August 2001

  1.2

  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in Battersea receive the minimum income guarantee; and what estimate he has made of the number of pensioners who are entitled to benefit from it. [24408]

  Mr. McCartney
  As at August 2001 there were 2,800 pensioners receiving the minimum income guarantee (MIG) in Battersea.

  Estimates of the number of pensioners who may qualify for, but who have not claimed the MIG are not available below national level. The latest national figures on the number of people who may be entitled to the MIG are
  698W
  included in the publication "Take Up of Income Related Benefits: Statistics for 1999–2000", copies of which are available in the Library of both Houses.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in Wales qualify for the minimum income guarantee; and how many are in receipt of it. [23960]

  Mr. McCartney
  As at August 2001 there were 100,200 pensioners claiming the minimum income guarantee (MIG) in Wales.

  Estimates of the number of people who may qualify for, but who have not claimed the MIG are not available below national level.

  Benefits Agency Staff
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many attacks on staff have taken place in each Benefits Agency office in Greater London in each of the last five years. [23638]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 18 December 2001]The available information is in the table.

  Assault in Benefits Agency offices in Greater London

  2001

  2000

  Site

  Non-physical

  Physical

  Non-physical

  Physical

  Balham Irene House

  6

  0

  17

  2

  Barking

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Barnet Hill

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Bexleyheath

  10

  0

  0

  0

  Bloomsbury

  13

  0

  26

  0

  Brixton

  48

  1

  55

  3

  Bromley

  20

  1

  14

  1

  Canning Town

  0

  0

  1

  0

  City

  8

  0

  22

  1

  Croydon

  2

  0

  6

  0

  Crystal Palace

  27

  1

  7

  0

  Dulwich

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Ealing

  40

  9

  45

  0

  Edgware

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Edmonton

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Euston

  3

  0

  20

  2

  Finsbury Park

  9

  0

  13

  0

  Fulham

  4

  0

  19

  1

  Greenwich Park

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Hackney

  40

  0

  30

  0

  Harrow

  7

  0

  4

  0

  Highgate

  31

  2

  82

  3

  Hounslow

  24

  3

  16

  1

  Hoxton

  7

  0

  28

  0

  Ilford

  0

  0

  5

  0

  Kennington Park

  31

  1

  2

  0

  Kensington

  0

  0

  19

  0

  Lewisham

  9

  0

  15

  0

  Leytonstone

  0

  0

  3

  0

  Neasden

  0

  1

  3

  1

  Notting Hill

  2

  0

  1

  0

  Paddington

  15

  1

  11

  1

  Peckham

  34

  0

  33

  1

  Plaistow

  3

  0

  13

  1

  Poplar

  21

  0

  31

  0

  Romford

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Southall

  5

  0

  8

  0

  Southwark

  23

  1

  14

  0

  Stratford

  6

  0

  17

  1

  Streatham

  1

  0

  3

  0

  Sutton

  22

  0

  14

  0

  Tottenham

  1

  0

  1

  0

  699W

  Assault in Benefits Agency offices in Greater London

  2001

  2000

  Site

  Non-physical

  Physical

  Non-physical

  Physical

  Twickenham

  1

  0

  2

  0

  Walthamstow

  0

  0

  3

  0

  Wandsworth

  5

  0

  10

  0

  Wimbledon

  15

  0

  0

  0

  Wood Green

  10

  0

  10

  0

  Woolwich

  76

  4

  58

  1

  Winter Fuel Allowance
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners received the winter fuel allowance in 2000; and how many will receive it this winter in(a) the UK and (b) South Tyneside. [24620]

  Mr. McCartney
  Over 11 million people received a winter fuel payment for winter 2000–01, around 32,900 of whom were in the South Tyneside local authority area. Figures for this winter are expected to be similar.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in the Buckingham constituency have taken out stakeholder pensions. [24866]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many stakeholder pension plans have been sold in(a) Wales, and (b) the other regions of the UK; [23962]

  (2) of those stakeholder pensions sold in Wales, how many have been transferred from existing pension plans; [23959]

  (3) how many firms in (a) Wales and (b) the other regions of the UK, have made provision for stakeholder pensions for their work force. [24012]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows:Number of stakeholder pensions sold: 491,694
  Number of employers who have designated stakeholder pension schemes: 284,821

  Note:

  Figures cover all United kingdom and show the position at the end of October 2001.

  Source:

  Association of British Insurers (ABI).

  The ABI has reported that over three-quarters of those employers required to do so had designated a stakeholder pension scheme for their staff by the end of October. We know that other designations were in progress at that time.

  We should also remember that stakeholder pensions have led to other improvements in pension provision. Charges on personal pensions have fallen as a result of stakeholder pensions, and employers have also widened their schemes to cover more of their work forces. This means more people are able to save for their retirement.
  700W

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many formal notices his Department has received in the last year from the Parliamentary Ombudsman expressing an intention to carry out an investigation; and in respect of each notice, how long it took to respond. [18766]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 27 November 2001]: The Department received 234 statements of complaint from the Parliamentary Ombudsman in the last financial year April 2000 to March 2001. The average length of time taken to respond to the statement of complaint is 25.51 working days.

  Estate Management Services (PRIME Contract)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the saving from the PRIME contract with Trillium for estate management services. [18988]

  Malcolm Wicks
  In line with the findings of the National Audit Office, the public sector comparator for PRIME estimated that the Department will save £560 million over the life of the 20-year contract. This is some 22 per cent. less than it would have cost the Department had we continued with our previous estate management arrangements.

  In addition to this significant reduction in our running costs, the financial benefit of many innovative ideas in the PRIME contract such as the sharing of gains on disposal of properties and various contractor incentivisation and benefit sharing provisions, are now being realised. The first three full years of the contract with Land Securities Trillium has brought about the following returns:

  £ million

  1998–99

  Centralisation of CILOR (Contribution In Lieu Of Rates) Control

  3.000

  Release of surplus space @ 1.4.98

  10.000

  Release of space

  1.000

  1999–2000

  Credits from CILOR appeals

  12.488

  Development Gain

  10.992

  Utilities reconciliation

  2.714

  Energy savings

  1.709

  Release of space

  .856

  Unavailability deduction

  .128

  2000–01

  Business rate corrections with LAs

  8.000

  Development Gain pool

  1.000

  Energy savings

  .400

  Utilities reconciliation

  .460

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will provide a breakdown of average pensioner incomes for each year between 1979 and the last year for which information is available. [21027]

  Mr. McCartney
  The average pensioner incomes are supplied in the table.
  701W

  Average pensioner incomes 1979–1999/2000

  £per annum

  All pensioners

  Pensioner couples

  Single pensioners

  1979

  115

  167

  87

  1981

  122

  174

  94

  1987

  147

  212

  111

  1988

  152

  227

  110

  1989

  150

  215

  113

  1990–91

  163

  232

  121

  1992

  173

  244

  130

  1992–93

  173

  244

  130

  1994–951

  177

  253

  130

  1995–961

  176

  249

  130

  1996–971

  187

  268

  135

  1997–981

  189

  270

  137

  1998–991

  194

  275

  142

  1999/20001

  201

  281

  149

  Notes:

  1. All incomes are £ per week and at July prices.

  2. FRS information is only available from 1994. Prior to this, FES based estimates have been used.

  3. Pensioners are defined as:

  Single (non cohabiting) people over State pension age (65 for men and 60 for women).

  Couples (married or cohabiting) where the man, who is defined as the head of a couple, is aged 65 and over.

  4. The income quoted is the net mean income before housing costs. It includes all types of income including benefit income, occupational pensions, investment income and earnings.

  Source:
  1 The Family Resources Survey (FRS) 1994/7–1999/2000

  The Family Expenditure Survey (FES) 197–1992/93

  Post Office Card Account
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what progress has been made in establishing a Post Office card account system; and what factors underlay the decision as to who will receive these accounts. [23707]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Alexander) on 17 December 2001,Official Report, column 119W.

  Benefits Agency
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will introduce freephone telephone numbers for the Benefits Agency. [23824]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 19 December 2001]: There are clearly benefits to be gained by offering Freecall and Local Call Rate services to Benefits Agency customers, but this has to be weighed against the cost to provide such services.

  Where services are provided through a call centre, our policy is to offer telephone numbers which are chargeable at local call rates. This allows customers to be charged for the call at a local rate, regardless of the actual destination of that call within the UK. The Department meets the balance of the call cost. Further, where customers are likely to face significant difficulties in affording such charges, a Freecall number has indeed been provided. Customers are also able to ask for a call back from the Department rather than incurring personal call costs.
  702W
  The Department is currently modernising the delivery of its services to customers. Both Jobcentre Plus and the Pensions Organisation are in the process of assessing the best use of the telephone for customer contact. We are exploring the use of a single Local Call Rate number for initial contact with the Department. Calls could then be directed automatically to the most appropriate contact point, based on the originating dialling code. We are still in the early stages of this assessment.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what is the cost of amalgamating the Benefits Agency and the employment services in the current year; [23361]

  (2) what savings his Department will make over the next five years by amalgamating the Benefits Agency and the employment services. [23362]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We have in the current year invested £122 million in establishing the new Jobcentre Plus pathfinder offices and in preparing for the wider integration of the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service more generally. We expect substantial savings to accrue from the creation of Jobcentre Plus over the next five years as we implement the new Jobcentre Plus network nationwide.

  Hospital Downrating Rules
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the impact on old people whose pensions are reduced while in hospital. [24067]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Department, in conjunction with the Department of Health, has looked at issues affecting hospital in-patients including rules governing the downrating of benefits.

  This rule prevents double provision from public funds as the publicly funded NHS maintains people while they stay in hospital as well as providing free treatment. Social security maintenance benefits are also paid from state funds. They are therefore not paid in full indefinitely where a person is in a NHS hospital and having their day-to-day living expenses met through the NHS.

  The double provision principle is a key cornerstone of the system of national insurance introduced over 50 years ago.

  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners, affected by the hospital downrating rules, have had demands to pay back to the Pensions Service sums of(a) between £25 and £50, (b) between £51 and £100, (c) between £101 and £200 and (d) more than £200, in the last year for which figures are available. [24065]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available in the required format.

  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average value was of pension reduction applied to pensioners who had hospital stays of(a) more than six and (b) more than 52 weeks, in the last year for which figures are available. [24066]

  Mr. McCartney
  The average weekly reduction in retirement pension for pensioners in hospital between six and 52 weeks is £23.
  703W
  The average weekly reduction in retirement pension for pensioners in hospital over 52 weeks is £56.

  Source:

  Administrative data, 31 March 2001.

  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners, affected by the hospital downrating rules, had their pensions reduced after(a) six and (b) 52 weeks in hospital in the last year for which figures are available. [24068]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information requested is in the table:

  Category of hospital reduction

  Number of retirement pensioners

  Reduced after 6 weeks

  23,000

  Reduced after 52 weeks

  10,000

  Source:

  March 2001 Administrative Sample

  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will quantify the cost of administrating the task of(a) reducing the pensions of pensioners and (b) collecting retrospective deductions from pensioners who have been in hospital for more than (i) six and (ii) 52 weeks. [24069]

  Mr. McCartney
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him on 6 December 2001,Official Report, column 513W.

  Benefits Take-up
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) of 19 November 2001,Official Report, columns 66–67W, what measures are being considered to encourage those aged 60 years and over to claim the benefits to which they are entitled. [24244]

  Mr. McCartney
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) on 10 December 2001,Official Report, columns 601–02W.

  Welfare to Work
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the reasons for the difference between the final voted departmental expenditure limit and provisional outturn for financial year 2000–01, as listed in the Treasury document, "Public Expenditure 2000–01: Provisional Outturn", for the Welfare to Work category; and if he will make a statement. [24107]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Full details of outturn against 2000–01 voted provision will be published in the appropriation accounts to be presented to the House of Commons by 31 January and will contain full explanations of any significant differences between final voted provision and actual outturn. Updated estimates of the outturn for departmental expenditure limits in 2000–01 were published in the 2001 pre-Budget report (Cm 5318), Table B16.
  704W

  Carers' Benefits
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will place responses to the consultation on carers' benefits in the Library. [24215]

  Maria Eagle
  The Explanatory Document laid before Parliament on 17 December alongside the proposed Regulatory Order Reform (Carer's Allowance) Order 2002 contains a detailed digest of responses and is available in the Library.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to change invalid care allowance for carers aged over 65 years. [24555]

  Maria Eagle
  On 17 December we laid a draft Regulatory Reform Order before Parliament which, if approved, will give those aged over 65 the right to claim invalid care allowance for the first time.

  The order would also provide for the extension of entitlement to invalid care allowance for up to eight weeks after the death of the person being cared for and a change in the name of the benefit to carer's allowance to reflect more closely the purpose of the benefit.

  Income Support
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what target times are set for the completion of transfers from jobseeker's allowance to income support for 60-year-olds. [24750]

  Mr. McCartney
  In October 2001 we introduced simplified claim forms for people aged 60 or over to help ease their transition from working age benefits onto income support and the minimum income guarantee.

  The target for clearance of income support claims is 12 days from the date that the customer provides all the necessary information. There are no separate targets for customers who claim on reaching the age of 60.

  Assaults on Staff
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 12 November 2001,Official Report, column 554, if he will make a statement on progress in combating verbal and physical assaults on staff. [19394]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]: We estimate that over a quarter of a million people have passed through the Jobcentre Plus pathfinder offices during the first month of their operation. Risk assessments for each of the new Jobcentre Plus offices have been carried out and, following consultation with local trade union health and safety representatives, a series of extra security measures has been introduced. These include wide coverage by closed circuit television; training for staff in how to handle difficult situations; better management in each office to avoid difficult situations building up; panic alarms; and more visible and effective security guards. Additionally in each pathfinder area there are screened facilities to deal with individuals and parts of the business that pose a greater risk. These will, we believe, lead to fewer incidents of verbal and physical assaults on staff.
  705W

  Competitive Tendering
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the schemes administered by(a) his Department and (b) its agencies where funds are allocated by a competitive bidding process; and what was the amount of money allocated to each scheme. [19732]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]: The Department does not itself administer schemes where funds are allocated by a competitive bidding process. It does submit bids for funds under schemes administered by the Treasury, such as the Invest to Save or Capital Modernisation Fund. The Department also uses the competitive bidding process to secure value for money in procuring goods and services from external suppliers. It is normal departmental policy to obtain competitive bids for all procurements valued at £500 or more. This policy results in thousands of procurement exercises where funds are paid to successful suppliers. Listing these exercises would incur disproportionate cost.

  Long-term Unemployed
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his statement of 28 November, what consultation he has held with(a) employers and (b) others concerning his proposals in respect of the new deal for the long-term unemployed; how many (i) employers and (ii) others have indicated a willingness to employ the long-term unemployed under the proposals; and what estimate he has made of the proportion of long-term unemployed likely to be employed by (A) private sector employers and (B) local authorities. [20278]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We have consulted the National Employment Panel on our proposals to build on the new deal for the long-term unemployed. We are also continuing to consult with local employers and other organisations in each of the pilot locations. Participants will vary from pilot to pilot and it is too early to say what proportion of people are likely to be employed by private sector employers and by local authorities.

  Remploy
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what were the total non-disabled staff costs in Remploy in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2000–01. [20429]

  Maria Eagle
  Total non-disabled staff costs in Remploy were as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1997–98

  30.7

  1998–99

  30.1

  1999–2000

  28.4

  2000–01

  28.5

  These figures include costs of disabled staff who are not employed under the Workstep programmes.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) lower, (b) middle and (c) senior management in Remploy there were in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99, (iii) 1999–2000 and (iv) 2000–01; and what was the total expenditure on each of (a), (b) and (c) for those years. [20430]
  706W
  Maria Eagle
  Remploy does not categorise its work force in the groups detailed in the question.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many non-disabled workers were employed by Remploy in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2000–01. [20431]

  Maria Eagle
  The numbers of non-disabled people employed by Remploy are in the table.

  Year

  Number

  1997–98

  1,457

  1998–99

  1,402

  1999–2000

  1,260

  2000–01

  1,149

  In Remploy the term "non-disabled employees" includes disabled people not supported by the Workstep programme.

  Blind People (Services)
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment the Government have made of moon language for the blind; and if he will make a statement. [22494]

  Maria Eagle
  The Government have not made an assessment of moon language.

  Older People
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the(a) frequency of meetings and (b) priorities of the Interministerial Committee on Older People. [23117]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 17 December 2001]: Under paragraph 2 of Part 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, information about Cabinet Committee business is not released.

  Industrial Action
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what research his Department has undertaken into the impact on benefit claimants in areas affected by industrial strike action. [23277]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We have ensured that benefit claimants are not adversely affected by the industrial action by introducing contingency arrangements. Benefit payments have continued to be made in the offices affected using those staff who have remained at work supported, where appropriate, by staff redeployed from other areas. Where it has not been possible to make benefit payments under the normal procedures due to a lack of sufficient numbers of experienced staff, Pathfinder offices have made interim payments at an amount equivalent to the full benefit rate.

  Jobcentre Plus
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if his Department met the target of ensuring that all staff in new Jobcentre Plus offices were fully trained by the end of November. [23278]
  707W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Yes, with the exception of those staff absent from work because of their involvement in the ongoing industrial action or for other reasons. Those staff will be trained as soon as they return to work.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what additional risk assessments have been carried out in Jobcentre Plus offices following experience of their operation; and what the results were of such assessments. [23279]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Full risk assessments were carried out in all of the Pathfinder offices before they opened and the recommendations of each assessment implemented in full. As planned, further assessments are now being undertaken in each office to review the original recommendations in the light of actual experience of the new offices in operation. So far 32 such assessments have been completed.

  Early indications from the further assessments are that Jobcentre Plus offices are working as intended as are the previously recommended safety measures. The review visits have led to some minor changes to recommended control measures, reflecting updated details in the Generic Risk Assessment, and these are being implemented as they arise.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 14 November 2001,Official Report,column 785W, on Jobcentre Plus, what contingency plans are in place to ensure that customers continue to receive the benefits to which they are entitled in areas where Jobcentre Plus staff are undertaking strike action. [23372]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Benefit payments have continued to be made in Jobcentre Plus Pathfinder offices using those staff who have remained at work supported, where appropriate, by staff redeployed from other areas. Where it has not been possible to make benefit payments under the normal procedures due to a lack of sufficient numbers of experienced staff, Pathfinder offices have made interim payments at an amount equivalent to the full benefit rate.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for what reason he has not introduced the integrated claim form that was piloted in the ONE Call Centre pilots into the new Jobcentre Plus offices. [23677]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The integrated claim form was piloted in the call centre variant of the ONE pilots. The valuable lessons learned from the ONE experience have been fed through to the new modernised Information Technology solutions for the Department for Work and Pensions that are planned to be rolled out to Jobcentre Plus offices from 2002. These will include an integrated claim form for customers to complete by telephone.

  Disability Claimants
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many disability claimants there were in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the constituency of Gordon in November 2000. [23293]

  Maria Eagle
  The available information is in the table. Figures for Gordon at November 2000 are not available.708W

  Recipients of disability living allowance and attendance allowance

  30 November 2000

  31 May 2001

  Great Britain1

  Disability living allowance

  2,197.6

  2,240.5

  Attendance allowance

  1,291.3

  1,290.0

  Gordon2

  Disability living allowance

  3—

  1,835

  Attendance allowance

  3—

  1,255

  1 Based on 5 per cent, data, rounded to nearest 100

  2 Based on 100 per cent, data, rounded to nearest five

  3 Not available

  The Northern Ireland Assembly is responsible for social security matters within Northern Ireland.

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people are entitled to more than one reduced earnings allowance entitlement as part of their industrial injuries disablement benefit. [23963]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The number of people entitled to more than one reduced earnings allowance as part of their industrial injuries disablement benefit is 1,100.

  Source:

  10 per cent. sample of industrial injuries disablement benefit assessments at April 2000.

  Pension Schemes
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 16 November 2001,Official Report,column 534W, how much was paid in each year since 1992 into (a) defined benefit pension schemes and (b) defined contribution pension schemes. [24227]

  Mr. McCartney
  This information is not available. Non-state pensions are private, voluntary arrangements, and we do not ask pension administrators or providers to disclose the nature of the benefits accrued from year-on-year investments by employers or individuals.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Social Services
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many full-time equivalents per 10,000 population work in social services in(a) Portsmouth, South and (b) Hampshire; and if he will make a statement. [21798]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  The number of full-time equivalents employed by the local authority social services department at 30 September 2000 per 10,000 (population measured at 30 June 2000) was 58.11 for Portsmouth unitary authority and 26.38 for Hampshire shire county. These figures compare with an England average of 43.44.

  Portsmouth unitary authority covers a larger area than Portsmouth, South constituency. Data are available only for councils with social services responsibilities and not for parliamentary constituencies.
  709W

  Early Years Development Partnerships
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she has received further bids from Leicestershire(a) local education authorities and (b) Early Years Development Partnerships for additional funding in (i) 2001–02 and (ii) 2002–03; and if she will make a statement. [18502]

  Margaret Hodge
  An additional bid for places for three-year-olds in 2001–02, for the spring term, was received from Leicestershire. They were notified that it had been successful on 27 November 2001. This increased Leicester's allocation for 2001–02 from £3.1 million to £3.7 million.

  All local education authorities in England, including Leicestershire, will shortly be notified of the funding for nursery education places for three-year-olds that they will receive in 2002–03.

  Statemented Pupils
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many statemented pupils were excluded from school on a(a) permanent basis and (b) temporary basis in (i) Durham and (ii) England. [16258]

  Mr. Timms
  The number of statemented pupils permanently excluded from maintained primary, maintained secondary and special schools in Durham LEA and England in the school year 1999–2000 were 19 and 1,494 respectively.

  The number of statemented pupils who received fixed term exclusions in Durham local education authority in the school year 1999–2000 was 277.

  This represents 16 per cent. of the total number of pupils excluded for a fixed term and 0.38 per cent. of the total school population in Durham.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many, and what percentage, of pupils at(a) Key Stage 1 and (b) Key Stage 2 in Durham are statemented. [16256]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The number of statemented pupils in Durham local education authority at Key Stages 1 and 2 has been estimated at 300 and 780, respectively in 2001.

  Early Years Excellence
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight, on 14 November 2001,Official Report,cols 798–99W, if she will list the criteria for joining the Early Excellence Centres programme contained in the latest invitation to join the programme; and if she will make a statement on how these relate to the earlier invitations. [16234]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 20 November 2002]: Criteria and detailed requirements for joining the Early Excellence Centre (EEC) programme are set out in guidance issued by the Department. The latest guidance was issued on 5 October 2001. The core activities of the programme which all centres are expected to deliver, or
  710W
  have well advanced and convincing plans to develop, remain unchanged from previous phases of the programme and are as follows:
  good quality integrated early education and day care for children 0-five requiring centre-based extended-day and extended-year provision;
  parental and carer involvement in the education and care of children, e.g. schemes for family learning, developing parenting skills, raising parents' expectations and in other ways;
  support services for children and parents and carers of children, e.g. health, counselling and information services, home support, drop-in facilities;
  effective early identification and intervention for children in need and children with special educational needs, with a view to improving children's prospects and, wherever appropriate, achieving inclusion in mainstream provision;
  access to adult education and training by parents of young children and other adults, including those seeking skills and qualifications for employment;
  raising standards of integrated early years provision among other early years providers, including voluntary and private providers, childminders and other carers, by contributing to the training and development strategy of the Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership and through the development and dissemination of good practice.

  Decisions on designations also take into account links with other Government programmes, geographical coverage, support of key partners, especially the local Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership (EYDCP), and commitment to multi-agency working.

  Pre-school Education
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the new regulations affecting pre-school playgroups and nurseries introduced since 1997. [21954]

  Margaret Hodge
  Regulations have been introduced as follows:Regulations to implement the programme of three and four-year-old nursery education funding:

  Nursery Education (England) Regulations 1998—Revoked

  Nursery Education (England) (Amendment) Regulations 1999—Revoked

  Nursery Education (England) (Amendment) (No2) Regulations 1999—Revoked

  Nursery Education (England) Regulations 20001

  Regulations giving power to pay £24 million training grant:

  The Education (Nursery Education Training Grant) (England) Regulations 2001

  Regulations forming part of the new national system of regulating day care for under-8s, operated by Ofsted:

  Child Minding and Day Care (Disqualification) (England) Regulations 20011

  Child Minding and Day Care (Applications for Registration) (England) Regulations 20011

  Child Minding and Day Care (Certificates of Registration) (England) Regulations 20011

  Child Minding and Day Care (Registration and Annual Fees) Regulations 20011

  Child Minding and Day Care (National Standards) (England) Regulations 2001

  Day Care and Childminding (Inspections) (Prescribed Matters) (England) Regulations 2001

  Child Minding and Day Care (Functions of Local Authorities: Information, Advice and Training) (England) Regulations 2001

  711W

  Regulations giving the Secretary of State power to accredit over-7s settings to enable parents to claim the child care element of working families tax credit:

  Tax Credit Act (New Category of Childcare Provider) Regulations 1999.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pre-school nurseries and playgroups are registered with Ofsted in(a) Surrey and (b) England and Wales. [23408]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not available in the form requested. The Department collects information on day nurseries, playgroups and pre-schools defined in terms of the full day or sessional care that they provide. It does not collect information on pre-schools separately from playgroups. The available information is shown in the following table.

  Number of day nurseries and playgroups and pre-schools: England and Surrey local authority area: position at 31 March 2001

  Day nurseries

  Playgroups and pre-schools

  England1

  7,800

  14,000

  Surrey LA area2

  170

  370

  1 Figures have been rounded to the nearest 100.

  2 Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10.

  Local authorities provided the data. Ofsted did not assume responsibility for registration and inspection of children's day care facilities until September 2001.

  Figures for 2001 for England and Government Office regions were published in Statistical Bulletin 08/01 "Children's Day Care Facilities as at 31 March 2001", which is available at www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics/ and from the Library.

  For information for Wales, I refer the hon. Member to the Education Department of the Assembly for Wales.

  Teaching Qualifications
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will negotiate mutual recognition of teaching qualifications with other Commonwealth countries. [22280]

  Mr. Timms
  We have no plans to do so. Previous comparability arrangements for recognition of overseas teaching qualifications were withdrawn in 1989. These were replaced by mutual recognition arrangements with other countries in the European Economic Area coupled with an employment based training route which enables overseas-trained teachers from countries outside the European Economic Area to obtain qualified teacher status. These arrangements were augmented earlier this year to allow exceptional experienced overseas trained teachers to obtain qualified teacher status and an exemption from induction through a simultaneous assessment.

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what inquiry she has commenced into the circumstances of closure of the Individual Learning Accounts scheme; what the terms of reference of the inquiry are; and when she expects it to report. [22153]
  712W
  John Healey
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]: On 12 November the Secretary of State asked the Department's Head of Internal Audit to carry out a review of the development and management of Individual Learning Accounts. I will make the results of this work available to the House in due course.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps she has taken to ensure hon. Members are kept informed of developments relating to the Individual Learning Accounts programme; and if she will place relevant papers in the Library. [25375]

  John Healey
  It is important that Parliament is kept informed of developments relating to the Individual Learning Accounts programme. I wrote to all hon. Members on 24 October, 27 November and 18 December 2001. I have also undertaken to keep the Education and Skills Select Committee updated following the withdrawal of the Individual Learning Accounts programme on 23 November and I wrote to the Chairman about this on 30 November, 7 December and 18 December and copies have already been placed in the House Library. I am also responding individually to Members addressing both concerns from their constituents and parliamentary questions.

  UK Youth Parliament
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the development of the UK Youth Parliament; and if she will make a statement. [23325]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government want to provide more opportunities for children and young people to have a bigger say about policies and services relevant to them. I value the UK Youth Parliament as one of the routes by which this can happen. The Government have given support to the UK Youth Parliament to help it establish itself. I have now asked the Children and Young People's Unit to explore with the UK Youth Parliament what more the Parliament can do to ensure that it acts as an effective voice for children and young people, as part of our drive to improve children and young people's participation right across Government and in their communities.

  Youth Councils
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps she is taking to encourage youth councils at a local level; and if she will make a statement. [23326]

  Mr. Denham
  On 2 November, I published "Learning to Listen: Core Principles for the Involvement of Children and Young People." It commits Government Departments to increase opportunities for children and young people to have a bigger say about policies and services relevant to them across government and in their communities. Youth councils provide one way to help achieve this. The funding we are making available through the new "Transforming Youth Work Development Fund" will provide additional resources to support the drive for increased participation, help to ensure there is enhanced youth work provision to underpin it, and contribute to our efforts to increase young people's engagement with local democracy.
  713W

  Voter Participation
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps she is taking to encourage more young people to vote; and if she will make a statement. [23327]

  Mr. Denham
  I have asked the Children and Young People's Unit to work with young people to identify what needs to change to encourage more young people to vote and to develop an agenda for action. On 29 October a group of young people came together from across England to present their initial views to Government, the Electoral Commission and representatives of political parties. The unit, working closely with the Electoral Commission and the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, will be extending the consultation with young people and key stakeholders over the coming months with a view to producing conclusions and recommendations for further action in the spring of 2002.

  Pre-school Work
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people completed certified courses for pre-school work in 2001–02; and how many she estimates are certified for pre-school work. [23407]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Department for Education and Skills does not yet hold information regarding the number of people who have completed accredited courses for pre-school work in 2001–02.

  We estimate that presently there are 147,004 people certified for pre-school work to at least the levels required by the National Standards for Under Eights Day Care and Childminding. Additionally, there are 72,300 people registered to work as child minders. The total excludes volunteers.

  Source:

  Preliminary findings from a recently commissioned work force survey to be published early next year.

  Pupil Exclusions
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what information she has collated about the linkage between exclusion and the number of criminal offences conunitted by under-18s. [23410]

  Mr. Timms
  My Department does not specifically collate any information about the linkage between exclusion and the number of criminal offences committed by under-18s.

  However, the Home Office, which lead on Youth Crime issues, have carried out a number of research projects in this area. The latest of these is the report "The independent effects of permanent exclusion from school on the offending careers of young people", Home Office (RDS Occasional Paper No 71). MORI's (2001) Youth Survey 2001 for the Youth Justice Board also examines the link between exclusion and crime.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many decisions taken by schools in the Buckingham constituency permanently to exclude pupils were reversed by independent appeal panels in each year since 1997. [23733]
  714W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information for Buckinghamshire local education authority is shown in the table.

  Parliamentary constituencies figures are calculated by adding figures from all the schools in the constituency together. As exclusion appeals are collected at local education authority level and not at school level they cannot be aggregated into parliamentary constituencies.

  School year

  Number of appeals lodged

  Number of appeals heard

  Number of successful appeals

  1996–97

  1

  1

  0

  1997–98

  12

  8

  3

  1998–99

  9

  9

  3

  1999–2000

  10

  8

  4

  Pre-school Funding
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 10 December 2001,Official Report, column 643W, on pre-school funding, if she will place the Ofsted and QCA advice referred to in the Library. [23576]

  Margaret Hodge
  Any documentary information relating to the advice given has now been archived. The relevant files have been called for and appropriate information identified will be placed in the Library.

  Teaching Posts
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teaching posts are(a) vacant and (b) filled by supply, temporary and agency teachers in (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools in the Buckingham constituency. [23726]

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

  Full-time teacher vacancies in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in the Buckinghamshire local education authority in January 2001 were:
  Nursery and primary: 21 Secondary: 33.
  Teachers with contracts of less than one month in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in the Buckinghamshire local education authority, working for the whole day on 18 January 2001, were:
  Nursery and primary: 59 Secondary: 51.
  Agency teachers with contracts of one month or more are not recorded separately.

  ICT Spending
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the amount was(a) in total and (b) per pupil spent on information and communications technology in (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools in the Buckingham constituency in each year since 1997. [23727]
  715W
  John Healey
  This information is not held by the Department on a constituency basis. However, expenditure on ICT in schools in ngland has been collected annually since 1998 and is shown in the table:

  Expenditure on ICT

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Primary schools

  in total (£ million)

  68

  125

  50

  186

  per pupil (£)

  15

  32

  37

  42

  Secondary schools

  in total (£ million)

  143

  161

  177

  210

  per pupil (£)

  46

  53

  56

  66

  Teachers (Buckingham)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many new teachers have been employed in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in the Buckingham constituency in each year since 1997. [23730]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not available in the form requested. Teachers in full or part-time regular service in the maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools sector in Buckinghamshire local education authority area, in the March of the year after they qualified, by year of entry to teaching, were as follows:

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–20001

  Nursery and primary

  110

  80

  110

  Secondary

  90

  130

  100

  1 Data are provisional.1999–2000 is the latest year for which information is available.

  Note:

  1. All figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  2. The figures may exclude some part-time teachers who are not members of the teachers pension scheme.

  National Grid for Learning
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much National Grid for Learning funding has been granted to schools in the Buckingham constituency in each year since 1997. [23728]

  John Healey
  National Grid for Learning funding through the Standards Fund commenced in 1998–99. Funding is allocated to local education authorities and information is not kept on a constituency basis. Since 1998 schools in Buckinghamshire have benefited from the following allocations (including match funding from the LEA):

  Year

  £ million

  1998–99

  1.25

  1999–2000

  1.125

  2000–01

  1.694

  2001–02

  2.032

  Through Buckinghamshire's membership of the South East Grid for Learning consortium, its schools have also benefited from a share of £5,051 million of National Grid for Learning funding allocated in 2000–01 and £6.256 million in 2001–02 to equip them with broadband internet connections.
  716W

  Pupil Referral/Learning Support Units
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the(a) pupil referral units and (b) learning support units which are based in the Buckingham constituency indicating (i) staffing levels and (ii) number of places in each case. [23732]

  Mr. Timms
  Buckingham has the following Pupil Referral Units (PRUs):

  Name of unit

  Number of teaching staff

  Number of non-teaching staff

  Aylesbury Vale Primary PRU—Aylesbury

  3

  1.9

  Aylesbury Vale Secondary PRU—Aylesbury

  5

  3.2

  Chilbec PRU—Chesham

  3.8

  1.5

  The Oaks PRU—Amersham

  2

  1

  Woodlands PRU—High Wycombe

  4.5

  4

  Wycombe Grange PRU—High Wycombe

  9

  8

  These staffing levels do not include the Home Tuition and Hospital Teaching Service staff who are managed via the PRU Service.

  Capacity in the PRUs is flexible to enable unpredictable demand for places to be met. For example, Key Stage 4 pupils are offered a range of off-site provision, including work experience and college courses. In addition, pupils may be supported on site in their own schools as well as off-site at the PRUs. Last year a total of 764 pupils were supported by the Buckinghamshire PRUs.

  Buckingham's Learning Support Units (LSUs) are as follows:

  Name of school

  Number of teaching staff

  Number of non-teaching staff

  Buckingham School—Buckingham

  1

  2

  Chesham Park Community School—Chesham

  1

  2

  Cressex School—High Wycombe

  1

  2

  Holmer Green Upper School—Holmer Green

  1

  1

  Mandeville School—Aylesbury

  1

  2

  Quarrendon School—Aylesbury

  1

  2

  For the LSUs, DfES guidance on capacity is as follows:
  A maximum of 10 Key Stage 3 pupils working in the centre at any one time;
  Pupils to spend no more than 50 per cent. of their time in the centre;
  Support is provided to pupils in class;
  This intensive support is provided for approximately one term.

  Therefore each Learning Support Unit is able to support a minimum of 30 pupils each academic year.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many cases concerning schools in the Buckingham constituency were heard by the Special Educational Needs Tribunal in each year since 1997, indicating in how many cases the Tribunal ruled that additional support should be provided for children with special needs. [23734]
  717W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Special Educational Needs Tribunal records appeals for individual local education authorities (LEAs), rather than individual constituencies. The following table shows the number of appeals involving Buckinghamshire LEA in each year since 1996–97 together

  SEN Tribunal cases against Buckinghamshire LEA1—1 September 1996–31 August 2001

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Total years

  Total number of appeals

  18

  19

  19

  22

  19

  97

  Total number withdrawn

  10

  12

  10

  15

  13

  60

  Total decided

  9

  6

  9

  7

  5

  36

  Outstanding

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Total decisions upheld2

  4

  5

  9

  7

  4

  29

  Total decisions dismissed3

  5

  1

  0

  0

  1

  7

  1 Buckinghamshire was involved in the re-organisation of LEAs on 1 March 1998. These figures include appeal for this LEA before the changes.

  2 Upheld are those appeals where the Tribunal ruled, in whole or in part, in favour of the appellant.

  3 Dismissed are those appeals where the Tribunal ruled in favour of the LEA.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much funding has been made available to schools in the Buckingham constituency from the Special Educational Needs Standards Fund. [23736]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Standards Fund grant is allocated to local education authorities (LEAs), rather than individual constituencies. It is for individual LEAs to decide how they will use their grant but we expect them to work in partnership with their schools when deciding their special educational needs priorities.

  In 2001–02, Buckinghamshire local education authority received £647,509 from the Standards Fund for pupils with special educational needs or who cannot attend school because of illness or injury or who are in public care. This allocation will increase by 11 per cent. to £717,443 in 2002–03. It will be available for a range of issues, for example training and preparation for the new SEN and Disability Codes of Practice, and improving partnership working between schools, LEAs and health and social services.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many special needs status(a) primary and (b) secondary school children there were (i) nationally and (ii) in the Buckingham constituency in each year since 1997. [23737]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Buckingham constituency

  England

  Pupils with statements

  SEN pupils without statements

  Pupils with statements

  SEN pupils without statements

  Maintained primary schools

  1997

  113

  819

  63,551

  759,449

  1998

  112

  1,042

  67,014

  821,342

  1999

  118

  1,063

  69,797

  859,742

  2000

  88

  1,081

  72,525

  885,952

  2001

  91

  1,102

  73,144

  898,601

  Maintained secondary schools

  1997

  64

  396

  70,080

  442,024

  1998

  75

  394

  73,956

  479,675

  1999

  43

  294

  77,330

  514,386

  2000

  93

  563

  79,788

  541,406

  2001

  87

  585

  80,919

  557,342

  Note:

  Special educational needs data are as reported by schools.
  718W
  with information about the number of appeals withdrawn, decided or outstanding and information about the number of cases which were upheld. A case is listed as "upheld" when any of the points at issue are decided in the parents' favour.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people were employed in her Department in each of the last four years. [23794]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 18 December 2001,Official Report, column 256W.

  Ritalin
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimates he has made of the number of prescriptions issued for Ritalin for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder among children with a statement of special educational needs attending schools in the Buckingham constituency. [23735]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Estimates are not made centrally of the number of children with statements who have prescriptions for Ritalin for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans the Government have(a) to continue the restriction on class sizes for infant schools and (b) to fund the class size initiative in the long term. [23907]

  John Healey
  Since September 2001 it has been a statutory responsibility for schools and local education authorities to limit the size of infant classes for five, six and seven-year-olds taught by one teacher to no more than 30.

  Class size grant will be paid to local education authorities as a ring-fenced grant through the Standards Fund in 2001–02 and 2002–03. Funding levels for 2003–04 will be decided in the Spending Review 2002.

  Assaults on Teachers
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what initiatives the Government are undertaking to reduce the incidence of abuse by parents against teachers. [23974]
  719W
  Mr. Timms
  Legal remedies already exist to combat abuse by parents and others against teachers. These include injunctions, and prosecution for criminal damage, common assault and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The Government have made a specific grant for school security available to all local education authorities in England since 1998. This could be used to support personal safety training for teachers and others to protect themselves from assaults. The Department has consulted on extending the use of parenting orders to situations where children manifest poor behaviour in school, and where parents need to play more of a role in setting boundaries for them. We are currently considering the responses. The relevant authorities in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are responsible for drawing up their own education policies.

  Early Years Provision (Staffordshire)
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many free nursery places were not taken up in Staffordshire in the 2000–01 academic year; [24061]

  (2) what representations she has received from Staffordshire on early years development funding in this financial year; and if she will make a statement. [24060]

  Margaret Hodge
  In 2000–01 financial year Staffordshire spent all the funding made available to them by the DfES for the provision of free early education places for three-year-olds. They were initially allocated £225,040 to provide 194 free early education places for three-year-olds. However, a further £172,000 was made available so that by spring 2001 they were able to fund 511 early education places for three-year-olds.

  In 2001–02 Staffordshire were initially allocated £1,344,816 of funding to provide 1,132 places. Officials at Staffordshire local education authority wrote to the Department after this allocation requesting further funding be made available to Staffordshire to provide more free, early education places for three-year-olds. Funding has recently been increased by £226,000 and by the spring term 2002 Staffordshire will be able to fund 2,066 places.

  Exceptionally Able Children
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her policy is on ensuring that individual schools have resources to provide for the needs of exceptionally able children; and if she will make a statement. [24075]

  Mr. Timms
  Schools within Excellence in Cities areas and Excellence Clusters receive specific grant for the gifted and talented strand of those initiatives. Local education authorities and education action zones also receive specific funding for our national summer schools programme; otherwise, we look to schools and local education authorities to meet the costs of educating exceptionally able pupils from their general budgets. From next summer, the Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth will provide a range of opportunities for such pupils and their teachers. Several resources that benefit gifted and talented pupils more generally are already in place.
  720W

  Basic Needs Assessment (Surrey)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on what date she will send her formal response to Surrey's basic needs assessment application. [24119]

  Mr. Timms
  Decisions on all basic need applications were due to be notified to local education authorities on Wednesday, 19 December 2001.

  F40
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will meet representatives of the F40 group to discuss(a) the provision of an interim financial award for F40 authorities and (b) F40 proposals for funding from 2003–04 onwards. [24261]

  Mr. Timms
  The overall local government finance settlement for 2002–03 is a good one for education: over £1.3 billion extra in Education Standard Spending Assessments (SSAs); a further increase in Standards Fund grant of almost £160 million; and an increase in the direct grant for schools of 2.75 per cent. In the context of this settlement, there is less need for special grant support from Government than there was in 2001–02. I will be meeting a group of representatives of the F40 group in the spring to discuss the new funding system for 2003–04.

  Citizenship Lessons
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what funds have been allocated for training qualified teachers to teach citizenship lessons in secondary schools; [24267]

  (2) how many teachers are being trained to teach citizenship lessons; and how many teachers will be qualified to teach citizenship lessons in September 2002. [24268]

  Mr. Timms
  A total of £27 million was made available through the Standards Fund directly to schools to prepare for implementing Citizenship and Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE) between 2000–01 (£12 million) and 2001–02 (£15 million). With local education authority matched funding, schools are able to spend this in the way that best meets their needs, including spending on teachers' professional development, for example on courses run by citizenship organisations.

  167 teacher training places were made available by the Teacher Training Agency (TTA) at the beginning of the 2001–02 academic year. Of this, 147 trainees are currently undertaking the one year programme to become citizenship teachers. On successfully completing their course, they will be able to take up a teaching post in September 2002. There are likely to be in excess of 150 trainee places available next year. Many existing teachers are, of course, already teaching aspects of citizenship through other subjects.

  Special Grants Allocation
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether the special grants allocation for schools is to continue next year. [24281]
  721W
  Mr. Timms
  Yes. School Standards Grant (SSG) will continue in 2002–03. SSG rates for next year will be as follows:

  Pupils

  £

  Primary

  Up to 100

  7,200

  101–200

  13,900

  201–00

  24,700

  401–600

  30,900

  601+

  49,400

  Secondary

  Up to 600

  59,600

  601–1,200

  72,000

  1201+

  84,300

  Special

  Up to 100

  20,600

  101+

  28,800

  SSG will continue in 2003–04, uprated by a further 2.75 per cent.

  Student Finance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she expects her review of student finance to be completed; and if she will make a statement. [24407]

  Margaret Hodge
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expects to announce the outcome of the review this year.

  Key Stage Results
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she will publish the findings of her inquiry into the release of the 2001 Key Stage results. [24436]

  Mr. Timms
  Further to the reply I gave on 27 November 2001,Official Report, column 782W, a statement will be made on the outcome of the inquiry before the end of January.

  Teacher Vacancies
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teacher vacancies there are in England, broken down by LEA area; and in each case what the figure is expressed as a percentage of the establishment figure. [24437]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on the 19 November 2001,Official Report, columns 59–60W.

  Sure Start
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the Sure Start programmes in the constituency of Buckingham indicating the amount spent on each scheme. [24840]

  Jacqui Smith
  There are no Sure Start programmes in the constituency of Buckingham.
  722W

  A-Levels
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the proportion of students achieving(a) 1 and (b) 1–3 A-E grades at A-level was (i) nationally and (ii) at schools and colleges based in the Buckingham constituency in each year since 1997; and if she will provide breakdowns of those figures between (A) independent schools and colleges and (B) state schools and colleges. [24861]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Of the 17-year-old candidates who attempted at least one GCE A-level, the proportion who achieved(a) only 1 and (b) 1–3 passes at grade A to E in England and the Buckingham constituency since 1997 are shown in the table:

  1 only

  1–3

  4 or more

  England

  1996–97

  All schools and colleges

  12.2

  70.4

  24.4

  Independent schools

  4.9

  66.9

  31.8

  State schools and colleges

  13.6

  71.1

  23.1

  1997–98

  All schools and colleges

  12.2

  68.8

  26.4

  Independent schools

  5.2

  66.3

  32.5

  State schools and colleges

  13.4

  69.2

  25.3

  1998–99

  All schools and colleges

  11.8

  68.0

  27.5

  Independent schools

  5.3

  66.0

  32.9

  State schools and colleges

  13.0

  68.3

  26.6

  1999–2000

  All schools and colleges

  12.1

  66.4

  29.1

  Independent schools

  5.8

  64.7

  34.2

  State schools and colleges

  13.2

  66.7

  28.2

  2000–01

  All schools and colleges

  11.8

  66.1

  29.7

  Independent schools

  5.0

  64.4

  34.8

  State schools and colleges

  13.0

  66.4

  28.8

  Buckingham

  1996–97

  All schools and colleges

  8.6

  77.2

  18.3

  Independent schools

  6.9

  92.4

  4.8

  State schools and colleges

  9.8

  67.0

  27.4

  1997–98

  All schools and colleges

  10.2

  86.8

  9.8

  Independent schools

  7.4

  94.9

  2.9

  State schools and colleges

  12.2

  81.0

  14.8

  1998–99

  All schools and colleges

  13.4

  83.0

  14.2

  Independent schools

  8.0

  92.0

  5.6

  State schools and colleges

  16.3

  78.0

  18.9

  1999–2000

  All schools and colleges

  9.0

  86.0

  12.0

  Independent schools

  2.7

  92.5

  6.8

  State schools and colleges

  13.7

  81.2

  15.7

  2000–01

  All schools and colleges

  12.2

  84.6

  13.3

  Independent schools

  6.9

  89.0

  10.3

  State schools and colleges

  15.5

  82.0

  15.1

  723W

  Key Stage 2
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the proportion of school pupils achieving level 4 at Key Stage 2 in(a) English and (b) Maths was (i) nationally and (ii) from schools based in the Buckingham constituency in the latest year for which figures are available. [24862]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The following table shows the percentage of pupils achieving Level 4 or above in the Key Stage 2 tests in 2001 in Buckingham and nationally.

  Percentage

  England

  Buckingham

  English test

  75

  84

  Mathematics test

  71

  79

  Homework Clubs
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many homework clubs have been set up in schools in England. [24886]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department does not collect statistics on homework clubs in schools: setting these up is a matter for local decision. We do, however, encourage schools to provide opportunities for young people to enrich their learning through out-of-school-hours activities. "Extending Opportunity: a national framework for study support", published in 1998, set out the contribution homework clubs can make to a school's wider programme of out-of-school-hours learning activities. We also published Homework Guidelines, which require school homework policies to refer to any opportunities that exist for pupils to do homework, under supervision, at places other than home. The homework area on the Department's Standards website supplements the guidelines with examples of good practice and case studies.

  Education At Home
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance she has given to local education authorities about the funding of children educated at home; and if she will make a statement. [24888]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Education at home includes either: home-tuition provided by local education authorities, or pupils who are being home-educated by their parents.

  As regards the former, local education authorities have to provide home-tuition in some circumstances to children of school compulsory age who by reason of illness, exclusion from school or otherwise are not receiving suitable education. Under the Financing of Maintained Schools Regulations 2001, LEAs are free to retain resources centrally for the education of those pupils who are educated otherwise than in a school. This may encompass those who are educated in a pupil referral unit, or at home. Guidance about transferring funding was issued in November 1999, entitled "School Inclusion: the LEA role in Pupil Support", supplement circular 11/99.

  As regards the latter, there are no funds directly available from central Government and local education authorities are under no legal duty to provide financial support to parents who elect to home-educate their children. However, advice from the Department has been
  724W
  compiled in a fact sheet sent on request, and some LEAs do provide free national curriculum materials and other support to parents. The level and extent of such support is decided locally, based on the authority's own policies and the needs of the child.

  Greenwich Judgment
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what powers she has to prevent local education authorities from breaching the Greenwich judgment. [24911]

  Mr. Timms
  All admission authorities for schools must consult annually over their proposed admission arrangements. After completion of this process, an admission authority may object to the independent schools adjudicator about another admission authority's determined arrangements. In considering any objection, the adjudicator must be mindful of whether the arrangements being objected to are lawful. Complaints about the lawfulness of admission arrangements may also be made to the Secretary of State who has powers, under section 497 of the Education Act 1996, to intervene if either a local education authority or governing body has acted, or is proposing to act, unlawfully.

  Further Education
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent discussions she has had on improving pay and conditions for further education lecturers. [24934]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Secretary of State and her ministerial colleagues have had a number of meetings in recent months with representatives of the Association of Colleges (AoC), NATFHE, the lecturers' union, and Unison, the public service union.

  Discussion at these meetings covered a wide range of issues about the further education sector, including the teaching pay initiative and the funding made available to colleges to support lecturers' continuing professional development. These measures recognise the importance of attracting new staff to the profession and rewarding and retaining excellent teachers.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what budget has been allocated via the teaching pay initiative to(a) sixth form colleges and (b) general further education colleges for the financial years (i) 2001–02, (ii) 2002–03 and (iii) 2003–04; what criteria were used in allocating this budget; and if she will make it her policy to consolidate these budgets for future financial years. [23830]

  Margaret Hodge
  The budget for the Teaching Pay Initiative (TPI) is shown in the following table:

  £ million

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Sixth form colleges

  11

  15

  18

  General FE colleges

  54

  90

  117

  Total

  65

  105

  135

  In 2001–02 each sixth form college and general FE college has received a share of the TPI budget for the
  725W
  relevant category that has been calculated in proportion to its main funding allocation from the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) and the Higher Education Funding Council for England. Colleges have also been given indicative TPI allocations for 2002–03 and 2003–04 that provide 25 per cent. more funding in 2002–03 than in 2001–02 and a further 25 per cent. in 2003–04. These provide guaranteed minimum funding levels and precise amounts will be agreed with each college by the LSC.

  It is for individual colleges, as independent organisations, to decide whether to consolidate TPI awards into pensionable pay. The three-year funding commitment that has already been made is designed partly

  Number of schools in England at January each year, 1997 to 2001

  Primary1

  Secondary1

  Nursery2

  Special3>

  Pupil referral units

  Independent4

  1997

  18,392

  3,569

  546

  1,239

  309

  2,271

  1998

  18,312

  3,567

  535

  1,229

  309

  2,242

  1999

  18,234

  3,560

  522

  1,209

  298

  2,229

  2000

  18,158

  3,550

  516

  1,197

  295

  2,202

  2001

  18,069

  3,481

  508

  1,175

  308

  2,203

  1 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  2 Includes two Direct Grant Nursery schools.

  3 Includes Maintained and Non-Maintained Special Schools.

  4 Includes City Technology Colleges.

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census returns completed on the third Thursday of January each year.

  New Schools
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the extent of the use of the provision in the Education Bill concerning the establishment of new schools. [24516]

  Mr. Timms
  The Education Bill provides that a local education authority in England may, with the approval of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, publish a notice inviting proposals for the establishment of an additional secondary school. The need for new schools varies from year to year, but we estimate that in an average year the demand for additional secondary schools would not exceed single figures.

  Medical School Admissions
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps have been taken by medical schools over the past five years to improve accessibility of courses to people with disabilities. [24659]

  Margaret Hodge
  Under the Medical Act 1983, university medical schools are required to ensure that students are fit to practise as doctors when they graduate. To this end, in February 1999 the Council of Heads of Medical Schools issued guidance on admissions making it clear that a disability should not be a bar to becoming a doctor provided it did not impair fitness to practise. More generally, medical schools will—with the rest of universities—be subject from September 2002 to the provisions of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001.
  726W
  to give confidence to colleges that they can consolidate TPI pay awards if they wish. Funding beyond 2003–04 will need to recognise that TPI arrangements represent on-going commitments for colleges and that increases awarded to teachers will not be removed.

  Schools
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools there were at 31 December in(a) each year since 1997 and (b) at the most recent date for which figures are available. [24518]

  Mr. Timms
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Youth Parliament
  Mr. Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she will respond to the UK Youth Parliament Manifesto; and if she will make a statement. [23324]

  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when the Government will respond to the UK Youth Parliament's Manifesto. [24058]

  Mr. Denham
  I shall be responding shortly.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Waste Management
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the Government's position is on the inclusion of incineration within local authority waste plans. [1676]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 3 July 2001]: In order to achieve more recycling the Government set statutory targets in March under Best Value for local authorities to double the amount of household waste recycled by 2003–04 and treble it by 2005–06. This has been reinforced in the guidelines on Private Finance Initiative (PFI) projects, which stress that recycling and composting must be at the heart of new applications for waste facilities. Incineration should only be considered where recycling is not feasible or not the best practicable environmental option.
  727W

  Flooding
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures the Government have taken to improve the state of drains and sewers to cope with long-term flooding. [13005]

  Mr. Meacher
  Sewerage undertakers have a duty under section 94 of the Water Industry Act 1991 to drain their area effectually and this duty is enforceable by the Secretary of State or the Director General of Water Services. However, there can be practical or financial constraints. The duty in the 1991 Act is not, therefore, considered to be an absolute requirement on undertakers to prevent sewer flooding in all circumstances. Each undertaker is expected to set priorities for work which may be necessary. Ofwat and my officials are currently examining the causes of sewer flooding and possible remedies. Ofwat will publish a paper on the issue early in 2002.

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which agencies are responsible for handling flooding in areas where there is no river. [25247]

  Mr. Morley
  The emergency response to flooding, from whatever source, is led by local authorities in partnership with the emergency services and bodies that are responsible for the source of the flooding.

  The Environment Agency has permissive powers to undertake flood defence measures in relation to main rivers and the sea. The Agency is also responsible for issuing flood warnings and has a general supervisory duty over all matters relating to flood defence. Local authorities or, where they exist, internal drainage boards, have flood defence powers on ordinary watercourses.

  Sewerage undertakers are generally responsible for dealing with flooding from sewerage systems while the relevant highways authority is responsible for road drainage systems. Flooding from groundwater can arise for disparate reasons and there is no single body responsible for such flooding. However, the Environment Agency may be able to provide hydrological information and advice in relation to serious problems with the water table and the existence of local springs.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with the Association of British Insurers in relation to the agreement between the Government and the ABI to ensure flood cover is provided in respect of previously flooded properties. [23988]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 18 December 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) on 23 November 2001, Official Report, column 519W.

  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what was the cost to the Environment Agency and its predecessor bodies of inland flood defence in England and Wales in(a) 1971, (b) 1979, (c) 1989, (d) 1995 and (e) 2000. [23652]

  Mr. Morley
  Information is not readily available for 1971 or 1979. For the other years, the available information relates to all flood defences and it is not possible to provide separate figures for inland flood defences.
  728W
  The Environment Agency, and its predecessor body the National Rivers Authority, spent the following total sums on inland, tidal and coastal flood defence for the years in question as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1989–90

  163.8

  1995–96

  250.1

  2000–01

  274.4

  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of properties affected by inland flooding in 2000 were not given prior flood warning by the Environment Agency. [23374]

  Mr. Morley
  I understand that between September and mid-November 2000, the Environment Agency's Automatic Voice Messaging (AVM) system delivered messages to 85,715 locations with a success rate of between 75 and 80 per cent. This was a five-fold increase from the 15 per cent. success rate at the time when the agency became responsible for flood warnings in 1996.

  Following the autumn 2000 floods, as part of its usual practice of monitoring its flood warning performance, the agency undertook 'post event' surveys in 13 areas where in excess of 100 properties had experienced flooding. A total of 1,493 interviews were conducted. Of those who had experienced flooding 60 per cent. received a warning prior to the event (91 per cent. of whom received more than two hours notice).

  The agency offers the full Flood Warning Service which encompasses both direct methods (AVM, flood wardens, loud hailers, sirens) and indirect methods (broadcast media, Floodline service). Out of a total of 1.9 million properties situated in the natural floodplain of England and Wales, currently some 1.2 million properties receive the full Flood Warning Service. This represents an increase of 325,000 properties covered by the full Flood Warning Service since 2000.

  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what meetings she has had with insurers regarding the floods in October; and if she will make a statement. [23650]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government continue to maintain close links with the insurance industry to help ensure continued availability of affordable flood cover. There is an agreement among Association of British Insurers (ABI) member companies that they will continue to provide flood cover, except in exceptional circumstances, for domestic properties and small businesses which they currently insure, during 2001 and 2002. Cases where there is an alleged breach of this agreement have been referred by DEFRA to the ABI for investigation. However, it must be recognised that insurance companies need to take a commercial decision as to what risk they will cover and on what terms. Also, the insurance industry is a competitive one and customers may need to shop around to obtain the best deal.

  My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and I had previously met the ABI on 5 September to discuss our mutual aim of ensuring that affordable flood insurance cover continues to be generally available after
  729W
  December 2002. Ministers have not had a further meeting with ABI since the floods of October but discussions continue at official level.

  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what criteria a watercourse must meet for it to become the responsibility of the Environment Agency; and if she will make a statement. [23651]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency has permissive powers to undertake flood defence works on main rivers. On ordinary watercourses these powers reside with local authorities or, where they exist, with internal drainage boards.

  There are no objective criteria for deciding whether a particular watercourse should be designated as main river or ordinary watercourse, although the rivers presenting the most significant flood risk will tend to be 'enmained'. The initiative for 'enmaining' rivers rests with the Environment Agency and their Regional and Local Flood Defence Committees.

  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many properties in Essex suffered loss or damage from the floods on the rivers Blackwater, Colne and tributaries in October. [23373]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency reports that some 612 residential and commercial properties were flooded from the main rivers of Colne and Blackwater/Pant during October 2001. Details are not readily available for flooding from ordinary watercourses or overland flow.

