Sitting of 25 January 2002

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Orders of the Day

  Industrial and Provident Societies Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  9.33 am
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I start by declaring the assistance that I have received from the co-operative party and Cobbetts.
  In the northern part of my constituency can be found the excellent Pinner and Grammarians rugby football club, which plays in the Herts and Middlesex fourth division north, level 12, of the Rugby Football Union's structure. It turns out an excellent veterans' team, and it has a distinguished history. One of its former players, Stuart Wilson, went on to captain Scotland and to play for the British Lions. The club has the distinction of being the most junior rugby club to have seen one of its members, the late Cyril Gadney, achieve the honour of being president of the RFU. In the context of today's debate, however, the club's importance lies in the fact that it is an industrial and provident society.
  In the south of my constituency, close to the Rayners Lane estate, there is the Tithe Farm social club, which is home to the excellent—but not as well known as it might be—Rayners Lane football club. It is also home to a series of social activities such as darts and snooker leagues. It, too, is an industrial and provident society. According to the Financial Services Authority, at the end of 2000 there were more than 9,000 other industrial and provident societies, with some 10.5 million members between them, funds of more than £14.5 billion and assets worth almost £61.5 billion.
  Other examples of industrial and provident societies include the Homes group, a housing association that manages more than 43,000 properties and is the second largest registered social landlord in the country. Within the Homes group is Warden Housing, which, if its tenants vote for stock transfer, is set to redevelop completely the Rayners Lane estate, for which we have been waiting 20 years. Both the Homes group and Warden Housing are industrial and provident societies.
  The excellent Lincoln retail co-operative society provides a range of retail and property services to its 133,000 members.
  The last example that I shall mention immediately is the Women's Institute market in Dorridge in the west midlands. It has an annual turnover of some £68,000 and
  1100
  45 active producer members, and it has sold home-made, home-grown and hand-crafted produce in Dorridge every Friday morning since 1974.
  A couple of years ago, I made a mental note never to upset the Women's Institute—I cannot remember why—so I should like to place on record the considerable benefit that the 510 Women's Institute markets bring to our country. The House may be interested to know that last year, between them—they are all industrial and provident societies—they sold more than 1 million garden shrubs, 780,000 fruit and vegetable plants, 500,000 kg of fresh produce, 200,000 bunches of freshly picked flowers and 1 million pots of jam, marmalade and pickles. As if that was not enough, alongside the sewing, woodwork, pewterwork, knitting, lace-making, millinery, hand-made cards and pictures and yet more knitting sold last year, there were 10,000 pairs of bootees.
  Industrial and provident societies have their roots in the self-help tradition of the Victorian era. Their origin dates in part from when the incorporation of legal bodies first became possible, with joint stock companies in 1844—the beginning, as I am sure that the House will be aware, of company law in this country. Incorporation allows an organisation its own legal personality. It can sue and be sued and own property and enter into contracts, and it enjoys the privilege of limited liability.
  As we all know, the company is the commonest form of incorporated body. The number of registered companies runs to many millions, more than 1 million of which are currently trading. The company continues to be a highly effective means of attracting investment and of generating rewards for entrepreneurs and those who are prepared to take risks with their capital, and it will rightly continue to play a vital role in the development of our economy.
  While the company was emerging, other legal forms of business ownership were emerging to meet other needs. The co-operative society emerged as a trading vehicle through which people could meet their basic requirements to buy food at a fair price. The building society emerged at the same time, as a vehicle to help those who lacked the means to purchase their own home. Friendly and provident societies also emerged, to offer mutual insurance against sickness or unemployment.
  What all those different legal forms had in common was the fact that they were incorporated as independent legal bodies with a separate legal personality, but governed by their own legislation. Company, building society and friendly society law has changed substantially over the past 150 years but, with the exception of certain consolidatory statutes or specific narrow issues, industrial and provident society law has not changed fundamentally since 1862.
  The motivation of industrial and provident societies, like their close cousins the building societies and the friendly societies, is mutual self-help rather than the generation of profit for investors. Trading successfully is, of course, necessary if any corporate body is to survive, but producing a profit is not the prime purpose of industrial and provident societies.
  There are two types of industrial and provident society, the first of which is the co-operative society. A co-operative conducts its business in the interests of members, who gain from it on the basis of how much they use the service or its trade, rather than purely on the basis

  1101
  of their investment in it. If people want to register a new co-operative society today, they have to satisfy the Financial Services Authority that the proposed organisation is a bona fide co-operative. Many retail and agricultural organisations and many social clubs are designed as co-operatives.
  Indeed, the House may be surprised to learn that the Bill has produced a considerable postbag, including letters from members of industrial and provident societies. Mrs. Doris Humbles from Southbourne in Dorset wrote to me to say what a good idea she thought it was that small clubs should be protected. She went on to describe her club, saying:
  "The Christchurch Conservative Club does a very good lunch at a reasonable price for pensioners and it is difficult to get this kind of service elsewhere."
  I do not know whether the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) is a member of that Conservative club, but if he is—in the spirit in which these Friday debates are usually conducted—perhaps when I am next campaigning in Hampshire for the Labour party, he would be good enough to vouch for me and let me take advantage of the service provided by that excellent industrial and provident society.
  The second category of industrial and provident societies are those that carry on a trade for the benefit of the community, rather than just their own members. Such societies are known as community benefit societies—abbreviated to bencoms. They include the many housing associations that exist, some social clubs and the new football supporters trusts. Industrial and provident societies give legal form—thus structure and clarity—to a range of community organisations and activities, for which charitable structures, public sector structures and the company model are not entirely appropriate.
  A key attraction of the industrial and provident society is the element of democracy. Where a number of people are involved or are dependent as customers on the service or trade of the organisation, the one member, one vote principle that the industrial and provident society offers presents a powerful attraction. It is an arrangement by which power or control cannot be bought for money. Where a local community has been involved in creating or protecting an important community facility, the one member, one vote governance route helps to reflect the effort that all those involved have put in and their mutual dependence on one another. Industrial and provident societies that are members of the excellent Village Retail Services Association, which helps to keep rural post office and shopping facilities available to communities, are good examples of that.
  A similar form of democracy can be created in a company. Indeed, some co-operatives have even decided to use the company model. I do not knock that approach, but the problem is that nothing can stop shareholders changing or abandoning the original purpose for which the company was set up.
  A second key difference between the industrial and provident society and the company model is the approach of the different registration bodies. Under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965, the Financial Services Authority has to approve any changes to the constitution of an industrial and provident society, and it strictly
  1102
  monitors such changes to ensure that they are in line with the registered purposes of the society. That clearly offers added reassurance to members.
  Companies House, by contrast, has no such function. It has a lighter touch, with the result that shareholders or members of a company can change the company's constitution more easily. Companies House does not scrutinise constitutional changes to companies. Such scrutiny is not needed, as there is no equivalent to section 1 of the 1965 Act in company law. Those key differences create important distinctions between the company model and industrial and provident society model, and they provide choice for those looking for the right legal structure to suit their purpose.
  A variety of structures give legal expression to the activities and services of organisations rooted in our communities, reflecting the many differences in their motivation, modus operandi, financing, governance and so on. I am not seeking to say that the industrial and provident route represents the best legal structure for every situation—for some scenarios, it would be entirely inappropriate—but our legal structures need to be robust. The industrial and provident society model has not undergone the same reforms as the traditional private sector model over the past 100 years or so, or indeed as the building and friendly society models, which were reformed in 1986 and 1992 respectively.
  The Bill contains three key clauses to try to change the current situation. The first clause would ensure that industrial and provident societies could not be dissolved by the vote of a small and unrepresentative group of members. The second clause would enable community benefit societies to include a provision safeguarding their assets in their constitutions. The third clause would enable industrial and provident society rules to be updated by secondary legislation.
  Clause 1 deals with the power to convert an industrial and provident society into, or to transfer the entire business to, a company. Such a step can be taken if 75 per cent. of those at a general meeting vote in favour of conversion. No requirement exists for a minimum number of members to be in favour of the resolution, and any attempt to include such a provision in a society's rules would contravene the 1965 Act and would be rejected by the FSA. Conversion to a company is a fundamental change in the nature of an industrial and provident society.
  As hon. Members know, a company is a vehicle for generating profits for its shareholders, and the ability to distribute the profits generated from its trade is fundamental to its nature, whereas co-operative societies and bencoms are set up not as vehicles to generate profits for investors but to trade for the benefit of the community. Members of a community benefit society are not permitted to receive any payment by way of a profit distribution. All such profits must be retained in the society and applied to the society's objectives in serving the community. Similarly, on a solvent dissolution, any surplus remaining after all its liabilities have been paid off should pass not to members, but to some other community benefit purpose under the current rules.
  A co-operative society also has a fundamentally different purpose from a company. It is set up by its members as a vehicle to pool their transactions and co-operatively to provide goods or services to themselves and/or the wider community. A co-operative is legally

  1103
  permitted to make a distribution to its members or customers from its surplus profits, but that power of distribution originated to reimburse to its customers the amount by which they had, in effect, overpaid for their purchases. The mechanism is intended to ensure that customers are not exploited by paying too much. That is illustrated by the fact that a distribution of profits is based on purchases, not on the size of the shareholding.
  Conversion from an industrial and provident society is therefore an event of considerable significance for all the society's members. It involves changing from one corporate body with a particular purpose to another corporate body with a significantly different purpose. Surely such an event should not occur without a substantial body of support from the society's membership and without a substantial section of its membership participating in that decision.
  The ability to convert has existed under the legislation since the 19th century, and the provisions that require a 75 per cent. majority of those voting at a meeting of members also has a long history. If a majority of members of a society want to convert, neither I nor anyone else should stand in their way, but the membership's view must be fundamentally clear. A 75 per cent. vote in favour of a conversion resolution by those who turn up at a meeting might involve a mere handful of people turning up to a badly advertised meeting and agreeing a change that might irreversibly alter the nature of a corporation with hundreds of thousands of members.
  The building society movement has wrestled with that issue for a number of years, and a significant number of societies have demutualised and paid a windfall gain to their members. There has been only one failed attempt at a hostile dissolution of a co-operative society. In 1997, Andrew Regan, through Lanica, attempted to demutualise the co-operative Wholesale Society. Notwithstanding the fact that the attempt failed, the threat of demutualisation remains real to many co-operative societies.
  Although successful and efficient management of the society's business, together with the cultivation of an active, engaged membership, is the best way to maintain support for a society's mutual status, it is surely right that legislation should ensure that no conversion to a company can take place without a substantial body of the membership participating in that vote.
  Since the Lanica affair, a number of societies have adopted rules to introduce a high quorum for resolutions to convert a society into a company. There has not been a legal challenge to such rules yet, but there is concern that it could be made by a predator with a deep pocket, and there is a danger that it might succeed. Doubts about that should not be left to the courts and the lawyers to determine. Surely it is a matter for Parliament to address, and the Bill offers the House the opportunity to do exactly that.
  Such a provision has already been introduced for building societies. The Building Societies Act 1986, and the 1997 statutory instrument that updates it, requires 50 per cent. of the membership to participate in any such vote for it to be effective. Another parallel is the takeover code, which sets a 50 per cent. threshold as the key to resolving the success or otherwise of a vote in a public takeover of one company by another. The Bill proposes a similar provision for industrial and provident societies. It does not change the requirement that 75 per cent. of the
  1104
  vote of members attending a meeting is necessary; it simply adds the requirement that 50 per cent. of eligible members would need to vote for that conversion to occur.
  The Bill also recognises that the registers of society members are not necessarily up to date and it requires them to take reasonable steps to establish those persons who are entitled to vote under its rules. It also requires 50 per cent. of such people to take part in any vote before the chairman of the relevant meeting can declare the resolution duly passed.
  Clause 1 recognises implicitly that co-operatives are designed to serve and to be controlled by their members. For that reason it must be right that they can convert their co-operative society into a different business structure if a large majority is secured in favour of it. Those societies that are registered to operate for the benefit of the community have a different purpose, however. Their function is to benefit people other than their members. Nevertheless, the members of bencoms, often those who serve on the board of a society, could vote to dissolve a society and convert it into a company or to convert it into a co-operative. It is surely inappropriate for a society that has been set up to benefit the community either to re-register as a co-operative, which operates in the interests of its members, or to convert to a company, which operates in the interests of individual shareholders.
  The assets in a community benefit society are, as I said, held for the benefit of the community. An important feature of a bencom is that unlike the comparable company model, the commitment to community benefit is subject to a review by the registering authority, so any attempts to change the constitution to water down such a commitment would not be approved by the Financial Services Authority. Those assets may have been built up over many years with generations of people from different families in a community working to develop them. The Bill proposes that those incorporating a new society should be able to elect that no such power to convert should be included in their rules. Subject to obtaining the support of a 75 per cent. majority of those voting at a meeting where not less than 50 per cent. of those qualified to vote participate in the vote, the Bill further provides that an existing society should also have the power to incorporate such a provision in its constitution.
  Bencoms and charities have parallel roles. Charities cannot convert into co-operatives or a company. Charitable assets are effectively dedicated permanently to that charitable purpose. The clearest parallel is that they operate for the benefit of communities.
  Clause 2 would allow community benefit societies to choose to have similar protection in law as charities and to be free from the possibility that one group of activists in the organisation could attempt to use the organisation's assets for their own benefit rather than for their original established purpose, which is for the benefit of the community.
  Ironically, such societies are not supposed to make distributions out of profits or surplus to members, and, on a solvent winding-up, assets should not be distributed to members. However, the ability to convert or transfer engagements to a company under section 52 of the 1965 Act allows such restrictions to be avoided once the society is converted into a company and the shareholders could amend the rules that permit the distribution of assets to themselves. There is clearly a loophole in the legislation, which the Bill attempts to address.

  1105
  Clause 2 specifically permits the constitution of a bencom to include provisions to prohibit the distribution of assets to members and to prohibit the distribution of any of its assets except on its dissolution. Even when it is dissolved, the clause imposes significant restrictions on the way in which the assets are distributed. It also prohibits the transfer of engagements or the conversion to a company and prevents the avoidance of the provisions by a change of rules.
  Hon. Members may be concerned about the flexibility of such arrangements. Clause 2 is perhaps deceptive, but it does allow for considerable flexibility. If the bencom were to dissolve, its assets could be transferred to another community benefit society with similar provisions in its rules, or to a charity. Furthermore, it does not prevent the sale of assets—or, indeed, the entire business in appropriate circumstances—by the bencom and the subsequent distribution of the cash surplus to another community benefit society or to a charity.
  Clause 2 also allows a bencom to convert to a company or another body if that company contains similar provisions in its constitution to protect the assets for the benefit of the community. If a bencom needs, for some reason, to convert to a different legal entity, such conversion is permitted. What is not permitted is the liberation of those assets from their original purpose—the commitment to community benefit. Those provisions will apply only if a society adopts them in its constitution by resolution of its members and approval of the FSA is secured in the usual way.
  The final operative clause, clause 3, attempts to provide a mechanism to allow Parliament to consider sensible reforms to the corporate governance of industrial and provident societies when those same reforms have been introduced for companies after parliamentary debate. The reality is that there have been very limited opportunities, both under the Conservative party and the Labour party, to update the rules and regulations by which industrial and provident societies operate.
  There are precedents for such a measure. Some change to industrial and provident society rules is possible under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, even though the original discussions focused on deregulation of company law. One of the joys of preparing for today's debate was that I got to read the Second Reading debate and the Committee stage of that Act, and I could find no mention of industrial and provident societies. Nevertheless, two sensible amendments to the rules of industrial and provident societies have been made under its provisions.
  As well as being limited to the purpose of assimilating industrial and provident society law and company law, the power to modify is further limited because it does not extend to those sections of the 1965 Act that are essential to the very nature of such societies. For example, the provisions that set out which societies can be registered and those that deal with amalgamation, transfer of engagements and conversions are specifically excluded from the power in clause 3.
  Sensible reforms that are in place for companies but not for industrial and provident societies include a rule proscribing loans by the organisation to one of their directors. Another basic sensible rule in place under the
  1106
  Companies Act 1985 is that substantial property sales or transactions with directors require shareholder approval. There is no similar requirement for the directors or chief executives of an industrial and provident society. Indeed, the 1985 Act sensibly sets out what transactions can and cannot happen between company directors and their companies. The power of a court, on application by the Department of Trade and Industry, to disqualify directors who are unfit to hold office does not apply to society directors. Clause 3 offers a sensible solution to those defects.
  Company legislation also prohibits provisions in the constitution of companies that prevent claims against directors for breaches of statutory or common law. Societies still have such provisions in their constitutions. Clause 3 holds out the possibility that such changes to industrial and provident society rules could occur if Parliament were so minded.
  Such a change would provide additional protection for the societies' consumers and members, and is surely a sensible, relatively minor amendment for which secondary legislation would be an appropriate mechanism. Parliament has already considered the substance of the issues during the various debates on companies law reform and it has discussed many of the changes in debates on the reform of building and friendly societies.
  Other sensible reforms that may be instigated under this procedure include changes to the ultra vires law for companies and to the accounting and auditing requirements for societies, for insolvency rescue procedures and for receivership procedures, all of which are now significantly out of step with companies. That combination of problems reduces confidence in the industrial and provident society model. In the case of insolvency, it makes rescue of a society much more difficult. I remind the House that a further safeguard in the Bill is the use of the affirmative resolution procedure for any changes made under clause 3.
  My interest in co-ops and mutuals is not new. I have highlighted the potential of social enterprises and new mutuals in Adjournment debates and under the ten-minute Bill procedure. I hope that the co-op and mutual sector will continue to develop and expand, offering, where appropriate, sensible, level-headed alternatives to exclusively private sector options and other approaches and structures.
  Mr. David Drew: As a fellow co-operator, I think that my hon. Friend is making an excellent case. Does he agree that the Curry commission, which will report on food and farming shortly, is likely to recommend that we bolster co-operatives in agriculture to bring us into line with Europe, and that the introduction of the Bill is particularly opportune because it could provide that bolster?
  Mr. Thomas: I do agree. Interestingly, the National Farmers Union, which I consulted about the Bill, supports it. It took some delight in giving me the example of the United Pig Marketing co-operative, which I am told is the largest pig marketing co-operative. Its members benefit from savings of 25 per cent. off breeding stock, 15 per cent. off compound feeding stuffs, 30 per cent. off the cost of power supply and, for those Members who are

  1107
  interested, 33 per cent. off the cost of artificial insemination. I am sure that all hon. Members have an interest in reducing the long-term costs of the great British breakfast, and United Pig Marketing and, I am sure, other agriculture co-operatives will help to do that.
  If the mutual sector is to develop, further sensible protection and reform of the rules will be needed. The Bill does not solve all the problems of the industrial and provident society model, but it does, I hope, provide an opportunity to make significant progress. One of the genuine joys of preparing for the Bill has been to understand and be impressed by the sheer range and diversity of organisations—and the considerable commitment of their members—which are rooted in our communities and use the industrial and provident society model.
  I have consulted the various parent bodies of industrial and provident societies, and I am grateful for the time and support of the National Housing Federation, the Rugby Football Union, the co-operative Union, the National Farmers Union, the Village Retail Services Association, the Community Transport Association, the Committee of Registered Clubs, the Women's Institute country markets, the Abbeyfield Society and the Association of British Credit Unions.
  Surely the continuing strength of industrial and provident societies is the defining proof, if there is any doubt, that there is such a thing as society. The Bill seeks to strengthen our industrial and provident societies, and I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading.
  10.4 am
  Chris Grayling: I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) on introducing the Bill. It is somewhat ironic, and probably against the expectations of many outside the House, that a Bill on this subject should be promoted by the Member for Harrow, West and immediately supported by the Member for Epsom and Ewell because the traditional image of industrial and provident societies is very different from the reality. The hon. Gentleman has rightly highlighted, by making clear the range of organisations from which he has secured support for the Bill, how diverse those societies are and in how many parts of our society, and indeed how many of our constituencies, they have a presence.
  My constituency has industrial and provident society representation, most particularly in the form of the successful and hospitable Epsom Conservative club, which is in a prime location and has assets that could be exploited by a carpetbagger—a danger that the hon. Gentleman has rightly pointed out. I pay credit to the Bill because it will protect such societies, as well as other organisations throughout our society, and I encourage the House to give it a Second Reading, subject to caveats and provisos that will need to be dealt with in Committee to ensure that the final legislation is a proper and fit response to the needs of the sector.
  The hon. Gentleman introduces his Bill in a turbulent time for mutual organisations which began with changes in the building society sector, which I appreciate is not covered by the Bill. What happened in that sector, and more recently in the mutual sector of the financial services industry, has set a precedent that could now be followed by those looking to exploit the value and assets of mutual and provident societies of all kinds.
  1108
  That process began with conscious business decisions in the 1980s by organisations such as Abbey National to move from a mutual status to being fully commercial listed companies. They took those decisions for straightforward commercial and strategic reasons. Many organisations have followed suit in the past 10 or 15 years. No legislation should seek to prevent that from happening in future.
  At the same time, we saw in that sector the emergence of carpetbagging. Groups of people who had joined the boards of building societies, including Nationwide, Britannia and others, proposed at annual general meetings a ballot of the entire membership on the proposal to sell the society's assets and generate a windfall for members of the public. In some cases, the organisations' members may want to pursue that route, but they must proceed with the utmost caution because nothing comes without a price, and such organisations often secure a short-term payment at the expense of the long-term growth of their financial portfolio. Such decisions must be made in the full knowledge of the implications of the action.
  More recently, we have seen different types of organisations, such as clubs, begin to dispose of their assets. The highest profile example was the RAC's decision to sell its assets, generating a substantial windfall for members. The same route has been taken by smaller clubs, such as the St. Stephen's Constitutional club, just up the road from this place. All that highlights the fact that industrial and provident societies and other mutual organisations have assets that can be exploited by those who seek to make a quick return.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the attack on the co-operative Wholesale Society by Andrew Regan a few years ago. That was clearly an attempt to extract commercial and financial value. That may be in the interests of members on some occasions, but in that case there was great hostility within the movement, and the proposal was rejected. That underlines the need for societies of the kind covered by the Bill to be given the same level of protection as building societies from anyone who seeks to exploit their assets.
  The principle of mutuality epitomised by the societies has been an important part of our business and social life in this country since Victorian times. It began with the friendly societies, which were the first kind of organisation to bring financial services to the poorer areas of the country, and indeed in many areas they still do so. With the loss from some areas, both rural and inner-city, of financial services institutions such as local banks, we are seeing a resurgence of mutuality.
  The friendly societies were followed by the building societies, which encouraged home ownership through mutuality, and the co-operative societies, not only the co-op itself, the visible presence in our high street, but several smaller co-operative organisations that served individual neighbourhoods. In a previous guise, I did quite a bit of local history work in the north-west of England; the role that co-operative societies played in the development of society in Liverpool, Manchester and elsewhere is evident.
  As I said, it is not just in areas such as the north-west that those organisations play an important role. In my constituency there are two branches of the co-op which make a significant social contribution, as well as a business contribution, to the area. One branch is in

  1109
  Stoneleigh, a 1930s suburban area with a sizeable shopping centre which, typically of many smaller retail centres on the fringes of major cities such as London, has lost ground in recent years to a few principal shopping centres in my area such as Kingston and out-of-town supermarkets. We must not allow those smaller centres to disappear. In my constituency, the co-op is a linchpin of Stoneleigh broadway and probably does more than any other shop to ensure that that shopping centre thrives and continues to attract people. It is therefore fundamentally important that it should remain and flourish.
  Such outlets are particularly important to the elderly. I received a letter from an elderly lady in my constituency who said:
  "As a long standing member of the co-op, I am happy to write to amp; ask you to vote for Gareth Thomas's Bill on Friday 25th January 2002.
  I hope I am not the only person making this request from our area.
  You are well aware that Stoneleigh has a large percentage of retired and elderly people among its residents, not all have transport or are able to use public transport easily, the co-op shop on Stoneleigh Broadway is our only supermarket, we no longer have butchers or general stores to buy edible goods from, the co-op to most people is a Godsend.
  The co-operative Society does not flourish in the South as it does in the North, but it does such good work monitoring the quality of the food and items it sells."
  I echo that. The two branches in my constituency do an excellent job of serving the community.
  The branch at Tattenham Corner, at the top of Epsom Downs, is a community centre in its own right. The beat police officer in the area uses it almost as a stopping-off point or a local branch office while on the beat. The shop owners have given tremendous support, both to him and community activities in the area. It is a central point in an area that does not otherwise have shops nearby for the elderly. It therefore makes sense to give those organisations the same protection as building societies, so it is important that the Bill goes into Committee and receives the depth of study that it deserves.
  When the Bill was introduced, naturally I thought that it applied to friendly societies and organisations such as the co-op, but I have been surprised by the breadth of organisations covered by it. They include not just retail societies and wholesale and productive societies but, as the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) said, agricultural societies, as well as fishing societies, clubs, general service societies and, importantly, housing societies. There is no doubt that registered social landlords play an increasingly important role in our society. Many of them would be covered by the Bill; my points about giving protection to co-operative societies apply equally to RSLs categorised as industrial and mutual building societies.
  In the past decade, there has been a significant transition from predominantly council-owned and controlled housing to much greater control of our social housing stock by RSLs. That is a very positive step indeed, which began under the Conservative Government. In general, RSLs make an important contribution to that housing sector; they upgrade stock effectively and manage it better than most local authorities. On the whole, tenants receive a more responsive service from RSLs. In my constituency, the Rosebery Housing Association does an
  1110
  excellent job of managing its staff. Such organisations should receive encouragement and should able to develop to the benefit of all their tenants.
  More and more local authorities are taking the decision to dispose of stock, and pass council houses into the control of RSLs. Epsom and Ewell borough council in my constituency has done so; Reigate and Banstead borough council is in the process of doing so; Merton borough council, on which I remain a councillor for a few weeks, is looking at transferring its stock into the hands of an RSL. Ironically, in my area, that transition is making a difference; the biggest council housing estates in my constituency, for odd historical reasons, were divided between three different boroughs, which has caused great confusion for the residents and made it harder to maintain the area properly. I hope that, at the end of the process, we shall have a single RSL able to control the whole area, develop it properly and provide a much better service to the people who live there.
  I do not want housing societies of the kind encompassed by the Bill, including RSLs, to be vulnerable to carpetbaggers. RSLs have a major asset base; indeed, it is substantial. There are circumstances in which, conceivably, they could be exploited by people wishing to realise some of the value of their asset base. RSLs play an essential social role, which should be protected; if nothing else, the extra protection that the Bill gives them is extremely important. Organisations with a significant asset base that come into the ambit of the Bill are particularly vulnerable, and protection is particularly appropriate for them.
  It is easy to target an organisation with significant assets; it is easy to sell them and raise money; often, it is easy to make a case to members of the organisation that they can get a quick windfall from what is being proposed. We should not prevent that from happening, as the hon. Member for Harrow, West rightly said, but it should happen only with overwhelming support from the membership. The hon. Gentleman's selection of 75 per cent., to match the building societies' figure, is right. Everyone will never be brought on board, but 75 per cent. is an overwhelming vote, and can be said to represent the views of a society if it takes the decision to change its status, the nature of its asset base and so on. Reading about the Bill, it is surprising that it has taken four years from the launch of the Treasury's consultation paper for anything to happen. When something did happen, it took a Back Bencher to introduce the measure; I am sure that that is a disappointment for the hon. Gentleman.
  I should like to discuss a couple of areas about which the Committee will need to think carefully, if the Bill completes its Second Reading, as I hope it will. I have a problem with the hon. Gentleman's comments about provisions for the future use of assets and, in effect, the ability to set in stone the way in which they will be used. I understand the nature of his concern, but we have to be cautious about constraining future developments by organisations in a society that can change rapidly. I hope that, in Committee, that aspect of the Bill will be given careful consideration to try to ensure that there is a balance; organisations should be allowed to determine their core purpose, but should not be forced it into an environment where, if they need to change in future, they do not have the legal option to do so. The hon. Gentleman, and Members who serve on the Committee with him, need to be extremely careful about that.

  1111
  In his original speech on the issue to the House 12 months ago, the hon. Gentleman referred to the benefits that some mutual organisations have secured from debt finance. That may be true in some cases, but the hon. Gentleman should not forget that equity finance can often be much cheaper than debt finance and provides a much more solid, long-term foundation for organisations, which is one reason why building societies have chosen to move away from mutuality. That needs to be borne in mind when framing specific provisions for the sector.
  In that speech, the hon. Gentleman mentioned regulation and argued that it has sometimes forced organisations away from their core business to the detriment of their customers; he mentioned the water industry in particular. I do not necessarily share his analysis on that issue, but he made an important point about appropriate regulation. Whatever happens in terms of the status, legal rights and provisions that are associated with these organisations, the one caveat should always be that one should not compromise on regulation where it is appropriate. I am not a great regulator. I do not believe in regulation for its own sake, but minimum standards need to be met, especially in financial services, housing and so on. I would not want any change to be made in respect of regulation on organisations that enjoy such status, as opposed to their counterparts that do not. We must be careful to ensure that that does not happen.
  As I said, I am impressed by the range of organisations that support the Bill. Clearly, there is a need to address the issue. Clubs, leisure and housing organisations and the traditional organisations in the sector—the friendly societies and co-operatives—all have realisable assets and could be vulnerable to carpetbaggers. I have no doubt that their members should be free to dispose of those assets if they choose to do so. They should also be free to move beyond mutuality and to change their purpose and the nature of their operation in order to meet changing circumstances in society. We should be careful to bear that in mind when we consider the Bill, but at the same time, it is right and proper that these organisations should make such changes only with the support of a substantial majority of their members, and that they should do so with the same sort of safeguards that protect their counterparts in the building society sector.
  Given the impressive backing that the hon. Gentleman has secured for the Bill, and as it represents a sensible step for the sector, I am happy to offer to him my support for its Second Reading. I hope that detailed work in Committee will shape a measure that the Government will help on to the statute book and that will deliver significant improvement for the sector.
  10.22 am
  Paul Goggins: As one of the Bill's sponsors, I am very grateful to have an early opportunity to contribute to the debate. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) not only on introducing the Bill, but on his campaigning in Westminster and in the country for the changes that he proposes. I remember that he received a very warm Mancunian welcome back in November when he came to speak to the UK co-operative Council at its meeting in Manchester.
  My hon. Friend has spoken clearly and powerfully about the need to Modernise the law in order to make it easier to ensure that legislation governing industrial and
  1112
  provident societies remains in line with company law generally. He has also spoken wisely about the need to align industrial and provident societies to the rules that now apply to building societies in respect of turnout and majority when votes are taken on proposed constitutional changes—especially proposals to demutualise.
  I noted from the Library research paper on the Bill that the UK currently has 9,000 industrial and provident societies with assets worth £56 billion. It is essential that those assets and the people who own them are given adequate protection by the law. We saw what happened in the 1990s, when in only four years, nine building societies demutualised, completely removing two thirds of all the assets in the sector. My hon. Friend may not have convinced the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), but I think that he spoke persuasively about the need to give people who plan, develop and invest in new community benefit societies the power to put in place rules to ensure that those who establish such enterprises can do so without fear that the community assets that they create will be stripped away.
  As we have heard, mutuals and co-operatives are not a new idea. Indeed, E. P. Thompson reckoned that in 1815, one in 10 people in this country belonged to a friendly society. In his book, "The Making of the English Working Class", he put his finger on the essential strength of such organisations when he said:
  "The fact that each brother had funds deposited in the society made for stability in membership and watchful participation in self-governance."
  The Rochdale pioneers took that principle a stage further 150 years ago by creating the co-operative movement, including several organisations that remain with us today. The movement helped to create new aspirations and the confidence to demand the sort of social and economic reforms that gave people real security and freedom from want. Indeed, those aspirations and the political pressure that built up ultimately gave birth to the post-war welfare state, with the goals of decent housing and education, a universal health service and social insurance to provide protection for people when they are ill or in old age.
  We all know how that Beveridge vision was undermined in the 1970s. First, it was undermined by economic changes and the mass unemployment that they caused. Apart from the poverty and exclusion that was created, millions of people lost all sense of being contributors to the welfare society. Secondly, the Beveridge vision was undermined by those who believed that market forces, consumer choice and the accumulation of personal wealth were the answer to all our needs—values that were exactly the opposite of those held by the people who created the friendly societies and the co-operative movement.
  I would be the first to argue that the welfare state involved many good things such as access to health and education and the opportunity to escape poverty, but it also brought with it the expectation that all our problems can be solved from above. People might have argued for more money or different policies, but Governments were expected to find and deliver all the answers. Today, much of the political and media debate still reflects that mentality of wanting top-down answers. One of the most amazing experiences for me in my political lifetime was seeing among those who had suffered most in the 1970s and 1980s—those who had been excluded and were

  1113
  without work or hope of work—the first signs of the rediscovery of the spirit of mutuality, solidarity and co-operation that we are debating.
  I remember visiting the Meadowell estate on Tyneside at the end of the 1980s, when I was director of Church Action on Poverty. I met a group of women who had formed a credit union and established the Cedarwood centre with a co-op shop and shared community facilities. No one gave those achievements to them, but with a little help and encouragement from some local churches, they had started to organise in order to meet their needs. I have seen that many times since, not least in my constituency, where three small community credit unions have now formed into one credit union for the whole of Wythenshawe. It has an office in the town-centre co-op store, where it is easily accessible to people throughout the community.
  Phil Hope: My hon. Friend mentioned the importance of community involvement and participation, especially among people who are socially excluded. Will he comment on the recent initiatives taken by the Government through the new deal for communities to establish new forms of local partnership between communities and statutory organisations to regenerate local communities? They use the same principles which date back so far and which we are now rediscovering as we try to tackle deep-rooted poverty and exclusion.
  Paul Goggins: My hon. Friend reads my mind, as I intend to make a few comments along those lines. The most important thing is to recognise that poverty is not only about cash, although lack of money is clearly at its heart, but about powerlessness. It is always welcome when the Government seek to involve people in decision making and ensure that they have a greater stake and more power; indeed, it should be part of the strategy for defeating poverty.
  It is impressive when we see in our communities organisations that have grown from the bottom up linking with Government initiatives and the serious investment of cash that that can often bring. In my constituency, Family Action Benchill was a small, church-based community project that is now at the heart of sure start in Benchill. Indeed, the credit union has been able to benefit from single regeneration funding, helping to create the new premises in the co-op store, to provide training for staff and so on.
  Too often in the past, regeneration has been too short term and too professionally led. To be successful, it must build up people's capacity to fend and organise for themselves, and to develop what is now called social capital—something that is really quite simple. It is a mix of resources and talent that exists in any community and can underpin its sustainability and stability.
  On Wednesday, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope) and I attended a meeting of the all-party group on poverty, at which the Deputy Prime Minister talked about financial redistribution and the need to give people more power to make decisions that affect their communities. That is welcome.
  The Bill is important, and its significance will go beyond its specific provisions and contribute to many of the key debates of our generation about the need to reduce
  1114
  the gap between rich and poor, to reduce crime, to renew civil society and to Modernise our public services. I believe that our schools and hospitals have improved in the past five years and that they will continue to do so in future. However, if we keep in mind only the traditional, top-down model of change, services will not improve as quickly or as fully as they otherwise could, and our constituents will not feel the difference. Local people must be engaged, and their ideas and energies must contribute to the process of reform.
  Organisations that benefit the community play a crucial part in change. The Bill will give community leaders the confidence to build up substantial and significant organisations without fearing that their value will be snatched away. We all know the gaps in our communities that such societies and organisations could fill. They include financial services, shopping, social activity, housing, health and social care and transport. All those needs can be fulfilled not only by initiatives that are top down and large scale but by those that are small scale and bottom up.
  In the end, such organisations have the potential to improve the provision of services to our constituents and to renew civil society and people's engagement in decision making. When people have assets to protect that they own together, they are more likely to be involved in policy and decision making.
  10.32 am
  Mr. Michael Weir: I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) on introducing the Bill, which is important because it strengthens the mutual sector, which has been under attack for the past 15 years. It may be considered surprising that the Bill is supported by the Scottish National party and the Conservative party as well as the Labour party, but the mutual and co-operative movement combines the best aspects of collectivism and self-help, so in fact the cross-party support is not surprising.
  The co-operative movement and the mutual sector have a long history in Scotland. Life assurance was a big sector there, and small co-operatives grew to be large companies. Since the Building Societies Act 1986, the mutual principle in building societies and life assurance has been under continual attack. In the late 1980s, mutuality was regarded as old fashioned and Victorian—as something that should be done away with in the bright new world of entrepreneurialism.
  Many traditional life assurance companies in Scotland have disappeared or been swallowed up by public limited companies. Standard Life, which has recently survived a brutal and expensive fight to retain its mutual status, is the last major mutual life assurer in Scotland. All the others, such as Scottish Amicable, have gone. I had a pension policy with that company, but I now find that I have a pension with the Prudential. I did not intend that.
  Although the Bill does not cover life assurance, it strengthens the mutual sector. We need to get away from the position whereby mutuals and co-operatives are perceived as a means of making money through demutualisation and asset sales. Before becoming a Member of Parliament, I was a solicitor for many years. In the late 1980s, I regularly received phone calls or letters from finance advisers, tipping me off about the building societies that would next be ripe for

  1115
  demutualisation, and telling me which insurance companies to take out a policy with to generate a windfall. That atmosphere destroyed much mutuality.
  In his opening speech, the hon. Member for Harrow, West showed the huge breadth of organisations that are involved in the co-operative and industrial and provident sector. It is important to remember that it is expanding. In Scotland, many people and communities are coming together to set up new co-operatives and mutual societies. I am sure that that also applies to the rest of the United Kingdom. In many deprived areas, food co-operatives are increasing as a counterbalance to huge supermarkets such as Tesco and Sainsbury's. Existing co-operative societies play an important role. There are still co-operative stores or supermarkets in many small or deprived communities where Tesco and Sainsbury's will not go. Such stores are important and must be supported.
  In Scotland, there is increasing interest in community land buy-outs among people who have traditionally worked for the estate and almost been bought and sold with it. The co-operative and mutual model can be important in ensuring that people who want to buy land and estates for community ownership and a stake in their future can do that. However, as many speakers have hinted, that will work only when there is clarity and certainty that when people invest in co-ops and set up organisations, they can control their assets to ensure that they are not attacked by carpetbaggers, and that their hard work is not sold from under them.
  The Bill may not tackle all the problems, but it is an important step forward, and I offer it unreserved support.
  10.37 am
  Phil Hope: As a long-standing supporter of the co-operative movement, I am pleased to have the opportunity to support the Bill. I join my colleagues in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) on promoting the measure. His presentation was clear, persuasive and educative for those of us who are learning about the movement, and it was rooted in a proud track record of campaigning.
  I welcome the cross-party support. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) is worried about preventing carpetbaggers from taking over his Conservative club. Some Labour Members might believe that that has happened already. We hope that we can deal with his problem at the next general election.
  The Bill is an important contribution to the Government's co-operative agenda, which is championed by many co-operators in Parliament. Like many other hon. Members who support the Bill, I have been a co-operator all my life. I am a member of the co-operative group of Members of Parliament and I was elected as a Labour and co-operative MP. It therefore gives me genuine pleasure to be here today.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins) talked about tackling poverty through local community endeavour. I believe that we are all beginning to realise the necessity for that. Money is crucial, but we must involve local people in their communities, and devolve power so that the people who are most directly affected make the decisions.
  The Bill could be described as a technical measure. It includes technical provisions to protect specific forms of societies that benefit the community. However, it is much
  1116
  more significant; it is about waking the sleeping giant and acknowledging the vital role of the co-operative movement, industrial and provident societies and so many other community organisations. The Bill will lead to genuine changes to benefit our communities.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: In my constituency, new credit unions are being set up—the Derwentside credit union, for example. They tackle the genuine poverty and misery that loan sharks cause. Does my hon. Friend agree that although the Bill is technical, it will help the people in most need in poor communities and on council estates throughout the country?
  Phil Hope: I shall talk specifically about credit unions later, because—particularly in the poorest communities—the impact of debt on people's lives, and their vulnerability to loan sharks, can be devastating. The growth of credit unions in this country over the last 10 years has been spectacular. They provide a real way of providing people with access to finance and the ability to save, which they have not had in the past because of the behaviour of the financial institutions that have overlooked, ignored or rejected them.
  The whole co-operative movement supports the Bill, because the values of the movement go hand in hand with the values of the Labour party. I want to remind hon. Members of the party's constitution, which states:
  "By the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential, and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many not the few."
  That is what the industrial and provident society movement, the co-operative movement and the credit union movement are all about: social justice. The Bill will strengthen the institutions that provide the means for creating that social justice. Those values are reflected in the support that the Government and the Prime Minister have given to the co-operative movement, not least in establishing the co-operative Commission to consider how to ensure that the movement prospers in this century.
  The Bill, which has been so eloquently introduced today by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West, incorporates a number of the recommendations made by the co-operative Commission, and it has been widely welcomed both by co-operators and by members of the commission. It will strengthen an already strong and growing movement. Recent figures show that Britain's retail co-operatives have revenues of about £8.5 billion a year and employ 120,000 people.
  In banking and insurance, co-operators employ another 15,000 people, and hold assets in excess of £23 billion. More than 500 farm co-ops play a valuable role in supporting agriculture. There are also about 1,500 worker co-operatives, and about 1,500 community co-operatives, credit unions and housing co-operatives. The source for those details of the strength of the co-operative movement comes from an excellent publication, "New Mutualism", published two years ago.
  The new mutual movement is growing daily, with massive support from co-operators in the House. Indeed, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell expressed his surprise that the assets of the industrial and provident society movement totalled £56.5 billion. He was right to point out how diverse the movement is, comprising not only retail societies, agricultural and fishing societies, but all the clubs as well.

  1117
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West mentioned a rugby club in the north of his constituency. I do not know whether he plays for that club, but if he does, it has real problems. I have seen him play for the all-party rugby team, and all I can say is that he is spectacular on the wing—mind you, we never gave him the ball.
  The Bill will provide support for small clubs such as that one, and for similar societies, in our constituencies throughout the country,
  Mr. Dennis Turner: There are 200 members, drawn from both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, of the all-party parliamentary group on all-party members' clubs. They represent something like 6 million members throughout the country in about 5,000 clubs. Those people have a vested interest in our debate. Conservative clubs, Labour clubs, Liberal clubs and ex-servicemen's clubs are all part of this great movement. I ask my hon. Friend to reflect on that large number of people in those institutions who are looking to us to make a positive decision on behalf of their organisations today.
  Phil Hope: My hon. Friend has identified a central purpose of our being here today. The Bill is far more than a technical matter. There are thousands of clubs, with a great many volunteers. In my constituency, 2,000 children go out to play football regularly at the weekend, in small leagues and clubs, with coaches and parents all getting involved. That represents society working with children and young people, and providing them with opportunities. Each of those clubs will have the opportunity, through the Bill, to be strengthened and to find a stronger role to play in the community.
  We must do all we can to recognise the role that they play, and to reinforce that role through technical measures, such as strengthening their constitutional support, and through funding—the sure start programme has been mentioned today. So much is going on to provide new community enrichment and enhancement, and we should never overlook the hours of contribution made to the community by volunteers in those clubs and societies. That is what makes our community the wonderful place that it is today.
  Such clubs encounter some grief, however, when they try to sign up to become industrial and provident societies with the Financial Services Authority, and it costs a bit. The Bill does not tackle the issue of charges, but we should put down a marker about the level of charges for clubs that register in that way. It creates a barrier, and we are trying to remove barriers for small clubs and societies.
  Mr. Drew: Does my hon. Friend agree that that process is not only expensive but very complicated? One of the problems is that it takes an undue amount of time to register as an industrial or provident society.
  Phil Hope: That is absolutely right. A review of charitable law is being undertaken by the performance and innovation unit at the moment, although I am not certain how wide-ranging it is, or when the report will appear. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us that. We must
  1118
  try to remove the bureaucracy, barriers and regulations that prevent organisations from forming themselves into such institutions and gaining protection so that they can carry out their good works in the community. The more we can do to reduce that burden of bureaucracy—such as paying expensive solicitors' fees or going through a process that takes months, registering with the Charity Commission, or registering with the FSA—the better it will be. Part of our role is to ensure that that regulation is kept to a minimum. I am sure that we have cross-party support on the importance of removing those burdens.
  Having said that the co-operative movement is so strong, I must add that it has, of course, been a mixed story over the last century. It has had to adapt to survive and remain strong. The battle between mutually owned building societies and their demutualised rivals is a case in point. We have seen how building societies have to maintain a first-class service to customers and high quality communication with their members, if they are to resist damaging takeovers, which are often led by carpetbaggers seeking to make a quick buck.
  Those carpetbaggers abuse the democracy at the heart of the co-operative movement by offering the promise of share windfalls. It was not pointed out during the bad years when these battles were at their height that the long-term effect would be to remove from members the democratic right to control the capital of the co-operative—and, indeed, its policies—based on values of self-help, fairness and social responsibility.
  It is encouraging that when a mutual society has performed well and put its case strongly, members have chosen to reject the short-termism of the carpetbaggers. The largest building society, Nationwide, provides one example of a demutualisation attempt being resisted; the defeat at Standard Life gives us another. I hope that we have now turned the corner in relation to that matter, not only because of the regulation that we are trying to introduce today but because of the positive way in which the building societies are now putting across those values. They were values that we took for granted; we thought that we did not need to repeat them because we all knew what they were. This is our opportunity to ensure that everyone knows what they are, and that such moves are resisted as much as possible in future.
  We must protect the democratic principle so that people have the right to decide the future of their societies, which is the point of clause 1. All the Bill seeks to do is to bring protection for co-ops in line with that for the building society sector by ensuring that a decision to convert to registered company status is made by more than half a society's members. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West made the crucial point that a minority or small group must not be able to turn up, vote and overturn a society's status. Clause 1 would prevent that.
  Why use 75 per cent. and 25 per cent. as the figures? There is no generally accepted mathematical basis for saying, "This is a legitimate democratic process and that is not." However, the co-operators who support the Bill believe that clause 1 strikes the right balance between protecting co-operatives from carpetbaggers and preserving members' rights to make democratic informed choices. That is a difficult balance to strike, but the Bill gets it right.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) referred to credit unions. Although the co-operative movement has been successful in the financial sector—

  1119
  the growth of credit unions is an example of that—people have still suffered. Credit unions are protected by the Credit Unions Act 1979, which in effect prevents their demutualisation, and they are an important means of tackling financial exclusion.
  I know from my constituency experience that some people cannot borrow money at an acceptable rate or even hold a bank account. If they cannot get access to a bank account but live in the cash economy, gaining access to credit is so much harder. People excluded from the financial services that we all take for granted usually have only one option—a loan shark. They find themselves in huge debt and unable to pay, then the situation goes from bad to worse until they cannot cope with the burden.
  Many Members will have met, as I have, constituents who have fallen into the trap and the exploitation that goes with it, but there is an alternative—the credit union. The number of members has grown to about 220,000 from about 70,000 only a decade ago, and there are 450 members of the Association of British Credit Unions, which is a huge step forward. As well as having an attractive savings option—people can get up to 8 per cent. in a good credit union—members receive low-interest loans, which is why they do not have to rely on the loan sharks.
  A successful credit union operates in my constituency of Corby. It is run by volunteers based at Corby's volunteer bureau and it has 400 members, 80 of whom are under 16. As young people enter adulthood, do they understand finance and budgets and how to open a bank account? They do not. It is important that we provide youngsters, particularly those in school, with that information, and joining a credit union is a safe and reliable way to find out how to manage money.
  I am sure that hon. Members will join me in welcoming the growth of credit unions and congratulating all those throughout the country, including Corby credit union, on their success. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West said, the Bill has the full backing of the Association of British Credit Unions. Indeed, the range of support that he has managed to drum up is particularly impressive, and it is important for what we want to achieve.
  Other Members have referred to housing, and I want to mention housing co-operatives. This week many Members will have read The Guardian obituary of Harold Campbell, written by Lord Graham. It is an excellent tribute to a co-operator who played an important role in the co-operative Wholesale Society and the co-operative Development Agency. Most significantly, he was a champion of housing co-operatives and the role of tenants in housing management.
  The Bill is important because it would support and raise the profile of new ways of working—the new mutualism—not least in the housing sector. About 5 per cent. of tenants live in co-operatively managed homes and more live in homes managed by housing associations, which have grown considerably in recent years, co-operative housing ownership gives tenants more responsibility for their living conditions and helps them to acquire a greater sense of control over their own lives, homes and neighbourhoods.
  Tackling the problems of the most run-down estates and providing more control and ownership to the people who live there, which are core elements of regeneration, will be important in the next four years of this Parliament
  1120
  The co-operative movement and the housing co-operative movement have a vital role to play in that, so legislation such as this, which would provide greater security for community assets, is essential if we are to pursue that approach.
  We have not mentioned the health sector, but there is a model in my constituency, as general practitioners have formed a co-operative to share medical services and work together. Every sector—housing, finance and health—is open to such development and all the advantages it brings.
  I must mention charitable law, which the performance and innovation unit is reviewing. There are parallels between the legal protections for charities and for industrial and provident societies, and there are models that we can use. I hope that the PIU report recognises the value of those protections for the wider voluntary sector, and that the model in the Bill, but not necessarily the charitable model, has wider application.
  I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West on introducing this welcome Bill. He is a committed co-operator and we all pay tribute to his work as an MP and chair of the co-operative party. I am enjoying the debate. We are learning a lot, and I wish his Bill every success.
  10.57 am
  Dr. Vincent Cable: I want to add to the weight of all-party consensus on this useful and important Bill, which would strengthen mutuality and the co-operative principle. I have become involved in the past few years through the Save Our Building Societies campaign, and my colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches would strongly endorse the thrust of the Bill. As we were reminded by the helpful intervention of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, south-east (Mr. Turner), we are dealing with not only ideologically driven bodies, but practical grass-roots organisations. I am a member of my local British Legion club, which falls within the industrial and provident societies structure, as do political clubs and allotments.
  I was intrigued by the reference to the Rugby Football Union, as my constituency hosts it. Whenever I get involved in disputes with the RFU, as I do because my constituents are often inconvenienced by it, I am always told that it is running a business. When I next speak to the RFU, I shall remind it that it is covered by the common bond and that it should perhaps take more account of my constituents' interests.
  I must take up an important point made by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) on taking the issue up for his private Member's Bill, but there is a question about why such important legislative change has to be dealt with in this way. Our approach to legislation for companies and for the mutual sector is not balanced. The last major companies legislation review was in the mid-1980s, but a new one is under way and no doubt flagship legislation will be introduced when it comes to fruition. However, it has been much more difficult to change mutuals legislation.
  Building societies are the most important sector. The Government have helpfully introduced secondary legislation, but the all-party building societies group and the Treasury Committee, of which I was a member, recommended stronger primary legislation, for which time

  1121
  has never been found. A lot of encouragement is being given to credit unions, but if they are to take off, as they have in Ireland and the United States, major legislation is needed.
  Friendly societies were reformed accidentally. When the Financial Services Bill was going through Parliament, they urged me to table amendments to Modernise their rules in the way that this Bill does. Initially, my amendments were rejected, but I am pleased to say that Treasury Ministers got the point and made the necessary changes—which, although it was an afterthought, gave the friendly societies a fillip. It is, however, unfortunate that a private Member's Bill should be seen as the only means of achieving Modernisation of this kind.
  There is something of a paradox here, in that although we pay lip service to—or, in some cases, genuinely believe in—the importance of mutuality, it has become a bit like motherhood and apple pie. The brutal reality is that the key parts of the mutual movement have been in serious decline for a long time. Members have mentioned building societies, whose share of the market has fallen from about 75 per cent. to 25 per cent. in the last six or seven years. Much of the mutual insurance sector has disappeared very quickly, and only a few companies remain. Equitable Life has not exactly covered itself in glory, and the co-operative movement has been in decline for some time, quite apart from the Lanica takeover. The friendly societies are but a relic of what used to be a major lending movement.
  We can, however, view the situation in a slightly more positive way. Mutual organisations of a different kind are bubbling up all over the place, although they are often not recognised. I did not know until recently that the after-school kids' clubs that have sprouted all over the country were mutual organisations. The Workers Educational Association, a very creative force, operates through mutuality, as does the University of the Third Age. Like that of the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope), my constituency contains doctors' co-ops, which have sprung up to provide after-hours care. Mutuality can be found even in high-tech business: the Linux computer software outfit is a mutual. We are talking not just about additional structures, but about Modern organisations.
  Why do we see this paradox, whereby some of the traditional mutuals are seemingly in decline while others are bubbling up and growing? Provident societies, and mutuals in general, have a problem, in that while there are strong arguments for mutuality, it has its weaknesses, because unless the system of legislation and regulation is pitched just right negative forces will take over.
  Let me summarise the positive aspects. First, mutual organisations—including industrial and provident societies—provide diversity. It would be undesirable if profit-seeking plcs or private companies formed the only basis of organisation; the banking sector gave us an effective reminder of that. The only real opposition to banking charges for cashpoint machines came from the co-op bank and the Nationwide building society. Those are also the only two organisations that have argued for ethical standards in banking, thus resisting a trend in the rest of the sector. That positive development would not have occurred without mutuality.
  1122
  Secondly, the mutuals provide a sense of social cohesion and community. Such things are enormously important. In many instances, moreover, this is simply the sensible way in which to organise. People organising a social club or allotment are not in the profit-making business. They merely want a formal, businesslike structure enabling them to organise but also to co-operate. That structure is not driven by ideology; it just happens to be the most sensible option.
  Such organisations, however, have some fundamental weaknesses. Their main weakness is that they often become inward looking and complacent. When I was involved in the democratic side of the co-op movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s, it was blindingly obvious to many people that they were being hit by supermarket competition; but because so many in the movement did not want change or amalgamation, the movement withered.
  Often, in mutual organisations, the sense of drive comes from enthusiastic professional managers who want to grow—but in fact they grow away from their roots, or, because they are enthusiastic and entrepreneurial, they want a share of the profits and therefore move away from the mutuality principle. There is an inbuilt tension in such organisations, which is why the regulations must be pitched absolutely right.
  Clauses 1 and 2 in particular provide the right combination of answers. I see clause 1 as a guarantee against carpetbagging, and clause 2 as a guarantee against asset stripping. The two are related, but separate measures are needed.
  Clause 1 deals with carpetbagging very neatly by bringing the law into line with that governing building societies, but, I ask the hon. Member for Harrow, West, does it go far enough? Those of us who have been involved with building societies are apprehensive, feeling that, even following the Government's two regulatory changes, they do not have enough protection at present. We fear that there may be fresh assaults on the remaining building societies.
  I wonder whether this is, in fact, the best model. The Nationwide building society, rather cleverly, has introduced the principle that if building societies convert, the money should go to a charity. That not only protects societies, but preserves the spirit of mutuality—that you are not in it for the money. Would the Nationwide model be applicable under clause 1?
  As for clause 2, the hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the problem of asset stripping. There are many examples, but I will give just one. I was brought up in York, and as a kid I was an avid supporter of York City football club. I used to follow the team around the country. Some Members may recall the famous semi-final against Newcastle. York City is now in danger of extinction, however—possibly within weeks.
  Like most football clubs, York City relies on the support of a few business people who have put in a lot of money. In York, as in other cities, most of those business people treated their involvement as a mutual arrangement, and honoured the spirit of mutuality. One did not, however. He spotted a loophole in the law enabling him to sell off the club and the ground, and make millions. There is not enough of a safeguard in the legislation to