  Hunting
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received against the recommencement of hunting following the foot and mouth outbreak. [12837]

  Alun Michael
  I have met with the Campaign for the Protection of Hunted Animals which incorporated representatives from the RSPCA, League against Cruel Sports and International Fund for Animal Welfare. Correspondence has also been received from the Hunt Saboteurs Association, Protection of Wild Animals and the New Forest Animal Protection Group. A number of individuals have also written to the Department. In general, those who oppose hunting have made clear their continued opposition to hunting per se, but appreciate that our own decision is entirely about the extent to which activities that were allowed before the advent of foot and mouth disease can be permitted within the disease control measures that are necessary to eradicate the disease.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what advice she has issued to farmers and landowners concerning liability for losses should foot and mouth be spread by hunts on their land. [18384]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has not issued any advice to farmers concerning liability for losses connected with any activity which might cause the spread of foot and mouth disease. The decision on whether to allow 730W
  hunts onto their land is one for individual farmers and landowners. The Department of course continues to urge farmers to maintain strict biosecurity at all times.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many letters from right hon. and hon. Members received more than four months ago have not been given a substantive reply. [11677]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 7 November 2001]: Of letters received over four months ago (i.e. 19 June-19 September) 1,370 have not yet been given a substantive reply. In this period the Department received 2,874 letters from right hon. and hon. Members.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reason the letters of the hon. Member for Vale of York of(a) 15 May on behalf of Mr. R. Corner of Bedale, concerning the foot and mouth epidemic, (b) 5 June on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Pearson of Bedale, concerning the foot and mouth epidemic, (c) 21 June on behalf of Mrs. P. Crosby of Thirsk, concerning the foot and mouth epidemic, (d) 11 July on behalf of Mr. Peter Winston of Sullivan Agriculture Ltd., York, concerning the foot and mouth epidemic, (e) 17 July on behalf of Mr. D. Creer of Wigginton, York, concerning the Policy Commission on Food and Farming, (f) 3 August on behalf of Mr. R. J. H. Cobbold of Harrogate, concerning the foot and mouth epidemic, (g) 8 August on behalf of Mrs. I. Wilkinson of York, concerning the foot and mouth epidemic and (h) 18 September on behalf of Mr. John Trenholme of Thirsk, concerning the foot and mouth epidemic, have not been replied to; and if she will send responses to each constituent before 19 December. [22779]

  Mr. Morley
  All of the above letters were responded to by 19 December with the exception of the 21 June letter on behalf of Mrs. P. Crosby of Thirsk, concerning the foot and mouth epidemic. We will respond to this as soon as possible.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to all Members of Parliament on 14 November explaining the scale of the current problems faced by those dealing with Members' correspondence within the Department and setting out the mechanisms put in place to overcome these problems.

  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the hon. Member for Broxbourne will receive a reply to her letters of 14 June, 11 July, 10 August, 20 September, 18 October, 16 November and 12 December, relating to correspondence from her constituent, Mr. I Dukes of Cheshunt, Hertfordshire. [23608]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 December 2001]: The hon. Member's letters were transferred to the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) on 28 December 2001 for a reply as the issues raised falls under their remit.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to all Members of Parliament on 14 November explaining the scale of the current problems faced by the Correspondence Section and setting out the mechanisms put in place to overcome these problems.
  731W
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the hon. Member for Broxbourne will receive a reply to her letters of 17 July, 16 August, 13 September, 11 October, 16 November and 12 December, relating to correspondence from her constituent, Mr. Stan Kitchiner, of Cuffley, Hertfordshire. [23609]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 December 2001]: My noble Friend Lord Whitty replied to the letters dated 17 July, 16 August, 13 September, 11 October, 16 November and 12 December from the hon. Member for Broxbourne on 20 December.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to all hon. Members of Parliament on 14 November explaining the scale of the current problems faced by the Correspondence Section and setting out the mechanisms put in place to overcome these problems.

  Public-Private Partnerships
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the projects in her Department which have been considered as potential public-private partnerships since 1997 which have not been undertaken because the public sector comparator had a lower net present value than the public private partnership proposed; and if she will make a statement. [13429]

  Mr. Morley
  In our 1997 reforms of PFI, the Government abandoned the requirement to submit all capital projects to PFI testing. Accordingly, it will be concluded at a very early stage in the option appraisal process whether a PPP approach is likely to deliver value for money (vfm); where it is not, a public sector comparator (PSC) will not be constructed. Only when it is concluded, following careful consideration, that PPP is likely to offer value for money, will a PSC normally be developed.

  Against this background, and with the maturing of the PPP process and the PPP market, it is likely that a high proportion of projects which do embark on the PPP route will contract on that basis, with competition helping to secure value for money and the PSC acting as a quantitative aid to informing judgment.

  PPP deals continue to account for only a small proportion of the total sums invested to improve the delivery of public services. Public sector gross investment is projected to rise from £19 billion in 2000–01 to £35.2 billion in 2003–04. Over the same period, capital investment by the private sector through PFI will be about £3 billion annually.

  From information held centrally the Department is not aware of any potential public private partnerships which have not been undertaken because the public sector comparator had a lower net present value than the public private partnership proposed.

  Farm Diversification
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost to public funds to date has been of the measures to assist in 732W
  farm diversification as set out in "Planning Consultancy Advice for Farm Diversification", published by her Department. [13274]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 8 November 2001]: This scheme was launched on 12 September 2001 and has attracted a good level of interest from farmers. To date DEFRA has received 113 applications for planning consultancy advice, of which 62 have been approved so far. The cases approved have yet to result in any claims on public funds, which are only made once the consultant's work has been completed and the farmer satisfied with the service provided.

  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farmers have taken up the Department's offer of free advice to help them diversify. [23702]

  Mr. Morley
  With regard to Free Planning Advice for farmers pursuing a viable diversification project, which was launched in September, to date we have received 373 applications; 237 of these have been approved; 97 are currently being processed.

  In addition, the Farm Business Advice Service, which was introduced in October 2000 under the Action Plan for Farming and consists of three days of free on-farm business advice, is available to help farmers take stock of their businesses and decide on the future direction—whether it is improving their business, diversifying or leaving the industry. Since its launch, 7,613 farms have requested the service, 4,637 farms have received an initial diagnostic visit and 2,851 farms have received the full three-day service resulting in an Action Plan.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received about failures to pay slaughter premium on cattle slaughtered during the foot and mouth outbreak. [14001]

  Mr. Morley
  Slaughter premium is not payable on cattle slaughtered during the foot and mouth outbreak but if the market value for such animals would have been influenced by expectation of slaughter premium then the valuation for compensation should reflect this. Standard valuations, which operated between 22 March and 29 July, took account of slaughter premium.

  The Department will shortly be issuing clarification to interested parties.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) on how many premises culling took place of(a) cattle, (b) sheep, (c) pigs and (d) other animals under the (i) infected premises, (ii) dangerous contact, (iii) slaughter on suspicion and (iv) contiguous cull schemes operating during the foot and mouth disease outbreak broken down by (A) county and (B) region; and how many samples were taken and how many positive tests were found at each premises; [16713]
  733W
  (2) how many (a) infected premises and (b) contiguous premises were recorded during the foot and mouth disease outbreak broken down by (i) county and (ii) region; and how many samples were collected in each case. [16714]

  Margaret Beckett
  I will place the information requested in the Library of the House today.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on what date she intends to disband her Department's teams of foot and mouth disease blood testers operating in the south-west of England; what plans she has to divert foot and mouth disease blood tester personnel and resources to the testing of cattle for bovine tuberculosis in the south-west of England; and if she will make a statement. [18046]

  Mr. Morley
  No date has been set for disbanding the teams of blood testers for FMD in the south-west of England but as the threat from the disease diminishes there will be less need for testers.

  Under the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 blood sampling for laboratory testing can be undertaken by paraprofessionals. The TB test can only be carried out by qualified veterinary surgeons who are accredited to the relevant LVI Panel. The number of blood samplers who can be diverted to TB skin testing is minimal. The only other resource that will be required for the restart of TB testing is a sufficient supply of Tuberculin to meet the projected future need.

  Date slaughtered

  Cattle

  Sheep

  Pigs

  Goats

  Deer

  Other

  Total

  1 October 2001

  0

  80

  0

  0

  0

  0

  80

  2 October 2001

  0

  183

  0

  0

  0

  0

  183

  10 October 2001

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  10 October 2001

  5

  1,739

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1,744

  10 October 2001

  0

  57

  0

  0

  0

  0

  57

  11 October 2001

  0

  25

  0

  0

  0

  0

  25

  11 October 2001

  0

  141

  0

  0

  0

  0

  141

  13 October 2001

  0

  100

  0

  0

  0

  0

  100

  17 October 2001

  0

  387

  0

  0

  0

  0

  387

  18 October 2001

  324

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  324

  24 October 2001

  0

  131

  0

  0

  0

  0

  131

  24 October 2001

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  2

  26 October 2001

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  27 October 2001

  0

  247

  0

  0

  0

  0

  247

  30 October 2001

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  31 October 2001

  0

  80

  0

  0

  0

  0

  80

  1 November 2001

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  10 November 2001

  0

  128

  0

  0

  0

  0

  128

  10 November 2001

  0

  129

  0

  0

  0

  0

  129

  10 November 2001

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  10 November 2001

  0

  57

  0

  0

  0

  0

  57

  10 November 2001

  0

  178

  0

  0

  0

  0

  178

  10 November 2001

  0

  50

  0

  0

  0

  0

  50

  13 November 2001

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  20 November 2001

  0

  60

  0

  0

  0

  0

  60

  21 November 2001

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  27 November 2001

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  27 November 2001

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  27 November 2001

  0

  8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  8

  6 December 2001

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  10 December 2001

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Total

  330

  3,793

  0

  2

  0

  0

  4,125

  Source:

  DEFRA Disease Control System Database as at 17.30 12 December 2001. Figures subject to change as more data become available.
  734W
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many temporary veterinary inspectors have written to her about their experiences during the foot and mouth epidemic. [22106]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 December 2001]: We have no record of letters from temporary veterinary inspectors (TVIs) to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about their experiences during the foot and mouth outbreak. Some may have written on an individual and personal basis.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on how many farms animals have been slaughtered in relation to foot and mouth disease; and how many animals have been slaughtered by type in each case since 30 September. [23259]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 17 December 2001]: As at 17.30, 12 December 2001, 9,578 premises have been affected by foot and mouth disease ie premises which have been classified as an Infected Premises, Dangerous Contact or Slaughter on Suspicion on which slaughter of animals has occurred.

  The following table details all slaughterings on foot and mouth disease affected premises since 30 September 2001. There have been no outbreaks since that date; these figures therefore relate to slaughter on suspicion cases or to dangerous contact cases identified by surveillance bleeding.
  735W
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reasons animals with foot and mouth disease anti-bodies and no other symptoms of the disease were slaughtered during the foot and mouth outbreak. [24389]

  Mr. Morley
  Foot and mouth disease (FMD) antibodies are not found in healthy livestock in FMD free countries. Their presence indicates that the animal has been exposed to the virus. Such exposed animals could be diseased and infectious or they could be convalescent. It is also possible that a carrier state may develop in some animals which have FMD antibodies whereby the animal can carry the virus for prolonged periods and could possibly cause a recrudescence of disease. This is particularly so in the case of sheep. It is therefore essential that animals with FMD antibodies are promptly culled as part of the control mechanisms in place to eradicate FMD.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farms in Worcestershire have not yet been cleaned and disinfected

  Table 1: Number of premises infected with foot and mouth disease and number of animals slaughtered on infected premises by constituency

  Number of animals slaughtered on infected premises

  Constituency

  Number of infected premises

  Cattle

  Sheep

  Pigs

  Goats

  Deer

  Other

  Total

  Aberavon County

  1

  416

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  418

  Banbury County

  1

  0

  537

  0

  0

  0

  0

  537

  Basildon Borough

  1

  31

  0

  37

  0

  0

  0

  68

  Berwick-upon-Tweed County

  20

  2,954

  23,966

  13

  4

  0

  0

  26,937

  Bishop Auckland County

  44

  4,194

  19,481

  2,808

  13

  0

  0

  26,496

  Blyth Valley Borough

  1

  0

  2,000

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2,000

  Bosworth County

  4

  550

  112

  6

  0

  0

  0

  668

  Bradford South Borough

  2

  155

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  155

  Braintree County

  1

  5

  493

  0

  9

  0

  1

  508

  Brecon and Radnorshire County

  45

  2,608

  34,243

  2

  22

  0

  0

  36,875

  Brentwood and Ongar County

  2

  206

  0

  308

  0

  0

  0

  514

  Bridgwater County

  2

  36

  55

  0

  0

  0

  0

  91

  Bristol North West Borough

  1

  0

  5

  1

  8

  0

  0

  14

  Bromsbrove County

  2

  253

  83

  0

  0

  0

  0

  336

  Burton County

  20

  2,354

  2,515

  62

  7

  0

  0

  4,938

  Caerphilly County

  1

  127

  363

  0

  0

  0

  0

  490

  Cannock Chase County

  2

  131

  243

  0

  0

  0

  0

  374

  Carlisle Borough

  72

  17,622

  17,953

  0

  19

  0

  0

  35,594

  Chorley County

  1

  0

  988

  0

  0

  0

  0

  988

  City of Durham County

  3

  410

  1,099

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1,509

  Congleton County

  2

  0

  1,961

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1,961

  Copeland County

  9

  791

  7,411

  8

  1

  0

  0

  8,211

  Crewe and Nantwich County

  1

  158

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  163

  Cynon Valley County

  1

  112

  994

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1,106

  Devizes County

  9

  151

  2,628

  0

  2

  0

  0

  2,781

  Dover County

  2

  0

  2,446

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2,446

  Dumfries County

  137

  24,586

  64,131

  136

  155

  0

  0

  89,008

  East Devon County

  1

  125

  2,109

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2,234

  Eddisbury County

  4

  650

  1,297

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1,947

  Forest of Dean County

  48

  2,987

  14,121

  153

  0

  0

  0

  17,261

  Galloway and Upper Nithsdale County

  39

  9,986

  22,331

  55

  0

  0

  0

  32,372

  Hereford County

  31

  3,461

  33,019

  48

  3

  0

  0

  36,531

  Hexham County

  64

  7,603

  35,887

  524

  1

  0

  0

  44,015

  Hyndburn Borough

  2

  5

  752

  0

  0

  0

  0

  777

  Islwyn County

  1

  46

  74

  0

  0

  0

  0

  120

  Keighley County

  3

  263

  243

  0

  0

  0

  0

  506

  Lancaster and Wyre County

  2

  457

  49

  0

  0

  0

  0

  506

  Leigh County

  1

  47

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  47

  Leominster County

  13

  947

  5,456

  4

  0

  0

  0

  6,407

  Lichfield County

  6

  201

  2,314

  1

  0

  0

  0

  2,516

  Ludlow County

  8

  1,184

  4,074

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5,258

  Macclesfield County

  2

  179

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  179

  Maldon and East Chelmsford County

  1

  0

  604

  2

  0

  0

  0

  606

  Medway County

  2

  162

  765

  0

  0

  0

  0

  927

  736W
  after an outbreak of foot and mouth disease; and if she will make a statement. [24455]

  Mr. Morley
  Of the 132 premises in Worcestershire affected by Foot and Mouth disease, secondary cleansing and disinfection has been completed on 130. Significant work has been undertaken on the remaining two premises, but in both cases has been halted. No other premises in Worcestershire will require cleansing and disinfection.

  Nationally, the secondary cleansing and disinfection operation is well advanced with 88 per cent. of premises subject to secondary C and D now complete, a further 7 per cent. in progress and only 1 per cent. to start. 4 per cent. of premises will not undergo secondary C and D.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many foot and mouth cases there were, broken down by(a) farm and (b) animals slaughtered, by category, in each (i) constituency and (ii) local authority in 2001. [24900]

  Mr. Morley
  The information requested is presented in the following two tables:
  737W

  Table 1: Number of premises infected with foot and mouth disease and number of animals slaughtered on infected premises by constituency

  Number of animals slaughtered on infected premises

  Constituency

  Number of infected premises

  Cattle

  Sheep

  Pigs

  Goats

  Deer

  Other

  Total

  Mid Worcestershire County

  6

  421

  6,819

  0

  0

  0

  0

  7,240

  Monmouth County

  23

  1,876

  12,828

  587

  0

  0

  0

  15,291

  Montgomeryshire County

  25

  2,361

  9,059

  0

  0

  0

  0

  11,420

  Morecambe and Lunesdale County

  8

  1,726

  2,440

  0

  1

  0

  0

  4,167

  Newcastle upon Tyne North Borough

  6

  379

  628

  134

  0

  0

  0

  1,141

  Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough

  1

  157

  150

  0

  0

  0

  0

  307

  Newport West County

  3

  463

  2,123

  3

  4

  0

  0

  2,593

  North Cornwall County

  3

  313

  1,726

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2,039

  North Devon County

  40

  4,280

  27,118

  1

  3

  0

  0

  31,402

  North Essex County

  2

  96

  2,565

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2,663

  North Shropshire County

  4

  512

  1,621

  3

  3

  0

  0

  2,139

  North West Durham County

  37

  4,941

  18,768

  50

  26

  0

  0

  23,785

  North West Leicestershire County

  1

  0

  1,506

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1,506

  Northampton South Borough

  1

  0

  558

  0

  0

  0

  0

  558

  Northavon County

  3

  116

  35

  5,490

  0

  0

  0

  5,641

  Nuneaton County

  2

  429

  1,025

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1,454

  Oxford West and Abingdon County

  1

  0

  266

  0

  0

  0

  0

  266

  Pendle Borough

  3

  540

  647

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1,187

  Penrith and The Border County

  642

  113,945

  302,176

  2,278

  115

  20

  0

  418,534

  Pudsey Borough

  1

  75

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  75

  Rayleigh County

  3

  26

  489

  1,064

  4

  0

  0

  1,583

  Redditch Borough

  2

  3

  153

  16

  0

  0

  0

  172

  Ribble Valley County

  37

  5,378

  13,586

  10

  6

  0

  133

  19,113

  Richmond (Yorks) County

  40

  5,292

  19,477

  1,380

  0

  0

  0

  26,149

  Roxburgh and Berwickshire County

  11

  1,012

  9,590

  4

  37

  2

  0

  10,645

  Rutland and Melton County

  1

  0

  179

  0

  0

  0

  0

  179

  Ryedale County

  1

  160

  2,311

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2,471

  Scarborough and Whitby County

  19

  2,072

  5,313

  3

  2

  0

  0

  7,390

  Sedgefield County

  9

  1,020

  3,774

  29

  0

  0

  0

  4,823

  Shrewsbury and Atcham County

  3

  137

  1,340

  319

  0

  0

  0

  1,796

  Sittingbourne and Sheppey County

  1

  0

  347

  0

  0

  0

  0

  347

  Skipton and Ripon County

  62

  7,608

  41,558

  16

  17

  0

  104

  49,303

  South Derbyshire County

  8

  610

  782

  0

  34

  0

  0

  1,426

  South East Cornwall County

  1

  69

  236

  70

  0

  0

  0

  375

  South Staffordshire County

  5

  105

  2,870

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2,975

  South West Devon County

  1

  443

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  443

  Stafford County

  3

  298

  794

  1,848

  0

  0

  0

  2,940

  Stockton South Borough

  4

  870

  2,325

  0

  1

  0

  0

  3,196

  Stone County

  6

  200

  2,049

  1,400

  1

  0

  0

  3,650

  Stroud County

  12

  2,053

  1,263

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3,316

  Tamworth County

  2

  0

  2,889

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2,889

  Tatton County

  7

  629

  1,106

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1,735

  Taunton County

  5

  249

  1,202

  0

  358

  0

  0

  1,809

  Tewkesbury County

  12

  815

  4,714

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5,529

  The Wrekin County

  1

  0

  271

  584

  0

  0

  0

  855

  Tiverton and Honiton County

  9

  1,004

  4,233

  22

  5

  0

  6

  5,270

  Torridge and West Devon County

  122

  19,112

  48,497

  1,653

  4

  0

  0

  69,266

  Upminster Borough

  1

  198

  0

  6

  0

  0

  0

  204

  Vale of York

  11

  1,065

  4,138

  5

  8

  3

  0

  5,219

  Wansbeck County

  3

  606

  3,287

  4

  3

  0

  0

  3,900

  Warrington North Borough

  1

  371

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  375

  Wells County

  1

  0

  619

  0

  0

  0

  0

  619

  West Worcestershire County

  4

  0

  9,062

  0

  0

  0

  0

  9,062

  Westmorland and Lonsdale County

  18

  1,842

  12,875

  0

  0

  0

  0

  14,717

  Workington County

  152

  33,509

  44,186

  8

  3

  0

  0

  77,706

  Wyre Forest County

  8

  975

  2,115

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3,090

  Ynys Mon County

  13

  636

  7,296

  5

  0

  0

  0

  7,937

  Total

  2,026

  307,170

  953,792

  21,162

  879

  25

  249

  1,283,277

  Number of animals slaughtered on infected premises

  Constituency

  Description

  Number of infected premises

  Cattle

  Sheep

  Pigs

  Goats

  Deer

  Other

  Total

  Bradford District

  Metropolitan District

  5

  418

  243

  0

  0

  0

  0

  661

  Caerffili-Caerphilly

  Unitary Authority

  2

  173

  437

  0

  0

  0

  0

  610

  Casnewydd-Newport

  Unitary Authority

  3

  463

  2,123

  3

  4

  0

  0

  2,593

  Castell-Nedd Port Talbot-Neath Port Talbot

  Unitary Authority

  1

  416

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  418

  738W

  739W

  Number of animals slaughtered on infected premises

  Constituency

  Description

  Number of infected premises

  Cattle

  Sheep

  Pigs

  Goats

  Deer

  Other

  Total

  Cheshire County

  County

  16

  1,616

  4,364

  0

  0

  0

  5

  5,985

  City of Bristol

  Unitary Authority

  1

  0

  5

  1

  8

  0

  0

  14

  Cornwall County

  County

  4

  382

  1,962

  70

  0

  0

  0

  2,414

  County of Herefordshire

  Unitary Authority

  44

  4,408

  38,475

  52

  3

  0

  0

  42,938

  Cumbria County

  County

  893

  167,709

  384,601

  2,294

  138

  20

  0

  554,762

  Darlington

  Unitary Authority

  8

  1,012

  3,049

  29

  0

  0

  0

  4,090

  Derbyshire County

  County

  8

  610

  782

  0

  34

  0

  0

  1,426

  Devon County

  County

  173

  24,964

  81,957

  1,676

  12

  0

  6

  108,615

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Unitary Authority

  176

  34,572

  86,462

  191

  155

  0

  0

  121,380

  Durham County

  County

  85

  9,553

  40,073

  2,858

  39

  0

  0

  52,523

  Essex County

  County

  9

  333

  4,151

  1,376

  13

  0

  1

  5,874

  Gloucestershire County

  County

  72

  5,855

  20,098

  153

  0

  0

  0

  26,106

  Greater London Authority

  Greater London Authority

  1

  198

  0

  6

  0

  0

  0

  204

  Kent County

  County

  3

  0

  2,793

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2,793

  Lancashire County

  County

  53

  8,126

  18,462

  10

  7

  0

  133

  26,738

  Leeds District

  Metropolitan District

  1

  75

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  75

  Leicestershire County

  County

  6

  550

  1,797

  6

  0

  0

  0

  2,353

  Medway

  Unitary Authority

  2

  162

  765

  0

  0

  0

  0

  927

  Newcastle upon Tyne District

  Metropolitan District

  6

  379

  628

  134

  0

  0

  0

  1,141

  North Yorkshire County

  County

  133

  16,197

  72,797

  1,404

  27

  3

  104

  90,532

  Northamptonshire County

  County

  1

  0

  558

  0

  0

  0

  0

  558

  Northumberland County

  County

  88

  11,163

  65,140

  541

  8

  0

  0

  76,852

  Oxfordshire County

  County

  2

  0

  803

  0

  0

  0

  0

  803

  Powys-Powys

  Unitary Authority

  70

  4,969

  43,302

  2

  22

  0

  0

  48,295

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taf-Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  Unitary Authority

  1

  112

  994

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1,106

  Scottish Borders

  Unitary Authority

  11

  1,012

  9,590

  4

  37

  2

  0

  10,645

  Shropshire County

  County

  15

  1,833

  7,035

  322

  3

  0

  0

  9,193

  Sir Fynwy-Monmouthshire

  Unitary Authority

  23

  1,876

  12,828

  587

  0

  0

  0

  15,291

  Sir Ynys Mon-Isle of Anglesey

  Unitary Authority

  13

  636

  7,296

  5

  0

  0

  0

  7,937

  Somerset County

  County

  8

  285

  1,876

  0

  358

  0

  0

  2,519

  South Gloucestershire

  Unitary Authority

  3

  116

  35

  5,490

  3

  0

  0

  5,641

  Staffordshire County

  County

  45

  3,446

  13,824

  3,311

  8

  0

  0

  20,589

  Stockton-on-Tees

  Unitary Authority

  4

  870

  2,325

  0

  1

  0

  0

  3,196

  Telford and Wrekin

  Unitary Authority

  1

  0

  271

  584

  0

  0

  0

  855

  Thurrock

  Unitary Authority

  1

  31

  0

  37

  0

  0

  0

  68

  Warrington

  Unitary Authority

  1

  371

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  375

  Warwickshire County

  County

  2

  429

  1,025

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1,454

  Wigan District

  Metropolitan District

  1

  47

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  47

  Wiltshire County

  County

  9

  151

  2,628

  0

  2

  0

  0

  2,781

  Worcestershire County

  County

  22

  1,652

  18,232

  16

  0

  0

  0

  19,900

  Total

  2,026

  307,170

  953,792

  21,162

  879

  25

  249

  1,283,277

  Note:

  Figures subject to revision as more data become available

  Source:

  DEFRA Disease Control system Database as at 21 December 2001

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the Institute of Animal Health's polymerase chain reaction test for the foot and mouth disease virus in livestock; and if she will make a statement. [25196]

  Mr. Morley
  The Institute of Animal Health at Pirbright has improved the speed of Foot and Mouth Disease diagnosis using polymerase chain reaction methods. This system involves the automated extraction of nucleic acid from tissues and robotic control of the reverse transcription reactions using a probe and primers capable of detecting all seven serotypes of Foot and Mouth Disease viral RNA. The results can be available in around four hours when fewer than 30 samples are tested. The sensitivity and specificity of the method is comparable with virus isolation in cell culture which takes several days.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will list by county(a) the number and (b) the location of individual burial pits containing the carcases of livestock slaughtered as a result of foot and mouth disease control measures; [25194]
  740W
  (2) what her Department's policy is on the publication of the location of burial pits containing the carcases of livestock slaughtered as a result of foot and mouth disease control measures. [25193]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department's policy is to make available the locations and addresses of premises on which individual burial pits are sited only to third parties with a legitimate interest in the information. This interest may for example include environmental monitoring or farmer support.

  If an individual site owner consents to unlimited disclosure, the name and address of the owner and location of the site can be made publicly available.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when Dr. Iain Anderson's Lessons Learned Inquiry into the foot and mouth outbreak is to start; and if she will make a statement. [23915]

  Margaret Beckett
  Dr. Iain Anderson's Lessons Learned Inquiry into the foot and mouth outbreak launched its framework document on 14 December, marking the formal start of this independent inquiry.
  741W
  The Prime Minister has confirmed that he expects all Ministers and civil servants to cooperate fully with the inquiry.

  I welcome the start of the Lessons Learned Inquiry. This inquiry, and the Royal Society's independent scientific review, will be rigorous investigations of all the relevant scientific and policy issues and will enable us to establish the best way forward. We are contributing fully to the independent inquiry process.

  Mr. MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) infected premises and (b) contiguous premises there were from which samples were taken during the foot and mouth disease outbreak; what was the total number of premises recorded by region in each category; how many animals in each category were culled; and, of those culled, how many returned positive tests. [16055]

  Mr. Morley
  I will place the information requested in the Library of the House today.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the value is of the(a) VAT and (b) council tax deferred as a result of the economic impact of foot and mouth disease for which payment is being sought. [20908]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]There has been no change in the Government's policy on the collection of taxes due from businesses affected by foot and mouth disease. A total of £202 million of payments of income tax, VAT and national insurance contributions (of which £88 million relates to VAT) have been deferred by agreement beyond their due date without interest becoming payable. Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue continue to take a sympathetic approach, on a case-by-case basis, to recovery of the outstanding amounts.

  No records are held centrally of any council tax payments that local authorities may have agreed to defer. Partial information is available on deferred business rate payments: a survey by the Local Government Association shows that 101 local authorities have deferred rate payments from nearly 6,000 businesses, and, based on information from 54 of those authorities, estimates the value of deferred payments in their areas at around £2 million. To help authorities meet the demand to defer rate payments, the Government deferred 50 per cent. of all payments into the national rate pool from 151 rural authorities between April and August 2001.

  British Meat
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with the Ministry of Defence to bring about an increase in the proportion of British meat supplied to the UK armed forces; what role her Department takes in developing the core list of food products available to the armed forces; and if she will make a statement. [16035]

  Mr. Morley
  My noble Friend Lord Whitty is currently discussing with his ministerial colleagues at the Ministry of Defence their procurement policies for meat. However, the decision as to what food products to buy for the armed forces is for the Ministry of Defence.
  742W

  Sheep Annual Premium
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact on farm(a) cash flow and (b) livelihoods in the Macclesfield constituency of delays in the despatch of sheep annual premium to farmers who have had a partial contiguous cull of sheep as a result of foot and mouth disease; and if she will make a statement. [15809]

  Mr. Morley
  The Sheep Annual Premium Scheme is fully funded by the European Community. In administering the scheme member states must ensure that the rules are strictly enforced to avoid disallowance of Community funding. We are conscious of the need to pay claims without undue delay, but this must be balanced with the need to safeguard taxpayers' money.

  European Community rules for farmers affected by FMD require claims to be cross-checked against veterinary records to ensure that the animals culled were eligible for premium. The majority of FMD affected claims have been paid their first advance of the premium from late July as usual. There are some cases where we require further information from claimants on the number of eligible sheep retained, including those where only part of the flock has been culled due to FMD. None of these are in the Macclesfield area.

  Additionally, claim processing on all schemes has been affected by the diversion of staff to FMD duties and industrial action.

  Fair Trade
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her Department's policy is in relation to departmental spending for supplies concerning the purchase of fair trade goods. [15205]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]The Department's procurement policy is to achieve value for money. On the matter of fair trade policy I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn) on 16 November 2001,Official Report, column 931W.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government's negotiating position on a draft Directive to control the use of animals in experiments in the EU. [17756]

  Mr. Meacher
  I am not aware of any proposals for a Directive to control the use of animals in experiments in the EU. There are, however, proposals for new legislation to improve the control of hazardous chemicals. These proposals, which were described in the answer given to the right hon. Member on 28 November 2001,Official Report, column 1026W, are very welcome except that they have the potential to increase animal testing. We intend to avoid excessive animal testing resulting from this new legislation by pressing for companies to share data arising from animal testing, by prioritising the testing

  743W
  programme to focus of on chemicals of greatest concern, and by making decisions, wherever possible, based on information not derived from animal testing.

  Classical Swine Fever
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many samples of imported meat have been tested for the classical swine fever virus in each month since testing began. [18413]

  Mr. Morley
  The tests are only carried out on illegally imported meat. To date four such samples have been tested, one in October 2000, two in November 2000 and one in January 2001. The virus isolation tests for classical swine fever proved negative in all cases.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many cases of classical swine fever there were in(a) 2000 and (b) 2001, broken down by (i) constituency and (ii) local authority. [24901]

  Mr. Morley
  There were 16 cases of classical swine fever in the UK in 2000, as follows:

  UK

  Number of cases

  County council

  Suffolk

  7

  Norfolk

  8

  Essex

  1

  Total

  16

  District council

  Suffolk, Coastal

  4

  Waveney

  3

  South Norfolk

  4

  Breckland

  3

  Broadland

  1

  Colchester

  1

  Total

  16

  Constituency

  Suffolk, Coastal

  6

  Waveney

  1

  South Norfolk

  4

  South-West Norfolk

  1

  Mid-Norfolk

  3

  Colchester

  1

  Total

  16

  There were no cases of classical swine fever in the UK in 2001.

  Ministerial Visits (North-East)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many times Ministers from her Department have visited(a) the Teesside area and (b) Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency to meet locally based businesses. [19067]

  Mr. Morley
  Since the creation of the Department there have as yet been no visits by DEFRA Ministers to(a) the Teesside area, or (b) Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency to meet with locally based business.
  744W

  Dioxin Inhalation
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what action is being taken by her Department to compensate the workers at Dagenham for damage to their health from the inhalation of dioxins from recycled ash; [20762]

  (2) what assessment her Department has made of the effect of inhaling the level of dioxins found in fly ash at Edmonton. [20759]

  Mr. Meacher
  Two independent health risk assessments have so far been carried out, one for the Environment Agency, and the other by consultants for the London borough of Barking and Dagenham. Neither found the ash pile to pose a serious health risk. I understand that no medical evidence has been presented to support allegations of damage to health. Therefore the question of compensation does not arise.

  The Department of Health has advised that no health impacts would be expected as a result of non-occupational exposure to the Edmonton ash at Dagenham. This advice takes into account the highest levels of dioxins measured in the ash pile.

  Edmonton Incinerator
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if(a) her Department and (b) the Environment Agency advised Tarmac that it was safe for them to use fly ash from the Edmonton incinerator. [20764]

  Mr. Meacher
  Neither the Department nor the Environment Agency can find any record of advising Tarmac on the safety of using fly ash from the Edmonton incinerator. I understand from Tarmac that they have no record of such advice.

  Contaminated Meat Imports
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much infected meat has been imported into the UK from countries where foot and mouth disease is endemic since 1 February. [20777]

  Mr. Morley
  None. EU and UK import rules do not permit entry of infected meat into the UK, and controls are in place to ensure that meat presented for checking on import is certified free of disease, including foot and mouth. When illegally imported meat is identified it is destroyed. It is not routinely tested for presence of disease agents. To our knowledge no imported meat infected with foot and mouth has ever been identified in the UK, including from countries where the disease is endemic.

  Sheep and Cattle Subsidies
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on what grounds she will not provide a breakdown by name or holding of those who are claiming subsidy for sheep or cattle. [20714]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 December 2001]It is not possible for this level of detailed personal information to be released for reasons of confidentiality and data protection.
  745W

  Refrigerator Disposal
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to give financial assistance to retailers to help dispose of old fridges and freezers. [21525]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]None. However, the Department has announced a payment of £6 million to local authorities to cover their costs of storing and disposing of fridges and freezers until March 2002.

  Cattle Slaughter
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many heifers will be slaughtered at or near birth in 2001; and if she will make a statement. [21853]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]It is likely that few, if any, heifers will be slaughtered at or near birth. Heifer calves are usually retained as replacement animals in dairy or suckler cow herds, or raised and fattened for slaughter at 18 months or more of age.

  Fish Stocks
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what initiatives she plans to protect global fish stocks from the effects of overfishing. [22450]

  Mr. Morley
  The UK argues that EU decisions on the management and technical conservation of fish stocks should be in accordance with sound science. We have supported recovery plans for stocks where the science indicates this to be necessary and will continue to do so.

  More globally, the UK plays a prominent role in various Regional Fisheries Organisations (RFOs), supports efforts to increase RFOs' effectiveness and to create new ones, and supports full implementation of the UN Fisheries Agreement through RFOs.

  In relation to EU Fisheries Agreements with third countries, the UK has played a leading role in pressing for improved EU arrangements for negotiating and managing the Agreements and monitoring their effect. One of the aspects in need of improvement is the assessment of stocks and of the effect on them of fishing under the Agreements. We are pressing for there to be a comprehensive debate on the approach to these Agreements within the framework of the forthcoming review of the Common Fisheries Policy.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment was made of the implications for(a) fish stocks and (b) the local fishing economy before the EU reached its recent agreement with the Government of Mauritania on allowing EU registered trawlers to fish off that country's coastline. [22453]

  Mr. Morley
  Such assessments are the responsibility of the European Commission, who wrote an evaluation report on the previous EU-Mauritania Agreement which ran from 1996 to 2001, as they do on all third country fisheries agreements that come up for renegotiation.
  746W
  The Government have no independent insight into the workings of the EU-Mauritania Agreement but have repeatedly advanced the view on behalf of the UK that the EU's general approach to negotiating, managing and monitoring such agreements needs substantial improvement. In particular, improvement is needed in the areas of scientific assessment, impact monitoring, evaluation of effect and general coherence with overseas development policy. We shall continue to press for a proper debate on the EU's approach which we hope can be achieved in the context of the forthcoming review of the Common Fisheries Policy.

  Agrimonetary Compensation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farmers in the Buckingham constituency have received agrimonetary compensation since 1997; and what is the total amount that has been paid out. [22640]

  Mr. Morley
  Unfortunately, we cannot except at disproportionate cost calculate either the number of farmers who have received agrimonetary compensation, or figures restricted to the constituency of Buckingham. However, since 1997 a total amount of £6.3 million has been paid in agrimonetary compensation in the county of Buckinghamshire.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much has been spent by the Government in 2001 on encouraging CHP schemes. [22595]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government introduced a number of measures in April 2001 to help encourage CHP schemes, including:

  the exemption of good quality CHP used on site or sold to known end users from the climate change levy,

  eligibility of good quality CHP for enhanced capital allowances on investment in energy saving technologies, and

  exemption from business rates of the electricity generating plant and machinery in CHP schemes.

  The value of each of these to CHP operators will depend on their uptake, which it is too early to estimate. In addition, the Government funds a number of other activities that promote CHP with a combined estimated cost in 2001–02 of around £1.5 million. These include the CHP club and the CHP quality assurance programme.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress the Government have made towards reaching its CHP target of 10,000 MW by 2010. [22618]

  Mr. Meacher
  By the end of the year 2000 there were 1,556 CHP schemes in the UK with a combined good quality CHP capacity of 4,632 MW, producing 6 per cent. of the UK's electricity requirements and delivering an estimated 3.9 MtC of carbon savings annually. The UK's current good quality CHP capacity is estimated to be around 4,700 MW.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations the Government have received from industries on employment levels in the CHP sector. [22592]
  747W
  Mr. Meacher
  The Combined Heat and Power Association, and one of their members, recently came in to talk to me about the state of the CHP industry, including job losses and threats to jobs. In addition, a number of representations were made to me by senior members of the industry when I attended the recent CHPA annual conference. I am also aware that the Minister for Industry and Energy has received similar representations from the industry.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for each year since the introduction of NETA, by what percentage the export of power from CHP has changed compared with the preceding year. [22617]

  Mr. Meacher
  The new electricity trading arrangements, which are a matter for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Ofgem, were introduced on 27 March last year, and it is therefore too early to put a figure on the percentage of power from CHP compared with the preceding year. However, the recent report by the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, "Report to DTI on the Review of the Initial Impact of NETA on Smaller Generators", issued in August of this year, indicates that the export of power from CHP has reduced by around 60 per cent.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact on the viability of CHP of reducing the level of the climate change levy on CHP. [22596]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  The viability of combined heat and power is dependent on many factors—the relative prices of gas and electricity being the most important of those factors. However, as announced in the pre-Budget report, subject to legal and other constraints, the Government will consider the environmental case for providing more favourable treatment for CHP within the climate change levy.

  Protection of Animals Act
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will propose amendments to the Protection of Animals Act 1911 to allow earlier intervention by enforcement authorities. [22903]

  Mr. Morley
  The creation of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has brought together most animal welfare laws under one roof. This provides a unique opportunity for revising these laws, including the Protection of Animals Act 1911. I have begun the review process and I hope to shortly ask those involved with animals, including welfare and commercial interests, how they would like to improve the law.

  Broiler Chickens
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many and what type of(a) therapeutic and (b) non-therapeutic drugs were regularly given to chickens to prevent the spread of infection in the broiler chicken industry between 1995 and 2001. [22928]
  748W
  Mr. Morley
  The Veterinary Medicines Directorate does not hold data on the usage of veterinary medicinal products.

  Supermarkets
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about the Competition Commission's recommendation for a code of practice to be introduced governing the relationship between supermarkets and their suppliers; and when she expects the code to be introduced. [23060]

  Mr. Morley
  The Secretary of State has had no discussions with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about the code of practice, but we have been kept informed of progress on its development.

  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced on 18 December that she had accepted undertakings from the UK's major supermarkets to abide by the code and that it will come into effect from 17 March 2002.

  Milk
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact on farm gate milk prices of change to the temperature attained in the pasteurisation of milk process. [23064]

  Mr. Morley
  I am not aware of any proposals to change the temperature required for the pasteurisation of milk. However, in a recent consultation paper on their draft strategy for the control of "Mycobacterium avium" subspecies "paratuberculosis" in cow's milk the Food Standards Agency proposed that the pasteurisation time for milk should be increased from 15 to 25 seconds. I understand that most liquid milk production in the UK is already pasteurised for 25 seconds. Accordingly, I would expect this proposal to have little effect on the farmgate price of milk.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Health and the Chairman of the Food Standards Agency on changes in the pasteurisation of milk process; and what recent representations she has received from milk producer organisations regarding proposed increases in the temperature attained in the pasteurisation of milk. [23063]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not had any recent discussions with the Secretary of State for Health or the chairman of the Food Standards Agency on changes in the pasteurisation of milk process. Nor has she received any recent representations from milk producer organisations regarding proposed increases in the temperature attained in the pasteurisation of milk. My right hon. Friend is not aware of any proposals to change the temperature required for the pasteurisation of milk. However, a recent consultation paper on the Food Standards Agency draft strategy for the control of "Mycobacterium avium" subspecies "paratuberculosis" in cows' milk proposed that
  749W
  pasteurisation time for milk should be increased from 15 to 25 seconds. This practice is already observed in most dairies.

  Rhizomania
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what support her Department has given to(a) the development and (b) the dissemination of information on rhizomania-tolerant varieties of sugar beet. [23062]

  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA and the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have spent over one million pounds on research into rhizomania. Much of this research has been into the biology of the organisms which cause and spread the disease, essential information for those developing tolerant varieties. Included in this work are projects more specifically related to the development of tolerant varieties including investigation of the biology and control of Plasmodiophoraceous virus vectors, an investigation of the significance of resistance-breaking Beet Necrotic Yellow Vein Virus (BNYVV) pathotypes for the UK sugar beet industry, and a project which seeks to identify new sources of rhizomania resistance. Additionally, DEFRA has supported the use of new tolerant varieties by accepting an industry request to allow their use on outbreak farms, in fields in which the disease has not been found. However, the development and dissemination of information on new varieties is the task of the seeds industry. Given the widespread findings of the disease in many European countries, where it is managed through the use of tolerant varieties, inevitably much of this development work has been done in those countries.

  Laying Hens
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the future impact of the Welfare of Laying Hens Directive on the(a) operations and (b) profitability of the UK egg producing industry. [23066]

  Mr. Morley
  A partial regulatory impact assessment was produced to accompany the draft regulations to implement the Welfare of Laying Hens Directive during a recent public consultation exercise.

  The regulatory impact assessment is now being updated following consultation.

  Biosecurity
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she

  UK Imports of food, feed and drink from EC countries: October 2000-September 20011

  £ million

  Product group/type

  France

  Netherlands

  Irish Republic

  Germany

  Spain

  Italy

  Denmark

  Beverages

  Beer

  30

  35

  51

  54

  11

  7

  1

  Cider and other fermented beverages

  1

  3

  5

  7

  0

  0

  0

  Mineral water

  99

  43

  34

  17

  3

  8

  5

  Other spirits

  78

  12

  56

  4

  4

  89

  0

  750W
  has to link future claims for compensation for loss of livestock to the implementation of biosecurity recommendations. [23631]

  Mr. Morley
  The Animal Health Bill provides for the payment of compensation following infection with foot and mouth disease to be linked to good practice in maintaining adequate levels of biosecurity on affected farms. All farmers will qualify for 75 per cent. of market value, with the payment of any additional amount being subject to an assessment of biosecurity and related matters. Under this adjusted compensation scheme farmers will be incentivised to maintain effective biosecurity. This will benefit responsible farmers and the wider community by helping to limit the spread of disease.

  The Bill also provides powers to enable the extension of the provisions on adjusted compensation to other animal diseases, should we decide that it is necessary. This would be done by order, subject to affirmative resolution.

  Cattle Imports
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many cattle imports there have been in each of the last three years. [23698]

  Mr. Morley
  Estimates of number of cattle imported in the last three calendar years are given in the table. The majority of these imports are from the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland.

  UK live cattle imports

  Thousand

  1998

  8.6

  1999

  20

  2000

  27

  Source:

  HM Customs and DARD, Northern

  Prepared by: Statistics (Commodities and Economics and Statistics)

  Food Imports
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the food imports from each European Union country over the last 12 months, broken down by product. [23712]

  Mr. Morley
  The table shows the value of food, feed and drink imports from each of the European Union countries, over the most recent 12 months for which data are available, broken down by product.
  751W

  UK Imports of food, feed and drink from EC countries: October 2000–September 20011

  £ million

  Product group/type

  France

  Netherlands

  Irish Republic

  Germany

  Spain

  Italy

  Denmark

  Whisky

  1

  2

  10

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wine

  613

  8

  1

  81

  135

  187

  2

  Total

  822

  103

  158

  163

  153

  291

  8

  Cereals and Cereal Preparations

  Barley, unmilled

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Bread, crispbreads, savoury biscuits

  52

  41

  76

  54

  6

  22

  20

  Cereal, milled

  12

  1

  2

  1

  0

  2

  0

  Cereal, rolled or flaked

  21

  12

  1

  14

  4

  0

  1

  Mixes and doughs for baking

  7

  6

  5

  4

  0

  0

  4

  Other cereal (including maize), unmilled

  103

  4

  2

  4

  0

  0

  0

  Pasta uncooked

  0

  2

  1

  1

  0

  53

  0

  Rice

  8

  21

  1

  4

  14

  21

  0

  Sweet biscuits

  34

  19

  20

  25

  6

  21

  2

  Wheat, unmilled

  28

  4

  4

  10

  0

  5

  5

  Total

  267

  110

  116

  116

  31

  126

  32

  Coffee, Tea, Cocoa and Spices

  Chocolate

  43

  53

  108

  54

  2

  7

  3

  Cocoa

  10

  47

  0

  4

  1

  0

  1

  Coffee

  15

  18

  3

  68

  5

  7

  3

  Spices

  3

  7

  1

  4

  4

  0

  0

  Tea

  2

  1

  1

  3

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  73

  127

  113

  132

  11

  15

  7

  Dairy Products and Birds Eggs

  Butter

  9

  4

  46

  3

  0

  0

  110

  Cheese

  101

  31

  190

  55

  6

  56

  70

  Condensed milk

  0

  1

  0

  7

  0

  0

  0

  Eggs and egg products

  12

  14

  3

  9

  1

  2

  2

  Ice cream

  52

  3

  5

  11

  8

  5

  0

  Milk and cream

  6

  1

  18

  7

  0

  1

  5

  Milk powder

  5

  13

  15

  6

  0

  0

  0

  Other milk products

  7

  7

  10

  15

  0

  0

  2

  Yogurt

  14

  0

  4

  27

  2

  0

  3

  Total

  206

  74

  290

  141

  17

  65

  191

  Feedingstuffs for Animals

  Dog or cat food for retail

  42

  26

  23

  20

  4

  1

  5

  Flours, meals and pellets of meat, offal or fish

  1

  3

  6

  9

  0

  0

  3

  Oil cake

  4

  53

  3

  17

  0

  0

  0

  Other animal feedingstuffs

  7

  23

  15

  10

  1

  1

  1

  Total

  54

  105

  46

  56

  6

  2

  8

  Fish and Fish Preparations

  Crustaceans

  15

  7

  10

  6

  3

  1

  28

  Fish and crustaceans prepared or preserved

  6

  13

  4

  12

  17

  1

  17

  Fish fresh or chilled

  10

  3

  17

  0

  0

  0

  17

  Fish frozen

  3

  15

  2

  27

  7

  0

  55

  Fish live

  3

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Total

  35

  39

  33

  45

  29

  2

  116

  Meat and Meat Preparations

  Bacon and ham

  30

  232

  14

  8

  1

  13

  230

  Beef and veal

  5

  25

  157

  10

  2

  6

  5

  Beef products (inc. corned beef)

  4

  3

  46

  4

  0

  0

  2

  Edible offal and other meat

  3

  4

  4

  2

  0

  0

  6

  Lamb and mutton

  3

  2

  5

  1

  3

  0

  0

  Other meat products

  35

  57

  94

  11

  1

  8

  48

  Pork

  33

  42

  31

  29

  6

  1

  149

  Poultrymeat (inc. poultry offal)

  93

  270

  21

  44

  16

  13

  26

  Sausages and related products

  13

  15

  6

  29

  3

  16

  7

  Total

  219

  651

  376

  138

  31

  57

  473

  Miscellaneous Edible Products

  Infant food for retail

  7

  3

  66

  5

  1

  0

  0

  Margarine

  0

  12

  15

  1

  0

  3

  1

  Other food products and preparations

  55

  42

  137

  56

  5

  18

  11

  Pasta, cooked or stuffed

  4

  1

  3

  5

  0

  25

  0

  752W

  753W

  UK Imports of food, feed and drink from EC countries: October 2000-September 20011

  £ million

  Product group/type

  France

  Netherlands

  Irish Republic

  Germany

  Spain

  Italy

  Denmark

  Sauces, condiments, seasonings

  15

  71

  9

  17

  4

  30

  0

  Total

  82

  129

  231

  85

  11

  75

  13

  Oil Seeds and Oleaginous Fruits

  Oil seeds and oleaginous fruits

  27

  8

  3

  35

  0

  1

  3

  Total

  27

  8

  3

  35

  0

  1

  3

  Oils and Fats

  Animal oils and fats, not chemically modified

  4

  8

  4

  5

  0

  2

  9

  Processed fats and waxes

  3

  13

  1

  23

  1

  2

  8

  Vegetable oils and fats, soft, crude, refined or fraction

  36

  122

  2

  10

  24

  23

  2

  Total

  44

  143

  6

  38

  25

  27

  19

  Sugars, Sugar Preparations and Honey

  Honey

  0

  1

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Molasses

  0

  17

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Other beet or cane sugar

  21

  4

  23

  5

  0

  0

  1

  Other sugars

  28

  13

  0

  6

  0

  1

  0

  Raw beet or cane sugar

  3

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sugar confectionery

  16

  18

  14

  25

  32

  5

  1

  Total

  69

  54

  39

  39

  32

  7

  3

  Vegetables and Fruit

  Apples, fresh

  85

  11

  1

  2

  2

  11

  0

  Apricots, cherries, peaches, plums and sloes (fresh)

  15

  1

  1

  1

  38

  32

  0

  Bananas

  29

  14

  7

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Grapes, fresh or dried

  6

  9

  1

  2

  23

  8

  0

  Jams

  17

  16

  2

  29

  20

  24

  12

  Juice

  47

  58

  18

  45

  9

  10

  1

  Lemons and Limes

  1

  1

  0

  0

  16

  1

  0

  Lettuce and chicory, fresh or chilled

  16

  7

  0

  0

  73

  6

  0

  Mushrooms and truffles, fresh or chilled

  4

  25

  79

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Nuts

  1

  2

  0

  14

  3

  6

  0

  Oranges and Mandarins etc.

  1

  6

  0

  3

  98

  1

  0

  Other citrus fruit

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other fruit

  29

  24

  0

  8

  65

  15

  0

  Other vegetables, fresh or chilled

  55

  142

  7

  5

  188

  17

  1

  Other vegetables, prepared or preserved

  36

  23

  2

  13

  12

  33

  1

  Pears and quinces fresh

  2

  25

  0

  0

  2

  6

  0

  Potato products

  5

  105

  4

  10

  0

  3

  4

  Potatoes, fresh or chilled (inc. seed)

  21

  19

  2

  3

  10

  5

  0

  Tomatoes, fresh or chilled

  3

  79

  0

  1

  144

  4

  0

  Tomatoes, prepared or preserved

  1

  0

  0

  3

  6

  82

  0

  Vegetable, frozen or provisionally prepared

  16

  38

  9

  3

  16

  1

  1

  Total

  392

  606

  134

  145

  726

  266

  20

  Total Food, Feed and Drink

  2,287

  2,148

  1,546

  1,133

  1,072

  934

  894

  £ million

  Product group/type

  Belgium

  Greece

  Portugal

  Austria

  Sweden

  Finland

  Luxembourg

  Beverages

  Beer

  12

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cider and other fermented beverages

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Mineral water

  18

  0

  0

  55

  1

  0

  0

  Other spirits

  2

  0

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  Whisky

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wine

  5

  2

  39

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  39

  2

  40

  56

  5

  0

  0

  Cereals and Cereal Preparations

  Barley, unmilled

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Bread, crispbreads, savoury biscuits

  56

  0

  1

  0

  5

  3

  0

  Cereal, milled

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cereal, rolled or flaked

  12

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Mixes and doughs for baking

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Other cereal (including maize), unmilled

  13

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Pasta uncooked

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rice

  5

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  754W 755W

  £ million

  Product group/type

  Belgium

  Greece

  Portugal

  Austria

  Sweden

  Finland

  Luxembourg

  Sweet biscuits

  17

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  0

  Wheat, unmilled

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  109

  22

  2

  4

  9

  4

  0

  Coffee, Tea, Cocoa and Spices

  Chocolate

  57

  0

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  Cocoa

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Coffee

  8

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Spices

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tea

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  68

  0

  0

  2

  4

  0

  0

  Dairy Products and Birds Eggs

  Butter

  5

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Cheese

  62

  6

  0

  5

  0

  0

  0

  Condensed milk

  6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Eggs and egg products

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Ice cream

  6

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Milk and cream

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Milk powder

  2

  0

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  Other milk products

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Yogurt

  8

  6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  94

  12

  0

  6

  6

  1

  0

  Feedingstuffs for Animals

  Dog or cat food for retail

  29

  1

  2

  9

  0

  0

  0

  Flours, meals and pellets of meat, offal or fish

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Oil cake

  9

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other animal feedingstuffs

  6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  45

  1

  4

  9

  0

  0

  0

  Fish and Fish Preparations

  Crustaceans

  9

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Fish and crustaceans prepared or preserved

  0

  0

  7

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Fish fresh or chilled

  0

  5

  0

  0

  11

  0

  0

  Fish frozen

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Fish live

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  10

  5

  9

  0

  12

  0

  0

  Meat and Meat Preparations

  Bacon and ham

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Beef and veal

  4

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Beef products (inc. corned beef)

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Edible offal and other meat

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Lamb and mutton

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other meat products

  26

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Pork

  19

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Poultrymeat (inc. poultry offal)

  17

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sausages and related products

  6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  78

  1

  1

  1

  4

  0

  0

  Miscellaneous Edible Products

  Infant food for retail

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Margarine

  8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  Other food products and preparations

  21

  1

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  Pasta, cooked or stuffed

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sauces, condiments, seasonings

  14

  1

  4

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Total

  45

  1

  4

  1

  5

  3

  0

  Oil Seeds and Oleaginous Fruits

  Oil seeds and oleaginous fruits

  4

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  4

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Oils and Fats

  Animal oils and fats, not chemically modified

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Processed fats and waxes

  5

  0

  0

  0

  1

  7

  0

  Vegetable oils and fats, soft, crude, refined or fraction

  14

  4

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Total

  22

  4

  0

  0

  3

  7

  0

  756W 757W

  £ million

  Product group/type

  Belgium

  Greece

  Portugal

  Austria

  Sweden

  Finland

  Luxembourg

  Sugars, Sugar Preparations and Honey

  Honey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Molasses

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other beet or cane sugar

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other sugars

  12

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Raw beet or cane sugar

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sugar confectionery

  16

  1

  0

  0

  2

  1

  0

  Total

  33

  1

  0

  0

  2

  3

  0

  Vegetables and Fruit

  Apples, fresh

  2

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Apricots, cherries, peaches, plums and sloes (fresh)

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bananas

  32

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grapes, fresh or dried

  1

  43

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Jams

  10

  14

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Juice

  17

  0

  1

  14

  0

  0

  0

  Lemons and Limes

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lettuce and chicory, fresh or chilled

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Mushrooms and truffles, fresh or chilled

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Nuts

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Oranges and Mandarins etc.

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other citrus fruit

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other fruit

  11

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other vegetables, fresh or chilled

  7

  1

  6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other vegetables, prepared or preserved

  5

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Pears and quinces fresh

  8

  0

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Potato products

  25

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Potatoes, fresh or chilled (inc. seed)

  10

  0

  3

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Tomatoes, fresh or chilled

  6

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tomatoes, prepared or preserved

  0

  15

  18

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Vegetable, frozen or provisionally prepared

  44

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  183

  84

  41

  20

  1

  0

  0

  Total Food, Feed and Drink

  730

  116

  100

  99

  51

  19

  0

  1 2000–01 EU data are provisional and subject to amendment

  Source:

  HM Customs and Excise: Data prepared by Statistics (Commodities and Food) Accounts and Trade, ESD, DEFR

  Livestock Markets
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many livestock markets were open in England and Wales on 1 December; and if she will list them. [23710]

  Mr. Morley
  There were no livestock markets open in England and Wales for the auction and sale of live animals on 1 December 2001 although some were open as collecting centres for animal movements under licence.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many people were employed in her Department in each of the last four years. [23796]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 18 December 2001,Official Report, column 256W.

  Beef Imports
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much beef has been imported from Argentina in each of the last three years. [23711]
  758W
  Mr. Morley
  Overseas Trade Statistics show that the UK imports of beef from Argentina between 1998 and 2000 were as follows:

  Tonnes

  £000

  1998

  10,636

  18,341

  1999

  10,982

  17,897

  2000

  10,252

  19,143

  Source:

  HM Customs and Excise

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much beef was imported from New Zealand in each of the last three years. [23715]

  Mr. Morley
  Overseas Trade Statistics show that the UK imports of beef from New Zealand between 1998 and 2000 were as follows:

  Tonnes

  £000

  1998

  5,860

  8,321

  1999

  1,601

  1,766

  2000

  1,202

  1,401

  Source:

  HM Customs and Excise
  759W

  BSE
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her oral answer of 15 November 2001,Official Report, column 961, on BSE, what peer reviews the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee has used of the research work of Professor Ebringer on BSE. [23268]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 December 2001]The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee has invited Professor Ebringer to attend its next meeting in February 2002. The Committee, which comprises independent and eminent scientists in the field, will then review Professor Ebringer's work. Generally, research is not peer reviewed specifically for the purposes of aiding SEAC's deliberations. On this occasion, however, an independent scientist has been approached to review the work prior to SEAC's discussion.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what is(a) the target reduction of annual incidence of BSE for 2001 and (b) the actual figure for 2001. [24378]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has a Public Service Agreement (PSA) target for this area; that is to reduce the annual incidence of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) to less than 650 cases by 2001 and by 2004 be on track for fewer than 30 cases by 2006, a 99 per cent. reduction compared with 1997 when there were 4,312 cases.