  1123
  stop that. I think it is a problem relating to industrial and provident societies, in fact, which is why the hon. Gentleman's proposals are so important.
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I am delighted that I seem to have provoked a rapprochement between the hon. Gentleman and the Rugby Football Union.
  I have met representatives of the Building Societies Association, which, although not a parent body sponsoring industrial and provident societies, supports the Bill. It, like the hon. Gentleman, stressed the fact that the recommendations in the Treasury Select Committee report on demutualisation, produced back in 1999, still had not been given legislative time in the House. I am sympathetic to the proposed changes, but private Members' Bills must be seen to be modest. I have not sought to change the world; I have merely tried to make positive changes for industrial and provident societies. I realise that there are defects in other parts of the mutual movement, which I hope will be dealt with in the future.
  Dr. Cable: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. I certainly was not criticising his Bill; I was simply suggesting how we might look forward.
  May I return to the subject of asset stripping? There is a legal problem, reflected in, for instance, inheritance legislation. There are dangers in locking up assets for long periods so that they become unproductive. It has been recognised in regard to mutuals, certainly in the case of credit unions, that entrenchment preventing asset stripping should exist in law, and I think that there are precedents for clause 2. There are precedents elsewhere for clause 2.
  We can certainly draw encouragement from precedents created in continental Europe. The co-operative movement is far more successful in France and Germany than it is here. The movement has a far larger market share of the European retail sector, precisely because European legislation governing co-operation provides the protection against asset stripping that the hon. Gentleman is trying to build into the law here. Such moves are to be commended. I add my support to this important and useful Bill.
  11.10 am
  Mike Gapes: I do not intend to make a long speech, but this is an extremely important Bill. I have been a Labour and co-operative Member of Parliament for almost 10 years and a co-operator for 30 years. I have seen worrying attacks on the principles of co-operation as a result of demutualisation, but I have seen the beginnings of a new debate.
  That debate was mentioned in passing by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope) when he quoted a sentence from the new Labour party constitution. The words are on the membership card in my pocket too, but I will not pull it out and read what it says. The Labour party constitution now specifically and explicitly emphasises the importance of co-operation. That was not part of the old clause IV, but it is on the cards that Labour party members now carry with them. However, co-operation is not just supported by members of the Labour party, and I welcome the fact that Members from other parties have spoken in support of the Bill.
  There is a growing recognition and desire in society generally to move away from the selfish "me" values that so damaged our country from the late 1970s onwards. If
  1124
  we are looking for new approaches to what could be called a Modern social democracy, we need to take account of practices in other parts of the world and learn from best practice in this country.
  This Bill is about a complex and diverse range of organisations that have one common feature: they belong to their members. They do not belong to shareholders and they are not owned by an individual or a few individuals. They belong to their members, who have a right to have their assets protected. However, many attempts have been made—the internet makes this easier—to foster carpetbagging and asset-stripping operations.
  Andrew Regan was mentioned earlier and I do not wish to refer to matters that might be sub judice. However, there are such people and they may not even be from this country. We have heard reports that Australians and people from other parts of the world have trawled around to find others to join them in carpetbagging and asset-stripping operations against mutual organisations.
  Some of the reports involve high-profile cases and we have seen the effective way in which the Nationwide building society has fought to defend the mutual principle. Those of us who are members of the all-party group on building societies and financial mutuals have been pleased to give our support to the work that the Nationwide has done. I declare an interest: my mortgage is with the Nationwide and it gives me a good rate, much better than the one I would get from the demutualised societies.
  We all know that the Nationwide has the resources, the calibre of management, the staff and the financial and technological base to be able to mount an effective defence against the attempts made by those who wish to demutualise it. However, some of the 9,000 smaller organisations that are in the industrial and provident society sector do not have such resources. They may be run entirely by volunteers and be entirely dependent on a few individuals. The vast majority of their membership may be happy because the organisations function well and have built up assets over time, but they may have no conception—or the expertise to help them—of how to resist when a malicious, determined, self-seeking, unrepresentative, carpetbagging and extreme capitalist comes into their midst to try to destroy the mutual organisation for his own interests.
  We must provide a framework to assist such organisations. We need to find a way, through legislation, of shifting the balance in the interests of the ordinary members of those organisations. That is what the Bill is about. It is long overdue and very welcome.
  Mention has been made of the variety of co-operative and mutual organisations. They can be found in my constituency and almost all Members could provide examples. In the medical sector, doctors' co-operatives provide out-of-hours services attached to accident and emergency departments. The doctors involved have other roles as members of the British Medical Association or in primary care trusts, but, at certain levels, they work within a co-operative framework. In time, that movement will grow. Similarly, people working in the employment industry have set up co-operatives for people with particular skills. They work together to provide work for their members in other sectors of the economy. That movement will also grow.
  The more traditional co-operatives in my constituency include the co-operative Funeral Service, co-operative chemists and the one remaining co-operative store. I say

  1125
  "one" but, when I was first active in politics in Ilford many years ago, there were several co-operative stores. However, that has changed in London. Several Members have mentioned the attack that the big retail companies, such as Sainsbury's, Asda and Tesco, mounted to gain a greater market share.
  At one time, the public perception was that the co-operatives were found only in the retail sector. However, Co-operative Retail Services in London got into terrible financial problems that went on for many years and there was a resistance to change. Only now under the new structure involving the co-operative Wholesale Society and the new co-operative Group does the organisation have an invigorated and, I hope, more effective retail side, co-operation and mutuality, however, are about much more than that. Many aspects have been mentioned already and I shall not repeat them.
  Richard Younger-Ross: The hon. Gentleman is making some good and interesting points. He talks about empowerment—disadvantaged people being able to take control of their lives—and about co-operative stores, one of the weaknesses of which was that they competed head to head with the supermarkets. Will not the Bill help co-operatives in the agriculture sector to start at the lower end, so that people get a fair deal and can protect themselves from what some people would call the abuse of power by the supermarkets?
  Mike Gapes: I do not wish to get into a big discussion about the retail sector, and I suspect that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not allow me to do so, but I agree that it is essential that an organisation is democratic and accountable. If an organisation is not democratic because of neglect or because that suits the people who control it, problems arise. That is when organisations become vulnerable to takeovers by unrepresentative groups.
  The same applies to other organisations in society. I believe that this Bill is about democracy, accountability and revitalisation of democracy. If people want to bring about change, they will have to gain the wholehearted consent of the overwhelming majority of the members. That principle is valid not just here but in a general sense.
  In my misspent teenage years and early 20s, I was involved in the student movement. At meetings that purported to represent 10,000 students, the quorum could have fit into four telephone boxes. Totally unrepresentative decisions were made with no contact whatever with the vast majority. They did not even know about the decisions taken in their name.
  I hope that we have gone beyond that in that area and in trade union operations, because we must ensure that unrepresentative decisions cannot be taken by small groups of people with a dedicated, almost entryist agenda, such as the Trotskyists and fascists who joined political parties to pursue their own agendas. We must protect the mutual sector and all the organisations that are encompassed by the Bill by enacting the safeguards that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) has ably introduced.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend on the way in which he introduced the Bill. As one of the sponsors, I have already expressed support for it. I hope that the House can unite behind its very sensible proposals and get it on to the statute book as soon as possible.
  11.23 am
  Mrs. Louise Ellman: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) on introducing the Bill, which emphasises the importance and value of mutuality and at the same time proposes practical measures to protect mutuality and co-operation from the asset strippers and carpetbaggers.
  I remind the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), and other hon. Members that the Government have taken measures to support co-operation and credit unions. They have ensured that the remit of the regional development agencies includes specific reference to the need to support co-operative enterprises. In promoting and supporting the co-operative Commission, they ensure that co-operation is seen as an essential part of our economy and society. The commission has made recommendations of great practical value, some of which are being put forward today.
  Hon. Members have already indicated the wide scope of the co-operative movement: it is involved in retailing, banking—both conventional and community—insurance, housing, production, farming, leisure and many other aspects of life. It is also an international movement. The International co-operative Alliance plays an essential role in bringing together co-operatives and mutual societies across the world, making it clear that co-operation and mutuality have value in all ranges of economies: in poor economies, in developing countries and equally in highly developed countries such as the United Kingdom which are struggling to redefine the value of community.
  There is something special about co-operation and mutuality, and that is what makes the Bill so important, co-operation and mutuality are about the economy and being efficient but they are also about ethics and quality: quality of life and valuing individuals.
  In 1844, the Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers set up its Rochdale store to provide a service to the community. At the centre of that service was an identification of the importance of providing unadulterated, good-quality food and a service that gave value to the customer, did not cheat and promoted high quality and high ethics.
  More recently, in the 1990s, it was the co-operative bank under the leadership of its then chief executive Lord Terry Thomas which pioneered ethical banking, which has now been taken up across the banking sector. It was first in the field and led the way. In the same way, it pioneered the recognition of the importance to business of environmental concerns. It sponsored and supported the first environmental business centre, which opened in Manchester in the mid 1990s, showing that business too had a responsibility to the environment and that that responsibility could be met in giving economic benefits to banking and to business, as well as to the community. Throughout, co-operation and mutuality have shown not only that they were efficient and had economic benefits but that they were about ethics, showing initiative and taking the lead.
  co-operatives are important at a local level. They often take the initiative, develop pioneering projects and take the lead in a way that no other organisation is willing to do. In that respect, I pay particular tribute to the work of

  1127
  the Eldonians in Vauxhall, Liverpool They began in 1978 as a community response to local authority plans to clear tenement blocks and disperse tenants far away from where they identified their community to be. The Eldonian housing co-operative was set up. It comprised local people who came together with a common need, and designed and built new homes on what was then the derelict Tate and Lyle site in Liverpool.
  The Eldonian co-operative has never stopped innovating, showing the way and meeting the needs of its local community. It moved from building and designing houses to building a village hall, a residential home for the frail elderly, a day nursery and a sports centre. It takes the lead in economic regeneration in its area and elsewhere. It pioneered a neighbourhood community warden scheme supported by Merseyside police and the Home Office: a pilot scheme to show how neighbourhood wardens working in co-operation with the police and community could enhance the security of local people.
  The example of the Eldonians in Liverpool shows the value of co-operation and of local people coming together, identifying a need and working to meet that need. They use the large-scale resources that are available through European funding, single regeneration budgets and objective 1 funding. They also put small amounts of money together with initiative and determination to improve the lot of the local community. That is an example that could be emulated throughout the country. I know that the Eldonians have inspired other groups, as they have inspired people in Liverpool.
  A number of hon. Friends have drawn attention to the increasing popularity of mutuality and the increasing importance attached to the significance of community and of collective action. I believe that much of what has been dubbed "the third way" in recent years has simply been a recognition, long lost, of the importance of collective action, community and individual self-help, all working together.
  For the co-operative movement and mutuality to reach their full potential for the benefit of the whole community in the future, it is important to have support at all levels. There needs to be support through enterprise from the regional development agencies and local initiatives. We need to ensure that new funding made available by the Government, such as the Phoenix fund, is used to support the development of local co-operatives. For co-operation to develop, it needs support organisations. The Lancashire co-operative Development Agency was set up by Lancashire county council more than 17 years ago. That excellent organisation, set up because a local authority believed in co-operation as it believed in enterprise and economic development, has supported a wide range of co-operative organisations, bringing employment and benefit to hundreds of people in the Lancashire area and more in the north-west as a whole.
  For co-operation to flourish, it also needs the support of the Government. The Government have already given much of that support in encouraging co-operation, backing changes in regulations on credit unions and looking at financial regulations. They can give more support by supporting the Bill today so that co-operation and mutuality move forward as an ever-growing third sector in our economy, meeting the needs of local communities, supporting initiative, and showing the true value of collective action.
  11.33 am
  Mr. David Drew: I am delighted to be called to speak and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman). My hon. Friend gave a very clear exposition of the benefits of co-operation, mutuality and community benefit, which all of us, in a way, were elected to this place to represent. However, some of us see it more formally, and here I declare my interest, as a proud Member of the co-operative party. It is pleasing to know that we are the biggest representative group in the history of the co-operative party. I see many colleagues smiling, so I think I am among friends.
  I do not want to reiterate the arguments that have already been made. The case for the Bill is strong, although no doubt we will tease out the details in Committee. I was pleased to receive a letter from my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary saying that in principle the Government support the Bill. They have some problems with clause 2, but I hope that those can be dealt with in Committee. I hope that the Bill will be given godspeed and go on to the statute book.
  I want to discuss the need to encourage co-operatives in the rural economy, particularly in agricultural production. In my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), I highlighted the fact that this is a particularly opportune moment at which to discuss the matter. The Curry commission, which will report next week or the week after, will deal with the problems of the agricultural economy post-foot and mouth. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asked the commission to look very carefully at how to revitalise, if not completely restore confidence in, the agricultural sector.
  I have no reason to believe that the leaks we have heard are right or wrong, although I suspect that they are more right than wrong. It seems that the commission will recommend looking carefully at encouraging co-operation in this important sector. Critics will point out that one of the main co-operatives that previously existed, Milk Marque, was not helped by the Government. However, we need to study the history so that we do not always look at the bad side of the co-operative sector. If we can learn from that experience, we can take forward what needs to happen. I make no apology for concentrating on that aspect.
  The Bill brings together two important features which we ignore at our peril. First, there is a crying need for co-operation among farmers so that they can take on other elements upstream in the food chain—the processors and retailers. I do not use the phrase "take on" in a confrontational way; I am merely referring to the way in which business, by co-operating at an appropriate level, can be more effective through synergy, and to the fact that people can do more collectively than individually. In response to my intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West gave the example of the pig sector, which already has many large co-operatives.
  Secondly, we must realise that we are competing not only within this country but within Europe and other large agricultural economies, such as those in Australasia, where co-operatives are an important fact of life. If we do not take that into account we miss an opportunity, and risk finding out in the future that they are much more effective than we are. I am not usually a great pro-European—I see that my hon. Friend the Member for

  1129
  Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) has just come into the Chamber—but we can learn things from the European Union and from mainland Europe, such as how co-operation has allowed other countries to keep the agricultural sector more intact and how we can develop that in the appropriate way. The Bill gives us the opportunity to do that.
  I work with many farmers in my constituency, and it is sometimes hard to recognise the benefits of co-operation. However, where such a system is in operation, farmers are its greatest defenders. Machinery co-operatives allow farmers to buy and share machinery. They also share veterinary costs and their most likely venture is to share marketing costs. Once all those things are established, farmers become great defenders of them. It is sometimes hard work to instil that interest, but once it is there it grows and it could enhance the agriculture sector, which is in desperate need of an uplift.
  co-operation in the rural economy is not limited to farming. Many of us are proud to have farmers markets operating in our constituencies. I have an important one—one of the initial ones—in Stroud. It certainly set the trend. It is pleasing that, even though the organisation is not registered as an industrial and provident society, it works as a co-operative and mutual organisation. There are many other examples. Cirencester was set up after Stroud, and works successfully. All the evidence that has been put to me shows that people want to develop it further. The Bill allows us not only to ensure that such organisations continue but to encourage many other organisations.
  co-operative organisations are active in the arts and in work with people who have particular difficulties such as disabilities. I use as an example the Arts Factory, set up 1990 in Ferndale in the Rhondda Valley. People are co-operating in the arts and using that to develop their skills and market their produce effectively. Another organisation called ADAPT in the Tynedale area of Northumberland works with people with disabilities, enabling them to work on a co-operative basis—employment that otherwise would not be available to them. The co-operative support to provide transport, advisers and so on is a good example of co-operation at its most effective. Other hon. Members, especially my hon. Friend and fellow co-operator the Member for Corby (Phil Hope), have mentioned credit unions, which are a vital part of our social fabric.
  The Bill shows what we need to do to regenerate rural areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West mentioned the Village Retail Services Association—ViRSA—which is a voluntary shop movement. That is not unimportant. One of the ways in which we can bring facilities that have closed back into use is through the voluntary shop movement. Such shops are often combined with a post office. At Port Appin near Oban a community co-operative has re-established a shop.
  The shop is the centre of the village. Once villages lose their shop, they can begin to decline. I shall not get into the argument that has recently raged in certain regional newspapers about what is a vibrant village. I support the notion that the Countryside Agency should look at such things, but if my postbag and my local press are anything to go by, I am not sure whether the way in which it has
  1130
  approached the matter and labelled some communities has been helpful. We have upset an awful lot of villages by referring to them as less than vibrant.
  If the Bill can help bring shops back into use and get communities behind them, and if the co-operative way is the best way of doing that, it is a jolly good thing that the Bill has come at this time. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, who is back on the Front Bench, will understand that the Government have a key role to play not just by standing aside and watching the legislation go through but by actively encouraging it and ensuring that we get the best and strongest Bill possible. I hope that I will be able to help that process so that the Bill can lift the co-operative and mutual sector.
  11.44 am
  Mr. Adrian Bailey: First, I had better make it clear that I am a co-operator of long standing. Like others in the House today, I must declare that I am a member of the Labour and co-operative group of Members of Parliament. Before I entered the House, I was an employee of the co-operative movement for 18 years, during which I had an opportunity to meet representatives of many of the traditional co-operative societies, the mutual organisations and the huge range of new and emerging co-operatives.
  In the debate so far, it has been interesting to note that each new speaker has mentioned a new sort of co-operative. I have worked within the movement all this time, and still I hear about new forms of co-operative endeavour of which I was hitherto unaware. That is a reflection of the way in which society now looks on that form of endeavour as a means of fulfilling social objectives which it would not have considered appropriate a few years ago.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) on introducing the Bill. I know that it has been long demanded by the traditional co-operative and mutual movement, but it is also recognised by the new emerging forms of co-operative and mutual organisation as relevant to their aspirations. Above all, the Bill recognises that different types of businesses require different structures. It does not pretend that the same thing is relevant for all sorts of economic organisations.
  It is clear that certain sorts of traditional shareholding companies are inappropriate for community-based businesses. They are good for certain types of entrepreneurs; they have been successful historically in creating wealth. However, companies legislation constrains them to put their shareholders' interest first. The Bill would strengthen organisations that put service before shareholders.
  The hon. Member Twickenham (Dr. Cable) mentioned some of the difficulties that the co-operative and mutual movement has faced in the past few years. I concede that it has faced difficulties, but one must also recognise that many co-operatives and mutual organisations that have survived until now have their origins in the previous century. It would be interesting to compare the longevity of co-operative and mutual organisations with that of private shareholding companies.
  Ms Meg Munn: Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to a co-operative that he and I know well—Wortley Hall, in the constituency of my hon.

  1131
  Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), which is also used by many of my constituents and many other people in South Yorkshire? It is a co-operative holiday and conference centre which was taken over 50 years ago, and celebrated its 50th anniversary last year. It became known, not surprisingly, as the people's stately home.
  Wortley Hall provides conference facilities for much of the trade union movement, and holidays. It has been used for the benefit of local people for more than 50 years, yet how often do we go to a hotel or similar establishment in the private sector and find that it is now owned by someone different?
  Mr. Bailey: I thank my hon. Friend for that information. Yes, I will pay tribute to Wortley Hall. I have spent many happy weekends there, and my hon. Friend's intervention reminded me that in addition to all its other achievements it has one above all: it is the place where my wife agreed to marry me, which I think everyone would agree makes it even more remarkable.
  It is a testimony to the relevance and resilience of mutual and co-operative organisations that they have survived so long in a not very friendly legislative climate.
  As the hon. Member for Twickenham said, mutuals and some co-operative societies have not always sold themselves very well. They have been happy to do their business, in some cases very successfully, but they have not conveyed to their members or the wider world the fact that they are a different type of business, and the merits of surviving as a different type of business. That omission was one of the factors that made them vulnerable to the predatory efforts of the carpetbaggers about whom we have heard so much this morning.
  When the attacks on mutual societies were at their height, I read the financial pages of many newspapers, some of which should have known better, and I felt that the debate that went on failed to give a balanced perspective on the relevance and significance of the mutual sector in our financial set-up. All too often, many financial commentators were happy to go along with the tide of self-interest that dominated the debate.
  That attack on the mutual sector highlights the need for the Bill, but I emphasise that it is not just a defensive Bill, designed to protect societies. It is a recognition that today's economy is more complex. The economy is no longer divided purely into the private sector and the public sector. The social economy is ever more important. In an increasing number of areas, although companies have to survive in the market, profit is not their main motive or driving force. Attempts to deliver many vital services by private shareholding companies have not worked. I could mention the water utilities and—dare I say it—Railtrack as classic examples.
  Different forms of community-based business have proliferated. This morning we have heard about housing co-operatives, care co-operatives, football trusts, food co-operatives, credit unions, societies, clubs, and even the Women's Institute. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) has said that although those are different in so many ways, they all have one thing in common: they are owned by their members. For the most part, they also have other things in common. First, there is a degree of education in participation. Secondly, their success is measured by the quality of the service that they
  1132
  perform. Thirdly, the assets that they build up are available to the community rather than going into the pockets of the shareholders.
  When I look around my constituency of West Bromwich, West, I see traditional and new co-operative and mutual endeavours. There is the West Midlands co-operative society, which still has many vital trading outlets, often in places where other multiples would not go. There is the Tipton and Coseley building society, which has survived the predatory instincts of certain people. It has not only provided many years of valuable service to the local community and the local economy, but been a linchpin in initiatives to regenerate the Tipton area.
  There is also a housing co-operative at Cotterills Farm in Tipton, which works with the local authority and provides an excellent service to its tenants. We have a food co-operative, Sandwell Community Foods, which provides much needed healthy foods to people who otherwise would not have access to shops. It concentrates on delivering fresh fruit and vegetables at competitive prices to private homes, schools and nursing homes. It is funded partly by the national lottery board, partly by income that it generates itself and partly by the health authority through the health action zone. It is a clear demonstration of a community business complementing Government initiatives in the realisation of agreed social objectives.
  These community-based companies are growing because the dividing line between the traditional public and private sectors is becoming blurred. Many services provided by national and local government have lacked flexibility and sensitivity to consumer needs. However, those services would suffer if they were delivered by private companies, where scarce resources would be diverted into shareholders' pockets. The co-operative or mutual alternative provides a solution that is as sensitive to consumer demand as the private sector, but which does not divert those much needed revenues into private shareholders' pockets.
  However, under existing legislation there is a problem. The irony is that the more successful a mutual or co-operative becomes, the more vulnerable it is to privatisation. The richer it becomes in assets, the more likely it is to become a target for carpetbaggers.
  Once privatisation takes place, the assets that have been built up by individuals on behalf of the community are lost, the service that the mutual or co-operative has delivered to the community is all too often lost—and, perhaps most worryingly, it provides a tangible disincentive for the other organisations that seek to do that work to organise on a mutual or co-operative basis. The fear of having the assets built up by a co-operative initiative taken over and privatised is still a definite disincentive in some areas.
  The provisions in the Bill to ensure that any privatisation of a society will require a higher threshold of membership support should act as a deterrent; I welcome them. The clauses are designed to ensure that the society's assets continue to be used for community or other benefits will remove that incentive for carpetbaggers.
  I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), who is not in his place at the moment, that the provisions could present difficulties in certain circumstances. I believe that most of

  1133
  us who have been local authority representatives have come across that problem when trying to realise the aspirations of charitable trusts that were designed in previous centuries. However, I do not regard that as an insurmountable obstacle; I simply think that it requires an appropriate level of legislative flexibility.
  The clauses that would provide for the updating of society legislation in line with other forms of company law are very welcome. They are welcome, above all, because they represent a recognition that industrial and provident society law is as important and significant as other forms of company law—that it is not just an archaic relic left over from the Victorian era, but a living and dynamic form of corporate legislation that plays, and will continue to play, a vital role in a Modern, socially sensitive market economy. I therefore ask all hon. Members to support the Bill.
  Mrs. Ellman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I note that several of my hon. Friends, as Labour and co-operative Members of Parliament, have declared their membership of the co-operative group. I was not aware that that was a requirement in this debate. If it is a requirement, I wish to declare my membership of that group, as a Labour and co-operative Member of Parliament, and I apologise for not doing so when I made my speech.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): That is not really a point of order for the occupant of the Chair, but the hon. Lady has made her point, and it is now on the record.
  12 noon
  Jim Sheridan: May I say from the outset that I am not a member of the co-operative party, but that I will still endeavour to co-operate and keep my contribution brief?
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) on introducing the Bill. It is a breath of fresh air for me that the Bill contains social values that are consistent with my own values, when this society is one of personal gain and personal greed. The values in the Bill are consistent with those that brought me and a number of my colleagues into politics—social responsibility, accountability and the fundamental recognition that the more vulnerable people in our society depend on such organisations to enhance the quality of their lives.
  I can think of no other recognised organisations—other than the Labour party and the trade union movement—that have the absolute commitment to democratic member control and participation that is apparent in the constitution of the co-operative societies. They have one member, one vote—as opposed to registered companies, where each share has a vote.
  co-operatives work for the benefit of their communities in a way that other financial institutions choose to ignore. Likewise, I also want to mention the good work done by credit unions, which has been mentioned already. A number of local credit unions in my constituency do sterling work day in, day out.
  1134
  I am fortunate to represent a constituency that is diverse and somewhat complicated. In West Renfrewshire, many people live comfortable lives and operate within the established financial institutions, but there are those who, through no fault of their own, are unable to do so, or are uncomfortable in that environment. That is why the Bill is important. It would protect the interests—and, more importantly, the assets—of the societies from the carpetbaggers, whose only interest is self-interest; they have no interest in our communities. There is clear evidence that the financial predators are in the vicinity. That is why we must get the wagons in a circle now and legislate to protect those valuable and socially inclusive societies.
  Industrial and provident societies have a crucial role in monitoring and delivering our public services—an issue of particular interest to me. Trying to deliver good quality transport is a particular problem in the rural communities in my constituency, and such societies could play a role in solving that problem.
  We often refer to those societies as friendly societies, which is exactly what they are. They are community-based and their members feel comfortable participating in their structure, which strikes a proper balance between prudence and the needs of the community. On that basis, I am absolutely delighted—as a non-member of the co-operative party—to support the Bill, which offers tangible legislative protection to those who have a social conscience in our society.
  12.4 pm
  Mr. Tom Watson: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) on introducing the Bill. It has at its heart the values of the co-operative movement that were established by the 28 weavers more than 150 years ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) talked about that cold December night when the weavers opened their half-empty warehouse, selling only four items—flour, oatmeal, sugar and butter. Who would have thought then what a movement they were unleashing?
  The Bill is about safeguarding and refreshing the values that led to the establishment of those early co-operatives. Hon. Members have highlighted the fact that many organisations in our constituencies remain true to those principles and are looking to Parliament to provide them with a Modern framework within which they can thrive for the benefit of future generations. It is a classic example of traditional values in a Modern setting.
  The co-operative movement is on the brink of a renaissance. If my hon. Friend's Bill does one thing, it puts the co-operative movement and mutuals firmly on the political agenda, at the heart of debate in this country. I must pay tribute to Peter Hunt and his team at the co-operative party, who have done so much to ensure that co-operators have an amplified voice not just in the Chamber, but in the newspaper columns.
  The Rochdale pioneers were committed to economic democracy—to operate their co-operatives collectively. They ensured that each member had only one share and one vote. Every member family had a say in the decisions that they made for the business. It is no surprise that all such organisations support the Bill. I pay tribute in particular to the members of social clubs—the Labour,

  1135
  Liberal and Conservative clubs. This morning I talked to the treasurer of the National Union of Labour and Socialist Clubs, Mr. Bill Thomas, who told me to let hon. Members know that clubs up and down the land and their thousands of members will drink a toast to Parliament if we pass the Bill. I apologise to the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), but I do not know whether there are any Scottish nationalist clubs. If there are, I am sure that they will drink a wee dram, too.
  Co-operatives are not only economic entities, but community entities. They foster a great social awareness and build communities. John Williams, the president of my club, West Bromwich Labour club, is an electrician by trade. He leads a band of artisans who have been maintaining the club for many years. They are Pete Lowbridge the plumber, John the glazier and Geoff the builder—[HON. MEMBERS: "Bob the builder?"] No, Geoff the builder. In their own time they not only enjoy the club's provisions, but maintain it—notably, they have rewired the entire second floor on Sunday mornings over the past six months.
  Co-operatives also foster a cultural spirit in a community. There are many youth music groups and arts groups. I am not sure whether members of the band Hear'Say formed a co-operative when they won the television show, but—this is hot off the press—one of its singers, Kym, has left it, and I am sure that the House will want to wish her all the best with her solo career.
  I am sure that Kym would agree that the attack on mutuals and co-operatives has a corrosive effect on community building. The Mirror encapsulated it best when it said in 1999 that carpetbaggers were
  "trying to destroy institutions for which our fathers sweated blood. The despicable greed at the root of all this is a shameful reflection on the values of Britain today. Carpet-bagging is not a freebie but is asset-stripping and legalised theft from future generations."
  By increasing the threshold of votes needed for demutualisation and by giving societies the opportunity to change their rules so that any assets from demutualisation will transfer to a charity or another society that works on behalf of the community, those greedy windfall hunters will be deterred.
  As hon. Members have said, the co-operative Wholesale Society recently fought off a carpetbagging attempt. When Andrew Regan was defeated, a co-operator said:
  "Members of the co-operative Movement are not cans of beans to be bought and sold by the City. The co-ops constitute a social and economic movement clustered around distinct principles which it has recently been reviving."
  The Bill is part of that revival.
  That threat has helped to rally co-op members throughout the country to a degree not seen for generations. The co-op is now well prepared to fight any future carpetbaggers, but it is incumbent on us to protect others who are less fortunate, so I am pleased that we are aiming to give all co-operatives the same degree of protection that we gave building societies in 1997.
  West Bromwich, East is home to one of the best examples of a mutual, which works for the long-term benefit of its members and the surrounding community. West Bromwich building society is one of the largest employers in my constituency, and works at the heart of the community. Some 200 of my constituents who are employed by the society have written to me, urging me to
  1136
  support the Bill, which I enthusiastically do today. They know that the benefits of membership of a mutual such as the West Bromwich are clear.
  Last year, the society was able to pass on to its members its biggest ever mutuality benefit, which was worth £15 million, and its mortgage rates were 0.8 per cent. lower than those of most high street banks. In a constituency such as mine, affordable mortgages are particularly important because they give people who may not ordinarily have the opportunity the option of reaching the first rung on the property ladder.
  The society is more than just a financial institution; it plays a leading role in the social life of my community. It sponsors the West Bromwich Albion football club and the Duke of Edinburgh award programme. By looking after its staff, the society has won the business in the community award, the black business in Birmingham corporate responsibility award and, last year, the equal opportunities employer of the year award. It also delivers £500,000 of investment every year through its community programme, to the benefit of more than 500 charities in the midlands and beyond.
  Phil Hope: My hon. Friend is talking about the importance of local community trusts. That new form of organisation, which is growing and is supported by the Government through the community network fund, provides new opportunities for local communities to have an endowment that generates interest, which is spent in the interests of those communities. That is another example of a way in which the industrial, provident and co-operative society movement is contributing to the regeneration of communities.
  Mr. Watson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and the West Bromwich building society is a classic example of that. In the past six months, in partnership with the new deal, the building society has had discussions with the police and allowed them to open a local community headquarters on its site. That is a perfect example of a mutual putting something back into the community. Crime figures are already falling in that area because the police are now right on top of a crime hotspot.
  The House should do all that it can to promote and protect the invaluable role played by mutuals. We must establish a new and secure environment for the development of new mutualism and existing societies. The Bill will safeguard the very values that led to the establishment of the early co-operatives. Today, many organisations remain true to those principles, but they now need us to provide them with a Modern framework within which they can thrive for the benefit of future generations. The Bill will do that, and I hope that all hon. Members will unite in supporting it today.
  12.14 pm
  Andy Burnham: Even someone as new to the House as I am is old enough to know that no ideas are new, not even the third way. In 1844, just a few miles from my constituency and, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) may be interested to hear, not far from Wigan, where Kym from Hear'Say grew up, the Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers realised that to protect the interests of its people, it needed an alternative to the sterile choice of state control versus

  1137
  private ownership, to paraphrase a Member of the House. One hundred and fifty-eight years later, and following two decades during which we were told there was no such thing as society, those concepts are community-based as the solution to the inheritance of individualism from the 1980s and 1990s—the decline in civic participation and the deterioration of the fabric of public life.
  The Bill will help that process and create a stronger legal framework for mutualism and community ownership that will enable them to continue to flourish in Britain. I offer my warm congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) on a speech full of knowledge, humour and conviction and on his choice of subject for his private Member's Bill. The benefits of community benefit societies are clear; they provide for the wider public good, rather than narrow private interest; they are democratically controlled by their members; and their proceeds are ploughed back into extending their activities, as contributors to our debate have made clear.
  As my hon. Friend said, the free market works and serves parts of society well, but that is not true across the board. In some areas, including, as we have all experienced in our local constituencies, train and bus services, it fails communities. It is in areas where we have a common interest in comprehensive and responsive services that mutualism can have a growing role.
  Phil Hope: My hon. Friend mentions transport. A new wave of community transport schemes is being developed throughout the country. Sometimes, especially in rural areas, they are funded from Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions budgets and serve estates that private bus companies have abandoned. Elderly and disabled people rely on community transport schemes. Will my hon. Friend comment on the importance of those schemes in the wider mutual network and the way in which the Bill accelerates the growth and support of such services in local communities?
  Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend is right. Deprived housing estates in my constituency are no longer served by local bus companies, which unilaterally decided to withdraw services. I hasten to add that there is no longer a service to Leigh infirmary, presumably because the companies did not make enough money from that route. The community has a crucial interest in retaining bus services for those estates and the local hospital; mutuals and community benefit societies can plug that gap in provision.
  Linda Gilroy: Has my hon. Friend come across the urban bus challenge fund? Indeed, today, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), made a further announcement of funding for the rural bus challenge fund. Some money will go to buses in Devon, and no doubt some will go to areas represented by Members attending our debate. Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to draw attention to that.
  Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. She is right—the urban bus challenge fund is benefiting my constituency. It supports existing operators
  1138
  and will help them to provide services that they are not currently providing. I should certainly be interested if that funding could be extended to help start-up or community organisations that want to run their own transport services. Labour Members would certainly wish to explore that valid longer-term solution.
  Mr. Colin Challen: As we are looking at new ways of introducing mutuality to our communities, particularly our estates, does my hon. Friend agree that the police reform White Paper offers several opportunities to do so, especially with accredited community safety organisations? The Home Secretary is talking about accrediting private organisations. Does my hon. Friend agree that the mutual model would best suit those private organisations?
  Andy Burnham: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The point about community benefit societies is that one can always have full confidence that they exist to serve the whole community and not only part of it, and that there is no inherent conflict in their articles of association. Communities throughout the country are becoming increasingly anxious about rising crime and they want to do something about it and to reclaim their estates and streets. I strongly endorse his suggestion.
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has been extremely generous in giving way. While he is on the subject of new mutuals and transport in particular, may I flag up the Community Transport Association, which is one of the sponsors of industrial and provident societies? One of its members—Ealing Community Transport—is active in my constituency. That reinforces some of the points that he and other hon. Friends have been making.
  Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. There is a big gap in our constituencies, in that community transport is not properly catered for. None the less, he, like me, will represent people who are out of work and who want to contribute to society. Surely initiatives could be taken to enable them to do so. It is to be hoped that community transport will generate a new wave of projects. I hope that the Community Transport Association will help to secure such a development.
  I do not want to be naive, but I feel that community ownership may be to this decade and the next what privatisation was to the 1980s and 1990s. While its benefits are known to enthusiasts such as us—this point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey)—there is a problem with wider public awareness. That might be changing. We have heard today about the breadth of areas with which the Bill deals and have touched on some of them, but I should like to focus on one that I feel is especially relevant: football.
  Football is Britain's biggest outlet for the expression of collective endeavour. It is no coincidence that it is one of the sectors experiencing the fastest expansion of community and supporter ownership. Millions of people support football clubs in this country—not to make money, but because of a love of the game and the sense of belonging and civic pride that it gives. Many of them, however, have become embittered by the profiteering and excessive commercialism in the game today. I have

  1139
  always believed that the moral owners of football clubs are their supporters and communities. My family has poured tens of thousands of pounds into Everton football club over four generations—a very wise decision, as I am sure all hon. Members will agree—but we do not own a single share in it.
  In explaining the full relevance of the Bill to football, I hope that the House will allow me to spend a moment or two on the history of professional football in Britain. The preamble to the Industrial and Provident Societies Partnership Act 1852 describes such societies as
  "various Associations of Working Men formed for the mutual relief, maintenance, education and endowment of the members."
  If recreation were added to the list, it would be an accurate description of the origins of the leading and most prestigious football clubs in this country. My own club began its life as St. Domingo football club—a humble church club from Everton valley in Liverpool. At the same time, over in Manchester, a works team from the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company called Newton Heath had been formed and in time would become the world's most famous club. That happened in 1878–26 years after the 1852 Act took effect.
  The new clubs could and perhaps should have been established as industrial and provident societies, but as interest in the new game grew in the industrial north and payments to players became prevalent they took another route. To limit the liabilities of those who ran them, they began to incorporate as limited companies. Although we were not to know it until many years later, that decision was to have a crucial bearing on professional football in Britain, especially in the 1990s. Despite their business organisation, however, they remained sporting clubs first and foremost. Shares were issued, but they were few in number and difficult to transfer, and in some cases re-sale values were capped—all to protect the club from speculators.
  In many cases, majority ownership of clubs fell into the hands of wealthy local families who more often than not owned the major local employers. I am thinking of the Moores family in Liverpool and the Edwards family in Manchester. They saw themselves as the custodians of the local club whose role was to ensure their safe keeping and to pass them on for the enjoyment of future generations.
  Aware of the potential conflict between clubs as businesses and as sporting and community organisations, the Football Association of the time showed foresight and decisiveness. Nowadays, some people might say that that was uncharacteristic. It amended its rule book to try to reconcile the competing interests. Rule 34 of the Football Association's articles sought to prevent profiteering and asset stripping of football grounds. It required all FA-affiliated clubs to incorporate provisions in their articles to protect the ground for local sporting purposes and for the benefit of the wider community if they were wound up.
  For many years, the company model served football and its clubs well. That changed with three key developments in as many years: the Hillsborough disaster in 1989, Italia '90 and Gazza's tears and the breakaway of the premier league. Almost overnight, the old methods of running football clubs were gone. The new-found mass interest in the televised game, the financing from the public purse of wholesale ground improvements and changes to football's redistribution mechanisms attracted
  1140
  a new breed of director to the boardroom: someone who understood how proud community organisations—now some of the country's leading brands—were ripe for cashing in.
  Not only the top clubs were subject to such threats. Small-time business men entered the boardrooms of smaller clubs to sell off grounds and burn down stands in insurance scams. Clubs that were built on generations of support from families and communities were and are under threat. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) made that point strongly and coherently in his remarks about the current threat to York City football club. Rule 34 has been put to a vigorous test, and its enforcers have been found wanting.
  Those developments in football and the conflict between clubs as public limited companies and community entities was brilliantly exposed by a columnist for The Independent, David Conn, in his seminal book, "The Football Business". At the end, he calls for a full reassessment of the game's policy direction by its authorities and anticipates two possible outcomes. His words go to the heart of our debate:
  "It may be that people will decide that in fact they like the free market model of football. They may decide that human beings must not stand in the way of market forces and that cherished institutions should be allowed to die. Or they might decide the opposite. That making money is an important activity for football, but only if it is to be put to constructive use. People may decide that it has all been a strangely paralysing dream, this handing everything to the rich, and remember that human beings can organise their own societies and institutions. They may decide that football should be run in a business-like manner, to guard against shame and tragedy of the past, but that business alone does not preserve history, magic, soul. They might, after proper reflection, decide that football is a greater, more wonderful thing than merely a business. And that it needs to be reclaimed, before it is too late."
  Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman may have inadvertently emphasised a point that I made earlier about the need for caution before setting the rules for such societies in stone. He and the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) will know about the change from Meadowbank to Livingston and the success that the club has subsequently enjoyed. If the provident model were set in stone, there would be a danger that a provident organisation in football might not be able to make such a decision, and thereby enhance rather than detract from the quality of the contribution that the club makes to the game. We might not always want such transitions to occur, but perhaps the option should be available.
  Andy Burnham: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. However, I believe that the Bill is as relevant to football as it is to some of the other sectors that we have discussed because football clubs belong where they were founded and nurtured by generations of local people. I do not understand why Wimbledon should be given permission to move to Milton Keynes. That goes against the grain. If Wimbledon's articles contained provisions such as we are considering, that possibility would already have been ruled out. If the members of a football club trust wanted to vote for such a move, a three quarters majority would be required, but it is important that football clubs are anchored in their communities. The Bill would help to achieve that.
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: May I draw attention to clause 2(1)(c)? It provides flexibility for community

  1141
  benefit societies, should they vote for protection against having their assets demutualised. It provides protection for organisations that need flexibility. It will prevent any liberation of assets from community benefit societies, although how exactly those assets are used is not prescribed in the provision. Perhaps my hon. Friend will endorse that point.
  Andy Burnham: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has brought that to my attention. He clearly has a much more detailed knowledge of the Bill than I do, and I am glad that he was on hand to point that out. It is helpful that that flexibility is in the Bill. There is a strong recognition that the communities that have set up these organisations will want them to be there for future generations, although the Bill does not rule out the possibility of future change.
  Mr. Weir: Mention was made of Livingston football club. In the Scottish league, there are, unusually, still some clubs controlled by their local members. As I understand it, there is nothing in the Bill to stop such a club selling its stadium and building a new one, provided that it remains part of the assets of the association. There would, therefore, be nothing to stop clubs selling outdated stadiums and upgrading to new ones for safety and other reasons. The Bill would, however, prevent them from selling off their assets, disbanding, or—as often happens in America—moving across the continent.
  Andy Burnham: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has made that point. I am trying to articulate—and perhaps not getting it over as explicitly as I should—that these mechanisms for supporters trusts and football clubs will step in where the English Football Association has failed to enforce its own rule that clubs should not be asset stripped. The Bill gives supporters the mechanism to deal with such matters for themselves if there is a failure to protect the club at that level. The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that if the members choose a different future for their club, there is nothing in the Bill to stop them doing so.
  David Conn's words about greater community ownership anticipated a movement in football and I am pleased to say that, five years on, that movement is well under way. His book prompted the Government's football taskforce—for which I was the administrator—being set up to consider how the rising commercialism in football could be reconciled with the wider public good. The taskforce recommended that the Government should consider how the community and supporter ownership model could be expanded throughout football.
  The model that the taskforce took was Northampton Town. A financial crisis caused by boardroom mismanagement had led to the birth of the Northampton Town supporters trust. Fans had raised money to save their beloved club but were simply no longer prepared to throw it into a black hole without knowing where it was going or having any say in return, so they set up as an industrial and provident society.
  The trust's chairman, Brian Lomax, went on to become the first director of an English football club to be democratically elected by the fans. Through his position of influence, he ensured that the reborn Northampton Town was run not for the interests of a few but for all its
  1142
  fans and the local population. It is no coincidence that the club currently has the best facilities for disabled people of almost any in the English league, and that is has led the way with its work on anti-racism initiatives. Northampton Town stands as an antidote to the ills at other clubs in the country and shows what can be achieved when fans get together to determine their own future.
  It is to the great credit of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), that he understood the potency of co-operative principles and ideas in football and, as a result, accepted the taskforce's recommendation and agreed funding to set up a new organisation to encourage the development of other supporters trusts at clubs across the country.
  Supporters Direct has now been working for 18 months. It was set up with the help of the co-operative party—to whose general secretary, Peter Hunt, I pay tribute for his unstinting support for this initiative—the co-operative bank and Cobbetts solicitors, all of whom deserve great credit for having had the foresight to back this ground-breaking initiative. The Supporters Direct model is right because it does not impose anything from the centre, but is instead a facilitating resource for groups of supporters who have got together and want to build a better future for their clubs. Crucially, it also makes available standard legal advice and articles. My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope) made the point that the cost of such services can be prohibitive when groups start out.
  In its first year, Supporters Direct has helped fans at 40 football clubs—from Celtic, Tottenham and Swansea to Leyton Orient, Bournemouth and Manchester United—to establish trusts. All are community-focused mutual organisations and most are industrial and provident societies based on model rules developed by Mutuo and Cobbetts solicitors in Manchester. Another eight are in the pipeline and fans of 143 clubs have contacted Supporters Direct.
  For many trusts, majority outright ownership of the club is not a realistic short-term goal. Nevertheless, they exercise real influence. At Tottenham Hotspur, the supporters trust has been recognised by the new owners as the genuinely democratic voice of the supporters and it regularly consults the chairman on matters such as ground expansion and ticket pricing. There are no limits to what supporters trusts can achieve. At Lincoln City and Chesterfield, they have taken over and run the clubs as community-owned mutual organisations.
  Those stories give hope to others. As we worry about low turnout at elections and young people's lack of engagement in society, what better vehicle to kindle a sense of citizenship and community among those young people than a football supporters trust through which they can have direct ownership, influence a club's direction and become involved in its day-to-day running?
  Phil Hope: I am listening with fascination to my hon. Friend's description of the encouraging changes in the football world. He has described several initiatives. I am not a Sunderland fan—I support Rushden and Diamonds in my constituency, which is doing well in the third division—but Niall Quinn is to donate the money from his testimonial to the local community. Would not it make a difference to football if the initiatives that my hon. Friend is describing moved forward and achieved

  1143
  community support and if many other footballers who earn extremely high salaries provided a model for young people and made a contribution to the community?
  Andy Burnham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point, and he is absolutely right. Some people may think football trivial and wonder why I am going on about it, but my point is that it is an entry point to those values for young people. They understand support for a football club and they like the sense of belonging. Through that gateway, they may see that they can gain by being part of a wider movement that embodies more than narrow self-interest and is about community involvement. I, too, pay tribute to Niall Quinn for his gesture, which is entirely consistent with what we are discussing.
  For all those reasons, Supporters Direct is important and there is no reason whatever for it not to extend to other sports. Indeed, many county cricket clubs are already incorporated as industrial and provident societies. Although cricket clubs are often considered to be stuck in the past, they have led the way in democracy in sport and given members votes on key issues over the years. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) mentioned regional development agencies and they could play a key role in promoting mutualism.
  In particular, I want the services of Supporters Direct to be extended to rugby league and I ask the Government to consider giving the modest funding needed to provide them. Interest in rugby league in towns such as Leigh is as strong as ever, yet in some newspapers it appears to be as popular as synchronised swimming and gains only an inch or two in the "sport in brief' column. Rugby league does not get the attention of the London-based media, but that does not mean that the sport and its supporters have not suffered those same abuses at the hands of corrupt directors over the years. Although the future of some clubs is more fragile than that of many football clubs, there is great potential in the heartland of the co-operative movement for helping communities to protect their clubs for future generations.
  We are only scratching the surface of mutualism in sport and its potential, but I do not expect a revolution. Instead, there will be an organic process. As more football and rugby league clubs struggle due to the inequitable distribution of resources in their sports, more and more supporters' groups will stop waiting for the mysterious wealthy benefactor to turn up and start to shape the future themselves. I hope that, for many years to come, Supporters Direct is there to help and guide them and that this important Bill gives those trusts the protection and stability they need.
  Chris Grayling: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) for interrupting the debate, but Members will be extremely concerned about the matter that I wish to raise.
  You may be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, of reports in today's newspapers that the bankers supporting National Air Traffic Services have asked the Government for emergency aid to prevent the collapse of the business. They also say that last summer the Civil Aviation Authority told the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions that the business plan proposed for NATS was not sufficient for it to withstand a major shock such as that experienced on 11 September.
  1144
  May I ask, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether you have received any information that Ministers intend to come to the House either today or early next week to deal with this important issue, which will be of concern to Members throughout the House?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): No, I have not been made aware of any Minister's intention to deal with that in the House next week.
  12.40 pm
  Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak. As another member of the Labour co-operative group in the House and a member of the Scottish Midland co-operative Society, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) on his choice of subject. As well as recording my membership of those organisations, I declare an interest, namely the support I have received from the co-operative party in connection with a private Member's Bill of my own.
  As a number of speakers have said, the Bill is designed primarily to prevent the asset stripping of co-operative societies and other industrial and provident societies by those who might wish to manipulate them for short-term gain. The gain to be made from asset stripping could be substantial. The co-operative movement may be more than 150 years old, but it is a substantial economic force with substantial assets that may be attractive to those wishing to engage in such activities.
  We heard earlier of the failed Lanica bid led by Andrew Regan, who sought to take over the co-operative Wholesale Society at a price of £1.2 billion—big money. Given that it was an apparent asset-stripping exercise, he presumably thought that the break-up value would be much higher. In fact, the total assets of the nearly 9,000 registered industrial and provident societies—not all co-operatives in the traditional sense—amount to more than £60 billion. As the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) pointed out, in many communities the small co-operative store is a vital link; but the co-operative retail sector in general, although it has declined, is still an important force. Indeed, the Scotmid is now Scotland's biggest independent retailer, serving not just my area but much of east and central Scotland.
  The Bill is especially valuable in giving added long-term security to what is termed the community benefit co-operative—or, somewhat inelegantly, the bencom co-operative. It provides strong underpinning for such co-operatives, which I believe can play a vital role in strengthening our communities.
  It is a commonplace that the fabric of community life is now weak, and I think that that is true. A few days ago, Members may have seen media coverage of preparations for the Golden Jubilee later this year, and heard expressions of concern about the apparent lack of community preparations. They, and members of the public, may well have different degrees of enthusiasm for the event and different explanations for their level of enthusiasm, but I shall not dwell on that. What I found interesting was that it was said that one reason for the failure to arrange events to mark the jubilee was people's view that "no-one knows anyone around here now" or that "there is no community feeling nowadays."

  1145
  I am aware that it is always easy to look back to a golden age when communities were perfect and everyone knew everyone. I know that not everywhere had a wonderful, vibrant community back in 1977. And at the time when the co-operative movement was growing there may have been stronger communities, but they certainly faced many problems that we do not face today.
  Nevertheless, for a whole host of reasons, there has in many cases been a weakening of community links over the past few decades. The reasons include smaller households; television and other leisure interests; more people working and undertaking their leisure activity away from their local community; dependence on the car; and fear of crime. However, whatever the reason, it is widely recognised that the weakening of community links can result in major social problems.
  Rebuilding the sense of community is an essential step in tackling many of the problems that affect society today. As several hon. Members have pointed out, the co-operative movement and community-based co-operatives can play a vital role in the rebuilding of our communities.
  Many Members have referred to housing co-operatives. The strong housing co-operative in my constituency—the West Granton housing co-operative—has played an important role in the regeneration of what was once probably the most rundown area of public sector housing in Edinburgh. It is successful not just as a housing co-operative, but as a foundation for other community activities in that area.
  The housing co-operative movement provides an efficient mechanism for delivering public service precisely because the people who ultimately control the co-operatives have an intimate knowledge about how the service is delivered on the ground. However, in addition to that, the movement also brings people together. It builds communities by involving people in community activities. In that way, it strengthens local links and networks.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: In places such as North Durham, housing co-operatives may provide a solution to the problems found in pit villages when landlords buy up whole streets and let both the streets and the fabric of the community go to rack and ruin. Does my hon. Friend agree that housing co-operatives can help to prevent the problems caused by landlords buying up whole streets purely to make a profit?
  Mr. Lazarowicz: I agree with my hon. Friend. He makes the valuable point that housing co-operatives are valuable not just in the urban settings with which they are sometimes most associated. They can be particularly important in smaller communities where, as he points out, the whole social fabric can be torn up by people who are more interested in making a short-term profit than in the interests of the community.
  By strengthening the foundations of the community benefit co-operative, I hope that the Bill will be used to expand the growing community-controlled sector. Together with the Bill on another aspect of the co-operative and mutual sector that I was fortunate enough to introduce and that received its Second Reading
  1146
  last week, this Bill means that the House has the biggest opportunity for 40 years—perhaps 140—to pass a package of legislation that is designed to encourage the growth of the co-operative and community sector.
  I hope that the Bill will receive its Second Reading, that the Government will support it and that it will eventually become law. If it does, the opportunity that it presents should be built on and grasped by both the co-operative movement and the Government. I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) said. Notwithstanding the wide variety of activity in the co-operative movement and the mutual sector—we have heard many examples in the debate—we lag behind our many European neighbours that have a strong and vibrant co-operative and community-controlled sector. In many ways, they have encouraged and developed that sector.
  I am pleased that the co-operative and mutual sector is working much more effectively together to proselytise its ideas. I pay particular tribute to the work of Mutuo, the trading name of Communicate Mutuality—a new think tank for the co-operative and mutual sector. That organisation brings together the co-operative movement through the co-operative Union, the Building Societies Association, the Association of Friendly Societies and the Mutual Insurance Companies Association. All work together to conduct research, to campaign for better understanding of the benefits of mutual businesses and to develop new mutual businesses. I pay tribute to the excellent range of publications that Mutuo has already produced to publicise the case for the extension of mutuality.
  I am pleased that the Government have taken a much more active interest, both in word and in deed. They have given much more active support to the promotion of the social economy and the co-operative sector than many Governments have for many years. However, there is still some way to go. At the grass roots, for example, notwithstanding the lead that is given at national level, many of the public or quasi-public organisations that promote economic development or business start-ups still do not actively promote the co-operative model of business organisation as one of the viable options for business. I have gone into one-stop shops or business start-up centres and seen no information whatever about co-operatives or how to set them up. If one asks for such information, it can be very difficult to find.
  In many areas, there is still some political or bureaucratic resistance to community control of public services that would benefit from community control or involvement. In Glasgow, for example, the imaginative plans of Labour Ministers in the Scottish Executive to transfer housing to a community-controlled body are being resisted by an unholy coalition of the Scottish Socialist party, Scotland's version of the militant tendency and the Socialist Workers party; some elements, I am afraid to say, in the Labour party; and the Scottish National party, I understand. I trust that that resistance will not stop what is an exciting initiative for housing in Scotland.
  To show that I do not wish to be partial to any party in handing out criticisms, I may say that the Liberal Democrat Minister in Scotland who is responsible for the area concerned seems to be hostile to the idea of transferring Scotland's water industry to a mutual along

  1147
  the lines of that operating in Wales, so everyone needs to look at the way in which they put into practice their commitment to mutuality.
  Linda Gilroy: I was astounded at my hon. Friend's report that the Liberal Democrats are resisting mutualisation in the water industry. In its first trading year, Glas Cymru in Wales has been able to return a £41 million surplus to that mutual organisation.
  Mr. Lazarowicz: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. I cannot be too unkind about Liberal Democrats in the Scottish Executive, for reasons of which she will be well aware but it is disappointing that the excellent record of Glas Cymru has not found favour in Scotland so far.
  There is a way to go before the full potential of the new revived and Modern co-operative ideal is grasped. I hope that the Minister will support the Bill, but more than that I hope the Government will regard today as a starting point for further work to promote the co-operative, community-controlled and mutual sector. I hope that the Minister will also tell us how she can build on the opportunity presented by the Bill further to promote this now vibrant and vital sector for our society and economy.
  12.53 pm
  Mr. Christopher Chope: I declare my interest as a member of the Christchurch Conservative club. I can tell the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) not just that it is a good club for lunches but that it serves full pints and real ale. I hope to hear a speech by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, south-east (Mr. Turner), whom I congratulate on the accolade that he was given the other night by the Campaign for Real Ale. A special ale has been brewed in his honour, which is quite an accolade for an hon. Member. I hope that when he is next in Christchurch he will call in and try some of our ales.
  I am a member of the Christchurch branch of the Royal British Legion, which I think is the finest Royal British Legion club in the country. I am also a member of an allotments society. I have a share in a co-op: the International Exhibition co-operative Wine Society, which was founded in 1875 and which I think is the finest wine society in the country, if not in the world. Indeed, last night I spent a little time looking at its spring list of wine offers, which I recommend.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow, West on his success in the ballot, his choice of subject and the lucid way in which he introduced the Second Reading debate. He and other speakers have shown the Government up. In 1998, the Government introduced a wide-ranging consultation paper on industrial and provident societies and invited people to send in their comments before 1 May 1998—indicating, thereby, some sense of urgency. Now, almost four years later, we have still not had a formal Government response to the consultation, or even the publication of the responses to the consultation.
  That point was emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). He raised a number of important issues concerning the virtues of the Bill, including housing stock transfer, the community benefit of his local co-ops and the warm welcome that he
  1148
  gives and receives at his local Conservative club. He also expressed a few reservations about some aspects of the Bill, particularly about the way in which it restricts the future use of assets. I hope that my hon. Friend will be willing to serve in Committee because his knowledge of and interest in the matter will be useful in debate.
  There have been many other interesting speeches. It is interesting to see so many Members from Scotland here on a Friday—they are down in England for the weekend, I hope. It shows that the Bill appeals to a wide range of interests.
  We do not oppose giving the Bill a Second Reading, but we have some concerns and questions that can be explored further in Committee. When the Government brought out their consultation paper, they bought some time. However, they raised expectations in the consultation paper, and they have failed to deliver. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to explain exactly what Government policy on industrial and provident societies is.
  The 1998 consultation paper was sponsored by the Treasury and the Registry of Friendly Societies. Since then, the Financial Services Authority has taken over the role of registrar of industrial and provident societies, and is threatening a sharp increase in fees. The hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope) referred to that in passing. It is a serious issue, to which the Minister should respond, and I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Harrow, West, the Bill's promoter, did not raise it in his speech. I know that he has heard from the Village Retail Services Association—ViRSA—which is based in Dorset, about the problem that will be caused by the burden of the new charges to be imposed by the Government, through the FSA, on industrial and provident societies.
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: As the hon. Gentleman says, I am aware of the concerns about the charges, and I endorse the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Corby. As to why I did not raise this matter during my speech, I could have raised numerous issues and given numerous examples across the industrial and provident societies area, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to set the record straight.
  Mr. Chope: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The theme of his speech, and of the Bill, is creating better opportunities for existing industrial and provident societies and enabling more to be created. The increase in charges is a relevant issue because it is a burden on existing societies and a threat to the establishment of new ones.
  It is worth reading from the letter from ViRSA. It says:
  "ViRSA deals with small rural communities who wish to revive or resurrect their retail facilities. Such communities have scant resources but much enthusiasm. Village shop associations that have already registered as IPS did so in the belief that their registration fee was a one-off cost and any changes would be at additional cost. Annual recurring costs were not in the prospectus. Such associations will now be faced with an additional cost which was not in their budgets, nor part of their original plan and the level of which is not yet finally determined. How are associations to plan to meet these periodic costs if they are dependent solely on the derivation of the FSA's forward budget—there may be wide variance each year? Government policy exhorts regeneration and community projects, particularly in rural areas. The imposition of these additional costs on 'benefit of the community—not-for-profit associations' runs contrary to this policy."