  The actual figure for 2001 is likely to be around 750 confirmed BSE cases in cattle presented as clinical suspects. Progress against the PSA target has been affected by movement restrictions introduced to deal with the foot and mouth disease outbreak. This has disrupted the slaughter of older cattle under the over-30-months scheme (OTMS) because available rendering capacity has been used to dispose of the carcases of animals arising from the control of foot and mouth disease. This, in turn, has increased the mean age of the cattle population and resulted in more cases than previously anticipated. Nevertheless, the outturn for 2001 still represents a reduction of more than 40 per cent. compared to 2000 (1,311 cases in cattle presented as clinical suspects), so that the epidemic continues rapidly to decline. There is no particular concern at present in relation to the 2004 and 2006 targets.

  Westlake Farm, Devon
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what the gross costs are for the acquisition of the land used as a holding/transit area for carcases at Westlake Farm, Oakford, Devon; [23534]

  (2) what the gross costs are for the construction of the holding/transit area for carcases at Westlake Farm, Oakford, Devon. [23535]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 December 2001]The site at Westlake Farm was not purchased. Negotiations are ongoing with the owner over the terms of the rental arrangements and about reinstatement of the site, taking into account of the council's requirements. Construction costs for the holding facility were £668,640.
  760W

  Farms (Buckingham)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on recent trends in farm incomes in the constituency of Buckingham. [23740]

  Mr. Morley
  Information on UK farm incomes was published on 29 November 2001. Total Income from Farming (TIFF) is forecast to increase by 15 per cent. in real terms in 2001, compared with 2000. There are no plans to publish farm incomes data for the constituency of Buckingham.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farmers in the constituency of Buckingham have received free consultancy advice from the Farm Business Advice Service. [23739]

  Mr. Morley
  Management Information for the Farm Business Advice Service is collected by Business Link region and we are unable to provide figures for the constituency of Buckingham. However, figures for the Business Link region of Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire show that in the year since the launch of the service in October 2000, 95 farms have received a first visit and 85 farms have completed the full three days resulting in an Action Plan.

  Government Grants (Buckingham)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many people in the constituency of Buckingham have received funding from the(a) rural enterprise scheme, (b) processing and marketing grants scheme, and (c) vocational training scheme since their introduction, indicating the level of funding received from each scheme. [23742]

  Mr. Morley
  Since the introduction of the rural enterprise, processing and marketing grants, and vocational training schemes, four projects have been approved in Buckinghamshire. Two were under RES, attracting total funding of £58,054 and two under VTS, attracting total funding of £34,483.

  Mink Farms
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if the costs awarded to MAFF following the case of MAFF v. TT Smith (Mink) Ltd. (11 March 1999) have been paid by the defendant. [23179]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 December 2001]The fine of £5,000 has been paid but the costs of £10,000 remain unpaid. Enforcement of payment is a responsibility of the magistrates court and we are pressing them to enforce payment.

  Game Rearing Farms
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many official inspections of game rearing farms have been carried out in each year from 1995 to date. [23188]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 December 2001]No. There are no statistics for inspections of game rearing farms.
  761W

  Animal Slaughter (Jedburgh)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the number and type of each animal slaughtered at(a) Beirhope farm, Jedburgh and (b) Renniestone, Jedburgh and on (i) contiguous premises and (ii) 3 km premises in April. [23260]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 17 December 2001]900 sheep were slaughtered at Beirhope farm, Jedburgh and 1,766 sheep were slaughtered at Renniestone, Jedburgh.

  1,706 cattle and 2,550 sheep were slaughtered on premises contiguous to Beirhope farm and 2,991 cattle and 10,797 sheep were slaughtered on premises contiguous to Renniestone.

  2,624 sheep were slaughtered within the 3 km zone surrounding Beirhope farm and 35 cattle and 5,205 sheep were slaughtered within the 3 km zone surrounding Renniestone.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many premises were tested for evidence of foot and mouth disease as a result of the outbreaks at(a) Beirhope farm, Jedburgh and (b) Renniestone, Jedburgh in April; and what the result of the tests was. [23258]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 17 December 2001]Animals on both Beirhope farm and Renniestone were tested for foot and mouth disease and the test results were positive, confirming the disease in both cases. No tests were conducted on animals on the contiguous premises or on premises within the 3 km area surrounding each farm.

  A total of 92 premises located in the area between 3 and 10 km from both farms were tested for foot and mouth disease. As both farms are in the same ownership separate records of this surveillance blood testing were not kept. All of these tests were negative. However, a negative result does not guarantee that there are no traces of virus present.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) contiguous and (b) 3 kilometre premises were slaughtered out following outbreaks of foot and mouth disease at (i) Beirhope farm, Jedburgh and (ii) Renniestone, Jedburgh in April. [23261]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 17 December 2001]There are six premises contiguous to Beirhope farm, Jedburgh and nine premises contiguous to Renniestone, Jedburgh. Animals on a further four premises were included in the 3 km cull surrounding Beirhope farm and a further 15 premises were included in the 3 km cull surrounding Renniestone.

  Plaice
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if the present minimum landing size for plaice in all sea areas will continue during 2002. [23272]
  762W
  Mr. Morley
  Yes. The EU minimum landing size of 27 cm which had been extended by derogation (from the original 22 cm) from 1 January 2000 was made permanent in May 2001.

  Forests
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the change in the level of forest cover has been in the UK since May 1997. [23958]

  Mr. Morley
  The level of forest cover in the UK is estimated to have increased by approximately 70,000 hectares since May 1997.

  Abattoirs
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to promote the use of small local abattoirs. [23964]

  Mr. Morley
  Despite the reduction in abattoir numbers over recent years there remains considerable over-capacity in the slaughtering sector and a reasonable spread of abattoirs across the country. As we announced in the Rural White Paper last year, Agriculture Departments in England, Scotland and Wales have agreed to transfer £8.7 million to the Food Standards Agency for the three financial years 2001–02 to 2003–04; this has enabled the FSA significantly to reduce inspection charges levied on many small and medium-sized meat plants. This will have positive benefits for small and medium-sized abattoirs. It is, however, too early to assess how the revised charging system will affect their profitability or future operation. The Policy Commission for Food and Farming will no doubt be considering the number and spread of abattoirs and we will consider carefully any recommendations in this area that it might make.

  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proposals she has to encourage the provision of local abattoirs. [23934]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 18 December 2001]Despite the reduction in abattoir numbers over recent years there remains considerable over-capacity in the slaughtering sector and a reasonable spread of abattoirs across the country. As we announced in the Rural White Paper last year, Agriculture Departments in England, Scotland and Wales have agreed to transfer £8.7 million to the Food Standards Agency for the three financial years 2001–02 to 2003–04; this has enabled the FSA significantly to reduce inspection charges levied on many small and medium-sized meat plants. This will have positive benefits for small and medium-sized abattoirs. It is, however, too early to assess how the revised charging system will affect their profitability or future operation. The Policy Commission for Food and Farming will no doubt be considering the number and spread of abattoirs and we will consider carefully any recommendations in this area that it might make.

  Bovine Respiratory Disease
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she is taking to ensure effective protection against bovine respiratory disease, and its most commonly involved bacteria, pasteurella haemolytica. [24015]
  763W
  Mr. Morley
  In the UK, two bovine respiratory diseases are notifiable. These are contagious bovine pleuropneumonia and bovine tuberculosis. Regulations require that the incidence of these diseases is reported so that investigation and action can be implemented. Contagious bovine pleuropneumonia is not present in the UK and cattle imports are subject to international regulations designed to reduce the risk of importing this condition. Bovine tuberculosis is present in the UK and subject to regulation. Measures are in place to protect human health and to control the disease in cattle. These include requirements for notification, surveillance, slaughter with compensation, pasteurisation of milk and meat inspection. Other forms of bovine respiratory disease, including that caused by pasteurella haemolytica, are dealt with on a case-by-case basis and the appropriate control is a matter for the cattle owner and his or her veterinary surgeon.

  Animal Movements
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on lifting animal movement restrictions in Wales. [24017]

  Mr. Morley
  Animal movement restrictions in England and Wales were introduced to help combat the spread of disease. They are developed on the basis of scientific and veterinary advice and have been applied in accordance with the designation of each county. All of Wales is now designated 'free' and benefits from the least restrictive animal movement regulations.

  We have announced that around mid-February these movement restrictions are to be further relaxed and that final details of these changes will be published in the new year.

  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she plans to take to encourage the export of sheepmeat rather than live sheep and lambs; and if she will make a statement. [23931]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 18 December 2001]We regularly confirm our view that trade in meat is preferable to the long distance movement of live animals. We are pleased to see the efforts the meat industry is making to develop meat exports after the FMD outbreak and we are convinced that this is the best way forward.

  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to discourage the long distance transport of live animals between farms, markets and abattoirs. [23932]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 18 December 2001]The Government would prefer a trade in meat rather than in the long distance transport of animals for slaughter. This is a matter that will be considered when the European Commission produces its proposals to update and improve the present EU rules on the protection of animals during transport.

  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she proposes to reduce the number of journeys undertaken by live animals between farms, markets and abattoirs. [23933]
  764W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 18 December 2001]Markets have been closed during the foot and mouth disease (FMD) outbreak and are expected to open progressively through the interim animal movement regime in 2002. To reduce the risk of spreading disease through the frequent movement of livestock a general 20 day standstill on moving animals currently applies; and will continue as part of the interim regime. The longer term animal movement regime, including the question of any more permanent movement standstill arrangements, will take account of the outcome of the inquiries announced in August and developments in EU controls in the light of FMD. Individual livestock movements are also subject to strict controls on grounds of animal welfare.

  Badger Baiting
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to eliminate badger baiting. [23970]

  Mr. Morley
  This Government deplore the illegal killing of badgers. The principal legislation protecting the welfare of badgers is the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. Under the 1992 Act it is an offence to kill, take or dig for a badger, or attempt to do so, except under licence or in certain particular circumstances, or to injure one or attempt to do so. The maximum penalty for an offence under the 1992 Act is a fine of £5,000 and/or six months' imprisonment.

  The level of protection for badgers is unique for an unendangered animal and reflects the concern which is felt by Parliament about the gratuitous acts of cruelty to which badgers have been subjected all too often in the past.

  Cockle Gatherers (Carmarthenshire)
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with the Secretary for Rural Affairs at the National Assembly for Wales on compensation for cockle gatherers in Carmarthenshire. [23980]

  Mr. Morley
  None. This is entirely a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Environmental Impact Assessments (Wales)
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with the National Assembly for Wales regarding(a) the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive and (b) the implementation of its guidelines. [23983]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Environmental Impact Assessment Directive must be implemented UK wide. Officials have worked very closely with the National Assembly for Wales Agriculture Department and other Agriculture Departments in the devolved Administrations to determine key factors of the new regime which is being introduced to implement the uncultivated land provisions. This will ensure consistency of implementation and decision making across the UK, while allowing for any appropriate regional variations.
  765W

  Electronic Tagging (Cattle)
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will introduce electronic tagging and data collecting for cattle; and if she will make a statement. [24070]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department is currently reviewing all aspects of electronic identification of livestock together with farming industry representatives. In addition, the European Commission is undertaking extensive field trials of various electronic devices and we are awaiting the results of those trials to see what EU-wide rules might be agreed. The introduction of electronic identification in England will need to take account of this work.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made in developing electronic tagging technologies for the identification of livestock. [24736]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department is currently reviewing all aspects of electronic identification of livestock together with farming industry representatives. In addition, the European Commission is undertaking extensive field trials of various electronic devices and we are awaiting the results of those trials to see what EU-wide rules might be agreed. The introduction of electronic identification in England will need to take account of this work.

  IACS Payments
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she is taking to ensure the timely payment of Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) cheques. [24071]

  Mr. Morley
  The Rural Payments Agency has, since 20 August, been affected by industrial action. Several thousand days of processing time have been lost and this is impacting on its ability to process claims as quickly as it would normally do.

  Most schemes are affected to some degree but the greatest impact has been on the Arable Area Payment Scheme (AAPS).

  AAPS payments under the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) are made between 16 November and 31 January following the harvest. For land growing non-food crops the final payment date is 31 March.

  The Rural Payments Agency (RPA) is doing everything that it can to ensure that delays in making payments are kept to a minimum. These include:

  Encouraging overtime working

  Redeploying all RPA staff with relevant experience on to the AAPS

  Back filling staff redeployed with casual/agency staff

  Increasing the number of staff authorising claims

  Using validation reports to determine which claims can best be handled by less experienced staff so that better use is made of those with more experience

  Switching staff periodically from case-work to payment authorisation

  Deploying staff returning from FMD duties.

  766W

  Poultry (Additives)
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 5 December 2001,Official Report, column 395W, on the Advisory Group on Veterinary Medicines, what plans she has to make available the AGVR minutes before the Food Standards Agency `Feed Additives in Poultry' stakeholders meeting on 16 January 2002. [23645]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 18 December 2001]It is very unlikely that these minutes will be available before 16 January 2002. As indicated in an earlier answer, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate will have to seek the agreement of all former members of the Advisory Group on Veterinary Residues to their release. This is in accordance with Part II, Paragraph 14 a) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, Second Edition (1997). This is a time-consuming exercise but officials will complete the exercise as quickly as practicable.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the total amount of poultry(a) produced and (b) sampled for (i) nicarbazin, (ii) lasaloci, (iii) dimetridazole and (iv) other residues in the last month of (A) 1998, (B) 1999, (C) 2000 and (D) 2001. [23594]

  Mr. Morley:
  [holding answer 18 December 2001]The total amounts of poultry produced in the last month of 1998, 1999 and 2000 are set out in table 1. The figures for 2001 are not yet known. The numbers of samples taken from poultry throughout the United Kingdom for testing for the substances listed for the same months are set out in table 2. The figures for the last month of 2001 are the numbers of samples requested by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate.

  Table 1: UK poultry slaughterings

  Million

  December 1998

  December 1999

  December 2000

  Broiler birds

  50.63

  50.21

  51.99

  Boiling fowls

  2.90

  2.89

  2.76

  Ducks1

  1.42

  1.50

  1.50

  Geese1

  0.083

  0.083

  0.083

  1Figures only available for annual production. Figures shown are based on one twelfth of annual production.

  Source:

  UK livestock surveys

  Table 2: Number of UK poultry samples taken for analysis for veterinary residues in December

  1998

  1999

  2000

  20011

  Nicarbazin

  n/a

  26

  14

  26

  Lasalocid

  n/a

  30

  23

  26

  Dimetridazole

  n/a

  164

  18

  177

  Other

  n/a

  533

  291

  709

  1 Figures for December 2001 relate to the number of samples requested.

  Older People
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will set out for each of the conclusions in section 6.4 of the
  767W
  Performance and Innovation Unit report, "Winning the Generation Game", (a) what progress her Department has made and (b) what future plans her Department has for acting on them; and if she will set out against each of the conclusions the targets and deadlines that have been set. [24197]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 December 2001]I refer the hon. Member to the answer given him by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, on 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 335W.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to reply to the Question of 5 December, ref. 21336, from the hon. Member for Buckingham on sickness absence. [24755]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 19 December 2001,Official Report, columns 423–24W.

  Feed Additives
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what timetable for the replacement of the currently marketed antibiotic feed additives containing mycelial grade substances with premixes containing pharmacopoeia grade active substances was agreed at the Veterinary Products Committee meeting of 18 October; and if she will make a statement. [22960]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 December 2001]At its meeting of 18 October the Veterinary Products Committee agreed the following timetable for the replacement of mycelial grade antibiotics with pharmacopoeia antibiotics:

  by 1 December 2003—marketing authorisation holders to submit to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) valid applications for new marketing authorisations or to vary existing marketing authorisations;

  by 1 December 2004—VMD to complete assessment of the relevant applications;

  by 1 June 2005—marketing authorisation holders to implement the change.

  Number of confirmed cases of BSE, by year of confirmation for each county in Great Britain 1990–14 December 2001

  County

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Avon

  257

  474

  643

  607

  391

  285

  210

  106

  52

  40

  22

  10

  Bedfordshire

  37

  67

  93

  96

  78

  45

  22

  13

  11

  3

  2

  2

  Berkshire

  58

  104

  178

  157

  126

  107

  54

  54

  22

  19

  9

  6

  Borders

  19

  54

  100

  154

  101

  51

  25

  3

  10

  2

  3

  2

  Buckinghamshire

  128

  180

  254

  332

  280

  122

  94

  57

  27

  45

  17

  19

  Cambridge

  49

  63

  91

  133

  91

  54

  33

  20

  18

  13

  8

  2

  Central

  9

  17

  37

  67

  54

  23

  5

  6

  3

  1

  1

  2

  Cheshire

  366

  903

  1,519

  1,560

  1,144

  694

  339

  184

  110

  89

  34

  29

  Cleveland

  21

  23

  42

  58

  36

  30

  20

  15

  9

  5

  9

  4

  Clwyd

  132

  353

  534

  623

  439

  261

  117

  81

  48

  58

  21

  15

  Cornwall

  834

  1,679

  2,458

  2,124

  1,181

  688

  387

  194

  130

  123

  81

  45

  Cumbria

  237

  595

  1,153

  1,328

  910

  534

  344

  182

  111

  75

  40

  21

  Derbyshire

  202

  386

  880

  940

  733

  486

  263

  103

  75

  69

  28

  13

  Devon

  1,208

  2,306

  3,253

  2,906

  1,870

  1,055

  640

  397

  268

  204

  98

  65

  Dorset

  1,048

  1,655

  2,061

  1,824

  1,199

  725

  423

  271

  206

  136

  66

  37

  Dumfries

  85

  203

  518

  671

  463

  233

  112

  49

  27

  16

  9

  13

  Durham

  54

  71

  164

  171

  159

  117

  60

  40

  23

  13

  10

  4

  Dyfed

  550

  1,145

  1,863

  1,905

  1,214

  655

  293

  131

  94

  49

  36

  25

  768W
  Failure to meet this timetable could lead to the revocation of marketing authorisations.

  Rural-based Grants
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what amount of rural-based grants from(a) the EU and (b) other sources was paid in each year since 1990, broken down by (i) constituency and (ii) local authority; [24906]

  (2) what amount of rural-based grants was made by the Government broken down by (a) constituency and (b) local authority in each year since 1990. [24905]

  Alun Michael
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Rural Pubs and Post Offices
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) pubs and (b) post offices there were in rural areas, broken down by (i) constituency and (ii) local authority in each year since 1990. [24896]

  Alun Michael
  The information is not available in the form requested. Information on numbers of rural pubs is not held centrally and I understand from Consignia that information on numbers of rural post offices by constituency and local authority is not available. The Government have been monitoring the position on rural post offices and a number of initiatives have been taken to provide a secure future for rural post offices and other local facilities wherever possible.

  Over-30-Months Scheme
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) BSE cases and (b) slaughtered animals under the over-30-months scheme there were, broken down by (i) constituency and (ii) local authority in each year since 1990. [24902]

  Mr. Morley
  The information is as follows:

  (a) It is not possible to provide the information in the format requested, as data are not collected by constituency or local authority area. However, information is available by county as follows:
  769W

  Number of confirmed cases of BSE, by year of confirmation for each county in Great Britain 1990–14 December 2001

  County

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Essex

  53

  70

  162

  196

  184

  129

  73

  39

  14

  9

  7

  7

  Fife

  37

  34

  55

  105

  65

  26

  6

  3

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Mid Glamorgan

  34

  36

  45

  51

  37

  30

  12

  6

  6

  6

  3

  —

  South Glamorgan

  22

  44

  110

  106

  65

  35

  10

  9

  7

  1

  2

  2

  West Glamorgan

  8

  8

  28

  36

  17

  15

  3

  5

  3

  2

  1

  —

  Gloucestershire

  346

  538

  697

  677

  473

  258

  167

  108

  71

  73

  32

  26

  Grampian

  95

  118

  268

  397

  230

  141

  78

  41

  13

  10

  11

  15

  Gwent

  85

  143

  234

  258

  160

  119

  58

  39

  24

  21

  5

  3

  Gwynedd

  29

  69

  154

  184

  120

  73

  44

  22

  12

  5

  2

  9

  Hampshire

  450

  591

  714

  730

  616

  297

  198

  87

  79

  41

  36

  21

  Herefordshire/Worcestershire

  233

  349

  547

  645

  426

  269

  139

  109

  70

  68

  42

  15

  Hertfordshire

  67

  62

  105

  160

  130

  105

  60

  31

  15

  21

  7

  6

  Highland

  22

  35

  60

  89

  66

  32

  15

  10

  1

  3

  4

  3

  Humberside

  71

  98

  137

  214

  163

  137

  78

  32

  38

  25

  20

  16

  Isle of Wight

  92

  150

  144

  136

  117

  62

  30

  10

  9

  6

  12

  4

  Kent

  245

  310

  398

  449

  264

  198

  103

  54

  32

  26

  17

  9

  Lancashire

  297

  621

  1,313

  1,376

  906

  531

  328

  138

  120

  90

  48

  23

  Leicestershire

  307

  481

  615

  664

  549

  325

  231

  108

  74

  84

  43

  28

  Lincolnshire

  95

  147

  204

  256

  221

  146

  77

  50

  31

  31

  32

  15

  London

  6

  13

  28

  31

  20

  25

  17

  7

  11

  6

  1

  2

  Lothian

  6

  14

  42

  68

  50

  17

  13

  3

  1

  2

  3

  1

  Manchester

  12

  24

  40

  67

  30

  16

  9

  5

  6

  3

  2

  —

  Merseyside

  9

  16

  35

  25

  27

  5

  13

  3

  1

  —

  2

  —

  Norfolk

  213

  443

  789

  955

  815

  510

  327

  204

  131

  120

  88

  49

  Northamptonshire

  104

  197

  269

  285

  231

  133

  72

  57

  33

  18

  22

  13

  Northumberland

  44

  109

  240

  281

  224

  124

  64

  38

  27

  10

  10

  9

  Nottinghamshire

  86

  105

  197

  206

  163

  137

  88

  34

  28

  31

  29

  12

  Orkney

  5

  5

  20

  33

  19

  7

  4

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Oxfordshire

  203

  310

  512

  461

  360

  205

  117

  87

  53

  55

  42

  27

  Powys

  123

  228

  465

  593

  451

  286

  166

  81

  56

  42

  45

  32

  Salop

  293

  467

  858

  950

  662

  412

  235

  143

  122

  83

  54

  37

  Scilly Isles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shetland

  —

  1

  1

  —

  2

  1

  3

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Somerset

  1,115

  2,208

  2,720

  2,544

  1,810

  1,161

  660

  383

  322

  238

  111

  70

  Staffordshire

  278

  488

  956

  993

  724

  419

  210

  111

  75

  63

  32

  21

  Strathclyde

  129

  182

  400

  541

  343

  136

  59

  24

  24

  11

  5

  5

  Suffolk

  160

  251

  368

  477

  386

  220

  151

  88

  50

  61

  28

  26

  Surrey

  118

  152

  260

  267

  205

  112

  79

  34

  19

  17

  8

  6

  East Sussex

  169

  273

  378

  397

  299

  211

  101

  48

  38

  33

  21

  20

  West Sussex

  312

  424

  645

  704

  524

  331

  180

  102

  60

  50

  29

  25

  Tayside

  43

  45

  112

  144

  105

  84

  26

  21

  12

  6

  3

  4

  Tyne and Wear

  1

  6

  10

  16

  12

  6

  6

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  West Midlands

  8

  10

  27

  35

  19

  15

  9

  7

  1

  1

  1

  —

  Warwickshire

  139

  202

  294

  370

  261

  169

  92

  59

  35

  39

  23

  18

  Wiltshire

  743

  1,243

  1,433

  1,433

  957

  576

  312

  193

  123

  108

  45

  37

  North Yorkshire

  505

  832

  1,471

  1,618

  1,276

  782

  426

  227

  252

  143

  90

  56

  South Yorkshire

  53

  70

  117

  148

  140

  116

  64

  38

  44

  27

  12

  12

  West Yorkshire

  70

  113

  194

  244

  186

  141

  86

  38

  54

  29

  15

  11

  Total

  12,829

  22,613

  34,712

  36,271

  25,579

  15,451

  8,740

  4,847

  3,444

  2,678

  1,541

  1,009

  (b) OTMS throughput totals broken down into counties for GB. Of course, the OTMS only began April 1996. At present, resources only permit only permit us to provide information for 1999, 2000 and 2001.

  1999

  2000

  20011

  England

  Bedfordshire

  1,492

  1,463

  976

  Berkshire

  2,396

  2,454

  1,381

  Buckinghamshire

  5,011

  5,050

  3,316

  Cleveland

  1,292

  1,545

  595

  Cambridgeshire

  1,871

  1,781

  1,192

  Cheshire

  36,904

  36,471

  21,037

  Cornwall

  31,869

  31,910

  17,326

  Cumbria

  48,917

  49,170

  19,088

  Derbyshire

  21,590

  21,592

  12,791

  Devon

  55,535

  58,295

  29,652

  Dorset

  23,004

  24,587

  14,869

  Durham

  7,011

  7,535

  2,729

  770W

  1999

  2000

  20011

  Essex

  2,907

  3,016

  1,783

  Gloucestershire

  14,388

  15,459

  7,883

  Hampshire

  8,897

  9,179

  5,648

  Isle of Wight

  1,773

  1,911

  988

  Hereford and Worcester

  15,737

  16,657

  8,336

  Hertfordshire

  1,849

  1,716

  894

  Kent

  5,024

  5,749

  3,417

  Lancashire

  30,957

  30,334

  15,045

  Leicestershire

  10,863

  11,377

  7,187

  Lincolnshire

  6,141

  6,165

  3,415

  Merseyside

  987

  952

  646

  Greater London

  276

  272

  177

  Norfolk

  7,247

  7,442

  3,897

  Northamptonshire

  4,776

  5,217

  2,962

  Tyne and Wear

  809

  806

  276

  Northumberland

  10,775

  10,658

  4,633

  Nottinghamshire

  4,534

  4,716

  2,784

  Oxfordshire

  6,015

  6,265

  4,099

  771W

  1999

  2000

  20011

  Avon

  10,478

  10,695

  5,940

  Shropshire

  27,412

  27,088

  15,782

  Somerset

  34,962

  37,965

  21,591

  Staffordshire

  29,300

  29,722

  18,230

  Suffolk

  3,460

  3,336

  2,032

  Isles of Scilly

  63

  46

  18

  Surrey

  3,423

  4,181

  2,302

  East Sussex

  5,066

  5,543

  3,255

  West Sussex

  6,671

  7,101

  3,856

  Warwickshire

  6,608

  7,414

  4,306

  Greater Manchester

  3,577

  3,449

  1,944

  Wiltshire

  19,117

  19,569

  11,350

  West Midlands

  1,152

  985

  718

  North Yorkshire

  37,963

  39,069

  18,979

  South Yorkshire

  8,341

  8,405

  4,067

  West Yorkshire

  858

  910

  591

  Humberside

  3,801

  3,789

  2,112

  Total

  573,099

  589,011

  316,095

  Wales

  Powys

  16,477

  16,934

  6,922

  Gwynedd

  10,987

  10,303

  6,243

  Dyfed

  53,915

  50,989

  29,762

  Clwyd

  16,969

  18,026

  10,176

  South Glamorgan

  2,025

  1,928

  1,108

  Mid Glamorgan

  2,025

  1,995

  1,026

  West Glamorgan

  2,034

  2,047

  949

  Gwent

  6,874

  6,869

  3,573

  Total

  111,306

  109,091

  59,759

  Scotland

  Aberdeenshire

  11,607

  12,382

  7,197

  Angus

  2,559

  2,775

  1,905

  Argyllshire

  4,618

  4,778

  2,423

  Ayrshire

  21,459

  20,424

  11,804

  Banffshire

  3,106

  3,318

  2,193

  Berwickshire

  2,685

  2,984

  1,467

  Bute

  1,313

  1,490

  893

  Caithness

  2,849

  2,931

  2,008

  Clackmannanshire

  202

  218

  59

  Dumfriesshire

  13,553

  14,047

  6,565

  Dumbartonshire

  1,383

  1,363

  841

  East Lothian

  825

  930

  566

  Fife

  3,659

  3,692

  2,043

  Inverness-shire

  1,952

  2,278

  1,356

  Kincardineshire

  2,714

  3,161

  1,631

  Kinross-shire

  629

  698

  380

  Kirkcudbrightshire

  9,017

  9,781

  5,209

  Lanarkshire

  11,803

  11,271

  6,252

  Midlothian

  1,861

  2,054

  1,114

  Morayshire

  2,417

  2,251

  1,526

  Nairnshire

  801

  803

  499

  Orkney

  4,876

  4,860

  3,422

  Peeblesshire

  1,319

  1,467

  834

  Perthshire

  5,326

  5,718

  3,269

  Renfrewshire

  3,164

  3,025

  1,780

  Ross and Cromarty

  1,663

  1,735

  992

  Roxburghshire

  2,740

  3,157

  1,631

  Selkirkshire

  462

  595

  358

  Shetland

  369

  402

  252

  Stirlingshire

  3,283

  3,462

  1,867

  Sutherland

  347

  439

  233

  West Lothian

  1,441

  1,439

  872

  Wigtownshire

  11,132

  11,323

  5,855

  Total

  137,134

  141,251

  79,296

  Grant total

  821,539

  839,353

  455,150

  1 January to November

  772W

  Illegally Imported Meat
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the number of seizures of illegally imported meat and meat products during the past 12 months; and if she will list the points of entry at which the seizures were made.[25189]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on 4 December 2001,Official Report, column 267W.

  British Beef Exports
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on what date she expects the resumption of exports of British beef to France following the European Court of Justice ruling; what recent discussions she has had with her French counterpart about the arrangements for the lifting of the French ban on British beef; and what steps she is taking to claim compensation on behalf of British beef producers for the loss of export income during the period of the ban. [25192]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expects the Commission to take further action against the French Government if they do not lift their ban within a reasonable timescale. My right hon. Friend made it clear at the Agriculture Council on 19 December 2001 that she expected the ban to be lifted as soon as possible.

  The UK Government cat claim compensation as they have no direct commercial interest. However, we will give exporters seeking compensation full support, practical assistance and advice, although as a matter of policy the Government will not fund their costs nor provide detailed legal advice.

  Fishing Fleet
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will make a statement on what basis kilowatt days will be established for individual fishing vessels, pursuant to the European Commission's proposal for a Council regulation establishing measures for the recovery of cod and hake stocks; and if(a) the declared engine power according to the Fishing Vessel Register and (b) the actual engine power will be used; [25190]

  (2) if she will make a statement on how an under-declaration of engine power will affect the United Kingdom position in respect of the list of vessels required under the EU Regulation for the recovery of cod and hake stocks; and if the UK would be penalised in a future fleet reduction programme in the event of the list being submitted to the Commission having included vessels with actual engine power found to be larger than that declared on the Fishing Vessel Register. [25191]

  Mr. Morley
  This will depend on the form in which EU legislation for recovery of cod and hake stocks is adopted. The Council has not yet begun to consider the recently published Commission proposals for limiting fishing effort.
  773W

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the outcome was of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 19 and 20 December; what the Government's position was on each issue discussed, including its voting record; and if she will make a statement. [25104]

  Margaret Beckett
  I represented the United Kingdom at the meeting of the Agriculture Council in Brussels on 19 December 2001. Agriculture Ministers of the devolved Administrations in Wales and Northern Ireland were also present.

  The Council reached agreement on reform of the sheepmeat regime, including a number of measures for which the United Kingdom had pressed strongly. The changes will make substantial savings in the budget for the EU's current financial year. The main ones will fix permanent rates of premium and create national envelopes which can be directed towards national or regional priorities. Different approaches will be permitted in England and the devolved Administrations. I am delighted with this outcome which will give us some valuable flexibility in the operation of this importance regime.

  The Council also agreed to introduce a stabiliser which will cap spending in the seeds sector. The new arrangements fully safeguard UK interests. A further amendment of the banana regime was also agreed, bringing to a close a long running dispute with certain of the EU' s trading partners.

  The presidency reported the successful outcome of the international conference on foot and mouth disease at which the United Kingdom had taken a prominent part.

  The Council discussed a memorandum from certain member states on the oilseeds market. I endorsed the Commission's response, arguing that further encouragement of oilseed production in the EU would be costly, unnecessary and likely to produce tension with our trading partners.

  The Council took note of progress on several dossiers under the Belgian presidency and exchanged views on a useful memorandum from the German Government on organic farming.

  Fisheries Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the outcome was of the Fisheries Council held in Brussels on 17 and 18 December; what the Government's position was on each issue discussed, including its voting record; and if she will make a statement. [25103]

  Mr. Morley
  I represented the United Kingdom at a meeting of the EU Council of Fisheries Ministers in Brussels on 17–18 December, together with Ross Finnie, Minister for Environment and Rural Development in the Scottish Executive and Mrs. Brid Rodgers, the Northern Ireland Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development.

  The Council agreed by qualified majority, with France voting against, on Total Allowable Catches (TACs) and quotas to apply in 2002 in EU waters and for EU vessels fishing in waters where catch limitations apply, together with a six-month extension of the controls on fleet capacity and grants. Details of the agreed UK quotas are provided in the table.
  774W
  Following on from the advice of fisheries scientists at the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) highlighting the poor state of a number of fish stocks, the Commission proposed large cuts in a wide range of TACs. I fully supported the need for large cuts where the science justified this, but argued in parallel to this that in many respects the Commission's proposals went further than science would justify.

  Scientific assessment underpinned our whole approach towards stocks. We were careful both to respect scientific advice and have a sound scientific case where we disagreed with some of the Commissions's proposals.

  The Commission was in particular too quick to propose large automatic cuts in relation to stocks associated and caught with depleted stocks and to cut TACs for some stocks because they appear to have been under-utilised by fishermen up to now. The former approach had led the Commission to propose, for example, further large cuts in the nephrops fisheries west of Scotland and in the Irish sea and North sea on the presumption that this would relieve pressure on depleted cod stocks: expert analysis that we have carried out on this proposition because of the importance of the nephrops fishery to UK fishermen showed conclusively that, to the contrary, the Commission's proposed cuts would have seriously penalised nephrops fishermen in order to bring benefits to cod stocks which would be minimal at best.

  More generally, if implemented the proposals would have denied fishermen such benefits as the scientific advice showed could now be derived as a result of conservation measures already taken, and would have curtailed a wide range of fishing activity much more severely than could be rationally justified.

  I am pleased to say that, after lengthy negotiations, we achieved an outcome which closely follows the scientific advice. This does not shirk severe measures where these are justified, but it does meet my criticisms of what the Commission proposed. Improvements of particular interest to UK fishermen include the abandonment of the unjustified further cuts proposed in the nephrops TACs, a 48 per cent. increase in the TAC for cod in the Irish sea (made possible by conservation measures previously taken there), and a valuable mitigation of the punitive cuts proposed by the commission in the TACs for monkfish.

  The Council agreed a short, six-month, extension of the controls on fleet capacity and grants, raising the capacity penalty applied when vessel construction and modernisation grants are paid on vessels in fleet segments exceeding their Community limits. The Council and the Commission undertook to aim, in the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, at an active fleet policy to achieve better balance between fishing effort and fisheries resources.

  The Council briefly noted, but did not discuss in any details, two areas of work that will command a lot of its attention in 2002—the review of the Common Fisheries Policy and the long-term plans to be put in place for the recovery of depleted stocks. Clearly the second of these

  775W
  items will be of particular importance in the context of ensuring the long-term sustainability of the fisheries concerned and of the industries that pursue them.

  Comparative table of UK quota for 2001 and 2002

  UK quota

  Stock

  2001

  2002

  Sandeel IIa North Sea

  20,000

  17,794

  Herring I, II

  16,460

  16,460

  Herring IVa, b

  40,570

  38,169

  Herring IVc, VIId

  1,693

  4,094

  Herring Vb, VIaN, VIb

  21,570

  21,571

  Herring VIa (Clyde)

  1,000

  1,000

  Herring VIIa

  5,100

  3,550

  Herring VIIe, f

  500

  500

  Herring VIIg-k

  30

  10

  Herring IIa North Sea Industrial by-catch

  660

  660

  Cod IIa, IV

  18,930

  19,397

  Cod Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  2,222

  2,960

  Cod VIIa

  895

  1,378

  Cod VIIb-k, VIII, IX, X

  870

  712

  Megrim IIA North Sea

  2,600

  2,599

  Megrim Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  1,370

  1,367

  Megrim VII

  2,150

  1,874

  Dab and Flounder Ha North Sea

  2,330

  2,331

  Anglers IIa North Sea

  11,495

  8,545

  Anglers Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  1,975

  1,513

  Anglers VII

  3,870

  3,295

  Haddock IIa, IV

  41,780

  59,805

  Haddock Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  10,820

  10,992

  Haddock VII, VIII, IX, X

  1,200

  830

  Haddock VIIa (additional to haddock VII)

  1,293

  622

  Whiting IIa, IV

  13,335

  18,853

  Whiting Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  2,580

  2,157

  Whiting VIIa

  685

  443

  Whiting VIIb-k

  2,250

  3,402

  Hake Ha, IV

  160

  170

  Hake Vb, VI, VII, XII, XIV

  2,500

  2,662

  Blue whiting IIa, IV

  1,070

  592

  Blue whiting Vb, VI, VII, XII, XIV

  45,350

  25,032

  Blue whiting VIII abde

  7,241

  3,555

  Lemon sole IIa North sea

  6,580

  5,937

  Nephrops IIa, IV

  13,380

  14,368

  Nephrops Vb, VI

  11,070

  11,072

  Nephrops VII

  6,200

  5,856

  Northern prawn IIa, IV

  1,778

  1,074

  Plaice IIa, IV

  21,780

  20,748

  Plaice Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  1,170

  1,050

  Plaice VIIa

  835

  1,223

  Plaice VIId, e

  1,750

  1,946

  Plaice VIIf, g

  180

  119

  Plaice VIIh, j, k

  150

  146

  Pollack Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  400

  403

  Pollack VII

  2,960

  2,964

  Saithe IIa, III, IV

  6,980

  10,838

  Saithe Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  3,255

  3,211

  Saithe VII, VIII, IX, X

  805

  1,340

  Turbot and brill IIa North Sea

  1,110

  973

  Skates and rays IIa North Sea

  3,128

  2,509

  Mackerel IIa(EC), III, IV

  1,580

  1,611

  Mackerel IIa(non-EC), Vb, VI, VII, VIIIabde, XII, XIV

  197,069

  201,647

  Sole II, IV

  815

  686

  Sole Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  30

  25

  Sole VIIa

  240

  244

  Sole VIId

  885

  1,000

  Sole VIIe

  355

  309

  Sole VIIf, g

  285

  301

  Sole VIIh, j, k

  110

  138

  Sprat II, IV

  8,350

  8,348

  Sprat VIId, e

  6,300

  6,300

  Spurdog IIa, IV

  7,177

  5,745

  Horse mackerel Ha North Sea

  4,960

  4,960

  Horse mackerel Vb, VI, VII, VIIIabde, XII, XIV

  22,850

  14,026

  776W

  Asbestos
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how often since 1998 inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive have(a) made (i) announced and (ii) unannounced visits to asbestos removal sites and (b) entered the asbestos stripping enclosure during both such types of visit; and if he will make a statement. [23891]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.

  (a) Health and Safety Executive inspectors have the discretion to decide whether to announce their visits in advance or whether to arrive on site unannounced. The system for recording the number of visits made by HSE inspectors does not differentiate between the two. The number of visits made by HSE inspectors since 1998 is as follows:

  Visits

  1998–99

  1,023

  1999—2000

  974

  2000–01

  951

  (b) The Health and Safety Executive do not gather information about the number of HSE inspectors who enter asbestos stripping enclosures during visits to asbestos work.

  Excellence in Cities
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 6 December 2001,Official Report, column 497W, on the Excellence in Cities Scheme, if she will list the towns and villages that will cover the 24 excellence clusters by September 2002; and where their funding will come from. [24383]

  Mr. Timms
  I have been asked to reply.

  The 24 Excellence Clusters that will be working by September 2002 are:

  Barnet

  Bishop Auckland

  Coventry

  Crewe

  Croydon (Croydon and Thornton Heath)

  Derby

  Dewsbury and Batley (Dewsbury, Batley, Holmfirth and Heckmondwike)

  East Lancashire (Burnley and Nelson)

  High Wycombe (High Wycombe and Marlow)

  Hillingdon (Hillingdon, Hayes, Uxbridge and West Drayton)

  Huddersfield

  Lancaster

  Milton Keynes

  Norwich

  Peterborough

  777W

  Portsmouth (Portsmouth and Southsea)

  Shepway (Folkestone, Hythe and New Romney)

  Stockport

  Tameside (Ashton under Lyne, Hyde and Dukinfield)

  Tilbury and Chadwell (Tilbury, Grays and Stanford le Hope)

  778W

  Walsall (Walsall and Wednesbury)

  West Cumbria (Cleator Moor, Maryport, Whitehaven and Workington)

  West Lancashire (Skelmersdale and Ormskirk)

  Wigan.

  Their funding comes from the DfES Standards Fund.
  779W

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Burglary
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much funding has been awarded to schemes under the reducing burglary initiative in the Buckingham constituency in the last 12 months for which figures are available; and what targets have been set to reduce crime under the schemes. [22624]

  Mr. Denham
  None; we did not receive any bids for funding for burglary reduction projects in this area.

  Specialist Detectives
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what role specialist detectives will take on; and how many there will be. [22866]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 18 December 2001]Specialist detectives would develop the skills to work on the most complex investigations. They would be drawn from existing officers and those choosing to specialise as they join the service. The operational needs of police forces would determine what proportion of their detective officers would specialise in investigation. These officers would still work in other areas of policing, but would develop their investigative skills to a high standard through a career anchored in investigation. This would provide an experienced pool of officers from which Senior Investigation Officers could be drawn.

  In the most specialised fields we plan to introduce specialist civilian investigators. Specialist civilian investigators will provide the depth of knowledge only a career specialist could bring to investigations into high-tech crime, cybercrime, fraud, money laundering and other complex areas of crime. The numbers recruited will depend on the operational needs of the police service. Some specialists might be shared between a number of forces. By providing the civilian investigators with certain police powers they will be able to function as full members of investigating teams.

  Home Security (Buckingham)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much has been awarded to provide home security improvements for low-income pensioners living in the Buckingham constituency in each year since 1997. [22630]

  Mr. Denham
  Our scheme to provide low-income pensioners with home security improvements only operates in those police Basic Command Unit (BCU) areas that had a burglary rate above the national average according to the recorded crime statistics published in January 2000. The Buckingham constituency does not fall within an eligible area, as the Aylesbury Vale BCU has a burglary rate around half the national average.

  Special Constables (Buckingham)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special constables there have been in the constituency of Buckingham in each year since 1997. [22627]
  780W
  Mr. Denham
  I understand from the chief constable of Thames Valley police that it is not possible to provide information about the number of special constables specifically for the Buckingham constituency, as such information is not collected. Figures are available for the number of special constables in the Aylesbury Vale police area, which incorporates the Buckingham constituency, at 31 March each year, and these are:

  Year

  Number

  1997

  57

  1998

  72

  1999

  77

  2000

  43

  2001

  40

  The Government are committed to increasing the special constabulary and as part of the police reform process we are working with stakeholders on a range of measures to significantly improve the management, welfare and deployment of specials.

  Breathalyser Tests (Buckingham)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many breathalyser tests were carried out in the Buckingham constituency in each year since 1997; and what percentage resulted in convictions. [22634]

  Mr. Denham
  Limited available information for the Thames Valley police force area is given in the table.

  Screening breath tests1and convictions at all courts for offences of driving etc. after consuming alcohol or taking drugs where a breathalyser will have been used2 for the Thames Valley police force area, 1997–99

  years

  Total numbers of screening breath tests1

  Total numbers of convictions at all courts2

  Convictions as a percentage of breath tests

  1997

  33,100

  4,100

  12

  1998

  34,200

  3,900

  11

  1999

  30,300

  3,700

  12

  1Information taken from the Home Office Breath Test Statistics.

  2Information taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database

  Note:

  It is important to note that because the information has been taken from two separate collections the data are not strictly comparable (the court conviction will, of course, be given at a later date).

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) antisocial behaviour orders and (b) curfew orders have been made in the Buckingham constituency since the commencement of the schemes. [22621]

  Mr. Denham
  Official statistics on the number of Antisocial Behaviour Orders (ASBO) issued are based on quarterly returns received from Magistrates Courts Committees (MCCs). A review identified an undercount and my Department therefore undertook an exercise with the police to obtain more reliable figures. As a result of this reconciliation exercise the total number of ASBOs issued within England and Wales up until the end of
  781W
  September this year was 466, 184 more than previously reported. Of these, seven have been issued within the Thames Valley MCC.

  No applications have been received from local authorities or the police to establish child curfew schemes under section 14 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, as amended by sections 48 and 49 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. These amendments extended the upper age limit to 15 and allow the police, as well as local authorities, to initiate schemes. These changes were implemented on 1 August 2001.

  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many antisocial behaviour orders have been issued by(a) Wandsworth council and (b)other local authorities in Greater London between 1999 and 2001. [22946]

  Mr. Denham
  Information held centrally on the number of antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs) issued up to 31 May 2000 is by police force area only. Up to that date there were nine issued within the Metropolitan police area (including City of London).

  From 1 June 2000 official statistics on the number of ASBOs issued are based on quarterly returns from Magistrates Courts Committees. A review identified an undercount and my Department therefore undertook an exercise with the police to obtain more reliable figures. As a result of this reconciliation exercise the total number of ASBOs issued within England and Wales up to the end of September this year was 466, 184 more than previously reported. Within the area of the Greater London Magistrates Courts Authority there have been 31 ASBOs issued since 1 June 2000. Wandsworth borough has not been reported as being involved in the application of any of these orders.

  CCTV
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the funding available for CCTV schemes in the Buckingham constituency. [22623]

  Mr. Denham
  Under the Crime Reduction Programme CCTV Initiative a potential £170 million will be spent funding 686 CCTV schemes.

  Although no further bids can be accepted under the Crime Reduction Programme, other opportunities for CCTV funding may exist under the Communities Against Drugs or the Small Retailers in Deprived Areas initiatives.

  We aim to announce future arrangements for funding Crime Reduction, including CCTV, as soon as possible.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) the closed circuit TV schemes that have been (i) funded and (ii) part-funded by the Government in the Buckingham constituency in each year since 1997, (b) the cost of each and (c) targets set to reduce crime under the schemes. [22622]

  Mr. Denham
  Under Round 2 of the CCTV Challenge Competition (1996–97), the Home Office provided part funding of £9,500 for the Buckingham Town Centre CCTV system. The bid set out a target of a 40 per cent. reduction in vehicle-related crime and criminal damage in the area covered by the system.
  782W

  Drugs (Buckingham)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many offenders were dealt with for supply offences in respect of Class A drugs in the Buckingham constituency in each year since 1997; [22632]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the percentage of recorded crime in the Buckingham constituency that was drug-related in the last five years. [22631]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The information requested is not available at constituency level.

  However, data from the Home Office Court Appearances and Cautions Drugs Databases show that the number of persons in the Thames Valley Police force area who were dealt with for supply offences involving Class A drugs fell from 209 in 1997 to 191 in both 1998 and 1999. Data for 2000 are not yet available.

  It is difficult to calculate a single percentage figure reflecting precisely what proportion of all crimes is drug-related since no statistical data are collected on offences that may have been committed due to drug taking. However, information is collected on the number of drug offences. Details of the number of persons convicted of or cautioned for drug offences and as a proportion of persons convicted of or cautioned for all indictable offences in the Thames Valley Police force area during the period 1995–99 are given in the table.

  Number of persons convicted of or cautioned for drug offences and as a proportion of persons convicted of or cautioned for all indictable offences, Thames Valley, 1995–99

  Drug offences

  All indictable offences

  Drug offences as a percentage of all indicatabe offences

  1995

  1,914

  11,546

  16.6

  1996

  1,750

  11,046

  15.8

  1997

  1,738

  10,474

  16.6

  1998

  1,891

  10,331

  18.3

  1999

  2,042

  11,207

  18.2

  Source:

  Home Office Court Appearances and Cautions Database

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) those schemes which have received funding under the Communities Against Drugs Initiative in the Buckingham constituency, (b) the amount received and (c) what targets have been set to reduce crime under the scheme. [22656]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Aylesbury Vale Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership was allocated £127,200 for Communities Against Drugs, in 2001–02. The table shows how the partnership is to spend this money:

  £

  Intervention

  Sum allocated

  Police Proactive Unit

  53,723

  Drugs Outreach Service

  52,500

  Arrest Referral Project

  5,000

  Drug Market Analysis

  5,000

  Walton Court Project1

  10,977

  Total

  127,200

  1Part funding for CCTV and police/neighbourhood warden office

  783W
  Communities Against Drugs activity, in Aylesbury Vale, is contributing to the achievement of the Government's drugs strategy targets, and local authority best value targets.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of(a) violent crime, (b) burglary and (c) vandalism in the Buckingham constituency were reported to the police in each year since 1997; and how many investigations resulted in a conviction. [22635]

  Mr. Denham
  The requested details are not collected centrally.

  Details of some offences recorded by the police have been collected by police Basic Command Unit (BCU) since 1 April 1999. The table gives details of numbers of offences and detections for the Aylesbury Vale BCU. Details of criminal damage offences are not collected at BCU level.

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Violent crime

  Offences

  970

  1,217

  Offences detected

  775

  834

  Burglary in a dwelling

  Offences

  779

  533

  Offences detected

  166

  93

  Violent crime is comprised of the violence against the person, sexual offences and robbery offence groups.

  It should be noted that recorded violent crime is subject to changes in reporting and recording. The 2001 British Crime Survey found that in England and Wales as a whole, victimisation for the violent crime in the survey which is comparable to recorded crime decreased by 19 per cent. between the 1999 and 2000 calendar years, whereas comparable violent crime recorded by the police increased by 9 per cent. Violent crime recorded by the police may therefore not necessarily be a reflection of real changes in the level of victimisation.

  Details of convictions specifically relating to offences in the Aylesbury Vale BCU are not available.

  Young Offenders (Buckingham)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many youths under the age of 18 from the Buckingham constituency have been held in young offenders rehabilitation centres in each year since 1997. [22620]

  Beverley Hughes
  The number of receptions of persons under the age of 18 into prisons in England and Wales from courts in the Buckingham constituency is given in the table:

  Year

  Receptions of under 18-year-old prisoners committed in Buckingham constituency1

  1997

  24

  1998

  29

  1999

  19

  2000

  29

  1Data are based on court of first committal

  784W

  Speed Cameras
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many speed cameras have been installed, and how much has been spent on(a) installing and (b) maintaining and replacing speed cameras in each year since 1995; [23199]

  (2) what the estimated backlog is in the prosecution of speeding related offences detected by speed cameras; [23049]

  (3) what criteria the Government have set for money raised from fines arising from speed cameras being made available to meet the costs of that speed camera; [23048]

  (4) what the estimated financial saving is from the cost of road accidents which has arisen since the introduction of speed cameras in the UK; [23051]

  (5) what the percentage change is in the number of (a) serious and (b) fatal accidents at sites where speed cameras have been installed in the last two years; [23050]

  (6) how many (a) pedestrian, (b) cyclist, (c) motor cyclist, (d) car driver and (e) passenger lives are estimated to have been saved by the introduction of speed cameras; [23052]

  (7) if he will make a statement on the system for the funding of speed cameras in selected police areas; and what plans the Government have to extend the system; [23055]

  (8) what estimate the Government have made of the number of accidents caused by drivers cutting their speeds on approaching a signalled speed camera in the last five years; [23054]

  (9) what assessment he has made of the impact of the introduction of speed cameras on the use of police time; [23056]

  (10) how much money has been raised in fines for speeding related offences, detected by speed cameras, in each year since 1995; [23198]

  (11) what the average cost is of (a) setting up and (b) maintaining a speed camera; and what percentage of the maintenance and set up costs of speed cameras is covered by revenue raised from fines and other charges, made through speed related offences. [23053]

  Mr. Denham
  The number of speed cameras in police force areas is not recorded centrally. The Association of Chief Police Officers estimates that there are about 4,500 speed camera sites in England and Wales. The average cost of purchasing and installing a fixed site speed camera is in the region of £30,000.

  From April 2000 eight partnerships, comprising local police forces, local authorities, highways authorities and magistrates courts, have been piloting a new 'netting off' scheme. This allows the fixed penalty revenue from speed and red-light cameras to be re-invested to fund camera enforcement. The money raised is used to meet all the costs of purchasing, installing, operating and maintaining cameras.

  Under the scheme, local magistrates courts within a partnership collect all fixed penalty notice and fine revenue from offenders. The element to be netted off goes

  785W
  to the partnership's local authority, which acts as treasurer for the scheme, and distributes the funds to each of the partners on the basis of invoiced expenditure. Any revenue not used for camera enforcement goes to Her Majesty's Treasury. For areas outside the netting-off scheme all camera related costs are met by the police, local authorities and other agencies involved in the enforcement process. Proceeds go to Her Majesty's Treasury.

  The results of the netting-off scheme demonstrate its value. Evidence from the pilot areas shows that motorists are slowing down in all areas where speed cameras are located, and not just in the immediate vicinity of camera sites. The first year report of the scheme shows that across the eight pilot areas as a whole the number of people killed or seriously injured dropped by 18 per cent. compared to the average of the previous three years. On average, the number of people killed or seriously injured at the camera sites is down by 47 per cent., and the average speed is down by 5.6 miles per hour. On the basis of historical trend data, we estimate that there were 109 fewer people killed or seriously injured as a result of the increased camera enforcement, although we cannot break this down by type of road user. We estimate that £27 million has been saved by the reduction of casualties and collisions at camera sites in the pilot areas when account is taken of ambulance and medical costs, lost output and the human costs of road accidents.

  In addition, the evidence suggests that police operational priorities have not been distorted in any way. Automatic road safety cameras do not need police attendance and act as a continuous deterrent. They free up police resources to deal with other crimes and to undertake other traffic law enforcement activities. In the pilot areas, wider criminal activity has also been detected by chasing up non-payers caught on camera. The Association of Chief Police Officers strongly supports the netting-off scheme.

  In August we announced the national roll-out of the netting-off scheme, and a further seven partnership areas joined the scheme in October 2001. A further 12 force areas have applied to join the scheme next year, and more are expected soon. All areas wishing to join the scheme are expected to do so over the next two to three years.

  We have made it clear that cameras will only be placed at sites where there is a proven history of speed-related injuries or at accident hotspots where excess speed is a problem. There will be a requirement that all cameras are properly sign-posted and sufficiently visible, with their deployment well publicised locally. Camera use will be monitored to ensure that they help to reduce accidents. Those that do not will be moved to a more appropriate location or removed altogether. We shall be issuing new guidance to local authorities and police forces operating speed cameras outside the netting-off scheme, so that the requirements for other cameras mirror the netting-off rules.

  The number of fixed penalties over the last five years for speeding offences where cameras have provided the evidence is given in the table. Automatic camera devices provided evidence from 1995 to 1998 and all camera types for 1999. Data for 2000 are not yet available. From 1995 to 1999 the fixed penalty charge for speeding offences was £40. All the money was paid to Her Majesty's Treasury.
  786W

  Estimated revenue1

  Fixed penalties

  £ million

  1995

  170,000

  6.8

  1996

  212,600

  8.8

  1997

  288,600

  11.5

  1998

  338,800

  13.6

  19992

  423,000

  16.9

  1 'Estimate' based on paid £40 fixed penalty charge from 1995 to 1999 for England and Wales.

  2 Automatic cameras until 1998, all camera types for 1999.

  Information on the number of speed related offences awaiting prosecution is not held centrally.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) speed-related and (b) other criminal prosecutions have been made by use of speed camera equipment in each year since 1995; and what the average cost of prosecution per speed camera is. [23070]

  Mr. Denham
  Available information on the number of fixed penalties and prosecutions for speeding and traffic light offences detected by cameras is shown in the table.

  Information is not collected centrally by my Department on whether speed camera evidence has been used in any other criminal prosecutions. Average cost figures for prosecutions per speed camera are also not available centrally.

  Fixed penalties and prosecutions for offences detected by cameras 1England and Wales 1995 to 1999

  Number of offences

  Year

  Fixed penalty2

  Prosecutions

  Total

  Speeding

  1995

  170,000

  36,900

  206,900

  1996

  212,600

  49,600

  262,200

  1997

  288,600

  48,100

  336,700

  1998

  338,800

  65,100

  403,800

  1999

  423,000

  75,600

  498,600

  Traffic lights

  1995

  33,300

  14,800

  48,100

  1996

  33,400

  19,400

  52,800

  1997

  34,600

  18,800

  53,300

  1998

  31,800

  11,800

  43,500

  1999

  37,100

  14,900

  52,000

  All offences

  1995

  203,300

  51,700

  255,000

  1996

  246,000

  67,000

  312,900

  1997

  323,200

  66,900

  390,000

  1998

  370,500

  76,800

  447,400

  1999

  460,100

  90,500

  550,600

  1 Automatic cameras until 1998, all camera types for 1999

  2 Paid, ie no further action

  Metropolitan Police Officers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Metropolitan police officers have(a) retired, (b) resigned and (c) been dismissed in each of the last three years. [22485]

  Mr. Denham
  The information set out in the table has been provided by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.
  787W

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Retired1

  1,087

  839

  685

  Resigned

  332

  361

  359

  Required to resign

  48

  30

  20

  Dismissed

  10

  15

  10

  1 Includes medical retirements 494, 285, 220, 153 (April to November)

  James Ashley
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the publication of information concerning the fatal shooting of James Ashley in 1998. [22783]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 19 July 2001,Official Report, column 344W. Subsequently the Police Authority considered the matter and concluded that it is not possible at this stage to disclose the investigation reports.

  I have commissioned two other reports which will address matters relevant to this shooting:
  a report from the Sussex Police Authority under section 43 of the Police Act 1996 on the events surrounding the shooting and the action taken by Sussex police to ensure that they have responded appropriately
  a report from the Police Complaints Authority under section 79 of the Police Act 1996 to consider the lessons to be learned from investigations supervised by the Police Complaints Authority since January 1998 into incidents in which police shootings resulted in death or injury.

  Social Exclusion
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate has been made of the administrative cost to the(a) state, (b) unsuccessful applicants and (c) successful applicants of the competitive grant schemes, provided by his Department and its agencies, open in each year since 1997 to organisations in the voluntary and community sector for the purposes of tackling social exclusion. [22402]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 12 December 2001]No such estimate has been made. The information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The Home Office does, however, publish application criteria and guidance notes for each grant programme in the hope that this will reduce the number of inappropriate applications received.

  Driving Convictions
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions there were for driving without motor insurance in the past five years. [22803]

  Mr. Denham
  Available information on the number of convictions for the offence of 'using a motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks' is shown in the table.
  788W

  Findings of guilt at all courts for the offence of using a motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks, England and Wales, 1995 to 1999

  Year

  Convictions

  1995

  283,141

  1996

  267,932

  1997

  257,689

  1998

  256,974

  1999

  259,552

  Downview Prison
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer of 6 December 2001,Official Report, column 476W, on Downview Prison, what steps he will take to secure the immediate local transfer of male prisoners who are now in higher category prisons than Downview. [23214]

  Beverley Hughes
  As stated in the previous answer, in preparation for the change of role of Downview to a women's prison, 340 male prisoners were moved from the establishment between 17 July 2001 and 1 September 2001. No prisoners were moved out of the South East and none had their security category increased as part of this process.

  As far as possible prisoners were relocated to other category C training prisons/units or where appropriate were recategorised and transferred to an appropriate category D prison from Downview.

  One hundred and forty Downview prisoners were temporarily accommodated at Wormwood Scrubs in a separate wing, supervised by former Downview staff, in category C conditions. The majority of these prisoners were moved to category C training prisons or recategorised and transferred to appropriate category D prisons. A small number, for whom Wormwood Scrubs is a convenient location, have remained there in long term category C conditions.

  Cyber-terrorism
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment has been made of the measures to counter cyber-terrorism; what time scale is planned to build on the assessment; how much extra funding will be allocated to countering cyber-terrorism; and if he will make a statement. [23227]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The threat from computer-related attacks by terrorists or their supporters is kept under continuous review, as are measures to counter it. Government co-ordination of the effort to protect the United Kingdom critical national infrastructure is centred in the National Infrastructure Security Co-ordination Centre (NISCC). The risk is assessed to be low, but growing. It could change rapidly at any time and our response will need to adjust to remain proportionate. I will keep closely under review the level of funding needed for this work.

  Sports Clubs (Charitable Status)
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate has been made of the number
  789W
  of sports clubs that will apply for charitable status following the decision to recognise healthy recreation as charitable. [22979]

  Angela Eagle
  This is a matter for the Charity Commission as the Government Department that registers charities in England and Wales. The Chief Charity Commissioner will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  EU Treaty Bodies
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which organisations are referred to as representatives of other Treaty bodies under Article 1.12 of 12442/01, Council doc COPEN 56. 9 October 2001, Belgian Initiative on Joint Investigation Teams; and what(a) privileges and (b) immunities will be granted to these organisations. [22889]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Council document 12442/01 COPEN 56, now document 14242/01 COPEN 71 (Council Framework Decision on joint investigation teams) of 28 November 2001, is a joint initiative of Belgium, France, Spain and the United Kingdom. Paragraph 12 of Article 1 of the Framework Decision provides that the two or more member states setting up a joint investigation team may enter into arrangements for persons other than the representatives of the competent authorities of these member states to take part in the activities of the team. These other persons may include, but are not limited to, officials of bodies set up pursuant to the Treaty on the European Union. Such bodies include Europol, OLAF which is the European Community's anti-fraud office and, when the relevant Council Decision comes into effect, Eurojust. The Government are still considering what privileges and immunities, if any, should be granted to persons who are not representatives of United Kingdom competent authorities.

  Prison Visitors
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if prison visitors to prisons run by private companies are subject to(a) fingerprints and (b) photographic records. [23208]

  Beverley Hughes
  Yes. Private prisons in England and Wales are required to meet appropriate security standards. Prisons which hold category A prisoners must have some form of visitor recognition system in place, and it is considered good practice in lower category prisons. However, it is for local management to decide exactly which form of visitor recognition system they employ or, for prisons that do not have category A prisoners, how they manage this issue without using such technology.

  Tagging
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are on release under the tagging system; and what the equivalent figures have been in each year since the introduction of the system. [24458]

  Beverley Hughes
  As at midnight on 30 November 2001, a total of 1,786 prisoners were being monitored under the Home Detention Curfew scheme. The equivalent 790W
  figures for 30 November 1999 and 30 November 2000 were 2,000 and 1,939 respectively. The scheme was introduced on 28 January 1999.

  Women Prisoners (Wales)
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what percentage of women in the prison population are from Wales; and what the equivalent figures were for each of the last five years. [22185]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information is provided on the basis of a prisoner's court of committal as home address is not consistently recorded on central records.

  The information requested is given in the table1

  Total females

  Females committed in Wales

  Percentage of female population committed in Wales

  1998

  3,120

  119

  3.8

  1999

  3,207

  119

  3.7

  2000

  3,355

  126

  3.8

  2001

  3,713

  138

  3.7

  1 The information in the table is provisional and shows data as of 30 June each year for prisons in England and Wales. Data for 1997 were not available.

  For the latest date available (30 November 2001) there were 169 female prisoners in prisons in England and Wales who were committed in Wales. There were 4,022 female prisoners in total.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total annual cost is of the contract with Capita Services for the operation of the Criminal Records Bureau. [21702]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]Payments are linked to the volume of disclosures processed, which are expected to increase significantly over the first few years of the contract. The estimated value of the 10-year contract with Capita is £450 million.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the cost of establishing the Criminal Records Bureau in financial years(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [21704]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]The cost of establishing the Criminal Records Bureau for 2001–02 is estimated to be £14 million. In 2002–03, we estimate that it will cost £1 million to complete the setting up of the Bureau.

  Visas
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of visitors on a one-year student visa travelled to other parts of the European Union during the course of visa validating in the last 12 months. [23668]

  Angela Eagle
  I regret that the information requested is not available.
  791W
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 22 October 2001,Official Report, column 76W, on Pakistani nationals, how many Pakistani nationals holding UK visas have been refused entry to the UK since 11 September at Birmingham airport. [10719]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 22 October 2001,Official Report, column 76W, to her earlier question about refusals of Pakistani nationals and to my letter of 31 October 2001 responding to her subsequent representations.

  Information on the number of Pakistani nationals refused leave to enter during 2001 are due to be published in the Command Paper "Control of Immigration Statistics United Kingdom 2001" by the end of 2002.

  All nationals of Pakistan are required to obtain entry clearance. The majority of refusals in 2000 were the result of not having the correct entry clearance. Visas issued since 2 October 2000 confer leave to enter the United Kingdom upon the holder and a passenger with a visa as leave to enter will not normally require further examination. The immigration rules allow persons holding visas to be refused only in exceptional circumstances.

  Game Licences
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of prosecutions there were in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available for shooting game without a game licence. [22398]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 17 December 2001]Shooting game without a game licence is an offence under Section 23 of the Game Act 1831. The number of defendants prosecuted for shooting game without a game licence cannot be separately identified, in information held centrally on the Home Office's Court Proceedings Database, from the number of defendants prosecuted for the offences of killing or taking of game without a licence by other means, laying poison to destroy game, taking or destroying eggs of game, killing game on Sunday or Christmas Day, killing game out of season and the occupier of land killing game without authority. Data showing the number of defendants prosecuted for all these offences during the years 1991–2000 are given in the table.

  Defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts for killing game without a licence' England and Wales, 1991–2000

  Total number proceeded against

  1991

  50

  1992

  38

  1993

  73

  1994

  27

  1995

  19

  1996

  22

  1997

  21

  1998

  20

  1999

  25

  20002

  9

  1Also includes the offences of laying poison to destroy game, taking or destroying eggs of game, etc., killing game on Sunday or Christmas Day, killing game out of season, and occupier of land killing game without authority.
  792W
  2Staffordshire police force were able to submit only sample data for prosecutions at 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.

  Note:

  All data are given on a principal offence basis.

  Channel Tunnel
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has made to his French counterpart on security on rail freight using the channel tunnel. [23315]

  Angela Eagle
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised the current severe disruption to rail freight services through the channel tunnel with French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin on 29 November. He had previously written to M. Jospin on this subject on 16 November.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is in regular contact with his French counterpart Daniel Vaillant about the channel tunnel and other immigration matters. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport has both written and spoken to M. Gayssot, the French Transport Minister, emphasising the need for a speedy resolution.

  Home Office officials and those from the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions are also in close contact with their French counterparts on a range of issues, including the security improvements required to allow the early resumption of full rail freight services. On 3 December, the head of security for SNCF informed the UK Immigration Service of their intention to speed up the improvements to anti-intrusion measures at the Frethun freight yard.

  Prisoners
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to reduce the prison population. [23971]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Government believe that prison is right for dangerous, serious and some persistent offenders and that sentences should be as long as necessary for punishment and public protection, but no longer.

  Home detention curfew plays an important role by enabling prisoners to be released from prison early, while still subject to restrictions placed on their liberty. This facilitates a smoother and more effective integration back into the community and helps offenders to secure or resume employment or training as soon as possible.

  The Government believe that community punishments can make a major impact and support their increased use, particularly for some non-violent offenders such as those convicted of theft and handling, or fraud. The Government's reform of the probation service, with its focus on reducing re-offending, means that rigorously enforced community sentences are a real and tough alternative to imprisonment. Changes already introduced, for example the Drug Testing and Treatment Order and the ability of Courts to impose community punishment, rehabilitation orders and curfew orders as one sentence, should enable sentencers to consider a robust community sentence as an alternative to imprisonment.
  793W
  In the longer term the proposed sentencing reforms, including sentencing guidelines and new flexible sentences incorporating both custody and supervision, should have a significant impact. In this context the Government are also exploring the scope for innovative new sentences, such as intermittent custody, and for restorative justice interventions.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average distance was from the committal court at the time of release for(a) male prisoners, (b) female prisoners and (c) young offenders in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [23902]

  Beverley Hughes
  Data are not available on the distance prisoners are held away from committal court at the time of release. However, data are collected periodically on the distance prisoners are currently held away from committal court. The latest figures, obtained on 30 September 2001 are set out in the table.

  Miles

  Population group

  Average distance prisoners are held away from committal court

  Male prisoners1

  53

  Female prisoners1

  63

  Young offenders2

  50

  1 Including young offenders.

  2 Male and female, including juveniles.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many bail information schemes are in operation in women's prisons; and how many staff work in each of them. [23901]

  Beverley Hughes
  Each of the seven female establishments that hold remand prisoners operate a bail information scheme. They are required to have sufficient trained staff to provide all eligible prisoners with the facilities necessary to assist in their applications for bail. These duties may be shared between a number of staff. The number of staff involved in providing bail information at one time will vary according to the size of the remand population.

  Police Officers (London)
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of police officers for each London borough in each month since 1 July 1999 that(a) were in post, (b) left the service and (c) were recruited. [18651]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested has been provided by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and a table has been placed in the Library.

TREASURY

  Stability and Growth Pact
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to submit an updated annual Convergence Programme as required by the Stability and Growth Pact. [25920]

  Ruth Kelly
  As required under the Stability and Growth Pact, an updated, annual Convergence Programme was submitted to the European Commissionon 794W
  20 December 2001. Copies of the programme were placed in the Libraries of both Houses and are also available in the Vote Office.

  European Investment Bank
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the level of the European Investment Bank's loans for projects in the United Kingdom in each year since 1992. [24809]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested, which has been obtained from EIB's annual reports, has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the receipts for advance corporation tax for each of the last 54 months. [24824]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Monthly receipts of advanced corporation tax (ACT) for April 1999 to November 2001 are given on the Inland Revenue website at: www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/tax_receipts/g_t03_1.htm

  Figures for the months April 1997 to March 1999 are given in table 1.3 of Inland Revenue Statistics 1999.

  Minimum Wage Unit
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of 9 December 2001,Official Report, column 323, in how many cases information has been passed by Inland Revenue staff to the National Minimum Wage Unit on non-compliant employers; and what the outcome of such investigations has been. [25185]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Nearly 5,000 working families tax credit applications have been the subject of an employer inquiry by NMW staff. Non-compliance has been identified in just over a third of such cases.

  VAT
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding the levying of VAT on managers' salaries in retirement accommodation where the service provider is not the freeholder; and if he will make a statement. [24915]

  Mr. Boateng
  There have been a number of representations on this issue. However, there has been no change to the VAT treatment of such services. If future changes to employment regulations have the effect of altering the VAT treatment, parallel changes will be made to ensure there is no increased VAT charge on managers' services in retirement accommodation

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue was obtained from VAT charges on courses of(a) education, (b) training, (c) sports activity and (d) leisure activity in each year since 1997; and how much it costs each year to administer the collection of these charges. [24797]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is not available. However, education (including physical education) and vocational training in schools, universities, higher education colleges and further education colleges is free of VAT.
  795W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the risk analysis system used by Customs and Excise for VAT control visiting is restricted to determining the(a) relative risk of different traders and (b) overall risk to the revenue. [24545]

  Mr. Boateng
  Central risk analysis enables Customs to rank traders in order of relative risk, predict outcomes, and target resources to achieve greater compliance.

  Risk analysis is under continual development and Customs' definition of risk includes those likely to need support and education as well as the wilfully non compliant.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his policy that a trader should receive a visit from Customs and Excise within the first three years of registering for VAT. [24811]

  Mr. Boateng
  It is not Customs policy that a business should receive a visit within the first three years of registering for VAT for that reason alone.

  Currently all newly registered businesses are offered a programme of learning for VAT, including videos, seminars, meetings and visits. Customs are enhancing support and plan to make telephone contact with all newly registered businesses, around 190,000 a year, to offer support for them to meet their legal obligations.

  In addition businesses may contact the National Advice Service, launched in April 2001, to resolve queries.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) local authorities, (b) voluntary organisations and (c) universities are paying VAT on courses of further education for adults; and if he will list the courses liable. [24796]

  Mr. Boateng
  VAT is not paid on further education courses provided by local authorities, voluntary organisations that use surplus income for educational purposes, and universities.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans Customs and Excise have to issue a VAT payer's charter setting out standards of service to VAT payers. [24793]

  Mr. Boateng
  Customs and Excise have no plans to issue an additional VAT payers charter. Their standards of service to VAT payers—and all other business customers—are already set out in the "Customs and Excise Charter", Notice 400 (most recent edition July 2001).

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each of the last 10 years(a) total VAT registrations and (b) total new registrations. [24547]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information on the number of total VAT registrations and total new VAT registrations is available in the Departmental Annual Reports published by Customs and Excise.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) on what he bases his assessment that the changes to 796W
  capital gains tax announced in the pre-Budget report will not create new loopholes for the treatment of income as capital gain; [25200]

  (2) what measures he has taken to ensure that changes to capital gains tax, announced in the pre-Budget report, will not permit treatment of income as capital gain. [25219]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The proposed modifications to the taper relief rules for business assets are not expected to give rise to the creation of schemes for converting income to capital gain to any significant extent because the effective capital gains tax rate of 10 per cent. will not be reached until the asset in question has been held for two years, and because there are rules already in place which are designed to ensure that income is charged to income tax.

  We shall, however, be keeping the position under close review and will not hesitate to take action to protect the income tax yield if such schemes are introduced.

  Carter Review
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of paragraphs 5.1 and 5.4 of the Carter Review of Payroll Services; what plans he has to align the treatment of benefits in kind for the purposes of national insurance and income tax; and if he will make a statement.[24936]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Chancellor said in the pre-Budget report that the proposals in the Carter Review were a challenging but attractive package of measures. We have invited comments on the detail of the review's recommendations by 31 January 2002 so it would be inappropriate to comment on specific aspects of the report at this stage.

  Tax Reform
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the Tax Law Reform Committee paper, "Employed or Self Employed"; and if he will make a statement. [24937]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  We read the paper with interest when it was published in February 2001. Along with all other such publications, its contents are taken into consideration during relevant policy deliberations in the usual way.

  Amateur Sports Clubs
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 10 December 2001,Official Report, column 689W, on amateur sports clubs, what plans he has to provide funds to enable the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, to provide mandatory relief for community amateur sports clubs at the same level enjoyed by charities. [25128]

  Mr. Boateng
  On 30 November, the Charity Commission announced that it would recognise as charitable "the promotion of community participation in healthy recreation". Community amateur sports clubs that qualify for charitable status will be able to enjoy the tax relief that such status confers. This includes 80 per cent.
  797W
  mandatory rate relief in England and Wales (fully centrally funded), with a further 20 per cent. available at the discretion of the local authority (75 per cent. centrally funded, with the local authority funding the remaining 25 per cent.). Any reduction in the total amount of business rates collected is automatically offset by an increase in total revenue support grant paid to local authorities.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many community amateur sports clubs have(a) a turnover of less than £15,000 and (b) a rental income less than £10,000. [25020]

  Mr. Boateng
  The number of community amateur sports clubs across the UK with a turnover of less than £15,000 and a rental income of less than £10,000 will vary from year to year. It is the Government's intention to recognise the positive contribution that such clubs make to their local communities. On 30 November, a consultation documentation—"Promoting Sport in the Community"—was launched, seeking views from interested parties on the best way to support community amateur sports clubs.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 10 December 2001,Official Report, column 689W, on amateur sports clubs, whether he will include relief from the climate change levy in his proposals for tax relief for community amateur sports clubs. [25129]

  Mr. Boateng
  A consultation document—"Promoting Sport in the Community"—was launched on 30 November, seeking views on the best way to support community amateur sports clubs. The document is held in the House Library. A number of options are available. Comments are invited and responses to the consultation will help to shape the support we shall offer.

  On 30 November, the Charity Commission announced that it would recognise as charitable the promotion of community participation in healthy recreation by the provision of facilities for the playing of particular sports. The climate change levy does not apply to energy used by charities for charitable purposes.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with the Performance and Innovation Unit regarding support for community amateur sports clubs. [25000]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Treasury is in regular dialogue with the Performance and Innovation Unit, which is currently undertaking a wider review of the legal and regulatory framework for charities. The Treasury launched a consultation document—"Promoting Sport in the Community"—on 30 November, seeking views from interested parties before finalising decisions on the best way to support CASCs. The consultation document is separate from the work of the Performance and Innovation Unit, but will have regard to the conclusions of that separate review and in the course of deciding the best way forward, responses to the consultation will be shared with the Performance and Innovation Unit.
  798W

  Smuggling
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many lorries were confiscated by customs officers for smuggling(a) cigarettes, (b) tobacco and (c) alcohol in (i) 1999, (ii) 2000 and (iii) 2001. [24928]

  Mr. Boateng
  Customs do not maintain aggregate vehicle seizure records by type or nature of offence. Details on the total number of vehicles seized by Customs in 1998–99 and 1999–2000 are published in Customs annual reports for those years. Similar details for 2000–01 were published in the document "Tackling Indirect Tax Fraud" as part of the pre-Budget report.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many drivers employed by hauliers were(a) arrested and (b) prosecuted for smuggling (i) cigarettes, (ii) tobacco and (iii) alcohol in (A) 1999, (B) 2000 and (C) 2001. [24929]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is not available.

  Vehicle Seizures
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was paid by hauliers to HM Customs and Excise for the release of their lorries in(a) 1999, (b) 2000, and (c) 2001. [24890]

  Mr. Boateng
  Customs records of money received for vehicle restoration do not distinguish between types of vehicles or those paying restoration charges. The Customs and Excise annual reports for 1998–99 and 1999–2000 give details of the total restoration sums paid in those years in respect of all seized vehicles.

  Winter Deaths
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many excess winter deaths there were in each of the last 15 years. [25125]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on 25 October 2001,Official Report, column 376W.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) men and (b) women aged (i) 50 to 54, (ii) 55 to 59, (iii) 60 to 64 and (iv) 65 to 69 years were (a) in full-time work, (b) in part-time work, (c) unemployed, (d) long-term sick and disabled and (e) retired in each of the last 10 years. [25175]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. John Bercow, dated 8 January 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question about how many men and women aged 50 to 54, 55 to 59, and 60 to 64 years were in full-time work, in part-time work, unemployed, long term sick and disabled and retired in each of the last ten years (25175). I am replying in his absence.
  The information requested is given in the table overleaf.
  799W

  Men and women by age by economic activity, spring (March to May) 1992–2001—United Kingdom

  Not seasonally adjusted

  Thousand

  of which:

  Spring

  Total1

  Full time work

  Part time work

  Unemployed

  Economically inactive

  Long term sick and disabled

  Retired

  Men

  Age 50–54

  1992

  1,522

  1,178

  44

  134

  166

  ..

  ..

  1993

  1,546

  1,169

  51

  142

  184

  136

  *

  1994

  1,588

  1,184

  56

  142

  206

  143

  *

  1995

  1,634

  1,246

  62

  115

  210

  151

  *

  1996

  1,684

  1,278

  66

  105

  228

  162

  18

  1997

  1,824

  1,385

  84

  92

  262

  184

  18

  1998

  1,919

  1,487

  84

  79

  270

  183

  20

  1999

  1,966

  1,519

  91

  83

  273

  187

  24

  2000

  1,995

  1,529

  102

  89

  275

  181

  28

  2001

  2,013

  1,585

  87

  62

  278

  189

  22

  Age 55–59

  1992

  1,435

  934

  61

  126

  314

  ..

  ..

  1993

  1,448

  892

  69

  135

  352

  222

  55

  1994

  1,466

  904

  82

  130

  351

  223

  54

  1995

  1,477

  896

  80

  112

  388

  247

  62

  1996

  1,464

  902

  90

  109

  362

  229

  64

  1997

  1,473

  912

  98

  88

  375

  232

  71

  1998

  1,497

  939

  102

  75

  382

  251

  65

  1999

  1,539

  975

  109

  74

  381

  239

  75

  2000

  1,583

  1,005

  116

  63

  399

  248

  79

  2001

  1,645

  1,055

  138

  48

  402

  230

  101

  Age 60–64

  1992

  1,371

  561

  88

  74

  648

  ..

  ..

  1993

  1,363

  519

  91

  101

  651

  281

  237

  1994

  1,353

  520

  89

  80

  664

  331

  220

  1995

  1,346

  508

  99

  67

  672

  334

  231

  1996

  1,334

  498

  108

  59

  679

  322

  235

  1997

  1,347

  520

  121

  53

  653

  318

  233

  1998

  1,362

  511

  116

  47

  688

  334

  252

  1999

  1,382

  522

  130

  45

  685

  342

  246

  2000

  1,394

  530

  129

  41

  693

  322

  264

  2001

  1,389

  538

  134

  37

  678

  324

  266

  Women

  Age 50–54

  1992

  1,535

  489

  519

  57

  471

  ..

  ..

  1993

  1,561

  525

  508

  60

  467

  145

  23

  1994

  1,602

  535

  542

  59

  467

  146

  22

  1995

  1,649

  577

  532

  55

  486

  173

  20

  1996

  1,708

  572

  578

  55

  501

  173

  30

  1997

  1,840

  658

  613

  53

  515

  194

  26

  1998

  1.937

  697

  651

  46

  542

  217

  26

  1999

  1,985

  759

  629

  44

  553

  217

  34

  2000

  2,013

  777

  641

  46

  549

  221

  33

  Age 55–59

  1992

  1,485

  338

  428

  36

  66

  ..

  1993

  1,477

  326

  431

  48

  672

  209

  105

  1994

  1,497

  345

  431

  54

  658

  213

  118

  1995

  1,610

  356

  445

  40

  659

  227

  118

  1996

  1,498

  352

  428

  35

  887

  244

  115

  1997

  1,508

  350

  410

  38

  708

  265

  119

  1998

  1,631

  382

  425

  29

  695

  282

  129

  1998

  1,873

  408

  439

  31

  694

  266

  130

  2000

  1,819

  440

  485

  29

  688

  282

  128

  2001

  1,881

  488

  491

  20

  703

  265

  148

  800W 801W

  Men and women by age by economic activity, spring (March to May) 1992–2001—United Kingdom

  Not seasonally adjusted

  Thousand

  of which:

  Spring

  Total1

  Full time work

  Part time work

  Unemployed

  Economically inactive

  Long term sick and disabled

  Retired

  Age 60–64

  1992

  1,475

  112

  226

  ..

  1,130

  ..

  ..

  1993

  1,450

  113

  233

  15

  1,099

  131

  551

  1994

  1,439

  102

  253

  10

  1,073

  180

  663

  1995

  1,421

  103

  247

  ..

  1,088

  165

  880

  1996

  1,400

  111

  248

  ..

  1,065

  158

  687

  1997

  1,410

  117

  254

  ..

  1,032

  162

  687

  1998

  1,424

  98

  234

  ..

  1,085

  188

  734

  1999

  1,444

  113

  229

  ..

  1,084

  174

  736

  2000

  1,457

  111

  259

  ..

  1,080

  140

  764

  2001

  1,452

  110

  283

  ..

  1,053

  134

  773

  1Includes other economic activities

  2Sample size too small for reliable estimate.

  .. Due to a questionnaire routing error Spring 1992 inactive categories are not available.

  Source:

  ONS—Labour Force Survey

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the number of employee jobs by industry in the Buckingham constituency in the most recent year for which figures are available. [24842]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. John Bercow, dated 8 December 2001 As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the number of employee jobs by industry in the Buckingham constituency. (24842)
  The total number of employee jobs in the Buckingham constituency for each year are shown in the table below:

  Buckingham constituency employee jobs

  Year

  Number of jobs

  1996

  20,099

  1997

  20,328

  1998

  23,764

  1999

  21,610

  2000

  21,427

  Source:

  A comparable series is available from the Annual Employment Survey (1996–1997) and the Annual Business Inquiry (1998–2000)

  Industry detail is accessible in the House of Commons Library from terminals linked to the Nomis database.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of working age people in the Buckingham constituency were in employment in each year since 1997. [24845]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have been asked to reply.

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. John Bercow dated 8 January 2002 The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the proportion of working age people in employment in the Buckingham constituency. I am replying in his absence. (24845)
  The table below shows the information requested
  802W

  Working age1employment rate2for the Buckingham constituency; 1997 to 2000

  Percentage

  March 1997–February 1998

  84.3

  March 1998–February 1999

  81.4

  March 1999–February 2000

  84.3

  March 2000–February 2001

  83.7

  1Men aged 16–64 and women aged 16–59

  2Those in employment as a percentage of all persons of working age

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey (Annual LADB dataset)

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average length of time that currently unemployed men aged(a) 50 to 54, (b) 55 to 59 and (c) 60 to 64 years have remained unemployed. [25170]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. John Bercow, dated 8 January 2002 The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the average length of time that currently unemployed men aged 50 to 54, 55 to 59 and 60 to 64 years have remained unemployed. I am replying in his absence. (25170).
  The table below shows numbers of men in these age groups according to their duration of unemployment. Information on the average length of time unemployed is not available.

  Duration of unemployment for males by age—spring (March to May) 2001 United Kingdom

  Not seasonally adjusted

  Thousand

  Age

  50–54

  55–59

  60–64

  Total1

  62

  48

  37

  Less than three months

  17

  10

  12

  Three months but less than six months

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Six months but less than 12 months

  11

  2—

  2—

  One year or more

  25

  26

  15

  1Includes people who did not state how long they had been unemployed

  2Sample size too small for reliable estimate

  Source:

  ONS—Labour Force Survey
  803W

  Lone Mothers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of single lone mothers are in(a) part-time work, (b) full-time work and (c) all paid work. [25169]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. John Bercow, dated 8 January 2002 The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the proportion of single mothers that are in part-time work, full-time work and all paid work. I am replying in his absence. (25169).
  The information requested is given in the table below.

  Lone mothers by whether working full or part-time as percentage of all—Spring 2001

  Not seasonally adjusted

  United Kingdom

  Number

  All lone mothers1(million)

  1.471

  (Per cent.)

  100

  Of which:

  All in employment (Per cent.)

  49.9

  full-time (Per cent.)

  22.7

  part-time (Per cent.)

  27.2

  1Includes those lone mothers whose economic status is not known, but percentages are based on totals which exclude this group.

  Source

  Labour Force Survey Household datasets

  Cot Deaths
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cot deaths there were in each of the last five years. [24646]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Simon Burns, dated 8 December 2001 As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question asking how many cot deaths there were in each of the last five years. (24646)
  The figures requested are given in the table below.

  Number of cot deaths that occurred in England and Wales during 1996–2000

  Calendar year

  Number of deaths

  1996

  424

  1997

  393

  1998

  286

  1999

  279

  20001

  243

  1Provisional

  Source

  Health Statistics Quarterly 11, Report: Sudden infant deaths

  Cancer
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many men were diagnosed with testicular cancer in each year since 1997. [24642]
  804W
  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. Simon Burns, dated 8 January 2002 The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question concerning how many men were diagnosed with testicular cancer in (a) 2001, (b) 2000, (c) 1999, (d) 1998 and (e) 1997. I am replying in his absence. (24642)
  There were 1,411 registrations of newly diagnosed cases of testicular cancer in England in 1997 and 1,541 in 1998. (Source: 1997: Office for National Statistics. 'Cancer statistics—registrations, England, 1995–1997'. 1998: 'Cancer: number of new cases, 1998, by sex and age' at: http: //www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/Expodata/ Spreadsheets/D4505.xls). Comparable information is not yet available for 1999, 2000, and 2001.

  Cancer
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many women were(a) diagnosed with and (b) died due to breast cancer in each year since 1997. [24648]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. Simon Burns, dated 8 January 2002 The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question concerning how many women were (a) diagnosed with and (b) died owing to breast cancer in (i) 1997, (ii) 1998, (iii) 1999, (iv) 2000 and (v) 2001. I am replying in his absence. (24648).
  The available information on the numbers of new cases, and deaths from, breast cancer in females (all ages) in England from 1997 onwards is given in the table below.

  Cases

  Deaths

  1997

  31,380

  11,240

  1998

  32,908

  11,005

  1999

  1—

  10,856

  2000

  1—

  10,609

  1 Not yet available.

  Source:

  Cases—1997: Office for National Statistics. 'Cancer statistics—registrations, England', 1995–97. Series MBI no.28. London: The Stationery Office, 2001.

  1998: 'Cancer: number of new cases, 1998; by sex and age' at http: //www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/Expodata/Spreadsheets/ D4505.xls.

  Deaths—Mortality statistics: Cause, Series DH2 Nos. 24, 25, 26 and 27. Figures are for deaths where the underlying cause was coded to 174 using the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the five year survival rates for(a) breast, (b) lung, (c) cervical, (d) colon, (e) stomach, (f) prostate and (g) bladder cancer are (i) nationally, (ii) in the Buckinghamshire health authority area and (iii) in the South East regional office area. [24852]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. John Bercow, dated 8 January 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question concerning what the five year survival rates for (a) breast, (b) lung, (c) cervical, (d) colon, (e) stomach, (f) prostate and

  805W
  (g) bladder cancer are (i) nationally, (ii) in the Buckinghamshire Health Authority area and (iii) in the South East Regional Office area. I am replying in his absence. (24852)
  At the national level, figures are routinely presented for men and women separately, while those at regional and local levels are given for persons only. The latest available information is given in this format in the table below.

  Five-year relative survival (℅), persons diagnosed in 1992–94 and followed up to 31 December 1999: selected cancers, England, South East Regional Office area and Buckinghamshire Health Authority area

  Percentage

  England

  South-East

  Buckinghamshire

  Cancer site

  Men

  Women

  Persons

  Persons

  Breast*

  —

  75.0

  76.4

  78

  Lung

  5.1

  5.3

  5.2

  4.8

  Cervix

  :

  65.2

  65.4

  64

  Colon

  42.6

  42.1

  45.7

  44

  Stomach

  10.0

  10.8

  11.7

  8.3

  Prostate

  54.9

  :

  57.9

  57

  Bladder

  66.2

  57.9

  67.7

  72

  * Figures for breast exclude the very small numbers of cases in men.

  Source: `Cancer Survival: five year relative survival rates in England by Health Authority up to 1999' at: http: //www.statistics.gov.uk/ statbase/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D4878.xls.

  Corresponding survival rates for cervical, stomach, bladder and oesophageal cancer are unpublished, but will be placed on the website in January 2002.

  Charities (Donations)
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to encourage public donations to charitable organisations. [25015]

  Ruth Kelly
  In April 2000 the Government introduced a number of measures to encourage greater charitable giving. The Getting Britain Giving package of measures included improvements to the gift aid and payroll giving schemes and a new income tax relief for giving shares to charities. The Government are supporting The Giving Campaign, led by the charitable sector, to promote the new reliefs and encourage a culture of giving.

  The Chancellor has also asked the Inland Revenue to consult charities on an innovation which would allow gift aid donations to be made, and relief claimed, when people complete their annual tax returns.

  Andorra
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to(a) monitor the incidence of and (b) take action against smuggling from Andorra to the United Kingdom. [R] [23706]

  Mr. Boateng
  HM Customs and Excise include the risk of smuggling from Andorra in the overall intelligence-based assessments which inform the deployment of the Department's resources.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in the Portsmouth, South constituency(a) received and (b) were entitled to (i) WFTC, (ii) DPTC and (iii) child tax credit in (a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02. [24154]
  806W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The numbers in Portsmouth, South receiving the working families tax credit (WFTC) and the disabled person's tax credit (DPTC) at May 2001 and August 2001 are shown in "Working Families and Disabled Person's Tax Credit Statistics. Geographical analyses". The equivalent numbers for April 2000 to April 2001 (DPTC) and for May 2000 to February 2001 (WFTC) are shown in the respective Quarterly Enquiries, although these numbers for WFTC are estimates based on a 5 per cent. sample of awards and are therefore subject to sampling error. Copies of the Geographical analyses and the Quarterly Enquiries are in the Library.

  No estimates are available of the numbers in Portsmouth, South eligible for these tax credits.

  It is estimated that around 5 million families will benefit from the children's tax credit for 2001–02. It is not known how many of these are in Portsmouth, South, although it is estimated that 675,000 are in the south-east (excluding London).

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what means the child care element of the working tax credit will be paid to the main carer. [24237]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In the light of representations received in response to consultation, the Government have decided that the child care element of the working tax credit will be paid direct to the main carer, alongside payments of the child tax credit.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many WFTC recipients have(a) no income tax liability and (b) an income tax liability that is (i) lower and (ii) higher than the value of their WFTC entitlement. [24248]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  A family's income tax liability is defined only for a complete fiscal year, and is based on the incomes and other circumstances of the adult(s) in that year. Working families tax credit (WFTC) awards can start throughout the year, are for 26 weeks, and the value of an award depends on the net weekly income of the family and other circumstances of the family measured at the time of the application. This means that the income tax liability of a WFTC recipient family cannot normally be determined from the data reported on the application form.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 18 October 2001,Official Report, column 1296W, how much each of the campaigns publicising the working families tax credit cost. [24216]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The total marketing communications spend for WFTC for 2000–01 was £7,403,191.

  The total amount spent for 2001–02 to date is £1,480,806.

  Film Industry
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many British films produced in 1999–2000 claimed the 100 per cent. tax write off during the first year; and what the total loss was in tax revenue resulting from these claims. [24083]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  In 1999–2000 the Department for Culture, Media and Sport certified 76 "British qualifying" films costing less than £15 million under the Films Act
  807W
  1985. The estimated tax cost of relief provided to British qualifying films under section 48 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1997 is £85 million for films produced in 1999–2000, over double the amount that would have been available under the previous arrangement.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met Mr. Jack Velenti of the Motion Picture Association of America; and what representations he has received from Mr. Velenti about extending the section 48 tax concession permitting qualifying British films with budgets under £15 million to claim 100 per cent. write-off in the first year. [24084]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Chancellor receives numerous Budget representations, from a variety of sources. All taxes are kept under review and decisions are made as part of the normal Budget process. The expiry date for the tax relief provided by section 48 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1997 was extended by three years to 1 July 2005 by Section 72 of the Finance Act 2001.

  Scottish Provident Institution
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the Scottish Provident Institution and the performance of the FSA in dealing with matters raised by Scottish Provident Action for Membership; and if he will make a statement. [24558]

  Ruth Kelly
  We regularly receive representations about a wide spectrum of issues.

  Pensions
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the marginal rates of tax and benefit withdrawal for pensioners are(a) in 2001–02 and (b) from October 2003. [24235]

  Ruth Kelly
  Pensioners currently face a variety of marginal deduction rates (MDRs), which range from 10 per cent. for those who are liable to pay tax at the lower rate only to 100 per cent. for those with incomes below the minimum income guarantee (MIG). Following the introduction of the pension credit (PC) in October 2003, pensioners will still face MDRs between 10 and 100 per cent. However, some 1.6 million pensioner households that currently face MDRs of 100 per cent., which will be eligible for the PC, will see their rate cut to 40 per cent. This is because pensioner households will receive 60 pence for every £1 of income they have above

  Project

  Accounting treatment

  Office automation in Customs and Excise

  The initial contract and subsequent additions were reviewed to decide the appropriate accounting treatment for the PFI contract. The Department used FRS 5, "Reporting the substance of contracts", and the methodology prescribed in the Treasury Taskforce, Private Finance, Technical Note No.l (revised), "How to account for PFI transactions" to determine the appropriate accounting treatment. The work carried out showed that the risks of ownership were borne by the provider and that the Department should not capitalise the assets.

  NIRS2

  The arrangements for this project pre-dated the issue of the Treasury guidance. The accounting treatment for the Inland Revenue projects mentioned is reported in note 22 of the Department's 2000–01 resource accounts. The projects are operating leases and consequently are not included in the Department's balance sheet as fixed assets.

  Manchester Inland Revenue Offices

  Inland Revenue follows Treasury guidance and adopts the processes therein. The accounting treatment for the Inland Revenue projects mentioned is reported in note 22 of the-Department's 2000–01 resource accounts. The projects are operating leases and consequently are not included in the Department's balance sheet as fixed assets.

  808W
  the level of the basic state pension (BSP) up to a maximum of £13.80 per week to reward them for saving for their retirement.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Regents Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) of 27 November 2001,Official Report, column 868W, if the figure for the number of children lifted out of poverty since 1997 is net; and according to the same definition of poverty, how many children have entered poverty since 1997. [24243]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  As a result of personal tax and benefit measures announced in the last Parliament, there are 1.2 million fewer children in poverty than there would otherwise have been.

  Capital Assets
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 11 December 2001,Official Report, column 765W, on capital assets, which definition of investment he used in answering on (a) on the level of investment provided through PFI and (b) the level of total investment; and if he will make a statement. [24127]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Capital spending provided through PFI can be classified in national accounts as either investment by the public sector or by the private sector. The term private sector investment through PFI refers to PH capital spending that is classified to the private sector.

  Total investment in public services includes all capital expenditure financed through PFI, regardless of how that spending is classified in national accounts. It is measured gross of asset sales and before deducting depreciation.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 12 December 2001,Official Report, column 889W, on capital assets, if he will place in the Library information on the accounting treatment of the public private partnership projects relating to (a) office automation in Customs and Excise, (b) NIRS2, (c) Manchester Inland Revenue offices, (d) Stockport Inland Revenue, (e) Bootle St. John's House, (f) Newcastle Estate Development Scheme, (g) CCTA MTS Telecoms Service and (h) Treasury GOGGS Building; and if he will make a statement. [24256]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information is as follows:
  809W

  Project

  Accounting treatment

  Stockport Inland Revenue

  Inland Revenue follows Treasury guidance and adopts the processes therein. The accounting treatment for the Inland Revenue projects mentioned is reported in note 22 of the Department's 2000–01 resource accounts. The projects are operating leases and consequently are not included in the Department's balance sheet as fixed assets.

  Bootle St. Johns House

  Inland Revenue follows Treasury guidance and adopts the processes therein. The accounting treatment for the Inland Revenue projects mentioned is reported in note 22 of the Department's 2000–01 resource accounts. The projects are operating leases and consequently are not included in the Department's balance sheet as fixed assets.

  Newcastle Estate Development Scheme

  Inland Revenue follows Treasury guidance and adopts the processes therein. The accounting treatment for the Inland Revenue projects mentioned is reported in note 22 of the Department's 2000–01 resource accounts. The projects are operating leases and consequently are not included in the Department's balance sheet as fixed assets.

  MTS Telecomms Service

  OGCbuying.solutions, CCTA's successor body managing the telecoms contract service on behalf of Departments, follows Treasury guidance and adopts the processes therein. The outcomes of applying the guidance are as follows:

  On 1 January 1997, some telecommunications assets were transferred to Racal Telecom as part of an agreement under which Racal undertook to provide telecommunication services under agreed terms for a period of 10 years.

  Racal Telecomm (now Global Crossing) agreed as payment for those assets to abate the agreed level of payments for services under the contract, by an amount of £400,000 per annum for 10 years. The value of the payments over the 10 year period were sufficient to cover the book value of the assets at the time of transfer plus interest for the deferred payment schedule.

  The original £4 million was treated as a deferred debtor in the accounts of CCTA, following advice from NAO. The abatements (£400k per annum) reduce the deferred debtor on an on-going basis. This treatment has carried forward from April 2001 to OGCbuying.solutions accounts.

  HM Treasury GOGGS Building

  The Treasury's PH agreement for refurbishment of its new building will take effect during 2002–03. The accounting treatment has yet to be decided. The agreement will be recorded in the Treasury's 2000–01 accounts as a post-balance sheet event.

  Aggregates Levy
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will delay introduction of the aggregates levy in Scotland. [25025]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government will not delay the introduction of the aggregates levy in Scotland, as this would only serve to delay the environmental benefits the levy will deliver.

  Enterprise Management Incentives
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the forecast cost in the next financial year of administering enterprise management incentives. [20466]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  A Regulatory Impact Assessment was published in November 1999. It is available in the House of Commons Library.

  The cost to the Inland Revenue of administering EMI is about £450,000 annually.

  European Monetary Institute
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations the Government have undertaken with the European Monetary Institute as provided for by the Treaty on European Union. [24814]

  Ruth Kelly
  The European Monetary Institute was replaced by the European central bank at the start of stage three of EMU. The Chancellor meets regularly with 810W
  central bank Governors and ministerial colleagues from other countries, including representatives from the euro area.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many businesses resident in the Buckingham constituency have contacted the Treasury requesting information on the single currency. [24867]

  Ruth Kelly
  Information is not readily available on the basis requested.

  However, the Treasury euro information line has received over 450 requests from businesses in Buckinghamshire for information and advice on working with the euro now. In addition, there have been over 250,000 visits to the Treasury euro website since it was relaunched by the Chancellor on 29 March 2001. At a local level, the South East Euro Awareness Forum (SEEAF) also provides information and advice and has been involved in over 35 seminars for businesses in the south east of England.

  ISAs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individuals in the Buckingham constituency have invested in(a) cash ISAs, (b) mini-ISAs and (c) maxi-ISAs in each year since their introduction. [24847]

  Ruth Kelly
  Estimates at a sub-national level of subscriptions to ISAs are not currently available.
  811W

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the targets applied by Customs and Excise in the last five financial years for the length of time after registration for all traders to be visited. [24546]

  Mr. Boateng
  Customs does not set targets on the length of time after registration for businesses to be visited. Visits are conducted on the basis of a detailed risk analysis applied to all registered businesses.

  Currently all newly registered businesses are offered a programme of learning for VAT, including videos, seminars, meetings and visits. Customs are enhancing support and plan to make telephone contact with all newly registered businesses, around 190,000 a year, to offer support for them to meet their legal obligations.

  In addition businesses may contact the National Advice Service, launched in April 2001, to resolve queries.

  Contraband
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what quantities and value of contraband of(a) tobacco, (b) drugs, (c) alcohol and (d) other goods was seized by Customs and Excise in each of the last four years; what quantity and value of contraband alcohol was disposed of, and at what cost; and what are equivalent figures for the latest previous years for which statistics are available; [24805]

  (2) if he will list for each of the last 10 years the quantities and estimated value of contraband seized, categorised by type, and indicate the means by which it has been destroyed. [24804]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Details of goods seized—including, where appropriate—their value, can be found in Customs Annual Reports, available from the House of Commons Library. Full seizure figures for 2000–01 will be published in the Annual Report for that year in due course. Details of tobacco seizures for 2000–01 were published in Customs' "Tackling Indirect Tax Fraud" paper on 27 November, also available from the House Library.

  The disposal of alcohol and tobacco is covered by a single contract which also includes storage and transportation, and it is not possible to distinguish between the costs that relate to each commodity.

  Seized goods are in general disposed of as follows:

  Goods

  Disposal

  Drugs

  Burned at secure Government establishments

  Firearms

  Handed over the police firearms squads

  Alcohol products

  Recycled into agricultural feed or low grade spirit fuel, or poured away

  Tobacco products

  Shredded and compressed into pellets for furnace fuel

  Live animals

  Handed over to RSPCA quarantine facilities

  Endangered species

  Handed over to zoos or returned to their country of origin

  Taxpayers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the percentage of total income received by 812W
  (a) the top one per cent, (b) the top five per cent, (c) the top 10 per cent, (d) the bottom 70 per cent and (e) the bottom 10 per cent of tax payers in 2000–01. [24818]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The information is in the table:

  Group of taxpayers

  Percentage of total taxable income received1

  (a) The top 1 per cent.

  12

  (b) The top 5 per cent.

  24

  (c) The top 10 per cent.

  34

  (d) The bottom seventy per cent.

  41

  (e) The bottom ten per cent.

  3

  1 Non taxable income such as that from ISAs is not included as this information is not available on an individual basis.

  These estimates are based on the 1999–2000 Survey of Personal Incomes and are consistent with the November 2001 pre-Budget report.

  Share Incentive Plan
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money was spent by the Government on research into the name of the Share Incentive Plan. [14434]

  Ruth Kelly
  In 1999 we commissioned a programme of research to develop a name for the All Employee Share Ownership Plan which companies and their employees would find meaningful and easy to use. This was in line with the general practice in communicating new incentives, and was in response to the views of the business community that they found the name "All Employee Share Ownership Plan" confusing and difficult to communicate.

  The research involved employers and employees from a wide range of businesses. Employees expressed an overwhelming preference for Share Incentive Plan. The total cost of the research was £110,000.

  Tax Self-assessment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest estimate of the overall impact on business of the introduction of tax self-assessment, disaggregated into(a) estimated extra costs and (b) estimated savings. [24820]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  These figures are not available. There is no reliable measure of the costs to business prior to self-assessment. Consequently, there is no pre-self-assessment baseline of costs against which any additional costs or savings as a result of self-assessment could sensibly be measured.

  Alcohol Duty
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the operation of the procedures for assessing and collecting duty from cross-channel travellers who return with purchases of alcohol; and what advice is given to businesses on the procedures to be followed. [24810]

  Mr. Boateng
  Cross-channel travellers who purchase duty-paid alcohol in another member state may bring that alcohol back to the UK without payment of UK duty if it is for their own personal use.
  813W
  For businesses or individuals wishing to import alcohol for commercial purposes, there are three ways in which they may do so, and Customs and Excise public notices give advice on the procedures to be followed.

  Notice 197 (importation under duty-suspension to a UK warehouse)

  Notice 203 (importation by a registered excise trader)

  Notice 204 (importation by a non-registered excise trader)

  Ministerial Offices
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were,(a) the running costs of his Ministers' private offices, separately identifying expenditure on staff and (b) the running costs of his Department in each of the last four years in real terms. [24826]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested is as follows:

  £ million

  (a) Ministers' private office

  Running costs at 2000–01 prices

  Total

  of which staff

  (b)HM Treasury

  1997–98

  2.7

  1.9

  67.8

  1998–99

  3.2

  2.1

  71.0

  1999–2000

  3.3

  2.2

  10.3

  2000–01

  3.6

  2.4

  83.5

  Pay Review
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what pay review body recommendations he is considering. [24819]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The pay review bodies report to the Prime Minister and to departmental Ministers, and it is primarily for the relevant departmental Ministers to consider any recommendations. The regular annual reports from the Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine (NPRB) and the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration (DDRB) have already been completed and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced on 17 December the Government's acceptance of their recommendations. We are considering a special report on senior civil service pay from the Review Body on Senior Salaries (SSRB) and expect to publish the Report and announce the Government's response shortly. Other reports from the pay review bodies will be considered as they come forward.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of the privatisation of the Paymaster Agency on the Treasury's access to information needed to monitor and control public expenditure. [24828]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Privatisation of the Paymaster Agency has had no effect on the Treasury's access to such information.

  Taxes
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish an annual statement of the effect of his 814W
  direct and indirect taxation measures on the disposable incomes of (a) the bottom 10 per cent. and (b) the bottom 20 per cent. of income earners. [24827]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government publish a range of statistics and analyses showing the impact of their tax and benefit policies across the income distribution in the Budget and pre-Budget report documentation.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many letters he has received from residents in the Buckingham constituency regarding annuities in the last 12 months. [24848]

  Ruth Kelly
  Two letters on this subject have been identified as coming from the Buckingham constituency.

  Bank of England
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions since 1971 the Treasury has exercised its powers under section 4 of the Bank of England Act 1946 to give directions to the Bank of England. [24548]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury has on no occasion since 1971 exercised its powers under section 4 of the Bank of England Act 1946 to give directions to the Bank of England.

  Government Debt
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the distribution of Government debt between the banking and non-banking sectors in each month since the 2001 Budget. [24798]

  Ruth Kelly
  Since the 2001 Budget, the proportion of British Government debt held by banks has averaged 1.7 per cent. The monthly amount of Government debt held by the UK banking sector is:

  2001

  Total central government debt (£ million)

  Debt held by UK banking sector (£ million)

  Proportion of debt held by UK banks (Percentage)

  April

  366,217

  4,258

  1.2

  May

  368,298

  5,774

  1.6

  June

  373,015

  6,602

  1.8

  July

  369,921

  6,509

  1.8

  August

  369,986

  6,439

  1.7

  September

  368,919

  7,997

  2.2

  Source:

  Financial Statistics, November 2001

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the Government's policy on the proportion of Government debt to be sold to the banking sector. [24799]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government do not have a specific policy on the proportion of their debt sold to the banking sector. Government debt is sold via auctions, which are open to all bidders via the gilt-edged market-makers. The Government do not influence the proportion of debt that is sold to a particular type of investor.
  815W

  Vocational Training
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people have claimed tax relief for vocational training in each of the last four years; and what has been the cost to public funds in each year. [24823]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Vocational training tax relief (VTR) was abolished with effect from 31 August 2000. The number of claims received and the estimated cost of tax relief for the last four years of the relief are as follows:

  Year

  Claims received1

  Cost of tax relief2 (£ million)

  2000–01

  200,000

  30

  1999–2000

  200,000

  60

  1998–99

  170,000

  50

  1997–98

  100,000

  25

  1 Number of claims received and not the number of trainees as an individual could make more than one claim in a tax year. It was estimated that there were probably about 200,000 people claiming VTR in 1997–98 and 1998–99

  2 On an accrued basis

  Tax Coding
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number and proportion of incorrect notices of tax coding for 2001–02 which the Inland Revenue has sent out; and what are the principal reasons for errors. [24807]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Error rates covering all notices of tax codings for a tax year are not computed and we have not yet reached the end of 2001–02.

  Quality monitoring for 2000–01 showed that around 5 million taxpayers received a revised notice of tax coding during the year of which 889,000 (about 15 per cent.) were incorrect. The main reasons for error were failing to correctly update benefits in kind in accordance with information provided by the employer and failing to restore the coding to a cumulative basis following a change of employment. We are seeking significant improvement in this area this year through our on-going quality assurance and quality control programme.

  EU Payments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the payments the United Kingdom will be obliged to make to the European Union in each of the next four years. [24808]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government's latest estimate of the United Kingdom's net contribution to the EC Budget in 2001–02 together with forecasts of the trended net contribution for 2002–03 and 2003–04 can be found at footnote 2 to Table B 13 of the pre-Budget report (Cm 5318). Forecasts for years beyond 2003–04 are not currently available.

  Investment Publications
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a list of the investment publications to which Her Majesty's Treasury subscribes. [24813]
  816W
  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury subscribes to the following publications which cover investment and related subjects.

  Accountancy Age

  Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin

  Bloomberg Money

  Business AM

  Business Week

  Economist

  Financial Adviser

  Futures and Options Week

  Futures and Options World

  Investors Chronicle

  Investment Week

  Money Management

  Money Marketing

  What Investment.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of working age people in the Buckingham constituency lived in a household where no adult worked in each year since 1997. [24846]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. John Bercow, dated 8 January 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the proportion of working age people living in workless households in the Buckingham constituency. I am replying in his absence.(24846)
  Information on households where no adult has worked in a given period is not compiled at constituency level.

  ECOFIN Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the outcome was of the ECOFIN Council held in Brussels on 13 December; what the Government's position was on each issue discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [23888]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Chancellor and the Paymaster General attended ECOFIN on 13 December.

  On the introduction of the euro the Commission summarised the main points of the recently published Eurobarometer poll.

  ECOFIN agreed a statement of the economic situation, which was submitted to the Laeken European Council.

  The Commission reported that important progress had been made on implementation of the financial services action plan under the Belgian presidency. Six new proposals would be tabled by the Commission in 2002, including an update of the Investment Services Directive and the Capital Adequacy Directive. The Commission planned a mid-term review of the action plan before the Barecelona European Council in March 2002.

  ECOFIN agreed a general orientation on a directive on combating market abuse. UK secured its negotiating objectives to deliver an effects-based regime with appropriate safeguards for innocent behaviour. Once the

  817W
  European Parliament has completed its first reading of the directive, the Council should be able to agree a formal common position.

  ECOFIN also agreed a general orientation on the amended collateral directive, which is designed to ensure legal certainty for cross-border and domestic collateral arrangements. This is another step forward in the completion of a single market in financial services.

  A general orientation was established on a compromise text for a draft regulation on accounting standards, which provides for the adoption of international accounting standards throughout the EU. The agreement is subject to a final Memorandum of Understanding between the European Commission and the International Accounting Standards Committee Federation on the subject of copyright.

  The Commission presented an interim version of their Globalisation and Development Report. The final report will be published in February 2002.

  On VAT on e-commerce, a text was agreed providing for the adoption of an electronic portal solution with a time-limited interim arrangement. This meets the UK's objective of introducing a non-burdensome method of applying VAT to products downloaded from the internet, which will be non-discriminatory and apply at the place of consumption.

  On the proposed directive for ensuring effective taxation of savings income, ECOFIN reconfirmed the agreement reached at the Feira European Council in June 2000, and agreed a text to form the basis for negotiations with third countries.

  ECOFIN also discussed the proposed energy products directive. The Chancellor stressed that any directive must allow the UK to exempt domestic fuel from minimum duty rates. The presidency reported the discussion to the European Council at Laeken.

  No votes were taken at the meeting.

  Tax Simplification
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his plans for tax simplification. [24817]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government are committed to making tax law clearer and easier to use for taxpayers and their advisers. Through the work of the Tax Law Rewrite project they plan to rewrite direct tax legislation with a better structure and in simpler language. This will be achieved through a series of Bills and the first Bill covering the capital allowances code has already been enacted. The next Bill will rewrite the provisions for the taxation of employment income and pension income and taxable social security income to produce clearer and more accessible legislation.
  818W
  The Government keep the whole tax system under review, acting where possible to change tax rules to remove complexity in line with its objective of a modern and fair tax system.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the main expected effects on the public accounts from 2001–02 to 2004–05 of the National Lottery, including the effects on(a) Government expenditure, (b) Government revenue and (c) Government borrowing. [24812]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Forecasts of expenditure by the National Lottery distributing bodies are given in table B 13 of the 2001 pre-Budget report. Forecasts of receipts to the National Lottery distribution fund are included within the "Other taxes and royalties line" in table B 11 of the pre-Budget report but are not separately identified. If, as anticipated, outstanding balances held by the Distribution Fund fall, this will produce a small increase in public sector net borrowing.

  Cigarette Sales (Children)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the tax revenues raised in each of the last five years from the illegal sale of cigarettes to children. [25168]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  No such estimate has been made.

  Tax Relief (Removal Expenses)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of employees (1) for whom tax relief for removal expenses and benefits was claimed in each year since 1997; [24552]

  (2) for whom removal expenses and benefits exceeded (a) £6,000, (b) £8,000, (c) £10,000, (d) £12,000, (e) £14,000, (f) £16,000, (g) £18,000 and (h) £20,0000 in the latest year for which figures are available; and if he will estimate the yield to the Exchequer of limiting tax relief for removal expenses and benefits to (i) £6,000, (ii) £8,000, (iii) £10,000, (iv) £12,000, (v) £14,000, (vi) £16,000, (vii) £18,000 and (viii) £20,000 in 2001–02. [24800]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Tax relief for the first £8,000 of reimbursed relocation expenses provided by employers is tentatively estimated to cost around £300 million each year. Around 125,000 employees benefit from it. A breakdown of employees who start a new job and those who move to a different location with the same employer is not available.

  Available information suggests that in total around 10,000 employees pay income tax on the excess over £8,000 of qualifying relocation expense payments, or have the income tax paid by their employer amounting to some £30 million.

Preamble
Reassembling after the Christmas Recess, the House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester.