  1149
  Mr. Peter Jones, the director of ViRSA, then gives some examples of industrial and provident societies that ViRSA has sponsored for registration as shop associations. He says:
  "I have noticed a recent increase in the adoption of this form of association by rural communities but feel that this will tail off with the impact of additional costs".
  We are talking about costs that will have a serious impact. As an illustration, if someone wishes to set up and register a shop association using the ViRSA organisation, it might cost them about £450 to register. That is a one-off cost with no recurring annual costs. Obviously, if they wish to change the rules, fees are incurred as a result of that. I understand that the FSA proposes an annual charge of between £300 and £400 per association just for the privilege of being registered.
  There are 9,000 industrial and provident societies, and if one takes a mid point between £300 and £400—£350—that would give the FSA an income of £3,150,000 every year. To put it another way, a burden of £3,150,000 is being imposed on industrial and provident societies. That is unhealthy and unacceptable, and it is another example of a Government stealth tax. I hope that the interest in the issue will now be such that the Minister will instruct the FSA to ensure that its proposal, which is so seductive for a self-financing regulatory authority, will be dropped.
  Societies that have set out on the basis that they would pay a one-off fee for registration should not have to pay recurring annual charges. [Interruption.] I am delighted to see that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, south-east (Mr. Turner) is showing his enthusiastic support for that.
  Mr. Dennis Turner: That is because we are talking about 6 million people who are associated with clubs, and 5,000 non-profit-making clubs will be faced with increased charges. That is of great concern to the all-party group. It is on our agenda, and we shall be making representations, as the hon. Gentleman has made them from the Dispatch Box today.
  Mr. Chope: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that—and I am delighted to see that the Minister is to get some more briefing, so that she will have the opportunity to respond to the point.
  There is no need to make much comment on clause 1; it is a sensible proposal to bring the rules in line with the rules that apply to building societies. I am an enthusiast for mutual organisations. I have a mortgage with the Nationwide and an insurance policy with Standard Life. I practice what I preach, and I can see the benefits of mutual organisations.
  I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) refer to the fact that the Government had had some problems with clause 2. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I noted that in paragraph 44 of the consultation paper issued in March 1998 an issue was raised in response to the suggestion that a special type of co-operative should be created, the undertakings of which could be transferred only to another co-operative and not to a company.
  The response was that the suggestion raised concerns:
  1150
  "It seems wrong, in principle, to prevent a society transferring to a company under any circumstances. Not only could this go against the wishes of the vast majority—or even all—of the members of the society at some point in the future, but it would appear inequitable to creditors—not all of whom may appreciate the situation—if a society were forced into liquidation when there was a company willing to buy it."
  I should be interested to hear from the Minister whether that reservation still applies, and if so, what amendments or proposals she would suggest as a consequence.
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I, too, read the 1998 consultation document, and I tried to reflect the concerns expressed in it in the drafting of the Bill. Clause 2(1)(c), which I referred to when I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), gives the flexibility to allow community benefit societies to sell assets and deal in the usual way, but it locks in the value of those assets for community benefit. To take the example of the British Legion club, to which the hon. Gentleman says that he is affiliated, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the British Legion club or anyone else from selling their building if they want to, but the cash realised by the sale must continue to be used for community benefit. That is the additional protection that the clause offers.
  Mr. Chope: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that point.
  I have a principled objection to clause 3. It would enable the Government to impose company law provisions that do not currently apply to industrial and provident societies, by means of an unamendable statutory instrument. It would enable not only existing company law, but company law as it might become at any stage in future, to be imposed without effective parliamentary scrutiny. An extensive legislative shake-up of company law is imminent. The effect of the clause would be that company law could be amended in a Bill confined to companies, and later applied to industrial and provident societies without the same scrutiny.
  My solution to the problem of the interrelation between certain provisions of company law and industrial and provident society law would be to ensure that industrial and provident societies were brought within the long title of any Bill to amend company law, so that Parliament could properly debate which provisions should apply to industrial and provident societies and which should not.
  Such a Bill could cover in its long title all corporate bodies whose liability was limited. As that feature is common to companies and industrial and provident societies, there could be proper consultation beforehand with those who might be affected. It would also enable industrial and provident societies, through their organisations and through Members of Parliament, to table their own amendments and make their own suggestions, and perhaps instigate their own legislation for debate. That option is not open to them if we are dependent on the use of statutory instruments instigated at the behest of the Treasury, which are unamendable.
  My concerns about clause 3 are supported by Robin Pooley, the chairman of NFU Corporate. The hon. Member for Harrow, West referred to the National Farmers Union's support for the Bill in general, but Mr. Pooley has grave concerns about clause 3. I understand that he has expressed similar concern to the hon. Gentleman.

  1151
  The omission of clause 3 would improve the Bill beyond all measure. It would confine it to the limited role that is appropriate for private Member's legislation, by amending law to address a specific and important problem in a defined way. It should be for the Government to legislate to provide for large-scale changes in the law, and the opportunity presented by the need to legislate in the aftermath of the wide-ranging review of company law should provide just such an opportunity.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to minor deregulatory changes, which could be made under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. That is fine—deregulatory changes would be made by statutory instrument—but clause 3 suggests that new regulatory burdens would be imposed by statutory instrument.
  If the changes were deregulatory, they could be dealt with under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act. So we are talking about increasing regulation on industrial and provident societies by statutory instrument, without the opportunity for proper debate or amendment. That is not the right way to proceed, not least because, as has already been made clear during the debate, industrial and provident societies vary enormously in scale and purpose.
  There is a small club in my constituency called the NADSS club, which is part of the National Association of Discharged Soldiers and Sailors. It is the last remaining club founded after the first world war, and it has a very small membership and a relatively small income, but probably quite valuable assets. To impose new regulations on that club would be unduly burdensome, and I should like to allow greater flexibility. A proper debate in the House would allow the legislation to be tailor-made to the needs of different sorts of societies, and I would much prefer that to the blanket power in clause 3.
  Linda Gilroy: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Companies Act 1985 has been extensively amended, often using order-making powers? Does he further accept that the Treasury has consulted widely on this issue and that proposals such as those that he mentions would reflect changes made to Government controls on directors' interests that have long been standard in companies?
  Mr. Chope: The hon. Lady is right to say that such proposals might be made in statutory instruments, but all sorts of other regulations are envisaged in the Government consultation paper—for example, changes to corporate governance that might be appropriate for very large industrial and provident societies, but not for the smaller societies. For the House to give the Treasury the power to introduce wholesale changes that would impact on all industrial and provident societies by statutory instrument alone would be wrong in principle. If the hon. Lady thinks that some important changes could be made now, she could move amendments to the Bill in Committee.
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I heard a hint that the hon. Gentleman was concerned about clause 3, so I have listened extremely carefully to his comments on that clause. I shall try to reassure him by flagging up the fact that the Bill makes it clear that the affirmative procedure must be used, so parliamentary scrutiny would be available in the order-making process.
  There has been substantial consideration of the changes in company law that would be appropriate for industrial and provident societies, and there were various attempts
  1152
  to reform company law and building society and friendly society legislation in 1986 and 1992, but if the Bill receives its Second Reading, I shall reflect further on what the hon. Gentleman says before it is debated in Committee.
  Mr. Chope: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and the spirit of friendliness and co-operation that he offers is appropriate to the Bill. Indeed, I look forward to co-operating when the Bill is debated in Committee, as I am sure that that will happen, because the Government realise that they would be extremely unpopular if they were to talk it out today.
  For the third week running, a private Member's Bill will receive Treasury support in Committee. I hope that the Government business managers will ensure that some extra Standing Committees are set up so that more than one Treasury Minister at a time can discuss those important Bills in Committee. That is enough from me for the moment, but I look forward to having further constructive debates on the Bill in Committee.
  1.14 pm
  Mr. Mark Hendrick: I speak as a Member who was elected under the designation of Labour and co-operative candidate. I also declare an interest as a member of the United Norwest co-operative society and of the co-operative party.
  The Bill would amend legislation governing the operation of industrial and provident societies, which has not been addressed by the House since 1965—nearly 40 years. I welcome it with open arms. For too long, co-operatives have operated at a disadvantage compared with other forms of enterprise.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins) mentioned the Rochdale pioneers who set up the Rochdale co-operative society in the 19th century, the first society of the Modern era. We have recently been considering what form the movement should take in the 21st century. The newly formed co-operative Commission was established by the movement to draft a report on the challenges that it faces. The report has been passed to the Prime Minister. It makes important recommendations, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) on including many of them in the Bill. The Prime Minister was sympathetic to the report and promised to consider the commission's recommendations with a view to legislating.
  The Bill is aimed at bringing industrial and provident society legislation into line with company and building society legislation. It will also make possible the establishment of, or conversion to, an industrial and provident society for the delivery of services. Many of my hon. Friends referred to the wide range of services provided. My society offers such a breadth of services and is the second largest co-operative in the country. It has a proud history, deriving, as it does, from the original Rochdale co-operative society and the Pendleton co-operative society in my original home town of Salford.
  The Bill would give the Chancellor of the Exchequer the power to amend industrial and provident society legislation to bring it into line with company legislation. It would also allow him to update industrial and provident society legislation as changes to company law arise. As

  1153
  hon. Members said, the voting requirements for demutualisation of the societies would also be brought into line with those that apply to building societies. Those issues have been much researched in the building society sector. Recent legislation now provides that before any such change can take place to a building society, a vote must be carried by at least 75 per cent. of members and at least 50 per cent. of the membership must participate.
  Hon. Members also explained that such a provision would mean that a demutualisation resolution would have to be passed by a minimum percentage of the total members rather than a minimum percentage of those attending meetings. That aims to discourage the practice of carpetbagging, which is intended to give large windfall profits to some members and allow some directors of former mutuals to cash in on the accumulated wealth of the wider membership. It is not right that any irreversible changes to their fundamental constitutions should occur without the majority of members participating in the decision.
  We need a balance between the original basis on which societies were founded and the need to be able to react to the membership of the mutual, and the market within which it operates. The founders of a mutual business that has been established for the benefit of the community should be able to hold on to the business and its assets for the general benefit of the membership. The Bill would allow the founders of an industrial and provident society set up for the benefit of the community to choose whether to include those private provisions in its rules. The Bill should enable the founders of a society to choose a constitution that cannot be converted. The society should have to specify in its rules the destination of any surplus profit accrued if the society were wound up. That is extremely important, for the reasons that I have already outlined.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) highlighted a good example of a new model that has been established. It is one that touches many interests throughout the country. Setting up football clubs as mutuals is, perhaps, a perfect example to highlight not only the continued relevance of such societies in the modern economy but the ambition and imagination shown by the sector in constantly readapting and reinventing itself. Lincoln City is now a mutually owned football club, and fans in many other clubs throughout the country have been looking to follow its example. Those developments, which, as other hon. Members have said, have been supported by the Government through Supporters Direct and by the co-operative Commission, would be considerably advanced by the Bill.
  Gillian Merron: I thank my hon. Friend for referring to Lincoln City, which is indeed a pioneering football club. Is he aware that the student union at the University of Lincoln is the first in the country to be run co-operatively, and does he agree that, as the city also has the Lincoln co-operative society, Lincoln is right up front as the city of co-operation?
  Mr. Hendrick: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, but people in Rochdale might have a problem with her last statement. I was not aware that the student union had been set up as a co-operative, but I applaud its efforts in that respect.
  1154
  Historically, the co-operative movement was a fundamental strand in the establishment of the Labour movement and later the Labour party. Over a century on, the co-operative party is stronger than ever and it is time that we helped to create a more appropriate framework for our old friend to thrive in our Modern economy. The view that communities and customers should be the top priority in business has not dated—it is still widely treasured. There is a realisation that it can survive in a practical business environment, and that is very important. This small Bill would considerably benefit the co-operative movement in its work to secure its aim, so I hope that the House will join me in supporting it.
  1.22 pm
  Linda Gilroy: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick), whose city has a long and distinguished association with the co-operative movement, as indeed does my own city. I add my voice to the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) on giving us all an opportunity to celebrate our rich heritage throughout the country. Other colleagues have contributed interesting stories about their communities, and I am pleased to join fellow co-operative Members in declaring that I am one of that 29-strong group and, indeed, vice-chair of the group for this year.
  In this harmonious debate, we have a chance to celebrate the rich range of industrial, provident and mutual models in this country. Those organisations deserve the protection against carpetbagging offered by the Bill. Much has been said about the important contribution of co-operatives and mutuals. My hon. Friends the Members for Corby (Phil Hope) and for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins) described it as a bottom-up approach. It is a model that brings to the fore the important principle, which the Government greatly value, that rights are accompanied by responsibilities. What could demonstrate that better than co-operative and mutual models?
  I want to talk about the rich tradition of co-operation in Plymouth and the importance of the Plymouth and South West co-operative society, which has 122,018 members, including me. It is the successor to the Plymouth Mutual co-operative society, which was founded on 27 December 1859 by six shoemakers, two carpenters, one painter and one mason, who were advised by one of the Rochdale pioneers. According to the history of the co-operative society written by one of our members, the late Bob Briscoe, in its first quarter its turnover was £87 15s 4½d. The society has travelled a long way in the intervening years; its current annual turnover is now £150 million.
  The society's value is not just in its turnover and the many small retail shops that it has set up in some of the most difficult and deprived communities in my constituency, but in its deep and broad roots in the community. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) spoke about that; he has many concerns about agricultural and rural communities, as well as the interaction between the supermarkets and the supply chain, including the foreign supply of fruit and vegetables, which can be produced in this country. I am pleased that the Plymouth and South West co-operative society

  1155
  demonstrates the value of the virtuous circle that can be created by co-operative enterprise and has a "buy local, eat local" project.
  Lucy Carver recently examined that project for buying manager Tony Stoneman; she found that the society had sold 6,731,654 items from 11 local suppliers, excluding greengrocery items, which constituted more than 37 per cent. of fresh food purchases. The society plays an enormously important role in marketing produce from the south-west peninsula. Another important aspect of the society is its support for community organisations and initiatives; last year, it launched a 13 mile, figure-of-eight walkway through the green spaces and urban environment of Plymouth, paid for by its profits. It has also supported the young consumer of the year award.
  Since we were elected in 1997, many good things have happened in my constituency, which, as Members will know, included the poorest ward in England in the 1995 index of local deprivation. A lot has been done as a result of regeneration and the new deal, but I am extremely concerned about the Torridge Way shopping centre in Efford; I cannot say that that part of my constituency has yet turned the corner. The Plymouth and South West co-operative society is looking at that shopping centre and seeing what part it can play, based on its retail operation there, to help that part of my constituency turn the corner.
  The society played an important role in Mount Wise in my constituency. In an area where there were no shops before, it opened a shop in an old chapel, which is now very much at the heart of the community, providing not only the usual range of reasonably priced goods to the community in the poorest ward in England, but fresh fruit and vegetables, which are important in deprived areas.
  The society therefore plays an exceedingly important role. Its chief executive and secretary, Mr. Douglas Fletcher wrote to me:
  "I believe that co-operatives and Mutuals represent a valuable and ethically responsible part of the UK economy, and it is only right that the level of legal protection that has been afforded to Building Societies since 1997 be extended to the rest of the sector."
  The letter goes on to state that
  "not only would co-operatives and Mutuals be free to devote less time to fending off hostile demutualisation bids and more on developing their business potential, but social entrepreneurs—often the drivers of community regeneration and social responsibility in business—would be given the confidence to develop new and lasting models for the delivery of services."
  I want to turn to that social regeneration for the one or two minutes that remain to me. My area not only has a very old tradition of co-operation, but one of the finest and most innovative new forms of co-operative and mutual development. It takes the form of a body that used to operate as the Devon and Cornwall Community co-operative Development Agency, but now calls itself Co-active. The body seeks to deliver expert support through its business advisers and provides research and development programmes assistance for enterprises such as the Wolsely community economic development trust. I think that the trust is the largest organisation of its kind in Europe. Its site has not only incubator facilities for new businesses, but a co-operative trading shop. It is a mutual that is very well rooted in its community. In 1995, a capacity-building programme was delivered to involve local residents. The people who run the trust must come from the local community and are elected from its different parts to operate the trust and the site.
  1156
  The Millfields community economic development trust took over buildings in the old Royal Navy hospital in Plymouth for a similar purpose. After the Jaeger factory closed, with the loss of several hundred jobs, the trust took on that building and is using the facilities there to develop incubator space with support from business advisers to help new small businesses to get going. That work has been recognised by the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness, my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander), who is responsible for the new social enterprise unit. He paid tribute to the Get Up and Go community nursery, which operates on the Wolsely development trust site, for being very innovative in a recent speech addressed to Social Enterprise London. The Wolsely economic development trust, which is at the very forefront of regeneration work, explained to London its track record and expressed its hope that others could share and learn from some of the lessons that it had learned in the past 10 years.
  In conclusion, I commend the Bill to the House. I hope that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary will recognise in co-operatives and our desire to protect them in the ways outlined in the Bill the virtuous economic circle that can be created in our communities and cities. In the far south-west peninsula, that circle plays a very important part in recycling money within the area, rather than, like some plcs, syphoning it off to who knows where. She will probably remember the Chancellor posing the principles of post neo-classic endogenous growth theory with symbiotic relationships. I can tell her that in Plymouth, we have, through Co-active, the local community version of those principles: the integrated community economic development strategy. I look forward to hearing what she has to say and wish the Bill a fair wind.
  1.34 pm
  Mr. Dennis Turner: As a long-serving member of the co-operative parliamentary group, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) for taking the opportunity to promote this important Bill having won the ballot for private Members' Bills.
  You will know the old song "This is My Lovely Day", Madam Deputy Speaker. For me, today is our lovely day. We have tried for many years to introduce a reforming, Modernising measure that will go to the hearts of millions of people in this country and many ethical, mutual, co-operative organisations. Many people will be influenced and affected by our actions today.
  Hundreds and thousands of people travel from Birmingham International, East Midlands and Manchester airports to go on their holidays and find the sun through Travel West Midlands, a wonderful part of our co-operative movement. Staffordshire building society, which is based in the west midlands, provides an excellent service for thousands of people in my area and throughout the west midlands.
  I am a member of a co-operative that is based on a sports and social club that we formed 20 years ago. Many people come to the club: senior citizens come for their lunches; others come for the darts, dominoes and crib. They come for presentations, social events and happy events in people's lives in our community.
  Mr. David Crausby: As a great non-profit-making members' clubs man, my hon. Friend

  1157
  will know that three of the finest Labour clubs in the country are based in my constituency, in Breightmet, Tonge and Halliwell. They not only sell the finest ales but provide finest and best community service, as do many other political clubs of all colours. That also applies to services clubs, social clubs, working men's clubs, sports clubs and trade union clubs. They are irreplaceable. Does my hon. Friend agree that their members will rest easier in their beds tonight after the Bill receives its Second Reading?
  Mr. Turner: Tonight, they will all drink a glass of cheer to hon. Members who are making a fundamental and historic decision.
  I thank the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) for mentioning the fact that I received the beer drinker's champion award this week from the Campaign for Real Ale. I got it not for the number of pints that I drank, although I have drunk quite a few, but on behalf of the fight for the full and fair pint.
  In the context of co-operatives, hon. Members who go to the Stranger's Bar after today's proceedings and take a glass of cheer will be supporting the small brewery co-operatives that sell their products there. I chair the Catering Committee, and the Catering Department sells Fairtrade products that are based on co-operatives. We therefore touch the lives of Members of Parliament and millions of people—our constituents—whom we represent.
  Ms Claire Ward: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should publicise the fact that we support co-operatives not only through measures such as this Bill, which we hope will get its Second Reading, but through products that we buy in the House of Commons and in our constituencies?
  Mr. Turner: Yes, indeed. I certainly endorse that. My hon. Friend captures the flavour of what we are essentially doing here today, representing the people of our constituencies who are involved in all these majestic endeavours.
  Today is an important day. It is the best day that I have had in Parliament for many years, because we are doing something practical and real on behalf of the people we represent. William Morris said:
  "the cause alone is worthy till the good days bring the best."
  We want to give the Bill a Second Reading and put it on to the statute book, to give a new renaissance to the co-operative, mutual and community organisations in Britain.
  1.40 pm
  Richard Younger-Ross: I apologise to the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) for not being here when he introduced the Bill earlier, but I have been here for much of the debate. I congratulate him on a very worthy Bill, and I am pleased to be able to speak in the debate.
  When we talk about co-operatives, I am reminded of the town where I was born, Walton-on-Thames, in the Surrey stockbroker belt. There, if hon. Members
  1158
  remember their history, a gentleman called Winstanley formed a group called the Diggers, who tried to form the first commune—one of the first co-operatives, perhaps—at St. George's Hill. That now has a Weybridge postal address, and it is ironic that it has for some time been one of the wealthiest pieces of real estate in Europe, if not the world.
  Sadly, Winstanley was moved away from that first co-operative commune in Walton by the local residents. Perhaps they realised that it would be good real estate at a later date and wanted to move him on. They moved him on to Cobham, and it then took a number of years for the co-operative movement to catch on and take wind, but we should all be pleased that it did. It has a noble and proud history, as all hon. Members appreciate. The question is, where does it go from here?
  The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) has already mentioned many of the initiatives in the south-west, and I shall not go back over them. I shall mention a few areas that have touched my life, and tell the House why I think that this is an important Bill. We have seen what happened to the building societies. Most of us were dismayed when a number of mutual societies—which were started up so that their members could help each other—went off to become banks, and to join the other side in the battle and make profits for their shareholders rather than for the mutual benefit of all their members. I bitterly remember the day that we lost the battle for my building society. Luckily, I was able to move to another one which has remained a mutual, but I was distressed that something was eating away at a common good, at something that was a power against profit and greed. It was sad to see that power eroded during the 1980s, a period in which greed seemed to dominate.
  Many hon. Members have mentioned the well-known social aspects of the mutuals. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) talked about Conservative clubs closing, and about carpetbaggers. I am sure that parties have seen clubs close in all areas—they certainly have in my constituency—and the assets being sold off. It is sad, when people have come together over a period of history, to see that history come to an end. Things roll on, however, and I hope that the Bill will help to resurrect and shore up the co-operative movement and the mutual societies.
  I hope that people who wish to come together to share profits, and to work together towards a co-operative aim, will benefit from the Bill. I see a battle in society between those who wish to work for the common good and those who wish to work for profit. With globalisation, more and more companies are becoming part of multinationals and fewer and fewer appear to be working for the benefit of their members, so sometimes we seem to be losing that battle. If we are to win and if we are to stop those who aim only for profit, people must come together and we must encourage them to form new co-operative ventures. I hope that they do so when we pass the Bill. It will make them feel more sure that their efforts will not be plundered—I use that word because it is appropriate—by those who come after or even during their tenure.
  In particular, I hope that people in agriculture, food production and other forms of manufacturing come together to speak out with a united voice against those who wish to gain great power and profit. The Bill should be considered as a means to help redistribute profits. As I promised to be brief, I shall finish on that point.
  1.46 pm
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): It is a pleasure to respond to the debate. Let me say how much I enjoyed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), which was informative, stimulating and entertaining, and congratulate him on his choice of Bill. He has campaigned effectively on these issues and I am sure that he will continue to do so. As several hon. Members made clear, the industrial and provident societies sector is large and diverse—it has more than 10 million members—and the co-operative movement is well represented in the House. Many powerful speeches pointed to the sector's achievements and potential for development.
  In particular, the potential for regenerating the rural economy was identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and others. The potential for supporting football's original recreational function through Supporters Direct and supporters clubs was described by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), whose constituency borders mine, and the sector's potential for providing a venue for marriage proposals was mentioned. I was delighted to hear the anecdote told by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey). Most appropriately, the Bill has been described today as offering traditional values in a Modern setting.
  Adam Price: The Minister has mentioned the excellent work of Supporters Direct. Does she welcome the excellent contribution made by the Swansea City supporters trust, which last night managed to secure the future of league football in Swansea by getting Tony Petty to agree to a sale? Again, an overseas business man with no interest in football was stripping a club of assets. Will the Minister join me in welcoming his agreeing to sell to a consortium led by a former player—not at five to midnight, but at five to eleven—and wish the new owners and the trust every success?
  Ruth Kelly: I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing the matter to my attention and I send my congratulations and support as he requests.
  I look forward to sharing a pint with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, south-east (Mr. Turner) and I congratulate him very much on his recent award. In passing, I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) to give my regards to Bolton's Labour clubs, which fulfil a valuable function.
  The Government and the mutual movement have a shared interest in an inclusive society in which all have equal access to the means of participating to the best of their ability, in markets as social institutions that confer rights and obligations in equal measure on the participants, and in the exercise of individual liberty in concert with the acknowledgement of mutual responsibilities. That is a powerful position from which to start.
  Many Members have referred to the roots of the mutual movement in the work done by the Rochdale pioneers back in 1844. More than 150 years later, those principles still ring true and the mutual movement is still thriving, an important partner as we proceed with our public policy
  1160
  agenda and our drive to root out poverty and disadvantage wherever we find them, especially in deprived communities.
  Paul Farrelly: Is my hon. Friend aware of the pain and torment suffered by the Britannia building society, one of the largest remaining mutuals, which does so much for local housing? It is based in north Staffordshire, in the area of my constituency. It has fought off carpetbaggers before, only to find them returning like a particularly virulent form of seasonal blight.
  Ruth Kelly: I have regular conversations with the Britannia building society, to which I ask my hon. Friend to pass on my warmest regards. He will, however, recognise the changes the Government have made to protect building societies from carpetbaggers, and to put them in a much better position in future.
  The mutual sector is already highly successful. The building society sector alone contains 66 societies with assets worth around £172 billion, which continue to perform well in highly competitive markets that have undergone significant change and faced difficult challenges in recent years. The credit union movement also continues to grow: there are about 700 credit unions, all of which help to promote thrift and self-help among their members. They play a vital role in extending the availability of basic financial services to parts of our society that are often ignored by other financial institutions. They also play a vital role in combating social exclusion, instilling a sense of responsibility, and giving people the means to have more control over their affairs. Moreover, the United Kingdom's largest farmer, one of the largest sellers of cars, and our largest funeral business are all co-operatives.
  Because we recognise the valuable contribution that mutual societies can make to the economy and the advancement of social enterprise, we have played an active role in a number of initiatives that we hope will help societies to maximise the benefits they can offer their members and the communities they serve. It is important to provide a level playing field to allow mutuals to make the most of what they see as the mutual advantage—not having external shareholders to satisfy, so they can concentrate on providing their members with goods and services.
  We will shortly present legislation allowing building societies to communicate with their members electronically. At first sight that may seem a rather technical change, but the building societies have been calling for it. They believe it will allow them to benefit from the greater efficiency offered by such technologies, and to compete on an equal footing with banks and other PLCs. In October, with the specific intention of strengthening credit unions and allowing them to thrive and prosper, we issued a consultation document containing proposals to reduce the number of restrictions on credit unions' operational powers. Those proposals will allow the sector to offer their members a much wider and more competitive range of services, and to maximise their ability to compete for and attract new deposits by developing the range of products they can offer new and existing members. The consultation period has just ended, and unfortunately is too early for me to give an indication of the results; but I believe that they are very positive, and that the credit unions welcome the proposed changes.

  1161
  We are currently negotiating in Brussels on a statute for a European co-operative society. The Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry jointly issued a consultation document last summer, and we are currently deciding how best to proceed on the basis of the responses we have received. It should be clear to everyone that we are keen to encourage the mutual sector and to allow it to flourish.
  The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) criticised the Government for not taking seriously enough the consultation on industrial and provident society legislation that took place in the summer of 1998. However, I have outlined the range of measures that we have taken to allow the whole mutual sector to thrive. We are in the long process of developing the sector, and the social unit of the Department of Trade and Industry is considering ways of encouraging social enterprises. The performance and innovation unit is also considering issues pertinent to the sector, and I look forward to reading its report. The private Member's Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West is an important part of the process of strengthening industrial and provident societies. I welcome it, and the contribution that it makes.
  The hon. Member for Christchurch also referred to fees. I point out to him that the fees are not quite as high as those he outlined, but I recognise that they represent an increase on what was in place before. Regulation by the Financial Services Authority has been welcomed by the sector and fees are set on cost-covering basis and after wide consultation with members of the sector.
  I shall examine the contents of the Bill directly. I welcome it and I am sympathetic to the changes and reform that it is trying to introduce. It has clearly been motivated by a desire to see the industrial and provident society sector Modernise and grow without sacrificing—indeed, by reinforcing—the essential principles of mutuality and being rooted in the community that underpin it.
  Much in the Bill could be of real benefit in allowing the sector to develop and in offering even greater benefits to individual members and communities. It chimes well with the concerns expressed to me by people in many quarters, including many hon. Members. Although it needs amendment to be workable, and although we will need to scrutinise it and consult interested parties on the detail of some measures, we can support it.
  It is worth outlining the key features of the industrial and provident society sector. Organisations registered as industrial and provident societies can be split into two sub-groups: bona fide co-operatives and benefit of the community societies—bencoms, co-operatives are generally controlled by their members according to the principle of member, one vote and conduct their business for the mutual benefit of their members, with the benefits members receive deriving mainly from their participation in the business. Bencoms use any surplus that they make to further the aims of the society. They are often set up to serve the community in which they are based.
  The Bill has three main objectives. The first is to align the voting requirements for demutualisation with those for building societies. The second is to allow bencoms to lock in capital so that the bencom can be used only to serve the community in which it is based. The third is to allow
  1162
  industrial and provident society legislation to be more easily amended to take account of changes to company law.
  I shall briefly consider each clause in turn. Clause 1 is about the voting procedures for all industrial and provident societies in the event of a demutualisation bid. This is a useful Modernisation measure that would bring the rules for such votes in industrial and provident societies into line with those for building societies. The Government fully support the clause. Currently, 75 per cent. of those who vote on a demutualisation proposal must vote in favour of conversion for a bid to be successful, and this vote must be confirmed at a subsequent general meeting by at least 50 per cent. of those who vote.
  Clause 2 proposes to allow bencoms to vote to include in their constitutions a rule that the members cannot change and that would prohibit distribution of the society's assets to any person or body other than another industrial and provident society with an equivalent rule or a charity. It would also prohibit conversion to a company or other body unless that company or body has an equivalent rule.
  I see the potential benefits of this proposal and I am very sympathetic to the thinking behind the measure. If new social enterprises wish to set themselves up using the industrial and provident structure, it might help to attract and reassure investors if they could be sure that the capital they are investing is locked into benefiting the community in perpetuity. Of course, industrial and provident societies can insert such provisions into their constitutions now, but it is thought that that may not be binding. Also in clause 2's favour is that it is a permissive measure and would be taken up only if a society's members were disposed to do so.
  However, the clause poses some real difficulties and may need significant amendment. In particular, locking in a society's assets could restrict the flexibility afforded to the bencom if it were struggling. It is conceivable that a society could in good faith choose at its inception to lock in its assets in perpetuity but then run into trouble and not find another industrial and provident society in a fit state or willing to take it over. It is not clear how that dilemma could be resolved under the clause. We need to continue discussions to see if we can come to some agreement.
  I am also not convinced that a lock-in needs to apply to all bencoms rather than just some. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, it is extraordinary how diverse the sector is. It covers all sorts of different organisations. I think that it is fair to say that we need to explore those initiatives in great depth before committing ourselves to locking in assets in perpetuity. I give a commitment that my officials will explore the issues in more depth with the Bill's sponsors and other interested parties. We also think that there are certain technical issues, but perhaps I can discuss those at some other date.
  I understand that this issue is being looked at elsewhere in government. I look forward, for example, to reading the performance and innovation unit report on the social enterprise sector when it is published.
  Clause 3 proposes to introduce a power to modify industrial and provident society law by assimilating it into company law. It closely resembles powers already in place in building society and friendly society legislation, and I strongly support the principle of levelling the

  1163
  playing field between those different classes of mutuals. However, the clause as currently drafted gives significantly broader powers to the Treasury than do corresponding provisions in the other legislation that I have just mentioned, a point recognised by the hon. Member for Christchurch. Therefore, although we are prepared to support the clause in principle, we want it to be amended so that it is brought into line with other legislation, particularly that on building societies. I believe that if we made that sort of amendment we would have an appropriate constraint in place.
  Some may argue that the need to update industrial and provident societies legislation is so urgent that that would be too restrictive, but given that a major reform of company law by the Department of Trade and Industry is under way, the scope for amendment of industrial and provident societies legislation based on changes in company law is likely to be considerable in future.
  At this stage, I am happy to give Government support to the Bill. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West on introducing it and hope that it reaches the statute book.
  2.3 pm
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I am grateful to the Minister for her remarks. I am grateful, too, for the many excellent contributions by Labour Members, for the silent support of so many of my hon. Friends, and for the contributions from Opposition Members, in particular the reference to the Swansea City supporters trust, which I have recently joined.
  I recognise the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and by the Minister. I will take those points on board and see whether I can satisfy them. I hope that on that basis the House will be willing to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

  Commonwealth Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  2.4 pm
  Mr. David Willetts: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I had hoped that the House was so crowded on a Friday to support the Second Reading of my Commonwealth Bill. However, the Industrial and Provident Societies Bill seems to have attracted greater interest than my own, and I am pleased that that Bill has secured its Second Reading.
  The purpose of my Bill is very modest. Having come 17th in the ballot of private Member's Bills, I had no illusions that I should use my lowly place in the ballot to push forward a controversial measure or tweak the Government's nose. This measure goes back to decisions taken by the Conservative party when it was in government, but I hope that it is supported by both sides of the House. I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), on the Front Bench.
  The Bill aims to tackle two practical problems concerning the future of the Commonwealth. My party is strongly committed to that, as are Members on both sides of the House. The Bill essentially tidies up the statute book and severs the Government's statutory link with the Commonwealth Institute, although the Government will continue to support its work. It also makes provision for the recognition in the United Kingdom of the admission to the Commonwealth of Cameroon and Mozambique, which happened in 1995.
  Before I briefly describe those two important parts of the measure, let me pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry). He is involved with the Commonwealth Institute and approached me to suggest that I bring forward such a measure when I had secured a place in the ballot for private Member's Bills. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his encouragement and advice.
  The first part of the Bill concerns the Commonwealth Institute. I should explain that the Commonwealth Institute in Kensington has nothing to do with the Commonwealth Club in Northumberland avenue, now an outrageously trendy restaurant, which I am sure is the Minister's spiritual home. That is a separate organisation.
  A decision has been taken, which we strongly support, to provide that the management of the Commonwealth Institute no longer be under the direct control of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Bill repeals the statutes that provide for the management of the Commonwealth Institute as a Government-supported body. I know from letters that I have received from those at the Commonwealth Institute that they have been pressing for this measure for some time, and strongly welcome it.
  The Bill would change the law following the severance of the institute from the FCO's responsibility and its establishment in January 2000 as an independent charitable company. In particular, the Bill would transfer the balance of the institute's trust fund—some £50,000—from the trustees to the institute, and terminate the Government's statutory responsibilities for the institute.

  1165
  If I called this privatisation, I would be in danger of stirring up controversy, when that is not the Bill's purpose. However, we all welcome the fact that the institute, which has for a long time been under the direct control of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, will have a greater independent existence as a free-standing charitable body. It has done great work in the past to promote learning across the Commonwealth. It is an independent agency, and we strongly believe in it in its new form.
  As a free-standing charitable body, the institute will be able to flourish and expand. It delivers education programmes to schools and offers exhibitions and events at its centre in London. Its mission is
  "to work with young people across the Commonwealth so that they grow up inquisitive about other cultures as well as their own"
  It is aimed particularly at spreading understanding of other cultures around the Commonwealth, which I strongly support.
  The second part of the Bill acknowledges in United Kingdom law the admission of Cameroon and Mozambique to the Commonwealth. That decision was taken when my party was in government and Baroness Chalker was the Minister with responsibility for the Commonwealth. That was in 1995, and all the practical steps to ensure full membership of the Commonwealth for Cameroon and Mozambique have been taken, but sadly, various parts of British law have not yet caught up with the new reality. The Bill ensures that all legislation on the Commonwealth fully takes account of the new position. That involves amending and correcting legislation that previously would not have covered those countries' membership.
  For example, the Bill amends the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957 to include Cameroon and Mozambique in the definitions of "Commonwealth force" and "Commonwealth country". Other legislation is amended to ensure that the forces of Mozambique and Cameroon can be treated as visiting forces from a Commonwealth country under those statutes.
  It was an entirely correct decision to admit Cameroon and Mozambique to the Commonwealth. It was encouraging to see countries that did not have the same historical links with the Commonwealth as most members asking to be admitted. That shows the strength and power of the Commonwealth. Having taken that decision back in 1995, it is important that we now have the legislation to make a reality of it.
  I should explain that citizens of Mozambique and Cameroon already have the status of Commonwealth citizens for the purposes of the British Nationality Act 1981. That Act has already been amended, so the Bill contains no provision on nationality. It ensures that in other respects the legislation for the Commonwealth takes account of the decision that those countries should enter.
  I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to give the Bill a Second Reading. It is intended to be uncontroversial. It is difficult to see how people could oppose two practical measures that ensure that the statute book gives greater freedom to the Commonwealth Institute to conduct its affairs as an independent charitable
  1166
  body, and that legislation governing our affairs fully reflects the decision that Mozambique and Cameroon should join the Commonwealth. I therefore hope that the private Member's Bill that I have great pleasure in bringing to the House today will secure a Second Reading.
  2.12 pm
  Mr. John Randall: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on choosing this topic for his private Member's Bill. As we have heard, it is a technical measure and it does a job of tidying up the statute book. It will remove the Government's statutory link with the Commonwealth Institute. It makes provisions to acknowledge Cameroon and Mozambique as members of the Commonwealth in several UK Acts of Parliament.
  During the 1999 Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Durban, the then Foreign Secretary, who is now the Leader of the House, announced the agreement between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the institute that it was to become an independent, pan-Commonwealth agency. At the time, David French, director general of the institute, welcomed the decision, suggesting that it was
  "fantastic news for the institute and the Commonwealth".
  In February 2000 the Minister for Europe stated in response to a written question:
  "This development means that the Imperial Institute Act 1925 and the Commonwealth Institute Act 1958 need to be repealed".—[Official Report, 1 February 2000; Vol. 343, c. 542W.]
  I congratulate my hon. Friend on doing that work for the Government. Although the institute has been operating as an independent agency since January 2000, until today there has been no sign of the legislation to repeal the Acts in question.
  I notice from the Bill that my hon. Friend has not stopped at the two Acts referred to in the written answer. A list of Acts will be repealed in part by the Bill, and that list is almost a catalogue of all the countries in the Commonwealth.
  The institute's mission is a worthy one, and it plays a valuable role. From the list of successes noted by the chairman David Thompson in the institute's annual review 2000, it is clear that its role is being taken forward with relish. Among those successes, Mr. Thompson states that the education team has secured more than £1 million in new project funding, and that more than 750,000 people have visited the website to browse the information contained on it.
  As a consequence of making the institute an independent body, the Bill also deals with the disposal of the endowment fund referred to in the Imperial Institute Act 1925. That is the last remaining asset held by the old trustees for the benefit of the Commonwealth Institute. The capital fund will be transferred, free of restrictions, to the Commonwealth Institute in its reconstituted form. If the Bill becomes law, the old trustees will have no remaining functions and will cease to exist.
  The second purpose of the Bill, as we have heard, is to recognise in United Kingdom law the fact that Cameroon and Mozambique were admitted to the Commonwealth in 1995. In particular, the Bill contains a provision—although, as my hon. Friend has said, many measures have already been taken—to allow forces from Cameroon and Mozambique to be treated as Commonwealth forces.

  1167
  The final provisions, in clause 3, repeal the enactments relating to the Commonwealth Institute, which will cease to have effect under the provisions that I have already highlighted. I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing the Bill and doing some of the work that the Government possibly should have done earlier. I wish him and the Bill well in its passage through Parliament.
  2.15 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: I add my welcome to the Bill and commend the skill with which my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) has steered it thus far. I am delighted that it is getting a proper, if brief, debate today because that is the way that things should always be. I will not use the far-flung that my hon. Friend so sensibly avoided, but any move that seeks to give a genuine degree of independence to something as distinguished as the Commonwealth Institute must always be welcomed, and I admit that it particularly pleases me. I am sure that the institute welcomes the fact that it is managing to get out from under the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—if I may put it that way—although I know that the relationship between the FCO and the institute has always been of the most harmonious.
  I hope that the setting of the final seal of approval on the relationship with Cameroon and Mozambique will carry with it the responsibilities that go with Commonwealth membership. I am sure that we all welcome new countries that, as my hon. Friend said, have expressed a wish to be part of the Commonwealth. However, that must be a two-way process, and I hope that those countries accept—as I am sure they do—the very real responsibilities of Commonwealth membership, which is not always without its difficulties and problems, as we all know in a different context altogether.
  In that regard, I was intrigued by my hon. Friend's reference to the implications for visiting forces from a Commonwealth country, which he said were part of the thrust of the Bill. I hope that that reference carries an implication not only that visiting forces will be welcome on appropriate occasions but that the new members of the Commonwealth will be prepared to carry their share of the burden where required, where Commonwealth forces may be involved in completely different contexts.
  Mr. Willetts: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that point; perhaps I may clarify it. In both cases there are powerful historical and geographical reasons for those countries' becoming members of the Commonwealth—full participating members of the Commonwealth, as he is emphasising. Mozambique is, of course, surrounded by Commonwealth countries—South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe—so its membership of the Commonwealth has enabled those countries to form a stronger regional group in southern Africa for mutual assistance and support.
  Although I was not aware of the fact until recently, we do have an historical interest in Cameroon, in that for a long period of the 20th century we administered part of it, under a mandate under the original League of Nations. Therefore in both cases there are historical and geographical ties, which I hope and believe will make those countries' membership of the Commonwealth real in exactly the way that my right hon. Friend suggests.
  Mr. Forth: Ah, I am always glad to hear about the good old days, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for
  1168
  reminding us of them. I have one brief question, which he or the Minister may be able to help me with. As a layman, when I read the list of repeals in schedule 3 and see that the Nigeria Independence Act 1960 and the Sierra Leone Independence Act 1961 are being repealed, I trust that that does not mean that those countries are coming back under our imperial guidance and pleasure. At first glance, the repeal of all those independence Acts would appear to carry with it some intriguing possibilities.
  Mr. Willetts: I can assure my right hon. Friend that as we are now in the process of Modernising the Conservative party, such a move would be inconsistent with the strategy that our party is now taking, and it is not part of this legislation to reverse the independence of those great states.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I am sure that those countries are equally grateful that their independence is not being prejudiced by the Bill. All in all, I add my welcome to the Bill. I hope that it will safely receive its Second Reading today, and I am sure that it will be properly scrutinised in Committee.
  2.19 pm
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on introducing the Bill. He may have drawn a low place in the ballot, but that does not detract from the importance of the subject that he has chosen to promote.
  We have an opportunity in this relatively short debate to stress the importance of the Commonwealth to world society. Around the world, there are detractors who say that the Commonwealth is a thing of the past, but the fact that, in this day and age, two African countries are seeking to join the Commonwealth shows that it has an important role to play, especially in developing the continuing dialogue between the developing world and the western world. The hon. Gentleman has done the House and the countries involved a service in introducing the Bill.
  I was very interested to hear what he had to say about the Commonwealth Institute, which is an important organisation. I have visited it on many occasions, and it serves an important and continuing purpose, particularly in relation to some of my younger constituents who were born in the United Kingdom, but whose parents, grandparents and, these days, even older generations may have come from far-flung corners of the world in the days that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) perhaps still hankers after in his inimitable way.
  Those places were far-flung parts of the empire and later the Commonwealth but are now independent countries. Those young people have an opportunity to visit the exhibitions and cultural events at the Commonwealth Institute and to learn not only about their heritage but about the relationship of those countries to the United Kingdom—the country of their birth.
  I very much agree with the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst when he talks about the countries that have joined the Commonwealth accepting the responsibilities of Commonwealth membership. Membership involves rights as well as responsibilities—the time-honoured phrase of new Labour. Cameroon and

  1169
  Mozambique are contrasting countries, and the Commonwealth can offer them, and they can offer the Commonwealth, different things in their different ways.
  In preparing for today's debate, I read about the problems in Cameroon, where the human rights record is poor. Its approach to democracy is a little lacking. However, I was pleased to hear that a new electoral commission was established at the end of last year, although whether it will be able to play a role in the forthcoming elections remains to be seen. When one reads of detention without trial, torture and extra-judicial executions, one wonders whether that is in the long-standing tradition of the Commonwealth. Although that might be the case in one or two countries, it is certainly not what the Commonwealth is about, and I hope that a longer membership of the Commonwealth for Cameroon will lead it towards greater participation in democratic principles.
  Mr. Willetts: The hon. Gentleman touches on an important point. Of course, membership of the Commonwealth requires participation in basic standards of human rights. He is absolutely right to say that it is important—whether in Cameroon or, dare I say, Zimbabwe—that those standards are upheld, and I am sure that all members of the Commonwealth wish to ensure that they are.
  Mr. Dismore: If we contrast the problems in Cameroon with the position in Mozambique, we can see what can be achieved in a relatively short time. Mozambique has suffered from decades of civil war. It was starting to recover economically, but a couple of years ago was hit by terrible floods, which we all saw on television. Despite that, it has still been able to make a very successful transition towards democracy. Mozambique has the fastest-growing economy in Africa; perhaps it is catching up after those years of being held back by the terrible civil war and the troubles of the region. It was knocked back by the floods—nevertheless, it is able to go ahead.
  I am very pleased about the role that our Government are playing in developing the economy. The Government are, I think, the biggest bilateral donor of international aid to Mozambique. It is one of the heavily indebted countries, and we are doing an awful lot to try to deal with its long-standing international debts. If we can help to free Mozambique from the shackles of debt, which has held it back for so long, we will have a very important international partner. It is not one of our major trading partners, but I hope that by strengthening its links with the Commonwealth we will develop commercial as well as diplomatic ties and provide a great future for a country that has been held back for so long, for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Havant. I support the Bill, which I believe has all-party support, and congratulate him on raising such an important subject for debate.
  2.25 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): I congratulate the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on his success in the ballot. The Government warmly welcome it. It has our full support and we hope that the House will also support it.
  1170
  As we have heard, until January 2000 the Commonwealth Institute was a non-departmental public body under the direction of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I have not even heard of, let alone visited, the restaurant of a similar name to which he referred.
  The chairman of the Commonwealth Institute approached the previous Government back in the mid-1990s with a proposal to change the institute's status. We examined the initiative and agreed to support its bid for greater independence. As the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, that independence has been extremely successful. The progress has been encouraging and the institute has transformed itself into a pan-Commonwealth educational resource centre. It will be a major player in the jubilee weekend events in highlighting the Queen's role as head of the Commonwealth. It has also successfully built new relationships with new funding partners.
  The severance and the institute's continued co-operation with the Government have been successful. The only outstanding issue that needed to be resolved was the repeal of legislation that linked it to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which is one reason why we welcome the Bill.
  The second part of the Bill ensures that the admission of Cameroon and Mozambique into the Commonwealth is properly recognised on the statute book. As hon. Members said, the applications of those two countries reflect once again the recognition of the value of the Commonwealth as an international organisation. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) said how important it is that the relationship is a two-way process. They also mentioned human rights. I agree with everything that they said.
  Cameroon joined because President Biya wanted it to be part of an association committed to good governance and to development, and to extend his country's international links. We firmly believe that membership of the Commonwealth can help to address some of the problems and challenges raised by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon.
  Mozambique also joined in 1995. Although it has no traditional links with the Commonwealth, as the hon. Member for Havant said, it attended the Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings for many years because it was surrounded by Commonwealth countries. Its membership arose in large part from its status and special relationship as one of the front-line states and its active engagement with the problems in what was then Rhodesia and in South Africa. I can reassure the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that schedule 3 does not mean that all former members of the empire who have won independence will again be subject to direct rule; it merely repeals legislation in small ways.
  With the advent of majority rule in both countries, Mozambique sought a formal role in the Commonwealth, of which it has been, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon said, a constructive and enthusiastic member. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

  Health (Air Travellers Bill)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [23 November], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  2.29 pm
  Mr. David Kidney: On a previous occasion—
  It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed on Friday 10 May.

  Remaining Private Member's Bill

    PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES (CARRIAGE OF GUIDE DOGS etc) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be read a Second time on Friday 15 March.

  Multi-Study (Manchester)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
  2.30 pm
  Mrs. Patsy Calton: I am delighted to have secured this debate on the south-east Manchester multi-modal study, which affords me an opportunity to request that the Minister make a statement. The study was announced at the same time as a Government decision to detrunk, or refuse trunk status to, a number of roads in south-east Manchester. Thus, in 1998, the A6 was detrunked and it was decided not to make the A555 a trunk road, in spite of the levels and type of traffic on each road. The anticipated road network in the study area has not been completed.
  With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) will discuss the impact of road traffic in his constituency. I shall confine my remarks to Cheadle and Macclesfield. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) is unable to be here today, and has asked me to make several comments on his behalf. There has been cross-party campaigning in the House by politicians from the area and a recognition that all are affected and need to work together.
  For well over half a century, the Manchester airport eastern link route has had a route protected in anticipation of its development. As the suburbs that make up my constituency were built, space for the road, which would link Poynton and Hazel Grove in the east, and the developing Manchester airport and the M56 in the west, was kept clear.
  In the late 1980s and 1990s it became obvious that road traffic was building up throughout the area. Public transport failed to keep abreast of developments and to meet the needs of local people. Bus services were particularly poor, and cycling became ever more difficult as road traffic increased.
  In 1991 a public inquiry was held in Bramhall in my constituency on the proposal to build a bypass for the A34 and, linked with it, the central section of the Manchester airport eastern link route. That central section quickly became known as the road to nowhere because it failed to link the airport with anything.
  The central section was built in spite of public protest that it would funnel traffic on to the A555 through completely unsuitable and often substandard A roads in district shopping centres and residential roads. The net effect of the incomplete eastern link was to create traffic congestion through Poynton, Woodford, Bramhall and Heald Green. All the local shopping centres were damaged, not just by the new superstores that sprang up around the new A34 but by pollution, noise and the dangers of shopping where there is standing and slow-moving car traffic—often for seven days a week.
  There is still no easy route from the motorway and airport to the south-east and Macclesfield areas and beyond into Derbyshire. Car and freight traffic pass through Finney lane in Heald Green, through Woodford road in Bramhall and Woodford and through the centre of Poynton. That has implications for businesses in the area, including BAE Systems and AstraZeneca, to name but two. Poynton, Bramhall and Heald Green are shopping

  1173
  centres cut in half by heavy traffic, and the superstores draw in traffic through all those areas via the central section of the eastern link route.
  I have asked for this debate because the findings of the multi-modal study recognise the transport difficulties of the whole area, and make recommendations that local MPs can welcome almost 100 per cent. One in three people in our area say that traffic congestion is their biggest single problem. We have long recognised that the road network needed to be completed to take through-traffic away from shopping centres. We have also recognised that, with the dramatic predicted increases in car and freight traffic, it is necessary to make bus and rail services more attractive, frequent and reliable; to encourage walking and cycling; and to make extensions to the metrolink light rail network where possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove will no doubt expand on that.
  I cannot pretend that I was delighted when the Government announced the multi-modal study in 1998. "What's a multi-modal study?" was the question on everyone's lips. The Minister will accept that my constituents have been waiting for 10 years for even a sniff of the completion of the road network, which is treated as the next item on the agenda at the time of the public inquiry. Some people say, "I'll be dead before it happens," such is their despondency at the time that successive Governments have taken to grapple with the issue and their lack of faith in Government politicians. When they see successive Governments approving bypasses in other parts of the country with lesser problems than ours, their misgivings are confirmed.
  However, the time that the study has taken and the opportunities afforded by it have given anyone who did not want the road network to be completed time to say so. The consultation, led by Steer Davies Gleave and managed by the Government office for the north-west, received more than 15,000 responses from the public. There has been astonishing support from residents, businesses and travellers for the completion of the roads and, indeed, the remainder of the proposals in the package. Those proposals will enhance the environment in district shopping centres, return residential areas to pedestrians and reduce greenhouse gases, if carried out in full.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove and I believe that dual carriageways with slower road speeds are appropriate for those roads. The fast speeds produced on the motorway-standard central section of the A555—the eastern link—have led to noise problems for surrounding residential areas. I am pleased that the study consultants have recommended that there should be a presumption of no development around the new roads to ensure they do not become clogged up with development traffic.
  I urge the Minister not to delay his response any longer. In a recent letter to me, Stockport chambers of commerce expressed full support for the study's recommendations' but said:
  "How can the region as a whole consider itself to be anywhere approaching levels of national and international competitiveness if we cannot even resolve matters such as the internal infrastructure within the south east Manchester area in a reasonable period of time? One only has to look at the infrastructure developments which
  1174
  the French have put through in north east France with their motorways and rail networks to realize that actually other people are doing things while we sit on our hands".
  Stockport chambers of commerce believe that what has been flagged up as a 20-year programme should in fact be only a five-year programme, echoing the comments of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, who said:
  "We need a better, simpler, faster, more accessible system that serves both business and the community."
  The Secretary of State said that in his foreword to a Green Paper on planning, but it applies to transport too.
  The north-west regional assembly has sent a favourable recommendation to the Minister and bids have already been made in the local transport planning process for parts of the programme. Further delay will be interpreted in our area as an indication that the study has simply been a delaying mechanism. As I said, I was unhappy when the study was announced because I thought so too. There have been some positive outcomes, in particular the proposals to do more than simply complete the road network. As has been pointed out by the consultants, the roads and the other measures are all required; to build one or two parts of the three road schemes would simply extend the folly of the incomplete Manchester airport eastern link route.
  I urge that further consideration be given to two issues. The hon. Member for Macclesfield has asked me to relay his concerns, which he shares with business, about the intention simply to upgrade the A523 south of Poynton in his constituency, where it links with the dual carriageway of the Silk road to Macclesfield. He and companies such as AstraZeneca at Hurdsfield want this section to be of the same standard as the Silk road and the Poynton bypass that it will join—that is, a dual carriageway.
  The Minister may be aware of the recent redundancies announced at BAE Systems in Woodford. The use of dual instead of single carriageway on the south side of the Poynton bypass might well make it easier for planning permission to be awarded for a new access road from the site to the A523, thus facilitating possible new contracts from the MOD.
  I have been asked by the Stockport cycling group to request that, when plans are proposed for the new A6 bypass, the A555 Manchester airport link road west and the A555-A523 Poynton bypass, they include adequate provision for cyclists at the design stage.
  I should like to finish by paying tribute to the consultants at Steer Davies Gleave, not only because they have made proposals with which the vast majority of my constituents can agree, but because of the thoroughness of their approach and for withstanding rigorous scrutiny of their consultation process with good humour, even if not always with quite the transparency that I requested, at all times.
  I hope that the Minister will make an early announcement—today would be appropriate—to bring some cheer to the industry and people of the south-east Manchester area and to provide the funding for work that is long overdue
  2.41 pm
  Mr. Andrew Stunell: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) for agreeing to share some of her precious time. I am very much in agreement with her and the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) in strongly supporting an integrated transport solution for our area. I should also like to thank the Minister for coming to the Dispatch Box to engage in discussion on this matter for the second time in six months. Our last such meeting occurred on 10 July last year in Westminster Hall on the eve of the study's publication. In that debate, I said:
  "The argument is not only about another bypass. We are also asking the Government to put their heart and their money into a comprehensive attack on pollution and congestion across a wide swathe of Greater Manchester."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 10 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 240WH.]
  The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that a study has now been published that does exactly that, and I am very much hoping that he will respond positively.
  The multi-modal study has done a valuable job and has reached some excellent and comprehensive conclusions. In particular, it has proposed an integrated solution that includes extending the Metrolink tram from the centre of Manchester and improving heavy-rail, bus and cycling connections. The latter were, of course, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle. The study also said very clearly and directly that, unless the road network was completed, all that development would be in vain.
  We now have a set of recommendations that everybody seems to favour. The study clearly proposes an integrated response. Local people are in favour; indeed, thousands of postcards have been returned from residents to the consultants—the consultation was not political, but was carried out by the consultants themselves—saying that they are in favour. The regional development agency is offering its support, as well as the chamber of commerce. The Greater Manchester passenger transport authority is also on side. At our last meeting, the Minister gave me some hope by saying, with reference to my speech, that the initial work of the report had
  "confirmed many of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman about the adverse impact of congestion on parts of the study area, including Hazel Grove and A6 corridor, and the lack of attractive, sustainable alternatives to the car."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 10 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 245WH.]
  This month, we have seen two developments that reinforce the message very strongly as regards the A6. One of them is the study, which made the very clear claim that the A6 in Hazel Grove was the most dangerous road in Greater Manchester. Its record of fatal, injury and non-injury accidents is by far the worst of any road in Greater Manchester. The study is extra ammunition both for the consultants and for me in arguing the case for building the bypass link.
  Roadworks on the A6 have completely destabilised local traffic flows and led to massive congestion and waste of time for my constituents. It is ironic that the work was intended to complete the connections to a supermarket and to build the first 200 yards of the Stepping Hill link to the Hazel Grove bypass. It has been done, however at the expense not only of developers but of everybody who uses the A6.
  1176
  The Minister's last words in the debate in July were:
  "perhaps the heart's desires of his constituents will one day be achieved."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 10 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 246WH.]
  I wanted to remind him of that, because today would be a good day to give effect to those words. Will the hon. Gentleman follow up his positive and helpful comments last July with a commitment to support the study and invest in the 10-year integrated transport plan? Will he give a high priority to the Hazel Grove bypass and the Stepping Hill link?
  2.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) on securing an important debate, which follows the debate that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) obtained in July. I assure him that the words that he and I uttered then are ringing clearly in my ears.
  Although the hon. Lady said that she did not understand what a multi-modal study was at the beginning of the process, both hon. Members have made positive contributions to the discussions. I cannot speak for the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)—we appear to have a Liberal Democrat-Conservative alliance today—but he is usually not slow to speak for himself and his constituents. I am sorry that he is not present.
  The hon. Member for Hazel Grove mentioned hearts and money. I assure him that our hearts were in the schemes that we discussed for improvements in the road structure. I also assure him that the money is there. Both hon. Members who spoke had perhaps too short a time to mention that, so I thought I should. If we consider the amount of money that the Government are providing for the local transport plans, there have been substantial increases in both hon. Members' constituencies. For example, in Greater Manchester in 2000–01, the local transport plan's block allocation was £31.9 million. That increased in this financial year to £63.3 million. The figure has more than doubled, and it will increase to £65.4 million next year.
  In Cheshire, the 2000–01 figure was £11.8 million, which rose in this financial year to £18.8 million. Next year, the figure will be £20.7 million. I appreciate that there was probably too little time for hon. Members to welcome those huge increases in money for local transport plans.
  Mr. Stunell rose—
  Mr. Jamieson: I see that the hon. Gentleman is rising to do precisely that.
  Mr. Stunell: Of course that investment is welcome, but I am sure that the Minister would acknowledge that the plans funded by it specifically excluded the multi-modal study's recommendations.
  Mr. Jamieson: I raised the matter to show that not only our hearts but money lay behind our ambitions. Once the plan has been through the Department, it will be up to local authorities to identify in their plans the moneys that

  1177
  they want. The way in which we have dealt with the transport plans should give the hon. Gentleman and his constituents every reason for optimism.
  I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the fact that I have been able to hear at first hand the impact of the transport problems in both hon. Members' constituencies and in the wider south-east Manchester area. As they both know, my ministerial colleagues are currently considering the recommendations of the south-east Manchester multi-modal study report. The debate is therefore timely and an important input into those considerations. Although the hon. Lady wanted a response today, I assure her that she will not have to wait much longer for decisions on those important matters for her constituency.
  We are committed to looking at transport problems in the round. We do not automatically assume that a road problem means a road-based solution. The reality is that seeking to provide a bypass for every place that has a traffic problem would be neither practical nor cost-effective. The result would be a very long wish list and frustrated expectations. Rather, it is necessary to study individual problems and tailor solutions accordingly.
  Mrs. Calton rose—
  Mr. Jamieson: I will give way to the hon. Lady, although it will probably inhibit my giving some of the answers that she was looking for.
  Mrs. Calton: Does the Minister acknowledge that the Department has already agreed to the Shevington bypass in an area with a smaller volume of road traffic but exactly the same environmental problems as we are talking about here? Those proposals have already been passed, but our problems are at least as great as those at Shevington.
  Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Lady has somewhat pre-empted some of the things that I was going to say about the schemes in her area.
  In relation to the A6(M) Stockport north-south bypass, the A555-A523 Poynton bypass, and the A555 Manchester airport link road west, there have been longstanding proposals in both the hon. Members' constituencies, and in the wider south-east Manchester area, for a series of bypasses to relieve communities such as Poynton and Hazel Grove on the A523 and the A6. Some development work had been undertaken on these schemes while they were in the trunk road programme. At the time of our 1997–98 roads review, the schemes had not been developed sufficiently for us to consider them as candidates for the targeted programme of trunk road improvements. The schemes were also on a part of the trunk road network which we concluded was not of sufficient strategic national importance to justify its inclusion in the core trunk road network.
  Non-core trunk roads, which include the A6 and A523 in Greater Manchester and Cheshire, mainly serve local and regional traffic. We concluded that those routes would be more appropriately managed by local highway authorities, to enable decisions about them to be taken locally and better to integrate them with local transport
  1178
  and land-use issues. In answer to the hon. Lady's question about the multi-modal studies, they are about giving local people and local authorities—those in the locality who know the problems best—the opportunity to identify the priorities in their own area. I hope that, in the light of her considerable involvement in this study, she has been able to take home that message to her constituents.
  As a consequence of our decision, the A6 Stockport north-south bypass, the A555-A523 Poynton bypass and the A555 Manchester airport link west were withdrawn from the national trunk road programme and will pass to the local authorities to consider taking them forward as local road schemes within their local transport plans.
  Rather than put forward immediate bids for these schemes, it was decided to look at the problems that they were designed to address in the south-east Manchester multi-modal study. That is one of a number of multi-modal studies examining particularly complex problems. These problems can be addressed only by looking at all forms of transport, and seeking balanced solutions that contribute to our integrated transport policy. In recognition of the importance of the problems in south-east Manchester, this was one of the first multi-modal studies to be commissioned.
  As the hon. Lady has noted, the study reported in September and made its recommendations to the north-west regional assembly. After consideration, the assembly made its recommendations to Ministers in November last year. If time allows, I will cover some of the recommendations later, but it may be helpful to explain the process that the study has gone through to reach this stage.
  A consortium led by Steer Davies Gleave was appointed following the competitive tender, in December 1999. We funded the study, and the Government office of the north-west took the lead in managing it, in partnership with key interested parties in the study area. As in all the multi-modal studies, a steering group was established to take responsibility for its management and direction. Membership was wide and incorporated all the district and county councils directly involved in the study's coverage, the Strategic Rail Authority, the Highways Agency and the regional development agency, together with other business interests including Manchester airport, and a representative of local environmental and community groups.
  The recommended strategy is detailed in the final study report and it includes proposals for four local road schemes—the Alderley Edge bypass, the Stockport north-south bypass, the Poynton bypass and the Manchester airport link road west—to alleviate the impact of traffic on local communities; extensions to the metrolink from Hough End to Stockport, Stockport to Rose Hill and Stockport to Manchester airport; an improvement to the M60/M67/A57 Denton interchange; improved rail infrastructure and services in respect of quality and frequency; and possible new orbital services linking Stalybridge and Stockport and, in the longer term, western and eastern links to Manchester airport.
  Also included are improved bus services, including more quality corridors and services of enhanced frequency and quality; better management and maintenance of road capacity to deliver benefits to motorists, public transport users, cyclists and pedestrians; better freight management, including establishing freight quality partnerships; and,

  1179
  finally, an intense programme of campaigns to promote transport change and investment to support urban regeneration.
  Both hon. Members must agree that that is a full package of measures to assist transport in their area, so I hope that they take heart from my point about local transport plans: not only have we set up those multi-modal studies, but we have shown that we are willing to fund local transport plans. I can assure them that careful consideration will be given when the various authorities put forward their plans to deliver that important programme.
  The hon. Member for Cheadle will note that the recommended strategy covers a full range of transport improvements rather than simply the three bypasses previously in the trunk road programme. The study shows that those schemes would not have solved the problems in the study area in isolation and the strategy developed justifies the decision to undertake the study. The problems will be addressed by a multi-modal solution.
  I got the feeling that the hon. Lady was a little churlish in welcoming the multi-modal study, but I hope that she has gone through a conversion on the road to Damascus, or perhaps to Poynton, and that she now welcomes it as highly valuable to her area.
  The recommended strategy was detailed in a newsletter extensively distributed by the Post Office throughout the study area—I am sure that it appeared in Focus in the hon. Lady's constituency—so that local residents and businesses could be consulted on the study's recommendations. If she has a copy of Focus that welcomes the Government's proposals and extra money, I would be delighted to see it. If necessary, I shall report from the Dispatch Box.
  Mr. Stunell: They have all been delivered.
  Mr. Jamieson: If the hon. Gentleman can deliver one to me, I shall happily note from the Dispatch Box how much his party welcomes Government involvement in transport in his area.
  1180
  The hon. Member for Cheadle is aware that consultation has played an important part in the study process. From an early stage, emphasis has been placed on giving people, their elected representatives and interested organisations opportunities to participate in problem identification, strategy formulation and the derivation of solutions.
  There have been three newsletters and a number of consultation meetings and briefing sessions, some with local MPs. I know that both hon. Members have attended. They also met the Government office of the north-west and its consultants on a number occasions. Furthermore, the hon. Lady's predecessor, Stephen Day, was not slow to raise in the Chamber matters of interest to his constituents, as she has today. All those views have been considered in the process.
  On the way forward, Ministers are considering the final report and the regional assembly's recommendations. The report covers a wide range of issues that are being considered fully before an announcement is made. Delivery of the study outcomes will be predominantly for local authorities and operators, with Government funding and support, through the local transport plan process. That includes construction of the road schemes, which, if agreed to, will be progressed by the local authorities through the statutory and construction phases.
  The hon. Lady is aware that supplementary local transport plan bids have been made for Greater Manchester and Cheshire for 2002–03 and for the Alderley Edge bypass. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to put on record the Government's views on this important matter and I thank the hon. Lady for raising—
  The motion having been made after half-past Two o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Three o'clock.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Road Traffic Legislation
  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to amend the Road Traffic Act 1984. [27461]

  Mr. Spellar
  None. There is no such Act of Parliament.