Iraq
Lord Blaker Lord Blaker asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the present state of their relations with Iraq.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we have no diplomatic relations with Iraq. Iraq maintains an Interests Section at the Jordanian Embassy in London. British interests in Iraq are looked after by the Russian Embassy, although UK officials from the British Embassy in Oman periodically visit for routine administrative purposes. UK policy is to press for the implementation of all Security Council resolutions, including No. 1284 about weapons inspections and No. 1382 concerning the control of military and WMD-related goods to Iraq while liberalising trade.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. As regards Iraq, should not our most important objective be to secure the return to Iraq of the United Nations inspectors who have not been in that country since 1998, during which time Saddam Hussein has no doubt been busy trying to build up his stocks of weapons of mass destruction?
On 1st January, the Foreign Secretary said:
"There is a clear agenda for Iraq laid down in UN resolutions. We look to them to implement them".
In case Saddam Hussein is not swayed by that plea, are the Government examining other means of putting pressure on Iraq to secure the observance of the United Nations resolutions? Has the Prime Minister spoken to President Putin, for example, urging him to encourage Saddam Hussein to admit inspectors again, bearing in mind that Russia has been close to Iraq and is a member of the coalition against terrorism?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that one of the absolute priorities is to secure the return of the inspectors looking for weapons of mass destruction. We know that the UN weapons inspectors were unable to account for some 4,000 tonnes of so-called precursor chemicals used in the production of weapons; 610 tonnes of precursor chemicals used in the production of VX gas; and 31,000 chemical weapons munitions. So, yes, there is a great deal to look for, not to mention the fact that we know that Iraq has been doing its best to secure some nuclear weaponry as well.
436
As I made clear in my initial Answer, we pursue the issue through pressing for the implementation of UNSCR 1284. I am pleased to say that meanwhile there has been unanimous agreement to press ahead with UNSCR 1382, which was passed at the end of November and which we hope will come into force at the end of May this year.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the Government take steps to ensure that sanctions are as closely targeted as possible on Saddam Hussein, his Ministers, his government and his associates? Secondly, will they try to ensure that the proportion of the oil-for-food money which is due to the Kurdish autonomous regions reaches there and is effectively spent?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, indeed. I should tell the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that Security Council Resolution 1382 looks to implement what is called a "goods review list". That will change controls on Iraq from the current situation in which all exports to Iraq are prohibited unless specifically approved by the United Nations to one in which all goods are automatically allowed, except for the most focused list of goods in the GRL, which are those concerned with the production of weapons, including weapons of mass destruction.
It is important that money goes to where it is needed in Iraq. We believe that sanctions have been very important in securing that end and in denying to Saddam Hussein the ability to spend his oil revenues on whatever he pleases, including weapons. Instead, that money has been directed at food and humanitarian goods needed by the people of Iraq.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Washington Administration has had a number of contacts with the exiled Iraqi national congress? They have been controversial contacts, but they have been at a very high level. Have we had the same kind of contacts here in London, too?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have kept in contact with the opposition elements in Iraq. As the noble Lord will know, there has been considerable worry not only about the production of weapons of mass destruction but the humanitarian situation in Iraq and the denial of human rights arid cruel punishments within Iraq. They have been the source of a great deal of anxiety for some time. Since the ghastly events of September 11th, the focus on international terrorism has increased. The noble Lord can rest assured that we are keeping in touch not only with those in Iraq who are able to tell us what is going on but also with our allies and their forces, which may be independent of ours.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, is not the real reason why the rogue regime has been allowed to survive the fact that since the Iraqi war the democratic American Administration has allowed Iraq totally illegally to export oil to Turkey in the north by road and to Dubai in the south by barge? Is it not correct

437
that the revenues from those illicit oil sales, about which the Americans were repeatedly told by many Members of Parliament visiting Washington, have funded that rogue regime throughout the period and that we now look to another Administration in America to sort the problem out once and for all?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there have indeed been concerns about illicit trading to Turkey and other areas in the Gulf region, as the noble Lord knows. We in the United Kingdom have made representations to the governments concerned. I cannot comment in detail about what the noble Lord claims is complicit action on behalf of the United States. I have no knowledge that there has been specific complicit action in the way the noble Lord describes and, to be frank, I would be very surprised indeed if solid evidence to that effect could be produced.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that if Iraq persists in its refusal to allow the international community to monitor its programmes for the development and deployment of weapons of mass destruction, it would be entirely within the exclusive competence of the Security Council to decide what further measures would be required? Does she further agree that any individual action taken by particular members of the Security Council is to be wholly deplored?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the United Kingdom has made it clear that we would prefer to proceed through actions taken by the United Nations. That is why we undertook such an active role in pursuing United Nations Security Council Resolution 1284 in the first place and, indeed, why we have taken an equally active role in pursuing the latest UNSCR 1382. We very much hope that the resolution, which was unanimously agreed but with a forward date of 30th May, will be implemented. That resolution should demonstrate unequivocally that our argument is with a regime that wishes to secure weapons, in particular weapons of mass destruction, rather than with the people of Iraq who badly need food and medicines.

London Underground
2.43 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to receive the report from Ernst & Young on the public private partnership plan for the London Underground and whether, in making their subsequent decision, they will have in mind the need for responsibilities to be clearly allocated.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, London Underground is carrying out a thorough evaluation of bids for the
438
Tube modernisation contracts, considering all aspects of value for money. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has taken on Ernst & Young to give him an independent opinion on the robustness of London Underground's conclusions. The Government will receive and publish Ernst & Young's report before any decisions are taken on whether to sign the contracts.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord give a categoric assurance that the Ernst & Young review of London Underground's assessment of the value-for-money aspects of its proposals under the PPP will, to quote the words of the Secretary of State, focus on the overall robustness of the conclusions reached? Is the noble and learned Lord aware of the anxiety that contacts—there will always be such contacts—between the Secretary of State or someone acting on his behalf and Ernst & Young may possibly have led to a diminution of that focus, from which could follow a review which would fall short of that which the Secretary of State has promised, and which users of the London Underground very much expect?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I believe that I can give such an assurance. The purpose of instructing Ernst & Young is so that the company can evaluate the robustness of the conclusions that London Underground and PricewaterhouseCoopers come to as regards the value-for-money aspects of the three PPP contracts. The evaluation made by Ernst & Young, which is to test the robustness of the conclusions reached by London Underground and PricewaterhouseCoopers, will he published before any final decision is taken. In answer to the specific question put to me by the noble Lord, yes, it will focus on the precise issue identified by the noble Lord and, furthermore, it will be made available before a final decision is reached.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, has any thought been given to the irreconcilable responsibilities of the Mayor of London, who wants to run the Underground for 24 hours a day, and the infrastructure companies which need to occupy the Underground for far longer than is now possible in order to put right all the defects in the system? Such irreconcilable objectives were neglected at the time of the privatisation of the "big" railway and we are now paying the price for that. I am sure that we do not want to have to do that again in the case of London Underground.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, deep consideration has been given to such issues, but the nature of the PPPs in relation to London Underground is totally different from the nature of the privatisation undertaken in relation to Railtrack. In particular, London Underground remains responsible for the whole of the Underground service, including safety—unlike Railtrack, which remains responsible only for the track. The PPPs concern the letting out of three contracts to undertake maintenance work. In

439
response to the specific question put to me, yes, consideration has been given, but the analogy drawn by the noble Lord between Railtrack on the one hand arid the PPP's on the other is not accurate.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, what is the remit of the Mayor of London in this affair?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Mayor of London is responsible for Transport for London. After the PPP has been put in place, London Underground will be transferred to Transport for London.
Lord Renton: My Lords, to whom is he really responsible?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, to the electorate.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, if the PPP for the London Underground fails in whole or in part to meet the value-for-money test, is an alternative plan being worked on in the department which could possibly involve Transport for London taking over some of the Underground lines?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I believe that I have made it clear that at the moment we are concentrating on the proposals in relation to the PPP. It would be unwise for there not to be contingency plans were the PPP not to go ahead, but we believe that the PPP will go ahead. So far as concerns contingency planning, it must involve Transport for London.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's commitment to publish the Ernst & Young report. No doubt the noble and learned Lord is enormously relieved at the return of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State because he has no doubt had to hold the fort over the Christmas and New Year period as regards transport issues. In welcoming the publication of the report, does the noble and learned Lord agree that, since 1997, average investment in London Underground has been lower than it was during the preceding five years under the Conservative government?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as regards the past four or five years, covering the period of the Labour Government, the noble Viscount will know that almost £1 billion more in grant was provided than was planned by the Tories. That was enough to allow average investment in the core of the Underground network of around £530 million for each year. One must compare that investment with that made during the whole of the Tory period—that is, 1979 to 1997—which amounted to £395 million. The noble Viscount, being an expert in figures, selected a period when the figure happened, as a matter of averages, to be lower. That is not very convincing.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, my noble and learned friend stated that the Mayor is responsible for the
440
safety of the Tube. How does that affect the PPP infrastructure people who have to maintain a safe infrastructure? Given the problems experienced by Railtrack in maintaining a safe infrastructure, who will pay when it is discovered that the track is worse than it was thought to be and that extra safety costs are applicable to the system?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, obviously London Underground remains responsible for safety and is subject to the views of the HSE. Safety is a paramount concern. The contracts provide for a particular outcome from the PPP contractors. If the PPP contracts go ahead, it will be for the PPP contractors to deliver standards that meet the safety requirements.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, do these exchanges mean that the full contents of the letter written by Ernst & Young on 4th October, a copy of which is in the Library, still stand? It is very important.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not have the whole letter in front of me. I do not want to give an answer that may be inaccurate, so perhaps I may write to the noble Lord. The assurance I have given him is that it focuses on the robustness of the assessment by London Underground and PricewaterhouseCoopers and that it will be published before final decisions are made. I shall write to the noble Lord about the detail of the letter.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, how do you focus on a robustness?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am sure that Ernst & Young will know how to.

Disability Equipment Services
2.52 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to act upon all the recommendations on disability equipment services in the report of the Audit Commission, published in 2000, Fully Equipped: The provision of equipment to older or disabled people by the National Health Service and Social Services in England and Wales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, from 2001 to 2004, £105 million is being provided to the NHS to modernise community equipment services, along with funding for local authorities to contribute their share. Four million pounds is being invested in prosthetic services and siliconecosmesis. In the next financial year, access to digital hearing aids will be extended. Work to improve

441
orthotics and wheelchair services will take account of relevant recommendations in the Audit Commission report.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does he agree that this was another excellent report by the Audit Commission on a disablement subject? Does he accept that disabled people, even in this century and even in this country, still experience needless difficulties caused by ignorance or lack of imagination?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, while I am sure that the House will agree with the noble Lord's general sentiments, I do believe that in a number of ways the Government have developed policies and actions to try to overcome some of that ignorance. So far as concerns the Audit Commission report, I agree that it was very helpful. It highlighted achievements and shortcomings in current services. We are making progress and I hope that, over the next few years, disabled people will feel that the services they receive have been radically improved.
Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, overall, the report was damning? Its main thrust was that matters were carrying on as normal. It was not about resources but about the way the system worked. Can the Minister give an assurance that matters such as allowing young people who need prostheses to have sports limbs will be taken into account, if only on the grounds that the long-term cost savings in regard to their general health will more than compensate for the initial outlay?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Government are giving urgent consideration to that matter. As to the noble Lord's general points, I agree that the Audit Commission report raised a number of serious shortcomings in the way that services were provided. I also agree that while resource is important—and we are putting extra resources into these five services—much of the Audit Commission report concerned organisation and the way in which services were being run. We are keen to ensure that the NHS—and, where appropriate, local government—improves the commissioning of future services. We are working with users and the national procurement service within the NHS to develop specifications and contracts which will lead to improvements in the areas identified by the noble Lord.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Audit Commission report not only identified shortcomings but was scathing about the five services which are so vital to disabled people? It recommended that each service should be scrutinised separately. Can my noble friend tell the House whether the progress made so far has been satisfactory or disappointing for each of the five services? Can he also tell the House which target dates have been set for which service?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend is right—the Audit Commission was not entirely complimentary about the state of the services it discovered. He is also right to suggest that we need to look at the five services separately, although lessons can be learnt in terms of proper organisation which can apply to most of those services. I do not say that, in the months since the report was published in March 2000, everything has been put right, but we have made steady progress. As I have said, we are putting extra resources into those services and we are involving users in the planning and commissioning of those services for the future. With the national procurement agency working alongside users of services, we will be in a position to produce better specifications in the future and there will be a better integrated approach to commissioning at local level.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, in relation to the cost of treatments or appliances, does the same division arise between NHS provided services and social services provided services? Are some means tested and others not? What is the situation?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I suspect that the noble Baroness is referring to community equipment services. The Audit Commission report suggested that they should be brought together between health authorities and local authorities, and we agree with that. We have set targets for community equipment services to be integrated by 2004. As to charges, only a small amount of social services expenditure on equipment is recovered through charges. We will ensure that local councils retain the right to charge for disability equipment because it is within their current powers so to do, but we would also ask them to consider whether it would be cost effective to do so within the new integrated community equipment services. I take the noble Baroness's point, but, ultimately, it will be for individual local authorities to decide.

Railtrack
2.58 p.m.
Lord Burnham Lord Burnham asked Her Majesty's Government:
By what date they expect to set up the successor company to Railtrack.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is for the administrator to put a proposal for a transfer scheme before my right honourable friend the Secretary of State based on any propositions he receives. The timetable for this process is a matter for the administrator. He shares the Government's view that it should be completed as quickly as possible.
It is in everyone's interest that at least one viable bid is submitted to the administrator for him to judge alongside any other serious bids that are made. To this end, a bid team has been established under the sponsorship of the Strategic Rail Authority to develop

443
a robust proposal for a company limited by guarantee. The bid team is up and running under the leadership of Mr Iain McAllister.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I have no doubt that, the decision has indeed been delayed by the absence of the Minister's right honourable friend the Secretary of State. Are not the actions of his right honourable friend in robbing so many people of their savings both ill considered and, indeed, immoral? Does the noble and learned Lord consider that the fact that so many of the people affected are railway workers may well have had an effect on the current situation on the railways?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, "No" to the first part of the question. There was no such delay caused by the Secretary of State's holiday. "No" as regards the implication that the shareholders were "robbed". The placing of Railtrack into administration was a necessary and sensible act done in the interests of rail users; and "No" to the third part of the question.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, who is ensuring that the people maintaining the railway at present—that is, the contractors who are contracted to the administrator—are actually delivering any sort of value for money? We keep hearing about the need to spend large sums of money on the railway; we have no measure whatever of whether we are getting any return for taxpayers or railway users in terms of value.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the responsibility for ensuring value for money on those contracts obviously lies with Railtrack. Railtrack is presently in the hands of the administrator. The administrator has appointed Mr John Armitt, who commands widespread respect as the chief executive. His job, among others, will be to ensure that the vital value for money to which the noble Lord refers is being obtained.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, by what date does the noble and learned Lord expect a result in this situation? Can he say whether we shall have a solution in weeks or months?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it will not be weeks. This matter will take a considerable time. I cannot say precisely how long it will take. It will involve a process of selecting a long-term future for what is currently Railtrack. I do not think it would be right simply to give an answer that would provide some spurious deadline when these matters take time—and it is right that they should.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the successor company to Railtrack must pay proper heed to the network licence under which the original company operated; namely, that it operates safely, looks after its assets and pays due heed to the interests of its customers and its regulator? Is he aware that virtually every train
444
operating company, virtually every maintenance contractor, every passenger group and every other organisation that dealt with Railtrack felt that the contemptuous way in which that company dealt with them contributed enormously to its destruction and that many of its problems were self-inflicted?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree with the first part of the question; namely, that those matters to which regard should be had are certainly matters to which those operating the track should have regard. As to the precise role of Railtrack in terms of contributing to its being placed into administration, I do not want to comment at the present time. The right thing to do is to look forward.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord remember that when the Secretary of State put Railtrack into administration he said that the process might take three to six months? It has now taken three months and we have heard from his department in the past few days that the process might take between nine months and a year. If that is the case, will the noble and learned Lord give the House an assurance? In order for the private sector to have an opportunity to bid, when will the Government announce what public sector funding will be available to the railway industry?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as to the first part of the question regarding the timing, yes, I recall the remarks referred to by the noble Viscount. The time that these matters take is very difficult to estimate, and I believe that everyone in the House recognises that. I am quite sure that the right thing to do is to ensure that a proper period of time is taken in order to ensure that the correct answer is reached. Rushing into things may not necessarily be the right course in a situation such as this.
Secondly, so far as concerns the process, it is for the administrator to decide on the basic process to be adopted. It is for the administrator ultimately to come forward with a specific proposal on which the Secretary of State will then express his consent or riot. So far as concerns government funding in the future, to some extent that will depend on what proposals come forward.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend give the House an assurance that the organisation of Mr John Armitt—whom we all welcome as chief executive of Railtrack plc and whose job it is to keep the network going—is now completely separate from that of the Railtrack group headed by Mr Robinson and Mr Marshall—who appear to be continuing to plough their furrow to look after shareholders' interests, which at the moment is diametrically opposed to running the railway?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, Mr Armitt's job as chief executive is to run the Railtrack part of the business. It has nothing to do with the Railtrack

445
group, which owns various properties and has various property rights, and which is entirely separate from what Railtrack is doing.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, is the Minister content, in view of the sad history of the past few months, that private money will be given to the new successor company?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, 1 am content that the arrangements that will be made will be such as to attract private money. As to what they are, that is a matter to be developed in the next few months.

Religious Offences Bill [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to abolish the common law offence of blasphemy and certain other offences and create an offence of religious hatred. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Avebury.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Disability Discrimination (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the Disability Rights Commission Act 1999. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Ashley of Stoke.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill
3.6 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
In recent years there has been growing concern at the perceived level of electoral malpractice in Northern Ireland. It is apparent that some individuals and groups have been abusing their right to vote and defrauding the poll.
Since the Belfast agreement, people have seen more than ever that peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland must lie with the political process. Therefore, we cannot allow the Northern Ireland electorate to become disillusioned with the political process because they may feel that elections are not fair. If there is a high level of electoral abuse—or even if it is only that
446
people fear that there is such a high level—the democratic process in Northern Ireland will be under threat.
However, we have tried to bear in mind that any measures intended to prevent electoral fraud must be set against the effect they will have on legitimate voters. It would not be right in our judgment to impose unreasonable burdens on the majority of the electorate in Northern Ireland, who simply want—rightly—to exercise their franchise as their entitlement.
The Bill gives effect to the proposals in the White Paper, Combating Electoral Fraud in Northern Ireland, which was published in March last year. It provides the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland with additional powers to address the problem of electoral fraud.
The Bill builds on the work carried out in recent years by the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee, the Northern Ireland Forum committee on electoral malpractice and the Northern Ireland Office review of electoral administration. I want to pay tribute to the work of the former chairman of the Select Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, both on that committee and for his significant continuing contributions to the search for peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland.
We have tried to think through the Bill carefully and to produce proportionate remedies. If there are any suggested improvements to the Bill which are consistent with its purpose and policy, I shall personally be more than happy to give them careful scrutiny.
First, the Bill enables the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland to collect additional identifying information from voters at the point registration. Those applying for registration will be required in future to state their date of birth and to sign the form for the annual canvass, as well as giving their name and address as at present.
This information will not appear on the published version of the electoral register but will be used at the electoral office for the purpose of making checks against the name of an elector when he or she applies for a postal vote or to vote by proxy, and at polling stations when electors attend to obtain a ballot paper.
We continue to reflect on the suggestions made that national insurance numbers be used in the registration process. We are exploring too possible ways in which data held by other organisations might further be used to combat electoral fraud. The chief electoral officer may use his discretion to dispense with the requirement for a voter to supply a signature in certain circumstances, such as physical incapacity, illiteracy, and so forth.
The Bill also empowers a presiding officer to ask a third question, namely: "What is your date of birth?" He may do this if he has reasonable doubt that the person's date of birth provided at registration does not correspond with that on the prescribed document, or with his or her apparent age. If the voter does not answer to the satisfaction of the presiding officer, he can refuse the voter a ballot paper.

447
Clause 3 of the Bill amends provisions which have effect only in Northern Ireland and which relate to absent voting—that is, voting by post or by proxy. Such applications to vote must be signed and state the date of birth of the applicant. The signature and the date of birth on the application must correspond with the signature provided to the chief electoral officer on registration. He may refuse to grant an absent vote application if he is not satisfied that the signature or date of birth on the application corresponds with the signature and date of birth held on his records.
It is important that the chief electoral officer "may" refuse an application rather than "shall" refuse one to ensure that legitimate voters, such as the elderly who may have difficulty signing consistently, are not denied their vote. It is proper that the CEO can carry out checks, such as speaking to the individual, so that he takes a decision on the basis of the full facts. Similarly, a postal ballot paper shall not be deemed to be duly returned unless the declaration of identity accompanying it has been signed by, and states the date of birth of, an elector and the signature and date of birth correspond with those supplied by the elector on registration—unless there are exceptional circumstances that justify the registration officer in dispensing with the requirement of a signature.
Clause 4 is an important feature of the Bill. It provides for a photographic electoral identity card to be issued free of charge to those persons entitled to vote but who might not otherwise have satisfactory proof of identity. It is proposed, in due time, to replace all the non-photographic identification on the list of specified documents acceptable at the polling station in Northern Ireland. Our target date for this is May 2003, the date of the next Assembly elections—
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene, but is this not a very good example of where the introduction of proper national identity cards would be extremely useful and avoid much unnecessary administration? Indeed, is this not precisely the argument that one would use for their introduction?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: That may be so, my Lords. However, it is outside the ambit of the Bill. As some noble Lords will already have noted in Clause 4, it is most important to remember that this is not a mandatory identification requirement providing the only possibility to vote in Northern Ireland. It is not therefore the same as an identity card.
As I was saying, by 2003 it is proposed to have the scheme in place. Clause 4 enables a person to apply to be issued with an electoral identity card, in accordance with any requirements prescribed by regulations. The electoral identity card must show the elector's full name and date of birth, his or her photograph, and the card's expiry date. The card will be valid for 10 years and will he added to the list of specified documents that voters may use—the point I made in answer to my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours—for the purposes of identification at polling stations in Northern Ireland.
448
Clause 5 introduces a requirement for voters with disabilities to produce a specified document, in the same way as other voters. That has been an inadvertent omission from recent legislation.
I am very pleased to say that, to date, support for this Bill has come from parties across the political spectrum, and from within Northern Ireland. I am grateful for that support. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
3.14 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal for setting out to your Lordships' House the background to, and the main provisions of, this short Bill. At the outset, I should say that the Bill has the broad support of the Opposition.
Ever since the franchise was extended in the 19th and early 20th centuries, electoral fraud in the form of the "vote early, vote often" tradition and the problems of personation have been an endemic part of political life in Northern Ireland. Indeed, only too often in my childhood, I heard the call, "Vote early and vote often!"
Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear me say that I believe that parties representing the republican tradition have been more adept at exploiting the system for their own electoral advantage than others—certainly in recent years—though it is true that in the past Unionists were not immune from the practice.
In the not too distant past, polling stations without personation agents were known as an "open box" and every attempt was made, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, who I am delighted to see in his place today, to "riddle the box" by putting in as many personators as possible. According to McKittrick,
"houses and halls were set aside as 'dressing stations' where personators would sometimes go for a change of clothes".
It was only when Sinn Fein began contesting elections again in the 1980s that the old convention of "doing your own side" was cast aside and vote stealing from the other side began to take place.
As a result of all this, elections in Northern Ireland and, in particular, the identification of voters at polling stations, are already more tightly controlled than in the rest of the United Kingdom. Most recently, the previous Conservative government passed the Elections (Northern Ireland) Act 1985, which made it compulsory for electors to present specified identity documents before being given the ballot paper. However, the Act has failed to stamp out personation and electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. In particular, stories abound about the ease with which some of the documents specified in the Act can be forged, especially by those not carrying a photograph such as a medical card or a book for the payment of allowances, benefits or pensions, or even a driving licence, which, in Northern Ireland, does have a photograph on it.

449
The current extent of electoral fraud is of course difficult to quantify with precise accuracy, and by and large, elections pass off without incident. I have no doubt that in the vast majority of cases the results reflect the wishes of the electorate. However, I should like at this stage to express my appreciation of the work carried out by the chief electoral officer, his staff, and of all those involved in the running of elections in Northern Ireland who do their jobs meticulously, often in very difficult circumstances.
That said, there is enough anecdotal and statistical evidence around to make it clear that more needs to be done. In 1998, the Northern Ireland Select Committee, to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal referred earlier, reported that,
"there is sufficient evidence of organised voting theft to indicate that the problem of electoral malpractice in Northern Ireland is serious".
Indeed, rather than declining, the evidence appears to suggest that the problem in recent years is on the increase. Indeed, the result of last year's election in Fermanagh and South Tyrone that Sinn Fein won by just 59 votes was challenged in the Election Court in Belfast over allegations that a polling station was allowed to stay open for some time after the 10 p.m. close. I was told—true or not—that the electoral officer was forced by masked men to re-open the station after he had locked the boxes. Fermanagh and South Tyrone is not of course without form in the history of electoral malpractice. Anyone conversant with the results in 1955, or, indeed, in 1981, would be able to testify to that.
Nor is the problem confined to Westminster elections. At local government and Assembly levels the existence of multi-member constituencies and especially the single transferable vote increase the potential for fraud. As the then electoral officer, Mr Bradley, put it in his report for 1998–99:
"The local elections are more susceptible to electoral abuse. A small number of votes can have a significant impact on the election of individual councillors and hence, in the case of marginal councils, in determining the overall control of the council".
Electoral fraud has been the subject of a number of studies and debates in recent years, both in Westminster and in the Northern Ireland Forum, as well as more recently in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
In its 1998 report on electoral fraud, the Northern Ireland Select Committee, under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Brooke, whom I am delighted to see in his place today, specifically drew attention to problems relating to registration, absent voting, political presence at polling stations and voter identification. Some of the examples mentioned in the report are staggering. The committee noted evidence provided by the SDLP of 18,000 names appearing more than once on the electoral register for West Belfast, compared with 6,000 on a London register for an area with a large Irish community. No wonder the Select Committee concluded that,
"the evidence exists that there may be a serious level of multiple registration, at least in some parts of Northern Ireland".
450
The Government's review, Administering Elections in Northern Ireland, concluded:
"there is a level of false registration which is carried out with the express intention of abusing the system".
Because of the electoral system and the sensitivities in the Province, we must use every available means to ensure that elections in Northern Ireland are free and fair.
On the abuse of absent voting, we learn that the chief electoral officer received 10,000 applications just hours before the deadline for the 1997 general election. As the Select Committee noted:
"A large proportion of these were from one political party".
There are no prizes for guessing which party that might have been. It has recently been allocated office space in the Palace of Westminster and administration costs of £500,000 courtesy of Mr Blair.
Again, as the Select Committee noted, the chief electoral officer was,
"satisfied beyond any shadow of a doubt that the problem is extensive".
The Select Committee concluded:
"Absent voting provides a serious threat to the integrity of the electoral system of Northern Ireland".
The Government's review stated that the chief electoral officer believed that up to half of all absent vote applications for the 1997 local government elections were fraudulent.
The Select Committee also drew attention to the weaknesses of the current system of voter identification at polling stations, concluding that,
"the present system of relying on party agents to challenge in cases of personation is unrealistic and provides inadequate protection".
There is clearly a need for action. We are justified in criticising Her Majesty's Government for the delay in introducing legislation. Why did it take three years between the publication of the Select Committee report and the White Paper setting out the Government's proposals to combat electoral fraud? As the Select Committee said in its first special report of 2000–01, a year ago:
"When we reported in March 1998, less than a year after the general election, we had a reasonable expectation that rather more progress might have been made before the next general election in tackling the serious problem of electoral malpractice than appears likely to be the case".
That is rather more diplomatic language than I would use to describe the Government's dither and delay in coming up with meaningful proposals. The argument that they lack parliamentary time is unsustainable. They only got round to publishing their White Paper in March and they regularly make time in this House for measures that are much less serious than the one before us today. I shall not accuse the Government, but I suggest that they had a vested interest in not upsetting the republican vote before the last election. As a result of the Government's delay, legislation was not in place for the recent general election.

451
I do not intend to follow the noble and learned Lord in describing the Bill's proposals in detail. As far as the Opposition are concerned, they make practical common sense as far as they go, but we do not believe that they go far enough. We have further proposals that we hope will have the desired effect in combating what is clearly a serious problem. While we support the Government's proposal to add the voter's date of birth and signature to the register, we shall also table amendments to include national insurance numbers on the register held by the returning officer. The noble and learned Lord said that the Government are still thinking about that. We also support the idea of allowing the presiding officer at the polling station to ask the date of birth of an elector applying for a ballot paper. Furthermore, we want electoral identity cards introduced for those who, in the normal course of events, would not have any other photographic identity.
The management of proxy votes must be improved. We have heard the statistics. The possibility of unknown multiple registrations must be removed from all Northern Ireland elections.
We particularly welcome the move towards phasing out non-photographic forms of identification at polling stations and the introduction of a new photographic electoral card. We urge the Government to proceed with that as quickly as possible, given that it is estimated that it could take as much as 18 months to implement after the legislation is passed.
I give the noble and learned Lord notice now that in Committee and on Report we shall move amendments to tie the Government to their own deadline on the issue. During the Commons debate that deadline was said to be April 2003, but I hear today from the Minister that it has been put back to May. We shall attempt to persuade your Lordships that such an amendment should be passed.
Looking to the longer term, the White Paper Combating Electoral Fraud in Northern Ireland identified the potential for new technology to combat electoral fraud and to ensure that Northern Ireland has a comprehensive and secure electoral identity system. The White Paper suggests that the ultimate aim should be for every voter to be issued with an electoral smartcard bearing a unique identifier. That would prevent anyone registering twice without the knowledge of the chief electoral officer and would make it virtually impossible for anyone to vote twice. The inclusion of a national insurance number on the register is almost as good, although it is not a real substitute. That surely has to be the way forward for electoral processes in Northern Ireland.
3.27 p.m.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for introducing the Second Reading of the Bill and for his readiness to accept opportunities for improvement.
452
This is a sad Bill. It is sad that we have to make special provision for Northern Ireland. It is also sad that, while the aim of the Bill is to combat multiple voting, in the rest of the United Kingdom we are worrying about how to attract people to vote.
It is very important to safeguard the purity of elections. There are many elements to an election. This House recently managed—eventually—to agree the huge tome that became the Political Parties. Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
There are three elements to the mechanics of an election: registration; the art and act of voting; and counting. I shall deal with them in reverse order. The count appears to be the most transparent. The boxes are opened, the ballot papers trickle out, they are balanced with the register and they are counted—watched by candidates, agents and supporters, with the possibility of making challenges to doubtful papers. There is nothing in the Bill about the count, so we must assume that, even in Northern Ireland, people are reasonably happy about the counting of the ballot papers.
We then come to the act of voting. That is the main focus of the Bill. Clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5 deal with the prevention of personation. Clause 2 paw ides the presiding officer at each polling place with the opportunity to seek proof of a voter's date of birth. However, what advice will be given to presiding officers, and what authority will they have? I think that they will have to be very robust people indeed. I also wonder whether there will be cost implications in addressing those issues.
Clause 3 requires that signatures on applications for postal or proxy votes be matched, and that seems a very reasonable requirement. The provision is particularly important now as particular encouragement is being given to efforts to increase postal voting.
Clause 4 deals with the electoral identity card. In such circumstances, the provision will be very useful for those who do not have a passport or a driving licence. Clause 5 is consequential on the earlier clauses.
I return to the first of the elements: registration. I believe that the purity of the register should be our paramount consideration, and that all other aspects of the voting process flow from an accurate register. Clause 1 requires that a signature and date of birth be provided on the electoral registration form. Although the change should discourage duplicate registrations, I am far from clear as to how the practice can be prevented in many polling districts. Members of your Lordships' House, for example, may seek to register both at a home address and at a London address. Similarly, people in Northern Ireland may have a house in Portrush, for example, and a flat in Belfast. As I understand it, they are entitled to register in both places. However, given the size of Northern Ireland and the initiative to increase postal voting, is there not a case for allowing only one registration? I rather like the clarity of one person, one vote.
I should also like the Northern Ireland registration process to rest not with local authorities, as the Bill proposes, but with the chief electoral officer. I should

453
have thought that, in the computer age, the office of the Northern Ireland chief electoral officer could eradicate multiple applications.
What will be the cost of implementing the provisions? The Explanatory Notes suggest that costs will arise only from implementing the identity card, but I wonder about that. In my 40 years on an electoral register, the local authority's canvasser has never come round to check that I have properly completed the form; perhaps I have never had a visit because I filled in the form properly. However, canvassing will be a much tougher job if the signature and date of birth of each person in a house must be provided. I do not wish to be mean about costs; far from it. I simply want to be certain that the chief electoral officer has the resources to perform the enhanced job that will be necessary for operation of the new registration and voting procedures.
On behalf of these Benches, I welcome the Bill
3.34 p.m.
Lord Laird: My Lords, I pay tribute to the Leader of the House for his explanation of the Bill. I am also pleased to see the Second Reading of a Bill dealing with electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. Those of us interested in the Province have waited long enough for this move. I must say, however, that the legislation is rather weak and leaves loopholes for electoral fraudsters to commit their misdemeanours.
The new Northern Ireland to which we all aspire—everyone living at ease with each other—cannot be achieved if one section believes that elections, the fundamental basis of democracy, are being misappropriated by a determined and ruthless group. Such behaviour not only devalues the results of an election but brings into question the Good Friday agreement, which underlines that Northern Ireland's position will be determined only by the will of the electors. If there is widespread abuse of the electoral process, many will consider that undertaking to be of no value.
For the new Northern Ireland to succeed, we must eradicate all forms of unfairness and attempts by one section to seek advantage over the other. In the past three years, there has been a skewed and one-sided agenda in Northern Ireland, almost daily causing considerable damage to the concept of human rights. I refer to the activities of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which a republican cabal seems to consider its plaything. I shall return to that issue on another day.
The Bill is deficient in several respects. It makes no significant provision, for example, to limit multiple voter registration, mentioned by the noble Lord. Lord Glentoran. The issue has caused considerable difficulty in constituencies controlled by Sinn Fein. As the noble Lord said, there were up to 18,000 multiple votes in West Belfast alone. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, in the Chamber. He and I have both represented that territory. The way that constituency has gone over the years is, I believe, a
454
considerable regret to both of us. In this high-tech era, surely it must be possible to introduce, if only in Northern Ireland, a smart-card system as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. Such a system would ensure that each elector was identified and able to vote only once.
Although the overall concept of providing new identifiers is welcome in principle, it would prove weak in practice. As it would not be compulsory, the proposed electoral identification card could be easily circumnavigated. Moreover, a requirement to provide signatures as part of the identification process is almost useless as it is not compulsory but at the discretion of electoral officials.
The biggest intimidation-related problem in current Northern Ireland elections is the massive number of postal votes requested in seats with a particularly strong Sinn Fein electoral presence. Despite the rules and regulations being tougher in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the United Kingdom, in some Northern Ireland seats the number of absent voters is five and six times that of an average seat in the rest of the United Kingdom. Two seats won by Sinn Fein in June 2001 had staggering numbers of absent votes. West Tyrone had 5,443, and Fermanagh and South Tyrone 5,784. I believe that the average for a mainland constituency is about 1,000.
Intimidation itself—that crude and debilitating device used by the thug to impose his will on the weak—is not addressed in the Bill. In last June's elections, a policeman and several electors were injured in a shooting incident at St. Mary's primary school, Draperstown, County Londonderry. That creates an atmosphere where it is very hard for electoral officials and others to ensure fair election. Until we remove the concept of widespread intimidation and provide resources where necessary to help electoral officials in their scrutinising and security duties, we are not achieving our goal of a fair and equal society.
Article 3 of the first protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights gives governments a clear duty not only to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, but to do so,
"under conditions which will enable the free expression of opinion of the people in the choice of their legislature".
Clearly, that does not happen in Northern Ireland. Incidentally, it appears to be one of the many topics of little interest to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission.
Many of us in your Lordships' House look to the further stages of this Bill when we may be successful in persuading the Government to strengthen and make more effective this long-awaited and much-needed series of measures.
3.41 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I must declare an interest in having served as Chairman of the Northern Ireland Select Committee in the last Parliament in another place, to whose report reference

455
has already been made. I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal and my noble friend Lord Glentoran for their references to that report.
It is an argument for Select Committees in either House that they have the commendable effect of pressing the organisation being investigated to set up a simultaneous internal review of the activities which are being looked at. That happened in this instance as well.
I declare a mild professional interest as a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries. In that spirit I celebrated my departure from another place by presenting to my constituency agent of 20 years standing a 1743 petition by Westminster electors with their coats of arms against a Westminster election result in that year. Such petitions are not unknown in Northern Ireland.
The Bill reaches your Lordships' House with a pedigree of a well-informed series of debates in another place, not only because of Northern Ireland Members, hut the honourable Member for North East Derbyshire, Mr Harry Barnes, is a powerful advocate of electoral reform and happily has an interest in Northern Ireland as well. The debates were also informed by a Conservative Back-Bencher who had had security forces experience in the Province. He advised the Standing Committee on the Bill that it was unfair to put too much pressure on the official on the spot, such advice being based on his long experience of road blocks in the Province and his having to understand what was being submitted to him in terms of papers at the shortest of notice.
The Bill was well whipped in committee. There was only a single absence of one Member at one committee sitting. That too is a tribute to the nature of the Bill and its importance.
My noble friend Lord Glentoran referred to the familiar cry, "Vote early, vote often". I ask the forgiveness of the House if I interpolate a personal parenthesis from 29th March last year when we debated electoral malpractice in Northern Ireland. At that time I alluded to a debate in another place where we were to be engaged on the business throughout the evening and asked a former private secretary of mine who was in the official box when the Divisions were likely to occur. He replied that there were to be no Divisions in the early stages but a great many later on in the evening, to which I responded that it was a rare case of, "Vote late, vote often".
In that debate the Select Committee held the Government's feet to the fire over the delay to which my noble friend Lord Glentoran referred, between March 1988 and March 2001. I shall not rehearse that argument; it is a matter of the past. I recall asking the late Alan Lennox-Boyd, when he was in charge of affairs in Cyprus, with the naivety of an undergraduate in the 1950s, why a specific decision had been taken by the government in the current year and had not been taken two years earlier. He gave me a perfectly sensible reply: that two years is a hiccup in history. But the fact remains that we pay a price, not only in this instance of an election result in a constituency which can affect
456
larger issues on the wider stage, but also potentially of robbing individual voters of their right to vote. Once the vote has been cast it cannot be cast again.
The principle that we are debating this evening is purely one of Second Reading. Malpractice is clearly a sin and I am at one with President Coolidge's preacher of being against sin. Both in the other place and here there is universal support for the principle of the Bill and I do not propose to go into its detail this evening. I make no complaint that the Government have not accepted all the recommendations made by the Select Committee in its 1998 report. A Select Committee should not expect that treatment. The rare case in the 18th century when, after Edmund Burke had made a powerful speech, the next Member up said, "Ditto to Mr Burke", is not something that Select Committee's should expect from governments after they have made recommendations.
I have never read a thesis on the relationship between the Christian doctrine of the individual soul and the democratic responsibility of the individual elector. But I am concerned about the potential two-tier system which the Bill envisages—I imagine we will return to that in Committee. If I may continue for a moment with the interpolation of Christendom into the debate, I was always moved that, while Winston Fields—Ian Smith's predecessor as the leader of the right wing party in southern Rhodesia—was quite clear about the inequality of man, he was equally clear about the equality of man at the communion rail. It is extremely important that the doctrine of individuals being equal in a process like this should be maintained, not least through our legislative process.
Others made reference to the disproportionate absence of voters in Fermanagh and Tyrone in relation to the three seats. Of course one can plead the notable exception of the abstention in person by the inn-keeper Member for Fermanagh in the famous vote on 28th March 1979, which was lost by the government by a single vote. The result would have been changed if he had voted with the Government, having crossed the Irish Sea in order to abstain in person. But that may he said simply to be the exception which proves the rule.
The whole map of Europe has been changed, as Churchill said in 1922,
"but as the deluge subsides and the waters fall short, we see the dreary steeples of Fermanagh and Tyrone emerging once again".
And I have to say to your Lordships' House that this will not be the last time that we legislate on this subject; we will find ourselves returning to it.
I declare an interest in terms of the "dreary steeples". The church at Colebrooke in County Fermanagh stands on a knoll above the prevailing low ground, which is the church where my noble kinsman, Lord Brookebrough, worships. I can endorse that it was accurately judged by a visitor prior to myself who said that most churches are dedicated to the glory of God, but Colebrooke is dedicated to the Brookes.
The Bill was supported in principle by the Commons at large, but less universally in the level of detail. Not too much should be made of the arithmetic. The Government were as generous on the balance of the

457
Standing Committee on the Bill as they were on the Select Committee in the last Parliament, to allow proper Northern Ireland representation. But there were a series of divisions in the Standing Committee which were decided nine to eight in committee, and five parties to one—including the SDLP among the five—in favour of amendments which were being moved against the Bill. I hope that your Lordships' scrutiny of the Bill will be as well informed and as rigorous. That is still ahead of us, but the Government have had recent experience of this House's response to delicate legislation in an area where terrorists exist. I hope that this Bill will receive the same attention. In the meantime we must be grateful that the Government have brought forward a Bill.
One of my favourite graffiti in the Province at the moment depicts a large sign saying. "Ulster says no", under which someone else has written, "But the man from Del Monte says yes". Underneath that someone else has written, "Aye, and he was an Orangeman". I do not know what Del Monte thinks of curates' eggs, but I consider—as I say, I have not dwelt on detail in my remarks—that the Bill is at this juncture a free range, organic, non-stipendiary curate's egg. Although controversy is still prevalent in the Province rather than contentedness, we must be content that we have the opportunity in Committee to improve the curate's egg that we have been offered.
3.51 p.m.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I wish to address two specific aspects of the Bill: registration and identification at ballots. However, before I do so, I acknowledge the sterling work of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, who has just spoken. I find it particularly sad that after the committee under his chairmanship reached conclusions which had support right across the political divide, from both constitutional nationalists and constitutional unionists, the Government turned their back on certain of the recommendations contained in the report.
However, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, I do not believe that the Bill is of such usefulness that it will in its present state resolve the difficulties that are experienced at elections in Northern Ireland. I am invariably disappointed by the level of real resolve that successive governments have displayed in terms of tackling those matters in Northern Ireland that impinge upon and infringe the democratic process, whether they be organised violence, organised crime or electoral abuse. Sometimes I find it difficult not to believe that there is a covert desire to accommodate undemocratic elements—a practice that I feel I have witnessed as an elector, soldier and unionist politician over the past 30 years.
I do not want to give the impression that I am some kind of reactionary. Those who know me know that I support the current process in Northern Ireland which facilitates a transition from violence to democracy. But I do not believe that we can enhance democracy if we accommodate those matters which undermine the
458
confidence of the ordinary decent citizen. My experience in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, having held that seat as the Member of Parliament for 18 years, and having left it with a majority of 14,000, was that the process failed my intended successor. The law imposed certain constraints that perhaps made it difficult for Mr Cooper to prove his case but in the 21 days that he had to bring his case to an electoral court he was able only to deal with an infringement in one polling station where there was organised disruption by a political party involved in the election which ultimately benefited from the result which produced, I believe, a majority of 53. In later days we discovered that similar events had taken place in other polling stations. Therefore, the organised desire of Sinn Fein—let us be specific—to abuse the electoral system for its own ends is evident.
That did not occur only in the constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone; it also occurred visibly in the constituency of West Belfast where Joe Hendron was ultimately unseated by the present sitting Member, Gerry Adams of Sinn Fein. One must understand that where this perversion of the electoral process is allowed to occur, a false democracy is created which enables people who do not have a majority at the ballot box to get hold of seats and then to avail themselves of all the benefits that come with being a Member of Parliament for a specific constituency.
I do not want to stray from the business before your Lordships' House but I must say that most people whom I know within both traditions in Northern Ireland are puzzled as to why the Government should facilitate in the Palace of Westminster those Members of Parliament who have no allegiance to the parliamentary process here at Westminster and who have declared that even if the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty were removed it would make no difference to their intention to take their seat and play their part here. That is the kind of abuse of democracy that is being and will be facilitated if we bring into law a process which allows signatures to be used as though somehow they are foolproof against electoral abuse. The deputy electoral officer who gave evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee indicated that signatures were unsatisfactory in so far as a perverse individual could disguise his signature at the polls so that he would be denied the right to vote and could then sue the presiding officer. Obviously, that puts unnecessary pressure on someone who is doing a difficult job, under threat and intimidation from the Sinn Fein political party, as was pointed out earlier.
Perhaps national insurance numbers could be acceptable. I disagree with the Minister in the other place who said that most people do not know and cannot get access to their national insurance number. I just do not believe that that is true. Every payslip that one receives throughout one's life has one's national insurance number, as does every P45 and every pension book or pension slip. That number is held on computer and could therefore be used, without

459
infringing anyone's rights, to authenticate applications to be on the register. That process could be further developed in relation to casting votes.
The Government are reluctant to be hard nosed and practical in relation to the rights of ordinary, decent individuals—it is their rights that will be infringed if and when people vote improperly and cast multiple votes. Your Lordships' House should do a better job than has been done heretofore of making the Bill a little more meaningful.
4.1 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, in view of the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and the important contribution that was made by the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs when he was its chairman, I listened with interest to his speech. I take issue with one relatively small point. He cited the quotation about,
the dreary steeples of Fermanagh".
That is a pejorative quotation, although the noble Lord did not use it in that way. In defence of that county, I point out that Fermanagh is absolutely beautiful. It has wonderful scenery and it is a pleasure to be there. I hope that he did not mean to suggest anything to the contrary. I know that he was not making a point about the scenery.
I welcome the Bill. It will go a significant way towards remedying the defects that were described by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis. The next Assembly elections will be in 2003. They will be crucial elections because they will determine the future of the peace process and the nature of government in Northern Ireland for a long time to come. It is therefore important that those who are elected and, from among them, those who become Ministers on the Executive achieve their position with the consent of the people, arid that the people of Northern Ireland accept that those elections are fair and proper. There should be no dispute about the electoral legitimacy of those who are elected and those who then become Ministers. That is why it is important that the Government have the extra safeguards in place in good time before those elections. They are, in the main, contained in the Bill.
We cannot, of course, be certain about the extent of electoral fraud but there is no doubt about the fact of it. There is too much anecdotal evidence from many sources, not least that given to the Select Committee. When I served as a Minister responsible for Northern Ireland, there were clear concerns about that at the time and they have continued to the present day.
The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, discussed national insurance numbers. I do not want to get into a detailed argument at this stage—that is for Committee—but I wonder whether the way in which national insurance numbers are currently issued involves the necessary safeguards to prevent people from getting them improperly and using them improperly when they vote. If the national insurance number system were totally watertight, I should go further down the path of supporting it. Perhaps the Government are still reflecting on the matter.
460
It is clear that absent voting rather than personation at the polling stations is the key issue; that is not in dispute. There are some interesting figures—some of them have already been quoted—about the extent of absent voting in different constituencies. They varied in the previous general election from 1.6 per cent in East Antrim to 9 per cent in West Tyrone and 8.7 per cent in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. I do not believe that those differences were achieved through normal and legitimate applications for postal votes. Something is amiss in that regard. The figures show that the problem is not restricted to the previous general election—it also appeared in the 1998 Assembly elections, in which the highest percentage for absent voting was 9.3 per cent in Fermanagh and South Tyrone and the lowest were 2.2 per cent in Belfast North and 2.3 per cent in Belfast West and in East Antrim.
The idea of having electoral ID cards is probably a good one, although I am rather sceptical about identity cards—the case for them needs to be made more firmly. However, it is right that electoral ID cards are part of the armoury for dealing with malpractice. I am particularly pleased that my noble and learned friend said that the intention was to have provisions in place before the 2003 elections.
There will always be a balance to be struck between civil liberties and electoral fraud, and achieving it is not an easy task. There is also a need to achieve a balance between preventing fraud and giving people the right to vote. We could prevent all fraud if we took sufficiently stringent measures, but many people who were legitimately entitled to vote might not be able to get the vote. We do not want to go down that path. Surely we all welcome the fact that in Northern Ireland we have moved mainly—not entirely—from terrorism to democratic politics. I say "mainly" because violence that is utterly unacceptable and reprehensible still goes on. The Government have got the balance right and I welcome the Bill.
I have one last, brief point. Robin Cook commented on voting over the Internet. In the context of England—and, I think, Scotland and Wales that is probably an interesting innovation. However, I fear that in Northern Ireland we are a long way from making that acceptable, unless we want to run the risk of having more malpractice than has taken place so far. I welcome the Bill and I look forward to taking part in our debates in Committee.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, when I read the Bill I had to read it again to make sure that I was reading correctly. I had expected the Bill to make serious attempt to prevent electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. It is well known that all parties in the past have played games at election times; what they did was fraudulent but things have suddenly changed. Games are no longer involved. Over the past few years, one party has declared the intention of becoming the largest party in Northern Ireland and is working night and day to control the constituencies that it intends to win. Money is not a problem and it employs numerous

461
party agents and canvassers. Sinn Fein will use whatever means are necessary, and it has agents who are not far from the IRA who will apply whatever pressure is needed to ensure that votes are cast for Sinn Fein. It is urgent to stop such fraud and the use of pressure to make people vote as required. Otherwise, we may say goodbye to democracy in Northern Ireland.
Unfortunately, the action proposed in the Bill only nibbles at the edge of the problem. Signatures and dates of birth will make fraud only a little more difficult, and paramilitaries would soon overcome that. The Bill provides for identity cards with photographs to be supplied on request but it does not say when that has to be done. That would not make much difference, because a medical card without a photograph will still be sufficient to confirm identity. Sinn Fein is known to forge medical cards. Why have they not been removed as an accepted means of identity in the Bill?
In its present form we have only a pretence of a Bill for reducing fraud. In my view, as it is, it is a waste of parliamentary time. I looked at the record of the passage of the Bill in another place. It took much time, and many excellent amendments were submitted and debated. Unfortunately, all relevant amendments were voted down at the request of the Minister.
Suddenly the penny dropped. I had forgotten for a moment that the Government never seem to lose a chance to please Sinn Fein/IRA, despite the fact that they get next to nothing in return. Was this Bill intended as a chance for the Northern Ireland Office to say, "We're still on side and we're your friends"? Your Lordships may believe that that is going a little too far. But to the majority in Northern Ireland, who wish to remain in the United Kingdom, that is how things seem and we are reminded of it almost daily.
The only way in which to minimise electoral fraud in Northern Ireland is to issue a smart card, with a photograph, to every elector. When such a card is pushed into the machine at the polling station, a person's vote will be recorded and the card will not be accepted if used again at that or any other polling station. In my view, the issue of such cards must be completed by autumn 2003, when the Assembly elections arc due. It will be costly but will amount to only a fraction of the money being spent on the Bloody Sunday inquiry or on convicted paramilitaries who have been granted amnesty. The rules for the issue of absent votes require study. There were excessive numbers of absent votes in each of the Sinn Fein gains at the last election compared with those in other constituencies.
I was pleased that the Minister indicated that he would look carefully at amendments. I hope that he will look at them favourably because important ones will certainly be proposed in due course.
4.12 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, we must all welcome a Bill intended to limit electoral fraud and
462
malpractice in Northern Ireland. I was glad to hear the opening words of the noble and learned Lord the Minister. None the less, it is disturbing that, although the major report of the Northern Ireland committee on electoral malpractice was agreed in March 1998, the legislation has taken three years to appear, and since it depends on the creation of special computer programs and software it cannot be put into effect until 2003 at the earliest. Will that be in time for the next election? Will it, indeed, be up and running then?
The Minister, at col. 734 of Commons Hansard for 10th July, said that the electoral office had been provided with more funding and with new IT systems to facilitate the change. But in October he told Standing Committee D that the Government were,
"currently concluding the contract in a process rolling out from next year"—
that is, 2002—
"towards a target date of 2003 to provide the IT equipment that will make the Act work".
I hate to point out that computerisation and IT programs have unpromising records both of speed and efficiency in, for example, the Home Office. Will the system be working by the next election? Will it have been funded in time?
This is a Bill of deep importance for the future of Northern Ireland. It may seem little more than a very proper effort to end some serious malpractices in the conduct of the election process. As we all know, those include multiple registration, personation, fraudulent application for postal and proxy votes, based very often on extensive forgery of documents, and, not least, that familiar element of life in Northern Ireland—intimidation by the paramilitary groups.
Although such practices are not those of one party only, by far the greatest culprit and the greatest beneficiary is, by common consent, Sinn Fein/IRA. In this way it has been enabled to do serious damage to the legitimate voice of the Catholic and even some of the moderate republican voters by taking, through the operation of fraud, seats from the SDLP. Many noble Lords will no doubt be able to give examples of how the frauds operate.
However, the evidence is irrefutable that one party, Sinn Fein, has brought it to a fine art, not only because of its ready-made paramilitary intimidation machine but because of its wealth and criminal expertise. Police found extensive evidence, for example, of the forgery of medical certificates, both for identification and to justify a proxy vote. As noble Lords have said, in West Tyrone in the last election there were 5,443 absentee votes; in Fermanagh and South Tyrone there were 5,784. Both seats were won by Sinn Fein/IRA. Elsewhere in Northern Ireland, in one place there were 10,000 applications for proxy votes, submitted hours before the deadline, the bulk of them by one political party—Sinn Fein/IRA.

463
In the other place the Government were pressed by all parties to use the national insurance number as a means of additional identification. Every political party but one in Northern Ireland has advocated it. Sinn Fein, however, evidently opposing all forms of identification, has said,
"Sinn Fein believes that there is a compelling and logical argument to ensure that the electorate has the maximum freedom to exercise their vote as freely as possible. We would therefore argue for an end to the current identification regulations because we believe they restrict the electorate's freedom and impose an unnecessary burden on them".
Surprise, surprise: the Government are now convinced that using the national insurance number is a bad idea.
Equally, when in February last year we debated in this House the order on the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the Government pushed through the decision that political parties in Northern Ireland, alone in the UK, could receive global foreign funding but be under no obligation to keep records of donations received or disclose the value or source of donations on the grounds of a possible threat to the donors if their identities were revealed. What party in Northern Ireland has regularly received major funding from abroad, and what risk has Mr Galvin, the chief IRA fund-raiser in the United States, ever run?
Thanks to such protection, Sinn Fein/IRA alone has been able to raise unquantified sums for undeclared purposes and from undeclared sources. Its funding allows it not only to buy arms whenever it wishes but to pay its paramilitary thugs and to fund its criminal activities in the initial stages, including the sophisticated forgery of medical and other documents to use in election fraud. It has plenty of force at its disposal to intimidate voters at, and on the way to, polling stations and to collect donations and absentee voting papers from voters. Not least, it has the money to fund a campaign in any referendum which may be held. I wonder whether Mr Adams's friends in Africa include Mr Robert Mugabe.
The Government must act quickly as well as effectively to end electoral fraud. Sinn Fein has not forgotten, even if they have, the commitment made in the Belfast agreement that the Secretary of State may direct the holding of a poll,
"if it appears likely to him that the majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland".
Earlier in the agreement, the text says that the participants,
"will recognise the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland with regard to its status, whether they prefer to continue to support the union with Great Britain or a sovereign united Ireland".
Do the Government really not understand why Sinn Fein/IRA is ethnically cleansing—the phrase justly used by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, in our debate in 1999—every area over which it holds sway? If it cannot do that, it is using electoral fraud to secure seat after seat. The unfortunate majority—that includes many Catholics as well as Protestants—see their democratic rights being ruthlessly eroded and stolen from them by a brilliant and systematic
464
manipulation and fraud. And they can do nothing about it. As one Member of the other place rightly told the Standing Committee, fraudulent voting is being conducted under,
"a systematic paramilitary dictatorship".
He referred to an,
"organised and militarised fraud of the electoral system, which produces results against the wishes of the electorate".
And he added these ominous and sadly prescient words:
"Those results have been significant enough to change perhaps the political direction of Northern Ireland".
The Government have a grave responsibility. Thanks to their unforgivable combination during the negotiation of the agreement and since of haste, arrogance, gullibility and credulity, they have so far handed Sinn Fein/IRA virtually all they need for victory through the ballot box while retaining the gun on the streets of Belfast, where the violence has never ceased.
It may have been acceptable for demographic change to have moved Northern Ireland over a period of 20 or 30 years to a position where a majority would genuinely have seen no difficulty in contemplating and accepting a united Ireland as a new generation came forward with no raw memories of hatred and conflict. What has happened, however, is that Sinn Fein/IRA has won everything it wanted—prisoners out, political—power in the Assembly, status accorded to it as freedom fighters and not terrorists, the Disqualification Act, the disgraceful capitulation over richly funded access to Westminster (where it murdered Airey Neave) without taking the oath, and, above all, the destruction of the RUC, to say nothing of £40 million spent so far on the Bloody Sunday inquiry—money which could have gone to helping the victims of the IRA. In destroying the RUC, it has also moved closer to its stated objective of a people's police force, through the appointment, which it hopes to achieve, of paramilitaries to "represent" its unfortunate communities in the DPP.
As long ago as 24th February 1999, in a debate in this House initiated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, I said that I was heartened to know that Members in the other place had recognised the monstrous arrogance that allowed the paramilitaries to send whole families into exile. What was done? Three years later the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, under the chairmanship, I am glad to say, of my noble friend Lord Brooke, examined the issue of relocation following paramilitary intimidation—government-speak for ethnic cleansing. Four months later the evidence was published. The committee made one simple recommendation: that a single unit be set up—as Spain has done for the victims of ETA—to co-ordinate the response of all government departments on the mainland for the needs of a family thus exiled; and there have been many. The Government's response, published on 12th December, was what an excellent institution the Citizens Advice Bureaux is and how well placed to advise.