  Departmental Consultants
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 8 January 2002,Official Report, column 584W, on departmental consultants, if he will set out the criteria for determining that contracts let to (a) Arthur Andersen, (b) Ernst and Young, (c) Mercers Management Consulting and (d) Schroder Salamon Smith Barney, on matters relating to Railtrack should not be subject to open competition. [27206]

  Mr. Byers
  The issues involved were highly sensitive, involving discussions being conducted with Railtrack and their advisers on the basis of strict confidentiality.

  Piracy
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 15 January 2002,Official Report, column 208W, on piracy, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of (a) shipping and (b) port security measures in the United Kingdom. [29279]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The United Kingdom has a comprehensive security regime in place for maritime passenger operations.

  The basis of this security regime is the Aviation and Maritime Security Act (AMSA) 1990, which enabled mandatory measures to be introduced for the maritime industry. These measures are formally required by Directions served on the industry covering a range of security issues, including searching of passengers and vehicles, the establishment of Restricted Zones (in which only passengers and other authorised persons are allowed) and pass wearing.

  These Directions establish the security standards that the Government expect the industry to comply with, by ensuring that appropriate procedures are in place.

  Inspectors from my Department undertake a continuous and comprehensive system of compliance visits to passenger ports and also undertake ship inspections, to ensure that effective security regimes, in accordance with the Directions, are maintained. They are empowered to take enforcement action against harbour/ship operators if the required standards are not being met.
  1104W
  Following the events of 11 September 2001, the UK's maritime passenger industry was required to operate in accordance with increased levels of security requirements. These increased measures are kept under constant review.

  Consideration has also been given to additional initiatives. This work has been undertaken within Whitehall and has included, for the first time, offering general security advice to non-passenger ships and non-AMSA ports.

  Nuclear Materials (Transportation)
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the condition of railway lines leading to nuclear power stations. [29497]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Maintenance of railway track leading to nuclear power stations which forms part of the Railtrack controlled infrastructure is the responsibility of Railtrack. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE), through its HM Railways Inspectorate (HMRI), regulates health and safety on the railways. HMRI currently has a focus on track maintenance issues as one of its mandatory inspection programmes. HSE has advised me that HMRI is not aware of any specific problems at present with the condition of track leading to nuclear power stations.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the requirements are for local authorities to prepare emergency plans for incidents involving trains carrying nuclear materials. [29498]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The responsibility to prepare emergency plans for transport of nuclear material by rail rests principally with the train operator, facility owner and infrastructure controller. They have a duty under The Packaging, Labelling and Carriage of Radioactive Material by Rail Regulations 1996 (RAMRail) to have emergency arrangements and to co-operate with each other so as to ensure effective co-ordination of their respective safety systems and procedures. Also under the Radiation (Emergency Preparedness and Public Information) Regulations 2001 (REPPIR), carriers are required to prepare emergency plans and to consult with appropriate local authorities. Some types of consignment are exempt from these regulations, however, including material in packages which are designed and tested to meet severe accident conditions, and small quantities of material which present a very limited risk.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many incidents there have been where flasks carrying radioactive material on trains have been found to be over the permitted radiation level, broken down by location and level of radiation. [29488]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Such incidents are included in the annual reports to which I referred the hon. Member in my reply of 21 January 2002,Official Report, column 576W.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the incidents in which trains carrying(a) radioactive material and (b) other nuclear materials have been involved which resulted in release of their materials in the north-west of England in the last six months. [30635]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There have been no such incidents.
  1105W
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the Department's definition is of 'no significant radiological safety implication', as used in the report, Radiological Consequences Resulting from Accidents and Incidents involving the Transport of Radioactive Materials in the UK-200 Review, published in October 2001. [30555]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There is no formal definition of "significant" in the context of this report. A significant radiological consequence would be if radiation exposures approach or exceed the statutory limits. The radiological consequences listed in the report are much lower than this and are therefore not considered significant.

  Train Protection Systems
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what percentage of trains using Paddington station have(a) ATP and (b) TPWS in place. [30309]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Train protection systems are operational on all train services using Paddington station. First Great Western and Heathrow Express services are fitted with Automatic Train Protection (ATP) and Virgin Cross Country and Thames Trains services are fitted with the Train Protection and Warning Systems (TPWS).

  Council Tax Enforcement
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many officials responsible for the policy for council tax enforcement in his Department have, as part of their training and information gathering,(a) visited a money advice centre, a magistrates court and the High Court when they are hearing cases for committal for council tax arrears and (b) discussed the difficulties with council tax application forms with the applicants. [29533]

  Dr. Whitehead
  No such visits have been made. However, officials are in regular contact with the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Local Government Association and local authorities about enforcement matters. Last November, officials also met with representatives of the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust to discuss committal for local tax debts and are happy to meet other organisations and advice centres to discuss such matters.

  Local Tax Arrears
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many warrants for committal to prison owing to local tax arrears were issued in 1999. [29535]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Statistics on committal orders are published in The Institute of Public Finance Accountancy (CIPFA) Revenue Collection Statistics.

  For 1999–2000, their estimated total number of orders obtained but postponed on payment terms was 22,119, based on grossed up actual figures provided by 253 of 376 local authorities.
  1106W
  For the 253 responding authorities, the actual number of people committed to prison was 117.

  Local Authority Statutory Notices
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent guidance his Department has issued on the publication of statutory notices by local authorities in the local press. [30217]

  Mr. Byers
  None. We issued general guidance about planning notices in Circular 15/92, "Publicity for Planning Applications". This includes advice on the categories of planning application that must be advertised in local newspapers. Separate requirements to advertise planning appeals and called-in planning applications are set out in secondary legislation. The Government's recently published planning Green Paper "Planning: Delivering a Fundamental Change" indicates our intention to retain the requirement on planning authorities to advertise certain applications in the local press. However, we will review the requirement to publicise planning appeals and called-in planning applications with the aim of encouraging greater community participation.

  Allotments
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what recent guidance his Department has issued on consultation on(a) supplementary planning guidance and (b) the change of use of allotments; [30218]

  (2) what recent guidance his Department has issued to local authorities on the change of use of allotments. [30219]

  Mr. Byers
  In March 1998, my Department issued guidance to local authorities to ensure that the availability of statutory allotments are actively promoted before applications for consent to their disposal are submitted. We have since consulted on draft Planning Policy Guidance note: (PPG) 17, which sets out revised criteria against which applications for consent to dispose of statutory allotments are to be determined. We will shortly be issuing the revised guidance to the Government offices and local authorities.

  My Department, in conjunction with the Local Government Association, published: "Growing in the community: A good practice guide for the management of allotments" in June 2001. This guide provides comprehensive advice and good practice for local authorities on all aspects of allotment management. My Department has also recently published "Allotments: a plot holders guide", which provides advice to current and potential allotment plot holders.

  Bus Ticketing
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to improve the inter-changeability of bus tickets on routes served by different bus companies. [30220]

  Mr. Byers
  We wish to encourage joint ticketing schemes between bus operators, aimed at making life easier for bus users.
  1107W
  Last year my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, on the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading, made an Order to exempt multi-operator ticketing schemes from having to be notified individually to the Office of Fair Trading. Any such scheme that meets the terms of the Order is therefore automatically exempted.

  I am, however, aware of the concern expressed both by bus operators and local authorities about the terms of the ticketing schemes block exemption. It would be highly undesirable if operators felt compelled to abandon existing worthwhile initiatives, or were deterred from developing new ones. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport has written to the Director General of Fair Trading, emphasising the importance that we place upon

  2001 Rural Bus Challenge Competition—awards

  Authority/bid reference/name

  Funding awarded

  Cambridgeshire

  Taxi Plus

  151,000

  West Huntingdonshire Rural Links

  339,839

  Cheshire

  Chester-Whitchurch Corridor—a rural Bus Quality Partnership

  718,000

  Services for Young People in Vale Royal

  67,500

  Rural Recovery—Blazing Trails

  160,000

  Cornwall

  Integrated Bissoe Valley Services

  469,000

  Cumbria

  Cumbria Connexion Enhancement

  250,000

  Windermere Shuttle Bus

  292,300

  Darlington

  Provision of Quality Passenger Infrastructure

  118,887

  Derbyshire

  Clay Cross Accessible Transport Initiative (CATI)

  291,625

  Devon

  Devon Fare Cars

  471,000

  Life in the Bus Lane—North Devon (Buses are Cool)

  373,000

  Durham

  County Durham RESPONSE

  941,300

  East Riding

  PATHFinder

  825,000

  East Sussex

  Travel Choice in the South Downs

  363,000

  Essex

  Harwich Connection Community Bus Co-operative

  293,500

  Essex Taxi-Bus Carrier

  20,500

  Greater Manchester

  Expansion of Existing Rural Transport Co-operative in Partington and Cadishead

  188,000

  Expansion of Existing Demand Responsive Taxi Service in Summersheat, Tottington and Ramsbottom

  45,000

  Hartlepool

  Enhanced Daytime Bus Service

  135,000

  Herefordshire

  Rural Taxibus Project

  396,000

  Hertfordshire

  Improving Access to Health Facilities

  190,000

  Rural Community Transport and Accessible Vehicles

  386,700

  Roundabout Transport

  112,900

  1108W
  the continuation of sensible, multi-operator ticketing schemes that have proved popular with the travelling public.

  Rural Bus Challenge
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will announce the results of the 2001 Rural Bus Challenge Competition. [31138]

  Ms Keeble
  I am pleased to announce today approval of the 58 projects listed which were submitted as bids by local authorities in this competition. This follows careful consideration of the 107 bids totalling more than three times the funding available submitted by authorities. Funding for the successful bids will total £20.5 million.
  1109W

  2001 Rural Bus Challenge Competition—awards

  Authority/bid reference/name

  Funding awarded

  Kent

  Rural demand responsive transport in Shepway

  168,000

  Lancashire

  Bowland Transit

  634,375

  Lincolnshire

  InterConnect—Responding to Rural Demands

  771,500

  Milton Keynes

  Demand Responsive and Evening Service

  199,603

  Norfolk

  Transport, Health and Well Being—Making the Links

  471,000

  North Yorkshire

  Friarage Hospital, Northallerton—Bus Turning Area and Waiting Facility

  114,700

  Kirky overflow and Sicklinghall Area Minibus, Dunkeswick Lane End Interchange

  276,000

  Ingleton and Settle Area Taxibus and Stationlink

  170,000

  North Selby Taxibus

  246,000

  Four in One

  372,173

  Northamptonshire

  Kettering Area Transport Demonstration Project

  423,380

  "The Villager" Corby Rural Bus Scheme

  111,860

  East Northamptonshire Connecting People Project

  247,277

  Wellibus Villager—Enhanced Service

  143,200

  Northumberland

  Hadrian's Wall Bus

  128,845

  Peterborough

  Demand Responsive Bus Service

  266,350

  Somerset

  Community Transport in Mendip 'Special Rural Component'

  89,000

  South Somerset Links, Langport and Chard

  197,000

  The Rural Surrounds of Wiveliscombe

  100,000

  South Gloucestershire

  Continuation of Existing Vale-Link Dial-a-Ride Services

  578,827

  South Yorkshire

  Stocksbridge and Penistone Rural Link

  1,013,689

  Staffordshire

  Stone-Uttoxeter Rural Shopperbus

  222,000

  Suffolk

  3 into 1 Will Go

  490,676

  Shotley Peninsula

  256,497

  Surrey

  Waverley Transport Solutions

  150,000

  Telford and Wrekin

  Cross Boundary—Rural to Town Link

  742,895

  Warwickshire

  Southam Flexibus

  433,195

  West Berkshire

  Widespread Introduction of Call-A-Bus

  493,950

  West Sussex

  DoRiS Plus

  442,000

  West Yorkshire

  Otley Area Transport Scheme

  802,800

  Wiltshire

  Expansion of Demand Responsive Bus Network

  854,000

  1110W

  1111W

  2001 Rural Bus Challenge Competition—awards

  Authority/bid reference/name

  Funding awarded

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  Borough Bus

  435,000

  Wokingham

  Twyford Community Bus

  470,000

  Worcestershire

  EasyLINK flexi

  340,000

  Total awards

  20,454,843

  Refrigerator Disposal Costs
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what arrangements he has made with regard to the allocation of the adjustment to the Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services block, announced in the provisional local government finance settlement, to cover the cost of implementing refrigerator disposal regulations. [29117]

  Mr. Byers
  Pursuant to my answer of 22 January 2002,Official Report, column 718W, £6 million has been added to the upper tier sub-block of the Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services Standard Spending Assessment for 2002–03 for the costs of implementing refrigerator disposal regulations for the period 1 January 2002 to 31 March 2002.

  Ozone Depleting Substances
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether he intends to match the costs in the next financial year to Hertfordshire county council in complying with EC Regulation 2037/2000 on ozone depleting substances. [29360]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  In December we announced a payment of £6 million funding for local authorities to cover their costs until March 2002. We are continuing to assess the impacts of the regulation and will determine what further action is required beyond that.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Foreign Language Programmes
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what plans she has to encourage the provision of foreign language programmes on independently owned(a) television channels and (b) radio stations; [29094]

  (2) what responsibility her Department has for the provision of foreign language (a) television and (b) radio within the United Kingdom; [29093]

  (3) what recent representations her Department has received from (a) right hon. and hon. Members and (b) others on the provision of foreign language television and radio in the United Kingdom. [29092]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department has no responsibility for the provision of foreign language television or radio and the Government have no plans to intervene in the UK 1112W
  market for such services. The Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority are responsible for regulating television and radio programme services, including foreign language services, provided from places in the UK.

  I have received one recent representation on this subject from the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) about the withdrawal of Spanish, Italian and German channels by a cable operator. I understand that members of the public have very occasionally raised the issue with my Department.

  Departmental Expenditure (Publications)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her estimate is of the expenditure of her Department on newspapers, magazines and periodicals in each of the last four years. [30086]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport spend was as follows:

  Type of publication

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Newspapers

  9,135

  8,747

  10,800

  12,221

  13,432

  Magazines

  8,440

  7,015

  7,371

  6,917

  8,068

  Periodicals

  8,167

  7,447

  10,185

  6,498

  6,734

  Total

  25,742

  23,209

  28,356

  25,636

  28,234

  Football
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) when she last met representatives of the Football Association to discuss matters relating to violence associated with the game on and off the pitch, and if she will make a statement; [29749]

  (2) what recent representations she has received about violence associated with football, and if she will make a statement; [29750]

  (3) when she last met representatives of the Football Association to discuss the monitoring of legislation concerning travel by supporters to overseas games, and if she will make a statement. [29751]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received 14 representations concerning football-related violence over the last five months.

  The Secretary of State maintains a close relationship with the Football Association. She has not met the FA recently to discuss football-related violence or the

  1113W
  monitoring of legislation concerning travel by supporters to overseas games as this is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

  The Government have placed extensive legislation for tackling football hooliganism at the disposal of the police and the courts. The scenes witnessed in Cardiff and other grounds should be placed in a proper context. Our stadia remain among the safest and most secure in the world and there is no evidence of a return to the mass hooliganism that marred our national game in previous decades. The Government are not complacent. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary liaises closely with the police and football authorities in monitoring supporter behaviour and in assessing the impact and effectiveness of current legislation.

  The measures introduced by the Football (Disorder) Act 2000 empower the courts to impose banning orders on individuals who have previously caused or contributed to violence or disorder at football matches, where there are reasonable grounds to believe that making an order would help to prevent violence or disorder at future matches.

  The imposition of sporting sanctions for misbehaviour by players on the field of play is the responsibility of the football authorities. However, the Football (Disorder) Act 2000 applies to all individuals, irrespective of their profession.

  Analogue Switch-off
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Uxbridge, of 16 January 2002,Official Report, column 340W, on analogue switch-off, how access to digital equipment is determined. [30009]

  Dr. Howells

  [holding answer 24 January 2002]: As a target indicator of affordability, 95 per cent. of consumers should have access to equipment capable of receiving digital television services. The Digital Television Action Plan includes a specific action to conduct a comprehensive review of progress towards digital switchover, with particular reference to the accessibility, availability and affordability tests announced in September 1999. The review will refine the tests and report on how progress towards meeting them is to be measured. A first report is due by the end of March 2002.

  Olympic Games
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans the Government have to make a UK bid for the 2012 Olympic Games; and if she will make a statement. [31315]

  Mr. Caborn
  The decision on whether or not to launch a UK bid to host the Olympic Games is a matter principally for the British Olympic Association which has yet to decide whether to bid for the 2012 Olympic Games. It is current BOA policy that any UK bid should be based on London. The BOA's eventual decision will inevitably be influenced by public opinion both in London and across the UK, together with the views of London and central Governments.

  The BOA has formed a key stakeholders group involving my Department, the Greater London Authority, UK Sport and Sport England to discuss the prospects for
  1114W
  a London bid. The key stakeholders group have appointed Arup consultants to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of bidding for and, if successful, staging an Olympic Games in London. The consultancy will form part of the on-going work that is assessing the viability and merits of a potential London Olympic bid for 2012.

  Arup consultants were appointed following a competitive tendering process. I have placed copies of the Invitation to Tender in the House Libraries. The consultancy will be jointly funded by DCMS, UK Sport, the London Development Agency and the British Olympic Association.

  This consultancy will include an assessment of the costs to public and private funds of bidding and—if successful—of staging a London Games. It will also contain a breakdown of the potential benefits that would accrue from the bid process and through subsequently hosting the event.

  The consultants are due to present their completed report to the funding bodies in early May. A decision on whether or not to publish the report will be taken once the extent of commercially confidential information it contains is known.

DEFENCE

  Armed Forces Pay Review Body
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the appointment to the Armed Forces Pay Review Body of a replacement for Vice Admiral Sir Toby Frere KCB. [31313]

  Mr. Hoon
  I am pleased to announce that I have appointed Vice Admiral Sir (Anthony) Peter Woodhead KCB to a three-year term. This appointment has been conducted in accordance with the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointment's guidance on appointments to public bodies.

  Atomic Weapons Establishment
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many United States personnel have visited the Atomic Weapons Establishment in each of the last three years; and from which United States departments and establishments these visitors have come. [28257]

  Mr. Hoon
  The number of United States personnel who visited the Atomic Weapons Establishment in each of the last three years is shown as follows:

  1999—there were 100 visits involving 365 different people

  2000—there were 98 visits involving 384 different people

  2001—there were 87 visits involving 296 different people

  (in each year a number of personnel visited more than once).

  These visitors were from the following State departments or establishments:

  Alme Associates—Government Contractor

  Applied Research Associates

  Allied Signal, Kansas City

  Bechtel Nevada

  Central Intelligence Agency

  Chew and Associates Incorporated

  1115W

  Department Internal Audit

  Department of Defense

  Department of Energy HQ and Operations

  Defense Threat Reduction Agency

  Honeywell Kansas City Plant

  ITT Industries

  Kaiser Hill—Consultants

  Los Alamos National Laboratory

  Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

  Lockheed Martin Missiles and Space

  Lockhead Martin Technology Services

  Logicon RDA

  Mound, Miamisburg

  National Nuclear Security Agency

  Naval Research Laboratory

  Naval Surface Warfare Center

  Oak Ridge National Laboratory

  Pantex Plant

  Picatinny Arsenal

  Program Management Office, Strategic Systems Programs

  Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

  Pro2serve—Consultants

  Science Applications International Corporation

  Schmitt—Consultants

  Sandia National Laboratory

  Space Electronics—Consultants

  Special Projects UK Office

  Strategic Systems Programs

  Titan Corporation

  University of California

  US Strategic Command

  Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many regulatory impact assessments have been produced by his Department since August 2001; and if he will list those produced(a) following initial consultation with affected parties about the most appropriate methodology for assessing costs and other impacts and (b) which set out full commercial impacts, including profitability, employment, consumer prices and competitiveness, as recommended in Good Policy Making. [28399]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office gave him on 17 January 2002,Official Report, column 483W.

  Joint Working Groups
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the Joint Working Groups operating under the auspices of the 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement; and how many Joint Working Group meetings have been hosted in the(a) UK and (b) USA under the auspices of the 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement since May 1997. [29957]
  1116W
  Dr. Moonie
  The Joint Working Groups currently in existence under the terms of the 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement are:

  Joint Working Group

  Title

  6

  Radiation Simulation and Kinetic Effects

  9

  Energetic Materials

  22

  Nuclear Materials

  23

  Warhead Electrical Components and Technologies

  28

  Non-Nuclear Materials

  29

  Nuclear Counter-Terrorism Technology

  30

  Facilities

  31

  Nuclear Weapons Engineering

  32

  Nuclear Warhead Physics

  34

  Computational Technology

  36

  Aircraft, Missile and Space System Hardening

  37

  Laboratory Plasma Physics

  39

  Manufacturing Practices

  41

  Nuclear Warhead Accident Response

  42

  Nuclear Weapon Code Development

  43

  Nuclear Weapon Environment and Damage Effects

  Since May 1997 the number of meetings connected with Joint Working Groups which have taken place in the UK and the US is:

  Meetings in the UK

  Meetings in the US

  1997 (May onwards)

  64

  79

  1998

  78

  148

  1999

  78

  123

  2000

  66

  116

  2001

  61

  120

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which United States departments and establishments were represented at the October 2000 meeting of JOWOG 32. [29958]

  Dr. Moonie
  The JOWOG 32 meeting at AWE in October 2000 was attended by representatives from the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the Sandia National Laboratory, Albuquerque.

  Gulf Veterans Medical Assessment Programme
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what level of medical examination and assessment is required from those former and existing service personnel who are on the Gulf Veterans Medical Assessment Programme. [30433]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence's Gulf Veterans' Medical Assessment Programme (GVMAP) was established in 1993. As at 17 January 2002, 3,276 patients had been seen by GVMAP physicians. The GVMAP is located at St. Thomas's Hospital, London, and is open to all present and former service men and women or MOD civilians who believe that their health has suffered as a direct result of the 1990–91 Gulf conflict. Its two main purposes are:to investigate patients' medical complaints, make a diagnosis as far as is possible, and recommend appropriate management, or provide reassurance if no illness is found;
  to collate statistical information in an anonymised form as a resource for researchers.
  1117W
  Patients are referred to the GVMAP by their doctors. There is no pre-determined medical criterion they need to satisfy before being seen. Patients are given a full medical examination by GVMAP physicians and a range of physical tests; investigations routinely conducted for all patients include urinalysis, haematological, biochemical, biological and serological tests, ultrasound scan of the abdomen and electrocardiography. These tests are carried out on the day of the appointment and take approximately four hours. Additional investigations and/or referrals to other consultants/specialists may be required. This is decided either during the initial appointment or in follow-up consultations if deemed necessary. Since May 2001, a small number of patients have been seen at a clinic held every two months and run by the head of the GVMAP in Northallerton, North Yorkshire. Patients are given the same assessment as they would have received had they come to London.

  The clinical findings from the first 1,000 service and ex-service patients seen by GVMAP physicians were published in the British Medical Journal on 30 January 1999. A paper on the clinical findings from the second 1,000 service and ex-service patients seen was published in the Journal of the Royal Army Medical Corps on 29 June 2001. Copies of both papers—as too is a great deal more information of interest to Gulf veterans—are readily available from the Ministry of Defence's Gulf Veterans' Illnesses Unit (Freephone 0800 169 4495) and on my Department's website at: www.mod.uk/issues/gulfwar/index.html. A clinical analysis of the first 3,000 service and ex-service veterans who have attended the GVMAP is being prepared for peer-review and publication in a scientific journal.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to put the Gulf Veterans Medical Assessment Programme into independent administration. [30434]

  Dr. Moonie
  None. Medical Assessment Programme physicians already have complete clinical independence from the Ministry of Defence.

  Accommodation
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money has been allocated(a) to improve armed forces single living accommodation and (b) to upgrade married quarters in the last three years. [25704]

  Dr. Moonie
  Over the last three financial years we have spent £283 million on upgrading single living accommodation, and £167 million on service family accommodation (SFA). A new Modernisation programme for single living accommodation was announced in March 2001 by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. Worth some £1 billion, its aim is the upgrading of over 30,000 bed spaces within five years of the appointment of a prime contractor. The Defence Housing Executive has a continuing programme to upgrade the core of stock of service families accommodation by the end of 2005.

  Medically Downgraded Personnel
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) Army and (b) RAF personnel were medically downgraded on 1 April 2001; how many of
  1118W
  these have postings which would require them to be operational or on rapid reaction duties if fit; and how many of these in each category are (i) awaiting an initial medical consultation, (ii) awaiting treatment following an initial medical consultation and (iii) receiving treatment. [28729]

  Dr. Moonie
  As at 1 April 2001, there were 9,635 medically downgraded personnel in the Army, many of whom would be deployable on military operations although not at the front line. At the same date, there were 3,888 medically downgraded personnel in the RAF, who were considered unfit for any type of deployment. Information is not held centrally on the numbers of medically downgraded personnel who have postings which would require them to deploy overseas on operations or rapid reaction duties, or on the numbers receiving treatment, awaiting an initial medical consultation or awaiting treatment following an initial medical consultation. Such information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Washington Treaty
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the practical consequences resulting from bringing terrorism countermeasures within the remit of Article 5 of the Washington treaty and how this may affect NATO's commitment to guarantee the security of WEU member countries; and if he will make a statement. [29630]

  Mr. Hoon
  The decision to invoke Article 5 following the terrorist attacks of 11 September was consistent with NATO's process of adaptation since the end of the cold war, and the alliance will continue adapting its capabilities to reflect changes in the security environment.

  All WEU member states and associate members are also members of NATO; the security of these states is guaranteed by NATO under Article 5 of the Washington treaty.

  Nancekuke
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 January 2002,Official Report, column 317W, on Nancekuke, whether there are records of equipment and materials being brought from overseas for use, storage and disposal at CDE Nancekuke. [29965]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are no surviving records which detail the origin of equipment and materials used at the Chemical Defence Establishment. Nancekuke.

  However, records summarising the technical programme undertaken at Nancekuke indicate that in 1959, CN (chloroacetophenone) of both Belgian and Italian origin was transferred to Nancekuke. Some of the CN of Belgian origin was returned to Belgium during 1962 to 1967.

  Additional anecdotal evidence also implies that some of the nerve agent production plant built at Nancekuke contained equipment originating from Germany.

  MOD Vehicles
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 21 January 2002,Official Report, column 555W, what criteria are laid down whereby operational requirements for the purchase of vehicles by the MOD police mean that the choice is not subject to competition. [30558]

  Dr. Moonie
  Purchases of vehicles for the Ministry of Defence Police are made on the basis of obtaining best value for money. The MOD police can make a request for a particular make and model of vehicle for specific operational requirements. Each request is scrutinised and considered on its individual merits. Where no competition takes place, we would still expect to secure discounted

  Trust

  Capital value (£ million)

  Anticipated date of contract signing

  Anticipated operational date

  University Hospital Birmingham

  291

  Autumn 2003

  Spring 2008

  Bradford Hospital

  116

  Summer 2004

  Winter 2007

  North Bristol Mental Health

  68

  Spring 2002

  Winter 2005

  Central Middlesex

  56

  Summer 2003

  Summer 2005

  East Kent

  102

  Winter 2004

  Summer 2006

  University Hospital Leicester

  286

  Winter 2005

  Winter 2010

  Lewisham

  44

  Spring 2004

  Winter 2005

  Peterborough

  135

  Autumn 2003

  Spring 2007

  Salford Trust—Hope Hospital

  114

  Winter 2003

  Spring 2007

  Tunbridge Wells

  175

  Autumn 2004

  Autumn 2007

  Wakefield and Pontefract

  164

  Summer 2004

  Summer 2007

  Whipps Cross—Forest Healthcare

  184

  Spring 2004

  Summer 2008

  Private Beds
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many private beds have been used by the NHS in the last five years. [13603]

  Mr. Hutton
  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 national health service. 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.

  Operation Cancellations
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations have been cancelled in each quarter since 1997. [15062]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data are collected on the number of operations cancelled at the last minute. The latest published figures are for Quarter 1 2001–02. Copies of Quarterly authority statistics on cancelled operations by health for the years requested are available in the Library.

  MMR Vaccinations (Buckinghamshire)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of eligible children were vaccinated with the MMR vaccine in South Buckinghamshire in(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000 and (c) 2000–01. [27118]

  Ms Blears
  The information available about children immunised against measles, mumps and rubella is contained in the Statistical Bulletin "NHS Immunisation 1120W
  prices based on wider purchasing arrangements secured in a competitive environment. Typically requests for specific vehicles do not exceed 6 per year.

HEALTH

  Hospital Developments
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects each of the 12 hospital developments, announced on 15 February, to be completed. [10790]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table shows the current indicative timetables for the 12 new hospital developments which will be taken forward this year as announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 15 February 2001.

  Statistics, England: 2000–01". A copy of the bulletin is in the Library and can also be found on the Department of Health website www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0121.htm.

  Hospital Waiting Lists (Buckinghamshire)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the percentage was of patients waiting for in-patient treatment in the South Buckinghamshire health authority on 1 January in each of the years 1997 to 2002. [27117]

  Ms Blears
  Information is not available relating to the 1 January each year, nor for South Buckinghamshire health authority. Information is available on the total number of patients waiting at the end of each quarter in Buckinghamshire health authority as shown in the table. Information for the third quarter of this year is not yet available.

  Number of patients waiting in Buckinghamshire health authority

  Quarter 3

  Number

  1997–98

  16,154

  1998–99

  14,679

  1999–2000

  13,854

  2000–01

  13,535

  Hospital Treatment Costs
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average cost is to the national health service of treating an in-patient in a national health service hospital for one week. [26744]
  1121W
  Mr. Hutton
  No information is kept centrally on the average costs of an in-patient week in hospital; the data are collected by condition. The cost of any stay will vary due to the nature of the condition being treated, the age of the patient and any pre-existing conditions that the patient may have.

  Cost information on in-patient, day case and out-patient treatments can be found on the Department's website www.doh.gov.uk. Copies of the publication reference costs 2000 are available in the Library.

  NHS Dentistry
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacancies for new NHS dental patients are available in the Gosport constituency. [27152]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Waiting Lists
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which trusts have more than 10 per cent. of patients waiting on in-patient lists placed on suspended lists and more than 2 per cent. of patients waiting more than 12 months on in-patient lists; and which of these trusts have been investigated by the Department of Health for waiting list irregularities in the light of recommendations from the National Audit Office. [27366]

  Mr. Hutton
  The 13 trusts referred to in the National Audit Office report "Inappropriate adjustments to NHS waiting lists", which had more than 10 per cent. of patients waiting on in-patient waiting lists placed on suspended lists and more than 2 per cent. of patients waiting more than 12 months on in-patient waiting lists, are as listed.

  The Royal United Hospital Bath NHS trust

  Epsom and St. Helier NHS trust

  Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS trust

  Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre NHS trust

  Countess of Chester Hospital NHS trust

  Dartford and Gravesham NHS trust

  The Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS trust

  Wrightington Wigan and Leigh NHS trust

  Good Hope Hospital NHS trust

  Wirral Hospital NHS trust

  West Suffolk Hospitals NHS trust

  The Royal Devon and Exeter Healthcare NHS trust

  Winchester and Eastleigh Healthcare NHS trust.

  Regional offices regularly monitor suspension rates of all trusts as part of the performance management function. Since the NAO report on 19 December, regional offices have been reviewing the position of the 13 noted trusts.

  Emergency Contraception
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in which areas the morning-after pill is available to(a) girls aged 14 and 15, (b) girls aged 12 and 13 and (c) girls under-12 without a doctor's prescription; and what measures are in place in each such area to address issues of child abuse. [28208]
  1122W
  Yvette Cooper
  All emergency contraception supplied to under-16s is a prescription only medicine (POM). This is provided under medical supervision which includes other health professionals supplying the POM product under patient group directions. Information collected centrally of the number or prescriptions for emergency hormonal contraception dispensed in family planning clinics and prescriptions dispensed in the community by community pharmacists and dispensing doctors in England is included in my reply to the hon. Member on 23 January 2002,Official Report, column 965W.

  Health professionals providing contraception to under-16s do so within a legal framework established in 1986. This involves assessing the young person's competence to understand the choices they are making and whether the treatment is in their best interests. Health professionals, like any other professional whose work brings them into contact with children and families, should follow the Government's "Working Together to Safeguard Children" child protection guidance. This guidance sets out how all agencies and professionals should work together to promote children's welfare and protect them from abuse and neglect. It is intended to provide a national framework within which agencies and professionals at a local level—individually and jointly—draw up and agree upon their own more detailed ways of working together.

  Bristol Royal Infirmary
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been set aside to compensate the children who survived the Bristol heart case affair. [27881]

  Mr. Hutton

  [holding answer 17 January 2002]: All claims for compensation are assessed individually, on their merits. Any compensation payments made in relation to cardiac surgery at the Bristol Royal Infirmary will be handled in accordance with the arrangements in place for all other clinical negligence claims against national health service trusts and health authorities.

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases where children were left mentally disabled resulting from the Bristol heart cases(a) have been settled and (b) are outstanding. [27880]

  Mr. Hutton

  [holding answer 17 January 2002]: There have been a total of 61 claims made in relation to children who are alleged to have suffered injury following cardiac surgery at Bristol Royal Infirmary. In two of these cases legal proceedings have been issued. Admissions of liability have been made in two other cases, but neither of these were subject to court proceedings. 24 cases have either been withdrawn or are unlikely to proceed. In the remaining 33 cases solicitors have been asked to provide further details.

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been paid out to date by way of compensation to families resulting from the Bristol heart cases. [27882]

  Mr. Hutton

  [holding answer 17 January 2002]: A total of £1,900,000 has so far been paid out to date as compensation for claims relating to cardiac surgery at the Bristol Royal Infirmary.

  Foundation Hospitals
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what process will be used to select managers for the proposed foundation hospitals. [29399]

  Mr. Hutton
  Where appointments are necessary the normal national health service practices, based on fair and open competition, will be used.

  Health Spending
  Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate health spending per head of population by health authority in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02. [29318]

  Mr. Hutton

  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: The expenditure by weighted head of population for each English health authority area for 2000–01 is shown in the table. Expenditure estimates for 2001–02 are not yet available.

  Expenditure by health authorities and primary care trusts

  Health authority

  Expenditure by weighted head (£)

  Avon HA

  856.75

  Barking and Havering HA

  773.42

  Barnet HA

  959.87

  Barnsley HA

  766.50

  Bedfordshire HA

  779.74

  Berkshire HA

  804.46

  Bexley and Greenwich HA

  886.09

  Birmingham HA

  823.71

  Bradford HA

  769.58

  Brent and Harrow HA

  823.29

  Bromley HA

  971.74

  Buckinghamshire HA

  755.09

  Bury and Rochdale HA

  771.15

  Calderdale and Kirklees HA

  763.88

  Cambridgeshire HA

  786.94

  Camden and Islington HA

  1,067.88

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly HA

  796.09

  County Durham and Darlington HA

  738.32

  Coventry HA

  802.56

  Croydon HA

  925.44

  Doncaster HA

  861.88

  Dorset HA

  1,023.69

  Dudley HA

  828.09

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow HA

  826.21

  East and North Hertfordshire HA

  803.66

  East Kent HA

  810.16

  East Lancashire HA

  740.66

  East London and The City HA

  869.91

  East Riding and Hull HA

  787.13

  East Surrey HA

  958.66

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove HA

  827.74

  Enfield and Haringey HA

  817.53

  Gateshead and South Tyneside HA

  784.29

  Gloucestershire HA

  799.79

  Herefordshire HA

  761.71

  Hillingdon HA

  753.76

  Isle of Wight HA

  867.61

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster HA

  1,011.24

  Kingston and Richmond HA

  829.50

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham HA

  886.88

  Leeds HA

  869.94

  Leicestershire HA

  779.71

  Lincolnshire HA

  808.95

  Liverpool HA

  887.35

  Manchester HA

  869.02

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth HA

  882.91

  Morecambe Bay HA

  1,346.04

  1124W

  Expenditure by health authorities and primary care trusts

  Health authority

  Expenditure by weighted head (£)

  Newcastle and North Tyneside HA

  811.10

  Norfolk HA

  815.11

  North and East Devon HA

  800.95

  North and Mid Hampshire HA

  835.93

  North Cheshire HA

  811.75

  North Cumbria HA

  793.52

  North Derbyshire HA

  744.33

  North Essex HA

  839.97

  North Nottinghamshire HA

  761.33

  North Staffordshire HA

  760.11

  North West Lancashire HA

  770.48

  North Yorkshire HA

  814.07

  Northamptonshire HA

  830.95

  Northumberland HA

  871.50

  Nottingham HA

  842.50

  Oxfordshire HA

  823.14

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire HA

  762.50

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest HA

  901.60

  Rotherham HA

  773.29

  Salford and Trafford HA

  839.62

  Sandwell HA

  777.76

  Sefton HA

  1,040.25

  Sheffield HA

  956.59

  Shropshire HA

  763.29

  Solihull HA

  756.17

  Somerset HA

  825.30

  South and West Devon HA

  800.84

  South Cheshire HA

  801.87

  South Essex HA

  806.50

  South Humber HA

  802.29

  South Lancashire HA

  779.41

  South Staffordshire HA

  792.06

  Southampton and South West Hampshire HA

  781.00

  Southern Derbyshire HA

  759.33

  St. Helens and Knowsley HA

  749.06

  Stockport HA

  759.28

  Suffolk HA

  778.56

  Sunderland HA

  781.94

  Tees HA

  824.19

  Wakefield HA

  854.72

  Walsall HA

  776.48

  Warwickshire HA

  798.29

  West Hertfordshire HA

  800.40

  West Kent HA

  786.21

  West Pennine HA

  746.22

  West Surrey HA

  840.34

  West Sussex HA

  784.64

  Wigan and Bolton HA

  732.65

  Wiltshire HA

  828.57

  Wirral HA

  798.81

  Wolverhampton HA

  763.81

  Worcestershire HA

  827.41

  Notes:

  1. In many health authorities there are factors which distort the expenditure per head. These include:

  (i) the health authority acting in a lead capacity to commission health care or fund training on behalf of other health bodies;

  (ii) asset revaluations in NHS trusts being funded through health authorities; and

  (iii) some double counting of expenditure between health authorities and primary care trusts within the health authority area.

  2. Expenditure per head cannot therefore be reliably compared between health authorities.

  3. Allocations per weighted head of population provide a much more reliable measure to identify differences between funding of health authorities.

  4. Expenditure is taken from health authority and primary care trust summarisation forms which are prepared on a resource basis and therefore differ from cash allocations in the year. The expenditure is the total spent by the health authority and by the primary care trusts within each health authority area. The majority of General

  1125W
  Dental Services expenditure is not included in the health authority or primary care trust accounts and is separately accounted for by the Dental Practice Board.

  5. Health authorities and primary care trusts should account for their expenditure on a gross basis. This results in an element of double counting where one body acts as the main commissioner and is then reimbursed by other bodies. The effect of this double counting within the answer cannot be identified.

  Sources:

  Health authority audited summarisation forms 2000–01

  Primary care trust audited summarisation schedules 2000–01

  Weighted population estimates for 2000–2001

  Napp Pharmaceuticals
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health following the Competition Commission Appeal Tribunal's upholding of the Office of Fair Trading's findings against Napp Pharmaceuticals, what assessment he has made of the extent of similar abuses and their cost to the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [28705]

  Ms Blears

  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: I will write to my hon. Friend with the information requested.

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Staffing
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the change in the number of civil servants working within the Scotland Office in the last 12 months. [30311]

  Mr. Foulkes
  At 31 March 2001 the Department had 107 staff in post. It currently has 114. Both of these figures are within the staffing levels planned for the Scotland Office in July 1999.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Devolution
  David Cairns
  To ask the Advocate-General what criteria she takes into account in deciding to intervene in devolution issues; and what consideration she gives to the cost to public funds. [30556]

  The Advocate-General
  The vast majority of cases to date have involved human rights issues. The reasons for intervention will vary according to the circumstances and the criteria are not rigid. In considering intervention I always have very much in mind the need to avoid unnecessary delay in criminal proceedings and the cost of intervention to the public purse. I have taken the view that intervention should not be a routine matter. I might for instance intervene where the case raises human rights issues of serious concern to the Government and I am satisfied that these are more likely to be resolved satisfactorily with my intervention. Experience has shown that the vast majority of devolution issues are disposed of satisfactorily by the courts, without any need for my intervention and consequent public expense. Where cases reach the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, intervention is particularly apt because that is the final authority. But even in these cases my intervention may not be necessary. My role as Advocate-General is not to 1126W
  intervene in cases at any level, at significant public expense, merely because there is an interesting legal point being debated.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Advocate-General on how many occasions she has raised proceedings in the Scottish courts on a devolution issue since the creation of her office. [29335]

  The Advocate-General
  I have not been responsible for the raising of any devolution issue proceedings in the Scottish courts. All issues concerning the competence of the actings of the Scottish Parliament, or the Scottish Ministers, have been resolved without any need for me to instigate court actions.

  Ministerial Duties
  David Cairns
  To ask the Advocate-General what proposals she has to review the role and function of the Advocate-General [30554]

  The Advocate-General
  My role and functions include a legal advisory role as Law Officer and statutory functions under the Scotland Act 1998. I cannot alter these responsibilities but regularly review how I carry them out, and have no current proposals for change. My office was created by Parliament less than three years ago and I have had to establish and develop it, determining what is required to be done and how to do it. In my advisory role, I have worked closely with the other UK Law Officers to ensure the Government get high quality legal advice, essential to their work. I have developed my role under the Scotland Act, in close co-operation with UK Departments, to seek to ensure that the Government have early warning of issues of competence of Bills of the Scottish Parliament or actings of the Scottish Executive, and can engage in constructive dialogue with the Scottish Executive to address them. Establishing and developing a new office of State is an exciting challenge. The creation of my office has also resulted in a Law Officer with Scottish responsibilities being available in the House of Commons for the first time since 1987.

  Scots Law
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Advocate-General if she will list occasions she has been requested by the Government to give advice on Scots Law since the general election. [29336]

  The Advocate-General
  I give Law officers' advice frequently and it is a major part of my work. I am precluded from providing further information because it is a long standing convention, adhered to by successive Governments and enshrined in the Ministerial Code, that neither the fact that the Law Officers have advised on a matter, nor the content of any advice which they may have given, is disclosed outside Government other than in exceptional circumstances. This is to protect the confidentiality of the legal advice given to the Government. I have explained this convention to Parliament on a number of occasions. In addition, my officials in the Office of the Solicitor to the Advocate-General frequently advise Government Departments on Scots Law.

  Legislation
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Advocate-General how many Bills of the Scottish Parliament she has referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council since the creation of her Office. [29337]

  The Advocate-General
  Since devolution in July 1999 my officials and I have examined 30 Bills in conjunction with relevant Government Departments at various stages during their progress through the Scottish Parliament in order to ensure that any problem of legislative competence is identified and resolved if possible, in order to try to avoid the need to refer a Bill to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Bill may be outwith legal competence in a variety of ways, for example, if it relates to reserved matters, or relates to enactments protected from modification by the Scottish Parliament, or is incompatible with any of the rights of the European Convention on Human Rights or with European Community law. Thus far I am pleased to advise that any problems have been resolved, following legal advice when necessary, and after co-operation and dialogue. As a result I have not referred any Bill so far to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The existence of the power of referral and the work which is done in connection with that power is an essential part of the devolution settlement.

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Advocate-General what the total cost of her Office has been in each year since its creation. [29338]

  The Advocate-General
  The office of the Advocate-General for Scotland was established on 20 May 1999 and since 1 July 1999 forms part of the Scotland Office with the office of the Secretary of State for Scotland. Not all the costs of the Scotland Office can be separately allocated to each of these two Offices.

  Between 20 May and 1 July 1999, the costs of the office of the Advocate-General were paid by the former Scottish Office. From 1 July 1999 to 31 March 2000 the identifiable costs of staff and related administration was £883,326; and in 2000–01 it was £1,265,215. Approximately half of the costs of the office relates to work on litigation and advisory work including the preparation of Bills carried out by lawyers from the Office of the Solicitor to the Advocate-General on behalf of Government Departments other than the Advocate-General.

  Court Proceedings
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Advocate-General on how many occasions she has(a) defended and (b) intervened in court proceedings raised by other parties. [29339]

  The Advocate-General
  I have not defended any actions under the Scotland Act 1998 as none have been raised against me under that Act. I have intervened in 21 court proceedings raised by other parties under the Scotland Act. Over 1,300 devolution issue cases have been intimated to me since May 1999 and my officials and I consider these in conjunction with interested Government Departments. As I have explained to Parliament on a number of occasions I intervene, as a UK 1128W
  Law Officer, only in special circumstances. Most cases are disposed of in the lower courts with no need for my intervention.

  Scotland Office Website
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Advocate-General how many hits there were on the Advocate-General's page of the Scotland Office website between the general election and 1 January 2002. [29347]

  The Advocate-General
  From June 2001 to 31 December 2001, there were 2,493 hits on the Advocate-General's pages of the Scotland Office website.

  Law Officers' Advice
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Advocate-General on how many occasions she has been requested by the(a) Attorney-General and (b) Solicitor-General to give advice on a matter of law since the creation of her Office; and if she will list them. [29340]

  The Advocate-General
  Requests for the Law Officers' advice come from Government Departments and not from the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General for England and Wales. The usual practice is that for requests for advice concerning matters of common interest to the whole United Kingdom, such as the application of European law or human rights issues, I advise jointly with the other United Kingdom Law Officers. Such advice is given frequently. The convention concerning the confidentiality of the Law Officers' advice applies and precludes me from providing details.

  Legal Secretariat
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Advocate-General if she will list the Government Departments for whom the Legal Secretariat has provided legal services. [29341]

  The Advocate-General
  The Legal Secretariat does not provide legal services to Government Departments but assists me in my ministerial duties, such as preparing Law Officers' advice and Cabinet Committee work. The Office of the Solicitor to the Advocate-General provides legal services to most Government Departments. Clients include the Cabinet Office and Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Home Office, the Department for International Development, the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, HM Treasury, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Office of Fair Trading, and the Scotland Office itself.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Advocate-General how many(a) advocates and (b) solicitors have been employed in the Legal Secretariat in each year since the creation of her office. [29344]

  The Advocate-General
  The complement of the Legal Secretariat in each of the years 1999, 2000 and 2001 has been three lawyers, all of whom have been solicitors.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Advocate-General if she will list the matters in which the Legal Secretariat participated in discussions between the UK Government and the Scottish Executive since the general election. [29346]
  1129W
  The Advocate-General
  Members of the Legal Secretariat frequently participate in co-ordination meetings of officials involving representatives of the devolved Administrations as well as Government Departments. Such meetings most commonly concern the application of European Law, human rights and the devolution settlement to various subjects.

  Court Appearances
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Advocate-General on how many occasions she has appeared in court as Advocate-General since the general election. [29342]

  The Advocate-General
  Since June 2001 I have personally appeared in court in two cases. The first was Karl Anderson, Alexander Reid and Brian Doherty v. The Scottish Ministers and the Advocate-General for Scotland, which was a human rights challenge to the first Act passed by the Scottish Parliament, the Mental Health (Public Safety and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 1999. This case was heard over four days in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in July 2001 and followed my appearance personally in the case in the Inner House, heard over several days in May 2000.

  The second case was Kenneth Anthony Paton Mills and John Cochrane v. Her Majesty's Advocate and the Advocate-General for Scotland which was heard in the Appeal Court, High Court of Justiciary in August 2001. My interest in this case was to determine questions concerning the interrelationship of the Scotland Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act 1998.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Advocate-General how many pieces of correspondence her office has answered from non-government sources since the general election. [29343]

  The Advocate-General
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Office of the Solictor to the Advocate-General
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Advocate-General how many(a) advocates and (b) solicitors have been employed in the Office of the Solicitor to the Advocate-General in each year since the creation of her office. [29345]

  The Advocate-General
  In the years 1999–2000 the complement of the Office of the Solicitor to the Advocate-General was 14 lawyers. In 2001 this increased to 16 lawyers. In each year one lawyer was an advocate and the rest solicitors.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  External Consultants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and skills how much was spent by(a) her Department and (b) bodies for which it is responsible on external public relations consultants in each of the last four years. [27388]
  1130W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Expenditure by the Department on campaign extension activities through external public relations consultancies in the past four years is as follows. Information on expenditure by the Department's agencies is not held centrally.

  Year

  Campaign

  Consultancy

  Spend (£000)

  1999

  Reading and Literacy

  Hill and Knowlton

  1620

  2000

  Maths Year

  COI

  16

  2000

  Childcare helpline

  COI

  1

  2000

  Connexions

  Kinross and Render

  4

  2000

  Don't quit now

  Beer Devies

  196

  2000

  UK Online centres

  Geronimo

  63

  2001

  UK Online centres

  Geronimo

  52

  2001

  New Deal

  Hill and Knowlton

  46

  2001

  Connexions

  Kinross and Render

  42

  2001

  Foundation Degrees

  QBO

  114

  2001

  Childcare Recruitment

  Barclay Stratton

  90

  2001

  Work Life Balance

  Fishburn Hedges

  89

  2001

  Individual Learning Accounts

  Shandwick International

  110

  2001

  Widening Participation in Higher Education

  Harrison Cowley

  62

  2002

  Adult Basics Skills

  Fishburn Hedges

  2103

  2002

  Work Life Balance

  Fishburn Hedges

  217

  2002

  UK Online

  Geronimo

  290

  2002

  Aim Higher

  Geronimo

  2100

  1 Figure includes general publicity activity, on organising roadshows and events. in addition to campaign extension work. A breakdown between categories is not available.

  2 On-going campaign—figure shown is anticipated spend for year.

  Market Research
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what expenditure has been incurred by her(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies in each of the last four years on (i) opinion polling, (ii) focus groups and (iii) other forms of market research; and if she will list the surveys commissioned and the purpose of each. [27953]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department commissions tightly focused market research to help develop and evaluate publicity campaigns. The spend in recent years was:

  £

  1998–99

  1,408,908

  1999–2000

  1,687,050

  2000–01

  2,340,222

  2001–021

  1,256,121

  1 To January 2002

  It would be possible to list every one of these research projects only at disproportionate cost. However, some recent campaigns where strategic communications research or creative development research have been commissioned include the drive to widen participation in higher education, by encouraging under-represented groups to take up this option, the promotion of the relevance of science to teenagers, as part of Science Year, the child care recruitment campaign, the campaign to help those adults with basic skills gaps, and the promotion of foundation degrees and Modern apprenticeships. This research is subject to the usual strict rules that spending must represent good value for the tax payer and must not be used for party political purposes.

  The Department also conducts research to help us understand the education, skills and communication needs of our customers. It has sampled and consulted on the

  1131W
  views of teachers, parents and other groups affected by the Department's policies on specific issues. For example, the project "Causes of truancy by pupils of compulsory school age" gathers the views of pupils, parents, school and LEA staff on the causes of truancy and what measures could be taken to address the issue. One of the aims is to examine the issue of absence that is condoned by parents. "A longitudinal study of factors contributing to variations in teacher effectiveness" will investigate the factors which contribute to the effectiveness of teachers at different stages of their career, working in a range of schools in different contexts, and how this changes over time. Part of this study is to track 300 teachers over three years measuring their effectiveness by pupil outcome measures and other qualitative techniques. Again it would not be possible to give details of every project without disproportionate cost.

  Information about opinion polls, focus groups and other forms of research commissioned by the Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies is not held centrally.

  Refurbishment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her estimate is of the cost of buildings refurbishment carried out by her Department in each of the last four years. [27957]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The estimated cost of buildings refurbishment carried out in my Department in each of the last four years is as follows:

  £

  Estimated cost

  2000–01

  4,604,749

  1999–2000

  3,928,406

  1998–99

  2,970,093

  1997–98

  1—

  1 Unfortunately this information can be provided only at disproportionate cost

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many regulatory impact assessments have been produced by her Department since August 2001; and if she will list those produced(a) following initial consultation with affected parties about the most appropriate methodology for assessing costs and other impacts and (b) which set out full commercial impacts, including profitability, employment, consumer prices and competitiveness, as recommended in Good Policy Making. [28400]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, on 17 January 2002,Official Report, column 483W.

  Specialist Designation
  Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether there is a barrier to a school's PFI partner sponsoring a bid for technology status by that school. [28353]
  1132W
  John Healey
  As stated in the criteria set out in the published guidance documents for each specialism, a PFI partner may provide all or part of the £50,000 sponsorship required to support a school's application for designation as a specialist school.

  Pupil Mobility
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent research she has a commissioned and (b) evaluated on the effect of pupil mobility on educational attainment. [29234]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department and the Nuffield Foundation supported a research project into pupil mobility, its effect on schools and educational attainment, conducted by the Migration Research Unit at University College London. The project was concluded in June 2000 and the final report published in September 2000. The first part of the research 'Pupil Mobility in Schools' is available from DfES Publications. The second part is available in full on the internet at www.geog.ucl.ac.uk/mru.

  Teachers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 5 December 2001,Official Report, column 426W, if she will break down the figures by vacancies in (a) nursery, (b) primary, (c) secondary and (d) special schools; and what the equivalent figures are for England. [30127]

  Mr. Timms
  Full-time teacher vacancies in maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools reported by the Buckinghamshire local authority were as follows:

  January 1998

  January 2001

  Nursery

  0

  0

  Primary

  10

  21

  Secondary

  14

  33

  Special

  11

  5

  Total

  35

  59

  Full-time teacher vacancies in maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools in England were as follows:

  January 1998

  January 2001

  Nursery

  69

  103

  Primary

  1,322

  2,007

  Secondary

  968

  2,586

  Special

  233

  280

  Total

  2,592

  4,976

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will publish her latest estimates of the percentage of secondary school pupils who are in specialist schools in each local education authority area in England; and if she will make a statement. [29218]

  Mr. Timms

  [holding answer 23 January 2002]: The available information is shown in the table.
  1133W

  Percentage of secondary school pupils who attend specialist maintained secondary schools by local education authority
  1

  LEA

  pupils aged 11+ in specialist maintained secondary schools

  pupils aged 11+ in all maintained secondary schools

  Percentage of pupils Pupils aged 11+ in specialist maintained secondary schools

  Wandsworth

  6,395

  9,944

  64.3

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  10,138

  16,318

  62.1

  West Berkshire

  7,033

  11,740

  59.9

  Gateshead

  7,025

  12,043

  58.3

  Hackney

  4,411

  7,921

  55.7

  York

  4,929

  9,972

  49.4

  Darlington

  2,953

  6,009

  49.1

  North Somerset

  5,891

  12,268

  48.0

  Cornwall

  13,685

  32,000

  42.8

  Bath and North East Somerset

  5,218

  12,270

  42.5

  Camden

  4,544

  10,868

  41.8

  Greenwich

  5,767

  13,834

  41.7

  Ealing

  6,163

  15,088

  40.8

  Durham

  13,116

  32,158

  40.8

  Stockton-on-Tees

  5,070

  12,792

  39.6

  Bournemouth

  3,800

  9,768

  38.9

  Newham

  6,667

  17,469

  38.2

  Milton Keynes

  4,465

  12,058

  37.0

  Wigan

  7,716

  20,854

  37.0

  Birmingham

  25,401

  69,037

  36.8

  Bradford

  12,539

  34,214

  36.6

  Hartlepool

  2,409

  6,679

  36.1

  Plymouth

  6,786

  18,823

  36.1

  Gloucestershire

  13,718

  38,146

  36.0

  Northumberland

  8,075

  22,855

  35.3

  Manchester

  8,227

  23,472

  35.1

  Rutland

  789

  2,254

  35.0

  Wiltshire

  9,570

  27,383

  34.9

  Cambridgeshire

  10,625

  30,916

  34.4

  St. Helens

  4,167

  12,159

  34.3

  Northamptonshire

  14,932

  44,161

  33.8

  Barking and Dagenham

  3,709

  11,079

  33.5

  Redbridge

  6,301

  18,868

  33.4

  Lambeth

  2,398

  7,208

  33.3

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  7,333

  22,627

  32.4

  Rochdale

  4,583

  14,153

  32.4

  Lincolnshire

  14,210

  44,166

  32.2

  Sheffield

  9,596

  29,861

  32.1

  Wakefield

  6,758

  21,279

  31.8

  Trafford

  5,000

  15,844

  31.6

  East Sussex

  8,686

  27,805

  31.2

  Knowsley

  3,160

  10,240

  30.9

  Norfolk

  13,712

  44,896

  30.5

  Warrington

  4,192

  13,833

  30.3

  Leicester

  5,436

  18,031

  30.1

  Leicestershire

  13,014

  43,184

  30.1

  Oxfordshire

  10,694

  36,002

  29.7

  Dorset

  7,474

  25,163

  29.7

  Bromley

  6,269

  21,227

  29.5

  Poole

  2,321

  7,864

  29.5

  Liverpool

  9,819

  33,470

  29.3

  Tower Hamlets

  4,049

  14,086

  28.7

  Suffolk

  12,537

  44,056

  28.5

  Wolverhampton

  4,694

  16,540

  28.4

  Blackpool

  2,203

  7,823

  28.2

  North Tyneside

  3,521

  12,511

  28.1

  Surrey

  15,892

  56,626

  28.1

  Bolton

  5,363

  19,145

  28.0

  Essex

  23,989

  86,260

  27.8

  North East Lincolnshire

  3,263

  11,734

  27.8

  Kingston Upon Hull, City of

  4,446

  16,012

  27.8

  Buckinghamshire

  9,215

  33,255

  27.7

  North Lincolnshire

  2,933

  10,649

  27.5

  South Gloucestershire

  4,473

  16,440

  27.2

  West Sussex

  11,545

  42,454

  27.2

  Isle of Wight

  2,356

  8,858

  26.6

  Brent

  3,846

  14,473

  26.6

  South Tyneside

  2,680

  10,508

  25.5

  Cumbria

  8,581

  33,743

  25.4

  Derby

  3,739

  14,748

  25.4

  Southend-on-Sea

  2,836

  11,363

  25.0

  1134W 1135W

  Percentage of secondary school pupils who attend specialist maintained secondary schools by local education authority1

  LEA

  Pupils aged 11+ in specialist maintained secondary schools

  Pupils aged 11+ in all maintained secondary schools

  Percentage of pupils aged 11+in specialist maintained secondary schools

  Rotherham

  4,910

  19,845

  24.7

  Middles rough

  2,119

  8,572

  24.7

  Sunderland

  4,823

  19,837

  24.3

  Coventry

  5,091

  20,963

  24.3

  Kirklees

  6,070

  25,084

  24.2

  Somerset

  6,966

  28,849

  24.1

  Islington

  1,814

  7,581

  23.9

  Brighton and Hove

  2,872

  12,026

  23.9

  Wirral

  5,759

  24,181

  23.8

  Hillingdon

  3,869

  16,470

  23.5

  Derbyshire

  11,201

  47,868

  23.4

  Halton

  2,017

  8,688

  23.2

  Waltham Forest

  2,997

  12,979

  23.1

  Shropshire

  4,074

  17,657

  23.1

  Devon

  9,034

  39,814

  22.7

  Worcestershire

  7,638

  33,843

  22.6

  Blackburn with Darwen

  2,143

  9,501

  22.6

  Lancashire

  16,800

  74,964

  22.4

  Westminster

  1,777

  8,019

  22.2

  Medway

  4,363

  19,837

  22.0

  North Yorkshire

  8,699

  40,087

  21.7

  Reading

  1,346

  6,349

  21.2

  Leeds

  9,799

  47,168

  20.8

  Herefordshire

  2,031

  9,823

  20.7

  Swindon

  2,358

  11,561

  20.4

  Wokingham

  2,186

  10,760

  20.3

  Luton

  2,446

  12,073

  20.3

  Peterborough

  2,582

  12,960

  19.9

  Stoke-on-Trent

  2,870

  14,831

  19.4

  Sefton

  3,893

  20,671

  18.8

  Slough

  1,483

  7,924

  18.7

  Southwark

  1,844

  10,220

  18.0

  Bristol, City of

  3,082

  17,902

  17.2

  Stockport

  2,791

  16,575

  16.8

  Barnet

  3,501

  21,064

  16.6

  Sandwell

  3,240

  19,532

  16.6

  Walsall

  3,476

  21,382

  16.3

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,150

  7,101

  16.2

  Warwickshire

  5,108

  32,658

  15.6

  Telford and Wrekin

  1,601

  10,258

  15.6

  Hounslow

  2,526

  16,286

  15.5

  Solihull

  2,398

  15,586

  15.4

  Tameside

  2,357

  15,368

  15.3

  Nottingham

  2,115

  13,910

  15.2

  Hertfordshire

  11,173

  74,566

  15.0

  Salford

  1,874

  12,524

  15.0

  Kent

  13,541

  92,264

  14.7

  Oldham

  2,398

  16,825

  14.3

  Haringey

  1,557

  11,391

  13.7

  Havering

  2,068

  15,903

  13.0

  Portsmouth

  1,271

  10,108

  12.6

  Thurrock

  1,004

  8,124

  12.4

  Hampshire

  8,632

  70,604

  12.2

  Cheshire

  5,651

  46,234

  12.2

  Redcar and Cleveland

  1,221

  10,351

  11.8

  Torbay

  1,013

  8,704

  11.6

  Nottinghamshire

  5,926

  53,560

  11.1

  Staffordshire

  5,347

  57,451

  9.3

  Calderdale

  1,358

  14,882

  9.1

  Sutton

  1,134

  14,572

  7.8

  Barnsley

  847

  13,134

  6.4

  Croydon

  1,081

  17,394

  6.2

  Bedfordshire

  1,516

  27,263

  5.6

  Bexley

  823

  17,461

  4.7

  Dudley

  585

  20,290

  2.9

  1 As at January 2001

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census
  1136W 1137W
  The provisional 2002 data will be available in late spring.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many specialist schools have received assistance from public funds in order to raise the money needed to submit a development plan; how many have received assistance of(a) £1 to £5,000, (b) £5,001 to £15,000, (c) £15,001 to £25,000, and (d) over £25,000; and if she will make a statement. [29219]

  Mr. Timms

  [holding answer 23 January 2002]: No public sector funds may be counted towards the sponsorship supporting a specialist school application. No data are held centrally on the extent of public support—such as from LEAs—for the preparation of applications for specialist school status.

  Independent Schools
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the independent schools removed from the register of independent schools in each year from 1996. [30409]

  Mr. Timms
  Since 1996 the following schools have been deleted from the register of independent schools as a result of failure to comply with a Notice of Complaint:
  1998

  Jameah Islameyah, East Sussex

  1999

  Grange House, Herefordshire

  Kensington International, London

  2000

  Bright Sparks Theatre School, London

  Al Jamea Al Islamia, Manchester

  2001

  Thomas Francis, London.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she will reply to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough's question of 18 December 2001 concerning asset management plans. [30301]

  John Healey
  A reply was issued to the hon. Member on 17 January 2002,Official Report, column 446W.

  Revenue Funding
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total amount of revenue funding available for children in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools has been in the last five years in (i) Durham, (ii) South Tyneside and (iii) Hampshire. [30442]

  Mr. Timms
  The following tables contain the information requested:

  Durham

  £

  Cash

  Real terms—prices 2000–01

  SSA

  Grants

  Total

  SSA

  Grants

  Total

  Primary

  1997–98

  2,040

  40

  2,080

  2,190

  40

  2,230

  1998–99

  2,160

  60

  2,220

  2,250

  60

  2,310

  1999–2000

  2,280

  140

  2,420

  2,320

  140

  2,460

  1138W

  Durham

  £

  Cash

  Real terms—prices 2000–01

  SSA

  Grants

  Total

  SSA

  Grants

  Total

  2000–01

  2,390

  320

  2,710

  2,390

  320

  2,710

  2001–02

  2,490

  590

  3,080

  2,430

  570

  3,000

  Change1

  450

  550

  1,000

  240

  530

  770

  Secondary

  1997–98

  2,680

  30

  2,720

  2,880

  40

  2,910

  1998–99

  2,820

  50

  2,870

  2,940

  50

  2,990

  1999–2000

  2,940

  100

  3,040

  2,990

  100

  3,090

  2000–01

  3,090

  240

  3,340

  3,090

  240

  3,340

  2001–02

  3,220

  410

  3,630

  3,140

  400

  3,540

  Change1

  530

  380

  910

  260

  370

  630

  South Tyneside

  £

  Cash

  Real terms—prices 2000–01

  SSA

  Grants

  Total

  SSA

  Grants

  Total

  Primary

  1997–98

  1,210

  40

  2,160

  2,270

  50

  2,320

  1998–99

  2,230

  70

  2,300

  2,330

  70

  2,400

  1999–2000

  2,360

  150

  2,510

  2,400

  150

  2,550

  2000–01

  2,470

  360

  2,830

  2,470

  360

  2,830

  2001–02

  2,580

  670

  3,250

  2,510

  650

  3,170

  Change1

  450

  630

  1,080

  240

  610

  850

  Secondary

  1997–98

  2,780

  40

  2,820

  2,980

  40

  3,020

  1998–99

  2,900

  60

  2,960

  3,020

  60

  3,080

  1999–2000

  3,020

  110

  3,130

  3,080

  110

  3,180

  2000–01

  3,180

  270

  3,450

  3,180

  270

  3,450

  2001–02

  3,310

  460

  3,770

  3,230

  450

  3,680

  Change1

  540

  420

  950

  260

  410

  660

  Hampshire

  £

  Cash

  Real terms—prices 2000–01

  SSA

  Grants

  Total

  SSA

  Grants

  Total

  Primary

  1997–98

  2,010

  30

  2,030

  2,150

  30

  2,180

  1998–99

  2,120

  30

  2,150

  2,210

  30

  2,240

  1999–000

  2,230

  80

  2,310

  2,270

  80

  2,350

  2000–01

  2,330

  220

  2,550

  2,330

  220

  2,550

  2001–02

  2,450

  390

  2,840

  2,390

  390

  2,770

  Change1

  440

  360

  810

  240

  360

  590

  Secondary

  1997–98

  2,630

  20

  2,650

  2,820

  30

  2,840

  1998–99

  2,780

  30

  2,800

  2,890

  30

  2,920

  1999–2000

  2,870

  60

  2,930

  2,920

  60

  2,980

  2000–01

  3,010

  170

  3,190

  3,010

  170

  3,190

  2001–02

  3,170

  280

  3,450

  3,090

  280

  3,370

  Change1

  540

  260

  800

  270

  250

  520

  1 Change since 1997–98

  Notes:

  1. The figures reflect Education SSA (primary and secondary sub-blocks respectively) plus all school related revenue grants in the DfES's DEL relevant aged 5–10 (primary) and 11–15 (secondary).

  2. The primary and secondary grant figures include notional allocations for those grants in support of more than one sector.

  3. Pupil numbers underlying the £ per pupil figures are those underlying the SSA settlement calculations (primary and secondary sub-blocks respectively.

  4. Real terms figures are calculated using GDP deflators published by the Treasury 20 December 2001.

  5. 2001–02 figures are provisional as decisions on some funding allocations have yet to be finalised. The figures are thus liable to be revised later in the year.

  6. Figures rounded to nearest £10. Difference figures may not sum due to rounding.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Translation Services
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what translation services he ensures are available to(a) Benefits Agency and (b) Employment Service staff in (i) England and (ii) Staffordshire. [13498]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  In both the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service, throughout Great Britain, we will provide an interpreter for customers who do not speak English and who either cannot or do not wish to provide their own interpreter. This service is provided through either a multilingual member of staff; local services, for example, community interpreters, local authority services or colleges; or the telephone interpreting service provided by Language Line.

  We also have an internal translation service for translating documents both into English and into foreign languages. This is supplemented by a rapid translation service on a text-to-speech basis when a quick translation of a document in a foreign language is needed. Local offices also have the freedom to use community based translation services if they are available and convenient.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will quantify the public service agreement target for employment over the economic cycle. [19049]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 11 December 2001,Official Report, columns 777–79W.

  Jobcentre Plus
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the national staffing requirements for Jobcentre Plus, and the average wage per employee will be; what the combined national staffing requirements were for the Benefits Agency and Employment Service, and the average wage per employee; and what will happen to employees that are surplus to the Jobcentre Plus staffing requirements. [24222]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Currently some 112,000 employees work in the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service. The average salary per employee is approximately £15,080.

  We will begin rolling out Jobcentre Plus nationally from 2002. Local staffing requirements for Jobcentre Plus will be determined as part of this process. The chief executives of the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service wrote to all staff on 23 April 2001. They reassured staff that a key aim in developing plans for Jobcentre Plus and the Pension Service would be to enable all current staff to have a job in the new organisations or one of the other agencies in the Department.

  David Cairns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what is the value of the extra investment in help to the unemployed represented by the new Jobcentre Plus pilot offices in Inverclyde. [25418]
  1140W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  £122 million has been invested in the current financial year to establish the Jobcentre Plus Pathfinder offices. Because much of this investment, for example on IT and communications, has been spent on the Pathfinder offices collectively it is not possible to identify the total investment separately in respect of the offices in Inverclyde. However, a total of around £3.6 million has been spent on improving the physical environment of the Greenock and Port Glasgow Pathfinder offices.

  Industrial Action
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the number of letters that(a) his Department and its agencies, (b) Employment Service offices, (c) Benefits Agency offices and (d) Jobcentre Plus offices have written to individuals citing delays in (i) interviews, (ii) processing claims and (iii) claim reviews, which have resulted from the current industrial action. [25222]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Information is not available in the format requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The contingency plans put in place during the dispute, allied to the fact that the great majority of staff are working normally, have enabled us to maintain a near normal service with minimal delays.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the number of complaints that(a) his Department and its agencies, (b) Employment Service offices, (c) Benefits Agency offices and (d) Jobcentre Plus offices have received which relate to the current industrial action. [25225]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  It is not possible to estimate the number of complaints received at area or regional level as a result of the industrial action, as these data have not been collected separately during the course of the dispute.

  Centrally, where data are available, we have no record of any such complaints being received from customers.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will estimate the number of incapacity benefit claimants who have been required to attend repeat Benefits Agency medical assessment in each of the last 12 months; [25223]

  (2) if he will estimate the number of incapacity benefit claimants who have lost their entitlement as a result of a repeat Benefits Agency medical assessment in each of the last 12 months; [25224]

  (3) if he will (a) estimate the number of incapacity benefit claimants transferred to a different benefit as a result of a repeat Benefits Agency medical assessment in each of the last 12 months and (b) provide a breakdown by each individual benefit to which they have been transferred. [25221]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Information is not available in the format requested.
  1141W
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the arrangements for transfer to incapacity benefit of unemployed persons of working age who are involved in one or more sickness incidents during a year. [29069]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown

  [holding answer 23 January 2002]: A person who has been awarded jobseeker's allowance and is unable to work because of sickness may choose to remain on jobseeker's allowance for up to two weeks. This easement means that people who are incapable of work for short periods of time do not have to change the benefit they are claiming. It can normally be used on two occasions in each year of a job-seeking period. Where the easement does not apply an unemployed person who becomes incapable of work can claim incapacity benefit supported by medical evidence.

  We are now delivering a new business, Jobcentre Plus, to help all people of working age make the most of their opportunities. In the past, many people were moved on to incapacity benefit with little or no help to make sure they got the right level of support to enable them to get back into work, where they are ready and able to do so.

  All people making new and repeat claims to incapacity benefit in Jobcentre Plus pathfinder offices are offered a work-focused meeting as a condition of receiving benefit. These meetings provide the opportunity for people to discuss their work options, as well as their benefit claim, and to investigate with their personal adviser the practical and financial support that is available to help them return to work.

  Lone Mothers
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what action the Government will take to facilitate the provision of(a) housing and (b) council tax benefit to lone mothers raising children on their own and not forming part of a married couple. [25258]

  Malcolm Wicks
  On 12 December we responded positively and in detail to the Better Regulation Task Force report "Housing Benefit: A Case Study of Lone Parents". Our response set out the measures already under way and those planned to ease lone parents' path back into work and provide security for those for whom work is not an immediate option.

  A copy of our response has been placed in the Library and is also available on the Department's website at www.dwp.gov.uk/publications/20001/index/htm.

  Mental Health
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to PQ 01/20232 and PQ 01/20233, 8 January 2002,Official Report, column 687W, if he will publish the syllabi of the training programmes mentioned and the advice to medical service doctors. [26452]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  A copy of the contents of the relevant training modules has been placed in the Library.

  Newspaper Advertising
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what has been the expenditure of his 1142W
  (a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies on newspaper advertising by title in each year since 1997. [26974]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Department and its agencies use advertising for various reasons ranging from public information and recruitment to advertising opening hours of local offices. For each occasion national and/or regional media may be used as well as hundreds of local papers.

  A breakdown of expenditure on newspaper advertising by title could therefore be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Pension Funds
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what representations he has received concerning the value of pension funds since 1 January 2001. [28198]

  Mr. McCartney

  The Department has frequent discussions with representatives of the pensions industry which cover a range of issues. We also receive a large number of pieces of correspondence concerning a range of pensions issues.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average delay was in making payment to state earnings related pension schemes for contributions due in the year to April 2001; what the figure was in each year since the scheme was introduced; and if he will make a statement. [30310]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  ME
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what guidance he has issued to the Benefits Agency concerning the acceptance of a clinical diagnosis of ME as grounds for an entitlement to benefit. [28220]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We recognise the chronic fatigue syndromes (including ME) as potentially debilitating illnesses. Where a clinical diagnosis of CFS has been made, full account is taken of the resultant care and mobility needs in disability living allowance or its effect on the prescribed activities in the personal capability assessment for incapacity benefits.

  New Deal
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what representations he has received on the funding arrangements due to come into voluntary operation on 1 April about the sector option of New Deal. [28060]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown

  [holding answer 17 January 2002]: New arrangements for funding providers on a formula basis will be introduced throughout the new deal for young people, including the voluntary sector option on 1 April 2002. This approach fulfils the commitments made following the 1999 "Learning to Succeed" White Paper to ensure a common approach to the funding of all post-16 learning.
  1143W
  I have received representations from two organisations on these new arrangements. The Employment Service is continuing discussions on the new funding arrangements with its existing contractors.

  Winter Fuel Allowance
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) of 10 December 2001,Official Report, column 589, how people can apply for backdated winter fuel payments; and whether the procedure differs according to the year to which the claim relates. [28380]

  Mr. McCartney
  Backdated winter fuel payments are only available for the first three winters of the scheme, 1997–1998, 1998–1999 and 1999–2000. Claim forms are available by either ringing the winter fuel payment helpline on 08459 151515 and requesting one, or from the Department for Work and Pensions' website at www.dwp.gov.uk/winterfuel. The procedure for claiming for each of the three years is the same.

  Benefit Systems
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 12 December 2001,Official Report, columns 896–97W, when the Statutory Instrument referred to was revoked; and for what reason his answer does not refer to the Statutory Instrument currently in force. [28672]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Local Government (Best Value) Performance Indicators Order 2000, SI 2000 No. 896 referred to in my answer of 12 December 2001,Official Report, columns 896–97W contains Best Value Performance Indicators for 2000–01. The order was not revoked but was superseded by the Local Government (Best Value) Performance Indicators and Performance Standards Order 2001, SI 2001 No. 724 which contains Best Value Performance Indicators for 2001–02 and is currently in force. My answer did not refer to this statutory instrument because the hon. Member did not ask for details of the Best Value Performance Indicators for the current year.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how often, on average, people with stakeholder pensions make contributions towards their pension. [28969]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available.

  Medical Assessment Services
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on recent changes in the standards for delivery of medical assessment services contracted by his Department. [29072]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown

  [holding answer 23 January 2002]: Over the last quarter, October to December 2001, service delivery in all key areas of the Medical Services Contract has improved. The volume of examinations which have been completed is significantly higher than in the same period last year and examinations are being arranged more promptly. The proportion of customers seen within 10 minutes of their appointment time has
  1144W
  risen, and the number being sent home unseen has reduced. Special needs indicated by customers, such as interpreter services, are being met. The training, medical quality, and customer service targets set by the Government in their response to the Social Security Select Committee inquiry into Medical Services all are being met.

TREASURY

  Insider Trading
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people have been prosecuted for insider dealing in each of the last 10 years. [27445]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department of Trade and Industry has prosecuted 30 people for insider dealing offences since 1 January 1992. The breakdown is as follows:

  Year

  Number of people

  1992

  6

  1993

  3

  1994

  2

  1995

  1

  1996

  4

  1997

  —

  1998

  —

  1999

  —

  2000

  7

  2001

  4

  2002

  13

  1 Cases not yet completed.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in how many cases in the last year direct debits of national insurance contributions by self-employed persons suspended during payment of incapacity benefit have not been resumed following the termination of payment of incapacity benefit by reason of technical problems with the National Insurance Contributions Office replacement computer system; and if he will make a statement. [22365]

  Dawn Primarolo

  [holding answer 11 December 2001]: There is no evidence to show that resumption of collection of national insurance contributions by direct debit in these circumstances failed because of technical problems with the National Insurance Contributions Office's replacement computer system.

  Duty-Free Shopping
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the effect on job numbers of the ending of duty-free shopping within the EU. [24280]

  Mr. Boateng
  No estimate has been made.

  Temporary Contracts
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many employees in(a) his Department and (b) executive agencies supervised by his Department have been employed on temporary contracts of (i) 51 weeks or (ii) less than 51 weeks' duration in this year and each of the

  1145W
  past five years, in each case specifying what percentage of the respective total workforce these employees constitute. [25167]

  Staff in post numbers

  Year

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  1 April 2001 to 31 December 2001

  HMT

  Casual

  18

  10

  36

  27

  35

  20

  Percentage of staff

  1.9

  1.1

  3.9

  2.9

  4

  1.9

  National Savings

  Casual

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  13

  3

  Percentage of staff

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  15

  3

  Debt Management Office

  Casual

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  3

  2—

  Percentage of staff

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  5.5

  2—

  Royal Mint

  Casual staff

  63

  16

  131

  165

  115

  18

  Percentage of Staff

  6.5

  1.6

  12.7

  15.5

  11.5

  1.7

  Office for National Statistics

  Casual staff

  1—

  6

  3

  8

  13

  12

  Percentage of staff

  1—

  4.3

  2.8

  4.8

  6.1

  5.5

  Office of Government Commerce

  Casuals

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  33

  36

  Percentage of Staff

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  6.9

  8.4

  1 No data available

  2 No casuals

  3 Agency not formed

  Note:

  Data relate to figures of casual staff on contracts of less than 51 weeks

  Warehoused Goods Regulations
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions in(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01 an owner of warehoused goods failed to comply with the Warehouses and Owners of Warehouse Goods Regulations 1999. [26429]

  Mr. Boateng
  The central record holds details of rejections at application and revocation action only. The numbers are as follows:

  1999–2000

  Revocations—1

  Rejections at registration—0

  2000–01

  Revocations—14

  Rejections at registration—38.

  None were revoked solely due to breaches of conditions. Minor compliance breaches that do not result in revocation are not recorded centrally, as it would be time consuming and costly to gather that information.

  Digitised Products (Taxation)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals the Government are making within the European Community for alternatives to the Commission's paper COM (2000) 349. [26448]

  Mr. Boateng
  As part of on-going EU discussions on the taxation of digitised products supplied to consumers, the Government have consistently argued that, in the
  1146W
  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested is given in the table:

  medium term, an electronic solution should be introduced for charging, collecting and distributing the tax due on these supplies in the place where they are consumed, and that any short-term solution should be both temporary and simple to administer. We are confident that final agreement will soon be reached on this basis.

  Alcohol and Tobacco Fraud Review
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which Ministers received the draft Alcohol and Tobacco Fraud Review report containing the paragraph on resources cited in paragraph 9.3 of the Rogues report. [26415]

  Mr. Boateng
  The draft report was submitted to the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and discussed by Treasury Ministers. Consideration of the resourcing implications was subsequently taken forward as part of the 1998 spending round in the normal way.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the recommendations of HM Customs and Excise on the level of additional resources needed to combat fraud and evasion that were contained in the draft Alcohol and Tobacco Fraud Review and quoted in paragraph 9.3 of the Rogues report. [26414]

  Mr. Boateng
  Consideration of the resourcing implications of the Review was taken forward as part of
  1147W
  the 1998 Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR). The CSR settlement included an additional £35 million to fund more than 100 extra officers at the ports to tackle the problem of alcohol and tobacco fraud and smuggling.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to consult service users on options and priorities for the Comprehensive Spending Review. [26137]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government consult a wide range of interests in setting their priorities, including, importantly, service users.

  Market Research
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what expenditure has been incurred by his(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies in each of the last four years on (i) opinion polling, (ii) focus groups and (iii) other forms of market research; and if he will list the surveys commissioned and the purpose of each. [27950]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on 29 January 2001,Official Report, column 42W.

  Detailed information in the form requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Young People (Income Tax and National Insurance)
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what percentage of persons aged(a) 16 and (b) 17 years paid (i) income tax and (ii) national insurance in each of the last five years; [29463]

  (2) how much (a) income tax and (b) national insurance was received from persons aged (i) 16 and (ii) 17 years in each of the last five years. [29467]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Amounts of income tax liabilities from persons aged 16 and 17 are in the table.

  Income tax liabilities

  £ million

  Aged 16

  Aged 17

  1998–99

  20

  50

  1999–2000

  10

  40

  2000–01

  10

  40

  Estimates (rounded to the nearest £10 million) are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes and are consistent with the November 2001 pre-Budget report. I regret that it is not possible to provide reliable estimates for earlier years.

  Estimates for amounts of class 1 primary national insurance contribution (NIC) liabilities from persons aged 16 and 17 are in the table.
  1148W

  UK class 1 primary NIC

  £ million

  Aged 16

  Aged 17

  1996–97

  10

  30

  1997–98

  10

  30

  1998–99

  10

  30

  1999–2000

  10

  30

  2000–01

  10

  20

  Estimates provided by the Government Actuary's Department and rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  Available estimates for the number of income taxpayers aged 16 and 17 as a percentage of the total population of 16 and 17-year-olds are in the table.

  Percentage

  Number of 16-year-old taxpayers as a percentage of all 16-year-olds

  Number of 17-year-old taxpayers as a percentage of all 17-year-olds

  1998–99

  4

  11

  1999–2000

  3

  10

  2000–01

  3

  10

  Taxpayer estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes. Population estimates are from the Office for National Statistics.

  Estimates for the number of NIC payers aged 16 and 17 as a percentage of the total population of 16 and 17-year-olds are in the table.

  Percentage

  Number of 16-year-old taxpayers as a percentage of all 16-year-olds

  Number of 17-year-old taxpayers as a percentage of all 17-year-olds

  1996–97

  5

  13

  1997–98

  5

  13

  1998–99

  5

  13

  1999–2000

  5

  14

  2000–01

  4

  11

  Estimates were provided by the Government Actuary's Department. Population estimates are from the Office for National Statistics.

  All of the estimates are based on survey data and therefore subject to a margin of error particularly because of the relatively small sample sizes involved.

  Green Technology Challenge
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) on what basis(a) air pollution from industry, (b) cleaning up polluted land, (c) oil spills, (d) waste treatment and (e) recycling are excluded from the Green Technology Challenge funding; [29702]

  (2) for what reasons the decision was taken to limit the Green Technology Challenge to (a) clean fuels, (b) clean vehicle reduction in water use, (c) the improvement of water quality and (d) energy efficient technologies. [29701]
  1149W
  Mr. Boateng
  The Government provide support for environmental objectives through a wide range of policies. Proposals put forward in response to the consultation on setting up a Green Technology Challenge were assessed against the following criteria:the extent to which there is a market failure or a specific environmental problem that needs to be addressed through Government policy;
  the extent to which this problem is best dealt with through a fiscal instrument such as capital allowances and the objective cannot be better achieved through other Government policies;
  the effectiveness of offering enhanced capital allowances for investment in technologies in the environmental area in question.

  The Government's initial view is that other proposals put forward in response to the consultation do not meet the above criteria as well as the objectives announced. However, the Government will consider extending the scope of the scheme over time.

  World Bank Loans
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with US Treasury spokesmen on replacing World bank loans to the world's poorest countries with grants. [29629]

  Mr. Boateng
  The potential role of World bank grant finance is one of the issues being discussed in the context of the replenishment of the funds of the International Development Association (IDA, the concessional lending arm of the World bank), on which the Secretary of State for International Development leads. The Chancellor and Treasury officials have held discussions with the US Treasury and other countries to seek support for the UK position in these negotiations, which is that we should maintain and enhance the role of IDA as the largest source of concessional finance for low-income countries, and to encourage a substantial contribution by donors to the IDA replenishment.

  VAT (Care Services)
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost in the current financial year of altering the VAT treatment of fees paid by individuals to nursing homes and registered residential homes for the elderly to that of a zero rated VAT product; and if he will make a statement. [29625]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 20 July 2001,Official Report, column 559W.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects Customs and Excise to issue details of the proposed extra statutory concession in respect of VAT on supply of services agency workers for domiciliary care. [30161]

  Mr. Boateng
  Details of the proposed extra statutory concession on the VAT liability of home care will be available when the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry lays before Parliament revised regulations governing the conduct of the private recruitment industry.

  Sport
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received 1150W
  concerning the Promoting Sport in the Community consultation; to whom the consultation document was circulated and in what quantities; and what measures he is taking to ensure that the views of unpaid voluntary workers who work for Community Amateur Sports Clubs are taken into account. [30159]

  Mr. Boateng
  A number of representations have been received concerning the "Promoting Sport in the Community" consultation document and consultation continues. Over 5,000 copies of the consultation document have been circulated to CASCs and their governing bodies, Sport England and the Central Council of Physical Recreation. The consultation document is also available on the Treasury public internet site. Given the diversity of the sector, the Government are keen that as many interested parties as possible will take the opportunity to respond, so that all views can be taken into account.

  Census Data
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate has been made of the impact that the raising of the minimum threshold for publication of census data from 50 persons/20 households to 100 persons/40 parishes will have on the planning of services in rural areas; [30193]

  (2) what measures the Office for National Statistics will take to assist authorities responsible for local planning where separate census data for individual parishes has been lost by the amalgamation of figures as a result of the increased minimum threshold; [30194]

  (3) what representation he has received concerning the availability of 2001 census data at parish level; [30156]

  (4) what representations he has received on the impact of the raised thresholds in the 2001 census on the planning of services in rural areas; [30155]

  (5) if he will revert to the 1991 census threshold figure of 50 persons per household. [30157]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Miss Anne McIntosh, dated 25 January 2002:
  As National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales I have been asked to reply to your recent questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking:

  (i) what estimate has been made of the impact that raising of the minimum threshold for the publication of census data from 50 persons/20 households to 100 persons/40 parishes (sic) will have on the planning of services in rural areas (30193);

  (ii) what representation he has received concerning the availability of 2001 Census data at parish level (30156);

  (iii) what representations he has received on the impact of the raised threshold in the 2001 Census on planning services in rural areas (30155):

  (iv) if he will consider reverting to the 1991 Census threshold of '50 persons per household' (sic) (30157); and

  (v) what measures the Office for National Statistics will take to assist authorities responsible for local planning where separate census data for individual parishes has been lost by the amalgamation of figures as a result of the increased minimum threshold (30194).

  1151W
  I will respond generally while covering the issues raised in each of the questions.
  Following a recent ONS Review of the measures to protect the confidentiality of personal information provided in the 2001 Census, I have announced some additional measures. These include a decision that standard statistical output (amounting to some 10,000 counts) will not be released for small areas below a certain population threshold, this being 100 resident persons and 40 resident households.
  The design of output areas from the 2001 Census will, however, recognise the need to identify parishes separately in the 2001 Census, but the number of parishes that fall below this threshold will not be known until the processing of data is completed later this year. From information from the 1991 Census, however, it is estimated that some 1,230 parishes in England would have fallen below the 2001 Census threshold.
  Nevertheless, the average size of output areas in the 2001 Census will be significantly smaller than in the 1991 Census, facilitating greater geographical flexibility overall in using Census output. The resulting increased amount of detail to be made available from the 2001 Census will assist in the better planning of local services.
  I have listened carefully to the views expressed throughout extensive consultation on output requirements from the Census. The Review was fully aware of, and considered carefully, all the requirements for output, including those for parishes, that users had articulated during the course of wide and extensive consultation with all local authorities and other users.
  Following the initial announcement last November of my decision to introduce these additional disclosure control measures, I received a number of representations including six from local government bodies expressing particular concerns about the impact of the raised threshold on the availability of 2001 Census data for parishes. In addition, I have recently answered two Parliamentary Questions from the right hon. David Curry MP (nos. 28863 and 28862) on the subject.
  I am, of course, keen to ensure that users will obtain the maximum benefit from the use of 2001 Census data. To this end, I invited representatives from the census-user community to a meeting on 13 December 2001 at which we were able to discuss further the specific issues that users had raised including the particular issue about sub-threshold parishes. At that meeting I explained that as Registrar General and National Statistician, I have an obligation not to reveal information collected in confidence in the Census about individual people and households. Indeed, I have given public assurances that I will not do so. In presenting increasingly detailed results from the Census, protecting personal information is of paramount importance.
  Maintaining the confidentiality of individual data underpins the trust that exists between data suppliers and any agency that acts as custodian of information about them. At ONS we are fortunate that businesses and the public have confidence that their information is securely held and that we do not release any data that could identify an individual. It is essential that this trust be maintained. The 2001 Census Discussion Paper on Standard Area Statistics (September 2001) noted that the confidentiality threshold being proposed at that time was 50 persons and 20 resident households, but that disclosure control measures were under review as part of an ONS-wide programme of methods and quality. The recent Review was conducted to explore whether or not the measures that were in place would maintain this trust.
  The Review considered whether or not the measures initially proposed protected against both real and perceived disclosure. In particular it considered:

  (a) the level of statistical detail in the proposed tables;

  (b) the level of geography for which the tables would be produced;

  1152W

  (c) the increased availability of the data; and

  (d) the proliferation of other datasets against which Census data could be matched.

  On the basis of this Review I decided that an additional measure of rounding all cells to either zero or a multiple of 3, should be introduced for all tables to be produced for England and Wales, and that the population threshold for Output Areas be raised to 100 resident persons and 40 resident households for the release of Census Area Statistics.
  These measures, together with a data modification measure ('record swapping') already announced, will protect against not only the real risk of disclosure but also, and equally as important, the risk perceived, by the very public about whom the information refers, of disclosure that may arise in output table cells containing counts of '1'. Without these additional measures the risk of perceived disclosure would have been substantially higher. Once formed, any such public perceptions would be difficult to dislodge and would, I believe, damage the integrity of all census output.
  In the circumstances I do not propose reverting to the threshold adopted for the release of small area statistics in the 1991 Census of 50 persons and 16 resident households.
  We agreed at the meeting on 13 December, however, that the ONS and those present representing the user community would work closely together to minimise the impact that the rounding and increased threshold will have on the data and its uses. In particular, the ONS will consider further what summary output for 'sub-threshold parishes'—in the form of simple statistical profiles, for example—may be safely produced from the 2001 Census, in addition to some basic headcounts that have already been agreed.
  A note on that meeting has been posted on the ONS website, and a paper giving further background into the decision and the method, and addressing the consequences and issues raised at the meeting and elsewhere, will be produced shortly.

  Taper Relief
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the increase in business investment due to taper relief in each year since its introduction; and if he will make a statement. [30272]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No such estimate is available. We intend to evaluate taper relief once the system has had more time for its effects to become measurable.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families in Barnsley, East and Mexborough are benefiting from the implementation of the working families tax credit. [30524]

  Mr. Roy

  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families in Motherwell and Wishaw are benefiting from the implementation of the working families tax credit. [30858]

  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families within the Harwich constituency have taken advantage of the working families tax credit to date. [30984]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer my hon. Friends to my answer to the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) on 16 January 2002,Official Report, column 293W.

  Public-private Partnerships
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library the technical
  1153W
  guidance given to civil servants in his Department on how to define PPPs as finance or operating leases; and if he will make a statement. [30204]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Copies of the Treasury document "Technical Note No.1 (revised)—How to Account for Private Finance Initiative (PFI) transactions" have been placed in the Library. The document sets out additional practical guidance on how to apply the Accounting Standards Board's Application Note "Amendment to Financial Reporting Standard (FRS) 5—Private Finance Initiative and Similar Contracts" and the requirement in the Treasury's "Resource Accounting Manual" that all complex transactions should be accounted for under the overriding principles of FRS5.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what criteria the Inland Revenue determines which firms in the construction industry are subject to an investigation of the employment status of their work force. [30643]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The criteria are the same as they are for firms who do not operate in the construction industry. The Inland Revenue select firms in three different ways: a proportion is selected randomly, a proportion is selected using pre-selected criteria, and a proportion is selected using risk analysis. The Inland Revenue do not publish the pre-selected and risk criteria they use, as publication may undermine their compliance strategy.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many visits have been made by the Inland Revenue compliance staff to firms in the construction industry to investigate the employment status of their workforce; and how many investigations have been deemed successful, in each year since 1997, broken down by region. [30642]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested is not available. Employment status examinations will often form part of a general review of employer compliance issues. Details of the employment status examinations may not be recorded separately.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Correspondence
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will ask the Parliamentary Secretary for her Department in the House of Lords, to answer the letters of 13 August and 13 September, Reference H/DEFRA/FM/Snell/130901 from the hon. Member for Hereford; and if she will make a statement. [13524]

  Mr. Morley

  [holding answer 9 November 2001]: A response to the hon. Member's letters of 13 August and 13 September was sent on 16 January 2002.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the correspondence from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed to the Minister for the Environment dated 19 July and 14 September relating to representations from Mr. A. Hodgson of Berwick-upon-Tweed. [19982]
  1154W
  Mr. Morley

  [holding answer 3 December 20011: A response to Mr. Hodgson's letter of 11 July was sent on 21 January. A copy of this response was sent to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed on 23 January. I apologise for the long delay in replying.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when her Department will clear outstanding correspondence with hon. Members. [28361]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to all Members of Parliament on 14 November 2001 setting out her assessment of the current problems on correspondence. The Department suffered severe disruption last year due to allocating top priority to defeating the food and mouth epidemic. On top of this the sheer volume of correspondence received since the creation of DEFRA has had a major impact on the Department's performance. I accept this is not an adequate excuse for not giving hon. Members timely responses, and now that normality is returning to the Department one of our key priorities is to rectify weaknesses in our service delivery. The size of our correspondence section has increased threefold and the line management strengthened; our IT systems have been updated and are in the process of being further improved and new guidance has been circulated throughout the Department. These actions are already beginning to bear fruit and it is hoped that the last of the backlog cases will be dispatched over the next few weeks.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many letters from hon. Members to her Department did not receive substantive replies within(a) one month, (b) three months and (c) six months in 2001; and if she will make a statement on her Department's performance against targets in relation to response times to letters from hon. Members. [28816]

  Mr. Morley

  [holding answer 23 January 2002]: Unfortunately our system is currently not sophisticated enough to produce these figures, although we are in the process of having it upgraded. However staff have conducted an extensive manual trawl which put the total for (a) at approximately 4,000 letters and the total for (b) at approximately 1,800 letters. For (c) 110 letters had not received a response after six months.

  The Secretary of State wrote to all Members of Parliament on 14 November setting out her assessment of the Department's current problems on correspondence. The Department suffered severe disruption last year due to allocating top priority to defeating the foot and mouth epidemic. On top of this the sheer volume of correspondence received since the creation of DEFRA had a major impact on the Department's performance, resulting in a large backlog of letters. I accept this is not an adequate excuse for not giving hon. Members timely responses, and now that normality is returning to the Department one of our key priorities is to rectify weaknesses in our service delivery and to meet our response time targets. The size of our correspondence section has increased threefold and the line management strengthened; our IT systems have been upgraded and are in the process of being further improved; and new guidance has been circulated throughout the Department.
  1155W
  These actions are already beginning to bear fruit and it is hoped that over the next few weeks the system will be back at an even keel.

  Fly Tipping
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 21 November 2001,Official Report, column 315W, if she will adopt a policy on fly tipping similar to that adopted by the National Assembly for Wales. [18022]

  Mr. Meacher
  Fly tipping is a blight on our countryside and towns and is an antisocial activity wherever it takes place and whoever is responsible for it. The stringent controls in place to ensure that waste is dealt with properly apply both in England and Wales.

  The National Assembly for Wales (NAW) initiated a special drive against fly tipping. As part of this, the NAW voted £400,000 for a two year project, (running in the financial years 2000–01 and 2001–02) to support targeted waste enforcement. Three targeted enforcement teams were established. These teams work closely with other agency staff and other enforcement agencies such as the police, local authorities and the benefits agency. This has involved an intelligence led approach to enforcement, selectively targeting those activities that are of greatest impact to the environment.

  This campaign was in part a response to concerns that fly tipping was becoming a particular problem in Wales and as a result, the number of successful prosecutions has increased from 24 in 1999 at the start of the project to 48 in 2000. Similar improvements are expected for the year 2001 to 2002.

  The Environment Agency continues also to give the need to combat fly tipping a high priority in England. The agency is currently working to establish a central unit to co-ordinate the agency's approach to environmental crime.

  This unit will work with other key enforcement bodies such as the local authorities, police and HM Customs and Excise and will particularly bear down on fly tipping.

  Furthermore, the Fly Tipping Stakeholders' Forum, which comprises local authorities, business and landowners representatives, and is chaired by the Environment Agency, has produced a fly tipping guidance document, which provides information and guidance for all those who are affected and/or concerned by fly tipping. The document is available on the web at: http:// www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/wasteman/flytip/

  A conference is planned for spring 2002 to help emphasise the role and activity of the forum.

  Waste Disposal
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the likely charge per unit waste disposal authorities8 will make to householders for the disposal of(a) refrigerators, (b) deep-freezers, (c) fridge-freezers and (d) air conditioning units after 1 January 2002. [24168]
  1156W
  Mr. Meacher
  Waste disposal authorities have a statutory duty, under section 51(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, to provide reasonably accessible sites where householders can dispose of their waste free of charge.

  Waste collection authorities have a statutory duty to arrange for the collection of household waste. However, they are entitled to impose a charge for collection for certain items, set out in Schedule 2 to the Controlled Waste Regulations 1992. Charges vary considerably (with many local authorities not imposing a charge) and may include the collection of more than one bulky item. Charges are in the range of £0 to £35, with higher charges for those living in rural areas.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with the chairmen of the independent inquiries into the consequences and lessons of the foot and mouth disease for their proposals for communications with hon. Members; and if she will make a statement. [25402]

  Mr. Morley
  I have met with the inquiries on a number of occasions to discuss a range of issues. I am aware that both the Royal Society inquiry and the lain Anderson Lessons Learned inquiry provide regular updates on their dedicated websites. The Lessons Learned inquiry will shortly be writing to hon. Members to update them on progress.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what communications she has had with hon. Members drawing their attention to the commencement of the independent inquiry into the lessons to be learned from the foot and mouth epidemic; and if she will make a statement. [25403]

  Mr. Morley
  In my statement to the House on 17 December I announced the start of the Lessons Learned inquiry to hon. Members. I welcome the start of this inquiry and confirm that the Department will co-operate fully with the independent inquiry process.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the uncompensated losses suffered by farmers through foot and mouth are; and how those losses are calculated. [29997]

  Mr. Morley

  [holding answer 24 January 2002]: There are no statistics gathered on uncompensated losses and reliable estimates of these losses are not available at this stage. However DEFRA is working with a number of other Government Departments to prepare such an estimate and the results of this work will be made publicly available. We have carried out a survey of over 1,000 farms in FMD affected areas to collect information on the direct impact and their future intentions. The results of this survey will be published early in February.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the current situation regarding(a) foot and mouth disease and (b) other livestock-related diseases in Settle. [29991]

  Mr. Morley

  [holding answer 24 January 2002]: Livestock related disease surveillance is carried out in the Settle area for DEFRA by the Veterinary Laboratories

  1157W
  Agency regional laboratories at Thirsk and Preston. I understand that currently the reported incidence of livestock related disease in that area is normal for this time of year. North Yorkshire, like the whole of Great Britain, is now classified as free from FMD. However, it is important that farms and veterinarians remain vigilant.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has made(a) to the European Commission and (b) to the OIE regarding the reinstatement of foot and mouth disease free status to the United Kingdom. [28683]

  Margaret Beckett

  [holding answer 18 January 2002]: The European Commission have been kept fully informed of the position in the United Kingdom through monthly meetings of its Standing Veterinary Committee. Having received a report from the State Veterinary Service earlier this month that all counties in Great Britain are foot and mouth disease (FMD) free, the European Commission lifted all export controls except those on live sheep.

  My Department also submitted a report to the OIE which set out the work carried out to control the outbreak and invited the OIE to consider whether it was now in a position to restore the UK's FMD free status. This report was considered by the OIE's FMD commission on 22 January. The OIE commission agreed to restore the UK's "FMD free status without vaccination" for the purposes of international trade.

  The EU Standing Veterinary Committee is expected to return to the issue of live sheep exports at its 5–6 February meeting, in the light of the OIE decision.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of her Department's staff remain employed directly in dealing with the 2001 outbreak of foot and mouth disease and consequential activity; how many of these staff members will be re-designated to activities associated with combating incidences of bovine tuberculosis; and if she will make a statement. [29089]

  Mr. Morley
  About 12 per cent. of the permanent staff in my Department, in offices across the country, are still employed in dealing with the foot and mouth epidemic and consequential activity. It is not possible to say how many of these staff would become available for work on bovine tuberculosis, but veterinary officer effort on bovine tuberculosis has already doubled between June and December last year.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the firms of contractors employed by her Department and its agencies to assist with clean-up work during the foot and mouth outbreak; and what payments were made from public funds in each case. [28183]

  Margaret Beckett

  [holding answer 17 January 2002]: Over 1,200 contractors have been employed by the Department to undertake work, including that on secondary cleansing and disinfection. A complete list of all contractors was placed in the Library of the House on 15 October 2001.
  1158W
  The final cost of all cleansing and disinfection is now estimated to be about £280 million, but the total amount being paid to all of the individual contractors has not yet been finalised.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the number of hill farmers who have recently left the industry as a result of foot and mouth disease; and if she will make a statement. [28042]

  Mr. Morley
  At present it is too early to assess the impact of foot and mouth disease on hill farmers.

  Farm Subsidies
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the contribution farm subsidies make in reducing the cost of food in the UK. [26021]

  Mr. Morley
  The only farm subsidies directly aimed at reducing the cost of food are consumer subsidies. However these constitute a very small element of the support mechanism and they do not significantly offset the higher prices consumers face from the CAP. The recent reforms to the Common Agricultural Policy, which have reduced the level of support to the market and increased direct payments to producers, have had the effect of substantially reducing the cost of agricultural support to consumers. However I estimate that in 2000 the overall cost of the CAP to food consumers and taxpayers was equivalent to £8 to £9 per week for a family of four.

  Beam Trawlers
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action the Government are taking to monitor the damage caused to sea beds by beam trawlers; and if she will make a statement. [27162]

  Mr. Morley
  The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS) has studied the impacts of beam trawling on different sea bed habitats in the North and Irish seas since 1993 and compared these impacts with other sources of disturbance in the marine environment.

  Beam trawling effort is patchily distributed. Most beam trawling takes place in relatively shallow areas with relatively high levels of natural disturbance, and where the sea bed is, to a certain extent, resilient to the effects of the gear. For example, the sandy sea beds of the southern North sea are continually disturbed by tides and wave action, and most of the animals living there are already adapted to cope with disturbance. In these areas the effects of beam trawling on the sea bed are hard to detect, and recovery of areas that are trawled will usually occur in less than one year.

  In deeper water, where there is usually less wave and tidal action, beam trawling could have a proportionally greater effect, and recovery of the sea bed will take much longer. However, beam trawls are not widely used in these areas.

  Hill Farmers
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of the average income of hill farmers was provided by(a) Government and (b) European funding in each year since 1997. [27256]

  Mr. Morley
  Information on public expenditure under the CAP and on national grants and subsidies is given in the table.

  £ million

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–2001 (f)

  Total public expenditure under the CAP and on national grants and subsidies

  3.58

  3.48

  3.16

  3.18

  Of which:

  Under the CAP

  3.32

  3.19

  2.82

  2.87

  Other schemes

  0.26

  0.29

  0.34

  0.31

  Percentage EU funded

  93

  92

  89

  90

  Source:

  Agriculture in the United Kingdom 2000

  These figures exclude the additional support farmers receive from the consumer, through the maintenance of EU agricultural prices above world levels by the CAP.

  It is not possible to give this breakdown specifically for hill farms, but typically, a high percentage of subsidy paid to hill farmers will be from EU funding.

  In the years since 1997, average total direct subsidies to LFA cattle and sheep farms have exceeded net farm income. Data for England for the year 1999–2000, given in the table, illustrate the point.

  Average output, input and income for full-time hill farms

  England 1999–2000

  (£/farm)

  LFA cattle and sheep farms

  Average farm output

  61,700

  Of which:

  Direct livestock subsidies

  25,400

  Other direct subsidies

  4,000

  Average input costs

  56,400

  Average net farm income

  5,300

  Source:

  Farm Business Survey

  Water Framework Directive
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimates she has made of the potential cost(a) to businesses and (b) to public funds of implementing the EU water framework directive 2000/60/EC. [27139]

  Margaret Beckett

  [holding answer 14 January 2002]: The implications of the directive are set out in the regulatory impact assessment (RIA) "First Consultation Paper on the Implementation of the EC Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)" which was published jointly by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the National Assembly for Wales in March 2001. A copy of the consultation paper is in the House of Commons Library.
  1160W
  Costs to businesses and public funds

  The estimated overall costs' in the regulatory impact assessment were dominated by the cost of making improvements to water status (£1.9 billion to £9.0 billion), which were broken down into: improvements to point source discharges by sewerage undertakers (£0.9 billion to £4.2 billion); improvements to point source discharges by industry (£0.3 billion to £1.2 billion); reductions in pollution from diffuse sources, particularly agriculture (£0.6 billion to £2.9 billion); improvements to river habitats (£90 million to £440 million); and, alleviation of low flows (up to £240 million).

  It is not yet possible to make an estimate of the effect on water charges to domestic and commercial customers of water and sewerage companies. This will be dealt with as part of the periodic reviews of water prices carried out by Ofwat. These reviews will also provide the opportunity to ensure that the most cost-effective combination of capital investment and other measures is built into water companies' programmes alongside regulatory measures delivered by the Environment Agency.