465
I hope, though sadly I do not expect, that the Government intend to do more than that about a disgraceful situation. I have cited that instance of government policy, or rather absence of policy, because I am outraged by their failure to fulfil the Prime Minister's promise that there would be no more violence and no more beatings. Bill after Bill has gone through providing yet more sops for the Sinn Fein/IRA Cerberus while doing nothing to protect the ordinary little people of Northern Ireland, whether from daily intimidation or from an insidious takeover of political power. It makes a nonsense of the central promise of the agreement; that the constitutional position will not change except by the will of the people expressed through the ballot box.
For three years the Government have done nothing to prevent those electoral rights from being eroded and destroyed. One election has already put more Sinn Fein/IRA nominees into power through electoral fraud, and unless the Government get on with the software fast there will be a further shift in Sinn Fein's favour brought about by fraud and intimidation which could have been prevented. We have gone far to destroy the peace process and the belief in democracy through criminal negligence.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with everything said by the noble Baroness, Lady Park. I had not intended to speak in the debate, but because of what has been said perhaps I may take two or three minutes of your Lordships' time.
First, I draw the attention of the House to the Explanatory Notes. Paragraph 3 states:
"The Bill proposes changes to the law in Northern Ireland only".
That sentence proves conclusively that the sentiment expressed by a previous Prime Minister that Northern Ireland as part of the UK is "as loyal as Finchley" is wrong. In no other part of the United Kingdom—England, Scotland or Wales—has it been necessary to introduce legislation of this kind. It proves that Northern Ireland is not as loyal as Finchley.
Since the moment of the creation of the Northern Ireland state a culture has built up. The minority voted against the existence of the state. It voted for Catholic candidates opposed to the existence of the Northern Ireland state. The Loyalists voted for its retention.
The debate may not seem all that important. But it is because under the Good Friday agreement Northern Ireland will remain part and parcel of the United Kingdom unless freely authorised by a vote of the majority. What is happening now—we can see it very clearly—is that outside the actual voting pattern on election day intimidation is taking place in certain constituencies in Northern Ireland. I refer particularly to North Belfast which I know intimately. I used to live there. Attempts are being made to intimidate the pro-union vote away from that constituency, so that in the next election it will be represented by a "Sinn Feiner". That Sinn Feiner will then vote, whether it be in the
466
Northern Ireland Assembly or in this House—probably in this House—to a breaking of the bond of Northern Ireland with the United Kingdom.
Elections in Northern Ireland are serious because they call into account the legitimacy and the constitutional position of the state of Northern Ireland. That does not happen in Scotland, in Wales or in England. So it is important to try to bring about a system of electoral reform which guarantees to exhibit the actual means and decisions of the people of Northern Ireland casting their votes. There is no doubt in my mind—the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, referred to this point—that it was because of gross personation that that seat was won at the last election by a Sinn Fein candidate. It has brought about a change in political attitudes in the United Kingdom because it has meant an extra voice for a united Ireland against Northern Ireland continuing to be an integral part of the United Kingdom.
The Bill highlights the fact that Northern Ireland is not like Finchley. We hope that it will be possible to bring about a series of reforms in Northern Ireland that will give a true indication of the wishes of its people.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I shall not cover specifically the contributions of noble Lords in this relatively short Second Reading debate. There have been three themes. First, there is the problem of absent voting. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, drew attention to that point. Secondly, there is intimidation in the polling booths. One must remember that Northern Ireland has many large rural constituencies which are more difficult to police, particularly on a single day when one is holding a Province-wide election. Thirdly, there is a need for further safeguards, a point expressed by many noble Lords. There is certainly a good deal of momentum in your Lordships' House behind the idea that there should be further safeguards. We shall look at the amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, intends to propose. We are disposed to supporting a provision for the introduction of national insurance numbers.
Many noble Lords have made reference to improvements in technology with regard to electoral identity cards. I was much taken by the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Park, that, given the history of implementing IT, it may well not be in time. Indeed, there will be a real problem. Unless we have tackled the questions of intimidation and personation, it bodes ill for the next Assembly elections in 2003.
I particularly want to stress that while there are, of course, no foolproof safeguards that we can provide to prevent electoral fraud—people will always seek to get round whatever rules we have—we can nevertheless—tighten the regime so that opportunities for fraud are reduced.
In welcoming the Bill, I must say that it is important to ensure that the recent restoration of regional democracy in Northern Ireland is not besmirched by electoral malpractice. That is why we on these Benches

467
commend the Bill and hope that the Government will, as the Leader of the House said, be listening to amendments in Committee and on Report with a view to ensuring that fraud is more nearly eliminated than we so far envisage.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful for all of your Lordships' contributions to this important debate. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, set the tone with which I think we all agree—I certainly do—when he said that electoral malpractice has for years been a serious mischief in Northern Ireland. The temptation when one does not live in Northern Ireland to think that "vote early and vote often" is funny must be resisted.
It is a monstrous thing to steal the democratic right of a fellow citizen. We need only remember how recently it was—in 1994, I think—that the whole of the population of South Africa became entitled to vote. I speak with some interest because my parents-in-law had never been allowed to vote because their skin is not white. It is only when we realise the importance that people in South Africa attached to the free casting of a legitimate franchise—with queues of people standing in the sun for hour after hour—that we remember that we are dealing with serious territory. I entirely agree with all of your Lordships about that.
Three aspects were raised by several of your Lordships. Perhaps I can deal with them. The noble Lord, Lord Laird, raised the question of multiple registration. To be as helpful as I can, the intention is to give the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland the power by regulation to ask people on their application to go onto the electoral register whether they are registered to vote at another address. That can he done by regulation rather than by amendment to the Bill, and that is our intention. I hope that the noble Lord will regard that as a useful response to his specific question. I appreciate that he was not the only noble Lord to ask it.
The question of national insurance numbers was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and taken up by several of your Lordships. I am not betraying any confidences when I say that I discussed that with the Minister in the Commons, Mr. Browne. On 18th December, he had a meeting with the Information Commissioner, Elizabeth France. She has concerns that must be taken on board about the use of national insurance numbers for purposes unconnected with the administration of tax and benefits. Not all such questions are easily answered. We must consider that with care. I have been in touch with colleagues and hope to be able to return to the matter more definitively in Committee. I underline that I shall carefully consider any proposals. We may be able to achieve our purposes by regulation rather than by amendment to the Bill. If so, I hope to be able to point the way forward.
The other question raised, again by several of your Lordships but in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh, was that of non-photographic
468
identity documents. The noble Lord referred to the production of illegitimate medical cards—which, of course, do not have a photographic component. I can assure your Lordships that May 2003, the next Northern Ireland Assembly election date, is our target by which to have removed all forms of non-photographic ID from the list of specified documents. Of course, that would include the removal of medical cards. We would then be left with the specific ID card provided for in Clause 4; a passport; or, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, helpfully reminded us, the photographic driving licence currently available in Northern Ireland.
Those will be considerable steps forward. I cannot pretend that a Bill on electoral fraud will deal with the sort of everyday intimidation to which my noble friend Lord Fitt and the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, referred. Such intimidation is a criminal offence. They could—and I dare say will robustly respond that the law is not enforced. That may well be so in some instances. I shall not stand here and pretend differently. The Bill is not the vehicle to deal with those vices.
I am grateful for the general response to the Bill. I shall do my best to deal as positively as I can with all amendments, even if that is simply by pointing to alternative means of achieving our common purpose rather than by amending the Bill.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Export Control Bill
4.36 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Export Control Bill is intended to provide a new legal framework for our strategic and cultural export control regimes. It will replace the export control powers contained in the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939. In his 1996 report on the export of defence equipment to Iraq, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, rightly criticised the continued reliance of successive governments on the export control powers contained in the 1939 Act. He recommended that the Government consult publicly on the matter with a view to replacing those powers with new legislation more suited to peacetime requirements.
The Bill is the result of the thorough and comprehensive review of legislation for which the Scott report called. In 1988, we published a White Paper inviting views on proposals for new legislation. Last March, we published the Bill in draft. A wide range of organisations and individuals—in particular, industry and non-governmental organisations—have contributed their views and played an important part in the development of the Bill.

469
The Bill has two basic aims. We need to modernise our export control powers to meet the reality of today's world, which is very different from that of 60 years ago. The 1939 Act provides powers to control only physical exports from this country. The growth of electronic communications and international business mean that that power is no longer adequate if we are to continue to meet the objectives served by our control of military and dual-use exports. The Bill therefore provides new powers to control the transfer of technology by intangible means, the provision of technical assistance and trafficking and brokering. I shall say more about those new powers in due course.
At the same time, the Bill will ensure that the Government are accountable to Parliament for the exercise of those powers. It does so by setting out the purposes for which control orders can be made and by providing for parliamentary scrutiny of those orders. It also makes clear for the first time in legislation the basis for licensing decisions on strategic exports, and it requires the publication of annual reports.
Those measures build on steps that the Government have already taken to improve accountability to Parliament and the public for strategic export controls. In July 1997, we published for the first time the criteria against which licensing decisions on the export of military and related equipment are taken. We pushed for the agreement of similar criteria across the European Union, and in 1998 the EU code of conduct on arms exports was agreed. Since then we have consolidated our national criteria with the EU code. Those consolidated criteria were announced to Parliament on 26th October 2000. As I shall explain in more detail, the consolidated criteria are referred to in Clause 8 of the Bill. We have also published detailed annual reports on strategic export controls for each year since 1997.
As I mentioned, the Bill provides the Government with the powers to introduce controls on exports, the transfer of technology, trafficking and brokering and technical assistance. The detailed controls themselves will be set out, as with export controls now, in secondary legislation. This is necessary because the goods and technologies to be controlled need to be capable of frequent amendment. In most cases these goods and technologies are identified by the various international export control regimes, such as the Missile Technology Control Regime and the Wassenaar arrangement, in which the UK participates. Technologies change, so does the international situation. The items that need to be controlled are therefore kept under continual review. We need to be able to adapt our export and other controls in response. That is why the detail must be set out in secondary legislation.
We recognise the importance of the proposed secondary legislation for a full understanding of the Bill. We therefore published in early October a full set of "dummy orders". These provide a clear and detailed indication of how the Government propose to use the powers that the Bill would confer. We have also
470
announced our intention of holding a full public consultation on draft statutory instruments to be made following enactment of the Bill. We expect to hold this in the spring. This consultation will give all with an interest in this legislation the opportunity to comment on the details of the proposed secondary legislation.
I turn to the individual provisions of the Bill. Clause I would replace the export control powers in Section 1 of the 1939 Act. The difference is that orders made under the clause are subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and they can only be made for the purposes set out in the schedule to the Bill. As indicated by the dummy orders, the controls to be introduced under the clause will simply consolidate and, where necessary, rationalise export controls in force at the time.
Clause 2, which provides a power to impose controls on the transfer of technology by any means, is a modernising measure. Under existing legislation a licence is already required for the export of the technologies required for the development, production and use of military equipment. However, at present we only have the power to require a licence when it is exported in a physical form. So the export of a blueprint or technical manual printed on paper would need a licence. But we cannot at present impose a licensing requirement where the identical blueprint or technical manual is to be sent abroad electronically, for example, by e-mail. This clearly does not make sense. It is a problem with which the international export control community has been grappling in recent years. Many countries, including the US, France, Germany and Japan, have already introduced controls on intangible transfers.
Still more to the point, European Community legislation has introduced controls on the electronic transfer of dual-use technology both here and across the rest of the European Community. These controls have been in place since September 2000. If the electronic transfer of dual-use technology—that is technology not designed for military use but which has a potential military application—is controlled, then it clearly makes sense that the electronic transfer of military technology should also be controlled. Clause 2 will enable us to do that.
Technology can of course be communicated in other ways than by exporting physical items or communicating electronically. It can be communicated in person, for example, through the spoken word. As the relevant dummy order makes clear, we propose to introduce such controls for the transfer of technology which a person knows, or is informed by government is, or may be intended, for use in weapons of mass destruction programmes and missiles capable of their delivery. We recognise the difficulties of imposing controls on personal communications, but we believe that the step is justified in these very serious circumstances. Moreover, we are not taking unilateral action as these controls will implement a joint action agreed with other EU member states in June 2000.

471
Clause 3 provides for the imposition of controls on the provision of technical assistance; that is, services connected with the development, production or use of goods or technology. We will use this too to impose controls on the provision of services which the provider knows or is informed by government is, or may be intended, for weapons of mass destruction or related missiles. This measure is also required by the joint action I mentioned earlier. The fact that these controls are being introduced across the EU will help to ensure that they are an effective mechanism in combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and missiles for their delivery.
The important new power to impose controls on activities connected to trade between overseas countries—usually referred to as "trafficking and brokering"—is contained in Clause 4. These activities include the acquisition, disposal or movement of goods and related activities. At present we can introduce such controls only where this is a requirement of a binding UN arms embargo. However, as the dummy orders that we have published make clear, we intend to impose controls on trafficking and brokering by UK persons and anyone in the UK to any destination subject to an embargo. This will include destinations on which embargoes have been imposed by the EU and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe or on which we have a national embargo, as well as those imposed by the UN. We will also introduce similar controls on trafficking and brokering in equipment whose export has already been banned because of evidence of its use in torture and long-range missiles. And, finally, we will also introduce controls on trafficking and brokering from the UK of all military equipment to any destination. This last was a new proposal not contained in the 1998 White Paper, but introduced in response to that consultation.
Some supplementary provisions to Clauses 1 to 4 are contained in Clause 6. These include provision for enforcement and record-keeping and a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. This is higher than the current maximum of seven years, reflecting the seriousness with which the Government view potential offences under the Bill.
Clauses 1 to 4 set out the substantive powers in the Bill. The exercise of these powers by the Government, however, is subject to important restrictions, as I shall explain.
Clause 12 provides for the first time that export control orders, and the other control orders that may be made under the Bill, are subject to parliamentary scrutiny. This contrasts with the 1939 Act which makes no provision for parliamentary scrutiny of the secondary legislation made under it. While the Government have laid export control orders voluntarily before Parliament since December 1999, the Bill will make this, as it should be, a statutory requirement.
Clause 5 specifies that, with one exception which I shall come to, orders introduced under Clauses 1 to 4 can only be made for the purposes set out in the
472
schedule to the Bill. This means that for the first time limits are set on the controls that the Government can introduce. Goods and technologies may only be brought under control if this is justified by reference to the schedule. These purposes include meeting international and European Community obligations and avoiding certain adverse consequences such as damage to the UK or the national security of other countries, to regional stability or contributing to the development of weapons of mass destruction, human rights abuses or terrorism and crime.
The schedule also provides for controls to be imposed on objects of cultural interest. As I mentioned, the point of the schedule is to set limits on the goods and technologies that the Government can include in the control lists in the orders. So far as the strategic export control regime is concerned, we must be able to control military dual-use and paramilitary goods and technologies both to ensure that we have an effective strategic export control regime and to meet all our international obligations.
Concern was expressed in another place about whether the schedule, as drafted, will allow us to control all the goods that we wish to control. I can confirm that the schedule, as drafted, ensures that we can continue to control military, dual-use and paramilitary equipment and that we can meet all our international obligations, including under the EU code of conduct on arms exports.
It is appropriate to mention Clause 11 here. This will enable us to make changes to the schedule if future developments, such as changes in the international situation, make that necessary. That can be done only with the express approval of Parliament, as Clause 12 provides for any orders changing the schedule to be subject to the draft affirmative procedure. The Bill originally provided for changes to the schedule to be made by the delayed affirmative procedure, but the Government accepted the recommendation of the Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform that the draft affirmative procedure should apply.
I mentioned an exception to the requirement that all control orders must be made for the purposes set out in the schedule. The Bill includes a power to introduce temporary controls under Clause 5(2) for reasons not included in the schedule. The delayed affirmative scrutiny procedure will apply, so such orders will need Parliament's approval if they are to remain in force after 40 days. Additionally, the orders will expire at the end of 12 months unless expressly renewed with the approval of Parliament. The Government consider it prudent to take powers to deal with unexpected emergency situations that must be acted on quickly or which would not justify longer-term changes to the schedule. Recent events have shown how quickly the international situation can change, but we have built in protections to ensure that the power cannot be abused.
Clause 7 deals with the exercise of the power to grant licences and provides that the schedule is one of the factors to be taken into account in the use of that power. The clause makes clear that other factors can be taken into account.

473
Clause 8 enables the Secretary of State to issue guidance about licensing matters or any of the other functions under the order-making powers in the Bill. Any such guidance must, like the schedule, be taken into account in licensing decisions. The clause also designates the consolidated criteria as announced by the Foreign Secretary in October 2000. The consolidated criteria incorporate the EU code of conduct on arms exports and additional national criteria. Together, the criteria are the basis for the Government's export licensing decisions.
I said that the introduction of national criteria and of the EU code was a major step forward in promoting transparency in strategic export controls, but we want to build on that. Clause 8 requires, for the first time, that the Secretary of State must have regard to the criteria in licensing decisions.
Concern was expressed in another place at the absence of a reference in the schedule to sustainable development. It was suggested that that might undermine a licensing decision taken on the basis of criterion 8 of the EU code, which requires the Government to consider the impact of an arms export on sustainable development. That concern is misplaced. I can assure noble Lords that the Bill will make it possible for the Government to reject an export licence application for an export of arms or dual use goods solely on sustainable development grounds. The fact that sustainable development is not mentioned in the schedule in no way undermines our ability to continue to consider, as part of the assessment of licence applications, the impact of arms exports on the sustainable development of a recipient country.
We are committed to observing all aspects of the EU code, in the negotiation of which we were instrumental. Nevertheless, I promise the House that we take seriously the concerns that were expressed. Moreover, we are considering ways of making clearer in the Bill the Government's continuing commitment to sustainable development. That commitment was made clear when we first published national criteria in 1997 and has been enshrined in the code of conduct that we agreed with our EU partners. Noble Lords will be aware that the Bill states that the consolidated criteria constitute guidance for the purposes of the Bill. We are considering whether the terms of the Bill that relate to guidance can be strengthened and whether we can clarify the role of the schedule in allaying the fears that some have expressed.
I hope that what I have said will reassure the House that we are listening to the concerns expressed in another place and elsewhere. We are considering how we might meet those concerns.
Clause 9 requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament each year a report on the operation of the powers in the Bill. The Secretary of State already publishes an annual report on strategic controls. Clause 9 places that practice on a statutory basis, which would allow for effective retrospective scrutiny of the licensing decisions taken by the Government.
474
The clause will also require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on controls on objects of cultural interest. That report will cover cases considered by the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art, which are currently presented by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in a separate annual report to Parliament. Clause 9 provides another example of the way in which we have sought to build on the measures that the Government have already introduced to provide better transparency and accountability in export licensing.
I have described the main provisions of the Bill. The Bill will modernise our controls and subject them to proper parliamentary scrutiny, and it will provide a framework for more comprehensive—and therefore effective—controls. The introduction of the schedule, the requirement to take account of guidance in licensing decisions and the introduction of a statutory requirement to publish annual reports will help to improve accountability and transparency and build on our recent achievements. For all those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
4.57 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful description and explanation of the Bill. We welcome the Bill in principle, although we have some reservations about the methodology used by the Government, the form of the legislation and the way in which the Government propose to achieve their objectives.
There is undoubtedly an urgent need to update the legislation on this topic. Many of your Lordships will have been as surprised as I was to learn that the substantive legislation was enacted as long ago as 1939–63 years ago. In those days, weapons of mass destruction existed in the form of poison gas and chemical and biological weapons, but their use was inhibited by the limited means of delivery available. Terrorism existed in the form of small groups of individuals, not sophisticated international gangs possessing vast funds and aided, abetted and protected by other states—rogue states. Suicide bombers did not exist until the Japanese introduced kamikaze pilots as a weapon against legitimate military targets, not innocent civilians.
The Roman poet Horace's concept that
"It is sweet and fitting to die for one's country"
related to brave soldiers fighting other armed soldiers hand-to-hand, not to murderers with nail bombs blowing up young teenagers. So-called rogue states, when they appeared, were often subdued, usually by Great Britain, through the use of what was disparagingly called gunboat diplomacy. Gunboat diplomacy has never gone away; recent examples include Grenada, Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan. Your Lordships will have noted from that list that Britain has been replaced as the major power involved by the United States.

475
Just as the form of terrorism has changed, the general form of warfare has changed. Changes have been brought about by enormous changes in weaponry and the fact that many ordinary, everyday objects can be adapted and used as part of a weapons system. Even the machine on which I typed these notes could be used as a guidance system. The enemies of civilised, democratic countries have changed, as have the weapons and means of delivery, which is why we agree that the controls on the export of weapons and the materials that might be used for weapons must be changed and the legislation brought up to date.
We have reservations about the Government's methodology because the Bill is another so-called enabling Bill, the detail of which is left to be fleshed out in later statutory instruments promulgated by the Secretary of State. In another place, my colleagues rightly complained that the Government had not published draft regulations until the Bill had reached an advanced stage there and that, as a result, they were being asked to consider legislation without knowing what they were being asked to agree to. We are a little better off; we have what are known as dummy orders, a new weapon in the Government's armoury of parliamentary non-information. I do not recall having seen it previously, but I stand to be corrected by the Minister if I am wrong.
Those dummy orders are even lower down the scale of elucidation than draft orders, for in the Explanatory Notes they are described as the "first draft" of the proposed orders. However, I welcome the announcement made by the Under-Secretary of State in the Standing Committee of the other place when he promised full public consultation with all interested parties on the regulations before they become law.
I would like to hope that the consultation will not merely be going through the motions and that the Government will pay attention to the representations made to them. I say that because the Government published their response to the recommendations of the quadripartite committee on the Bill three months late—on the very day of the Second Reading in the other place—thus ensuring that honourable Members had no opportunity to examine the Government's views before that very important stage.
It is true that delegated legislation is nothing new. But negative orders are not necessarily debated in the other place and then only if the Government provide the time. We shall therefore be considering the introduction of amendments to ensure that some of the regulations under the Bill are subject to an affirmative resolution of both Houses, notwithstanding the promised consultation which of course is no more than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, recommended in his report. That is because it is an important principle that Parliament, and not a number of pressure groups, should have the last word on legislation.
We are concerned about the power to amend the schedule which is at the heart and core of the Bill. It sets out the purposes for which a control order can be made. But in 13 terse words in Clause 11 it gives the
476
Secretary of State power, subject to an affirmative resolution of Parliament, to vary the schedule. She can override the schedule; she can impose export controls but ignore the restrictions in the schedule; she can impose controls which have not been sanctioned by primary legislation.
As my right honourable friend the Member for Wells pointed out at Second Reading in the other place, the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee had commented adversely on the proposal, but we believe that the Government are still pressing ahead, ignoring its impartial recommendation.
I want to draw your Lordships' attention to a piece of fine print in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill. Paragraph 10 reads:
"It is envisaged that the DCMS will establish controls over the export of any goods (with limited exceptions for personal papers etc.) manufactured or produced more than 50 years before the date of exportation".
What objects more than 50 years old might, in the words of the schedule, pose a threat to the United Kingdom and other countries? Are the Government thinking about suits of armour and flint-lock pistols or the plans of Nelson's "Victory"? Are they talking about World War 1 or World War 2 aircraft? And why more than 50 years old; why not 49 years old? Why is the DCMS involved in the matter of international security at all? Is this a way for the Government to slip into law further restrictions on the export of historical objects and works of art?
As regards licensing, major complaints have been voiced by all sections of industry, particularly by the influential Defence Manufacturers Association and the Society of British Aerospace Companies, about the inordinate delays in granting licences. The Government's target is to process 70 per cent of licence applications within 20 days. In the year 2000 they achieved only about 57 per cent and on appeal cases the figure is much worse.
Defence manufacturers told my right honourable friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire that some delays had been between two and a half and three years. That is despite the fact that only a small proportion—2 per cent—of applications are finally refused. Delays particularly adversely affect small businesses which lose foreign orders as well as antagonise foreign governments who can easily take their orders to less bureaucratic regimes.
When my right honourable friend the Member for Wells questioned the former Foreign Secretary on the subject of licensing delays, he received the dismissive reply that he had "limited sympathy" with the complaint. She had "limited sympathy". The former Foreign Secretary admitted:
"We are not moving fast enough".
In my view, that is typical of the subconscious and, in some cases, the historical and blatant antipathy of the Labour Party to what it pejoratively calls the "arms trade". Even the Secretary of State in her opening remarks to the other place at Second Reading referred to the arms trade no fewer than three times in her third paragraph. That antipathy exists despite the fact that

477
it employs 350,000 people in the United Kingdom and that arms exports are vital in keeping down the cost of equipment for our own Armed Forces.
The defence industry, not the arms trade, provides about 10 per cent of the output and the workforce of our declining manufacturing sector. And talking about the former Foreign Secretary, your Lordships will recall that virtually his first pronouncement was that he would conduct an ethical foreign policy. In passing, I wonder how ethical it was for the Government to license the sale of £23 million-worth of military air control equipment to Tanzania, one of the poorest countries in the world which possesses just two airfields and only eight aircraft.
We have only recently, at the very creditable initiative of our Government, procured the cancellation of its foreign debt. How does that lack of co-ordination between the DTI, the Foreign Office and the Treasure fit in with the concept of joined-up government? How does that sale of excessive equipment fit in with criterion 8 of the existing EU and National Arms Exporting Licensing Criteria which obliges member states,
"to look carefully at the compatibility of any proposed arms export with the technical and economic capability of the recipient country and to take into account whether the proposed export would seriously undermine the economy or seriously hamper the sustainable development of the recipient country"?
The Explanatory Notes make it clear that Clause 8(2) and (4) require the Secretary of State to take the guidance criteria, published as long ago as October 2000, into account when granting export licences.
I acknowledge—indeed, I am delighted—that the Tanzania order had benefited 250 engineering workers in the Isle of Wight. But still on the subject of delays, this time in introducing the Bill, the present Administration have wasted more than four years in implementing the Scott report, with detrimental effects to British industry. At Second Reading in the other place, the Secretary of State claimed that,
"we have reached an unprecedented agreement in the European Union on a code of conduct enabling any member states to object if another member state takes up an arms order which has been rejected under the code".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/7/01; col. 548]
I will believe the effectiveness of those words when I see them put into practice.
My scepticism is shared by the Quadripartite Committee which stated:
"There is very little sign that the other member states are taking very seriously the suggestion that they should be more transparent in their reporting of the operation of arms export controls. None of our European competitors has achieved the UN's level of transparency".
Indeed, the previous Foreign Secretary acknowledged two instances where export licenses had been turned down by this country, only to be granted by other EU states. We are in danger of putting our own industry at a disadvantage by operating to a set of rules which our European partners are not applying with the same degree of diligence.
478
Again, while touching on the subject of export controls by EU countries, it is appropriate to mention the lack of them from other arms producing states over which we have no effective influence; for example, China, North Korea and parts of the former Soviet Union. Only last week it was reported that a cache of uranium capable of producing a technologically simple "dirty bomb" had been found in the possession of Al'Qaeda and bin Laden. That is believed to have been stolen by gangsters operating with seeming impunity in parts of the former Soviet Union.
Another major concern is the extra territorial applications of the Bill. The Government in response to debates in the other place altered the Bill as originally drafted. However, there still seems to be an anomaly which we will want to explore at a later stage. I am glad to note that the Government have rejected the entirely impractical idea of prior parliamentary scrutiny of export licence applications.
There are, as I have already pointed out, more than enough delays as it is, to say nothing of the strain on Parliament's time, the politicising of executive decisions and the danger of disclosing commercially sensitive information to competing countries.
The Bill includes provision for the extension of controls on the intangible transfer of technology to encompass oral and electronic means and also training and demonstration. While welcoming that, we are concerned as to how it can be interpreted. Unless it is realistically interpreted in the secondary legislation, it will become a legal and practical minefield for companies in and out of defence and even academia. It will encompass dual-use technology and will undoubtedly inhibit joint industrial ventures such as we have seen successfully conducted in the aircraft construction industry. I also have to ask, as e-mails, faxes and telephone calls are caught by these proposed new controls, how and by whom are they going to be monitored? Only recently the Daily Mail reported that it was possible to obtain details of how to manufacture explosives and bombs capable of bringing down a passenger plane, along with other terrorist weapons, over the Internet.
The DTI has suggested that companies and universities could apply for open general licences to cover business dealings with approved companies overseas. That will create an unprecedented level of bureaucracy for industry as well as put a greatly increased burden on the DTI licensing department which, as I have already pointed out, cannot even come remotely close to meeting its present targets. This aspect will need to be interpreted realistically in the secondary legislation, but I fear that that may not come about.
The dummy order on the export of goods, transfer of technology and the provision of technical assistance runs to 39 pages. Regulation 12 proposes that any person who commits any act under a general licence shall keep records of the material exported or technology transferred, including the date, quantities, the names and addresses of the consignor and consignee, the name of the end user and any further

479
information that a competent authority would require. All that must be done even if a person is merely talking to a colleague or a customer from abroad over the telephone, discussing how to overcome a problem in operating a widget that has been sold lawfully. Regulation 12 also imposes a further seven detailed requirements set out in over a page of close type that will generate sufficient work for an army of inspectors. Furthermore, I am not overly confident that Customs and Excise will necessarily interpret the regulation reasonably.
On the matter of implementation costs, I have to agree with my right honourable friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire in his description of the estimate of £800,000 for the first year, reducing to £500,000 in subsequent years, as "absolutely ridiculous"—those were his words; I merely repeat what he said. The fact is that the Society of British Aerospace Companies has estimated that the Bill will generate a four-fold increase in licensing activity. The CBI has also made known its concerns regarding the amount of extra paperwork that will be involved.
Perhaps I may touch briefly on a further worrisome but connected topic, also covering licensing. Rather confusingly I refer to the granting of licences by a patentee or copyright owner to enable someone abroad to manufacture a product. The dummy regulations provide for this kind of transaction to be licensed in certain types of cases, but there is little that the licensor can do except to bolt the stable door if the foreign licensee, in breach of the licence, puts the goods that he has manufactured or the know-how he has been given to some improper use. Does the Minister acknowledge that this would make an innocent UK licensor, in a situation over which he has no control, guilty of an offence and liable to serious sanctions, even total ruin, as was the case with Matrix Churchill?
Along with my honourable friends in the other place, we are concerned that we still do not know precisely what powers we are being asked to give the Government under the terms of the Bill. We are marginally better off than the other place because, as I have said, at least we have had sight of the dummy regulations right from the outset. However, the regulations are to be put out to extensive consultation and in their final form may not bear the slightest resemblance to what we have at this moment. For that reason, we shall want to scrutinise carefully the detail hidden away in the final form of those regulations.
Finally, perhaps I may remind the Minister of my opening comments. We welcome the Bill, but we have reservations about it which I have already described. I very much hope that the Government will use their best efforts to encourage our EC partners to put in place a similar regulatory regime, including that called for in the EU consolidated criteria. In that way, I hope that our Government will ensure that our vital defence industry will be able to operate on a level playing field with its competitors.
5.14 p.m.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, in rising to speak on the Second Reading of the Bill, we should pause for a moment to look at the history of how it has come before us. That exercise feels like looking at sepia-tinted Victorian photographs of a world in which Mr Major was Prime Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, who is no longer in his place, was Foreign Secretary. At that point the world assumed that a Conservative government would continue for ever. Over that period of Conservative administration the Matrix Churchill events took place, followed by the Scott report. No doubt, all noble Lords are waiting with eager anticipation to hear the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, who spent more time considering those issues than many of us would care to do.
After a lengthy period of consultation, the present Government have produced a response to the events surrounding the Matrix Churchill affair based on their different political persuasion. On these Benches we welcome the Bill. In her remarks the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, indicated that the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats have a slightly ambivalent view of the whole question of the arms trade. She mentioned that the language used by Ministers often gives them away. I suspect that references made by the Secretary of State in another place reflected a certain ambivalence felt by the Government and those not on the Tory side of the argument as regards the arms trade which, as the noble Baroness also pointed out, still represents around 10 per cent of the UK's manufacturing capability.
This is not the time to rehearse the complex arguments over whether it is sensible for the British taxpayer to continue to subsidise the arms export trade through the mechanisms of the ECGD probably to the extent of a figure between £300 million and £500 million per annum. Those figures have been put forward in recent academic studies, although I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is shaking his head. I understand that those figures do depend somewhat on massive write-offs for Iraq, to whom I suspect that we no longer supply weapons of mass destruction. Nevertheless, this is not the time to debate those issues. However, in expressing in general terms our support for the Bill, we would wish to express our reservations and concerns as regards five matters that were debated pretty heavily in another place. We hope that progress can be made on these as we move through our proceedings in this House.
I turn first to a matter touched on by both the Minister and by the noble Baroness, and which was discussed at length in another place when concerns were expressed on all sides of the House; that is, the omission from the schedule setting out the purposes for making control orders of a definition of sustainable development. I do not wish to take up too much of the time of noble Lords on this point because no doubt we shall return to it in Committee and during subsequent stages of the Bill. Furthermore, the Government have indicated that they are prepared to move further on the matter. We look forward very much to the Minister's

481
further comments. Noble Lords on these Benches will welcome an opportunity to discuss with the Minister and his officials what progress he thinks he can make in order to meet the concerns that have been expressed. However, the recent controversy that arose over the proposed export of arms to Tanzania demonstrates in a nutshell the urgency of reaching a satisfactory position on the question of sustainable development.
I understand that in another place the Minister concerned put forward an argument to the effect that, as the Government intended to exercise sustainable development criteria in the guidelines that are to be applied, there should be no concern over the matter. However, I believe that many are concerned that if those guidelines are changed, then the legislation would no longer provide the protection that is being sought. To that end, the events surrounding Tanzania provide a good contemporary example of those concerns. As I have said, we await the Minister's contribution on this matter when it is raised in Committee.
The second major area over which general concern was expressed in another place was that of prior scrutiny. Given the remarks of the noble Baroness on the Conservative Benches, I suspect that we do not have her support. I found it difficult to understand her argument against prior scrutiny, which was recommended by the Quadripartite Committee but was not accepted by the Government on the grounds that it would hold up exports. However, the United States, which is one of the major arms exporters in the world, has in place a system of prior scrutiny. If the United States can have a system of prior scrutiny, it is difficult to accept that it is beyond the wit of Her Majesty's Government to have one here. The controversy currently raging over Tanzania would not apply to the same extent if a system of prior scrutiny before a licence was granted had been in place.
As to the other three areas—some of which were touched on by the noble Baroness—we welcome the extension of controls on the licensing of production. However, an issue was raised in another place in regard to the licensing of production overseas. We will need to be satisified in Committee that there will be satisfactory controls in that regard.
That leads to the question of the ultimate end use, which the noble Baroness also touched on. Proposals were made in another place in regard to further controls on the end use of armaments. This is clearly a significant problem and we look forward to discovering whether or not the Government have any proposals to help us on that issue.
There is also the issue of arms brokering, which was graphically portrayed by the expert on all these subjects, Mr John Le Carré, in his recent novel, The Nigh Manager. I commend to the Minister the character of Mr Richard Roper. If his officials turn up the appropriate pages in The Night Manager he will see why it is necessary to widen the controls on arms brokers who are based in the United Kingdom and to give those controls extra territorial scope.
482
Those are the five areas where we feel the Bill needs strengthening. They were considerably debated in another place and we look forward to making progress on them in Committee. We hope that the Government will go a long way towards meeting our concerns.
Finally, everyone who has been involved in these discussions will wish to offer a word of thanks to Saferworld, which has done a fine job of consultation and briefing on this very important Bill.
5.22 p.m.
Lord Scott of Foscote: My Lords, in view of the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, I have a feeling that your Lordships may be disappointed with what I have to say.
I welcome the Bill. For the first time in some 50 years there are proposals for export controls which will have constitutional and democratic respectability. The Bill is long overdue and thoroughly to be welcomed.
I express my gratitude to the Secretary of State for her kindness—it started off by being "his" but then it became "her" kindness—in keeping me abreast of the proposals in regard to the Bill; for allowing very helpful officials from the DTI to explain to me some of the problems that I was having with the early draft; and for explaining some of the thinking behind the language in the Bill—particularly in the schedule, with which I still have some difficulties and to which I will refer.
The introduction in the Bill of transfer controls, technology assistance controls and trade controls is thoroughly logical and sensible. It obviously makes no sense in a technological age to have prohibitions and restrictions on the export of technologically advanced goods but to allow free dissemination of the technology that lies behind those goods. This gap became apparent in some of the evidence that I was given when I was conducting the inquiry. It has now been filled and is a very good addition to the controls in this area.
One point about the Bill has caused me a little concern. It is a point to which I have already made an oblique reference and, as I understand from the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, it is a point which was raised in the debate on the Bill in the other place. It is not at all apparent to me that the existing controls over the very wide range of goods that they can presently be exercised over will still apply under the Bill. The present position is that the Secretary of State can specify any goods as being the subject of export controls and will therefore require licences for their export. Under the Bill, the Secretary of State has power under Clause 1 to make export control orders—he can impose transfer controls and so on—and Clause 5 states that the export control orders must be made for one or other of the purposes specified in the schedule. So they must be franked by one of those purposes.

483
One then goes to the schedule and finds in paragraphs 1 and 2, plainly expressed, the purposes—that is, the purposes of giving effect to Community requirements and international obligations. Those are the purposes and they would cover whatever the Community and international obligations require. But paragraph 3 does not express a purpose at all. It states that export control orders can be made for the purpose of imposing export controls. That is tautologous; it tells one nothing. Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 are to the same effect.
The paragraphs go on to state that an order imposing export controls may be made if it appears to the Secretary of State that the export of the goods in question would produce one of the relevant consequences set out in the schedule. The intention is clear enough—the author is endeavouring to identify goods with particular characteristics which warrant their being subjected to export control—but the method adopted of looking at the relevant consequences of the export is a process appropriate to the licensing decision.
There has been mention of the Tanzanian airfield control equipment, which is the subject of some debate in the media. As I understand it, this concerns radar equipment of a military character which is appropriate for use at a military airfield. Under the present export control regime, it is export licensable, and so the debate has been whether a licence should or should not be granted, and matters such as sustainable development and others have been raised in connection with this argument. That will go, and the licensability of radar equipment for military airfields will have to be justified by reference to the schedule.
I do not know whether it will fall within paragraphs 1 and 2 that we are required to have licensing controls over radar for military airfields under Community or international obligations, but, leaving that aside and looking at the impact of paragraph 3, how can it possibly be said that the export of radar for a military airfield would have an adverse effect on national security, or an adverse effect on the peace, stability or security of some other country, or be relevant in any of the other respects specified in the schedule?
For the purpose of seeing whether goods are appropriate to be subjected to export controls, one should be looking at the characteristics of the goods. I believe that is what the draftsman of the schedule is driving at. That ought to be expressly stated, rather than going off at a tangent and talking about the consequences of the exportation. The consequences in any individual case will be relevant to the question of whether a licence to export should be granted or whether it should be refused. But the characteristics of the goods themselves ought to be the governing criteria for their licensability in the first place.
It occurred to me also to consider the case of parachutes. They may be used by pilots of civilian aircraft in case they get into difficulties; they may also be used by a brigade of paratroopers. Are parachutes to be licensable? If they are dual use goods, presumably they will be licensable—but which of the
484
relevant consequences under the terms of the schedule could be said to apply to them? It is unclear whether paragraph 3 as drafted will be effective in catching all the firearms, military equipment and dual use goods which are subject to export controls under the present regime. I suggest that the Minister might re-examine the provision with a view to seeing whether the entirely appropriate object of the drafting cannot be better achieved by some other form of wording.
The reasons for rejecting or granting licence applications are dealt with in the guidance referred to in Clause 8. The guidance currently published includes the sustainable development points to which reference has been made. However, there is a point of illogicality regarding sustainable development.
Sustainable development as a criterion for the granting or refusing of a licence takes account of what, in the Government's view, the country seeking to import the goods can afford, having regard to the other requirements of health, education, social services and so on to which we may think they should give priority. If these are appropriate criteria—and most people believe that they are—in logic they should apply equally to goods for civilian use as well as those that are for military use. In terms of the sustainable development argument, what difference should it make if the buildings to be erected are for a grand display of wealth on the part of a head of state as opposed to being a barracks for the housing of troops?
The sustainable development criterion is subject to a paradox: it is applied in cases where the reasons for the goods being subjected to export control have nothing to do with the sustainable development point. The goods are subject to export control for one reason, and the decision is taken on grounds that have nothing to do with the reasons why the goods were export controllable in the first place. There is a paradox; I do not know whether there is an answer to it. It is an unsatisfactory feature of the current export licensing regime, and it looks as though it will be imported into the new one.
Perhaps I may say a few words about prior scrutiny—mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall. Speaking personally, I am against prior scrutiny and am in favour of the Government's refusal to agree to its incorporation into the export licensing regime. But my reason has nothing to do with objections on grounds of bureaucracy. It seems to me that the function of Parliament, whether of this House or another place, is to hold the executive, the government, accountable for the decisions that they take. Export licensing is essentially an executive function. Parliament has a constitutional obligation to hold government to account for their executive decisions and should not become complicit in them by prior scrutiny, which one supposes would disqualify whichever House had conducted the prior scrutiny from conducting a proper accountability exercise. For those reasons I believe that the prior scrutiny proposal was correctly rejected.
As I have said, I welcome the Bill and I am pleased to have had some part in its history.
5.35 p.m.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, whose report was one of the chief inspirers of the Bill.
The Labour Party called for proper controls on the export of arms even before I was born, and those of us brought up on "Major Barbara" recognise the historic moment of the defeat of Lord Undershaft.
As has been said, there were some controls before—a temporary measure instituted in 1939. It is more to the point that the Scott report recommended specific measures in 1996 and these were picked up in the Labour Party manifesto. So this Bill meets a high level of expectation.
My noble friend has outlined the range of the Bill, including its welcome proposals for transparency and for parliamentary scrutiny. He has also mentioned the all-important process to obtain commitment within the European Union from all member states to control arms trafficking and brokering. I want to focus on one area where the Bill could be improved, or rather, returned to one of its original purposes.
Following the recommendation of the Scott report, the Bill sets out the purposes of export controls, in a schedule. In the draft Bill published last March, as the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, said, these included the need to consider the consequences of arms exports on sustainable development. This was warmly welcomed, and reflects properly the EU code of conduct for arms exports, whose eight criteria broadly match the Bill's schedule. As Oxfam points out, the development of the code of conduct was a flagship policy pioneered by this Government in their previous term of office and adopted by the EU in June 1998. It marked a major step forward in a common European policy towards the arms industries of EU member states, setting out as it does the ethical criteria as well as the security criteria by which we and our European partners are bound. As far as I know, no one in this country objected to the presence of the criterion on sustainable development publicly during the consultation process. I am proud that a Labour government put a policy in place which recognises the risks of the arms export business for international development.
The point of making the criterion explicit on the face of the Bill, like the others in the code, is that any desire by any future government to amend it would require a full parliamentary debate; guidance can be changed without reference to either House. Without the safeguard of the reference in the Bill, the Government could be vulnerable to a completely avoidable clash between our commitments at a European and at a national level.
We know that the criterion relating to sustainable development has now been omitted from the Bill. My noble friend has given assurances, but according to Matrix Chambers the effect is to prevent a strategic export order being made which takes into account sustainable development.
486
I will not speculate on the pressures which caused the Government to drop this criterion. Tanzania's purchase of the BAe system, as the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, said, exemplifies exactly the kind of issue which is at stake. But dropping the criterion goes plain against one of the most successful policies of this administration—the furtherance of sustainable—development as defined in the International Development Bill, a concept right at the heart of the central purpose of the control of strategic arms exports itself. That is why the EU was able to agree on its incorporation in the code. Very many voices, including Oxfam, International Alert, Amnesty International, and Saferworld find the omission of this criterion—the only one in the list of appropriate criteria which is not now included in the Schedule—unacceptable. Resistance will be widespread, as debates in another place have shown. Following my noble friend's assurances, I hope that the Government's discussions will succeed in removing this blot on a very good Bill.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Lang of Monkton: My Lords, after six years, it is a rather piquant pleasure to take part in a debate on this subject in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, is also participating. Indeed, it is surprising that it is in fact almost six years since the issue surfaced with crystal clarity in the report of the then Sir Richard Scott.
Perhaps your Lordships will forgive a passing autobiographical reference, because I had the interesting task of receiving and presenting to Parliament that report—all 2,000 pages and five volumes of it—without the benefit of executive summary. It was an interesting report. Noble Lords will remember that the government were exculpated on the wilder and more extreme allegations of conspiring to arm Iraq and to cover up that fact. On some issues and conclusions of the report the government frankly disagreed with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, while on others there was a certain delphic quality, a certain balance of conclusion, and it was difficult to form a view. However, we agreed strongly on some of the report's conclusion. I certainly considered that the need for reform of export control legislation was one of those issues. In February 1996 I immediately promised a Green Paper on reform, as recommended by the Scott report. Had we still been in power, we should certainly have legislated long before now.
However, against the comments of "urgency" and "outrage" of the then Labour Opposition, I find it puzzling that it has taken as long as six years for this legislation to come before us. Of course, I sympathise with the Minister at the DTI on the difficulty of getting a legislative slot—other departments always seem to find a way of gaining preference. In our day, it was the ever-hungry Home Office that always came forward with ill-considered, but immediately important, emergency Bills. But six years is an unconscionable time, the more so because this is essentially an enabling Bill and much of the detail will be found in secondary legislation. That, in itself, is an unhealthy trend in

487
parliamentary accountability, notwithstanding the perfectly plausible explanation proffered today by the Minister in his very comprehensive summary of the Bill's provisions.
I turn to the issue of scrutiny. I regret that scrutiny of the export of goods (control) orders will be by negative resolution. I am sure that this would be better done by affirmative resolution, thereby giving Parliament a clearer and automatic right to exert a check on the executive. I hope that the Government will think again on that issue. Much the same thing happened in 1990 when the 1939 emergency Act was patched up with the co-operation of the then Opposition. The Government of the time preferred to propose an affirmative resolution, but agreed to Opposition requests for a negative resolution procedure. I do not believe that to have been a healthy development.
I strongly agreed with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, when, in his 1966 report, he said that the 1939 emergency Act was entirely inappropriate in a modern age given the age of the legislation and its temporary, emergency wartime nature. But I am surprised to find that chunks of it still remain in the present Bill, in particular in the parts covering the control of the import of goods where the Government have retained what the Quadripartite Committee described as,
"draconian powers … for no stated purpose and without parliamentary control".
Indeed, I sense that the Bill centralises more power than may he desirable within the hands of the executive. It is hard to measure that at this stage, but I believe that it is a matter that should be further probed and something that we should be guarding against. I wonder whether the industry organisations that have welcomed it realise just how much of a burden this legislation may impose upon them. Inescapable though the need is for clear and effective controls, I wonder whether it may go further in this respect than is really necessary.
Concerns have also been expressed by the British American International Committee, which believes that the Bill has a loophole—one which, incidentally, breaches a Labour manifesto commitment—to stop British arms dealers arming terrorist groups and regimes that violate human rights. At this time, if true, that could be a very serious omission and one that certainly needs further scrutiny. However, I do welcome the register on trafficking and brokering.
Having said that, I welcome a long overdue measure that should have reached Parliament three or four years ago. Although in need of amendment, it is more comprehensive; it is more transparent; and it is more up to date than the legislation that it replaces. I welcome the measures to address the transfer of goods through intangible means, using modern technology, especially potential dual-use goods. But I believe that more work is needed as regards the impact on business of such measures and on how they would work in practice, as we gain further experience in the area.
488
I welcome the controls on the transfer of technical assistance outside the United Kingdom, which will enable the implementation of the EU Joint Action of June 2000 to control assistance to certain military end-users. I welcome the requirement for annual reports to Parliament on the use of strategic export controls, especially on the export of objects of cultural interest. Above all, belatedly, this Bill removes the uncertainty that has dogged exporters in recent years. It creates anxieties. It needs amendment, but I hope that we can speed it, belatedly, to the statute hook.
5.47 p.m.
Lord Joffe: My Lords, I warmly welcome this Bill, even though I believe that there is one glaring omission and several areas where the legislation could be improved. It is a privilege for me, although a somewhat intimidating one, to speak after the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott. I declare an interest as a former chair of Oxfam and also a trustee of International Alert, both of which organisations are key members of the UK national working group on arms, which has been deeply involved with the Bill.
The Bill lays down the ground rules for one of the most important parts of British foreign policy; namely, to whom we should not sell arms. It is vital that this legislation—the first since the current laws were devised some 60 years ago for the very different world of 1939—is responsibly and consistently framed. Arms export decisions must move in step with our foreign policy priorities to protect people both here and around the world from unnecessary violence, to promote peaceful co-existence rather than war and to protect the frail green shoots of development in many parts of the world from being trampled on by excessive spending on expensive and inappropriate military systems. The current Bill reflects most of those priorities. If we look at the schedule to the Bill, we find that the framers have indeed borne in mind the need to avoid unwanted consequences from arms exports, such as breaches of human rights or facilitation of terrorism.
However, there is a glaring and inexplicable omission to include on the face of the Bill the protection of sustainable development as one of the purposes for which controls can be imposed—something to which we have committed ourselves at a European level. It is encouraging to learn from the Minister that the issue of sustainable development is being reassessed and that ways are being sought to make it clearer that the Government are able to use this as a basis for refusing export licences.
I should like to outline why I and many others, especially in the NGO sector, are so concerned about the issue. Events in December have shown what can happen unless the fullest backing is given in legislation. I refer to the sale of the air traffic control system to Tanzania, which the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, have already mentioned. At issue is not the desirability of air traffic control, but the suitability of the particular system being offered. The Government have given BAe Systems a licence for a £28 million air traffic control

489
system that, I understand, is primarily designed for military use. The World Bank has said that a system satisfying civilian air traffic control requirements can be bought for a quarter of the price and the International Monetary Fund has also refused to fund the deal.
Much as I am sure that your Lordships would like the interests of British industry to be promoted abroad, I do not believe that anyone would wish it to be at the price of the prospects of the poorest people on earth. One child in four in Tanzania dies before reaching the age of five. That £28 million could pay for education and health provision for a great number of children.
That is a particularly conspicuous case in which, decisions made for short-term gain have ridden roughshod over the longer-term interests of Tanzania and, indirectly, of our country. The full impact of the deal is yet to be felt, but it will be seen in increased debt repayments and less provision for education and health services, thanks to the cost of maintaining an expensive radar system. The whole deal is sad news for poor people in Africa and highlights the urgent need for sustainable development to be ingrained in the schedule to the Bill.
While I am encouraged by what the Minister has said and by his assurance that sustainable development can be covered by the Bill, I am perplexed by its exclusion from the schedule. Why put it in and then take it out? I have carefully studied the reasons for the exclusion given by the Minister in the other place, but I remain perplexed. The Minister has today given us an assurance that everything is all right and told us not to worry because the Government are looking at it. There is a clear difference between the legal advice given by Matrix Chambers and that given by the Minister's legal advisers. The obvious solution would he to reinstate sustainable development in the schedule, yet the Government refuse to do so. If they fail to amend the Bill, they will simply invite litigation, which they are anxious to avoid, particularly against the background of their insistence that, by setting out in the schedule the purpose for which export controls may be imposed, they have made clear to all concerned the exact statutory parameters for imposing controls. Despite that insistence, they exclude sustainable development, to which they are clearly committed, from the schedule.
The solution is so clear that I do not understand why the Government need to look so deeply into the issue. I get the sense from what the Minister has said—perhaps it is the wrong sense—that there is a plan to introduce sustainable development into the Bill by implication rather than explicitly. What harm could be done by taking the obvious solution and putting it back in the schedule? It could only do good, and would save a lot of unnecessary future litigation.
The Government's seemingly irrational refusal is inexplicable, unless there is a reason that the Government are reluctant to disclose. It would be most helpful if the Minister would explain why sustainable development was first put into the Bill and
490
then taken out and why the Government are so determined not to reinstate it. If the Government do not amend the Bill to insert a specific reference to sustainable development in the schedule, I urge the House to ensure that the issue is not allowed to fall victim to inadvertently poor legal draftsmanship or deliberate omission from the Bill.
I referred earlier to a number of other areas in which I believed that the Bill could be improved. They include the limitation on the control of extra-territorial arms brokering to deals where part of the deal takes place in the UK, prior parliamentary scrutiny and licensed production overseas. As those issue have been or—I understand—will be raised in some detail by others in the debate, I shall not speak to them.
5.55 p.m.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I shall talk about some of the Bill's deficiencies in the context of a general welcome for its purposes and against a background of welcome for an improved regime of EU controls in the past few years, which, as an MEP, is very much in my focus. I shall not discuss the inadequate structure of this enabling Bill, with its emphasis on secondary legislation, because others are doing so.
The Government deserve considerable credit for helping to instigate the 1998 EU code on arms exports, which was a major step forward in ensuring consistency and coherence of EU member states' policies. There are clear signs that considerable progress has been made, including the decision to publish two annual reports. In June 2000, agreement was reached on a common list of military equipment. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, fairly pointed out, the EU has a regime based on the criteria and descriptions of the goods.
Considerable progress has been made, but there is still room for improvement in making commercial policy consistent with foreign policy. The EU's development declaration of May 2000 promised coherence between EU policy on arms exports and EU development objectives, but we must improve that coherence in getting consistency in EU external action, such as on goals of conflict prevention, combating poverty and the promotion of human rights.
Agreement was reached last April on guidelines for EU policy towards third countries regarding torture, with the aim that combating and preventing torture and ill treatment will be considered a priority for the EU. There is also an agreed common list of non-military security and police equipment, but there is an absence of controls on the export of such equipment, such as electro-shock weapons and stun belts. The EU said in its April 2001 guidelines that it would urge third countries to prevent the use, production and trade of equipment designed to inflict torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and to prevent the abuse of any other equipment to those ends. That is laudable, but it is curiously ahead of the EU's actions. A common list has been agreed, but there are no

491
controls on the export of those items, which are envisaged as separate from the operative provisions of the code of conduct.
In response to a question from me, EU Commissioner Chris Patten said that the Commission intended to submit a proposal for an export prohibition for certain equipment that can be clearly linked to torture "very soon". I hope that that is done without delay. The unpleasant irony of the situation is that electro-shock equipment can carry the "CE" mark of conformity with EU standards of electrical safety. I am sure that that is a great reassurance to any torture victim.
The other area that clearly cries out for coherence is sustainable development, as other colleagues have said. There is a need to include the impact of arms exports on sustainable development as a criterion in the Bill so that it cannot be removed by the Government at any time. As the context is defined in the International Development Bill, it is clearly not impossible.
If the EU code had legal force, as it ought to, the Government's arguments against an explicit inclusion of sustainable development on the grounds that it is already in the EU code would have more force. Criterion 8 of the EU code says that member states will take into account whether the proposed export would seriously hamper the sustainable development of the recipient country, taking into account its relative levels of military and social expenditure.
The Prime Minister recently stressed his commitment to development in Africa. In October, in his party conference speech, he said:
"The state of Africa is a scar on the conscience of the world. But if the world as a community focused on it, we could heal it. And if we don't, it will become deeper and angrier".
So why are we giving assistance to the export of an air traffic control system with military capabilities to Tanzania when 51 per cent of its citizens live below the poverty line and almost half have no access to clean water? Why are we not insisting that its £1.4 billion debt-relief package—for which I give some credit to the Government—be spent on schools, health care and basic infrastructure? Is this deal not a form of tied aid—which I thought that the Government were pledged to abolish? In a recent briefing that I had with the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, on the International Development Bill, she pointed out that Clause 1 of that Bill will ensure that aid cannot be used for improper commercial or political ends. Surely an export licence and export credit for an unnecessary military facility, to save 250 British jobs, amounts to aid for improper commercial ends.
As for this Bill, I reiterate the disappointment expressed by other noble Lords including my noble friend Lord Razzall on the lack of specific provision for controls on licensed production abroad and on end-use monitoring. I shall not repeat his comments. However, although I welcome the inclusion of controls on UK-based brokerage, I find the purported justification of exclusion of foreign deals as unconvincing. After all, the Labour Party's manifesto
492
commitment was to license brokers and traffickers wherever they are located. There are also plenty of examples of extra-territorial legislation. The most recent example of such provisions are those in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 criminalising bribery anywhere by UK persons or companies. The long overdue introduction of those provisions into UK law is perhaps that legislation's most welcome feature.
As for transparency, the Government's refusal to agree to prior parliamentary scrutiny is disappointing. Such scrutiny is not unworkable; it works well in Sweden, and indeed in the United States where arguments against it on grounds of commercial confidentiality and delay would surely have been well aired and well supported by the defence industry. Perhaps it is a mark of the greater powers and independence of the United States legislature that it has managed to gain prior parliamentary scrutiny. It is a pity that the UK will not be leading in this sphere of openness, and especially so because it does have a good record on its annual reports. Saferworld—which I, like my noble colleague Lord Razzall, thank—has described the UK's third annual report, of July 2000, as the most transparent report published by an EU country, offering a potential template for best practice. That is high praise and well-deserved praise; it is a pity that it cannot be followed through.
With more transparency, surely the case would be bolstered for ending export credit for arms exports, as recommended by senior officials of the International Monetary Fund and with a substantial saving to the British taxpayer. In 1999, more than half of ECGD cover supported arms sales; as the Government are budgeting £2 billion to subsidise export credit in the next three years, that amounts to a very great sum, perhaps even more than my noble friend Lord Razzall mentioned.
We must not allow the fight against terrorism to he used as a pretext to relax arms export controls. I fear that there is evidence that that has been happening since 11th September. We must be vigilant and not allow concerns about terrorism to become pretexts for relaxing controls. We must focus on the impact that arms exports could have on exacerbating internal conflict or fuelling internal repression.
The Bill is welcome, although we shall have to see the detail in the secondary legislation. I hope that the Government use the legislation as a springboard to strengthen not only the provisions of the Bill itself, but the aspects of the EU code of conduct that I and other noble Lords have mentioned.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on introducing this comprehensive legislation on export controls; it is the first of its kind in more than 60 years. I am delighted that they are taking the matter seriously. I should like, however, to address several issues.
The events of 11th September highlight the importance of introducing effective controls in arms export policy. As other noble Lords have said, in the

493
aftermath of the tragedy, it is imperative that human rights and sustainable development are not sidelined in the fight against terrorism and remain an integral part of arms export control policy.
UK export control policy needs to reflect an understanding that arms transfers should be governed by the consistent application of certain principles—for example, that arms exports should not be permitted when there is a risk that they may be used to abuse human rights; to undermine sustainable development, as described both in your Lordships' House and in the other place; to exacerbate international instability; or to facilitate acts of terrorism. Now, more than ever, it is vital that the UK applies strict arms export controls, especially for arms transfers to unstable or undemocratic states. As one of the EU's main arms supplying states, the UK should take a lead in encouraging other EU states to implement responsible arms export policies. The Bill is an opportunity for the UK to do just that.
I shall focus on three issues: the long-term concerns of arming unstable or undemocratic regimes; arms exports to Afghanistan; and the Bill itself. The short-term approach of providing military equipment or assistance to strategically important states ignores the long-term implications of arming countries in a region that is susceptible to change. There have been repercussions when we have armed states with undemocratic or unstable regimes that are fighting for a common cause. In the 1960s and 1970s, for example, the United States supported one South Vietnamese dictatorship after another in the hope of holding North Vietnam at bay. When South Vietnam fell, the victorious communists gained strength by inheriting an enormous amount of abandoned US military hardware.
Furthermore, throughout the 1980s Britain and its allies played a part in substantially increasing Iraq's military capability in its conflict with Iran, only for those same exports to be turned against allied forces in the Gulf war. In Afghanistan, the Taliban were armed with US-manufactured Stingers in anticipation of the arrival of US fighter jets. Substantial risks and dangers attach to policies enhancing a country's military capacity. The lifting of sanctions on countries in a region may satisfy an immediate, short-term goal, but the longer-term impact on international security must not be ignored.
It is essential that the potential consequences and implications of any policy to reward countries for their support in combating the threat of terrorism are fully taken into account. For example, India, in dispute over Kashmir, has been responsible for the death of more than 75,000 people. It should therefore not be rewarded but be made accountable. Charges should be brought against certain politicians for crimes against humanity.
In relation to arms exports to Afghanistan, in a worrying move on 31st October, the European Union decided to lift an arms embargo on the Northern Alliance. At the time, lifting the embargo clearly contradicted the spirit of an EU agreement (the Joint
494
Action on Small Arms 1998) to encourage all countries only to supply small arms to governments. Furthermore, at the UN small arms conference in July 2001, the EU was one of the strongest advocates of an international ban on supplies to non-state actors. There was no legitimate or recognised state authority in Afghanistan on 31st October.
A UN-sponsored agreement for a new administration has been put in place. However, that should not give the green light for widespread supplies of arms to Afghanistan. The extended history of gross abuses of human rights by the various warring Afghani groups over the past two decades, including those which make up the Northern Alliance, would counsel caution on loosening restrictions on arms sales to any Afghani faction. There is a risk that arms exports to Afghanistan could be used in contravention of international humanitarian law, to abuse human rights and exacerbate conflict. There is a concern that any exports to Afghanistan could contravene the criteria in the EU code of conduct that stipulate that exports will not be licensed,
"which would provoke or prolong armed conflicts or existing tensions or conflicts",
and,
"if there is a clear risk that the proposed equipment might be used for internal repression".
Ideally, a policy of presumption of denial for arms exports should be instituted wherever there are signs of abuses of human rights and where concerns have been expressed within the UN. That would mean that export licence applications would be refused unless there was demonstrable proof that the arms were necessary for self-defence.
The Export Control Bill is a welcome step in strengthening and developing UK strategic export controls since the publication of the Scott report in 1996 which called for new legislation to govern UK arms exports. Undoubtedly, the Bill is a significant step forward in trying to prevent the transfer of arms by UK companies and citizens into conflict or human rights crisis zones. However, there are some grave weaknesses in the Bill that, if not addressed, could undermine the effectiveness of the legislation. It is crucial that the new export controls, the first since 1939, are comprehensive.
It is welcome that under the Export Control Bill, for the first time, all persons in the UK who broker the transfer of arms from one overseas destination to another, will require a licence for their activities. In the past, UK brokers have been free to arrange the delivery of weapons from countries outside the EU to conflict zones with impunity. Often brokers have taken advantage of the large numbers of cheap surplus weapons available in central and eastern Europe and brokered them to other destinations. There is evidence to show that some British dealers and freight companies have participated in the transfer of significant quantities of arms from third countries into war zones.
However, while the controls in the Bill are welcome, there is a serious loophole. Under the draft secondary legislation proposal, full extra-territorial