  The costs of habitat restoration and low flow alleviation projects, and urban run-off, may fall on the regulatory bodies, water companies, local authorities and landowners. However, it is not currently possible to estimate the extent and distribution of such work.

  The administrative, planning and monitoring costs were assumed to fall principally on central Government and Government agencies, with small administration costs falling on local authorities and the water companies. The estimated cost of administrative arrangements was £3 million, for the planning process £13 million to £20 million, and for additional monitoring and assessment approximately £94 million.

  A revised regulatory impact assessment will be needed, once an overall package of implementing regulations has been prepared for consultation, later this year or early 2003.

  1 The figures quoted were the net present value of costs incurred between 1998 and 2040. The choice of the year 2040 did not relate to the actual expenditure period but because it was 30 years after the deadline in the Commission's original proposal for achieving the directive's objectives. Thirty years is a widely used asset life for pollution control equipment.

  Fraud
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate her Department has made of the cost to its budget since 1 May 1997 of fraud; and if she will make a statement. [27293]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has only been in existence since June 2001. Information covering earlier periods is therefore not available, and could be constructed retrospectively only at disproportionate cost. Annual reports which the Treasury prepares on fraud, covering returns from both the former MAFF and DETR, are deposited in the Library of the House.

  Food Imports
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what additional
  1161W
  impact control measures have been introduced since the resolution of the blockade of foreign food imports at (a) Cairnryan and (b) elsewhere in 1998. [27026]

  Mr. Morley

  [holding answer 15 January 2002]: The blockade of food imports at Cairnryan and elsewhere in 1998 related to farmers' concerns over rural incomes in the UK due to the effects of BSE on the market price of British beef, along with concerns over the strength of the British pound reducing the price of foreign meat imports from the Republic of Ireland. EU legislation does not allow the blockade of meat imported without justifiable reason and no additional import measures were taken following these events.

  Refurbishment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her estimate is of the cost of buildings refurbishment carried out by her Department in each of the last four years. [27956]

  Mr. Morley
  The figures, which exclude any refurbishment carried out as part of landlord lease obligations, are as follows:

  Refurbishments are included in the planned programme of building maintenance.

  Flood Protection (Hillingdon)
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to improve flood protection in the London borough of Hillingdon. [28486]

  Mr. Morley
  This Department provides grants for flood and coastal defence capital works, and associated studies, which meet essential technical, economic and environmental criteria and achieve an appropriate priority score. Further to increases in spending plans in the last two spending reviews, additional funding of £51 million over the four years from 2000–01 was announced in November 2000 following the severe flooding that year. An increased priority was given to urban flood defences and the grant rates for all river flood defences were increased by 20 per cent.

  Operational responsibility for flood management measures rests with the local operation authorities, normally the Environment Agency (EA) and local councils, who decide which projects to promote and their timing. The operational authorities are invited to submit applications for DEFRA funding.

  The EA has implemented a number of flood alleviation schemes in the London borough of Hillingdon as part of the £20 million Lower Colne Improvement Scheme with the benefit of grant aid. The schemes provide flood alleviation properties within West Drayton, Uxbridge and Cowley.

  The EA is now reviewing the feasibility of sustainable flood alleviation measures for the River Pinn catchment.

  Nitrate Pollution
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proposals she has to provide financial assistance to farmers having 1162W
  to expend on increased slurry storage facilities as a result of being included in extensions to nitrate vulnerable zones; and if she will make a statement on her Department's consultation on the implementation of the European Nitrates Directive. [29090]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Farm Waste Grant Scheme is available now to assist farmers in existing nitrate vulnerable zones with the cost of improving or constructing farm waste storage facilities. Grant is available at a rate of 40 per cent. on eligible expenditure up to an investment ceiling of £85,000. The Government intend to extend this scheme to the new NVZ areas, from the date of their designation. We are currently considering whether additional funds will be needed from 2003 onwards, and we are considering also the option to raise the grant rate to 50 per cent. in less favoured areas, as is permitted under the EU rules on state aids.

  DEFRA's current consultation seeks views on how England should complete full implementation of the Nitrates Directive. Following this, a decision on which of the two options for designation will be taken in England will be announced later this year.

  Sea Fisheries Committees
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the(a) operation and (b) cost of funding of sea fisheries committees; and what proposals she has to alter the source of funding of sea fisheries committees from local authorities to central Government. [29081]

  Mr. Morley
  Sea Fisheries Committees as managers of inshore fisheries are subject to local government rules and are rightly funded by their constituent local authorities. There are no proposals for this arrangement to change.

  Hunting
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has received from the Chief Veterinary Officer concerning changes in the threat to livestock from predatory foxes during the ban on fox hunting. [29178]

  Mr. Morley
  The Chief Veterinary Officer has made no such assessment. Foxes are not regarded as a major national threat to livestock by the Department.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the use of combined heat and power systems in the horticultural sector; and what assessment she has made of the obstacles that exist to the use of such systems in the sector. [28897]

  Mr. Meacher
  There is around 150 megawatts of good quality CHP capacity installed in the horticulture sector. I understand the main obstacles to the use of CHP are the availability of capital, a lack of understanding of the opportunities for CHP and concerns over energy prices. Support and advice, including site specific, will be channelled to the sector via the Carbon Trust under a voluntary energy saving agreement my Department has with the NFU.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will support the European proposal to maintain a Community register of genetically modified food and feed; and if this will result in a change in the information that is available to the public via the Food Standards Agency and her Department. [29501]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government support the establishment of the proposed Community register. However, the proposal implies that the information included on the register will be limited to a summary of applications for authorisation and authorisations granted. The current register maintained by my Department in relation to the release and marketing of genetically modified organisms contains more information, including all details of non-confidential information included in applications for authorisation. The Food Standards Agency operate procedures that give a similar level of information in relation to GM foods. The Government will press in negotiations on the proposal for more information to be placed on the Community register.

  Animal Slaughter (Jedburgh)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 8 January 2002 to the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth),Official Report, column 756W, on animal slaughter (Jedburgh), how many premises outwith the 3km zone were slaughtered out; how many sheep were slaughtered at each of these individual farm premises outwith the 31cm zone; how many of these premises were tested for evidence of foot and mouth disease; and what was the result of the tests. [29505]

  Mr. Morley
  In the Scottish Borders local authority area there were 11 premises outwith the 3km area on which animals were slaughtered as part of the foot and mouth disease eradication strategy. Animals on six farms were slaughtered as the disease was suspected but not clinically proven and animals on a further five farms were slaughtered due to their contacts with Longtown market. This involved a total of 11,917 sheep as detailed in the following table.

  Name of farm

  Number of sheep

  Tested for FMD

  Test result

  Sunnyside Farm, Haddington

  230

  Yes

  Negative

  West Broomhouse, Dunbar

  74

  Yes

  Negative

  Broadmeadows, Paxton

  800

  Yes

  Negative

  Broadlea, Hawick

  1,200

  Yes

  Negative

  Rawburn Longformacus

  3,000

  Yes

  Negative

  Castlwood Farm, Jedburgh

  43

  Yes

  Negative

  Threepwood Cottage, Blainslie

  1,155

  Yes

  Negative

  Howford Farm, Ettrickbridge

  2,155

  Yes

  Negative

  1164W

  Name of farm

  Number of sheep

  Tested for FMD

  Test result

  Muirfield, Hawick

  1,150

  Yes

  Negative

  Foulshiels, Yarrow

  1,000

  Yes

  Negative

  Hopestead, Coldingham

  1,150

  Yes

  Negative

  Suckler Cow Premiums
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when farmers will receive their suckler cow premiums; for what reason farmers have not received payment of the premiums; and if farmers will receive interest on late payments. [29455]

  Mr. Morley
  Payments for suckler cow premium scheme are made between 16 October 2001 to 30 June annually. Claims are received up to 6 December. Payments are made in two parts, an advance payment to be paid by the 6 March 2002, and a balance payment due by 30 June 2002.

  This year, scheme payments have not been made as early in the window as we would have liked because computer systems have had to be upgraded to reflect regulation changes to the bovine schemes. Processing has also been affected by the diversion of staff to FMD and by industrial action. Advance payments started in January and are expected to be completed by 31 March. As the end of the advance payment window has still not been reached, the matter of the payment of interest to farmers does not arise.

  IACS Payments
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reason farmers did not receive IACS payments due in October 2001 until December 2001. [29464]

  Mr. Morley
  The payment window for IACS arable area payments scheme (AAPS) 2001 runs from 16 November 2001 until 31 January 2002.

  The diversion of staff to FMD and industrial action within the Rural Payments Agency has delayed the processing of AAPS claims and meant that fewer claims than normal were paid during the early part of the payment window. The industrial action was suspended on 11 January and good progress is now being made in dealing with unpaid claims. RPA expects to pay over 90 per cent. of AAPS claims by 31 January and to complete the payment process by around mid-February.

  Scrapie Research Project
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the progress of the Scrapie Research Project; and what steps are being taken to speed up the project. [29471]

  Mr. Morley
  The hon. Member has confirmed that he is specifically interested in the National Scrapie Plan for Great Britain. The plan was launched on 19 July 2001 with the opening of a genotyping scheme for breeding rams in pedigree pure-bred flocks registered with a breed society. From an estimated 15,000 flocks in this sector we have thus far received expressions of interest from over
  1165W
  one third. Of those expressing an interest over 2,800 have so far joined the plan. On 16 January I announced an extension of the plan to all pure-bred breeding flocks, irrespective of whether they are registered with a breed society. It is estimated that this will open eligibility to an extra 25,000 flocks. Eligibility has also been extended to all scrapie-affected flocks, irrespective of whether such flocks are pure-bred. We will be considering possible future extensions to the plan in consultation with stakeholders. Measures to eradicate scrapie are also included in the Animal Health Bill.

  Air Pollution
  Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list by each local authority area in England and Wales the concentration of the pollutants(a) benzene, (b) 1,3 butadiene, (c) carbon monoxide, (d) lead, (e) nitrogen dioxide, (f) particles (PMI), and (g) sulphur dioxide for 1997 to 2001. [29322]

  Mr. Meacher

  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: This information is not held centrally. Local authorities are not required to monitor levels of each of these pollutants unless it appears from their modelling results that they are unlikely to achieve the nationally prescribed air quality objectives by the relevant deadlines. Our national monitoring network indicates that between 1997 and 2001 levels of most of these pollutants have fallen across England and Wales, and most local authorities are on course to meet the prescribed objectives for each of the pollutants. However, a number of authorities have identified possible difficulties with the objectives for nitrogen dioxide, particles and, to a lesser extent, sulphur dioxide. The table lists each of the authorities which has to date designated an air quality management area (AQMA), and highlights the pollutants in respect of which the AQMA has been designated.

  Authority

  Date of effect

  Pollutant(s)

  London local authorities

  Barnet1

  18 April 2001

  NO2, PM10

  Brent

  2 April 2001

  NO2, PM10

  Bexley

  22 August 2001

  PM10

  Camden

  30 October 2000

  NO2, PM10

  Corporation of London1

  26 January 2001

  NO2, PM10

  Croydon

  2 October 2000

  NO2

  Ealing1

  14 December 2000

  NO2, PM10

  Enfield1

  31 March 2001

  NO2, PM10

  Greenwich

  1 July 2001

  NO2, PM10

  Hackney

  23 March 2001

  NO2

  Haringey

  1 July 2001

  NO2, PM10

  Hammersmith and Fulham1

  3 November 2000

  NO2, PM10

  Hillingdon

  1 May 2001

  NO2

  Hounslow

  15 March 2001

  NO2

  Islington

  19 January 2001

  NO2, PM10

  Kensington and Chelsea1

  6 December 2000

  NO2, PM10

  Lambeth

  1 May 2001

  NO2, PM10

  Lewisham

  1 July 2001

  NO2, PM10

  Merton

  28 March 2001

  NO2, PM10

  Richmond upon Thames1

  31 December 2000

  NO2, PM10

  Southwark

  1 October 2000

  NO2, PM10

  Sutton

  29 March 2001

  NO2, PM10

  Tower Hamlets1

  6 December 2000

  NO2, PM10

  Waltham Forest1

  31 October 2001

  NO2, PM10

  Wandsworth1

  1 January 2001

  NO2, PM10

  Westminster1

  9 March 1999

  NO2, PM10

  Other English authorities

  Babergh District Council

  28 August 2001

  NO2

  Barnsley MBC

  3 October 2001

  NO2

  Bath and North East Somerset

  2 February 2002

  NO2

  1166W

  Authority

  Date of effect

  Pollutant(s)

  Blaby Borough Council

  19 January 2001

  NO,2

  Bolsover DC

  1 December 2001

  NO2

  Boston BC

  10 September 2001

  NO2

  Bromsgrove DC

  26 July 2001

  NO2

  Broxbourne BC

  1 November 2001

  NO2, PM10

  Bristol City Council

  1 May 2001

  NO2, PM10

  Colchester BC

  1 May 2001

  NO2

  Charnwood BC

  20 June 2001

  NO2 (3)

  Dartford BC

  1 October 2001

  NO2, PM10

  Derby CC

  1 August 2001

  NO2

  Doncaster

  1 August 2001

  NO2 (3)

  East Herts

  6 August 2001

  PM10

  Fenland District Council

  1 May 2001

  SO2, PM10

  Harborough DC

  18 July 2001

  NO2

  Herefordshire Council

  23 November 2001

  NO2

  Hertsmere BC

  30 August 2001

  NO2

  Hinckley and Bosworth BC

  9 May 2001

  NO2

  Leeds

  1 July 2001

  NO2, PM10

  Leicester City Council

  29 December 2000

  NO2, PM10

  Maidstone BC

  1 August 2001

  NO2

  Manchester

  31 July 2001

  NO2, PM10

  Melton

  21 April 2001

  NO2

  North Warwickshire BC

  1 March 2001

  NO2

  North West Leicestershire

  23 April 2001

  NO2 (6)

  Oldham

  1 June 2001

  NO2, PM10

  Oxford CC

  1 September 2001

  NO2

  Rotherham MBC

  1 January 2002

  NO2

  Runnymede BC

  4 December 2001

  NO2, PM10

  Rushmoor BC

  31 October 2000

  NO2

  Salford

  1 June 2001

  NO2, PM10

  Salisbury

  24 July 2001

  NO2 (4)

  Sheffield CC

  5 December 2001

  NO2

  South Gloucestershire

  1 November 2001

  NO2

  South Kesteven DC

  1 August 2001

  NO2, PM10

  South Lakeland

  5 May 2001

  NO2

  Spelthorne

  1 December 2000

  NO2

  St. Edmundsbury

  1 September 2001

  NO2

  Stoke-on-Trent DC

  23 November 2001

  NO2

  Stroud and Tewkesbury (joint AQMA)

  30 June 2001

  NO2

  Tameside MBC

  1 July 2001

  NO2, PM10

  Tewkesbury and Stroud (joint AQMA)

  30 June 2001

  NO2, PM10

  Three Rivers

  1 April 2001

  NO2, PM10

  Thurrock

  1 April 2001

  NO2, PM10

  Tonbridge and Mailing

  1 May 2001

  NO2, PM10

  Trafford MBC

  29 June 2001

  NO2, PM10

  Warrington BC

  1 November 2001

  NO2

  West Wiltshire DC

  26 November 2001

  NO2, PM10

  Wigan Council

  13 August 2001

  NO2

  Wokingham DC

  28 September 2001

  NO2

  Wycombe DC

  1 August 2001

  NO2

  Wales

  Neath Port Talbot2

  1 July 2000

  PM10

  Cardiff

  November 2000

  NO2

  Swansea

  31 August 2001

  NO2

  1 Indicates designation of whole borough

  2 Where industry is one of the main sources

  Note:

  The figure in brackets in the third column denotes the number of AQMAs declared in those authority areas where more than one has been declared

  Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent investigations have been undertaken by her Department on the impact of air pollution on health. [29320]

  Mr. Meacher

  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: The Department of Health's Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP) advises the Government, through the Chief Medical Officer, on the effects of air pollution on health.
  1167W
  COMEAP publish the statements and reports that they prepare on their website at www.doh.gov.uk/comeap. Recent studies include a "Statement and Report on Long-Term Effects of Particles on Mortality" and 'The Health effects of Air Pollution: Advice from COMEAP".

  Also published on the website are details of a recent call for research proposals on air pollution and health. This new research is aiming to cover projects to be carried out over a three-year period as well as some smaller projects lasting for about one year.

  Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she last reviewed the air quality strategy; and what the main findings of the review were. [29319]

  Mr. Meacher

  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland was published in January 2000. The strategy is not expected to need a comprehensive review for a few years. Instead, the Government and devolved Administrations have decided to review the strategy on a pollutant by pollutant basis to allow reviews of individual pollutants to be carried out relatively quickly, and to allow the outcomes of these reviews to be published was addenda to the strategy. The first of these reviews as published for consultation on 17 September 2001. It considered the possibility of tightening the existing policy objectives for three pollutants (carbon monoxide, benzene and particles) and of introducing for the first time a policy objective for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. A large number of responses to the consultation document were received, and we will take account of these in finalising our proposals.

  Reed Beds
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what evaluation she has made of the potential use of reed beds as a way of alleviating foul sewerage problems exacerbated by flooding. [29327]

  Mr. Morley

  [holding answer 23 January 2002]: Reed beds form part of the portfolio for sustainable drainage systems. DEFRA, the Environment Agency and other stakeholders are looking at how future drainage systems ensure that water quality can be better protected, although no specific evaluation has yet been made of this potential role for reed beds.

  Farming Subsidies
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will(a) devote a minimum percentage of farming subsidies to sustainable rural development and (b) negotiate on this principle as a start during the mid-term review negotiations on the CAP. [29989]

  Mr. Morley

  [holding answer 24 January 2002]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has stated that our policy for the mid-term review is to see a switch from production support under the first pillar of the CAP
  1168W
  to support for agri-environment and sustainable rural development schemes under the second pillar, and we will be pressing for this in the negotiations.

  Biosecurity
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on what grounds under the clauses in the Animal Health Bill the Government will withhold part of the compulsory purchase payment for animals slaughtered for posing a risk of spreading disease, where the Government considers that the farmer's biosecurity measures are substandard. [27740]

  Mr. Morley

  [holding answer 24 January 2002]: The Department launched a public consultation on the implementation of key provisions of the Animal Health Bill on 11 January 2002.

  Included in this package are proposals for the matters to be covered by the disease risk assessment that will help to determine the amount of adjusted compensation paid for animals slaughtered on infected premises. We are seeking key stakeholders' views by 15 March.

  The consultation document and list of stakeholders can be found on the DEFRA website at http:// www.defra.gov.uk/corporatelconsult/ahbill/index.htm.

  Agrimonetary Compensation
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to apply for agrimonetary compensation for the livestock sector in April; and if she will make a statement. [29994]

  Mr. Morley

  [holding answer 24 January 2002]: The European Commission have yet to confirm whether there is any agrimonetary compensation available for the livestock sector. Although this aid relates to the second and third stages of compensation paid last year, the EU rules provide for these later payments to be reduced or cancelled if the market prices and exchange rates have since moved in a direction which ameliorates the situation which leads to the compensation. We will not know for some months what the Commission assessment will be. When we do the Government will have carefully to consider the case for payment.

  Agricultural Co-operatives
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to improve the competitiveness of agricultural co-operatives in the UK; and if she will make a statement. [29996]

  Mr. Morley

  [holding answer 24 January 2002]: We are supporting a number of initiatives to improve the competitiveness of both agricultural co-operatives and collaborative marketing groups.

  With the NFU, we have been running a collaborative marketing initiative since 1998. This is aimed at helping farmers to recognise the many advantages of working together, particularly in relation to economies of scale and access to professional expertise. We have used joint representation at agricultural shows across a range of sectors to generate interest in this initiative.
  1169W
  Under the Agriculture Development Scheme, aimed at helping farmers and growers improve their competitiveness through better marketing, collaborative activities were given priority under bidding rounds held in 1999, 2000 and 2001. Successful bids in 1999 and 2000 included a project to benchmark best practice in farmer controlled businesses (Plunkett Foundation) and several projects from collaborative producer groups or co-operatives.

  Opportunities for improving the competitiveness of co-operatives and collaborative marketing groups are also provided under the England Rural Development Programme through awards under the Processing and Marketing Grant and the measure on the marketing of quality agricultural products under the Rural Enterprise Scheme.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list

  £

  Research project

  Cost in 2001–02

  Total costs

  Generation of vaccine candidates against Mycobacterium bovis

  313,201

  1,566,005

  Testing of vaccine candidates for bovine tuberculosis using a low dose aerosol challenge guinea pig model

  208,247

  1,068,045

  Testing TB vaccines in cattle

  263,642

  1,316,635

  Development of badger vaccines

  167,889

  370,274

  Antigen presenting cells and T cell responses to Mycobacterium bovis

  400,000

  1,200,000

  Development of badger immunological reagents

  152,908

  432,642

  Improved diagnostics for cattle

  170,449

  511,347

  Cost-effectiveness of using the gamma interferon test in herds with multiple tuberculin reactors

  38,850

  124,682

  Assessment of the economic impacts of TB and alternative control policies

  48,049

  156,959

  Development and evaluation of strain typing methods for Mycobacterium bovis

  387,810

  1,275,223

  An integrated approach to the application of Mycobacterium bovis genotyping for the control of bovine tuberculosis in GB

  334,439

  927,801

  Survival of Mycobacterium bovis in laboratory made silage

  4,408

  4,408

  Mycobacterium bovis pathogenesis

  681,933

  2,440,159

  Pathogenesis and diagnosis of tuberculosis in cattle—complementary field studies

  105,000

  1,975,135

  A spatial analysis using GIS of risk factors associated with TB incidents in cattle herds in England and Wales

  11,683

  188,373

  Genome sequence analysis of Mycobacterium bovis

  50,932

  1,156,293

  Ecological correlates of tuberculosis incidence in cattle

  118,729

  374,181

  Quantification of the risk of transmission of bovine TB from badgers to cattle within localised areas

  41,816

  167,504

  Integrated modelling of M. bovis transmission in badgers and cattle

  276,540

  902,769

  The risk to cattle from Mycobacterium bovis infection in wildlife species other than badgers

  460,945

  1,214,788

  The risk to cattle from wildlife species other than badgers in areas of high herd breakdown risk

  195,822

  608,095

  Understanding the route of TB transmission from badgers to cattle

  34,980

  266,942

  Develop innovative methods to estimate badger population density

  268,572

  882,090

  Novel methods of estimating badger numbers in the wider countryside

  70,201

  230,426

  An integrated study of perturbation, population estimation, modelling and risk

  299,877

  1,252,592

  A molecular genetic analysis of badger social structure and bovine tuberculosis

  162,451

  766,069

  Ecological consequences of removing badgers from an eco-system

  323,625

  1,000,810

  Using herd depopulation for effectively controlling TB

  26,758

  26,758

  Exploratory study to model the distribution and spread of bovine TB using multi-temporal satellite imagery

  42,450

  42,450

  Application of postgenomics to reveal the basis of virulence, pathogenesis and transmissibility of M. bovis

  350,000

  3,318,624

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment her Department has made of the merits of reintroducing the bovine TB programme; and if she will make a statement. [29999]

  Mr. Morley

  [holding answer 24 January 2002]: The need to control bovine TB in herds remains a top priority for the Department. Before the restart of routine testing, and restart of the badger culling trial, veterinary risk
  1170W
  research projects associated with bovine TB, indicating for each (a) the cost in 2001–02 and (b) the total cost of the project. [29833]

  Mr. Morley

  [holding answer 24 January 2002]: The Krebs badger field trial, TB99 epidemiological survey of risk factors which may dispose some farms to TB breakdowns and road traffic accident survey of badger carcases are projects associated with bovine TB. These were suspended for most of 2001–02, because of the foot and mouth disease emergency and little expenditure in respect of them has, therefore, been incurred in the present financial year. With the present resumption of work on these projects, revised costings are being drawn up but the total cost of the trial is expected to remain at £35 million over five years.

  A list of individual research projects and their 2001–02 and total costs are given in the table. The list is subject to change as new projects come on stream and others end and costs are revised. The table represents the position at 23 January 2002.

  assessments were made. The restart of the programme has been dependent on when counties were declared free of foot and mouth disease.

  Tenant Farmers
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will seek a revision of the definition of agriculture within tenancy legislation to include rural development and agri-environment activities. [29986]
  1171W
  Mr. Morley

  [holding answer 24 January 2002]: Many tenant farmers are already successfully taking part in rural development and agri-environment scheme. Further, over the last few years roughly the same proportion of tenant farmers and owner occupier farmers have joined the agri-environment schemes. However we are aware that some tenant farmers are concerned about their ability to take part in these schemes. This is something we will consider in the light of the ongoing review of the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 and the recommendations made by the Policy Commission on Food and Farming.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will move funds from agricultural price support towards environmentally sustainable agricultural and non-agricultural activities; and if she will make a statement. [29988]

  Mr. Morley

  [holding answer 24 January 2002]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has stated that our policy for the CAP mid-term review is to see a switch from production support under the first pillar to support for agri-environment and sustainable rural development schemes under the second pillar, and we will be pressing for this in the negotiations.

  Zoos
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment her Department has made of(a) public awareness relating to potential disease risks between humans and animals in locations defined under the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 and (b) the effective enforcement of relevant health and safety standards; and if she will make a statement; [30004]

  (2) what steps her Department has undertaken to ensure that establishments defined as a zoo under the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 are (a) licensed and (b) meeting required standards in animal welfare and public safety; and if she will make a statement. [30005]

  Mr. Morley

  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: The enforcement of zoo licensing, and of health and safety standards in zoos, are matters for the relevant local authorities, taking account of advice issued by the Department and the Health and Safety Executive.

  In terms of zoo licensing, local authorities must ensure that the zoos in their area have a licence to operate or are exempt from the provisions of the Zoo Licensing Act 1981. All licensed zoos are also subject to regular inspection to ensure that the Secretary of State's Standards on Modern Zoo Practice, which include provisions relating to animal welfare and public safety are being met. The Department has issued guidance to local authorities on the implementation of the 1981 Act and a new circular will be issued shortly to take account of the changes introduced by Council Directive 1999/22/EC on the keeping of wild animals in zoos, which is due to come into force in April.

  Guidance on the management of public interaction with zoo animals is also set out in the Secretary of State's Standards of Modern Zoo Practice. This requires that risk assessments be carried out on a case-by-case basis, taking advice from the Health and Safety Executive, where necessary. For example, hand-washing facilities must be provided, together with signage reminding the public of hygiene requirements.
  1172W
  The prevention of transmission of zoonotic disease between zoo animals and employees is addressed by inspections carried out under health and safety legislation. In addition, inspections carried out under the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 will check whether zoos have measures in place to alert employees to the potential risk of zoonotic disease transmission.

  Hens
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to improve the welfare of egg laying hens before battery cages are prohibited in 2012; and if she will make a statement. [30002]

  Mr. Morley

  [holding answer 24 January 2002]: We have a number of initiatives to improve laying hen welfare. These include: a draft new Welfare Code; an extensive DEFRA on farm poultry welfare R&D programme; and ADAS run advisory programmes for farmers to encourage good welfare. In addition, the State Veterinary Service visit poultry units to assess all aspects of welfare.

  Broiler Chickens
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of broiler chickens' welfare; and if she will make a statement. [30003]

  Mr. Morley

  [holding answer 24 January 2002]: As part of its inspection programme the State Veterinary Service visits broiler units to assess all aspects of welfare. The normal programme of visits is now resuming following the FMD outbreak.

  BSE
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many cases of BSE have been confirmed in(a) Scotland and (b) the UK in each of the last three years. [30406]

  Mr. Morley
  The table shows the number of cases of BSE confirmed in(a) Scotland and (b) the UK in each of the last three years (as at 18 January 2002).

  Presented as clinical suspects

  Confirmed by active surveillance

  Scotland

  1999

  37

  0

  2000

  36

  2

  2001

  23

  24

  UK

  1999

  2,254

  20

  2000

  1,311

  44

  2001

  738

  310

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent progress has been made in reforming the CAP. [28358]
  1173W
  Mr. Morley
  The reform of the sheepmeat regime agreed by the Agriculture Council in December will simplify the regime and make it more flexible. The ewe premium will in future be paid on a flat rate basis, and the introduction of national envelopes provides a valuable mechanism for targeting extra support for the sheep sector and for encouraging environmentally beneficial farming practices.

  More generally we expect the Commission to come forward with the mid-term review for the Common Agricultural Policy in the early summer and for negotiations to take place thereafter. We are working hard through informal discussions with the Commission and other member states to prepare the ground for these important negotiations.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans the Government have to means-test CAP subsidy payments to farmers. [28359]

  Mr. Morley
  None. The Government have asked the Policy Commission for Food and Farming to look at its overall objectives in this area and we will review future policy in the light of the report which is expected on 29 January.

  Producer Support Estimate
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what is the most recent estimate of the value of agricultural producer support for(a) the EU and (b) each country thereof. [26647]

  Mr. Morley

  [holding answer 11 January 2001]: The OECD produces annual estimates of agricultural producer support in OECD countries, called producer support estimate (PSE). This includes estimates of the value of support to producers through market support mechanisms as well as through national and EU budgets. Their most recent provisional estimate of PSE for the EU is 98 billion euro for 2000. The OECD does not provide estimates of agricultural producer support for individual countries within the EU, however the following table shows the payments from the EU budget under the Common Agricultural Policy to each member state. These payments include costs that are not directly received by farmers (eg costs of intervention storage), but they do not include payments by national Governments or the value of market price support.

  Payments from the EU budget under the common agricultural policy in 2000

  Million euro

  Belgium

  957

  Denmark

  1,309

  Germany

  5,675

  Greece

  2,598

  Spain

  5,485

  France

  9,006

  Ireland

  1,681

  Italy

  5,043

  Luxembourg

  21

  1174W

  Payments from the EU budget under the common agricultural policy in 2000

  Million euro

  Netherlands

  1,442

  Austria

  1,019

  Portugal

  653

  Finland

  728

  Sweden

  798

  UK

  4,062

  Source:

  Court of Auditors annual report concerning the financial year 2000.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Refurbishment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his estimate is of the cost of buildings refurbishment carried out by his Department in each of the last four years. [27963]

  Mr. MacShane
  Separately identifiable building refurbishment costs over the last four years on Foreign and Commonwealth Office properties have amounted to:

  1997–98: £3.2 million

  1998–99: £4.7 million

  1999–2000: £22.5 million

  2000–01: £31.2 million.

  In addition to the figures listed, refurbishment is often a component in the adaptation of buildings, but it is not possible to identify that element without disproportionate cost. We also have a programme of routine building maintenance across the estate.

  Ministerial Transport
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last used the railway service in connection with his official duties; what station he left from and what was the destination; and whether it is his intention to make greater use of the railways in future. [28091]

  Mr. Straw
  I generally travel to my Blackburn constituency by rail, most recently on 18 January 2002. I made extensive use of the railways on official business as Home Secretary: as Foreign Secretary the opportunities to do so are more limited.

  South Africa
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit South Africa; and if he will raise the issue of arms sales with his South African counterpart. [28291]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has no immediate plans to visit South Africa. The Under-Secretary, my noble Friend Baroness Amos, will be visiting South Africa in February. There are no plans to discuss arms sales during that visit.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will visit Gibraltar before he next meets his Spanish counterpart under the auspices of the Brussels Process. [28791]
  1175W
  Mr. Straw
  I refer the right hon. Member to my statement in the House on 14 January 2002,Official Report, columns 21–29. I will be discussing this further when I see the Chief Minister of Gibraltar in London today.

  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance he plans to give to the Royal visit to Gibraltar in 2002. [30681]

  Mr. Straw
  There are no Royal visits to Gibraltar planned for 2002.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions have taken place with Spain on roaming rights of Gibraltar mobile telephones; and under what statutory powers he can take action against Spain over restriction of telephone numbers for Gibraltar. [30644]

  Peter Hain
  We raise the problems facing the Gibraltar telephones sector with the Spanish Government, at ministerial and official level, at every appropriate opportunity. Most recently, I raised the issue with Spanish Europe Minister Ramon de Miguel on 24 January. Her Majesty's Ambassador to Madrid has also discussed the problem with Spanish Foreign Minister Josep Pique in recent days.

  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has no statutory powers to take action against Spain on the restriction of telephone numbers for Gibraltar.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he is taking against Spain in respect of freedom of movement of UK citizens on the Gibraltar border. [30552]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) on 11 December 2001,Official Report, column 826W.

  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if independence for Gibraltar has been discussed during talks under the Brussels Process. [30646]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) on 17 January 2002,Official Report, column 399W.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the integration of Gibraltar with the UK has been discussed during talks under the Brussels Process. [30640]

  Peter Hain
  No.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will next meet representatives of the Government of Spain to discuss the future status of Gibraltar. [30696]

  Peter Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis) today,Official Report, column 1177W.

  Trafficking
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations he has made to the Government of Bangladesh concerning measures to combat people trafficking, with particular reference to(a) the number of prosecutions for trafficking offences, (b) the sentences imposed on those found guilty of trafficking and (c) compensation granted to victims of trafficking; [29453]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the scale of trafficking of women and children from Bangladesh. [29454]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave her on people trafficking on 16 January 2002,Official Report, column 304W.

  The most recent figures we have available are from the Bangladesh National Women's Lawyers Association (BNWLA) who conducted a survey in 10 districts of Bangladesh in 1999. It found that approximately 7,000 people were trafficked during that time (70 per cent. under 18) with the majority going to India (80 per cent.). I understand that there were 63 repatriations last year (50 children), mainly from India.

  Latest figures from the BNWLA show that there are 60 cases under trial at present. Last year there were three cases, each of which resulted in the accused being found guilty and given a life sentence. There is no specific compensation scheme for victims, although we understand that the BNWLA provides some support services. The Ministry of Women and Children's Affairs is also receiving development funding for a related project.

  Convention on the Future of Europe
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whom the Government will appoint as the National Government representative to the Convention on the Future of Europe. [31137]

  Mr. Straw
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe has been appointed the Government representative to the Convention on the Future of Europe.

  Camp X-Ray
  Mr. Ancram

  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Foreign Office officials first arrived at Camp X-Ray. [30412]

  Mr. Straw
  17 January 2002.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) when he was first informed of the conditions of the prisoners held in Camp X-Ray; [30410]

  (2) when he first had communications with UK officials concerning the conditions of prisoners in Camp X-Ray. [30361]

  Mr. Straw
  The report of the officials' visit was sent and received on 21 January; I received it on my arrival in Kinshasa that afternoon. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), made a statement the same day,Official Report, columns 623–31.
  1177W
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he first had communications with US officials concerning the conditions of prisoners in Camp X-Ray. [30411]

  Mr. Straw
  I discussed the conditions in which British nationals were being held with the US Secretary of State Colin Powell on 12 January and asked for access by British officials in order to verify their identity, nationality and welfare.

  Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what charges Mr. Abbasi is being held at Camp X-Ray in Cuba and under what jurisdiction; if he has received legal representation during interrogation; who has made direct contact with him and in whose presence; if he has provided testimony of his treatment and condition in private without the presence of American officials; if written confirmation of his medical condition and treatment has been provided; if he is subject to a possible death penalty; and what prospects there are for his extradition to the UK. [30414]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are not yet aware of any charges but are in regular contact with the US regarding next steps. We have made it clear that the detainees must be treated humanely and, if tried, are entitled to a fair trial and to legal representation. At this stage we do not know whether detainees would be subject to the death penalty if convicted but HMG regularly makes their views plain to the US on this issue. The question of whether the detainees will be prosecuted by the US or returned to the UK is as yet undecided.

  The UK team which met Mr. Abbasi during their visit from 17–20 January were accompanied by representatives of the US as the detaining power. The report of the visit indicates that the British detainees spoke without inhibitions and appeared to be in good physical health.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what items will be discussed at his next meeting with his Spanish counterpart. [30633]

  Peter Hain
  The Foreign Ministers will meet at the EU General Affairs Council on 28 January, where they will discuss a range of bilateral and foreign policy issues.

  Christians (China)
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Chinese Government regarding the persecution of Christians in south east China, with specific reference to the imprisonment of several Christians in Huadu Detention Centre in Guangdong Province. [30418]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised concerns about religious freedom in China with the Chinese Foreign Minister during his visit to the UK on 16–19 January. During my visit to China in September 2001, I raised concerns about human rights, including the treatment of Christians, with the Chinese 1178W
  authorities. These concerns were discussed in detail at successive rounds of the UK-China Human Rights Dialogue, most recently on 19–21 November 2001.

  We raised the case of Pastor Li Dexian at the February 2001 round of the UK/China Human Rights Dialogue. The Chinese told us that he was not under arrest at that stage. Media reports indicate that he was arrested on 26 July 2001, and held at the Hua Du Centre, but released the following day.

  Brussels Process
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what date has been set for the next round of talks under the Brussels Process; and what the time scale is for the end of talks. [30641]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) on 5 December 2001,Official Report, column 311W. We propose to hold a further ministerial meeting of the Brussels Process shortly. It remains our intention to conclude a comprehensive agreement by the summer.

  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement to Parliament following the next round of talks under the Brussels Process. [30645]

  Peter Hain
  We will continue to ensure that the House is kept fully informed of progress under the Brussels Process.

  Commonwealth Games
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support from his Department is being given to overseas territories to compete in the Commonwealth games; and which overseas territories are benefiting from this support. [30435]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The overseas territories are themselves responsible for determining and funding their teams' participation in the games. We are in contact with the organisers of the games to ensure the overseas territories are fully involved. We are also liaising with the organisers to facilitate the attendance of VIP visitors from the participating territories.

  Spanish Residents
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Spanish people live and work in the UK. [30702]

  Peter Hain
  According to the Office for National Statistics, as of mid-2000 there were approximately 47,000 Spanish nationals resident in the UK. The Spring 2000 Labour Force Survey, also produced by the Office for National Statistics, records approximately 30,000 Spanish nationals working in the UK.

PRIME MINISTER

  Honours
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister how many non-citizens of the United Kingdom have been knighted in each year since 1990. [30024]
  1179W
  Mr. Straw
  I have been asked to reply.

  The numbers of non-UK citizens who have received honorary knighthoods (or who were invested as honorary Dames) are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1990

  8

  1991

  9

  1992

  23

  1993

  7

  1994

  12

  1995

  18

  1996

  22

  1997

  21

  1998

  18

  1999

  6

  2000

  29

  2001

  13

  These figures do not include Knight (or Dame) Commanders of the Victorian Order which is the Queen's personal prerogative.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Parliamentary Questions
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many answers to parliamentary questions have not been answered by the Lord Chancellor's Department under exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information in each year since 1994. [29425]

  Mr. Wills
  It has not been possible to identify the answers to the parliamentary questions that the hon. Member refers to without incurring disproportionate cost. The Department does not keep records of parliamentary questions and answers in such a form as to enable the information sought to be readily produced. The only way to identify the relevant parliamentary questions and answers, with any degree of reliability, would be to search manually through Hansards. This would be an extremely time-consuming task which would produce the information sought by the hon. Member only at disproportionate cost.

  Crown Court Proceedings
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proportion of defendants who appealed against conviction in a magistrates court and whose case was reheard in the Crown court in 2000 were found(a) not guilty and (b) guilty. [29694]

  Mr. Wills
  Information held centrally relating to the results of appeals to the Crown court is limited and is not collected in a form to provide an answer to the hon. Member's question without incurring disproportionate cost. For information purposes, however, the table provides figures for receipts, by type of appeal, and outcome, by type of result, of appeals to the Crown court during 2000.
  1180W

  Appeals to the Crown court, 2000

  Number

  Net receipts

  Conviction/sentence

  5,341

  Sentence only

  7,691

  Other1

  870

  Total

  13,902

  Results

  Allowed

  3,090

  Dismissed

  4,485

  Varied

  3,268

  Other2

  3,512

  Total

  14,355

  1 Eg liquor licence refusals and non-renewal of shotgun certificates

  2 Abandoned appeals, remitted to magistrates, other results

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what procedures are in place to inform local authorities about the withdrawal of PFI credits from projects under his Department's remit; and what evaluation has been undertaken on the effectiveness of those procedures. [30637]

  Mr. Wills
  There have been no instances of the Department withdrawing PFI credits from projects that have received Project Review Group (PRG) endorsement. In the unlikely event that it could become necessary to withdraw PFI credits, the Department would consult with the appropriate local authorities and magistrates courts committee prior to any decision being made.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, on how many occasions since 1997 PFI credits have been withdrawn from projects under his Department's remit; and what were the(a) costs and (b) reasons for withdrawal. [30636]

  Mr. Wills
  There have been no instances where PFI credits have been withdrawn from projects following the Project Review Group's endorsement.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what procedures his Department has for local authorities to make representations to the Project Review Group on a decision to withdraw PH credits from projects under his Department's remit; and what is the length of time for response. [30638]

  Mr. Wills
  No formal procedures are in place for local authorities to make representations to the Project Review Group on a decision to withdraw PFI credits. That is not the Project Review Group's role. In the unlikely event it was necessary to review the credit allocation it would be a matter for the Department, in consultation with the appropriate local authorities and magistrates courts committee or committees.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

  Transfer of Functions (Costs)
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission if the additional costs relating to the transfer of the functions of the Local
  1181W
  Government Commission for England to the Electoral Commission will be met in advance of the transfer date of 1 April 2002 provided for in the Local Government Commission for England (Transfer of Functions) Order 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 3962). [31316]

  Mr. Beith
  In order to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of the transfer and to enable the transferring local government boundary review functions, together with the related functions transferring from the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, to be carried out without interruption, urgent expenditure estimated at £127,000 will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Ministerial Transport
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she last used the railway service in connection with her official duties; what station she left from and what was the destination; and whether it is her intention to make greater use of the railways in future. [28099]

  Ms Hewitt
  I last used the railway service on official business on Monday 10 December 2001, departing from Euston travelling to Luton Parkway.

  All the arrangements for my official travel are made in line with the guidance set out in Chapter 7 of the Ministerial Code, and accompanying guidance document "Travel by Ministers", using the most efficient and cost effective mode of transport, and bearing in mind security considerations.

  Information and Consultation Directive
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received regarding the information and consultation directive. [30165]

  Alan Johnson
  There is considerable interest in the information and consultation directive and the Department frequently receives inquiries and representations about it. The directive is expected to be adopted shortly and we will be consulting fully and widely on how best to implement it in this country.

  Electronic Signatures
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on progress on implementing the European electronic signatures directive. [31314]

  Ms Hewitt
  Further to the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) on 20 July 2001,Official Report, column 610W, I can now announce that the discussion document referred to in that answer is now being issued and copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  This clearly has not happened as quickly as I had hoped when my hon. Friend the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness replied to my hon. Friend. This delay has been occasioned by developments in the Government's
  1182W
  approach to updating the law to facilitate electronic communications referred to in my hon. Friend the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness' reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on 10 January 2002, Official Report, column 971W.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Justice and Home Affairs Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 14 January 2002,Official Report, columns 89–92W, concerning the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 6 and 7 December 2001, which were the member states with parliamentary scrutiny reserves on (a) the Framework Decision on combating terrorism and (b) the council decision establishing Eurojust. [28792]

  Angela Eagle
  Ireland, Denmark and Sweden had, and continue to have, parliamentary scrutiny reservations on the Framework Decision on combating terrorism which was provisionally agreed at the council, and on which the European Parliament is being reconsulted. My previous reply, based on information supplied by the Council Secretariat and included the council's own press statement reporting the outcome of the Justice and Home Affairs Council of 6–7 December 2001, stated that four member states had parliamentary scrutiny reservations on the Council Decision establishing Eurojust, on which the council reached political agreement. The Council Secretariat have subsequently stated that only Denmark and Sweden maintained parliamentary reservations on this measure at the council.

  In both cases, the United Kingdom lifted its parliamentary scrutiny reservation at the Council following clearance by both Houses.

  Departmental Spending Review
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans his Department has to appraise the environmental implications of its Spending Review submission to the Treasury. [29011]

  Angela Eagle

  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: The Department is currently collating its bid for the 2002 Spending Review. The environmental implications of the bid will be outlined in a report on sustainable development, which will be submitted to the Treasury with the final version of the bid.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what way sustainable development objectives are reflected in his Department's bids for the 2002 Spending Review. [27508]

  Angela Eagle

  [holding answer 16 January 2002]: The Department is currently collating its bid for the 2002 Spending Review. The impact of each bid upon sustainable development indicators is being assessed, and alternatives are being considered to eliminate or reduce any negative impact. A report on the sustainable development aspect of the bid will be produced, in accordance with Treasury requirements, which will detail the social, economic and environmental implications of the final version of the Department's SR2002 bid.

  Environmental Appraisals
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many environmental appraisals have been published by his Department since 1 January 2001; and if he will list the last four. [29008]

  Angela Eagle

  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: No environmental appraisals have been published by my Department since 1 January 2001.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedures his Department has to ensure environmental appraisals are undertaken prior to(a) administrative and (b) policy decisions being made. [29010]

  Angela Eagle

  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: In taking important administrative and policy decisions environmental considerations are taken into account. For example:
  Where relevant goods and services are procured, prospective suppliers are asked to include an assessment of the major environmental impacts of the contract, as part of the tendering and evaluation process; and
  Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methods (BREEAM) assessments are undertaken for new buildings and for the major refurbishment of existing buildings within the Department's estate;
  A section on environmental appraisals is included within the Department's Policy Checklist;
  The Ministerial website states that policy submissions should include a section on environmental considerations.

  The Prison Service Management Board has agreed that all new policies and programmes should be subject to environmental screening and appraisal. This will apply to submissions to Ministers, papers to the Prison Service Management Board and Operational Policy Group and to business cases in respect of prison maintenance and construction work.

  Fear of Crime
  John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to reduce the fear of crime in(a) London and (b) the London borough of Havering; and if he will make a statement. [29472]

  Mr. Denham
  It is a key priority of the Government to reduce crime and the fear of crime through effective law enforcement and partnership working. The British Crime Survey shows that fear of crime generally has been declining since 1998. There are a large number of different programmes operating throughout London and in specific boroughs of London aimed at reducing crime, and it is the Government's policy wherever possible to ensure that they also effectively reduce the fear of crime to include programmes aimed at reducing street robbery, violence at licensed premises and on public transport, and racist attacks and harassment; it would not be practicable to list all relevant programmes currently operating in London.

  There are a number of relevant initiatives being carried out in Havering under the Home Office's Crime Reduction Programme. Among them is the targeted Policing Initiative Project aimed at understanding and responding to hate crime; this initiative is still at an early stage of development and has an allocated funding of £287,000 for a 22-month period. Funds have also been
  1184W
  allocated for Neighbourhood Wardens; one of the objectives of this scheme is to reduce fear of crime by five per cent. by March 2003. £466,583 has been provided to facilitate new and replacement Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) cameras in the borough, as a result of which over 1,000 crimes are expected to be prevented in the first three years of operation. Funds have also been allocated to tackle drugs problems in the borough, including allowing for higher visibility policing. In addition to these schemes and initiatives 3,000 local people are to be surveyed for their views on fear of crime and their personal priorities for crime reduction. This information will be used to inform decisions on priorities for the Crime Reduction Strategy for Havering.

  Either-way Cases
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what percentage of either-way cases defendants elected for jury trial in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [29647]

  The Solicitor-General
  I have been asked to respond to this question, and would refer the hon. Member to the figures and the statement given in reply to his related question.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in(a) how many and (b) what percentage of either-way cases (i) magistrates declined jurisdiction, (ii) defendants consented to magistrates jurisdiction and (iii) defendants elected for jury trial in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [29648]

  The Solicitor-General
  I have been asked to respond to this question.

  The following table, drawn from Crown Prosecution Service records, shows the number and proportion of defendants in either-way cases who were committed to the Crown court at their own election or on magistrates direction. No separate record is maintained of cases in which defendants consented to magistrates jurisdiction.

  These figures show a steady decline in the proportion of either-way cases reaching the Crown court by way of defendant election up to 1997–98, followed by a period of relative stability over the last four years, when these proceedings remained in the region of 29–32 per cent. of all either-way cases.

  The Government are committed to achieving improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of the Criminal Justice System and is considering Sir Robin Auld's recommendations contained in his "Review of the Criminal Courts" which include removal of the right to elect jury trial and the introduction of an intermediate tribunal. The Government have been actively seeking the views of stakeholders on these and other recommendations contained in the "Review" and will take decisions following the conclusion of the consultation process at the end of January.
  1185W

  Either-way proceedings in the Crown court

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02
  1

  Defendant elections

  35,584

  32,865

  25,249

  26,612

  24,768

  21,472

  21,653

  18,391

  18,572

  16,351

  7,605

  as percentage of either cases

  36.5

  37.5

  35.0

  34.2

  33.1

  30.5

  27.9

  29.4

  31.7

  29.6

  30.5

  Magistrates directions

  61,867

  54,738

  46,954

  51,181

  50,158

  49,026

  56,069

  44,269

  40,097

  38,914

  17,350

  as percentage of either cases

  63.5

  62.5

  65.0

  65.8

  66.9

  69.5

  72.1

  70.6

  68.3

  70.4

  69.5

  Total either-way cases

  97,451

  87,603

  72,203

  77,793

  74,926

  70,498

  77,722

  62,660

  58,669

  55,265

  24,955

  1 April to September

  Police Budget (Nottinghamshire)
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the anticipated police budget is for Nottinghamshire for(a) 2002, (b) 2003 and (c) 2004. [29406]

  Mr. Denham
  Police authorities set their annual budgets before 1 March each year. I understand that the Nottinghamshire police authority budget for 2002–03 is still under consideration. Information for 2003–04 and 2004–05 is not available.

  Community Group Funding
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether the Government keep a record of the overall number of state funded competitive grant schemes available to voluntary and community organisations in the United Kingdom in(a) the current and (b) previous years, and by what categories this is broken down; [29928]

  (2) whether the Government keep a central list of the statutory bodies that make competitive grant schemes available to voluntary and community organisations in the United Kingdom in (a) the current year and (b) previous years; [29927]

  (3) whether the Government keep a record of the total sum distributed through all state funded competitive grant schemes available to voluntary and community organisations in the United Kingdom in (a) the current year and (b) previous years; and by what categories this is broken down. [29929]

  Angela Eagle

  [holding answer 24 January 2002]: Information about grants for earlier years is available in two recent publications:
  Central Government Funding of Voluntary and Community Organisations 1982–83 to 1999–2000: ISBN 1 84082 636–3: and
  A Guide to Funding from Government Departments and Agencies—Second Edition: ISBN 1900360 79.

  Information on grants allocated by Government Departments during 2000–01, the last completed financial year, is currently being compiled and will be placed in the Library before the summer recess.

  Missing Children
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he will take to ensure that police forces place details of missing children on the uk.missingkids.com website as soon as possible after being informed of a child's disappearance, and if he will make a statement. [29529]
  1186W
  Mr. Denham

  [holding answer 24 January 2002]: The uk.missingkids.com website aims at reuniting missing children with their families. This site is maintained by Computer Associates plc and is supported by the charity, International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children.

  The website facility is open to be used by all police forces in England and Wales and Scottish forces will have the system made available to them in the very near future. Not all missing children cases are however suitable for the site: children are only featured if it is believed that the child has left their home area, if there is a photograph of reasonably good quality available, and with the agreement of the senior investigating officer and the family. Ultimately any decision as to whether to use the site is the responsibility of the Chief Officer of the relevant force.

  However, the Police National Missing Persons Bureau regularly audits the children currently notified as missing and if the child is not on the site, the investigating force is offered the use of the facility.

  Sustainable Development
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what weight he gives to sustainable development objectives in his Department's(a) public services agreements and (b) service delivery agreements. [27507]

  Angela Eagle

  [holding answer 16 January 2002]: Revisions to Public Service Agreements (PSA) and Service Delivery Agreements (SDA) are being considered as part of 2002 spending review process. In accordance with Treasury guidance, sustainable development issues will be considered when PSAs are redrafted. My Department will also consider if it will be appropriate to set out the impact of sustainable development on the delivery mechanisms in the SDA.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the recorded crimes per head of population for each police authority in England and Wales and the average figure for these authorities. [28665]

  Mr. Denham
  The latest available information on the number of recorded crimes per 100,000 population for police force areas and nationally, for the year ended March 2001, has been published in table 2.6 of the Stationery Office publication "Criminal Statistics England and Wales 2000".

  Police Numbers
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what statistics he collates on the average number of police officers(a) at headquarters establishments and (b) per 1,000 population. [28669]

  Mr. Denham
  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary collects data once a year about the allocation of officers. The Inspectorate's data record officers attached to Basic Command Units and to central functions. Central functions include specialist police squads as well as headquarters support functions and the officers performing central functions may be located at a number of sites.

  At the end of March 2001 (latest date for which data are available), 30,928 police officers (25 per cent. of total force strength) were deployed to central functions.

  Information on the number of police officers to population is published in the Home Office Statistical Bulletins "Police Service Strength: England and Wales". The latest bulletin (No. 23–01), was published on 18 December 2001 and shows that in England and Wales the number of officers per 100,000 population at 30 September 2001 was 240.3. A copy of the bulletin is in the Library.

  Police Corruption (Cleveland)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers have been charged with corruption in the last five years in the Cleveland police force. [26735]

  Mr. Denham
  There is no offence of 'corruption' as such.

  However, I am told that in the Cleveland police force over the last five years there have been the following criminal cases:

  one officer was convicted of attempting to pervert the course of justice

  one officer was found not guilty of attempting to pervert the course of justice;

  one officer was found not guilty of misconduct in a public office; and

  two officers are awaiting trial for misconduct in a public office.

  There have also been the following disciplinary cases:

  one officer was reprimanded for fraudulent use of an excise license;

  three officers were reprimanded or fined for failing to comply with the terms of an arrest warrant and false entry in a pocket notebook; and

  one other officer was found not guilty regarding taking appropriate action when the above case was first reported.

  The ongoing Operation Lancet investigation has also to date led to 12 police officers being charged with disciplinary offences.

  Naturalisation Applications
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for naturalisation are(a) outstanding and (b) awaiting input to the INS database. [25998]

  Angela Eagle

  [holding answer 11 January 2002]: I regret that statistics on individual types of citizenship applications undecided cannot be determined from current Immigration and Nationality Directorate data sources.

  Visa Renewal Applications
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for visa renewal are(a) outstanding and (b) awaiting input onto the INS database. [25996]

  Angela Eagle

  [holding answer 11 January 2002]: We do not routinely publish statistics on the number of general and settlement applications for further leave to remain undecided.

  Policing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of the planned expenditure on policing as a percentage of gross domestic product in(a) 2001–02, (b) 2002–03 and (c) 2003–04. [27917]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is set out in the table.

  Year

  Police provision (£ billion)

  Money GDP (£ billion)

  Police provision as a proportion of money GDP (percentage)

  2001–02

  8.5

  998

  0.85

  2002–03

  9.0

  1,046

  0.86

  2003–04

  9.3

  1,099

  0.85

  Notes:

  1. Police provision is total Government provision (police grant, special grant. capital grant, credit approvals and central Home Office spend and police Standard Spending Assessment).

  2. Money GDP figures are estimates.

  Information on the number of police officers to population is published in the Home Office Statistical Bulletins "Police Service Strength: England and Wales". The latest bulletin (No. 23/01), was published on 18 December 2001 and shows that in England and Wales the number of officers per 100,000 population at 30 September 2001 was 240.3. A copy of the bulletin is in the Library.

  Police White Paper
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the White Paper on the Police. [30212]

  Mr. Denham
  We have received approximately 1,100 representations on the White Paper. We are still considering these and will place a summary in the Library in due course.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bradford.