495
controls only extend to embargoed destinations and to certain equipment—long-range missiles and torture equipment. If the new legislation covers arms brokers only where at least part of their activities take place within the UK, UK passport holders could simply travel abroad to conduct their business. Clearly that is inconsistent with the principle that all UK nationals should adhere to UK policy on arms transfers.
It is important, in the current climate, that arms transfers are not diverted to terrorist groups or governments that abuse human rights. There have been numerous instances where arms of UK origin have been diverted for purposes or to destinations contrary to the Government's intentions. The Bill does not address any specific measures for monitoring controlled goods after export. This means that no mechanism is in place to verify whether British-made weapons are being used for internal repression or to exacerbate conflict in recipient countries or whether they have been diverted to other countries.
The export criteria state that export licences will not be issued,
"if there is a clear risk that the intended recipient would use the proposed export aggressively against another country or to assert by force a territorial claim".
Yet the Government's annual report on Strategic Export Controls for 2000 highlights that the UK is exporting equipment with a potentially offensive use to India and Pakistan (in dispute over Kashmir). Those cases are of particular concern given the current environment. For example, in the case of India, 699 standard individual export licences have been granted, including components and technology for combat aircraft and helicopters and components and technology for surface-to-air missiles. In the case of Pakistan, 88 standard individual export licences have been granted, including components for combat helicopters, 171 shotguns and military communications equipment.
I sincerely welcome the role that Clare Short personally and the Department for International Development as a whole played in developing concrete action on conflict prevention, controlling arms exports and the spread of small arms. However, development issues are still not being given full weight in the inter-departmental export licensing process. No export licence has yet been refused on the grounds that it might hamper sustainable development.
The Export Control Bill makes no reference to sustainable development. I do not want to go into that because much has already been said in that regard. So while I welcome the Bill, I have a number of concerns, some of which were expressed also by other noble Lords.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I can ask him one question in relation to his remarks. He referred to the supply of arms to Iraq during the 1980s, which he went on to say kept the conflict going between Iran and Iraq. I was
496
one of the junior Ministers responsible for that policy for part of that time. Can he say to what arms he is referring?
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I do not have the list of those arms. But it was reported in the press over many months, especially during the Gulf crisis, that most of the arms and machinery given to Iraq were supplied from European countries. Perhaps in the speech of the noble Lord he will give us some details about that.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, perhaps I may pursue that because this is an important point. In fact there were no arms supplied from the United Kingdom during that time. The noble Lord might like to do his research a little more carefully.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, was machinery supplied to Iraq during that time?
Lord Hylton: My Lords, if my recollection is correct, I think that Hawk fighter training aircraft, which are capable of being converted for offensive purposes, were the point in question.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, they were not supplied. The application was refused.
6.19 p.m.
Lord Freeman: My Lords, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, I am sure that he, like me, in re-studying the Scott report, will improve his speed reading capabilities. I am sure that the answers to some of his questions and those on which my noble friend Lord Trefgarne sought to intervene might be revealed and answered comprehensively from that report.
I declare an interest as chairman of the United Kingdom's second largest defence manufacturer and exporter—Thales plc, for the benefit of the stenographer and perhaps also for the benefit of some of our customers!
The defence industry—I speak on behalf of the Defence Manufacturers Association—and certainly my company, support the Bill. It is a timely, well constructed Bill. I understand that my own company—there are 40 subsidiaries within the group—makes each year about 3,000 export licence applications to the DTI. Typically, they take between five weeks and six months to be processed. Therefore, we have a direct interest in the practical outcome of this legislation.
As my noble friend Lord Lang indicated, it is important also, even at Second Reading, briefly—I intend to be brief—to look at the practical implications of the Bill for industry. My noble friend Lady Miller drew attention to that from the Front Bench. She was absolutely right to do so.
Before I discuss the practical implications of Clause 2, I should say that I very much agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, said about prior parliamentary scrutiny of applications, not orders. I refer also to what I consider a knock-out

497
argument, for constitutional reasons, in introducing that procedure, against which the Government have rightly set their face. I place on record that from the defence industry's standpoint additional delays would only compound the problem we already have and with which the Government are trying to help by making sure that the export control procedure is as fast and efficient as possible.
Further, I register a concern about the competitive position of UK applicants. I believe that the prior parliamentary scrutiny of applications would in some cases prejudice the competitive position of UK applicants. As I said, I shall discuss briefly Clause 2. I remind your Lordships that one of the key changes that will be introduced if the Bill is enacted—as I hope it will be—concerns the electronic transfer, typically by e-mail, of technology relating to military use. The dual-use provisions are already covered by European regulation implemented and obeyed in this country. That is one of the key new changes which significantly affects global companies such as Thales, BAe Systems and Rolls Royce. We estimate that unless the procedure is ameliorated we shall have to make 1,000 extra licence applications per annum as a result of the provisions of Clause 2.
I give noble Lords a simple example. An engineer sitting in our Basingstoke office working on a missile guidance system wants to consult his colleague in our Paris office or our Amsterdam office. At present he would send an e-mail seeking advice, guidance and opinions upon the software or the wiring diagram system for the missile. Under this legislation, unless a simplified solution is introduced, an export licence would be required. I suspect that that will be too big a burden for the Department of Trade and Industry.
I pay tribute to the staff of the DTI export control organisation as they work hard but they are meeting only two-thirds of their target for responding within 20 working days to standard export applications that have to be referred to the MoD, the DTI and DfID. I believe that it is unworkable to add this extra dimension with possibly only two extra staff unless we follow a simple solution which I put to the Minister. The Minister may not be able to respond to it in this debate as there will be consultation on the orders and the procedures to be followed which I very much welcome. Perhaps we can discuss the matter at that stage. I believe that the solution is to pursue what is called in the jargon, "open general licences"; that is to say, that companies, subject to regular audit by the DTI, are allowed to export certain technology to certain countries without having to make an individual application for a licence. I believe that that could comprise a solution.
We must consider the competitive position of British industry. My noble friend Lady Miller was right to draw attention to that. We are talking about moral principles—that is why I welcome the Bill—but we must also consider the practical implications. I thank the Minister, and through him the DTI staff, for all their help over the past 12 months. On behalf of
498
the defence industry I say that we look forward very much indeed to the consultation. We shall be constructive.
6.25 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I, too, welcome the progress the Government are making in export control and the improvements made in another place since the draft Bill was published. I declare an interest as a trustee of Christian Aid which has long been connected with specialised charities such as Saferworld and Campaign Against Arms Trade. That is also an issue on which the Churches feel particularly strongly.
The case of Tanzania's air traffic control system has highlighted public concern about this Government's priorities. NGOs, including many in Tanzania, are indignant about the matter and one can see why given that substantial sums of debt relief have gone to that country. It took a long time to convince mainly Conservative governments that taxpayers do not want money set aside for education and health to disappear into hydro schemes or defence and thus into the balance sheets of large British companies. In this case we are talking about export licences, but the principle is the same when governments are faced with stark choices between military spending and development funded in part by debt relief.
Today, things should be different as we have a government who have declared themselves for the poorest. Yet British jobs and profits are at stake and compromises always have to be made. Pergau was a watershed, Narmada was another, and most recently the Ilisu dam in Turkey showed how corporations are still trying to push the boat out, and who can blame them? In the case of Ilisu, Balfour Beatty pulled out mainly for its own reasons, but one is that the ECGD has had to rethink its whole raison d'être and mission statement.
I was delighted to receive a Written Answer from the Government on 20th December confirming that from 1st January all but two of the 26 OECD export credit agencies have agreed to raise their environmental standards for capital goods exports. That agreement for the first time obliges agencies to screen applications and review any projects which could have an adverse environmental effect, as happened at Ilisu. That was a UK initiative and a significant achievement in itself and one in which the US did not form part of the coalition. It is only an informal agreement and it will be a year or two before we know how well it is working. This is not the time to discuss ECGD but if the Government are to continue to promote transparent coherent policies among OECD members, we can look forward—I believe that this meets some of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller—to further harmonisation between the ECAs on export controls and issues such as outstanding non-concessional debt in countries such as Tanzania.
It is surprising that the Prime Minister chose to make the Tanzania decision against the advice of the World Bank which had advocated the civil system for

499
a quarter or the price, as my noble friend said, and contrary to two senior members of the Cabinet who should know a thing or two about development. I understand that there is still a possibility that a modified civilian version will be preferred which would secure some of the BAe jobs in the Isle of Wight. We all want to support British industry at a time of job losses and we should also respect decisions made by sovereign governments. It is never a clear-cut decision because there are genuine technical and military requirements in all these countries. But if the victories of Pergau and Ilisu are to mean anything, we must insist, as my noble friend Lord Joffe said, that our exports to indebted poor countries still trying to meet their basic needs should be appropriate to those needs.
Turning to the new Bill, and remembering its origins in the Scott report, I applaud the determination of the Government to pursue those who deal in arms sales and exports to developing countries and exploit the vulnerability of societies which cannot always afford to control them themselves. The sale of Hawks and spares to Indonesia and Zimbabwe, whether or not they were inherited by this Government, are reminders of the contribution this Government continue to make to repression and human rights abuse abroad, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed.
My wife and I, on a recent visit to Israel, witnessed on a small scale the way in which we are still condoning the demolition of Palestinian homes with British-made equipment. The cynical growth of our trade in goods to Israel, which is in breach of agreements, regardless of their effect on the occupied territories, makes me wonder whether the Government are serious in their desire to resolve that dispute.
On Israel, I understand from Saferworld that the consolidated national and EU export criteria state that export licences will not be issued,
"if there is a clear risk that the intended recipient would use the proposed export aggressively against another country or to assert by force a territorial claim".
However, the Government's annual report on strategic export controls for 2000 includes the following equipment as being licensed for export although, in the case of Israel, it can be put to potentially offensive use:
"Demolition charges, general purpose machine guns, rifles, small arms ammunition and components for small calibre artillery ammunition, components for air-to-surface missiles, armoured fighting vehicles, armoured personnel carriers, combat aircraft, combat helicopters and tanks".
Open individual licences are available for an even wider range of equipment. They also allow for multiple contracts. Given the Government's policies on the Middle East, is it right or consistent that such arms and equipment should be made available to Israel? And why are Ministers still denying that British-made arms and equipment are being used in the occupied territories?
Returning to the Bill, the inclusion of sustainable development has been mentioned. It would be a small concession if the Government accepted that sustainable development, which featured in the draft
500
Bill, is just as important a consequence as a breach of human rights or national security. The argument that the matter is covered by guidance falls away, I am advised, because, contrary to what the Minister said, that provision could be altered without recourse to Parliament. The EU criteria would remain in force but would not be binding.
The provisions on arms brokering by persons in the UK—that was discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed—has been widely welcomed because illegal traffic in small arms is a pernicious external cause of conflict in, for example, Africa. However, there is the lacuna that the noble Lord mentioned. The provisions will catch only deals that take place at least partly in the UK. That is contrary to the Government's manifesto commitment,
"to control the activities of arms brokers and traffickers wherever … located".
As the Bill stands, British arms brokers who are based in this country could continue to sell arms without an export licence to groups carrying out terrorism or abusing human rights simply by signing deals outside the UK. That would surely defeat one of the important purposes of the legislation. There is also a lack of clarity about the degree of extra-territorial control of particular weapons under the Bill, and about the extent of future monitoring.
Finally, parliamentary scrutiny by the Quadripartite Committee has been widely welcomed—my noble and learned friend Lord Scott did not welcome it—although its work is only retrospective. I agree that there are obvious difficulties in examining complex rules by a joined-up committee in a way that does not delay the ordinary process of export licensing or infringe commercial confidentiality. I sympathise with some of the comments made by noble Lords on the Conservative Benches. Does the Minister agree with the committee and many parliamentarians that because such scrutiny currently takes place only after licences have already been granted, there is a case for prior examination of some—I emphasise that word—of the more sensitive applications? That would give Ministers the benefit of the advice of a highly regarded Select Committee on some of the most complex issues and would surely be more in line with the doctrine of greater openness and transparency in export control. I look forward to the Minister's comments.
6.34 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I do not usually speak in your Lordships' House on the topic that is covered by the Bill. I do so today because in my small but growing and perfectly formed party, there has been a real move to write to me urging me to make a speech and to support amendments that have been discussed fairly widely in another place and in this House tonight.
I, too, am very disappointed that the criterion relating to developmental concerns, which was included in the draft Bill, has been dropped. I still do not understand why. There is currently no explicit reference to the impact of arms exports upon a recipient country's sustainable development. That

501
significant omission from the Bill is of particular concern because all other criteria, which are contained in the consolidated European code of conduct on arms transfers, and the national criteria, are set out in the schedule to the Bill. The significance of that omission was recently made apparent by the rift in the Government over the sale of a military air traffic control system to Tanzania, which several noble Lords have already mentioned. The decision to allow that transfer also demonstrates the need for powers of revocation, if necessary.
The Bill as it stands is able to give the Secretary of State powers to issue guidance for consideration during the licence application process. However, that provision is inadequate because Parliament does not need to be consulted on changes relating to it. Therefore, the schedule must include explicit reference to the adverse effects on countries of cumulative arms exports. The cumulative effect is important because applications are currently assessed on a case-by-case basis. That does not take into account the cumulative impact of transfers on a country which may be considerably less apparent.
Another significant omission from the Bill is the absence of powers to control licensed production. The lack of controls on licensed production is a major loophole in current UK legislation. It enables a UK company to sell a foreign company the right to manufacture its weapons or equipment, thus bypassing our export controls. That is a huge disappointment and in this ever-increasingly globalised world, arms manufacturers can set up shop in any country that has weak arms controls and continue to export deadly weapons to repressive regimes or human rights abusers.
The risk of diversion highlights the need for stringent end-use monitoring. There are currently no provisions in the Bill to introduce stricter end-use controls. Without any such provisions, new powers to control brokering and/or licensed production would be hampered by the lack of controls to ensure that an export was being used by the intended recipient for its intended purpose and was not being transferred to a third party. We believe that end-use undertakings should be explicitly conferred through a legally binding agreement between the end-user and the exporter.
On the whole, this is a good Bill and we support it. However, some amendments are very necessary—they have been discussed by several noble Lords and I outlined some of them very briefly for the House's benefit. We welcome the Bill but we hope that the Government will listen to reason in Committee, as they often do.
6.39 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I, like many noble Lords—indeed, like all of those who have spoken—commend the Government on the broad purport of the measure. Those of us who are lawyers recognise the difficulty of framing such legislation.
502
What I shall say will be said not in the spirit of hostility but with the wish to suggest that there may yet be ways to improve the measure.
My first point—I shall not spend long on it because it has already been referred to—is to question whether the degree of delegation in the Bill involves the best arrangement. In particular, orders under Clauses 1 to 4 can currently be enacted by secondary legislation on negative procedures. However, given the importance of the orders, I believe that they should be made by affirmative procedure.
Secondly, reference was made by, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, to the rather lame duck at the end of the schedule concerning cultural objects. That subject is something of a fish out of water in the Bill as the remainder relates to arms. But here the issue of cultural objects crops up in an isolated way, with no relevant considerations governing the type of order that can be promulgated in pursuit of preventing exportation. It seems to me that that item in particular requires an affirmative procedure if an order under the schedule is to be brought forward. I suspect that we shall receive a large number of representations from bodies outside this House with regard to that matter.
Thirdly, I am dubious as to whether the extent of criminal offences that can be created by Clause 6(1)(g) are not so serious as not to need an affirmative procedure to bring them in. Indeed, I wonder whether an indictable offence with up to 10 years' imprisonment is the type of new criminal offence that should be created by secondary legislation at all. However, I should be interested to hear the remarks of the Government.
Fourthly, I turn to orders in respect of Clauses 1 to 4 under Clause 6(2)(b). I shall read out that paragraph because the allowance which it sets out seems to me to be extraordinarily uncontained. The paragraph states that an order may,
"amend, repeal or revoke, or apply (with or without modifications) provisions of any Act or subordinate legislation".
Therefore, as is stated here, by an order under this Bill any legislation may be amended by secondary means. Can that be right?
Fifthly, I draw the attention of the House to the deliberations of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. It had two bites at this cherry. The first, in April, was at the draft Bill stage. With regard to the power under Clause 11 to amend the purposes set out in the schedule, the committee said that it questioned whether granting such a power was appropriate. I believe that we need to hear more from the Government as to why they believe that it is appropriate. It seems to me that the power goes too far. The purposes set out in the Bill are at the very heart and essence of the matter. To allow them to be changed by secondary legislation is, I believe, open to severe question.
I now turn to the question of Israel. I simply want to endorse strongly the remarks already made by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. Perhaps the Government will respond to that.

503
With regard to the subject of the control of brokering, as I believe it is called, the suggestion has been made that we should take powers in the particular circumstances of this Bill to allow for extra-territorial prosecution in relation to offences committed abroad. I understand that the Home Office has six criteria against which the appropriateness of extraterritoriality is judged and that five of them are met in the case of this Bill. Given the relative ease with which the provisions of this measure could be circumvented by those intent on so doing by taking certain decisions out of the jurisdiction, I believe that the Government should review the matter. Again, I shall be interested to know what the Government have to say.
Perhaps I may now turn to my final point concerning an issue referred to by many noble Lords. I shall not name them all because virtually everyone has mentioned the matter. It is: why is sustainable development not one of the relevant considerations in the schedule? In his opening remarks, the Minister reassured the House that it is not necessary—I believe that that is a fair summary of what he said—for it to be set out in the schedule because it can be taken account of in the guidance to which regard must be had by the licensing authority. I hope that that is a fair summary. However, I believe that one is apt to reply, "If it is already there by the back door, why not put it in by the front door?".
I also believe that a clear and specific answer is needed from the Government in response to the issue raised by the opinion given by counsel in Matrix Chambers. They said that there is a difference between putting the matter in the schedule and putting it in guidance. I shall use their words. They say that, although in one sense the legal effect of including a matter in the table to the schedule is the same as the effect of including it in guidance because both are matters to which regard must be had in the exercise of a licensing function, the crucial difference is that the table and the other parts of the schedule set out the only purposes for which an order under Clauses 1 to 4 can he made. However much other matters must be taken into account, they cannot justify making an order for a purpose which is not listed in the schedule.
I believe that the reassurance that we on these Benches want to hear from the Government is that they cannot envisage a case or a circumstance in which the difference between placement in the schedule and placement in the guidance would be of practical effect. If that is so, none the less I urge the Government to take a leaf out of the book of the recently enacted anti-terrorism Bill. There, as I am sure, given the recent battle, noble Lords will recollect, under Sections 102 and 103 concerning the right of the Secretary of State to direct communications providers to retain communications data, the whole process has one main and significant control upon it; that is, the duty of the Secretary of State to consult before issuing the code of practice or, in this case, the code of guidance.
The consultation concerns the draft code—or, in this case, guidance—and requires the Secretary of State to consider any representations made in relation to the draft and, indeed, to consult specifically named
504
bodies. Again, I should be interested to know from the Government why that would not be an entirely suitable procedure to incorporate into this Bill, in particular as in his opening comments the Minister made considerable play of the fact that consultation will take place in the spring. Again, I believe that it would go some way to reassure the aid bodies which are considering this matter from the field, so to speak, that this Bill will take due account of sustainable development. I should have said at the beginning, but shall do so now, that I declare an interest in that my firm of solicitors acts for a number of the aid agencies that form the UK working group on arms which has been of such help to so many of us.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I apologise for not being present during my noble friend's opening speech and those from the other Front Benches owing to being caught up in a rigid traffic jam due to the closure of Islington High Street.
This necessary and welcome Bill has been in gestation since 1998. Getting the drafting right has obviously been a complex matter. It has also involved the need to consider the position of those with a number of legitimate—some might say "vested"—interests in arms exports. Here, the Bill has some similarities to the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill, which also aims to reduce the distribution of a potentially lethal product and is facing rearguard opposition from the tobacco industry as it progresses through your Lordships' House.
To name a few of the interests which some fear may be adversely affected by the Export Control Bill, first and foremost is the defence industry, with some 97,500 of its employees directly or indirectly dependent on arms exports. It is felt by some that the diminution in orders resulting from the operation of the Bill may have a serious effect on national employment statistics, as well as affecting the viability of an industry of importance for national security. There is also concern about the possible effect of the Bill on the balance of payments through reducing exports of manufactured goods, in which of course the arms trade features substantially.
A recent report from the Centre for Defence Economics at York University, entitled The Economic Costs and Benefits of Defence Exports, commissioned by the Defence Select Committee, contains a detailed study of the effect of a sudden hypothetical 50 per cent reduction in arms exports—a worse case scenario—with a greater and more rapid reduction than is likely to follow if the Bill becomes law. Some of its conclusions are that the initial loss of nearly 49,000 jobs would be offset by the creation over a five-year period of 67,000 new jobs in non-defence employment.
The cumulative "one off" net adjustment costs over a five-year period would be between £0.9 billion and £1.4 billion, with an additional £1 billion to include the effects on the terms of trade. That would cease at the end of the period. However, there would be an ongoing cost to the Government of some £40 million to

505
£100 million per annum, which is about 0.2 to 0.4 per cent of the defence budget. Some of that could be offset by a reduction in government expenditure in promoting arms exports.
It must not be forgotten that at the other end of any arms export deal there is the effect on the economics of recipient countries, many of whose budgets are already overstretched and failing to provide the basic infrastructure that they need to develop economically.
All these concerns arise even before considering the potentially, and too often actually, devastating effect of the weapons themselves. Noble Lords know only too well that the 50 or so conflicts since World War II have mainly been in the developing world, more often than not using weapons sold to developing countries by the industrial north, on both sides of what used to be the Iron Curtain.
With all these conflicting factors to consider, it is gratifying to see a Bill which allows for parliamentary scrutiny of a trade which too often has been associated with under-the-counter deals and secrecy. The recommendations of the inquiry of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, into the arms to Iraq episode provided the initial stimulus for the Bill; some of its features give effect to EU legislation on, for example, dual use items and will assist implementation of the EU code on arms exports which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, mentioned, is to the credit of the Government for getting it off the ground. I understand that the Bill is similar to legislation which has been adopted or is being prepared by several other European countries.
To emphasise the need for a Bill of this nature, it is worth pointing out that in the year 2000, of the 36.4 billion dollars total of arms transfer agreements worldwide, 29.4 billion dollars, or 69 per cent—more than two-thirds—were made with developing countries. Of actual arms deliveries, amounting to 29.4 billion dollars, 19.4 billion dollars, or 66 per cent—exactly two-thirds—were to the developing world. These figures are from the CRS Report to the US Congress on Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, published in August 2001, which was pointed out to me by Saferworld. To put these figures into context, the total overseas development aid disbursed from OECD countries in 2000 was 56.4 billion dollars. The value of arms transfers to developing countries was 19.4 billion dollars, representing 34 per cent of the aid given to those countries. The figures speak for themselves.
Other noble Lords have drawn attention to the recent case of the military air traffic control system for Tanzania, which has conveniently highlighted the need for some kind of reference to development issues when issuing arms export licences. That is why many voices, including, I am sure, the Secretary of State for International Development were she able to speak freely—of course, she usually does—want to see sustainable development, as many noble Lords have suggested, clearly re-inserted into the schedule of purposes in the Bill. The Bill as it stands allows the Secretary of State to include sustainable development
506
as a criterion, as it is in the guidance, if he or she wishes, but it would surely be better to have this on the face of the Bill in the schedule. Secretaries of State and governments change every few years but the need for this provision will continue.
I hope that my noble friend will be able to say in his winding up speech that it is the Government's intention to bring forward an amendment to ensure that sustainable development is included in the schedule of purposes. If not, he can be sure that several noble Lords, including me, will be happy to bring forward such an amendment. There are several other areas, all mentioned by other noble Lords, where the Bill could be usefully strengthened to make it more effective. I shall not go into detail about them at this stage. There will be time in Committee to do that. The areas are as follows: allowing prior parliamentary scrutiny of export licences. At present only retrospective parliamentary scrutiny is possible, after licences have been granted. Prior scrutiny measures exist in some other countries, for example Sweden and the USA, without risk to commercial confidentiality, which is one of the main objections put forward. Provision for this could and should be included in the Bill.
There is the question of extraterritorial controls on the activities of brokers who are British nationals but who operate overseas. There are various ways in which this could be done effectively, and amendments to include them will doubtless be debated in Committee. It would of course be excellent if the Government could introduce them, if only because the drafting would be more acceptable.
There is also the question of controlling the sales of arms manufactured under licence from UK companies in overseas countries. It should be possible to insist that firms which grant such licences must stipulate that the arms produced do not contribute to destabilising accumulations of arms or breaches of international law.
Those are probably the most important issues which will he raised at subsequent stages of the Bill. Of course my noble friend could pre-empt amendments were he to come up with his own set. It is my hope that he will attempt to do just that. In the meantime, I strongly support the Bill, which, even as it stands, is a significant step forward.
6.58 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, like virtually all previous speakers, I welcome the Bill as a definite expression of the Government's will to strengthen control over arms exports and trading.
On the ground that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has to deal with ill-advised exports and diverted end uses, it might have been preferable for the Bill to have come from that department. I hope, however, that it will be improved in Committee and that co-operation between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which has already increased, will become even more thorough and effective.

507
I outline two serious weaknesses in the Bill as presented. The first lies in the scope that it gives for British arms dealers to supply weapons to governments who abuse human rights or even to some terrorists groups. I say that because if our dealers broker arms transfers from within the United Kingdom they will be caught by the terms of the Bill. On the other hand, as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, pointed out, if they move to Dublin, Ostend or elsewhere—outside the jurisdiction of our courts—they will be free. Those of your Lordships who enjoy the novels of Trollope may remember what happened when duelling was banned in this country but was legal in Belgium. The sands of Blankenburge used to echo with shots in the early morning!
The Government appear not to intend to control the activities of our citizens or residents if they operate from overseas. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and my noble friend Lord Sandwich pointed out, that is clearly contrary to the Government's manifesto commitment, which is to control,
"brokers and traffickers wherever they are located".
I have a little experience of extra-territorial legislation in connection with paedophile offences. The deterrent effect of such legislation lies not in the number of cases brought but, rather, in the knowledge that where the evidence is available there will be prosecutions.
I understand—here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury—that the Home Office has six criteria to judge whether extra-territorial jurisdiction is necessary. On the five out of six criteria basis, I trust that the Government will produce or accept an amendment providing for extended jurisdiction—preferably on the face of the Bill.
The second weakness concerns the actual use to which exported arms are put. It is vital to ensure that arms are not diverted to brutal and possibly criminal governments, let alone to terrorist groups. Unfortunately, the Bill does not provide specific measures to control goods once they have been exported—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. Good verification of end uses is most important given the instability of large sections of Africa—and, indeed, of some other continents. Will the Government consider how best that can be remedied and, in particular, what form of parliamentary scrutiny of end use would be most appropriate?
7.2 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, like many noble Lords, I start by welcoming the Bill. However, we have been given an opportunity to set out a list of criteria that we want included. Considering all the points raised by noble Lords, I expect many amendments to be tabled, the most important of which must concern sustainable development, which has been mentioned by almost every noble Lord who has spoken.
I had prepared paragraphs to read on that issue, but as the Minister has already said that the Government are considering bringing forward their own amendment, which will obviously meet our
508
requirements, I shall not go into the detail behind sustainable development. However, along with the noble Lords, Lord Joffe and Lord Rea, I want such a provision included in the Bill. If the amendments tabled by the Minister do not meet our requirements, we may well table amendments on which we may even test the opinion of the House.
Sustainable development is important because it goes to the heart of what the Bill was originally intended to do. Indeed, it would perhaps be the major test for the idea of an ethical foreign policy, which the Government proposed a few years ago. I do not say that by not including such a provision in the Bill the Government are in any way deviating front the high standards proposed by the Department for International Development. However, the fact that the provision is not in the Bill and that guidance alone will control the implications for sustainable development is unacceptable.
There are many pressures on the Government. Those difficulties are made clear by the air traffic control system for Tanzania. Many noble Lords say that the Government have already issued an export licence for the system. I do not believe that to be the case. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us whether a licence has already been issued. If it has not, the concern shown by such august bodies as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, which do not believe the system to be a legitimate use of scarce resources in a developing nation, should not be ignored. A new system should be considered.
I have a couple of questions on the issue that I hope that the Minister will answer. The first is whether a licence has been granted. The second concerns jobs. It is said that selling the system will preserve jobs on the Isle of Wight. I fully understand the importance of the economy and jobs on the Isle of Wight, but there have been conflicting reports. People say that the system has already been built. If so, how can the sale preserve jobs?
We shall return to that matter in greater detail, but it is as well to remember the conflicting pressures on government. Perhaps that is the paradox referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, of introducing export controls on the executive. The laudable aims of the DfID are somewhat different from the equally laudable aims of the DTI.
We should also like to consider prior parliamentary scrutiny. The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, said that he was glad that the Government had left such provision out of the Bill. I do not agree. The Quadripartite Committee has argued that there is a role for a parliamentary committee to scrutinise export licensing decisions before they are granted and provide advice to Ministers in difficult cases. A difficult case that I would cite is the refurbishment of artillery pieces in the territory of Western Sahara occupied by Morocco. If prior parliamentary scrutiny had been undertaken, I do not believe that that work would have been carried out. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, pointed out, such prior scrutiny is already successfully carried out in the United States and Sweden.

509
I am especially concerned about controls on brokering, as were the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, who is not in his place—again. For the first time, all persons in the United Kingdom who broker the transfer of arms from one overseas destination to another will require a licence for their activities. That is obviously a major step forward to be welcomed. However, it is perhaps time—maybe not in the Bill, although we will table a couple of probing amendments to discover whether it is possible—to consider whether it is legitimate for the Government to expect UK passport holders, whether working from these shores or from abroad, to apply for export licences under the criteria. Those with UK passports may broker overseas. Such a provision may be problematic, but the overseas activities of UK passport holders are already controlled in areas such as the sex trade. Our nationals may be tried in UK courts for such activities.
Another area, mentioned in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, is the control of end-use certificates and revocation of licences. This is a particular concern because there have been a number of cases of diversion of exported material to destinations other than those set out on the licence agreement. There is perhaps need for a more detailed look at the accumulative effect of exports to certain countries and regimes.
While we on these Benches support the arms industry when it is being responsible in its activities, I cannot help but bring to the attention of the Minister one small point which I find extremely interesting. I perhaps wear the hat of the spokesman for international development rather than that of the spokesman for defence. This debate has been conducted mainly by noble Lords whose interests lie in the international development field. I would like to mention a very interesting paper published by the University of York in November 2001. Two of the four authors are the chief economists in the Ministry of Defence. I can show the report to the noble Lord later. The executive summary states,
"The study examines the economic costs and benefits arising from a 50% reduction (over two years) in defence exports to UK resident workers, shareholders and the UK Government. It concludes that the economic costs of reducing defence exports are relatively small and largely one off. It therefore suggests that the balance of argument about defence exports should depend mainly on non-economic considerations".
I am not suggesting for one moment that there should be a reduction in exports. But it is interesting, considering the tone of today's debate, that this report should focus mainly on non-economic considerations but also examine the export of weapons and such material.
An area of the Bill that has not been studied in great detail is cultural goods, although it was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. I understand that reform of the export licensing system for cultural
510
goods, which was not the main reason for this Bill, contains very general enabling provisions. The Explanatory Notes merely tell us that,
"It is envisaged that the DCMS will establish controls over the export of any goods … manufactured or produced more than 50 years before the date of exportation".
Although I understand the intention is essentially to maintain the status quo, there is currently a very well developed regime for the export licensing of cultural goods. It would be helpful to have more information as to what are the Government's intentions. In particular I ask about the recommendations in the report of their own advisory panel on illicit trade set up by the previous Minister for the Arts at DCMS in May 2000 under the distinguished chairmanship of Professor Norman Palmer. That panel included experts from all interest areas—including the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, who I am sure would have wished to take part in this debate had he been able to do so—as well as representatives from the art trade.
While all objects found in the soil or the territorial waters of the United Kingdom more than 50 years old require a licence regardless of their value, many are being openly offered for sale on Internet auction sites such as the e-Bay site, often priced in dollars, making it clear that they are likely to be sold abroad. I believe that the department needs to be much more pro-active in warning potential exporters of such objects of their legal obligation to obtain a licence. It can do no good to see the law so openly flouted.
Professor Palmer's panel considered these issues in its report published in December 2000. It recommended that there should be a significant tightening up of the export licensing system as regards cultural objects. I hope that that will be one of the purposes of the Bill. In particular, the report recommends that checks should be carried out on cultural goods imported into the UK within the past 50 years and that the export licensing unit of the DCMS should be strengthened with up to four additional staff in order to fill these additional responsibilities and that two of the staff should be experts in cultural objects.
The passage of this Bill will surely provide the occasion for implementing these recommendations. I would like to hear from the Minister what are his intentions. I realise that in asking the Minister those questions I am asking him to reply, as regards my previous remarks, on behalf of the Df1D, and in this context for the DCMS.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, as we have heard from many noble Lords, the Export Control Bill is the Government's attempt to implement the 1996 Scott report. We should note how, in Opposition, this Government consistently urged the last Conservative administration to bring legislation to the two Houses to tighten our export controls. Despite daily comment by the former Foreign Secretary as regards the Scott report, once in power this Government have allowed the matter to drift disgracefully. The Scott report was published in February 1996 and only now, nearly six years later, as my noble friend Lord Lang of Monkton,

511
pointed out, are we having a Second Reading of this Bill in this House. Clearly, the Government's management of this proposed legislation has, regrettably, not been as efficient as one might have hoped.
This side of the House welcomes the Bill, but that welcome is qualified. As is the fashion today, this is essentially an enabling Bill, as my noble friend Lady Miller mentioned. The Government have decided that most of the detail will come through secondary legislation. That is certainly a bad principle for any government to follow as the executive gains ever more power at the expense of the legislature.
I would like to declare an interest as a fellow of the Industry arid Parliamentary Trust which fellowship I have fortunately spent with BAe Systems. On a point of principle, the supply of defence equipment to our allies and friends around the world enhances Britain's influence overseas and reinforces stability for Britain's interests in the world's trouble spots. This importantly ensures other powers, who may be opposed to British interests, are denied such influence.
On an economic note, our own Armed Forces' defence requirements can be insufficient to support weapons development programmes without the manufacturers relying on additional overseas sales, unlike America's armed forces which create a massive internal market. We must not allow this Bill to diminish our defence industry and end up reliant on others. During Desert Storm our Armed Forces were dismayed to find that they could not rely on our European ally, Belgium, to supply our arms requirements. We must nurture our defence industry and not create a Bill to hamper it.
The Defence Manufacturing Association made the following comment:
"One of our Member companies has in the past openly called the Export Control Organisation at the DTI to be re-named 'Her Majesty's Government Department for the Obstruction of Trade—.'
This feeling: of exasperation is especially so of certain sectors such as riot control and could result in those sectors in the UK indigenous industrial capability, which cannot stay in business simply by relying on the UK market, ceasing to exist altogether and the UK becoming totally dependent on overseas sources of supply to meet its own needs. That might not alarm some, but it could result in interesting scenarios developing in the future in which British police quell riots on British streets equipped, for instance, with riot shields from Indonesia, riot helmets from China, and so forth. We must consider the practical implications of the Bill, as my noble friend Lord Freeman said.
Last week, the Prime Minister stated his intention that the United Kingdom should continue to be at the forefront of world affairs. In this House, we should encourage our defence industry, as a force for good in uncertain times, to secure international peace in our time. In the Department of Trade and Industry's December publication, The Forward Look 2001, Dr Lewis Moonie points out the importance of
"the pivotal role that technology now plays in achieving this aim."
512
The Bill will have an impact on key sectors of British industry.
The United Kingdom has the fourth largest economy in the world, and we remain a major international manufacturing and trading nation. Our defence industry is second only to that of the United States of America. Given that the manufacturing sector has been in recession since the beginning of last year, it is essential that the Government do not add to the burden of regulation and bureaucracy any more than is necessary. The Government have certainly failed in that area over the past four and a half years, and we must ensure that the Bill does not further hamper competitiveness in such an important industry.
Parliamentary scrutiny was a key focus of the Scott report, which emphasised the need for greater accountability in strategic export control. The Bill will oblige Parliament to scrutinise secondary legislation and the Government to provide annual reports on licensing decisions. There is an important point at stake: we must insist that Parliament should retain more control than will be allowed by the Bill. It is not an ideological or political issue; the issue is control of the executive and the exercise of parliamentary prerogatives.
Noble Lords will be glad to hear that I shall not touch on the issue of sustainable development; we have more than covered that aspect.
The Government have said that they feel that the Bill is not the correct legislation through which to control mercenary activity. However, the Green Paper on mercenary activities, which was to have been published in November 2000, has still not seen the light of day. We need regulation that will draw a line between mercenaries who are despicable and those who are not. In Committee in another place, the Gurkhas were cited as an example, as some felt that that outstanding fighting unit had started out as mercenaries. Now, the Gurkhas fight under the colours of the British Army and are seen as anything but despicable. A line must be drawn that would leave genuine mercenaries free to protect democracy. Despicable mercenaries, such as those fighting for A1'Qaeda in Afghanistan, who have no noble reason to be in a war zone offering their service or expertise, would be prevented from getting involved or would, at least, be held accountable after the event.
At this time of fluidity in the international situation, when barriers are breaking down and there is greater freedom of movement, we need legislation, as soon as possible, to ensure that mercenaries who originate in this country are dealt with by this country. Other European Union nations complain that the United Kingdom is lax on that matter. The Bill gives us an opportunity to improve the reputation of the United Kingdom and, most importantly, to improve security for all of us.
The subject of the transfer of technology by intangible means has been touched on. Clause 2 provides general powers to impose controls on transfer

513
of technology. The intangible transfer of all military list technology will be covered, based on the controls recently introduced in relation to dual use goods.
We support the Bill, although that support is qualified by a number of concerns. We are critical of the scope of the controls governing transfer by intangible means. It is conceivable that controls will be imposed on transfers between subsidiaries of companies and on the transfer of the control of technology by intangible means, including telephone and e-mail. That could mean that an employee using an e-mail or a telephone to communicate with another employee of another subsidiary could be transferring technology and committing an offence under the Bill. That would be a sweeping power and would be too all-encompassing. Like my noble friend Lady Miller, I shall be interested to hear how legislation will deal with the monitoring of telephone, e-mail and other communications.
We do not want the Government to overburden United Kingdom industry with regulation and red tape, as they have been so willing to do in the past. If new controls must be introduced, that should be done in such a way as not to impinge on the legitimate, free exchange of information. Nor should such controls give foreign competitors an unfair advantage over our industries by giving overseas buyers the impression that trading with the United Kingdom is too difficult and time-consuming. We must support all British industry, and we should be careful that any change to the export laws is sensible and necessary and not to the detriment of British firms.
I am sad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, is still not in his place.
Noble Lords: He is!
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I beg your pardon. The noble Lord was sitting further down earlier. I had wanted to address some of the comments that he made, but my noble friend Lord Trefgarne has, I am glad to say, already done so.
7.27 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, I am grateful to all who have spoken. It has been a stimulating debate with an unexpectedly literary flavour. I do not know when your Lordships last heard a debate in which Le Carré, Horace and Bernard Shaw were mentioned. It was remarkably interesting, especially in a debate on export control.
I am grateful for the opportunity to wind up the debate. The fact that I am doing so underlines the interest of my department in the proposed controls on defence equipment. Such controls form a key part of this country's defence interests and of our wider international commitments. Our commitment to preventing arms proliferation, especially in regions where there is instability, remains at the heart of our defence policy, and the Bill will contribute directly to that aim.
514
Many points were made in the debate; I shall limit myself to 20 minutes. I dare say that noble Lords will be delighted—or perhaps not—that there will not be any more than 20 minutes. If I do not deal with every point that has been raised—which I will not—I hope that noble Lords will understand. I am certain that many interesting points will be raised in Committee.
The Bill is central to the United Kingdom's foreign and international development policies and our policies for maintaining controls on objects of cultural interest. Such various interests emphasise the extent of cross-government interest in and backing for the Bill. One of the most encouraging features of today's debate has been the universal support for the Bill, albeit with qualifications of varying severity. The Government are grateful for that.
As my noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville said in opening the debate, the Bill is primarily intended to modernise the export control regime, against a background of recent improvements, which include the banning of the import, export, transfer and manufacture of all forms of anti-personnel landmines and the banning of the export and trans-shipment through the United Kingdom of torture equipment. In addition, the Government have made the export licensing process more transparent and accountable through the publication of comprehensive annual reports. We believe that our country now makes publicly available more information about its export licensing decisions than most if not all of our trading partners. As my noble friend said, the Bill will place the annual reports on a statutory basis.
The publication of national criteria on which export licence applications are judged, now consolidated with the EU code of conduct on arms exports, is also part of the creation of a more open and accountable regime. Here again, the Bill will underpin this by making reference to the consolidated criteria.
The way in which the Bill modernises the export control regime—by introducing new powers about which we have heard—have already been explained in detail. We fully appreciate that modernisation brings with it concerns on the part of industry, which will be required to comply with the new controls.
It is in recognition of those concerns, as well as the wider interests in the legislation on the part of NGOs and others, and the need to be well prepared for eventual implementation, that the Government have already published dummy orders, giving examples of how the controls might work in practice, and have decided to carry out a public consultation on the proposed orders to be made under the Bill. We attach great importance to this process because it helps to inform industry and others about how the new controls are expected to operate in practice, enables them to become familiar with those controls and paves the way for effective implementation.
However, I want to emphasise that we recognise that there is a mutual interest in the Government and industry working in partnership to ensure that the new controls are implemented effectively and with minimum red tape. Our approach to the control of

515
strategic exports, as outlined in the Bill, ensures that we will continue to be a responsible exporter, consistent with our defence and foreign policy objectives and a strong UK defence industry.
It has been argued that the economic benefits to the UK from defence exports are somehow illusory and even that, on the contrary, such exports are effective only because they are heavily subsidised and therefore actually represent an economic drain. The Government therefore welcomed the publication on 11th December of the findings of an independent study by two leading academic experts into the issue.
That study concluded that, rather than being subsidised. defence exports represented a significant net benefit to the UK economy. Defence export sales averaged about £6 billion in 1998 and 1999 and supported almost 100,000 jobs, many of them high-quality jobs in cutting edge industries. The report further estimated that the ending of defence exports from the UK would involve a one-off adjustment cost of between £4 billion and £5 billion, equivalent to about 0.5 per cent of one year's GDP. In addition, there would be a continuing net cost to government of between £90 million and £200 million a year. The costs of government assistance to defence exports are more than outweighed by savings, including reducing the cost of equipment procured for our own Armed Forces.
The Government welcome the findings of that study, as I am sure will all parties in this House. I know that they all support the defence export policy but if they do not they should say so. I understand that all have said that they do. The study shows that those who argue that the United Kingdom would be economically better off without defence exports are wrong. I want to point out that the report also supports a point all too often overlooked in the argument: namely, that the UK defence industry is so effective in the export market precisely because it is competitive and efficient and not through any lack of application of export controls.
However, I want to make it clear that the Government's policy of supporting the legitimate efforts made by UK industry to win export orders are primarily based on their contribution to our wider defence and international security interests. Defence exports help support a strong UK defence industry and contribute to the security of our friends and allies overseas.
All countries have a right to self defence, as set out in the United Nations Charter. However, that would be an empty provision if nations were then prevented from obtaining the means to defend themselves. Few countries, including the UK, have the defence infrastructure to meet all their defence requirements and rely on being able to buy overseas. Many of our friends and partners look to the UK to assist in this and our exports in that sense are their defence procurement. Such exports can promote international stability by deterring potential aggressors. It is time that that argument was put.
516
However, while the Government remain fully committed to supporting legitimate defence exports from the UK, we fully accept—as does the defence industry and all people of good will—the need for the proper regulation of such exports. We believe that our system of controlling exports is among the most comprehensive and rigorous in the world. However, there is no room for complacency and we need to modernise our procedures in order to cope with changing technology and to extend our controls where necessary. I hope that what I have just said carries broad support across the House.
I now turn to some of the issues raised in the debate. First, I compliment the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, on his contribution today. Although there were many distinguished speakers, as regards this debate he was the most distinguished. Although he probably will not want to be called the author of the Bill—frankly, having heard him I am sure that he would not—the book can be legitimately dedicated to him. His incredible work gave rise to the change, which should have taken place many years ago. We greatly welcome the support which he gave to the Bill in general terms.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, expressed concerns about whether the schedule to the Bill fully achieves what he correctly understands to be the intention; namely, to provide the basis for the introduction of controls on military dual-use and paramilitary goods and technologies, as well as goods of cultural interest. We are already aware of the noble and learned Lord's views on that matter. That is one of the reasons why my noble friend mentioned in his opening address that the Government are looking at whether we can further clarify the role of the schedule.
That brings me to sustainable development. Many noble Lords spoke on the topic and my noble friend in opening mentioned concerns. I assure the House that it is neither the intention nor the effect of the Bill to downgrade in any way the Government's commitment to sustainable development; a commitment we have made clear since we first published criteria for arms exports decisions shortly after the 1997 election. However, perhaps I may reassure the House that the Government are listening to the concerns which have been expressed in another place and again here today about sustainable development and that we are considering what we might do.
I want to turn to the effects on United Kingdom industry, referred to in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, who has great experience in the area. We appreciate the concerns which have been expressed about the new controls on industry, but industry's views on the Bill have been largely positive. The Defence Manufacturers Association has been quoted. It stated that it fully supported the Government's efforts to replace the existing legislation and the CBI also welcomed the Bill. I am pleased to say that we have excellent contacts with industry and have included it in all the consultations about the Bill so far. Of course we shall continue to do so.

517
I now turn to an area mentioned by many noble Lords; namely, trafficking and brokering and extra-territorial controls, which are dealt with in Clause 4. The Bill as drafted gives the DTI the power to apply trade controls extra territorially through Clause 4(8). The dummy orders demonstrate how the Government intend to use this power. We will introduce extra-territorial controls on trafficking and brokering to embargo destinations in equipment whose export is banned because of its use in torture and missiles with a range of over 300 kilometres and their component parts. We believe that extra-territorial jurisdiction is justified for those activities because a United Kingdom citizen abroad could reasonably be expected to be aware that activity of such a serious nature would constitute an offence.
However, we do not believe that it would be appropriate to apply that extra-territorial jurisdiction to all equipment on the military list. We believe that extra-territorial jurisdiction is justified only in the case of serious offences which are subject to universal international condemnation. This does not apply to the licensing regime for military equipment, which will encompass a vast amount of legitimate trade. To apply the controls extra-territorially would be to risk criminalising UK citizens' involvement in legitimate defence exports from an overseas country of residence. The inevitable enforcement difficulties arising from extra-territorial jurisdiction would also distract valuable resources from tackling the most serious cases as well as reducing confidence in our export control regime as a whole.
That is why we believe that international co-operation is the way to ensure effective action against those who fuel conflicts through the supply of arms. To that end, the Government have supported the recently adopted EU Statement of Principles on controlling arms brokering. We shall also continue to press for international embargoes to be imposed on countries and regions of conflict.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, among others, asked how we could take that line, bearing in mind the Home Office criteria. The Home Office criteria suggested that extra-territorial jurisdiction can be considered in cases of serious offences subject to general international condemnation, for which the offender could reasonably be expected to be aware that he had committed an offence. Hence, extra-territorial jurisdiction will apply to trafficking and brokering to embargoed destinations, as I have outlined, of torture equipment and long-range missiles.
However, the new controls on trafficking and brokering of military equipment do not come into that category. The vast majority of transactions here will consist of legitimate trade by United Kingdom defence companies carried out according to the laws of the appropriate country. Nevertheless, under the new controls we will be able to prosecute offences which take place largely outside the United Kingdom. Where any part of a particular trafficking and brokering
518
transaction is carried out inside the United Kingdom, be it by phone call, sending a fax or e-mail, we will have the power to prosecute that offence.
Perhaps I may turn briefly to Tanzania and the issue which has been mentioned in passing by many noble Lords during the course of our debate. I shall not be able to satisfy noble Lords, least of all the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, who asked questions about that licensing application. Following the policy set out by previous governments, the Government do not comment on individual applications for reasons of commercial confidentiality. Details of export licensing decisions will continue to be published in the Government's annual report on strategic export controls and will be scrutinised retrospectively by the much-praised all-party quadripartite committee.
However, in any licensing decision, the Government take into account criterion eight of the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria, which states that the Government will take into account whether any proposed export of licensable items would seriously undermine the economy or seriously hamper the sustainable development of the recipient country. We continue to take this into account.
Many other issues have been raised in the debate. So far as concerns the cultural aspects of the Bill, I am not in a position to respond to a question put by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, touched on this aspect of the Bill. The legislation provides the basis for both strategic export controls, which in the main we have been discussing, and cultural exports controls, as demonstrated by the dummy orders. Both regimes currently operate under the 1939 Act, whose export control powers this Bill will replace in full. That is why the DCMS aspect of the Bill is in place.
I hope that my remarks have addressed some of the main points raised in what has been a fascinating debate. I look forward with some apprehension to the Committee and Report stages of the Bill, during which no doubt we shall discuss further some of the interesting subjects that have been raised today. I conclude by commending the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Court of Auditors: EUC Report
7.46 p.m.
Lord Grenfell Lord Grenfell rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Union Committee on the European Court of Auditors: the case for reform (12th Report, Session 2000–2001, HL Paper 63).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords may wonder how it is that a report which was published on 25th April 2001 must wait until 8th January 2002 to be brought to the Floor of the House for a debate. At least the debate is being held on a Tuesday rather than on a Friday. A general election, an 11-week Summer Recess and the events of September 11th of course must be taken into account. Nonetheless, I hope that the

519
Leaders Group, chaired by my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House, which has been looking into the procedures of the House, including its scrutiny role, will have fully recognised that where the report of an inquiry is deemed important enough to be brought to the Floor of the House for debate, business managers have a duty to ensure that the debate takes place before the passage of too much time renders it irrelevant.
I am deeply grateful to every member of Sub-Committee A for the hard work put into a very complex inquiry. Some members had specialist knowledge and direct experience of working with the Court of Auditors, and this was of particular value to us. We took evidence from a wide range of witnesses: from eight of the 15 members of the court, from the European Commission, the European Parliament, from our own Treasury and from the National Audit Office, from our permanent representation in Brussels, to whom I wish to express my thanks for their great help in making arrangements for our visit, and from a number of individual experts well versed in the ways of the European Union's audit process.
I should like to pay special tribute to the Clerk of our committee, Anna Murphy. This was her first inquiry on becoming a Clerk. While I felt that truly we were throwing her into the deep end with such an inquiry, she took to it like a duck to water. Since we had no specialist adviser, her role in the drafting of the report was crucial and she played it with the skill of an old hand. We are very much in her debt.
Perhaps I may also thank the Government for their response to our report, even though I do not agree with all of it. Nonetheless, it is a thoughtful and comprehensive response and, as always, I am delighted that my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey will be the Minister who is to reply this evening. By now I can scarcely imagine a debate on a Select Committee report prepared by Sub-Committee A without him, but I would not blame him if he thought otherwise.
Our inquiry was prompted by a growing concern that current problems relating to the structure, functions arid methodology of the Court of Auditors would surely be accentuated by the enlargement of the European Union. Enlargement will pose many challenges for the court, not least among them the greater cultural diversity in its working environment and the substantially greater expenditures and revenues to be audited. For that reason, the court needs to be properly equipped to meet the challenge—and the court knows it. Changes are already under way. However, the question is whether they are the right changes. That is what we decided that we wanted to find out.
As reflected in the report, we set about examining the court's structure and organisation and evaluating their appropriateness. We looked at the complex inter-institutional system within which the court is expected to operate and to fulfil its audit functions. We explored its audit methods and its role in the prevention of fraud. We examined, and found compelling, the case for a one-off external management audit of the court
520
itself. Finally, we took a good look at the likely impact on the court of the internal audit reforms which Commission Vice-President Neil Kinnock was in the process of implementing within the Commission.
A number of noble Lords who will be speaking in the debate will delve into more of the detail of this inquiry. I shall content myself with an overview of the principal conclusions that we reached.
Even if the enlargement of the European Union was not imminent, the present structure of the court needs an overhaul. One court member per member state is an unsatisfactory arrangement in a union of 15 states. With 20 states or more it will prove hopelessly unwieldy. National representation is a sine qua non for any EU institution, but to improve the court's efficiency that representation ought, as we state in paragraph 33, to be at the level of a part-time non-executive board to which a highly qualified chief executive, supported by a large audit staff, would report. In paragraph 34 we suggest how the present shortcomings in the method of recruiting audit staff should be addressed. The introduction of a "chambers" system, sanctioned in the Nice treaty, is not, in our view, radical enough to solve this problem. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, a member of our committee, will be expanding on the need for the crucial reform we are advocating.
In their response, the Government have noted that there are other ways of combining the representation of all member states with a focused management structure and cite the example of another Luxembourg-based EU institution, the European Investment Bank. None the less, we feel strongly that the structure proposed in this report better responds to the EU's needs for improved audit efficiency. Of course I welcome the Government's statement that our proposal is,
"an interesting one and a useful contribution to the wider debate on the effectiveness and legitimacy of the EU institutions which will lead to the IGC planned for 2004".
But it is more than that. It is, in our view, really the only solution to a problem that is seriously undermining the court's effectiveness.
With regard to the court's published output, we were impressed by the number of witnesses who saw greater value in the court's special reports on specific sectors—recognising, of course, that there are variations in their quality—than in the court's annual reports. The court itself acknowledged to us the past deficiencies of the annual report, and we were pleased to note that more attention is now being paid in them to the follow-up of previous court observations.
Nevertheless, the court remains reluctant to get into political battles with other Community institutions or member states. This will continue to inhibit it from really throwing the book at those who take no action after errors have been identified. If there are counter pressures on court members—and we have evidence that there were—that is one more cogent argument for moving towards an entirely professional and independent court executive.

521
We share the view of many that the major problem with the court's annual report has been with that component known as the "DAS", the French acronym for the statement of assurance on the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. This was based on the audit of a representative global sample of underlying transactions. The problem was that the methodology used to arrive at an opinion, which we fully describe in paragraph 51, produced an error rate estimate which was invariably taken to be a precise enough measure of irregularities—which in fact it was not—to allow definitive conclusions to be drawn and recovery action by the Commission to be triggered. Worse still, it gave the media the opportunity to trumpet inaccurate and exaggerated claims of massive fraud against the Community budget.
Starting with the 1997 annual report, the court has progressively supplemented the DAS with more detailed and specific assessments of each category of the EU's financial perspective. What was once a "top down" system of assessment is becoming, as the court and the Commission disaggregate, a system which can provide far more, and far more useful, information, with a consequent enhancement of public accountability. We welcome this in our report, as indeed do the Government in their response.
As noble Lords will know, the responsibility for approving the accounts of the preceding financial year relating to the implementation of the budget—known as "granting the discharge"—rests with the European Parliament, acting with the aid of a recommendation from the Council and the court's annual report. The court will have discussed its audit findings with the audited bodies in a procedure known as the procédure contradictoire. Both this and how the recommendation to the Parliament is eventually reached are described in paragraph 56. We shared the view of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, that a major advantage of the procedure is that it ensures that the Parliament, through its budgetary control and the plenary sessions, can play its proper financial role.
But we and almost all witnesses, including the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, were agreed that the procedure was too protracted, that it alienated the Parliament and that it could lead the public to believe that the long drawn-out process merely served to give time to the parties to fudge the audit. The Government share our concern over too protracted a procedure but warn against speeding it up too much for fear of a botched job. My noble friend the Minister will no doubt refer to some possible alternative remedies.
Although 80 per cent of the budget is administered by member states, the Commission still has to take responsibility for its implementation. Even so, Ministers in Council ought, in our view, to manifest a greater interest. The almost perfunctory Council recommendations for discharge tend to leave the impression that the Council wants to avoid being accused of using the Commission as a whipping boy for the failings of the national administrations in their administering of 80 per cent of the budget. My noble
522
friend the Minister will, I hope, explain why he feels that we are being less than fair to the Council in this regard.
But that is only one aspect of our concern about the Council's attitude. The court president sought to assure us that dialogue between the court and Council officials had, in his words, "increased enormously", but we remain deeply unhappy with the Council's seeming indifference to the whole process at a time when the public's perception of the management of Community funds is as low as it is.
The internal audit reforms under way in the Commission, particularly the tightening of control mechanisms and the simplification of regulations to reduce errors and irregularities, can reduce the potential for fraud and prompt more robust follow-up through the system on the court's observations. At the same time, the Council, at ministerial level, would do well, to put it politely, to focus more seriously on the court's progressively more informative and authoritative annual reports before reaching for the discharge recommendation button.
Given what we call the "80 per cent paradox", the need for minimum standards of financial control in the member states is paramount, as our report insists. Differences between systems can be justified as long as each is effective. But that said, we prefer the delegated financial control system as used in this country, and we welcome the Commission's move to embrace it.
With respect to audit methods, the court, of course, has to cope with a cultural diversity, which enlargement can only increase. The solution seemed to us to lie in getting the national supreme audit institutions—the SAIs, as we call them—to share as far as possible with the court and each other a common audit methodology, similar competences and equal statutory rights of access, the last being a matter on which the UK has lagged behind but on which my noble friend the Minister is in a position now to reassure us. In general, however, we are encouraged that the SAIs are now much more attentive to the way national administrations implement the Community budget.
We found to our consternation, which is also the Government's consternation, that the member states and the Community's institutions share no common definition of fraud and irregularity. This needs to be, and can be, quickly resolved.
With further reference to fraud, we came down strongly against relying on the court's work to be the main line of defence against it. The potential for fraud will best be reduced by a much greater simplification of the systems and regulations relating to expenditures of Community funds. We warmly welcome in our report the attention being paid to this by the Commission in the areas of structural and agricultural funding. We fully understand the European Parliament's frustration at having no official figures on which to assess the extent of error, irregularity and fraud. If the court has them, and their accuracy can be vouched for, it should publish them.