Business of the House: Debates, 28th January
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 40 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Monday next to allow the Motion standing in the name of the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean to be taken before the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Civil Partnerships Bill [H.L.]
11.1 a.m.
Lord Lester. of Herne Hill: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill enables unmarried couples living in a mutually supportive relationship to make provision for their joint protection within a coherent legal framework.
It has been prepared in collaboration with Stonewall, especially its wise director, Angela Mason, to whom I pay tribute. It has been drafted by a former parliamentary counsel, Stephanie Grundy, whose skill and experience have made it possible to produce a measure dealing with an important and complex subject, cutting a path through the tangled thicket of undergrowth of family, property, social security and pensions law, on none of which I am an expert. I am also grateful to two able young lawyers in my political office, Jane Gordon and Angela Patrick, for their marvellous contribution over eight months' work.
The Bill has the support of the Law Society and of the Solicitors Family Law Association, as well as of the media, with the exception of today's Daily Telegraph. We have received many letters of support from noble Lords who cannot be present today, including the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, who has asked me to mention his support, as well as from many members of the public.
I am grateful that so many noble Lords have attended on this Friday morning to speak or take part in the debate and I look forward eagerly to their contributions.
What is the pressing social need for legislation of this kind? English law gives full effect to the bond between couples if they are lawfully married, but not if they are unmarried. Whether people living together
1692
are of the same sex or of both sexes, the law treats them much less favourably than married couples, even if they have close and long-standing relationships. Cohabiting partners, unlike married ones, do not enjoy a standard set of legal rights and responsibilities. In several ways their legal position is either inferior or not recognised as a family status at all.
Gay and lesbian couples suffer especially from this ancient source of injustice. As Justice Ackermann recently noted, for a unanimous Constitutional Court of South Africa in the National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v. Minister of Home Affairs case, same sex partners are as capable as heterosexual spouses,
"of forming intimate, permanent, committed, monogamous, loyal and enduring relationships, of furnishing emotional and spiritual support; and of providing physical care, financial support and assistance in running the common household".
Justice Ackermann also rightly observed that the message of the denial of equal rights to same sex as to opposite sex partners,
"is that gays and lesbians lack the inherent humanity to have their families … respected or protected. It serves in addition to perpetuate and reinforce existing prejudices and stereotypes".
That is, unfortunately, the intolerant and narrow-minded message still conveyed by Section 28 of the Local Government Act when it refers to homosexuality as a "pretended family relationship". It is no more a pretended family relationship than is a caring, sharing and loving relationship between two heterosexuals who live together in a stable, long-term relationship.
The problems covered by the Bill stem from the lack of a proper legal framework recognising the status of unmarried cohabiting couples. English law lags far behind many European and Commonwealth countries in this respect; countries as diverse as France, Germany and the Netherlands, as well as the Nordic countries, and Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
While the position in England and Wales is largely stagnant, in Scotland, the Scottish Executive has adopted the Scottish Law Commission's 1992 proposals on reform of cohabitation law, and they are likely to be enacted in the near future. Furthermore. in Northern Ireland the Law Reform Advisory Committee has made important recommendations. including the automatic sharing of beneficial interests of the family home purchased or transferred after a cohabitation period of two years.
But in England and Wales, when it comes to important questions of inheritance, pensions, next-of-kin entitlements and social security, cohabitants cannot obtain full recognition of their relationship. To take one recent example, Anna Homsi was the long-term partner of an SAS member killed in Sierra Leone. Because they were not married, Anna was refused a war widow's pension by the Ministry of Defence, and although eventually she received an ex gratia payment, the government scheme continues to discriminate against unmarried couples.
Unmarried couples who cohabit face immense and distressing difficulties in securing legal recognition of their caring and enduring family lives. They do not

1693
enjoy full rights to communal property, or the right to be treated as next of kin by state agencies such as hospitals in the event of serious illness, or to make beneficial pension and life assurance arrangements. Unlike widows and widowers, they are not relieved from inheritance tax on the death of their partner. Gay people have notoriously experienced cruel treatment after their partners have died, especially if they died intestate, when members of the family of the deceased partner, refusing to accept the relationship, have taken over the home and the property which the partners have shared in common for many years. It is even uncertain whether cohabitation contracts are enforceable in English law.
Many pension schemes make no provision for survivor benefits for same-sex couples. The Fatal Accident Act 1976 does not allow same-sex partners to claim bereavement damages for the wrongful death of a partner. The Law Commission has recommended that this injustice should be removed. An opposite-sex partner cannot even register her partner's death or sign for his funeral.
On the other hand, there is the anomaly that, because their relationship is not recognised, same-sex couples do not have their means assessed as a couple for the purposes of income tax and social security.
English law has not remained entirely static. Legal rights and restrictions similar to those applicable to married couples have been extended to heterosexual couples in some contexts—for example, the right to accede to an assured tenancy; the right to claim financial provision against a deceased partner's estate; and the right to apply for the transfer of the family home on the breakdown of a relationship. But in other situations the law continues to ignore the cohabitation relationship, as is nearly always the case with gay couples.
Meanwhile, the pattern of family life has changed dramatically and continues to change. Marriages in Britain are now at their lowest level since 1917 and the divorce rate is the highest in the European Union. There has been a large increase in cohabitation in recent years and a quarter of all children are now born to cohabiting families. Yet this spread of cohabitation outside marriage has not yet been recognised through any coherent law reform.
The authors of a recent report by the authoritative National Centre for Social Research point out that only a quarter of those surveyed think married couples make better parents than unmarried ones. Two-thirds think that it is acceptable for a couple to live together without being married. Despite this, there is considerable support for marriage as an ideal, and among past cohabitants the majority go on to marry their partner.
The survey found that more than half wrongly believe that there is something called "common law marriage" which gives cohabiting couples the same rights as married ones. Common law marriages were in fact abolished in 1753 by Lord Hardwicke's narrowly
1694
restrictive Marriage Act, yet more than half of those surveyed think, mistakenly, that couples who live together have the same rights as married people.
English marriage law consists of a centuries-old accumulation of legislation and common law precedents reflecting traditional religious and social concepts from Lord Hardwicke's time and well before. For those who choose to marry, whether from religious conviction or otherwise, the institution of marriage will always remain and will always be fully protected. Indeed, a civil partnership may often lead to a full religious or civil marriage. But many heterosexual couples do not wish to organise their common life in this way, and same-sex couples, of course, cannot choose to do so.
Along with the increasing number of heterosexual couples choosing not to marry, or choosing to cohabit before they eventually do marry, there has been an increase in the number of homosexual men and women who wish to secure public and legal recognition of their partnerships. Their wish should surely be respected.
The time is over-ripe for legislation to create a legally recognised civil partnership system. The law needs to do more than to equalise the position between same-sex and opposite-sex couples because of the inadequate nature of the rights conferred on unmarried couples generally. The Bill seeks to achieve a law which gives full partnership rights and responsibilities to all mature adults, whether same sex or opposite sex, who wish to enter into a binding legal compact to organise their common life together.
Members of the other place have already voted to allow pension rights for their own unmarried partners. In the words of Angela Mason,
"If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for us".
The Civil Service pension scheme, too, is relaxing its rules on dependants from October. According to a well-informed article in the Financial Times on 10th January by Jean Eaglesham and Robert Budden, the cost implications of extending pension benefits have not deterred the private sector.
The Bill creates a code which consenting unrelated adults can agree to adopt. It is a reform that works for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples who want to support and care for each other by entering into a civil partnership.
The National Centre's social attitudes survey found that, since 1989, views about the necessity of marriage preceding parenthood had changed across the board, even among the most traditional groups. There are distinctive age differences in opinion, reflecting differences between the old and more traditional generation and their replacement by the more liberal generations born after them—differences that reflect how people's views on these matters are shaped distinctively by the social climate in which they grew up. Not surprisingly, those over the age of 65 remain the most traditional in their outlook. We senior citizens are, of course, especially well represented in this House.

1695
In the other place, it is noteworthy that Jane Griffiths, the Labour MP, was given leave on 24th October 2001 to bring in her Bill on the subject by 179 votes to 59. We hope that, despite the difference in age and generation, this Bill will have strong support in this, if I may respectfully say so, more elderly House too. The Bill reflects a core Liberal Democrat policy commitment, but we hope that it will have support from all parts of the House, as well as from the younger and democratically accountable other place.
I turn to the main provision of the Bill. I shall do so briefly, because we have provided detailed Explanatory Notes, which are available in the Printed Paper Office, together with an opinion by my colleague, David Pannick QC, explaining his view that the Bill is fully compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Part 1 deals with the formation of a civil partnership. It provides for the registration of a relationship between two individuals. It sets out the conditions that must be satisfied before the relationship can be registered and outlines the procedure to be followed to secure registration. Some details relating to the registration are to be kept on a record available for public inspection. Civil partnerships will be formed voluntarily by means of a simple procedure recorded by a registrar or other public official.
Part 2 deals with the effect of a civil partnership. It sets out the legal framework within which civil partnerships will function. It provides essential protection for partners in the face of adverse circumstances, such as ill health, domestic violence or death. It extends to civil partners the circumstances in which joint assessment is to be made for means-tested benefits. Their home will be communal property and shared equally in the absence of agreement by the partners to the contrary. Partnership agreements will be binding except in cases of financial or other hardship.
Part 3 deals with the ending of a civil partnership. The partnership will be able to be dissolved by mutual consent or by court order. Couples will be able to make their own arrangements for separation. Where they do not do so, a standard procedure will apply. The court will have the power to intervene to make appropriate orders in relation to the partners' property interests in the event of an application by either partner.
With all respect to the Christian Institute, which organises political lobbies, and to today's Daily Telegraph, the Bill is not a threat to marriage. The fact that for many people marriage is the best framework in which to raise children is no reason for the state to fail to protect those who choose to cohabit, or who have no choice. The Bill may well actually promote marriage, since many heterosexual couples who have been successful and happy in a civil partnership may decide in the light of their experience to move to a religious or civil marriage. That is a matter of personal choice. In any event, it is unjust to continue to penalise opposite sex couples for not choosing to marry—
1696
unjust to them and to their children. They need legal protection and encouragement to live together as stable and loving families.
Civil partnership provides the means of allowing couples who cannot or would not marry to base their common life on a firm legal foundation. The Bill enables men and women to come together to form a caring relationship of mutual support protected by law. It provides fair and appropriate remedies for different family situations. It may be criticised for not going further in its scope, but we have deliberately decided to introduce a measure conspicuous for its moderation.
The Bill does not attempt to tackle every problem in this area, but it tackles many of them. In a generally supportive article in The Times on Monday, the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, whom I am delighted to see in his place and for whose support I am very grateful, pointed out that the Bill does not provide for a civil partnership to be converted into a marriage. That would be an unnecessary complication. If a heterosexual couple wish to end a civil partnership in order to marry, there will be nothing to prevent them from doing so. The noble Lord also regarded it as a weakness that the Bill does not deal with matters affecting the interests of children arising from civil partnerships or their break-up. We have not dealt with this both to avoid unnecessary controversy and complexity, and because we believe that the interests of children are better dealt with by changes to children's and family law dealing with matters such as adoption and custody.
The noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, raised an important further point regarding extending the protections provided by the Bill to, as he terms them, "partnerships of care", which could involve parents and their children, brothers and sisters, brothers and brothers or whatever. I can deal with the issue in my reply if it is raised, but there are valid reasons why we have not included that category of persons within the context of the Bill. Nevertheless, we recognise that the point may require fuller consideration and we remain entirely open-minded on the subject. We are concerned partly to avoid abuse that may arise by going too wide in the scope of the Bill.
The Bill has remarkably widespread public support. It certainly has wider public support than I dreamt was possible when we first thought about it. To lead to much-needed law reform and the effective protection of human rights it needs the active support and skill of the Government and of civil servants. I am grateful to the Leader of the House and to Barbara Roche M P, the Minister of State responsible in the Cabinet Office, for having met us to discuss the Bill. We hope that the Bill will be a catalyst for a strongly positive response by the Government, so that we may secure, at long last, the equal protection of the law for unmarried couples. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Lester of Herne Hill.)
11.26 a.m.
Lord Alli: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for introducing the Bill. I also thank him for the detailed Explanatory Notes, which I much enjoyed.
The Bill recognises above all that people who choose to cohabit, especially in long-term relationships, can find their world turned upside down when their partner dies or is incapacitated. The Bill is not about gay rights, although it affects the gay community. It is not about marriage, although it affects those who are unmarried. Most importantly, it is not about undermining marriage. It is about recognising that being part of a long-term relationship should enable individuals in that relationship to enjoy the security that they would have if they were married.
I believe—as I know do many others in the House—that this is a fair Bill. A Government such as ours, committed to fairness and justice, in my view have a moral obligation to give the Bill safe passage. I know that it is easy to get caught up in the workings of government and that it is difficult for Ministers, especially in this place, to navigate their way through the labyrinth of government departments, but I remind my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House and colleagues in government that we—not the Civil Service—decide what should and should not happen. In areas such as this we can prove that we are a radical government. Our deeds should speak louder than our words.
Let me give a couple of examples of the kind of misery and injustice that the current law inflicts and why we need to rectify it. Your Lordships may recall the late Lord Montague of Oxford, who, although he was only briefly in your Lordships' House, made an outstanding contribution to its work. He died in this Chamber. He had been in a relationship for 30 years with a very kind and distinguished gentleman. They shared both their lives and their home. I should like to read to your Lordships an extract from a letter sent to me by his partner. He said:
"On 5th November 1999 my partner, Lord Montague of Oxford, died in the Lords suddenly. We had a wonderful 30 years of truly loving happy relationship. Of course, there were some ups and downs like any 'married couple'. He worked very hard for the country throughout his adult life until the day he died. It was the most devastating day of my entire life and I will never forget it.
I was then faced with the burden of paying inheritance tax.
Like married couples we pay various taxes such as VAT and income tax. Of course this is correct, but when it comes to inheritance tax married couples are exempt and do not pay a penny when one of them dies. This is absolutely unfair to unmarried couples and I wish to support the changes of the law for unmarried couples who have genuine relationships.
Please consider my experience and I would urge you to take action as soon as you can so that people who have genuine relationships will not suffer the same burden as I faced recently".
So not only did Lord Montague's partner have to deal with the utter desolation to his life; he also lost his home and was forced to sell his possessions in order to pay the inheritance tax.
Surely this cannot be right. We have recognised this unfairness and we have put provisions in place to prevent husbands and wives suffering this very
1698
injustice. It is unfair to make people sell their family homes—and it is high time that people who are not married, or who cannot be married, are given the same protections.
I am sure that many gay men and gay women would want to register a civil partnership—not as a form of marriage, but as a form of security. It would provide them with the peace of mind that, when they die, they would leave at least some security for their partners. Such security cannot be over-stated.
Noble Lords may have read recently of the death of Sir Nigel Hawthorne, who was one of our greatest actors. He leaves behind a partner of nearly 20 years. Sir Nigel's long-term companion will now be deprived of many of the rights referred to. He will now have inheritance tax to pay on Sir Nigel's estate, and may be forced to sell many of their treasured possessions. That, too, cannot be right.
I ask the Government not to be afraid of public opinion, for I believe it is with us on this issue. Indeed, it was Richard Littlejohn, in the Sun, who expressed support for civil partnerships. Perhaps I may quote from his article in the Sun on 7th September 2001:
"You don't have to be Peter Tatchell to be in favour of ending discrimination against unmarried couples in certain areas. Nor do you have to support the full gay 'rights agenda' or believe that homosexual partnerships should be put on an equivalent footing to conventional marriage.
I remain implacably opposed to adoption by gay couples, artificial insemination on the NHS for lesbians, the repeal of Clause 28 and the legalisation of open-air gay sex"—
clearly I have a great deal of work to do before Richard becomes a new man!—
"But the law as it stands at the moment is blatantly unfair to homosexual couples in stable, long-term relationships in the areas of health, pensions and employment benefits"—
matters that need to be re-examined. He continues:
"For instance, why should a homosexual be denied visiting rights when his partner is seriously ill in hospital? Why should a man who has lived in a council flat for donkey's years be evicted when his partner dies, simply because his name is not on the rent book? Why should a lesbian have to go to an industrial tribunal to get the same employment benefits as a married colleague?".
I do not always find myself in agreement with Mr Littlejohn's opinions, but even he can see the benefits of civil partnerships; he can see the benefits of bringing stability to relationships—and stability is what our society needs.
I also seem to be able to find support from another, more surprising, quarter; namely, from the Conservative Party. Mr John Bercow, the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, has stated:
"We have got to recognise that, in important respects, gays and lesbians in this country and unmarried heterosexuals suffer discrimination. In relation to gays, on hospital visiting rights, on decisions relating to hospital treatment, on the entitlement, or rather lack of it, of a gay partner to register his partner's death, gays suffer serious and, in my view, totally unacceptable discrimination. So in key respects the Conservative Party can be a champion of gay rights".
I shall, of course, be passing his comments on to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who is not in her place as she has been unwell. I should like to pass on my best wishes for her speedy recovery. I look forward to seeing her in her place soon.

1699
This is not a controversial Bill. It is a compassionate Bill, and should be seen as such. It should demonstrate the goodness, understanding and tolerance in our society. I know that the Government have many vested interests that they must balance. I know that it is sometimes hard to stand up for the things that we all believe in; and that it is sometimes difficult to keep the country together when dealing with sensitive issues.
I ask the Government to think seriously about finding a way to get this Bill on the statute book. They have a rich tradition of protecting and expanding people's rights. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House will give me the reassurance that they will continue to do so, and that they will give the Bill a safe passage.
11.34 a.m.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, this Private Member's Bill is very wide in scope—too wide—and the helpful, but very necessary, notes bear witness to that. I predict that, as it goes through its stages, including a Committee of the Whole House, it is likely to run out time. However, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is a clever and patient man. He toiled long and hard for the Human Rights Act. Again, in this Bill he presents important issues of principle which have already aroused great interest in the media. Such a Bill, even if it falls, could become the precursor to later government legislation. Therefore, it is important to respond today, in your Lorships' House, where the Bill originates. The Bill, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, is about home-sharing and caring partnerships in which sex may or may not have played a part.
There are three important social issues. I begin with the question of heterosexual cohabiting couples who choose not to get married. The partners are not recognised as a unit. They have few protections and may be left in poverty as single parents. That is sad—and unnecessary, because the protections that such people seek are readily available to them. They have the option of a form of civil registration at a register office. To give heterosexuals who choose not to take on the responsibilities of marriage the privileges of those who do marry would not fulfil the aim of all legislation; namely, promoting the well-being of society.
Marriage involves a publicly declared commitment. It has an inter-generational role in linking former generations and future generations. It is the environment where shared values and support are best transmitted. Above all—little mentioned in the Bill—marriage has children at its very heart. If the marriage fails, they are the first and proper concern. In the proposed civil partnership, children are mentioned only in terms of property, non-molestation, inheritance and intervention orders.
Cohabiting couples can still gain the majority of benefits included in the Bill by instructing a solicitor or by going through the courts. They can, for example, set up a cohabitation arrangement; they can write a will. There are many other examples. It is time-consuming,
1700
it is not simple, and it is not easy. But nor is marriage. No, I do not support this part of the Bill and I urge the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to remove it lest the whole Bill founder on it.
Homosexual partnerships were movingly described by the noble Lord, Lord Alli. The proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, have the two underlying principles of freedom of association and equality under the law to support them. The Bill relates to a surprisingly small group of people in our society, but a group who suffer for their difference in many ways and who are asking to have recognised their provenly committed relationship.
I would argue that it is preferable for a homosexual lifestyle to be lived within the context of a single committed relationship and recognised as such. This is not "marriage", nor do I think it claims to be. God gave us that wonderful sacrament as the building-block for society; ordained for the procreation of children and nurturing them; as a remedy against sin; and for the mutual society, help and comfort that the one ought to have in the other, both in prosperity and in adversity.
However, for the safety and harmony of society, I believe that some legal protection should be sought to support those loving monogamous relationships and to protect them better in age and sickness and in death. It must be said, however, that as in the case of the first group I described, many of the Bill's proposed financial benefits can be obtained by instructing a solicitor or remembering to make a will.
The third group is perhaps the largest and is growing. We have an ageing population and many old people in need of care and support—widows, widowers, those who are divorced, spinsters and bachelors. Living together in company, they can maintain their independence from the state by sharing their resources and be a comfort and joy to each other. Those are good, caring relationships to be encouraged.
Sadly, the Bill gives only some of those partnerships legal status and protection from inheritance tax. There is a prohibition on family partnerships—"close relations of each other" are the words used—which seems at odds with care of the aged when so often it is just such a family member who is involved in relieving the state of a heavy burden and benefiting society as a whole. I urge the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to reconsider and to remove that prohibition from the Bill.
Much in the Bill is good. However, I ask myself whether we need the Bill. I am aware that the Government are in the process of a cross-departmental review of the implications of granting rights and benefits to cohabiting couples. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether consultation is under way and how soon the review will be completed. Would it he better for the House to wait and hear the Government's proposals? The objectives may all be possible within the general context of family law.
Is not the removal of inheritance tax part of the answer to many of the problems highlighted in the Bill? Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether the

1701
Government are already considering such a proposal. After all, the tax is divisive and expensive to collect. It is not worth the effort, and its removal would go a long way to providing one of the financial protections that the Bill tries so hard to achieve.
I wish the noble Lord, Lord Lester, good fortune in the long weeks ahead.
11.42 a.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to join my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill in his tribute to Angela Mason. It is a matter of some pride to me that Angela Mason is a former pupil of mine. It illustrates very clearly that anything one may do for one's pupils is very, very far from adequately measured in the conclusion of their degrees. That is a mind that I observe continuing to grow and I take pleasure in it.
I should, of course, also like to pay tribute to my noble friend, not only for introducing this Bill but for a lifetime of service to the principle of nondiscrimination. I have a great deal of respect and some affection for Mr Oliver Letwin. But when Mr Letwin, in today's Daily Telegraph, described my noble friend as moralistic, I reflected that when I first met him, Mr Letwin had then reached the magnificent old age of nine. My noble friend, it is true, does not like unkindness and does not like intolerance, but if that makes us moralistic, I hope there are quite a few moralistic people in this Chamber. I have seen no other signs of it.
I remember a day nearly 40 years ago—indeed, it was so nearly 40 years ago that it may well be within 40 years before the Bill leaves this House—when my wife, as she has since become, and I were waiting for a bus in Oxford high street. We decided, after some thought, that we would prefer to go through a ceremony of marriage rather than live together as partners. I have not regretted that decision. However, her two sisters took the equivalent decision in exactly the opposite respect. When I look at those three couples, the independent variables, especially the medical ones, so dominate the mind that I am unable to say whether any or all or some of us took the decision right. One simply cannot isolate the necessary variables.
There are two things of which I am certain. The first is that they were private decisions that concerned only the six people directly involved in taking them. The second is that the decisions, as I have observed them over a generation, set up relationships that were exactly morally equivalent. When I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, refer to cohabiting couples refusing to take on the responsibility, I simply did not recognise what I have observed within my own family circle. The remark made no sense to me.
The other thing that the example demonstrates is that it is not always an unmitigated evil to have to wait for a bus. That conversation with my wife broadened out into a conversation about the place of ceremony in modern life—which I think is the right context in which to discuss this particular issue. There has been a
1702
move away from ceremony. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in matters of dress, is very well aware of that move. Personally, I happen to like ceremony. But I happen also to like choice and to dislike compulsion. So the principles are weighed against each other. I think that this Bill does that right. It allows people to choose the way of relating that fits their own conscience and their own conviction.
I think that that is right, and it is part of a growing trend. According to the Office for National Statistics, in 1986, 5 per cent of couples were cohabiting. In 1999, it was 15 per cent—a fairly rapid rate of growth. In the 1997 general election, when I spent a lot of time canvassing in the constituencies of Folkestone, Christchurch and Richmond—not, I think, the most bohemian parts of the British Isles—what I was finding on the doorsteps just about fitted that information. It is not a good idea to tell such a large body of our fellow citizens that we do not think they are respectable because, after all, they might return the compliment.
There are many more disadvantages facing cohabiting couples than we have had time to consider so far. One which is particularly topical at the moment is the right of being recognised as next of kin by a hospital—the right of being notified if the person one loves has an accident. It is perfectly reasonable to prefer to be visited in hospital by the person one loves and lives with than by a blood relative from whom one may be many years estranged. I remember one story my wife told me when she came back from the hairdresser. She had been told that she had been allocated someone who was not her usual hairdresser and that she should, "Treat him gently. His father is being buried at this moment. Because he happens to be homosexual, his brother has said he will set the dogs on him if he shows up anywhere near the funeral". If that is the sort of next of kin one has in blood, obviously one would prefer to be visited and have decisions taken by the person one loves. That is the sort of thing that this Bill would put right.
There are regularly problems in immigration law, and the Ministers on the Front Bench know that I have often bothered them with letters about that. I think that they and I would be quite relieved if I did not have to write them about the subject, and that there is no need for unnecessary work. There is, for example, the right to take responsibility for a funeral. Currently, many funerals are paid for out of public funds, from the social fund, when there is a gay partner who would be happy and willing to undertake the cost of providing a proper funeral the way it ought to be done.
The central argument on the other side has been so far an argument about children. It is a real issue. Exactly what does the evidence say? It says that cohabiting couples are more likely to part than couples who go through the ceremony of marriage. But two questions arise. First, what does that evidence prove? Secondly, are we, in fact, statistically comparing like with like?
I do not believe that anyone disputes that it is better to be brought up by two happy parents than by two unhappy parents. However, when one compares

1703
couples who have separated with the whole body of married couples who stay together, one is comparing a sample who are, by definition, unhappy, with a sample of the whole of married couples, of whom I believe that the majority are still happy.
That is not comparing like with like. What we really need to know—and I cannot see a research method of tackling this question—is whether, when a couple are unhappy, ht is better for them to stay together unhappy, or to separate.
Ideas have changed on that. Marriage used to be a prison. When this issue was first raised in Parliament in 1610 the Church took a much more generous line than the state as regards the provision of alimony for separated couples—usually in cases of domestic violence. The House of Commons said that that was to the great encouragement of wives to be disobedient and contemptuous against their husbands.
We have moved on a little since then. How far we ought to move on is a question on which I cannot see an adequate research method and I am, therefore, prepared to act on the hypothesis that the couple concerned are more likely to be good judges of their own interests than a state which does not know the particular circumstances. So I am not prepared to meddle too much in this. Furthermore, those statistics, I believe, need to be taken with a certain academic caution.
There are many other cases that I will not go into but I believe that we need to put the matter in context with some of the complaints that have been made about our present day society. People constantly complain, sometimes with some reason, that we are becoming too individualistic, too selfish, too atomistic. I do not think that can be changed by legislation. However, when we do have people who are eager and willing to take responsibility for each other's old age, willing to stay with each other when they are sick and they need a carer, willing to take on the troubles of clearing up their estate, it really does not make much sense to refuse them the legal means to do so.
After all, this is something in which they do no injury to others. God knows, we spend enough time in this House talking about matters where the state ought to provide and where it costs the state money to provide. If people want to save the state money by sharing occupational pension rights with each other, for example, that is something that I believe is in the. public interest.
If we prohibit that, I believe we are engaged in behaviour which, if we were a local authority, might put us at risk of being surcharged.
11.54 a.m.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, a case could be made for a different Bill with this Title. It would be designed to give to quite a small number of people, in quite long-term relationships, or after such relationships had been ended by death, a limited number of those rights and supports in law, the
1704
absence of which has, indeed, been found particularly distressing. We have reason to be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for giving good evidence of those distresses. I believe that such a Bill would be much shorter than the Bill before us. It would give those obligations and rights to people who had been a good deal longer than six months in partnerships which entail no exclusive mutual commitment.
Furthermore, it would set a longer period than 12 months before such partnerships could be terminated. It might also make it simpler than it seems to be at present and that, I believe, was a point made by I he noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox. It might also make it simpler than it seems to be at present for people to gain or safeguard some of those rights by existing legal processes.
However, the Bill before us today enumerates all. or nearly all, of the civil obligations and rights resulting from marriage. It proposes to give them to those who have not made the public commitments to each other that are made in marriage and who will not make the same contribution—which is not to say that they will not make any contribution—to the society that gives those obligations and rights that married people make.
I take the Bill's basic premise to be that those living in partnerships short of marriage should have the same rights as those who are married. I believe that that premise is mistaken because it is not comparing like with like. Notwithstanding the assertion of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, (its proposer) and of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, it seems to me that the Bill is bound to have the effect of further undermining, in the eyes of present and future generations, the "institution" of marriage. To undermine marriage is, as the Chief Rabbi has pointed out, like destroying a precious ecosystem on which the security, the maturing, the well-being and the wholesomeness. not only of countless individuals but of our society, now and in the future depends.
I believe that the Bill tends to undermine marriage because it seems to give official backing to the belief already widely held—and often, I recognise, for understandable reasons—that life-long exclusive commitment is no longer really possible. Yet most people still want to marry and 60 per cent of marriages last "till death us do part".
Still more regrettable and damaging, the Bill seems to give official backing to the belief that lifelong exclusive commitment is simply not desirable and that this is a bond that human beings are better and happier without.
A good deal of press comment on the Bill has assumed that the law and government should not discriminate in favour of married people. Furthermore, they comment that this view alone justifies, even requires, a Bill like that before this House today. I believe I heard the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in his opening speech make just that point.

1705
However, the contrary seems to me to be the case and not only because such discrimination has historically been our tradition in this country. It has been based, yes, in the conviction of the Christian faith that marriage is,
"a pattern that God has given in creation … so that the weakening of marriage has serious implications for the mutual belonging and care that is exercised within the community at large",
based in the belief that marriage is "fundamental to human flourishing".
Again, the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, made those points well. However, there is also a large body of research evidence that confirms those insights, which are not only those, of course, of Christian faith—evidence, for instance, that marriage in general benefits the physical, psychological and emotional health and welfare of adults.
As regards children, the 1998 White Paper Supporting Families said:
"Marriage is the surest foundation for raising children".
Yet almost uniquely today, in matters of that kind, those advocating reform of the law in the media, if not in your Lordships' House, seem to pay very little attention to research evidence.
In the face of evidence, now from research as well as from major faiths, of the unique value of marriage, it seems to me a straightforward issue of public health that marriage should be supported and promoted; not undermined. It seems to me too that, in our culture today, to try to find some position of value-free neutrality is to join those who, whether unintentionally or intentionally, would discredit and undermine marriage and married people.
I appreciate—and the point has been made clear this morning—that among those whom the Bill was designed to assist are people in same-sex partnerships who find the exclusive, heterosexual relationship of marriage not to be for them; and that it seems unjust and discriminatory that married people should be in receipt of privileges that are not open to them. As I suggested earlier, I would be prepared to see Parliament meet some of that constituency's more pressing concerns in a much shorter, simpler Bill that did not, as this Bill does, equate same-sex and other non-married relationships with marriage; and which did not therefore, in an age when more and more is said about choice rather than about orientation or necessity, in decisions about sexual behaviour, run the risk of encouraging some people at least into those kinds of relationship.
Before I make one final point, as I believe, of substance, I have three brief questions to put to the noble Lord, Lord Lester. Clause 26(3) defends the,
"entitlement. or accrued right, of any member of [a pension] scheme acquired before the power is exercised".
But thereafter will not there be costs to such members? Are those costs proper and just? Who will bear the additional costs that, if I understand the Bill rightly, Clauses 27 and 28 will impose?
1706
Secondly—this may be the point of the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, though I have not seen those newspapers today—does not the Bill severely and unfairly disadvantage those who live together, and in one way or another depend on each other, who are related? Or who are not related but are friends and who are not, and do not wish to be thought to be, in a sexual partnership? I have seen it suggested that people in those two categories are more numerous than those who today's Bill has in view. Are not there serious dangers for the future lurking in Clause 30? What is the meaning of Clause 30(4)(b)? Is it that the Minister may note only representations from those whom he chooses to invite to make them?
Lastly, it seems to me that this Bill encourages, by giving substantial rights and obligations to them, relationships that it recognises from the outset are in general not just not permanent, but not even long-term. A year after their inception they may be dissolved within a month if both parties request it. and within nine months at the request of only one party. Where is the logic of the state taking a formal interest in, and what is more expending substantial resources upon, relationships that are so clearly private rather than public? And what meaning does that leave to that fine phrase in Clause 30(4)(d),
"the gravity of the financial and emotional responsibilities of supporting and caring for the other partner that he is undertaking by entering into the civil partnership".
I believe that the fundamental character of our human sexual, and wider personal, make-up is such that the majority of us thrive most in a permanent, committed and trustworthy relationship; and that by giving so very large a measure of encouragement to relationships most of which are and will continue to be short-term, this Bill is going to have the effect of damaging very many of those whom it seeks to assist.
So I ask your Lordships to vote against a Second Reading today, if we come to a vote. I ask the Government, who have said that they are considering these matters, to consider very carefully indeed the long-term wisdom of proceeding in the directions pointed by this Bill.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, if the right reverend Prelate will clarify his questions, I shall endeavour to answer them. I am sure it is my fault. but I did not understand them exactly. In relation to pensions, can he explain exactly what is the problem with which he wants me to deal? Also, what is the mischief in Clause 30 that he is concerned about? If he can clarify those points I shall do my best to reply.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, in relation to the first of those points, it seemed to me that in Clause 26(3) there is a mention that the entitlements and accrued rights of a member of a pension scheme will be safeguarded. But I ask whether there will be costs after the relevant power is exercised.
In relation to the other clause, for reasons which I believe I understand from the Explanatory Notes, a particular note in the Bill was not present. But presumably there will be costs to be borne by someone if the actuarial basis of the scheme is radically changed.

1707
My third point concerns Clause 30, which is headed,
"Power to make further provision relating to civil partners".
It seems to me that in general there are questions to be asked in fundamental matters of relationships and morality about Ministers of the Crown making by order, "such further provision". But I was particularly concerned by subsection (4)(b) and the question I asked was whether in fact it means that the Minister may only obtain representations from those whom he chooses to invite to make them.
12.7 p.m.
Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords, I support the Bill with great enthusiasm. Like all in this House in favour of its measures, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for introducing it.
Civil partnership registration is recognised in whole or in part in 11 European countries, and the reforms the Bill seeks to make law here are long overdue.
In this House today we have heard and shall hear stories of distress and injustice. Although primarily practical. the Bill by its very nature is charged with powerful and conflicting emotions and areas of it require anecdotes of hardship to give it force. I shall give only two, both I think pertinent.
The first concerns a heterosexual partnership and happened more than 20 years ago. The male partner, John, whom I knew well, and his girlfriend, Anne, had been together for most of their adult lives. They had not married because they considered marriage immoral, as large numbers of people today still consider what was once called "living in sin", immoral. John suddenly became ill with a rapidly destructive terminal disease. His death was imminent and he realised that when he died, Anne, who earned far less than he, would be left in circumstances which were likely to make it impossible for her to remain in their house.
In spite of their principles, as a desperate measure he married Anne a few days before he died in order to secure for her the pension the private company which employed him would pay to a widow but not to a bereaved partner. Incidentally, that company is now among those which recognise the rights of partners. John considered what he had done dishonourable, but believed he had no choice. Therefore he had compromised his principles and, to put it strongly, cheated his employers because he and his partner of more than 20 years enjoyed no partnership rights.
The other story concerns a homosexual couple, Paul and James, who lived together for 30 years. Compromising principles hardly entered into the question for them since they could not have married even if they wanted to and could not even put their relationship on anything but an illicit level. That, to a greater or lesser extent, is true of all homosexual couples.
Paul died suddenly, aged 63. He had earned a large salary; James, a small one. They jointly owned their house but as its value far exceeds the exemption threshold of £242,000, James faces a large bill for
1708
inheritance tax which may mean the loss of his home and, possibly, their collection of first editions. Matters would be very different were he a surviving husband. James was not allowed to register Paul's death. Paul's family refused to allow him any say in funeral arrangements, recognising him only as Paul's servant which they told everyone he had been.
Prejudice within the family, critics may call a private matter, a question of personal taste and even principle. But the law exercises a strong influence over public opinion, if only gradually. The establishment of a regulated scheme of civil partnerships as well as righting a grave injustice would be far-reaching and. do much to change the views of those who believe gay and lesbian people are, by their nature, promiscuous and incapable of sustained fidelity. Ironically, it is those same people who oppose any measures to change the status quo.
A law that gave to unmarried heterosexual and homosexual couples similar, if not identical. rights to those enjoyed by the married would demonstrate approval or, at least, tolerance of homosexuality and so-called common law situations—similar, but not the same, rights.
Eleven European countries now allow legal rights to lesbian and gay partners in varying degrees as to succession and/or tenancy. Sweden, the European Union country I know best, has since 1995 granted to homosexual couples registration of their partnership and succession of tenancy on death. After an initial rush to register, there has been a steady maintenance of figures and, in several years, a climb so that in the year 2000 a total of 892 couples had registered. But under Swedish law, the same rights as those of married couples have not been granted. Same-sex partners may not adopt children; women partners cannot receive artificial insemination.
No-one wishes to undermine marriage, which many believe to be an honourable estate instituted by God. And marriage is not proposed here. If it were, there would be no need for the registration of civil partnerships for heterosexual couples.
In today's Daily Telegraph, Mr. Oliver Letwin writes,
"There is no need to create a separate category of registered civil partnerships for mixed-sex couples, because anyone seeking these rights can attain them by marrying."
That is an opinion echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox. What Mr. Letwin fails to understand is that many mixed-sex partners are against marriage on principle. And when he adds:
"Our policies and our laws should reflect the world as it is,"
he is lacking in recognition of the dislike, held by people like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, of ceremonies, wherever they may be held and by whomsoever they may be conducted, which hind two people together in a union that, if it fails, must be dissolved by a court of law.
I know a couple who have lived together for more than 50 years. They have children, grandchildren and a great grandchild but have never married. They see marriage as a denial of strong socialist and atheistic

1709
principles. Those principles are not mine, but I respect the right of serious, well-informed people to hold them.
Why registration? In certain parts of the world, heterosexual couples are considered married for legal purposes if they have cohabited for a certain period. Such recognition might be extended to homosexual couples. But in the circumstances of a still, sadly, prevailing climate of prejudice against homosexuals, it is desirable for those wishing to enjoy partnership rights to opt into a registration scheme, just as it would be expedient for heterosexual partners so to do.
Here, I must differ from my noble friend Lord Alli. I cannot agree that this Bill is not, to some extent, about gay rights. Registration indicates commitment and the declared assumption of rights and responsibilities. By giving recognised status to homosexual couples, it would have the effect of encouraging partners to come out of the closet and make a relationship, to which they have a perfect right, obvious and public. To establish one's partner as nextof-kin would be a great leap forward.
Cohabiting heterosexuals mostly no longer feel it necessary to save face or placate families by a pretence of being married or "just good friends." The British Social Attitudes Survey carried out last year found that 67 per cent of the public believed it was all right for couples to live together without intending to marry. And cohabiting heterosexuals are treated as married couples for the purposes of income support, housing benefit and other social security payments.
However, we still live in a climate where every homosexual couple I have ever known has felt a need for some degree of concealment of their relationship. That may mean no more than never alluding to the refurbishment of "our" bedroom or the hotel room they stayed in as "ours", except to their closest friends. The pretence that two men in a sexual relationship are just two bachelors sharing a home or two maiden ladies living together for companionship is far less common than it was, but is still with us. Years of prosecuting male homosexuals and the consequent fear of discovery that that gave rise to, although more than 30 years in the past, cast a long shadow, still hanging over many today. Often, the hardest thing for anyone in a same-sex relationship to do is to confront their parents and be open about their sexual orientation.
Opting into a partnership registration scheme might—I believe, will—go some way to changing this. Same-sex couples who wish to avail themselves of its benefits would be obliged to come out of the closet to register. This would be a step nearer to loving and faithful partners reaching open acknowledgement of their closeness in the same way as happily married couples do today.
12.16 p.m.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the excellent speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell.
1710
I would like to thank my noble friend, Lord Lester, for the hard work that he has put into this Bill. His dedication to this cause springs out of his enormous experience and reputation as a human rights and equal opportunities lawyer. It is informed by great legal wisdom but also by his deep humanity.
This is a very moral Bill. It is about allowing people who are committed to each other to get public recognition and legal support for their partnership and to experience the rituals and rites of passage which affirm and reinforce their mutual love and the legal bolstering which delivers security. Nothing could strengthen society more than adding to the sum of its commitment, duty. devotion and stability.
I speak not just as an individual firmly in support of this Bill, but as a Liberal Democrat. Our party has adopted support for a civil partnership law as its formal policy. There is, of course, a strong strand of civil rights campaigning in my party which I strongly endorse. But we are also a party strongly influenced by a sense of morality. A high proportion of our members are religious. So I do not accept that to be in favour of a civil partnership law is somehow to weaken the moral basis of society. On the contrary. it reinforces it.
The excellent briefing from Stonewall opens with the remark,
"The traditional stereotype of homosexuals as lonely people forming, at best, casual relationships, is still prevalent."
They could have added that that derogatory stereotype often extends "casual" to "promiscuous". It is a curious paradox that this stereotype coexists, unhappily, with the prejudice against a recognition by society of same-sex partnerships. There is a profound inconsistency between deploring the decline of commitment to long-term relationships—"the breakdown of society"—and refusing support to existing committed partnerships.
Many people were deeply moved by the personal stories that emerged from The Admiral Duncan pub bombing in Soho a few years ago, that hate-filled despicable act of violence. I refer to the fact that a gay partner could not he treated as next of kin to be consulted on medical treatment or was ineligible for criminal compensation and the stark contrast that was thrown up, because the victims included a heterosexual married couple as well as homosexual couples, between the legal treatment of those different sets of partners.
I have spoken so far of people who. being gay, are unable to marry. But of course the Bill provides an alternative to marriage for those opposite sex couples who could marry but choose not to. I can identify with the reasons why people might not want to marry. Marriage still carries some baggage of patriarchy and second-class status for women, as so scandalously represented in the past by the Married Women's Property Act, and the denial until so recently of independent taxation for married women. Marriage also has a strong religious overtone. The Times itself acknowledged that people might have personal or philosophical reasons for declining to marry.

1711
Much has, of course, changed in the past 20 years since my husband and I got married. We chose a registry office and a civil ceremony in order to enshrine an emphasis on a more modern and equal partnership than a Church wedding, for us, represented. 'Who knows if the civil partnership proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, had been available then whether we might not have chosen it. It would be good to have that choice.
The wisdom of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is not to try to stretch the institution of marriage. In other countries this has been done, notably in the Netherlands where gay people can marry in civil marriages in exactly the same way as heterosexual couples. But I believe that the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to have this separate channel of civil registered partnership, is the right one here and now in the United Kingdom. I believe that there can therefore be a meeting of minds from different directions on keeping marriage as a ring-fenced institution co-existing with civil partnership. I really cannot see therefore how someone like Melanie Phillips in the Daily Mail yesterday can claim that the real agenda of this Bill is
"to destroy the institution of marriage",
as it deliberately and carefully steers clear of marriage.
There is also a profound muddle at the heart of Ms Phillips' thinking. She equates cohabitation with recognised legal partnership in blaming both for being the biggest threat to marriage. But civil partnerships would shift some relationships from the category of unrecognised and informal to legally recognised commitment, surely many more than would "downshift", if you like, from marriage to civil partnership. So the net result is a gain not a loss in socially beneficial and legally sanctioned long-term commitment.
The Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, would regulate rights to joint communal property in the event of dissolution or death, the right to be treated as next of kin in emergencies and to make proper pension, health and life assurance arrangements. The Stonewall briefing gives some life story examples of the sheer injustice of discrimination in these areas. We all have friends or family in unrecognised relationships. I can think of two particular sets of friends in gay partnerships, one of which has lasted over 30 years. Why should they have to pay inheritance tax on the death of one of them when someone married for just one day would not have to do so?
But let us not forget the partner in a cohabiting, heterosexual relationship. Many women in particular have learned with a rude shock when things go wrong that with a few exceptions they do not have legal or financial rights which more or less equate to marriage. As men on average still disgracefully earn a quarter more even than working women, the potential for an unmarried woman to find herself with no financial resources or without redress for abuse or violence is a big social problem. Even for those who frown on cohabitation it is simply unrealistic to deny its very
1712
widespread existence and to leave women in particular without protection. I am again indebted to The Times for its elegant phrasing. It states that the Bill,
"would extend the law's dominion over unprotected thousands".
It is those kind of practical and moral considerations which have understandably inspired the encouraging remarks today of the Conservative Party Shadow Home Secretary in another place, Oliver Letwin, recognising the justice and the practical imperative of responding to the legal problems encountered by couples who cannot marry. It is disappointing that that is not translated into support by the Conservative Front Bench for this reasonable and thoughtful Bill. But it throws the spotlight on the way the Government are lagging even behind some Conservative thinking and they surely should reflect on that. It is a great shame that the Government have not agreed to give this Bill government time. Perhaps there is time for them to change their mind.
A civil partnership law in the UK would bring us into line with an increasing European trend. As the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, noted, a majority of EU states now have such laws. I should hastily add that this is not a Brussels plot—family law is exclusively a national responsibility—although, of course, there are aspects of EU law such as immigration and free movement which will have to reflect such developments. As there is EU law outlawing discrimination in employment on grounds of sexual orientation which is about to be implemented in the United Kingdom, it is anomalous and hypocritical that employees of EU institutions, even if they have a recognised partnership in an EU state, cannot receive pension or household benefits for their partner as their married colleague might for a spouse. That has been confirmed in a judgment of the European Court of Justice. That needs reform and I hope that Commission vice-president Kinnock will press that in the Commission and that it will be taken up in other EU institutions.
In conclusion, whatever our varying views on marriage, homosexuality or cohabitation, we can surely unite in agreeing that more certainty, more protection and more encouragement to commitment and support for a partner are universally to be welcomed. The Bill is not about marriage which for many people, I acknowledge, remains the gold standard. Civil partnership does not threaten that hut reinforces stability in society.
12.27 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I rise with diffidence to speak on a subject which arouses a good deal of feeling not always based on logic among all people who engage in its discussion. I am careful, therefore, to remember the prayer with which we began which sought help in laying aside all private interests, prejudices and private affections. I acknowledge that in this matter one is very much open to have certainly the latter two of those.
The right reverend Prelate spoke as if he expected a Division on the Question of whether the Bill be read a second time. I think he will be disappointed in that

1713
expectation and that your Lordships will certainly give the Bill a Second Reading. Therefore, it is a matter of some importance because even if it does not reach the statute book it will clearly be a stepping stone on the way to what eventually does, I suspect, get there.
Let us then be clear as to the object of the Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said was to provide the full rights and responsibilities of marriage to all civil partners. The noble Lord looks doubtful but if I am wrong in that I shall, of course, give way to him.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I certainly do not remember my using that phrase. I am sure I said that its object was to give legal protection. I do not think I said that it sought to ape or mimic marriage so that one could simply say that it was a complete copy. That is certainly not the intention.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am marginally reassured by that statement although the effect of the Bill seems to me to be to seek to achieve parity of status between civil partnership and married partnership. That means we need to think for a moment about what marriage is about. In my view it is about two things: one is love and the other is children. The partnership we are asked to consider in this Bill extends both to homosexual and heterosexual couples. Therefore, there is a place in it for unmarried heterosexual couples with children. One thing your Lordships will want to look at closely in Committee is the extent to which the children of such a partnership are protected.
My view, and that of a great many noble Lords, is that the proper place for children is inside a marriage, not inside a partnership. Before I return to that, I point out that apart from simple faith and the understandable and right teachings of the Church and Scripture on marriage, marriage is politically important—it is a central institution that binds our society together. Marriage has certainly become less stable in recent years but any enterprise that is 60 per cent successful overall is not to be ignored. Research, as has already been said—the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is not here to contradict me—shows that children inside a stable marriage have strikingly better life chances than those who are outside a stable marriage.
The Bill's principal purpose relates to homosexual partnerships, as is evidenced by the acknowledged sponsorship of Stonewall, which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, mentioned. I was relieved when the noble Lord, Lord Alli, who made a powerful and moving speech, said that he was against any prospect of the homosexual adoption of children.
Lord Alli: My Lords, I did not say that. I said that Richard Littlejohn was against that and that I was hoping to educate him in the process. I am rather keen on the adoption of children within a homosexual relationship.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is obviously important for me to make this speech—I am getting all my
1714
misapprehensions corrected as I go along. Although I still admire the noble Lord's speech, I feel very strongly that the adoption of children into homosexual partnerships is wrong. That should be stated in the Bill and not left to reassurances about the limitations on the Secretary of State's powers to make regulations under, I believe, Clause 30. That is of central importance.
I turn to the matter of love. That is what this life is about; it is about discovering what life is, what it is for and what creatures we are meant to be. I am certain that love is most rewardingly and most revealingly available to human beings inside a stable marriage. I make an analogy in this regard, which may be offensive to some of my colleagues. I see a stable relationship between adult homosexuals as being infinitely better and less damaging to them and to society than what we might call the carousel for those who are not in stable relationships. I hasten to add that that carousel is just as dangerous and damaging to heterosexuals. The sickness of our age is that we recognise the damage on one side of the line but not on the other.
Marriage is as much better than adultery as civil partnership will be than the casual liaisons that otherwise so often occupy homosexual relationships. I therefore sympathise with part of the Bill. Advantages should be given in this regard. After all, advantages are given by the state to married couples in order to strengthen society and to ensure the succession of children to maintain it. In passing, I ask noble Lords, when you have a moment, to study the demographic projections for the future and realise how important it is for our birth rate to go up if the younger of us are to be supported in any sort of comfortable retirement. But that is by the side. The Bill is not concerned with children.
The Bill could extend some encouragement to homosexual couples in order to encourage them to discover the possible profundity and strength of the love that one human being can have for another. That is demonstrated in the New Testament, but not in terms of such a bonding. The disciples of our Lord certainly loved one another, in the sense that we wish to promote. That is to say nothing of carnal relationships, which cannot be the subject of a debate in your Lordships' House, save to say that what survives of humanity is its spirit, not its body. It is to that end that we should promote circumstances in which people of all persuasions can discover the length, depth and breadth of love, and eventually of the love of God.
12.35 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for introducing this Bill. I wish him well with it.
I have myself introduced Private Members' Bills on similar issues in this House, also with the backing of Stonewall. I sought to outlaw discrimination in employment against people on the grounds of their sexual orientation. It is unfortunately the case that it

1715
is possible to discriminate against gays and lesbians in employment, and such employees have little legal redress.
My Bills were passed by this House but failed in the other place because governments were then opposed to the proposals. In both cases, government spokespersons expressed sympathy but would not support the Bills. In the first instance, it was a Conservative administration and in the second it was a Labour one. The Conservative government did not want more legislation and claimed that existing legislation was adequate. In the case of the Labour government, much to my surprise, opposition was on the grounds of cost. The cost argument arose from the fact that my Bill, if passed, would have provided pension entitlements for unmarried couples as for married couples. Of course it would have done. However, the Government then argued that the cost to public sector schemes would have been unacceptable.
This Bill would cover pension entitlements and very much more. It is right for it to do so. We recently debated the Homelessness Bill in this House. In Committee, I sought to introduce an amendment that would have protected the surviving partner in an unmarried partnership, who could be made homeless because a local authority would have the right to repossess if the partner holding the tenancy had died and it would have no obligation to offer alternative accommodation to the surviving partner. That would not be the case with a married couple. Again, the Government expressed sympathy with my objective but opposed the amendment on the grounds that the whole matter was currently being considered in depth and the Government did not want it dealt with in a piecemeal manner.
This Bill gives an opportunity for the issue to be dealt with in depth, and I hope that the Government will therefore agree to it. So far as pensions are concerned, it is surely inequitable that a surviving partner should be denied benefit that would automatically be available to a married partner. It is becoming increasingly common for large private sector schemes to make such provision. On previous occasions when I have raised this matter, I have been provided with briefing from my own union, MSF, which has been instrumental in negotiating many such arrangements with private sector schemes.
I do not understand the argument about additional costs. It is surely necessary, when actuaries make assessment of required funding, for them to work on the basis that every member may well have a partner—married or otherwise; that should make no difference. Furthermore, employees making the same contributions should have the same benefits. The Bill makes arrangements for schemes to have three years in which to make any necessary adjustments.
As to inheritance, married couples may leave property to each other without incurring inheritance tax. Perhaps at one time that affected relatively few better-off people but the enormous increase in house prices, particularly in the South East, means that many more estates may become liable. A couple may have
1716
been living together for many years. It seems unfair that the remaining partner, who may have lived in the house for years and to whom the property has been left, should suddenly face a very high tax claim. Again, married couples are not affected in that way. I t is often the case with homosexual couples that the family of the deceased partner, particularly if he died intestate, may seek to take possession of the property in which the surviving partner is still living. There have been examples of such conduct. Sadly, sometimes families can be very vindictive.
The Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has attracted a considerable measure of support outside Parliament. The Times has drawn attention to the fact that society is changing. The number of those choosing to cohabit outside marriage has been gradually increasing. One in four children in Britain is born to cohabiting couples. The Times believes that this is unlikely to be a temporary trend.
Thankfully, society has become more tolerant of homosexuality. Many more gay men and lesbians have become confident enough to be more open about their sexuality and to live together as couples. That is surely to be welcomed. Society is a great deal more tolerant in such matters. Other newspapers have also run articles supportive of the Bill. The Government are being urged to be courageous—to modernise, in other words— and to legislate to give people who make such life choices the legal protection to which, as citizens, they have a right.
I do not accept the argument that the Bill would undermine marriage. People who want to get married will, of course, continue to do so. I myself. sadly, am a widow. I was happily married for more than 40 years. It is, of course, devastating to lose one's partner. But at least I did not face a large tax bill or the possibility that I would lose my home. Those are some of the injustices faced nowadays by unmarried couples and, in particular, homosexual couples. It is time to end those injustices, and the Bill provides a way of doing so. I hope that it will have a very great measure of support in your Lordships' House.
12.41 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I have heard it suggested, although perhaps it was not to be taken too seriously, that we got it all wrong years ago. There never should have been a decree nisi of divorce or a decree absolute of divorce; there should have been a decree nisi of marriage and a decree absolute of marriage. The philosophy behind such a proposal was that marriage should be seen as being on a permanent basis and something to which people aspire, particularly with the considerable support given by the state in the guise of tax and other concessions.
It should be almost unfashionable, if not bordering upon the improper, for a decree nisi of marriage not to be turned into a decree absolute of marriage at an early stage. One can imagine the catty phrases that would be heard: "My dear, what is the reason why they have not obtained a decree absolute of marriage? What an

1717
extraordinary position. They have had a decree nisi, which they got for the asking, three or four years ago. There must be something odd about this relationship".
As I said, I do not believe that such a suggestion was to be taken seriously, but, of course, it would have stimulated what is so lacking nowadays: the staying power of couples. That is what we have lost. There are not long-lasting marriages. The tendency among married couples is to think that, once the children have become adult, they can separate. That, they believe, has no impact upon the children. That is nonsense. It can be devastating to children who believed that their parents lived in reasonable harmony and provided them with a stable and firm background suddenly to find that that no longer exists. I do not believe that society appreciates the extent to which a dissolution of marriage is a serious trauma for the children involved.
I came across a publication by chance—it is probably well known to your Lordships—called, The Cost of Family Breakdown, a report by Family Matters Institute for the Lords and Commons Family and Child Protection Group. It makes the following observations, which I consider to be sound:
"The family is the building block of society, and marriage its foundation. However, over the past thirty or forty years, this foundation has been weakened. Fewer adults now enter into marriage, with an increasing number preferring cohabitation or single parenthood".
In its conclusions it goes on to say that that trend must be stopped:
"Rather than sit on the fence, government must be prepared to discriminate positively in favour of marriage, and take more vigorous action to uphold marriage as an ideal".
This Government have been rather tepid in their attitude to marriage. Not long ago, they abolished the married person's allowance. I believe that that puts them in a unique position vis-à-vis European countries, which all have a marriage allowance.
On the other hand, in a 1998 White Paper called, Supporting Families, a consultation document, the then Home Secretary—I hope that it will not be suggested by the current one that I am being patronising—said:
"First, the interests of children must be paramount. The Government's interest in family policy is primarily an interest in ensuring that the next generation gets the best possible start in life".
The next paragraph—that is, paragraph 8 on page 4—states:
"Second, children need stability and security. Many lone parents and unmarried couples raise their children every bit as successfully as married parents. But"—
I stress this—
"marriage is still the surest foundation for raising children and remains the choice of the majority of people in Britain. We want to strengthen the institution of marriage to help more marriages to succeed".
Without being disrespectful, I suggest that it is naive to a vast degree to suggest that the Bill will not have the effect of undermining marriage. One can imagine people in a cohabiting heterosexual relationship deciding that they will register their contract. That
1718
involves a fair amount of energy. They will be told by Stonewall and others how sensible that is. Therefore, they take the time and make the effort to register their contract. Having obtained all the protection of a marriage and achieved the great advantages that Stonewall will underline, what should suddenly stimulate them to say, "Well, let's get married"? Having gone through the process of securing registration, they will lean back and take that as the last word. Those who might have got married right from the beginning will say, "Well, if we are going to live together, let's get the position regulated". They will register their contract and then give marriage no further thought. That is a matter with which in his Bill. which is admirable in many respects, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has not come to grips at all.
In my view, the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester emphasised that particular point. I agree with him wholeheartedly. The effect of this Bill will undermine existing marriages; it will devalue marriage. It will take away from marriage its status as a protected institution, which is what it is. Marriage is protected because it is not an easy situation to go through without, from time to time, running into difficulties. It is protected because it provides a foundation of security and gives children confidence so that they can achieve their potential, which I believe is immensely important.
Like most noble Lords, I concede that there are features of homosexual relationships that leave them unprotected when they should be protected. I shall deal with that in a moment, but first we should consider the size and the nature of the problem. We should consider the mischief, a phrase that is often used.
Only 0.2 per cent of households consist of same-sex couples. We are seeking to deal with that tiny proportion in a highly radical manner. Apparently, 3.42 million people live in shared households— siblings, friends, two families living together providing care and companionship— and they receive none of the virtues so emphasised by the Bill.
I have already dealt with how the Bill seeks to remedy the position, but I hope that Stonewall—if it does not do so already—may provide its electorate with a booklet on self-help. It could explain that a great deal of property problems can be resolved by a visit to a solicitor; that wills should always be entered into; that the risk of intestacy should not be run; and that in the past inheritance tax has been of little relevance because of the size of the exemption. which is nearly £0.5 million, but with the crazy rises in house prices, it is now relevant. That may call for legislation. It could deal also with tenancy problems. Since the Housing Act of 1998. the surviving partner is entitled to succeed to a tenancy. Also, if personal pensions are taken out you can name the beneficiary, who can be a partner, and on immigration I understand that the Home Office accepts that a person has a right to bring his partner into the country.
The Government could consider appropriate legislation to deal with the outstanding problems to which reference has been made. The hardship that is

1719
imposed is not so vast that one should run the risk of undermining and devaluing marriage to help a small percentage of the population.
12.54 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am delighted to support the Civil Partnerships Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Lester. My noble friend has a distinguished record on equality and human rights issues. Therefore, it is no surprise to many of his friends that he should promote this Bill. I also thank Angela Mason for her assistance in providing the briefing material.
As President of the Liberal Democrats, I emphasise that the Bill has the full support of my party. We have not been afraid to discuss this subject at our party conferences.
Promoting equality in this country has been a struggle. In the 1960s who would have imagined that this country would have three separate race relations Acts, supplemented by the further provision last year of placing a duty on public authorities to promote racial equality. Yet that is now a reality. I give credit to my noble friend Lord Lester for the way in which he has assisted in that task.
At that time who would have thought it necessary that equality on gender issues would require the Sex Discrimination Act? If we failed to achieve equality of outcomes, who would have thought that we would have to establish positive action measures to make that possible? There does not appear to be any political disagreement about the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Bill which is now going through your Lordships' House.
Equality is at the heart of our democratic process. Today's debate is not about Section 28, nor about the age of consent, nor about marriage. It is about accepting the reality that many gay couples live together in successful relationships. That is where equality matters. To deny them the same rights as those enjoyed by heterosexual couples is to strike at the very heart of our democratic values. It is our job to ensure that all our citizens, irrespective of their sexual orientation, are treated with fairness, respect, dignity and justice. There is no need to be squeamish about that.
We have heard the argument that the Bill threatens the institution of marriage. The Bill does nothing of the kind. Nor, as I said, does it have anything to do with Section 28 or the age of consent. To argue otherwise does less than justice to this Bill.
The starting point of my argument is that whether we like it or not some people will have a particular sexual orientation and they will choose to lead their lives in the way that they want. There is nothing unlawful about that. Do we not accept that heterosexual couples live together in a perfectly sound relationship? In turn, what is wrong with homosexual relationships?
1720
I want to quote from a letter that was faxed to me by a couple who are on holiday in Australia. They wanted to ensure that their point of view is taken into account in this debate. This letter sums up much of what I want to say. It says:
"We both feel that it is important to say neither of us had any choice whatsoever in what we are. This is often fundamentally misunderstood. We have lived together in a stable loving relationship for approaching 32 years in our community. During that time we have served the community in a variety of ways not least my partner as head of sixth form and myself as deputy head and one time acting head of the school. Here we worked with both the development of staff and students from a wide range of backgrounds and perspectives. We earned respect and admiration from many. Our work and influence extended far beyond the immediate school community into the local and regional community".
There is no evidence there of corrupting others, young or not-so-young.
"We also worked hard creating our home and garden which has now become very well known. This area, too, helped us to earn and hold the respect of many in the community".
There is no evidence there that the community objects to this relationship. I quote further:
"We are both very grateful for the acceptance and tolerance we have found and the respect we have been given in the past and from people we now meet in our new business enterprise in the hospitality industry.
What we find deeply troubling is the current status of our relationship with regard to certain aspect of law. In debating these issues we are not seeking 'marriage' but a recognition and acceptance of equal rights as are afforded to other long-term relationships.
As the law stands, should one of us die we would face substantial inheritance tax liability at a time of maximum emotional anxiety. In addition it is conceivable that one of us would be denied access to the other if a serious medical emergency arose".
That point has been made by a number of noble Lords.
"Further, as there are no pension benefits after death, the remaining partner's financial situation would be significantly weakened should one of us die".
That matter was ably demonstrated by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, in his contribution.
I need not spell out details which my noble friend Lord Lester has outlined. The Bill is about a framework for adults who care and want to make provision for each other's long-term support and protection and to take on rights and responsibilities in respect of each other. Of course it would cost money and we shall have to examine our procedures. But look at the benefits—a stable, decent, fair and caring society. We have moved far with regard to equality on race, gender, age and disability issues. Now we must take the next step forward.
The Leader of the House could further this argument by considering whether it would be appropriate for the Select Committee to look at lie Bill. We need to appreciate at this stage what my noble friend Lord Lester is trying to do, which is to identify all the ingredients of what good citizenship is all about. We have no right to claims of equality, dignity, justice and fairness if we deny these ideals to our fellow citizens because many have no choice in what they are or how they prefer to lead their lives.
1.2 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for the work that he has done on this Bill and to Stonewall for its excellent briefing document, its balance and care in stressing the importance marriage plays in our common life. Whether we are gay or straight, whatever is done to address the injustices of same sex and cohabiting couples we must not undermine the central place of marriage and its essential role and normative place in our society and family life today.
I want to start with three principles which follow from the role that I share with my friend and brother the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester. First, marriage is a gift from God to the whole of creation—not a gift to Christians, but, as every Muslim, Hindu and civil wedding demonstrates daily, a gift to all people of any faith and none. This gift is a benefit to all—married and single alike. Its blessings cascade down the generations as every parent and grandparent here will testify.
Secondly, where there is clear and persistent injustice and discrimination in our land those who legislate have a duty to seek ways and means of ending such unjust discrimination for the benefit of all.
The third principle is connected with the second and is that of proportionality. How do we, in seeking to offer a good to a few, not end up undermining the greatest strength for the many?
In writing to us Stonewall hopes that the Bill is fair and practical. That is the test to which our debate must attend. The work we do must ensure that any solution is fair, practical and, I add, proportionate to the problem.
I have no great concerns with a civil registration of partnerships, per se. It is in what might follow therefrom that the thorns and thistles grow up. The great strength is the recognition of the need for public declaration and acknowledgement of relationships based on love and friendship and the sustaining force that has for good, rather than the shallow or abusive relationships based on power, expediency or pecuniary gain. I was very interested to hear the moving remarks of the noble Lord. Lord Elton, in that respect. Public recognition provides public protection. It also ensures that those who possess rights accept the duties that always go with them. Neither society nor the Church however is under any illusion that marriage is, for the vast majority of our people, the highest and greatest good to which they aspire, whether as cohabiting couples or even as teenagers, as a recent survey has shown.
If there is a need for appropriate secular or spiritual declarations these can and should be made. Let me share an experience from my own ministry. A priest of mine was approached by two men who wanted to make a declaration of their love and commitment to each other in front of friends and family. They did not know how to do so. I am profoundly happy that the ministry they received through seeing the vicar going on rounds around the shops and in the parish led them to ask what they should do. They did not want a gay
1722
wedding in church, they wanted a party, an occasion on which to exchange meaningful and deep-rooted hopes and dreams for their future together. The work done by my parish priest was extremely skilful and she enabled them to achieve what they wanted. I understand that the occasion went extremely well. It was not a marriage. It was not pension rights or any piece of paper that they wanted, it was ministry and dignity that they were seeking. The Church sought to offer them the former. All society should join with the Church—and in some quarters the Church must join with society—in ensuring the latter.
In the Stonewall statistics it is clear that the vast majority of those who cohabit initially move on to marry. They do so not for tax reasons—which is a sign and a symbol of the sacrifice marriage entails on the individual and the benefits that accrue for society through it—they do so because of the special grace and depth which marriage affords to those called to it. For most people who are cohabitating it is intentionally a staging post en route to marriage. If people choose consciously not to take on the responsibilities of marriage it is important that we do not pre-empt them by giving them the privileges anyway. The responsibilities of marriage are very extensive and deep. They are life-long commitments. While it is quite proper that we have a provision for divorce, that in no way is intended to compromise the life-long character of this relationship. Married couples' responsibilities to each other include the meeting of the conjugal rights of marriage. Indeed, difficult though it is, it is possible in law to declare a marriage null and void if these and other rights are not met.
My concern is for gay and lesbian people who are, both by the nature of their relationship and the nature of marriage, unable to avail themselves of their understandable needs for financial and other personal arrangements that are non-discriminatory.
Again, using the statistics provided by Stonewall, I observe that in the Nordic and Scandinavian countries which have registration of civil partnership—Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Iceland—two things are apparent; namely, after the First year when pent-up demand is met there are decreasing numbers seeking the benefits of civil registration, and, even if one aggregates three years of registered partnerships in Scandinavia, the number of people who chose this benefit is around one in 18,000 of the population.
Have we used all the means available to us to right wrongs? For example, with regard to pensions, which may be a particularly sore point, why have some parts of the private sector made non-discriminatory provision, while the public sector has taken no such action? Ought not the Government to put that right? Some remedies surely do not require Acts of Parliament.
In reply to a Question asked in another place, the Government said that they
"cannot commit itself to making any changes in these areas before undertaking a comprehensive analysis of all the implications. The Government will now be examining the issues in detail".—[Official Report, House of Commons, 28/11/01; col. 903W.]