523
Much of what we learnt in this inquiry led us to the conclusion that the time was ripe for an external management audit of the court to help determine how appropriate its structures are as it enters its second quarter-century. I am pleased that the Government feel that such an audit could provide a useful contribution to the debate in advance of the 2004 IGC. I hope it is more than just a useful contribution to the debate; it is something that really needs to be done.
I come finally—and I apologise for the length of this introductory speech—to the changes in the Commission which should make the internal audit more effective. We welcome these changes—they are reviewed in paragraphs 97 to 103—and were reassured by Commissioner Kinnock's determination to see that the functional independence of the Internal Audit Service and the audit capability within each directorate-general would be inviolate.
We encountered differences of opinion on whether the removal of the system of prior financial approval by a financial controller was sensible. With certain provisos, we come down in favour of a move away from the ex ante system of control. We agree with the Government that responsibility for financial management is better delegated to those who decide on how the money is spent—namely, to the directors-general.
A few witnesses feared that the reforms would enable the Commission to keep the Court of Auditors at a distance. We are sure that these fears will prove unfounded. The court remains treaty-bound to carry out the external audit of the Commission, and we see these reforms as a means of improving working relations between them, not least through the sharing of best practice so that the Community's financial management is improved overall.
This was a long and complex inquiry, but I believe that we came to a set of conclusions which make sense. Some of them are radical—notably our conclusions on how the court could, and should, be better structured, staffed and governed. As I said at the outset, the court's current structural and functional problems can only be accentuated by enlargement. Time is therefore not to be wasted. I am glad that Her Majesty's Government are taking these and our other proposals seriously. The opportunity afforded by the 2004 IGC to equip the court to meet the challenge must not be missed. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Union Committee on the European Court of Auditors: the case for reform (12th Report, Session 2000–2001. HL Paper 63).—(Lord Grenfell.)
8.2 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I congratulate the chairman of the Select Committee and its members on the considerable amount of work, some of it tedious, that they have undertaken. If it is possible to agree with a Select Committee report on a matter of this kind, I am in full agreement with it, and indeed congratulate all the committee members on their work.
524
Your Lordships will recall that I have had reservations in the past about the presentation of Community accounts and their audited approval. I have often criticised the way in which the audit report of the Court of Auditors has, for some obscure reason, to be published with the Commission's replies to it, as distinct from having the audit report made directly available publicly. It is not the practice in this country. It should not be the case that a report can be published only when those who are perhaps criticised in it are given an opportunity to reply in advance to questions raised. I repeat that it is not the British practice. That in itself does not make it undesirable, but from an auditor's standpoint it puts the auditor in an impossible position.
The functions of the European Court of Auditors have been dwelt upon in the report that is before the House. They have aroused a certain amount of interest—not as much as they ought to have done, but some nevertheless. I was, therefore, intrigued to find that a government response to the Select Committee report had been published on 16th July 2001 among Government Responses to House of Lords Paper 13. I refer to pages 33 to 38 of the Government Responses. I thought that I should take a look at them before taking part in this debate.
I find overwhelming involvement of the domestic Civil Service in the response—which is in the form of a letter from Ruth Kelly MP, who was appointed Economic Secretary to the Treasury some months ago. It was published 37 days after her appointment. I refer to the response because I am a little troubled by the position of political Ministers in dealing with their own Civil Service.
This is a document of some importance and warrants critical ministerial attention at political level. It is not sufficient that it should be so dominated by the Civil Service as to be virtually ignored by the political establishment. I have good reason for saying this. At page 35 of the Government Responses, in the middle of a sentence, there is a queer little insert in brackets:
"(I sent a copy of this document to the Scrutiny Committees of both Houses on 9 May this year)".
"I"? I thought that this was a government document. Again, in the penultimate paragraph of the response we find the following words:
"We urge Her Majesty's Government to give this, and our other proposals, serious consideration in light of the opportunity afforded by the Inter-Governmental Conference, now set for 2004, to equip the Court to meet the challenge".
It looks as though the Government are "urging Her Majesty's Government"—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will permit me to point out that he is reading from the committee's report to which the Government are responding.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Yes, indeed, my Lords; that is part of my case. I sincerely hope that the Government will in fact read the report. I say that

525
because, on the evidence, they have not even involved the political members of the Government in the publication of the response. This is quite indefensible.
I respectfully suggest to the House that it is necessary to return to the appointment of the Court of Auditors and to the amendments that were incorporated in the Maastricht Treaty, as amended at Amsterdam. Article 248 of the treaty says:
"The Court of Auditors shall provide the European Parliament and the Council with a statement of assurance as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions".
That is it: it defines the role of the Court of Auditors with some precision—nothing more, nothing less. Any idea that the treaty can be circumvented in any way to vary from that is, of course, right out of the question.
In the same way, it seems as though items that appear in treaties are not properly perused by the political chiefs of the civil servants who are actually responsible for the production of these documents. At present, we have an entirely different situation: we find that practically everyone, bar the kitchen stove, is involved in obtaining the statement of assurance that is required by the treaty. Indeed, it seems that you can be anyone at all, without any authority and that no one will argue about the situation.
More ominously the same applies to the definition of the word "fraud". It is said that fraud is an irregularity that is officially frowned upon in the Commission and in all quarters of the European Union. However, in point of fact it is ignored. There is a pretence that it does not exist in any identifiable form. I defy anyone who reads the report to reach a different conclusion. I shall give the House an example of a fraud that is still going on with the approval of members of the European Parliament and also of other parliaments. I have in mind the tobacco fraud. In the last budgetary year, no less than £604 million was spent in conducting transactions, particularly in Greece, which everyone knew—and, indeed, still knows—are fraudulent, but no one dares say so because someone is afraid of offending someone else.
This kind of attitude becomes all pervasive, and the committee's report gives too many examples. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to pages 44 and 45 where we find outlined in very great detail all the steps required to obtain, as the French would more dramatically put it, a déclaration d'assurance—because they like to have declarations rather than statements—and exactly what happens. Before any kind of matter goes to the final Council for approval it will have gone through a whole series of stages, which will occupy quite a number of weeks or months. The report will go through a whole gamut of departments before it can finally be drafted; for example, it goes to the civil servants of the Treasury, and it goes to the civil servants in COREPER. Indeed, the process is specifically designated as such. There is no question of there being any personal involvement by politicians in these reports. Each report is discussed at all levels by
526
civil servants. There is nothing wrong with that—indeed, I have no objections in that respect—but there is no visible sign of real ministerial interest or concern.
This is the very simple case that I want to put to the House. Finance is an extraordinarily important item in the whole of the operation of the European Community. It gives enormous power to the Commission, which appears before the Budget Control Committee. That committee does an excellent job in so far as it is able, but throughout the process there is a network of civil servants through which everything must pass before the matter is finally agreed by the Council and the European Parliament. If noble Lords care to refer to pages 44 and 45 of the report, they will find that what I have said is abundantly justified. I shall give the House an example. In evidence, on page 45 of the report, Mr. Ilett, the Financial Counsellor, United Kingdom Permanent Representation, says:
"The Commission participates in this discussion all the time. The Commission will [always] be there in the working group. The Commission is always present at Coreper. The Commission will be defending itself … making suggestions, participating in the dialogue all the way through".
He was then asked by the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, whether the Court of Auditors would also be present, and he gave a firm "yes" in response to that point. Each chapter is presented with the comments of the court and the replies of the Commission.
No proper and honest business will be carried out unless members of the political side of things take control of what is being done in their names. I am afraid that one is not encouraged by the evident willingness of governments to accept the assurances of a Commission whose troubles were recently reported upon. It is no good at all that it should be allowed to rule the roost for the sake of universal peace and lack of argument among the European rulers at whatever level—be it the European Council level, whose duties still remain to be defined. I defy anyone to say what legal status the European Council has. It means that politicians, especially Members of this House and of another place, must show a greater interest in these matters. They must carry out their own research and arrive at their own conclusions, rather than take things for granted on the basis of the documents being initialled by senior civil servants. They must make their civil servants have some regard for the desirable aims that ought to be achievable, and for the political force at the top level that ought to be there whenever necessary to enforce them.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I confess that I am a little nervous when I find myself being congratulated by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, because I am normally on the opposite side of any argument that he makes about the European Union. However, on this occasion, as a past member of Sub-Committee A—I am now out to grass after four years on the committee, but I hope that I may climb back into it again at some stage—I accept his congratulations with pleasure. I shall pass them on

527
particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and to the Clerk, because they and we have produced a report that is thoroughly competent and mercifully brief on a subject that no one would say was immediately of great dramatic interest.
It could be said that for your Lordships to be considering a report on the Court of Auditors at the moment is rather like a householder wondering whether his central heating is working when a hurricane is approaching that will remove his roof. I speak of the current debate on whether we should join the euro and when the Government will have the courage to hold a referendum. That said, it was a worthwhile exercise and I strongly agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, about our principal recommendation, in paragraph 33 on page 12, which says that the ECA,
"would best be served by the impartial appointment of a highly-qualified chief executive, supported by a large team of audit staff, reporting to a part-time, non-executive board of representatives from each of the Member States".
What is the background to that recommendation, which the sub-committee discussed in great detail, poring over every word? In my book, it is simply that the constitution at the top of the ECA is wrong. A top management structure with 15 members, one drawn from each state, each acting as executive directors with their own cabinet and their own special interest but with no requirement for any professional accountancy or auditor qualifications, is not capable of delivering results. As the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, said, it is bad enough with 15 members of the Community, but when that figure increases to 25—perhaps by 2005, which is only three years away—the accession of another 10 will make that top management structure even more incapable of dealing with the complex accountancy of the European Union and doing so bravely and independently.
That is not surprising and there is nothing for the ECA to be ashamed of. The court has been in existence for 24 years and has done a valuable job. It has taught a lot of lessons to the Commission, which would acknowledge that the ECA has led it a long way on the path of competent modern accountancy. It is worth remembering that the amount of expenditure that the ECA has to audit has increased tenfold, from 10 billion euros a year when it was founded to 100 billion a year now. Given that growth in the court's task, it is appropriate for the top management structure to be thoroughly reviewed, hence our recommendation in paragraph 33, which is repeated in paragraph 67. It needs an entirely professional and truly independent chief executive with a qualified auditing staff working under him, reporting to a part-time non-executive board.
It is worth reminding your Lordships of the comments of one of our witnesses, Mr Carey, who is a past member of the court. His suggestion, recorded on page 110 of the report, was that the non-executive board should be composed, ex officio, of heads of national audit offices from each of the countries represented. I accept that that is a very radical suggestion and that it goes against the patronage
528
tradition of European Union bodies. It is not at all unusual to find a politician who is half way to retirement sitting on the ECA court and having a very pleasant time, with a large staff around him or her.
I urge the Minister, who is the Admirable Crichton of debates on Select Committee reports—he sweeps everything up so beautifully—to think very carefully about Recommendation 33. I feel more strongly than the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, that the wording of the Government's response is not sufficiently strong or encouraging. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, would be as worried as I am by the clear civil servant language of the comment that our recommendation of an independent chief executive is an interesting proposal and a useful contribution to the wider debate on effectiveness. My goodness me, I hope that we can urge the Minister to come out with something a good deal stronger and more virile than that tonight. Let him say that he agrees with us and that the Government will adopt the idea and press it very hard at the 2004 Intergovernmental Conference. Bully for him if he manages to make such a brave statement. Knowing and respecting him as I do, I am sure that he will.
There are other words in the Government's response that are, to say the least, interesting. It says:
"Consideration should be given to how such a change in the court's internal structure might affect its relationship with other EU institutions".
There is a whole abracadabra hidden in that sentence that I shall explore as my second point. One thing that I learnt from serving on the committee under the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, was that the spending of EU funds is devolved to national authorities to a large extent. Some 80 per cent of all spending is managed not by the Commission but by national authorities. We touch on that in paragraphs 44 and 45 of our report. I shall quote from page 40 of the written evidence. A current member of the court, Mr Wiggins, said in answer to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, about the common agricultural policy:
"We issued our own opinion about Agenda 2000 which pointed out that the Commission's assumptions about the costs of extending the policy in Poland, Hungary, etc., appeal to have been grossly under-estimated. Most of the things that we have said in the field of agriculture amount to 'what you need to do is to reduce prices so that you can reduce the cost of the policy and you can then reduce the extent of the temptations to fraud and irregularity which arise from it.' If not fraud and irregularity, the inducements are uneconomic behaviour, encouraging people to cultivate perfectly useless crops in order to get undeserved area aids for them and that sort of thing".
I found that a very telling comment from a member of the European Court of Auditors. It leads on from auditing expenditure to auditing commitments. That is the other point that came to us in our inquiry. The ECA audits expenditure. It has not previously become involved in auditing commitments. However, Mr Wiggins is clearly worried about the issue, as he should be.
Those are the points. What if the commitments that will be made on the costs of extending the CAP to Poland, Hungary and other countries are grossly under-estimated? If prices are subsequently reduced,

529
the cost of extending the policy will be reduced, and the temptation to commit fraud and other irregularities also will be reduced. That seems to sum up very well the necessity for interdependence between the various institutions that are connected to the EU in relation to the spending of money. The issue needs to be clarified and examined very carefully either before or during the 2004 IGC. What we are very unclear about in relation to many aspects of the issue is the competence of Brussels versus that of Luxembourg and Strasbourg, and the competence of the European Parliament versus that of national governments and the Länder.
I believe that that should be a very big issue at the 2004 IGC summit, and I should very much like to see an increasing role for the European Parliament in addressing it. However, I also think that it is an issue to which governments should pay particular attention.
8.31 p.m.
Lord Sharman: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, on his chairmanship of Sub-Committee A which produced the report. I should also declare an interest as a member of that sub-committee: I am a former auditor and have other interests that are disclosed in Appendix 1. I also thank the Clerk, who did an outstanding job with a very difficult subject.
In the few moments that I propose to speak, I shall concentrate on the court's role and structure. As I made clear in the report that I issued last year on audit and accountability in UK central government, I think that it is common ground that at the core of any system of accountability there needs to be a strong function of scrutiny or audit. That function has to have three distinct qualities: it needs to be strong, it needs to be independent and it needs to be effective.
The report shows that the sub-committee examined the Union's supreme audit institutions. I think that it is worth bearing in mind that we in the UK are used to the audit function being performed by an auditor-general. In other parts of the Union, that role is performed by a court that in many cases has a judicial function. The strange thing about the European Court of Auditors is that it is neither a court—it has no judicial function—nor are its members auditors. I think that only one of the court's members has some experience of audit.
That body, which is not a court and does not have auditors in its top executive management, has as its role the duty of examining the Union's revenue and expenditure accounts, which it must ensure are lawful, regular and the subject of sound financial management systems. It must also issue a statement of assurance, which involves examining Union institutions—the bodies set up by the Union—and Union funds, whether they be spent by national, regional or local administrations. Its access, certainly in the UK and in some other member states, is far deeper than that of the supreme audit institutions of those member states. I am encouraged to see that many of the member states, including the UK, are taking action to bring access levels for their own institutions into line with those for the European Court of Auditors.
530
I hope that I have made it clear that I believe that the court should be absolutely pivotal to the accountability systems within the Union. As the report shows, however, the procedures and processes, and particularly the procedure for clearance of reports, are slow, cumbersome and bureaucratic. If one had tried to design a system to slow down the auditor, one could not have done better than to put in place such procedures. We hear much about the need for reform of the Union's institutions. This is a suitable case for treatment. I had hoped that the negotiations on the Nice treaty would provide at least the first opportunity to tackle the matter but, sadly—as in so much else—I was disappointed. The results have all the hallmarks of the very worst type of compromise: we end up with one member for one state.
Currently there are 15 members, and potentially there will be 20. What does it do for us when each of those members is a member of an executive management board? Apart from the notion of jobs for all, to which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, referred, it absolutely hits at the heart of the issue of independence versus representation. I submit that we cannot have a truly independent body when it has a representative from every member state. It is fatuous to believe that member state representatives will not take some heed of what is happening back home. After all, some of them will need jobs when they return to their home country.
The second factor that the compromise ignores is the state of development of accountability and audit practice in the member states. It is just not real to believe that the systems of accountability and state audit of at least candidate states even begin to approach those of the more sophisticated Union members.
Then we come to the court's management structure, in which there are more chiefs than indians. There will be more executive board members than there are directors of the audit divisions. In turn, the audit division directors will have a large number of staff reporting to them. I have encountered many types of organisation design in my career, including pyramids, matrices and flat organisation designs, but I have yet to see an hourglass organisation design, which is what is being proposed. Heaven help those who are in the narrow part of the hourglass. It will not give us the result we want. I submit, in short, that it will not work.
I believe that now is the time to embark on that reform, along the lines proposed in the report. I too found the Government's response on the issue less than encouraging. I thought that the report's treatment of it was more than just interesting and useful; I thought that it was very good. Make the court members non-executive, fix their number and rotate them. If we do that, we shall have independence. Supervisory boards are quite common within the European Union and many people know how they work. Supervisory boards are less common in the UK; but why not have one? We should also appoint a strong chief executive. People have said that it might be difficult to do that, but the Union has already led the way by appointing Mr. Jules Muis, lately of the

531
World Bank, as the chief internal auditor. Such appointments can be made; people of that quality are available.
We should also make the court subject to external financial and management audit. In the outside world, we often hear the cry, "Who audits the auditor?". At least in my former organisation we had someone who could do that.
We see many adverts these days under the Belgian presidency which say: "It is your Union". I like that. Let us make it so. Let us sort out this vital institution which is at the core of accountability within the Union. We should not accept the mess that the provisions of the Nice treaty left us in. We need to tackle it without delay and the Government need to lead.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: My Lords, I begin by expressing my gratitude and admiration for the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, chaired our committee and then our proceedings. It has been a great privilege to work with him and under him in this inquiry. I should like also to second his thanks to the Clerk, who did such a good job as her first effort.
I make no apology for returning to the subject to which the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Sharman, majored; that is, the structure at the top of the European Court of Auditors. It is not possible to think that, as the Union develops and gets larger, an executive body of 15 now, but 20 or more later, people who are not trained in accountancy or audit can be an effective way to conduct the main audit function of the European Union. It must be right, when we come to 2004, to opt for a highly qualified chief executive and a part-time, non-executive board.
We perhaps should not get rid of national representation on that board. But I hope that, by its becoming part-time and non-executive, its ability to hold things back will be diminished. I hope also that we will consider seriously the recommendation of Mr Joe Carey that the part-time, non-executive members of the board be ex-officio heads of the national audit offices of the member countries the Union.
Previous speakers referred to the need for a highly qualified chief executive. I fervently endorse that suggestion. But the high qualification need not stop at audit or accountancy. The head of this organisation will need the qualities and experience to enable him or her to stand up to the other "big shots" in the European Union and to be impressive and convincing to both them and the European Parliament. So the qualifications will need to be more than simply those of good audit.
I am sure that the European Union needs an officer, rather like the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group in this country, who can strike a certain amount of terror into the departments and people whose expenditure he is scrutinising. Anybody who has been, as I have, at the sharp end of a report by the CMAG and the subsequent questioning by the Public Accounts Committee knows how effective it can be.
532
I hope that we can produce something like that in the European Union by giving effect to this recommendation of the sub-committee.
8.44 p.m.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, the Court of Auditors is an important and useful body; but it is by no means perfect. It is not perfect in its present format serving 15 member states, and it is quite evidently less than optimally useful for the needs of a post-enlargement European Union.
When we speak of the Court of Auditors, we sometimes use words that have more than one meaning. The court is not only the 15 members who make up the collegiate body; it is also the institution. If we look first at the 15 members who make up the collegiate body—the court—one from each member state, we get a clear view of them from the evidence of Mr Carey. When Mr Carey was asked about the role he said,
"I think the dominant reason was the observation that as long as you have (in my day) 10 or 12 and now 15 full-time members, each of whom is very jealous of his or her autonomy and very conscious of his status as strictly equal with all of his colleagues, and very jealous of his fiefdom (that is to say, his audit patch and the bloc of staff who work for him), it is going to be extremely difficult (in fact, it is going to be impossible) for the Court ever to adopt a rational policy towards the deployment of its resources; and extremely difficult for the Court to form a view that certain areas, certain situations, are of higher priority and more urgent priority than certain other areas in certain other situations, and to make the necessary dispositions to meet that judgment. That. I suppose, is my starting point. I found it, and I find it, distasteful as well that a body, which is supposedly a sort of arch apostle of the principles of economy and cost-effectiveness within the Community, should be run by, what shall I say, 15 over-paid, under-worked senior executives".
That was Joe Carey, who did not serve out his time as a member of the Court of Auditors. He actually resigned during his tenure of office as the British member because he could not stand some of the working practices within the collegiate body. Inevitably, when we get that view of the 15 who form the collegiate body at the top of the Court of Auditors, it has implications for the institution as a whole.
A body which at the top is too politicised and in many ways under-qualified, skews the distribution of scarce resources. As the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, said, in his clear speech, consequences flow from having only one qualified auditor—the size of each member's cabinet; the size of the number of qualified staff they have to have directly working for them takes such a large slice from the small establishment of the Court of Auditors that it substantially skews the distribution. So when we speak of the Court of Auditors, we are speaking of those two stances.
I, too, want to thank my noble friend Lord Grenfell for the excellent way in which he took us through this inquiry and of course, in saying that, I associate the Clerk of the committee with those thanks. But I want slightly to disagree with my noble friend. Although he welcomed the Government's response, my welcome is slightly more muted than perhaps his, as chairman, inevitably had to be.

533
I am always tempted, having read the Government's response to the recommendations of the committee, to suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, that as we are debating our future work programme, we might perhaps find an odd day for a short follow-up session with the Minister to evaluate the progress on some of the things that have been said in the Government responses to us.
When we go through the recommendations we see clearly a recommendation for changing the number of members of the court; for having a smaller court; for having a non-executive board with representatives from member states reporting and having responsibility for a highly qualified chief executive. In that recommendation there is a high degree of unanimity. But when the Government started to respond to it they proposed a system of chambers which would,
"go some way towards speeding up the process of adoption of the Court's reports".
The first sentence of their response is very much concerned with one of the minor parts of the recommendations. They further state,
"Consideration should be given to how such a change in the Court's internal structure might affect its relationship with other EU institutions".
However, the Government do not tell us whether they think that they should be part of that consideration. They say that the consideration should take place. However, I ask my noble friend, by whom should it be considered? Who in government is making sure that that which should take place actually does take place? Which government Minister is doing that? How is he or she doing it? That applies to a whole series of the recommendations.
I refer to the recommendations in connection with the inadequacies of the present system of the annual report and the way that it leads into the discharge procedure. We are told in the government response that,
"The Government will press the ECA to make full use of sectoral assessments in order to provide a clearer picture of the financial management of the different budget areas".
However, that is something for the future. They will do it. They told us that when they published the report on 2nd July. In the past seven months have they begun to do that? The Government are to press for that measure, but have they used the past six or seven months productively and, if so, to what effect? It would be helpful for the committee to know that progress is being made on some of these matters rather than just having them on the agenda as items for some future, as yet indeterminate, discussion.
I refer to the question of the methodology in relation to the statement of assurance. That argument has been with us since the inception of the statement of assurance back in 1995. We are told that the United Kingdom had suggested an experts' group. But who suggested it? When was it suggested? What happened to it? All we are told is,
"however this did not meet with general support".
534
But I see other member states in our Union which fight a little more vigorously for some of the things that they believe to be useful and helpful. On the basis of the response we seem merely to have rolled over because the suggestion did not meet with general support. I am somewhat disappointed with the Government's response. It could have had greater specificity.
I come to the whole question of the discharge procedure. This is essentially the conclusion of the audit process. When one has had the Court of Auditors' report and the debate on it in the European Parliament, the decision has to be made as to whether or not to grant discharge. Here we see some evidence that matters in the Court of Auditors are not being pursued as strongly as perhaps they could be. During the meeting with the Court of Auditors we had the opportunity to raise with Mr Karlsson, the then president of the Court of Auditors, the criticism that had been made and the replies that had been given. It was pointed out to Mr Karlsson that,
"'The Court's audit revealed a high incidence of error due, for example, to costs or actions not meeting eligibility criteria, costs declared exceeding those actually incurred or insufficient supporting documentation'".
I said,
"That strikes me as being for normal people who are moderate with their language a fairly stringent criticism and yet when I look at the Commission's reply"—
we are told that it is important to have a long-winded procedure contradictoire in the Commission's reply in order to eliminate all the factual errors—
"they say 'The high incidence of errors found by the Court is not evidence that a significant proportion of Community funds are being misspent but rather that deficiencies exist in the Member States financial control of the funds which are typical of the management of any complex programme'".
If that is why you have to have a long-winded procédure contradictoire, perhaps it would be better to get the discharge procedure dealt with in something more like real time rather than have long delays. When that point was raised with Mr Karlsson he immediately answered it himself as it was a presidential matter, not one for Mr Salmi. Mr Karlsson said,
"When it comes to nuclear defence you do not over-use it".
That is how he regarded saying something fairly bluntly to the Commission, as it had been suggested to him that one ought simply to say in the procédure contradictoire that the Commission replies were frankly unacceptable. He regarded that kind of approach as being the nuclear option.
There are a number of important issues in the report and a number of important criticisms. It would be helpful to be given not just a general statement that everything is well but something a little more specific. I come to two final points on which I should like my noble friend to comment clearly. First, the Government have said that an external management audit could provide a useful contribution. Does my noble friend believe that it should provide a useful contribution? Do the Government support it? If the Government support it, how are they pressing it? Have they raised it in COREPER? Have they raised it in any

535
COREPER working groups? Have they elevated it yet to any ministerial meeting? We believe that it is fundamentally important as we approach the next 25 years of what could be a useful Community institution.
Secondly and finally, I come to the point that was revisited in the very last of the recommendations. We raised the question of endowing the court with a highly qualified chief executive supported by a strong auditing staff. The Government's response welcomes the committee's proposals as,
"a most useful contribution to the debate on the effectiveness and legitimacy of all the EC institutions, including the ECA, in the run-up to the Inter-Governmental Conference planned for 2004".
Is that matter specifically placed on the IGC agenda by the Government because it is primarily an inter-governmental conference, not an inter-parliamentary conference? If we are to have an IGC in 2004, the agenda will be set by governments. I hope that they will take some notice of some of the ideas and proposals which emanate from Parliament.
By and large this is a better response from the Government than we received on the previous occasion that we discussed matters to do with the Treasury, but I still think that some of the weasel words could be removed and that a little more commitment could be shown to the report, particularly if the Government are to continue to say how much they welcome the work that is done by your Lordships' Select Committees.
8.58 p.m.
Lord Shaw of Northstead: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I offer my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and to the whole committee on their report. It is a first-class report which deals with matters in a serious and thorough manner. I only hope that it has a wide audience and is referred to whenever this subject is discussed.
When I first entered the European Parliament in 1974 as a nominated member it was fairly clear that there was an urgent need to establish an efficient and respected financial regime. Obviously, when the EEC was established not everything could be expected to have been put in perfect shape. Experience and developments in the EEC were already making clear the need for change. So I found my years in the European Parliament to be an exciting period of development, particularly with regard to budgetary procedure and financial regularity. After two years of hard slog, the much-needed amended financial regulation was finally adopted in November 1977. The Budgetary Control Committee was set up in the European Parliament and the European Court of Auditors began to operate in October 1977.
I must admit that I had great hopes of a developing relationship between the Budgetary Control Committee and the European Court of Auditors, with a growing ability of the Budgetary Control Committee to examine the detailed workings of the Commission. I can say only that I was very disappointed at the time. As a former member of the PAC, I suppose that that was natural. In no way during those early years did the
536
Budgetary Control Committee get near to developing any influential control over budgetary matters. I shall say a word about what happened later to the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson.
The truth, of course, was that while it was a considerable achievement to set up the organisations, it was bound to take time and persistent determination to make things work effectively. Yet, as one of the witnesses indicated, if it had not been for the existence of the Court of Auditors, whatever its imperfections, the present Commission reforms would probably not have come about.
That is why the report is so timely and important. It examines the changes to the European Court of Auditors that have already taken place, as well as its developing relationship with other Community institutions. The most significant and welcome change has been the production of its special reports. The report makes it clear that they have been well received. That should be coupled with the fact that the Budgetary Control Committee has now developed into a much more effective committee than it was in my day. I hope that their relationship can develop into a really useful tool of management.
There is one change in the European Court of Auditors that has met with a certain amount of criticism. At Maastricht, the European Court of Auditors was made a Community institution. Reading the report, I noticed that one or two members seemed to feel that it is to be regretted that that has taken place. I do not agree with any of that regret. If you give people powers that they refuse to use, it is their fault, not yours. I have to admit that I originally suggested to John Major that since the Commission either ignored or belittled the European Court of Auditors, it might be a constructive contribution to the Maastricht discussions if he proposed the upgrading of the European Court of Auditors to give it more clout.
I admit that subsequent developments in the court's organisation may have been encouraged by that enhanced status. None the less, had the court had the guts to use its new status, the Commission's reforms might have been brought about much sooner than they were. Indeed, I rather agree with Mr Christopher Heaton-Harris, who said in evidence:
"The Court of Auditors have a huge power, because if they come anywhere near pressing the nuclear button, I am sure the Commission would shake in its boots and sort out all sorts of problems that might have been found out".
Although suggesting that it would "shake in its boots" was perhaps going a little far, a reluctant and earlier sorting out might well have occurred.
The most important part of this valuable report lies in its suggestions for the future. I was glad to note the following principle:
"The need for the Court to be independent and to be seen as independent was accepted by all of the witnesses questioned about this".
Equally, however, I was not surprised to read of the very valid doubts that were expressed about how consistent the practice of that principle was likely to be.

537
Although a change in the structure of the European Court of Auditors is clearly necessary, a satisfactory alternative will not be easily agreed. National and institutional interests do not always coincide with the interests of an efficient audit system. Nevertheless, the case that was outlined by the report for a highly qualified chief executive supported by a large team of audit staff who were mainly professionally qualified, is overwhelming. Perhaps I should add that I am a chartered accountant, although I have not practised for very many years.
The report recommends that the chief executive should report to a part-time non-executive board of representatives from each of the member states. That may well prove to be necessary to make the changes acceptable. However, I should not like to rule out without discussion the proposal made by Mr Carey—that the non-executive board should be composed of ex officio heads of national audit offices. The attraction of such a proposal is that, as well as representing every country, those heads of national audit offices would become involved internationally and the experience would enhance their standing in their own countries. Such a proposal might prove to be a step too far, but it should be considered and might prove to be acceptable if the status of the European Court of Auditors itself were again changed.
Incidentally, the evidence given by Mr Carey was very valuable and is entirely acceptable, particularly in view of his wide experience. I remember meeting him in ECOFIN, in relation to Treasury and PAC negotiations and during his period in the European Court of Auditors. I hope that his submission will be looked at very carefully.
As to any future changes of status, I refer briefly to the report's comment that,
"we remain deeply unhappy with the seeming indifference displayed at the Council's highest level to the auditing functions and findings of the [European Court of Auditors]. Given the poor public perception of the management of the Union's funds, the Council should be more concerned with the criticisms made by the ECA".
My personal opinion—I have reached it very reluctantly—is that such indifference on the part of the Council is endemic and that, at least so far as concerns the special reports, those reports should go directly to the European Parliament and so through to the Budgetary Control Committee. The importance of the special reports should be enhanced and that of the annual report reduced or changed in character and purpose.
I end simply by endorsing the words of the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson. I believe that this report is of such importance that it should be referred to again and further submissions should be taken in the light of what has happened since. I have a horrid feeling that not much has.
9.9 p.m.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, I am a member of the European Union Committee of your
538
Lordships' House but I am not a member of the sub-committee which prepared this report. However, at its invitation, I gave evidence to the sub-committee. Therefore, my role is a little unusual in that I am on two sides at the same time.
As is customary, my evidence is annexed to the report. To this degree, some of my views are already known, but I should like to comment both on the report and on the Government's response to it. Like those who have spoken so far, I believe that the report is excellent and I want to thank the members of the sub-committee and, in particular, its chairman, the noble Lord. Lord Grenfell.
The committee does not hesitate to use the word "radical". It uses it on a number of occasions, and why not? If the national parliaments are to have any substantive influence on potential changes in the working of the European Union institutions in the perspective of the biggest enlargement we have ever seen, it is important that specialised committees in the national parliaments should be willing not only to react but also to initiate or advocate ideas for change if they believe that such change would be beneficial.
I also want to welcome the government response, particularly where it states clearly that the Government agree with the committee. But I hope that that response also goes beyond lip service to the idea that there should be a wider and deeper debate in preparation for the IGC of 2004. Like the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, I ask: where's the beef on this question? Even where the UK Government have not always gained support from other member states for some changes, they consider in their response that the conclusions of the committee can make a useful contribution to the wider debate. I hope that that has some substance.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that I am of course aware that in the European Union there are not 11 but 12 languages—11 national languages and a bureaucratic language. Therefore at times we must be rather cautious in our assessment. However, I hope that we shall have some follow-up to those points. Of course, we need to have a certain amount of patience because patience is a part of European Union life, as it is elsewhere. My own languages are now a little rusty but I am sure that there must be a phrase in all the 11 languages of the Union for "Softly, softly, catchee monkey". Therefore, I hope that we shall get there in the end.
The points on which I wish to comment relate directly to the report and to the government response. In particular, I want to comment on four of them: first, the structure of the European Court of Auditors; secondly, the relationship between the annual reports of the court and the sectoral reports and, in particular, the move towards some more specific and sectoral reports with some "disaggregation", as the committee calls it; thirdly, the requirements which result from the fact that about 80 per cent of the budget is administered by the member states but that the European Commission must ensure as far as it can that the expenditure is correct and implemented effectively,

539
as that is the nature of the situation between the member states and the Commission and the Parliament into which the Court of Auditors must place its work; and, fourthly, the definition of—perhaps one should say the confusion between—fraud, irregularity and error.
First, I turn to the structure of the European Court of Auditors. That structure has not changed significantly since 1975. The then president of the audit court made clear in his evidence to the sub-committee, basing himself on the situation of the previous report in 1987, that the court has exactly the same structure now as it had then. As a result of the European Union's expansion, it is larger and has created one more audit group. The Court of Auditors, which now consists of a member from each member state, took the view before the negotiation of the Nice treaty that this principle should be maintained. Therefore, the number of court members—the bosses—will increase considerably as a large number of new states enter the Union on enlargement.
That is broadly the same argument which was so controversial in the discussions about the number of future members of the Commission. During those discussions some argued forcibly that there must always be a commissioner from every member state and others argued that it would be more efficient to have a Commission smaller than the total number of member states after enlargement.
These differences of approach have not been wholly resolved, despite the long discussions in the preparation of the Treaty of Amsterdam and the conclusions of the Treaty of Nice. Mr Carey, who has quite rightly been quoted, was fairly harsh in his evidence to the sub-committee. It is worth quoting again what he said. He described the court as a body,
"run by, what shall I say, 15 over-paid, under-worked senior executives".
The enlargement of the European Union will obviously change the life of its institutions. I believe, like your Lordships' committee, that there is a case for looking again at a system of a highly qualified chief executive, supported by a team of audit staff and reporting to a part-time non-executive board of representatives from each member state. The unanimity on the point in the debate is appealing. In consequence, I hope that it appeals even more strongly to the Government. It would especially be the case if the Treaty of Nice—currently rejected in the Irish referendum—were not ratified. The system of "chambers", which is a half-way house, would then not come into effect anyway. We need seriously to consider the committee's proposal in relation to the structure.
Secondly, I welcome the audit court's recent greater emphasis on sectoral or specific reports which it has spread over the year. I agree with the evidence of Mr Karlsson, the then president of the court, that this can give the budgetary and discharge authority the possibility of following more deeply the situation in different programmes on the European budget. These programmes are very different. The way to improve financial management in the member states and the
540
Commission may not be the same in every case. Obviously, the intention is to improve the rating in each sector.
The United Kingdom Government agree with this new sectoral approach. It is certainly good to move the emphasis away from an overall direct statement of assurance—the so-called "DAS" introduced in the Maastricht treaty—since aggregated figures of errors in the financial management of member states and the Commission were sometimes understood wrongly by the press or other commentators as referring to fraud. That misunderstanding still bedevils arguments about the financial management of the European Union's budget. In addition, the aggregation did not direct attention towards practical improvements. I note that the United Kingdom Government also indicate that there have been instances of dispute concerning the audit court's methodology.
Thirdly, the committee's report rightly deals with the question of the Court of Auditors' relations, not only with the Commission but with the member states and their national auditing bodies, since most of the EU budget is administered by the member states. The committee continues to feel that the Council of Ministers does not give sufficient attention to the audit findings in preparation for the discharge. The Government, on the other hand, feel that there is clearly significant ministerial involvement in the consideration of the annual report. That part of the government reply perhaps goes slightly into bureaucratic language. However, the Government are right to indicate that there has been an increase in the attention given by Ministers. That was also expressed by Mr Mingasson, of the Commission. But is it enough? And are the problems in individual member states sufficiently identified and transparent?
Fourthly, the committee has done well to draw attention to the problems which arise from lumping together errors, irregularities and fraud and the apparent lack of agreement among member states and institutions on definition. The remit of the Court of Auditors, which covers the European Community's income—for example, the customs duty collected on imports into the United Kingdom from third countries—as well as its expenditure, is to examine whether all revenue has been received and all expenditure incurred in a lawful and regular manner, and whether the financial management has been sound. It reports on cases of irregularity.
Of course, in looking at financial management, auditors can sometimes indicate a risk of fraud. Indeed, that is one of the most valuable results of an audit, and the European Court of Auditors has a vital role in that respect. But fraud itself is more the domain of the policeman. Most of the auditor's work concerns the detection of errors or accounting irregularities or the reliability of financial systems. That is why it is important to avoid a public misapprehension that an error rate describes fraud.
It has been a long struggle to improve financial management in the Commission, to reduce errors and irregularities and thus to reduce the risk of fraud. The

541
latest moves on the internal audit system are much to be welcomed. But I do not believe that fraud itself is such a widespread or especially marked problem in the administration by the member states of the European Union budget. In my view, corruption is almost non-existent.
I return finally to a theme that I have stressed for many years but with only limited success. One of the best ways to reduce the risk of fraud is to tackle the risk at an earlier stage by an even greater effort to reduce the complexity of programmes and the volume of secondary legislation, by an even greater devolution to the administration of member states and, most importantly, by the abolition, or at least reduction, of relatively minor schemes run directly from Brussels. All of those changes are possible, but I doubt that they are given sufficient priority.
I have tried to pick out a number of points from the report that I find of value. It is a great report and I hope that it continues to influence government thinking. The audit function itself is essential and, as long as the court continues in its present form, both the Commission and the member states must seek to draw the maximum benefit from its work to improve financial management and avoid errors and cases of irregularity.
9.22 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I should like to make two brief comments in the gap before the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, speaks. I was abroad and did not know whether I would be able to get here, so I did not put my name down to speak.
As a member of the sub-committee, I have one or two reflections on subjects that have been covered. I should like to put my finger on a couple of dilemmas, because we have been stimulated by an excellent overview of the report by the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and all of the subsequent speakers.
We must say every time that the European Union is sui generis. It is much more complex than any other organisation—with respect, it is more complex than the territory examined by the noble Lord, Lord Sharman. That is because there is the strange balance between the Council of Ministers, the Commission, the Parliament and the European Court of Auditors at one level, while 80 per cent of expenditure is made within member states, in a culture in which the member states' own expenditures constitute 95 per cent of the moneys being spent in the member states. So the culture is member state-driven.
That leads me to make one point that has not yet been made. Mr Carey's recommendation that the National Audit Office should be made ex officio the new first tier of a two-tier board may be jumping from the frying pan into the fire if what we want is a more arm's length scrutiny of the cultures of the member states. The Kinnock reforms are perhaps as relevant to that as are what we have been able to identify.
542
My second point is that if we ought to be looking more at the member states because that is where the expenditure is made, why do not we not look at our own navel and ask what would be the procedure in national parliaments such as ours for considering common agricultural policy expenditure in a new way? What would be our procedure if we in this House were to consider expenditure from the structural funds? That is the logic of all the money being spent within the member states.
Finally, I have some sympathy on one point with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I believe that there is something over-incestuous about the way that COREPER would be looking at the criticisms made before going to the Council of Ministers and how to handle them. Although one does not want the European Court of Auditors to be totally at arm's length, we have to be aware of the danger of an incestuous relationship within the structure of COREPER, which inevitably is the vehicle for getting to the publication stage of some of these reports. I believe that the work needed before Berlin means we have time to get matters right, but not all that much time, because matters have to be thoroughly dealt with this time.
9.26 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by joining other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and his committee on their report on the European Court of Auditors. It is much to the committee's credit that it has tackled the important topic of the Court of Auditors. There is much in the report which we on these Benches support.
Audit is a subject which does not quicken the pulse. The headlines, "Auditors give clean audit report" or "No financial management problems found", are about as compelling as, "Small earthquake, no one injured". Doubtless, there are many in the Commission who would long for that relative anonymity, because what we have in Europe is a financial mess.
For example, the annual accounts of the Commission have not been given a clean audit report for many years and the time taken over the whole discharge procedure, as the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, pointed out, is excessive. But despite these manifest problems, the Council has never recommended to the Parliament to refuse a discharge. The committee's report rather coyly refers to this at paragraph 62 as throwing,
"a curious light on the institutions of the community".
I suggest that the committee is too polite. It should have said in terms that this is yet another example of the harmful processes of the European Union. As long as the financial management and accountability processes lack rigour, as so well documented in the committee's report, we should all be sceptical of ever closer union.

543
But it is not just the Commission's own financial systems which have been condemned. Many of the problems lie with the 80 per cent of the budget which is managed by member states. But here too the Commission and the Parliament are implicated. Almost everything done in the name of the European Union is unbelievably complex, and with complexity comes the likelihood of error and the opportunity for fraud.
We in this House often criticise the things which come before us for their complexity. The problem exists in spades in Europe. We look to the Government to be pushing for simplification in Europe, and I hope that the Minister will tell us today what the Government are doing to get a new approach in Europe which avoids complexity and pursues simplicity as a virtue.
There is clearly fraud, irregularity and error in the way that European funds are spent, with a rate as high as perhaps 8 per cent. But neither the Commission's own system nor the annual report of the Court of Auditors sheds much light on how much is involved and where it occurs. Indeed, as the committee's report points out, there are even semantic debates about what constitutes fraud or error.
That is intolerable. We do not spend time in this country on such debates. The task of management, in this case the Commission, is to establish and operate control systems that minimise the risk of fraud or error. Of course, that includes, where necessary, ensuring that the systems which exist in member states are adequate to the task. The task of auditors is to check on those systems, find and quantify any material problems and report on those problems. In particular, cases in which funds have disappeared, due to fraud or error, should be unambiguously reported.
In this country, we are fortunate that we have a well understood system of responsibility and accountability and well developed public audit. If something goes wrong, we can rely on our Comptroller and Auditor General to tell us how it is. Why should we accept anything less in Europe? Why are not the Government yelling from the rooftops about it?
The European Court of Auditors cannot bear the whole burden of auditing European funds and must, as the report states, rely on local supreme audit institutions. In general, we should be proud of the United Kingdom's role, but, as the committee gently points out, the Comptroller and Auditor General's hands are still to some extent tied behind his back with regard to access. That is an unnecessary blot on the United Kingdom's role in European auditing. The Government's official response to that part of the report is weak. For almost as long as I can remember, there have been calls for the Comptroller and Auditor General to be able to follow public money. For as long as I can remember, the Treasury has dragged its feet. Your Lordships' House raised concerns about that during the passage of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000, which allowed for some new powers—fully in the hands of the Treasury, of course. However, the Government put off the evil day by setting up another review and another steering group.
544
The noble Lord, Lord Sharman, produced his report last February. What have the Government done since then? It would appear that they have sat on their hands. We still do not have a government response. The Government's response to this committee's report is to say that the response to the report of the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, will be made—to use a well honed formula—in due course. That is not good enough; the issues are straightforward and have been in the public arena for many years. They were well summarised in the noble Lord's report last year. As a minimum, the Minister should say when the Government will give their response to that report.
It is plain that the European Court of Auditors is groaning under the weight of having to reconcile the 15 countries represented on it. The court describes itself as being independent from the other European institutions and from the other member states. I have no reason to doubt the integrity of the court or of those who work for it, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, said, the institutional arrangements have put representation ahead of independence. If we were to start again and say that the primary design consideration of the court was independence and that representation was a secondary consideration, we would not design the court as it is.
The court should be fixed on its main goal, which is the delivery of a high quality, independent audit service. Having 15 members with equal status is a recipe for confusion and lack of focus. The proposed system of chambers is not a rational response, because it would continue to place representation ahead of independence in the pecking order. It would be a rational response to have the Court of Auditors professionally run, with an oversight or policy board giving due—but not undue—weight to the need for representation. The committee was right to propose that.
As my noble friend Lord Renton said, the Government's response has not been strong enough. They said that they would allow the idea to contribute to the discussion at the 2004 intergovernmental conference, in the same way as they would do with the committee's other good idea, a management audit. But as the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, pointed out, the Government should know that without determined advocacy those ideas will disappear into oblivion, and we might well conclude that that is where the Government want them to go.
The committee rightly pointed out that the current arrangements are not fit for purpose with 15 members. Enlargement will make the current arrangements unworkable. The Court of Auditors can only suffer if it has to reconcile yet more cultures and emphases. The Government have a duty to push our partners in Europe to ensure that all of Europe's institutions can cope with enlargement and promote necessary reform. It is curious that a Government so committed to modernisation in this country, even in areas where none is necessary, should be so coy about necessary reform in Europe.

545
My final topic is the need for the Court of Auditors to have more professionally qualified auditors. I am in good company here today with my noble friend Lord Shaw and the noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Sharman, because we are all chartered accountants. For the record, I declare that and my involvement with the council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants as an interest.
I find it odd that members of the Court of Auditors do not have to have either a professional qualification or recognised experience in government auditing in one of the SAIs. I find it even more odd that professional qualifications are not de rigueur among the court staff. But most odd is the Government's response, which seems to say that all is well. The Government believe that the qualifications in audit and/or accountancy are important but on a par with knowledge of the European Community and its institutions. That is a response generated from a Civil Service dominated by the cult of the generalist. I am disappointed in the Government for showing so little appreciation of the ethos and skills of professionally qualified auditors.
The report of the committee is a valuable one and it is one which should resonate with all sides of the debate on Europe. I hope that the Minister will be more enthusiastic in his response today than the Government's official response to date.
9.37 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have no hesitation whatever in joining all noble Lords who have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and his committee on a most valuable report. Considering how quickly it was produced in the period before the election—or rather the period before the election was anticipated—it is remarkably thorough and well argued.
On similar occasions I have been criticised for the delay and inadequacy of government responses to Select Committee reports and I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, saying that the Government's response was "thoughtful and comprehensive". Although other speakers did not go quite so far, I had better rest my case on what the chairman said. It is also true that despite the intervention of a general election, the response was produced within three months of the publication of the committee's report. Again, that is not unreasonable in the circumstances. As regards the timing of the debate, that is a matter for the usual channels and not for myself as a mere spokesperson on behalf of the Treasury. I have no usual channels capacity when I address the House today.
It is an important and timely report and it is one which deserves the full and well-informed debate that it has had. It is important to put it in context because the Government, like the members of the committee, believe that the European Court of Auditors has a key role in promoting improvements in financial management. The Government, and all governments
546
during the past 25 years, have supported the work of the ECA and have sought to increase its powers and effectiveness. I shall be commenting about that later on.
The findings of the ECA have had a good effect. They have led to improvements in financial control procedures both in the Commission and in the member states. However, as has been pointed out during the debate, that has come about to a considerable extent through the publication of special reports and, for example, through the initiative to set up OLAF, the anti-fraud office. That came about through an ECA report. It has been pointed out several times during the debate that with enlargement, the ECA's role will become more important. European taxpayers' money needs to be spent as intended and good value for money will have to be assured.
The most important issue to have emerged in the debate—it may not be entirely the most important issue, but I shall treat it as such because that is what noble Lords would have wished—is the structure of the European Court of Auditors. The noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, went so far as to question whether, under its present structure, the European Court of Auditors is capable of delivering results. I think that the test of that should be on the quality of the annual report as well as the special reports rather than on assumptions based on the structure itself. Almost any structure can be made to work under certain circumstances, although it certainly is not the case that the Government agree that the current structure is ideal, not least because it will be virtually impossible to maintain after further significant enlargement.
The system of the chambers proposed at Nice, which has not yet been implemented, was described by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, as a "halfway house". We think that it would be an improvement on the present system, perhaps not in every respect but in the sense that it would speed up the processing of the court's report. Furthermore, it would lead to some diminution of a problem which clearly exists; that is, of shutting the stable door after the horse has escaped.
I was challenged to say more about the proposal for an independent chief executive. That is an interesting contribution to the debate. Would "welcome contribution to the debate" be any improvement? I am in some difficulty about this. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, wishes that the Government would "yell from the rooftops". I do not think that negotiating with 14 other members of the European Union is best conducted by yelling from the rooftops. We have to argue our case as effectively as possible from a strong negotiating position. I believe that I can show that we have done that in the past and that we shall do so in the future. However, we will not achieve much by yelling from the rooftops.
In particular we shall not achieve much by declaring that the British way of conducting audit is the only conceivable way. I draw that conclusion from certain comments that have been made during the course of

547
our debate. After all, there is a major difference between the way in which Britain and, to some extent, Ireland conduct audits as compared with other European countries. For them, these are legal matters to be resolved in the courts. These may not be the ways in which we wish to do things—I do not argue that we should adopt their ways—but they are ways of carrying out these procedures. They have supreme audit institutions and they have their own standards which must be complied with by the European Court of Auditors. It is necessary that we acknowledge the way others conduct audit and, indeed, that it works.
If that were not the case, firms such as KPMG would not be able to set up European practices—to choose an example at random. Such practices cover many European countries and use local European staff. If it were possible only to work using the rules laid down by the Institute of Chartered Accountants, such developments would not be possible.
Of course the problem of 15 executive directors will not go away and will get worse. Of course the issue of whether there is to be an independent chief executive, who will have responsibility for choosing his own professional staff—and even Mr Carey did not quite say that—will have to be considered. At the same time, the court's relationship with other institutions of the European Union has to be considered. Noble Lords seemed to think that that was not a serious argument. I point to what Neil Kinnock said in describing his new procedures for internal audit and I ask whether it is self-evident that the committee's proposals would fit in well with those.
As to the issue of enlargement, I agree very largely with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, but I have to remind him that proper financial controls are a precondition for any applicants becoming members of the European Union.
I have great sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, said about the hour-glass model of management. It is very dramatic. I certainly agree that we have to have a strong, independent and effective audit procedure. I have used the word "strong" and the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, has used the word "strong"; clearly the depth of access for the auditors is an essential consideration. That is a consideration the noble Lord contributed to this debate in the report he produced last year. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, our response will not be "in due course" but in the next few weeks. We have to do what the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, asked and look at alternatives. We have to negotiate with our fellow members in the most effective way that we can.
I have spoken already about the staff and their skills and about the different systems of financial control compared with the United Kingdom. Clearly we need to have in our ideal court of auditors or ideal audit department a wide variety of skills, including of course, very heavily, professional audit skills. But why not have, as in the National Audit Office, a staff qualified not only as auditors and accountants but as economists and operational researchers? I challenge the view that membership of a particular organisation
548
is equivalent to maintaining standards. The best international standards have an important role to play. They can help to reconcile the different ways in which member states organise their professions.
There has been some debate about the DAS, but I noticed that the committee shied away from advocating its abolition. DAS covers the reliability of the accounts and the legality of the underlying transactions. It is the only document which gives an overall view of the standard of management of the EC budget. Some of us have very significant doubts about the sampling procedures on which DAS is based—I certainly do personally—but that means that we should seek all the more to support the ECA in its efforts to improve its usefulness and to develop it into an instrument for analysing management and control systems.
Clearly, as provided for in Nice, there should be a greater use of sectoral assessments. There has been a greater use of sectoral assessments and this makes it possible for DAS, instead of being a negative assurance, to be more positive and to make specific recommendations to the Commission.
The United Kingdom has already suggested an expert group to consider ECA methodology and the DAS process—in other words, something similar to what the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, calls an external management report. Unfortunately, so far we have not succeeded in achieving agreement to that, but it is important that we should continue to press the proposal as heavily as we can.
There was—properly—some debate about issues of fraud and irregularity and some concern in particular from the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, about whether there are proper definitions. Council Regulation 2988/95 defines irregularities both as simple omissions due to errors or negligence and also as intentions and deliberate acts. But that divides into fraud, which is intentional acts or omissions, as well as incorrect or incomplete statements. A genuine payment made after a closing date for claims represents an irregularity, but import of goods under false papers is definitely fraud.
The Government have pressed, and continue to press, for a reduction in the unacceptably high level of irregularities. We believe that we are making some progress on the matter, particularly—this is the valuable point made by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson—through simplifying the systems and regulations. We have been a strong advocate of simplification. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, raised the point as well. A proposed new financial regulation is being discussed by the Council's budget committee, a much more simplified document than its predecessor, which originated, I learnt to my horror, in 1977. The new regulation to improve financial control in the structural funds came into force in 2001 and there have been reforms in the CAP regulations. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, that this is the way forward.

549
Clearly, there is still concern about the issue of the discharge of the budget, and indeed about the fact that it takes so long to go through the whole of the audit process. I understand the impatience expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, as I do the impatience of all noble Lords on this matter. But all auditors have to have a dialogue in order to remove factual errors before publication.
As to the issue of the report being published together with the Council response, that is required by Article 248. It is required to be forwarded to the other Community institutions together with the replies of those who have been audited. That is not so different from the way in which audit proceeds in this country.
Again, there was the issue of an official response from the member states being required at an earlier stage. That was discussed at a recent meeting of the group of personal representatives of finance Ministers. Indeed, this has come to pass. The Commission asked for an official response to the latest report by 20th December last year. One of the few countries to achieve that was the United Kingdom.
I was challenged on what we have done since we responded to the report and what we intend to do in the period between now and the next IGC in 2004. The noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, challenged me on what we have done in the past seven months. The evidence for what we have achieved lies in the improved sectoral information in the 2000 report which was published in November last year. That is evidence of strong pressure, not merely over seven months but over a longer period.
As for the period between now and 2004, I believe that the Prime Minister set out our targets most clearly in his speeches both in Warsaw in October 2000 and in Birmingham in November 2001. He has talked about the delivery of results not on abstract issues but on issues that concern people. We are mandated by Laeken to do just that. I believe that value for money and probity in European financial matters falls into the category of issues that can, and should, concern people. That is why we have a convention starting in March of this year, which will be chaired by former president Giscard d'Estaing and which will continue until the middle of 2003. It will be an inclusive convention, and one that will include the applicant countries, as well as civil society representatives and representatives of national parliaments. It will not produce a draft treaty text, but options for a new treaty. It will also be ready in good time for the preparation of the IGC agenda.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, out of interest, can the Minister tell the House whether the Government were actually in favour of the appointment of Valéry Giscard d'Estaing as chairman
550
of this most important committee, or whether they would have liked to have seen someone slightly younger in the post?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not believe that to be a relevant question. I simply reported the appointment as a matter of fact and stated that this is what is proposed. I cannot see how that has anything to do with the European Court of Auditors. I simply seek to give information to the House in order to give flavour, if you like, to the proposals that are before the European Union.
The period between now and 2004 will not be wasted. The Government are grateful to the sub-committee and to the European Communities Committee for their work. It will be evident from what I have said that we take their conclusions most seriously.
9.57 p.m.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, perhaps I may indulge for a moment in a military analogy. I sometimes feel that the role of a chairman in the debate on a Select Committee report is rather like that of a platoon commander who goes over the top waving a service revolver, but who is happy to he accompanied by comrades with much heavier weaponry. In this instance, my colleagues have used their weaponry well in focusing on some of the really important issues in our report. It has been a very good debate. I should like to thank all those who have participated in it for showing that there are expert views to be brought to bear on a matter of this importance. We have had a model debate of that kind.
I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his response. If I say, again, that I thought his response was thoughtful and comprehensive I should probably be over-egging the pudding. But, in any event, it was a helpful response in many ways. The important message that has come across from this debate and which, in a sense, is a generic message, is that scrutiny of the executive does not end when the debate is concluded. My noble friend Lord Tomlinson was absolutely right to say that this is the kind of issue on which we ought to carry out some follow up so that we can see what the Government are going to do and how words will be translated into deeds. I am not sure that we expect the Government to be shouting from the rooftops, but we want them to do a little more than just whispering through the letter-box. I want them to really make a point. For a Government who wish to be, and claim to be, at the heart of Europe, I believe that evidence of the kind of attention that they should be paying to the reform of the European Court of Auditors would give some substance to that aspiration. I strongly encourage them to ensure that our proposals are seriously pressed on our European Union partners so that the reforms that we feel are essential are carried through.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at ten o'clock.

  Zimbabwe
  Zimbabwe
  Stolen Tractors and Excavators
  Stolen Tractors and Excavators
  Protective and Preventive Security Group
  Protective and Preventive Security Group
  Illegal Firearms
  Illegal Firearms
  Race Riots Reports
  Race Riots Reports
  House of Lords Reform
  House of Lords Reform
  A400M Military Transport Aircraft
  A400M Military Transport Aircraft
  Statistical Information
  Statistical Information
  Landfill Tax
  Landfill Tax
  Private Finance Initiative
  Private Finance Initiative
  Belfast International Airport
  Belfast International Airport
  Northern Ireland: Parity of Esteem
  Northern Ireland: Parity of Esteem
  Northern Ireland: Terrorist Incidents
  Northern Ireland: Terrorist Incidents
  Northern Ireland: Policing
  Northern Ireland: Policing
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Crops Conference
  Crops Conference
  Employment and Social Policy Council, 3 December
  Employment and Social Policy Council, 3 December
  Patient's Charter Standards
  Patient's Charter Standards