1723
I am in favour of the Government undertaking a comprehensive analysis. It would be a pity if those issues hung on a Bill that may run into the ground in the process of parliamentary scrutiny, rather than being addressed in the light of the public work of government. It is in the interests of all that such action should not only address the issues but uphold the unique nature of marriage for the good of all.
We live in a diverse and changing society. We should not he afraid of that. In meeting different needs, we must, however, take great care to preserve all those things that we have found to preserve the common good.
1 11 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend's Bill. I do so because it is a rational and compassionate response to the discrimination currently suffered by same-sex and heterosexual couples in stable and loving relationships. By the same token, the Bill does not encourage unstable, temporary or casual relationships in any shape or form.
Coming late in your Lordships' debate, I have, in effect, thrown away my speech. I want only to follow up something that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford said about the statistics for registration in other countries made available to us in the brief. I agree with his conclusion that there was a surge, as it were, of pent-up demand in all those countries that then died off to a regular, small level of applications. But it is interesting that in France, where heterosexual couples can also register—as would be the case in England, if the Bill were passed—during the first three years of operation about 41 per cent of all registrations were made by heterosexual couples. That suggests that where there is an opportunity to register relationships, it is used by others who feel the need to register their relationships and have them acknowledged in the same way as homosexual relationships.
As one goes through life, one begins to realise that we may try to be successful in many things and not always succeed. It is difficult to choose a person in youth with whom one proposes to spend the rest of one's life. Life is long, and not everyone succeeds in that endeavour. In the same way, one may make the same commitment outside marriage, and that may not succeed either. I am not at all sure that it is whether or not one is married that determines success. It has to do with people's changing attitudes—the way that their character and aspirations develop over time and the way that their attitude to life develops as they grow older and experience more of it.
We should all be chary of being critical or dismissive of people who wish to live in a different way from that which we have chosen ourselves. I was married. I was married for a long time. I brought up my children as a married woman. I am proud to say that all three of them are excellent parents. I should be reluctant to let anyone suggest to me that my unmarried daughter, living in a stable relationship, is a less good parent than
1724
are my two married children, because that is not true. We must learn, as grandparents as well as parents to be tolerant of our relations and the way that they choose to live their lives.
At the core of the Bill is a profound truth about human nature. My noble friend Lord Russell spoke earlier about the importance of ceremony. One thing that the Bill offers those who do not wish or are unable to enter into the state of marriage is a ceremony. We are told that marriage is the best background for the rearing of children, because it tends to endure longer. Of course, not everybody wants or is able to have children, so that argument is not always relevant. But the marriage ceremony itself, whether civil or religious, may be part of the cement that holds couples together. When people go through the marriage ceremony, they make a public declaration, which should be respected by other people—unfortunately, it is often not respected these days, but that is nevertheless the intention—of an intention to be faithful, to bring up their children in a good way, and so on.
Conversely, the absence of such a ceremony may contribute to the greater instability of cohabiting couples. I am not talking about casual relationships that come and go in six months, a year or two years. I am talking about serious, dedicated human relationships based on love and respect for another person. Perhaps those who wish to make a success of a long-term relationship—whether within or without marriage—need the celebration, support and acknowledgement that a public pledge of mutual commitment can bring with it.
Perhaps be it is that opportunity for celebration and support, leading to a public acknowledgement in every sense—by the legal process, by pension companies and by a whole range of institutions—that a new family and a legal entity have been created that the public registration of partnerships, whether same-sex or heterosexual, can bring.
My noble friend Lord Lester is renowned not only for his devotion to human rights but for his persistence and his great skill and judgment in selecting topics for that persistence whose time is coming. I hope that his Bill is successful. The time is right for it. I hope that the Government will give it a fair wind and. if it is unsuccessful, will take it up and make it part of government policy.
1.18 p.m.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I, too, wish to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and to support this important Bill. 'The noble Lord has been an extraordinary champion of human rights and his tireless work has inspired whole generations of lawyers. His commitment to ending discrimination and intolerance in all its manifestations has been crucial to the development of law in this country. As someone who often travels for the British Council, I can tell the House that his name is a password in legal circles around the world. We are fortunate to have him as a Member of this House. The fact that it is the noble Lord, Lord Lester, who brings

1725
the Bill before the House, with, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, said, his record of sensible, well-considered reform which is invariably timely, should of itself be persuasive to many of your Lordships.
As other noble Lords have said, the pattern of family life has changed, as have social mores. I happen to believe that the greater part of that change has been to the good. First, we have seen a huge alteration in the status of women. That has been an important factor not in landing death blows on marriage, but in causing a re-examination of the institution of marriage.
Although marriage is, of course, to those who have religious belief, a sacrament and something that is very much at the heart of British culture, we should recognise that marriage has played a social role too. Socially, marriage was largely a way of regulating sexual activity, legitimising children and of protecting property rights. It was premised traditionally on a male breadwinner and a female home-maker and child raiser. A great deal of that has changed.
The late 20th century brought huge shifts of a positive kind. For too long, there had been sexual double standards and a blind eye turned to male sexual activity, while it was made clear that women were not to be sexually active. There was hypocrisy and pretence that sexual activity did not occur outside marriage. There was a horrible taboo that attached to children who were born outside marriage, which meant that men and women often entered into marriage because they felt obliged to do so, rather than out of any personal commitment to each other. The taboo of illegitimacy made for a great deal of pain and suffering in the lives of many. It led to the adoption of children and the grief that could often follow from that for the mother who parted with her offspring.
The great thing is that we have seen an end to all that and all those double standards. Men and women live differently. They continue to choose to be in relationships because, for most of us. having a successful, fulfilling relationship is the most important thing in our lives. Men and women are choosing to do so sometimes with the opposite sex and sometimes with their own sex, but the desire for stability and the yearning for permanence are still there.
This attempt to bring the law into step with shifting social mores is to the good and has wide support. Men and women have been renegotiating their relationships and have done so in a spirit of mutuality. That is something of great beneficence. People are finding different ways of making commitments. For some, it is about setting up home together; for others, the fact of choosing to have children together is their form of commitment. I have many friends who established relationships in the 1970s who have now been together for over 30 years. They are bringing up children who are well adjusted young people, and their relationships are an example to us all.
Another feature of our changing world that should be celebrated is the acceptance of homosexuality and the idea that gay men and lesbians can live openly,
1726
lovingly and confidently without shame or threat. The idea that people should face discrimination because of their race or sexuality is now anathema to most people. The joy that I feel that my children think that such discrimination is abhorrent is, I know, shared by many in the House.
People will continue to marry. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford said that, for many, living together is a staging post towards marriage, and that, for others, the fact of their commitment to each other is enough. However, many will continue to marry because people like the idea of making a public declaration. They like the idea that they are saying publicly what their intentions and aspirations are. People believe in rites of passage. The concerns that have been expressed that this is, in some way, an attack on marriage are not supported by what we have all seen as manifestations of human intention.
It is important that the law be in step with social mores and that the law is just. At the moment, we have injustice and discrimination. Many of the couples of whom I spoke—heterosexual and homosexual—face the extraordinary business that if one of them dies, the other is likely to have to pay inheritance tax in a way that other couples do not. One couple of whom I am very fond and whose relationship is inspiring had actually taken out an insurance policy to deal with that situation. It is ridiculous that people should have to do such a thing in order to protect their family.
We are now in the 21st century. I hope that the Government will embrace the Bill. I suggest to the House that a good way forward would be to establish a committee to take evidence, so that we could see whether there was wide support for the Bill and examine the evidence with some care. My ultimate hope is that the Government will embrace the Bill and help it on its journey into law, where it belongs.
1.27 p.m.
Lord Rennard: My Lords, from the speeches made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester and by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, it seems clear that some people regard the core principles of the Bill as very complicated. I do not regard the basic principle as at all complicated. The principle is simple: this is an issue of human rights and equality before the law.
It is easy for Liberal Democrats to see why we should support that principle so strongly. Our core values are based on a belief in freedom. Our party membership cards say that,
"we exist to build a fair, free and open society—balancing liberty, equality and community and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity".
Our constitution says that,
"we see ourselves as upholders of the values of individual and social justice, we reject all prejudice and discrimination based upon race, colour, religion, age, disability, sex or sexual orientation".
However, one need not be a Liberal Democrat to believe in the measures proposed in the Bill, just someone who subscribes to the principles of human rights and equality before the law.

1727
Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:
"All human beings are horn.… equal in dignity and rights".
That is the principle in the Bill. Sadly, however, the law in this country does not treat all people as equals in dignity and rights. Not all relationships are given equal respect and fair legal treatment. I respect, of course, religious beliefs about the concept of marriage. My wife and I were married by a Roman Catholic priest, assisted by my brother, who is an Anglican priest, and his wife, my sister-in-law, who is also now an Anglican priest. The service also required a civil registrar to be present for the marriage to be legal. Thus my wife and I were pretty sure that in every sense we were properly married.
But while respecting the religious concept of marriage, I note also that there are many differences of opinion within religions and denominations about who should be able to get married. There are debates within the Churches about people who have been divorced, and about the rights of those who have chosen a civil ceremony or no ceremony at all. All that is clear to me is that we should have religious tolerance in this country and that religions should be tolerant of different ways of life and of all human rights.
So the Bill is not about forcing people with a religious disposition to accept that people who do not share their religion are married in a religious way. But it is about saying that their relationship has a right to be respected, and for partners to be able to enjoy some of the legal protections that cannot come to them from a religious marriage if they are of the same sex or if they are committed to each other, but unwilling to undergo the present civil ceremony.
Today we have learned about many aspects of unfair discrimination against couples who are not married under the present law. We heard most eloquently and movingly from the noble Lord, Lord Alli, about the terribly unfair discrimination suffered by the partner of the late Lord Montague of Oxford. I believe that the tide of opinion in this country is turning against the acceptance of such discrimination.
As my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill pointed out earlier, last October Jane Griffiths introduced a Bill in another place to provide for civil registration between two people who are cohabiting and for registration to afford certain legal rights. That principle was supported by 179 votes to 59.
I am pleased to note that today the Conservative Shadow Home Secretary, Mr Oliver Letwin, has said that something must be done to address the legal discrimination against, for example, gay couples who cannot legally marry. This morning he cited issues such as those of medical consent, property rights and inheritance. But, sadly, both he and others appear to have failed to address the fundamental issue of respect.
The registration of a civil partnership is the best way to reduce the level of legal discrimination suffered and is the best way of saying that there should be mutual respect for couples who make a significant commitment to each other, but in different ways. Alternative means of redress have been suggested
1728
today, such as changes in the law or the abolition of inheritance tax—all detailed, cumbersome and expensive approaches involving lawyers. I do not believe that those are either fair or practical and they do not address the important issue of the quality of respect.
We need the Bill because it cannot be right that people who have made a very significant commitment to each other, and perhaps have lived as partners for many years, find that a parent or relative can become responsible for key medical decisions about them when that is not their will and would riot be the case if they were married. But such powers could not possibly be granted on an ad hoc basis—hence the need to register civil partnerships.
Many people die intestate or with wills that do not reflect their current intentions. Unmarried partners must have some rights in this respect if they have registered a civil partnership. There are many areas of financial discrimination relating to inheritance tax and pensions, for example. Those should be put right so that unmarried but properly registered partnerships are not discriminated against.
The benefits, however, are not all one way. A cohabiting gay couple, for example, may receive greater social security benefits than a heterosexual couple, who would be treated as "man and wife" for social security purposes. That is not right either. So a gay couple who enjoy the benefits that I have just outlined in relation to civil partnerships should be treated in the same way for social security purposes as a man and a woman living together.
The Bill marks a significant step forward to make our society more tolerant, one that respects the different ways in which people may choose to live together. It does not in any way diminish the rights of those of us who have chosen to marry. I believe that it would not lessen respect for marriage, but that it would enhance respect for all relationships based on genuine commitment—and that must be good for the stability of society.
Until the 18th century, a marriage was still legally recognised when a man and a woman jumped over a broomstick that was leant against their front door. It took time for legal recognition to be based on a marriage ceremony conducted in a church or chapel. It took longer for non-Conformist ceremonies and those held in registry offices to be accepted. Now they are accepted in many places, including the London Eye, situated a few hundred yards from where we sit.
Recognising same sex relationships and giving them the same legal standing as that for heterosexual relationships that also wish to enter into a registered civil partnership is long overdue in this country. It is already legal in countries such as France, Germany and Hungary, as well as in a number of states in the USA, in Australia and in Canada. Civilisation has not collapsed in those countries. The measures for civil partnerships have been shown to be fair and practicable—the key test set by both Stonewall and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford.

1729
The future of this House is currently in question. If we are to show the value of a second Chamber, then let us show that it can be a force for good, for progress and for a tolerant society based on mutual respect.
1.36 p.m.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I support the Bill for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the considerable respect I have formed over many years for the forward looking yet infinitely well balanced judgment of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, which he brings to his distinguished work in the human rights field.
But the main reason I support the Bill is that it seeks to create a reasonable, inclusive framework for today's society to live in—a very different society from the one which existed when, like myself, perhaps the majority of noble Lords present in the Chamber today entered the adult world. Then we married or we stayed single. Divorce was difficult. Most people who married did so in church. A second marriage, unless through the death of a previous spouse, was a registry office affair, whether one wanted that or not.
It was a simpler world, certainly, than is today's, but it too had drawbacks. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, pointed out, many people were trapped into unhappy marriages, not necessarily always of benefit to their children. And the role of women, unmarried women in particular—noble Lords will remember how that awful word "spinster" did not quite equate with the word "bachelor"—who lacked today's career opportunities, was thus still decidedly second class.
A number of statistics cited in the debate have informed us that in today's world the number of marriages has halved since 1970, divorces have doubled and the variety of individual lifestyles—same sex, heterosexual, sexual and platonic—seems infinite.
All that is set against a background where working life has changed dramatically as well. Few people today are in jobs for life. Flexibility to accommodate employees' other responsibilities—increasingly borne by both sexes, I should say—often concerning children from more than one relationship, is growing. Career and job changes and necessary up-skilling have become routine and, equally important, women are now very much seen as an increasingly accepted and valued part of competitive employment success.
Add to that scene a longer potentially active working and leisure life for both sexes and a shrinking younger workforce to underpin state pension benefits—I fear that the encouraging words of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will not change that; alas the numbers will be smaller than they have been in the past—then the proposals embodied in the Bill will seem even more eminently reasonable, encouraging as they do people to make mutual financial as well as emotional support arrangements, not least for their extending old age. There are advantages for the taxpayer, too—the bottom line—with less need for the surviving partner to rely, if left unprovided for, on the state.
1730
Let me be clear. My preference for men and women wishing to enter into a life-long relationship—particularly where children are involved or hoped for—remains marriage; and, because I am a Christian, for Christian marriage. Of course there will be those who say that accepting the Bill—a number have said this already—will further undermine the institution of marriage. I do not accept that view. When society has changed to the extent that it has, it is unwise not to reflect this fact in the legal and financial arrangements made to recognise the way people actually live.
Obviously one group—we have heard this emphasised—likely to welcome the protection of being able to register a civil partnership, will be the same-sex, cohabiting gay or lesbian couple. In the words of the guidance on the Bill, it will,
"enable them to live together within a stable and coherent framework of rights and responsibilities".
Surely such arrangements must be beneficial to society as a whole and help reinforce the decision, taken some time ago now, that, over a certain age, each individual's sexual preference is a matter for them.
But, as an article in The Times by the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, pointed out, there are other groups which can also benefit. The number of young men and women who marry may have halved since the 1970s but, as has been mentioned, the number of heterosexual couples who live together in the full sense of the word I find worrying. I would like to think that the possibility of a registered civil partnership for such couples would be—I hope the Bill will ensure that it could be—a first step towards commitment to a full marriage. But, in any event, should a disaster occur or the relationship break up, it would at least provide some security for both the adults and any children involved.
The noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, also mentions a third group, which I hope can be included, of those— whether family relations or friends—who decide to pool resources, share their lives and live together in the same house or flat. The possibility of formally registering such an arrangement would surely help to avoid complications when the partnership ends, through death or for any other reason.
The Government rightly put emphasis—a high priority, indeed—on building an inclusive society and valuing diversity in all its many forms. With the rich variety of cultures, faiths and accepted patterns of sexual behaviour that exists in the UK today, the more we can share and value the same institutions and not disadvantage people because of their chosen lifestyles, the more likely we are to create the kind of mutually supportive and tolerant community we all wish to see.
1.43 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, this must be the slot that everyone dreads. What the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, called the "tangled thicket" has been well attacked; and the labyrinth of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, has been flagged up, if one can flag up a labyrinth.

1731
I, too, wish to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for his support for human rights and civil liberties. He is to be congratulated on his courage and ambition in introducing the Bill and on raising awareness of the importance of civil partnerships in a variety of ways, including in the media.
Many points have been raised already and many moving cases described. I do not wish to repeat what others have said and I shall therefore be very brief. However. I want to return to two issues raised in the Bill which have been referred to earlier. One issue is the implications for healthcare and the other relates to children.
The focus of the Bill is on new rights for unmarried heterosexual couples and same-sex couples who wish to formalise the relationship. They do not have to, of course—and it is likely that many will not—but, as a matter of principle and justice, the option should be there, not as a form of second class marriage but as a civil framework for rights and responsibilities. The Bill is surely not destroying anything. It is creating more options.
Love can exist outside marriage. People who choose to live in a relationship without marrying have a right to the same respect as others who choose to marry. It has always seemed to me that it is the quality of relationships which is important rather than formalities. Some marriages are desperately unhappy; some are wonderful. Perhaps decisions at bus stops are to be recommended.
Many couples may regard a civil partnership as a means of committing themselves to each other without a marriage ceremony. This is not undermining marriage; it is different choice. That commitment may or may not include a sexual relationship. As has been said, some people live together for mutual support and convenience without sex being involved. They, too, deserve rights.
I have been married to the same person for more than 30 years. That was my—or, rather, our—choice. Those who do not make that choice but who, nevertheless, live in committed relationships, deserve recognition. They are not second class citizens; they are making a different kind of commitment.
As to health, there is good anecdotal evidence that there are problems in health systems facing unmarried couples because of the lack of recognition of their relationships. That is particularly invidious in same-sex relationships. Over the past 10 years, the Royal College of Nursing has been collecting evidence about these problems through workshops and interviews. It has revealed that same-sex partners are often excluded from decisions about the health and well-being of their partner.
I turn to an issue raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Where one partner is admitted to hospital, partners are often denied information, and visiting may be limited if the partner is seriously ill or dying. I am aware of a case where a dying patient was not allowed to nominate the partner as next of kin; where the patient's family denied the partner any right to be
1732
present in the last moments; and where he was not allowed to make any funeral arrangements or be present at the funeral. This is surely distressing and unjust. In that particular case, the partners had lived together for 20 years, and yet no counselling or support was offered to the surviving partner. as it is routinely to married partners.
If a patient is detained under the Mental Health Act, their same-sex partner has had to have lived with them for five years before they are recognised as the nearest relative. It is six months for an unmarried heterosexual couple. Such anomalies must be addressed.
With regard to children, the implications of the Bill will apply largely, of course, to heterosexual couples. As has been said, one child in four is born to cohabiting couples who are not married. But, of course, there are children involved in some same-sex relationships. At the moment, if one partner of an unmarried couple dies or leaves, the other may he left in poverty. That, too, is unjust and may deny any child the comfort and stability that he or she deserves.
The Bill does mention children, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, said, in relation to property, non-molestation, inheritance and intervention orders. I assume that other legislation relating to children, such as the Children Act and the Adoption and Children Bill, will also dovetail with this Bill to provide adequate rights for children, whatever the status of their parents. In the Children Act, these rights are described as "paramount".
Perhaps it could be made clear that this protection for children will be easily evident, or at least cross-referenced, in this Bill. I am simply asking for information. I do not know how much it is necessary to repeat legislation across Acts for it to be well understood and implemented unequivocally. The Homelessness Bill recently ran into some difficulty on the issue of homeless parents and children being separated, and the Children Act was not helpful. A government amendment to that Bill has, thankfully, addressed the problem. I would appreciate clarification on this issue, either today or later, from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams.
I welcome the Bill. It would eradicate a number of inequalities. Once again, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lester, on bringing it forward. I hope that it will receive support from all sides of the House.
1.50 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I feel much ashamed of myself for asking your Lordships' permission to speak during the gap for a second time this week.
On 22nd February 1996, the then opposition spokesman said in relation to the Family Law Bill:
"It is common ground in your Lordships' House that we are anxious to support the family as an institution and to support marriage as an essential factor in that".—[Official Report, 22/2/96; col. 1153.]
It may be of interest to the House to know whether the Government feel able to confirm that they are still anxious to support marriage as an "essential factor" in terms of the family.

1733
I owe the Minister an apology for not giving him notice of that quotation. To be honest, it occurred to me only some 10 or 15 minutes ago, and I managed to turn it up on my file.
1.51 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I strongly welcome the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Dholakia said, it represents what has been the policy of my party for some years.
We have moved a long way in the past 40 years. There is a well-known poem by Philip Larkin which contains the lines:
"Sexual intercourse began
In nineteen sixty-three …
Between the end of the Chatterley ban
And the Beatles' first LP".
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, that these changes—although not an unmixed blessing—have on the whole been for the better.
It is extraordinary to think that, until 35 years ago, sexual relations between consenting adult males were illegal. It is impossible to imagine that the clock could be turned back on that particular piece of law. I believe that we should feel a sense of shame for the way in which our ancestors, and even some of us in our earlier days, treated those who were homosexual.
We now recognise that it is time to take a further step. We know that, among gay people and lesbian people, there are loving relationships of long standing which are based on the shared lives of two men or two women. I imagine that all of us know of examples. I certainly do. My wife had an uncle to whom she was devoted—a man who did great service to the public, both in the United Kingdom and in the international community—who had a male partner. My wife's uncle died some years ago, but we still treat his partner as a member of the family. I believe that such relationships should be recognised in law.
It is a matter of great encouragement that my noble friend's Bill has received a wide welcome in the press and among the public—excluding the hard Right press of the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph. It has been supported by all those who have spoken from these Benches, by speakers on the Labour Benches, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, from the Cross Benches.
Civil partnership would give important rights in the fields of property, taxation, pensions and so on to homosexual couples who have no method of achieving these under the present law. But civil partnership is also potentially valuable for heterosexual couples. Now, men and women who live together without being married attract no stigma. This happens to a wide extent among young people who have not yet settled down to what they hope will be a partnership for life. There are few of us who would not tolerate a child of our own living with someone before marriage. Again, this has been a great change.
1734
However, there is an important shift between merely living together and having children. Having children requires a commitment from both parents, not necessarily in the form of marriage. Marriage is undoubtedly a sign of commitment; indeed, it is the strongest we now have. But it is not the only possible one. There is no doubt that, for some people, formal marriage carries a degree of baggage—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, my noble friend Lady Ludford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. Formal marriage carries a baggage which puts some people off.
I am somewhat surprised by the reaction of the Conservative Party as expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox. among others. and also—
Lord Elton: My Lords, to put the record straight, I was speaking entirely for myself.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I appreciate that, and I await with interest the official reply from the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. But there seems to be a current of opinion within the Conservative Party which takes the same view as that of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. It has become fairly apparent in articles in the press, comments in the broadcasting media and so on. It suggests that, somewhat surprisingly, while the party looks with favour on giving rights in the form of civil partnership rights to same-sex couples, it does not wish to do so for couples of the opposite sex. That view is perhaps somewhat inconsistent with the opposition to Section 28.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as I was corrected frequently on points that I misunderstood, perhaps I may tell the noble Lord that I said with some trepidation that constancy in a partnership is something to be encouraged. Therefore, with trepidation, I said that there were elements of the Bill that I would wish to support.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I take that point on board. As I understand it. that is the motivation behind the noble Lord's support for civil partnership between lesbian and gay couples. The view was expressed that this is a second-class form of marriage; that it is open to heterosexual couples to get married and, therefore, they should not have the lesser alternative. I believe that this concern is wrong. A simpler and more private form of commitment such as that involved in a civil partnership could persuade a significant number of couples to take it up who would not be prepared to enter into a formal marriage.
I believe that most heterosexual couples still prefer marriage. Indeed, weddings are extremely popular these days. My own daughters started preparing their weddings at about the age of eight, many years before they met the men to whom they are now married. A wedding is a ceremony—even a register office wedding—conducted in person before either someone from the Church or someone with the powers of a registrar. In the case of a civil partnership, an

1735
application is sent to the Registrar General in the prescribed form, signed by each prospective partner, accompanied by the prescribed fee. I take issue slightly with my noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood in that that is not a ceremony and will therefore appeal to those who do not want a ceremony.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, pointed out in an article in The Times the other day, there is a problem with caring relationships between close members of the same family, such as a child looking after an elderly parent, a sister looking after a brother or a sister and brother looking after each other in old age. There is undoubtedly a case for some provisions on taxation rights and other matters included in the Bill to be extended to caring couples. However, there are a number of problems involved. I do not think that it can be done simply by enabling them to enter into a civil partnership agreement. While I certainly support some change, I doubt that this Bill is the place for it.
The only unqualified objections to the Bill came from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford took a more supportive attitude to the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Lester has asked me to deal briefly with the question of pensions raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, because I am more familiar with pension systems. The answer to the question about who pays for the pensions in occupational schemes is that it depends on whether the pension scheme is a defined contribution scheme or a final salary scheme. If it is a defined contribution scheme, there is a fixed pot of money on retirement that is used to buy a pension. Providing a pension for a surviving partner will reduce the amount of the pension payable to the pensioner. If it is a final salary scheme, the cost will effectively fall on the employer. However, most employers with final salary schemes already provide powers for a pensioner to nominate an unmarried partner to receive a surviving spouse's pension, so the cost is probably pretty much written into the scheme already.
The Bill is an important step forward. The wide welcome that it has received shows that it is an idea whose time has come. We must recognise that this may not be the Bill that ends up on the statute book. Many detailed issues will need to be debated and it will undoubtedly have to undergo a fairly lengthy Committee stage. We need debate and, like the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, I think that that debate would best be carried out in a Select Committee. I hope that a Select Committee will be set up to consider the issues in the Bill.
Whether or not there is time to get the Bill through both Houses, it is important to have all the remaining stages completed in this House so that, as well as a Select Committee, we can have a debate in your Lordships' House on the details, which will help to identify and iron out the problems. Our target must be to get a Bill on the statute book during this Parliament.
I join others who have paid tribute to my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill. He has a long and powerful record of work for human rights. Many years
1736
ago he worked on anti-discrimination legislation. He campaigned tirelessly for the Human Rights Act 1998. He and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor were the two people who did most to bring that Act about. The Bill marks another service by my noble friend to the cause of the liberties and rights of the individual.
I wait with much interest to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, will say, although, as I have said, I have some idea of what we can expect. I wait with perhaps even greater interest to hear what the Leader of the House will tell us about the reaction of the Government. I have no doubt that he will express sympathy with the purposes of the Bill, but I hope that he will go much further and either indicate the Government's willingness to give the necessary time to get this Bill through Parliament or undertake to introduce government legislation before the end of the present Parliament.
2.5 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for introducing the Bill, which affords us the opportunity to consider a number of important issues. I also pay tribute to the many thoughtful speeches made today. They did not all express the same view, but they were equally valuable and helpful to this important debate.
The Bill sets out a legal framework for recognising a civil partnership between two cohabiting individuals who wish to register their union formally and share benefits, rights and responsibilities. It gives us, the Conservative Party, an opportunity to restate our commitment to marriage—indeed, I prefer to say our celebration of marriage—and the special rights that come with that association. It is an association that continues, to a great extent, to work.
Not all married couples choose to raise a family, and the value of their marriage is no less important for that, but society particularly benefits from the fact that children brought up by married parents are more likely to have a stable background. There are many one-parent families, as well as cohabiting couples, who bring up children incredibly well, as many have said today, and who create homes as loving and as stable as those offered by married couples. However, the figures show that the commitment of marriage increases stability. As the Office for National Statistics says in a recent report:
"recent research has shown that children born to cohabiting couples are twice as likely to see their parents separate as children born within marriage".
At this point I take issue—as I rarely do—with the noble Earl, Lord Russell. It is not about respect. Our respect is without question.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. As she has raised my question, may I ask if she could answer mine? Does she think, a priori,

1737
as a matter of universal principle, that it is better for an unhappily married couple to stay together than to separate?
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, no, I do not think that it is better for a married couple who are unhappy to stay together. That is why we say not that marriage works, but that it works to a great extent.
In a world where politicians search, usually in vain, for social policies that confer unambiguous benefits, they should leave well alone when they encounter longstanding institutions that do precisely that. We must build on success, in which case we must do nothing to undermine the institution of marriage.
Consequently, we cannot support the Bill. It provides rights, such as the right to inheritance and to share life assurance and occupational pensions, that are already available to couples through marriage. There is no need to create a separate category of registered civil partnerships for mixed-sex couples because anyone seeking those rights can attain them by marrying. Providing a watered-down variant of marriage would serve only to undermine the institution and increase the risk of the state intruding into people's lives in order to discover whether the extent of their cohabitation justifies the rights that they would claim.
The Bill does, however, provide us with the opportunity to consider seriously the rights of those who are not able to marry—the couples who do not have that choice, particularly same-sex couples who have a long-term stable relationship. There is no doubt that those couples face a number of real problems in their daily lives, problems that need to be addressed in a sensitive, respectful and practical way. The Bill clearly seeks to overcome statutory discrimination against those who want to make the commitment to share within a coherent framework rights and responsibilities.
In addition to those economic rights and responsibilities within a union, the Bill specifically addresses issues that test the emotional strength and heart of a relationship, such as the right of action in respect of a fatal accident, the right to register the death of a partner and the provision for the health and welfare of a partner without capacity to act—issues whereby, if a couple are in a stable relationship and unable to marry, it must be right to allow them the dignity of acting on each other's behalf in the same way as a married couple. It must be right to confront any form of discrimination that compromises mutual respect and commitment within a stable and loving relationship for no good reason. I should add, in response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that I believe that that is right in principle no matter what the actual numbers may be.
Moving on from the principal themes, we have various concerns which I shall touch on briefly. The Bill wishes, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in the Explanatory Notes,
"to enable cohabiting couples to live together within a stable and coherent framework of rights and responsibilities".
1738
As I said, the Bill addresses some real practical problems requiring particular practical solutions—some of which may be legislative, others administrative, but all need to be sensitively and precisely targeted. In that context we should bear in mind that such problems are not confined to gay couples. Just as the benefits to society of marriage are clear, particularly when there are children, so is the virtue in other forms of relationship expressly excluded from the Bill.
In particular, why does the noble Lord, Lord Lester, exclude from eligible persons, in Clause 2(1)(d). "close relatives"? Why should close relatives—for example, two cohabiting sisters who may have pledged to care for each other—not register and thereby enjoy the same rights and responsibilities as others? Surely that exclusion is discriminatory in principle, particularly against the elderly. Is the noble Lord interested only in protecting the rights of couples in a sexual relationship? He may respond by saying that as two sisters they are perfectly capable of contracting to afford each other certain rights and responsibilities. However, the same can be said of those couples who are eligible under the Bill.
There are also questions of family law. In particular, what happens to the children of a couple who have registered their partnership when that partnership breaks down? Is the Bill specifically intended to exclude the interests of children other than in the context of the working families tax credit, property and non-molestation orders? Indeed, I feel some personal discomfort with a Bill that demands such a watershed in our thinking and our social attitudes but that does not pay more attention to children. Perhaps that is intentional, and perhaps it is right. However, it is hard to consider all the issues in a clear-cut manner since our lives and different lifestyles are so varied and often complex.
We are also concerned with regard to the cost implications of the Bill. That is an area that we would certainly want to explore further as the Bill addresses, quite rightly, a broad range of issues which carry financial consequences.
We understand that the Government are in the process of reviewing current financial implications relating to some of those issues and look forward to hearing what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has to say in that regard.
We are also interested in those conditions that must be satisfied prior to the formation of a civil partnership. In particular, the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, has specified that the prospective partners must have lived together for a minimum period of six months before the relationship can be registered. Is it possible to demonstrate a stable relationship in that period of time?
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for allowing me to intervene. Is it the policy of the Conservative Party to prohibit people from marrying when they

1739
have been in a relationship for less than six months? There is no such inhibition on marriage, so far as I am aware.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I entirely accept that and no, it is not. However, we are talking about a new form of legislation here and that is why I am asking the questions. If the noble Lord will allow me to continue I believe that he will see that I might view that as a cynical approach, but that others may not. That is one of the many questions that we feel deserves more discussion, particularly as many commentators are saying that that is one of the problems with the Bill.
Could the civil registration partnership be viewed as a neat way of avoiding tax and enjoying benefits without sincere commitment?
In contrast, it is very rare to find a couple, where either party is prepared to enter a marriage, without a genuine hope that the marriage will last until they are parted by death. Would it not be sensible to respond to that arguably cynical view of civil partnerships by proposing a timeframe that would, in a practical sense, police the sincerity of the commitment to the partnership?
For example, two years ago I wrote a policy paper on the family which was debated across the United Kingdom by the voluntary side of the Conservative Party and which included the possibility of registering civil partnerships, including same-sex partners. Indeed, some commentators may be surprised to learn that it is not new ground for the Conservative Party and, indeed, the feedback from my paper confirmed a genuine and widespread will to consider those matters further.
In that paper I used the example of the then new French institution known as "Pacs", which stands for Pacte Civil de Solidarite. Pars allows two people to register their union and then, three years later, to enjoy the statutory rights afforded by that registration.
Did the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, consider this (and perhaps he did) as well as other examples where a form of civil partnership has already been introduced? For example, those registers introduced in Spain, Norway, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden. Iceland and/or Germany, will have been, to some extent, tried and tested.
Given that it is such a sensitive area that touches on a very broad range of issues, it must surely make sense to review, in some detail, the workings of civil partnerships by our European partners before we legislate here; after all, it does, albeit occasionally, pay to learn from experience.
In conclusion, our policies and our laws should reflect the world as it is and the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, in this Bill are timely and deserve a serious and considered response. However, we believe that there is more work to be done and we would very much welcome further in-depth discussion of all the issues.
2.19 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, ours is capable of being a great-hearted society and I derive that proposition from two sources. The first was the article by the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, in The Times, which was plainly deeply considered and carefully argued. The second, if I may say so without presumption, was the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, who could not have been more positive in his approach.
The right reverend Prelate said that we live in a diverse and changing society. He is right. His illustration, with perfect timing, that two gay men needed help from the vicar—at which I could see metaphorical nods, until he teased the House by pointing out that the vicar was female—was a perfect illustration, perfectly made, of the fact that we are living in changing times. Indeed, we could not have held this debate five years ago because we have not heard the rampant voice of obscurantism from any speaker. Of course, many approach this matter from. a different basis.
Your Lordships are entitled to know the Government's position and I state it. plainly. I can confirm that the Government will look very carefully at the implications of setting up such a scheme of civil partnership registration, rights and responsibilities. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is right. Questions need to be answered. She is right in saying that we ought to see and benefit from the experience of our European partners—another first for the Conservative Party; question that is. not statement! Of course, the French being much more intellectual than we, call them "civil solidarity pacts", which is marvellously Gallic.
The noble Baroness is right on one aspect; it is a three-year term. However, it applies to heterosexual couples as well. I am sure that if the benefit of the experience of the French points in that direction, then the conversion of the Conservatives will continue— perhaps.
The work here is at a very early stage. It was rightly pointed out that my colleague in the Commons, Jane Griffiths, introduced her Bill in October last year. Of course, work is at an early stage, but we are getting on. The first meeting was held on 9th January this year, so there has not been real delay. Sixty officials attended from across the different Whitehall departments. That will be essential. All noble Lords who have dealt with these intricacies know that, whatever the principled approach may be, the working out in practice of a large number of questions, many of which have not been exhaustively explored, will take a lot of working through.
The Cabinet Office is now following up issues. I was grateful to have the meeting with my colleague. Barbara Roche, the lead Minister, with the noble Lord, Lord Lester—to whom I pay full tribute, as he knows—and with Angela Mason of Stonewall. We had a productive discussion. On the question of a committee, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, promised to

1741
write to me next week setting out his views and I promised to give an early response, whatever that may turn out to be.
I stress that the Government have a genuinely open mind. I cannot give any commitments at this stage, nor would your Lordships sensibly expect them, except that we shall approach this matter properly, seriously and thoroughly. The Bill has potential cost implications—the right reverend Prelate is right. There are complex inter-relating issues, not simply with regard to property, but also children and general social consequences. So we need to know in considerable detail what we are engaged on.
It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, with his usual generosity, seized the appropriate moment to bring this debate to public attention, as he has undoubtedly succeeded in doing, but recognises that there are important consequential implications which we shall need to address. For instance, the example I paraphrase—I hope fairly—given by the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, was of two elderly retired sisters. The husband was a retired vicar. The three wanted to live together and make civil arrangements. That is a perfectly reasonable example to raise. Perhaps I may offer one or two others.
The noble Lord excludes anyone in a married relationship. But many people, though they do not live with their spouses, have a conscientious—it may be religious—objection to divorce. They may want to live in a completely companionable relationship—not a sexual relationship—with someone with whom they are comfortable, yet want to make arrangements of the kind the civil partnership offers. That is forbidden by the Bill.
Perhaps I may take another example, contrary to what the noble Baroness said, which came from the brutalist school; namely, if you are heterosexual and want the benefits, you can get married. Two schoolteachers, who have both been married but whose respective spouses are dead, want to live companionably in their old age. They want to share the expenses, the concerns, the worries and the comfort. They may both have a feeling that it would be disloyal to their former spouses to remarry. That is a perfectly legitimate view. It may not be shared by all of us but is capable of being honourably held by decent people. If that is so, should they—under the new brutalism—be excluded from benefits?
I stress that I ask these questions because I listened carefully to the debate. The more one looks at such questions, the more one realises that we must find answers. But I am not sure that the "one size fits all" is the way forward.
A good deal has been done but before I detail it, I must stress that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester. This Bill is not about marriage. It is about a different relationship, not unknown in the rest of Europe, which by and large seems to have worked satisfactorily. We are talking about civil partnership registration. That is a contractual obligation which encapsulates rights and responsibilities and which, for
1742
many of our fellow citizens, is desired as a public recognition of what is essentially a personal and private commitment. That is what we are talking about. This has nothing to do with an attack on the institution of marriage.
My response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, who always intervenes with effect and brevity, is to confirm that the Government recognise that marital partnerships remain the choice of many people who want to build stable relationships because they want to raise children and that that stability and that type of commitment are of critical importance to children, to families and to wider society. However, the two are not exclusive and in a diverse society, there is no reason why we should be stereotypical on every occasion.
We have made significant advances in dealing with same-sex and heterosexual partnerships. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, was correct in her illustration about the bomb attack. Since then, as your Lordships know, in April 2001, the criminal injuries compensation scheme was extended to cover both same-sex and heterosexual partners.
On immigration, unmarried heterosexual and same-sex couples may be eligible for leave to remain in the United Kingdom, if they have lived together for two years or more.
The point was raised that private business does better than public service. That is incorrect. These things are changing very quickly. The new Civil Service pensions scheme will offer survivor benefits to unmarried partners, whether same-sex or heterosexual. That is a very important step forward.
Your Lordships will contradict me if necessary, but I do not think that civilisation as we knew it has crumbled. That will come when the Government reform your Lordships' House—that was a parenthesis which no-one heard.
The question of succession arises. The Law Reform (Succession) Act 1995 states that a heterosexual unmarried partner can apply for succession rights; a same-sex partner cannot. Significant questions are raised about whether or not we deal with our fellow citizens fairly and justly. If there is significant injustice, it does not just tell itself on those who are the objects of injustice, but is an attack on the quality of our society and its stability and continuance.
The Law Commission is working on tenancy succession for same-sex partners. We expect the consultation document to be published early this year and it is hoped by the commission that there will be a final report and draft Bill by 2003. The Law Commission is also working on the property rights of home-sharers. Again, that work is continuing.
There is work being done. There is a degree of recognition. I take the theme and purpose of the noble Lord's Bill to be that these are piecemeal changes, not necessarily coherent, though just and necessary for the moment.

1743
What the noble Lord wishes, I believe, is to remodel the availability of a wider spectrum of recognised relationships which may be available to those of our fellow citizens who feel disadvantaged, excluded and unjustly treated.
I hope that I have given as full a response as the House feels is reasonable and that I have given as positive a response as I am able to do at this time.
2.30 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, this has been an excellent debate. Movers of Bills always say that but on this occasion it happens to be really true. It has been a wise and compassionate debate and one full of common sense and good humour without the rampant obscurantism that the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House referred to a few moments ago.
I am extremely grateful to everyone who has not only spoken in the debate in their various ways but has also stayed and listened to it even when they have not spoken at a time long past most people's lunch hour. Their stamina indicates that you do not have to be under the age of 30 to be able to live and work in the way that we do, and on a Friday too. I am extraordinarily grateful to everyone. I am also grateful—I wish that my mother were here—for some of the flattering, personal remarks that were made about me. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, described me as clever and patient. Patient I am not and I wish I did not have to try to be. I would rather be wise than clever. I like to think that the Bill is wiser than it is clever. However, I am grateful for the noble Baroness's comments.
Even though social attitude surveys show that on these issues the most obscurantist, conservative or restrictive section of the population comprises those over the age of 65, we have not, it seems to me, shown in this debate on any side of the House that we are incapacitated by our age from understanding the realities of modern life and the need for the law if not to keep pace with the realities of modern life—that may be too much to expect—at least to catch up without there being too much shortfall.
I shall be brief for obvious reasons. I wish to deal with some of the few questions that have been raised in the debate and first comment generally that few practical questions have been raised suggesting that a framework of this kind is impractical and would not tackle the anomalies and injustices that we referred to at the beginning of the debate. Those who have expressed reservations or objections to the Bill have done so either on moral grounds derived from their faith and their beliefs or have raised some fairly narrow but important questions. I see that some noble Lords have a briefing from the Christian Institute which I received only this morning which contains what I would describe as rampant obscurantism in part. I am surprised that it has the currency that it does. For example, I believe that it compares my Bill with bolshevism, Soviet communism and jacobinism, or perhaps pre-jacobinism from the age of the French
1744
Revolution. I wish that the organisers had sent the briefing to me as well as to others. They have explained that they did not do so—
Earl Russell: My Lords, I think that my noble friend should congratulate himself on his versatility.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I shall come to that a little later. I take head-on the argument that has come up again and again and came up in the Christian Institute briefing. Your Lordships have already dealt with it so I do not need to say much. I refer to the argument that the measure will somehow undermine the institution of marriage. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, to whom I owe a great deal in my career, as he knows, as it was he who sponsored me many years ago to become a Queen's Counsel on the basis of one appearance before him as I recall, accused me of being naĩve in thinking that my Bill would not undermine marriage. I hope that he will not mind my saying that the naivety is on his part. If he really thinks that the problems involving the lack of proper respect for and use of marriage would be exacerbated by my Bill, I say, with great respect, that he is not in touch with the reasons why the institution of marriage has not been as successful as people such as myself—I have been very happy in my marriage for more than 30 years—would have hoped. The Bill is not designed to undermine marriage—everyone agrees with that—and I do not believe that it would have that effect. I have tried to explain that, on the contrary, if we encourage stable heterosexual relationships that are protected by law, we protect not only the partners but their children, in the hope, which I share—I speak as one who prefers marriage to any other civil partnership— that people will move to marriage.
I do not understand the argument that suggests that one needs to bribe people or persecute them in order to maintain the institution of marriage. That has not been said explicitly but in a way it is the implication of some of the arguments. I do not believe that the arguments that led Lord Hardwicke in I 753–250 years ago, in the age of George II—to forbid or deny protection to common law marriage represent the official policy of the Conservative Party or of the Church of England.
While I am on the subject of the Conservative Party, I have to say that I have too much respect for the intelligence and values of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and of the shadow Home Secretary, Mr Oliver Letwin MP, to believe that they can be comfortable with the new-fangled policy that their party has just adopted in light of my Bill. When I worked at the Home Office with my old boss, my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, he once gave me a piece of advice that I should like to pass on. He said, "When you are thinking about issues of policy, the worst thing you can do is to dig a trench and then be flushed out of it and have to dig another trench Before long you are on the run and you have had it. My advice to you is, 'Always dig a trench that is defensible and then fight and hold that position'''. I simply do not think that it is defensible for the Conservative Party to say, "We are changing our position about gay

1745
relationships but we will not apply the same protection to heterosexual unmarried couples because we need to prop up the institution of marriage, which we respect so much". It may be logically possible to defend that position but the public will find it impossible in practice to understand why heterosexual couples should be treated less favourably in terms of some of the basic protections. I very much hope that the Conservative Party will continue to develop its policy in the way that I am sure most people hope it will.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester asked me three questions in particular. The first question was about pensions and, in my cowardly way, I asked my noble friend Lord Goodhart to answer it. I hope that the right reverend Prelate is satisfied with that.
The second question was about whether the Bill would severely disadvantage family relationships not in sexual partnerships. My Bill in no way depends on there being a sexual relationship for the civil partnership to be able to operate. I hope that that is clear. It is true that we have been cautious in excluding close members of the family from the civil partnership; several noble Lords criticised that or questioned whether it should really be so. We did it partly because we were concerned that people might think that we were promoting, for example, incestuous relationships and partly because of the problem of multiple partners—if there are many brothers and sisters, how does one pick out who will be the civil partner? How will one stop them from squabbling with one another and how will one stop abuse? Those matters deserve further thought. I am entirely open minded about the way in which one would tackle them; maybe the Bill needs to go further.
The other question I was asked was whether we were giving too much delegated power to Ministers under Clause 30. The answer was given by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its report published today. It said that it had no problems which it wished to draw to the attention of the House.
As I listened to the advocacy of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and of the Leader of the House, I was reminded that, when I was a boy, my father said, "Never become a barrister. You would be hopeless because you will be impossible in front of juries". My father was absolutely right. As I listened to the noble Baroness, who, although she is much younger than I am, is my role model in so many things, I realised that I cannot improve on her advocacy. Without offending the rest of the House, her speech will remain in my mind as the most eloquent explanation of the values underlying the Bill.
We seek to avoid unnecessary bureaucratic intrusion into relationships. We do not want relationships to have to be looked into by the state. We seek to promote personal choice, freedom of association and equality of treatment. But we also seek to promote stable, enduring and loving relationships in which there are duties as well as responsibilities. We leave aside altogether the question of children, not because it is not vital but
1746
because it has to be tackled in the context of children's legislation. There must be a dove-tailing between that legislation and this Bill.
Then, the question is: where do we go from here, other than to lunch? I believe that the answer must be to take further evidence, to reflect further and to look at experience overseas as well. We have looked at the French experience and, indeed, that of all the other European countries to which the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, referred; and it would be relatively easy to marshal evidence upon it. One of the most interesting pieces of evidence is that of the Dutch. In the Netherlands, so far from the civil partnership scheme undermining marriage, if one looks at the website of the Dutch Government, one finds that, in spite of the existence of civil partnerships, people are opting enthusiastically for marriage. I would not promote the Bill if I considered it to be the enemy rather than the good friend of the institution of marriage.
Therefore, I suggest to your Lordships that, as several noble Lords have indicated, one sensible way forward might be to call upon the resources of this House. If your Lordships give the Bill a Second Reading, as I hope they will, the gathering of evidence would then take place under the authority of this House. That could go side by side with the work done by the Government so that the Government could be assisted in partnership with ourselves in gathering evidence and devising what is sensible.
The Telegraph described me today as "moralistic". That is not a word that I would use for myself. I believe that I am a pragmatist by instinct. But I am sufficiently pragmatic to understand that the Bill will not be a catalyst for change without the active support of the Government, following the grain of public opinion.
Lastly, as my noble friend Lord Goodhart referred to Philip Larkin, I want to mention another poet. At the end of the curious document, Counterfeit Marriage, produced by the Christian Institute, are the words:
"It is difficult to think how Shakespeare would write a sonnet about a civil partnership".
I always thought to the contrary, that in the age of Queen Elizabeth I the Bard was writing his beautiful sonnets about civil partnerships, both homosexual and heterosexual civil partnerships. I shall probably get it wrong, but there is a sonnet that begins with the following lines,
"Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediment. Love is not love which alters when it alteration finds or bends with the remover to remove. Oh no it is an ever-fixed mark",
and so on. I am reasonably confident, although I am no scholar, that that sonnet could have been as well expressed of homosexual lovers or heterosexual lovers, married or unmarried, and at a time when I doubt that marriage was the institution that it is today.
I have spoken for longer than I intended, and I am grateful to your Lordships for your patience. I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at fifteen minutes before three o'clock.

  Gibraltar: Telephones
  Gibraltar: Telephones
  Gibraltar: Diverted Aeroplane
  Gibraltar: Diverted Aeroplane
  UK Passport Applications to the Dublin Embassy
  UK Passport Applications to the Dublin Embassy
  Illicit Trade in Cultural Property
  Illicit Trade in Cultural Property
  North-west: Grant Aid for Sites of Historic Interest
  North-west: Grant Aid for Sites of Historic Interest