Sitting of 28 January 2002

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

  Unemployment (Cardiff)
  Kevin Brennan: What measures he will take to assist the hardest-to-help unemployed into work in Cardiff, West. [28137]
  The Minister for Work(Mr. Nicholas Brown): We have introduced a range of initiatives that are helping disadvantaged groups to move from welfare into work in all parts of the country. In Cardiff, West, long-term unemployment has fallen by over two thirds, and long-term youth unemployment by three quarters, since 1997.
  Part of the Cardiff, West constituency will also be one of the areas covered by our new pilot programme, StepUp, to be launched in April. StepUp will provide transitional
  2
  jobs to act as a stepping stone for some of the hardest-to-help unemployed people moving from benefits into work.
  Kevin Brennan: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer and, in particular, for the pilot scheme that the Government will run in my constituency to help the unemployed.
  Does my right hon. Friend recognise that even in areas such as Cardiff, a vibrant, prosperous city with a tremendous economic record under the present Government, there are still hard-core, long-term unemployed people who are difficult to assist, and who really need that helping hand into the job market? Can he assure me that the jobs that will be available under the StepUp programme will be of good quality, so that people are encouraged to enter the labour market permanently once those jobs have ended?
  Mr. Brown: Yes, I can. A range of jobs will be available to each client, and will be guaranteed for up to a year. It will be real work, and people will be paid at least the minimum wage. They will be employed, as opposed to on a scheme, and the Department will work with individual clients to ensure that these opportunities lead to further, permanent employment.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Bill Wiggin: If he will make a statement on the level of benefit fraud. [28138]
  Patrick Mercer: What targets his Department has set local authorities for benefit fraud prosecutions for 2001–02. [28143]
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Alistair Darling): We estimate that £2 billion is lost annually owing to confirmable fraud across all benefits.

  3
  Latest results show that in the two and a half years to March 2001 we have reduced the level of fraud and error in income support and jobseeker's allowance by 18 per cent. We expect that good progress to continue.
  Today I shall lay before the House a code of practice which governs the use of new powers to obtain information from banks, insurance and utility companies about suspected fraud. Those measures, along with new powers to punish persistent offenders and tougher penalties for collusive employers, will begin to be implemented in April.
  Mr. Wiggin: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, according to his own figures, only 1,100 of the 460,000 cases of suspected fraud were successfully prosecuted? That is a success rate of some 99 per cent.[Interruption.] I mean a failure rate of 99 per cent. The exact figure is 99.75 per cent. Does the Secretary of State agree that that figure reflects his Department's lax attitude?
  Mr. Darling: I was going to say that 99 per cent. sounded all right to me.
  As the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue, I will tell him that nearly 27,000 prosecutions, cautions and administrative penalties were applied last year. As I said in my initial answer, the level of fraud and error in the system remains unacceptably high, and we are introducing a number of measures to lower it. As a result of changes we have made to tighten up the system, there has been an 18 per cent. drop in fraud and error in income support and jobseeker's allowance, two of the main benefits. That is encouraging. We must now go on tightening up the system. Under the new Jobcentre Plus regime, we will see people more regularly so that we can check their circumstances, and the information technology replacement programme will mean a steady improvement, year on year, in an inheritance that I regard as thoroughly unacceptable.
  Patrick Mercer: In 1999–2000, 50 per cent. of local authorities failed to prosecute a single person for council tax benefit fraud or housing benefit fraud. My local authorities in Newark and Retford tell me that, with changes in housing benefit administration occurring nearly every fortnight, the delivery of the benefit—let alone detection of fraud—is almost impossible. Would the Secretary of State care to comment?
  Mr. Darling: Successive Governments have tried to tighten up the regime for administering housing benefit. One of the problems is that it is run by just over 400 local authorities. Interestingly, while some authorities can run it quite well and have a good record, others do not. In some cases, the record has been truly appalling. That is one reason why we sent action teams to improve the performance of a number of authorities, which has resulted in a significant improvement in the administration of housing benefit.
  It is up to local authorities whether to refer cases for prosecution; central Government do not control that. I am, however, determined that we should bear down on housing benefit fraud as vigorously as we are bearing down on fraud in JSA and income support. As I said a
  4
  moment ago, there has already been an 18 per cent. reduction in fraud—something that was never achieved in the past.
  Mr. Frank Roy: The Secretary of State will be aware that the only way to tackle benefit fraud is through the hard work of Jobcentre Plus staff, and that today many thousands of those staff are on strike because of fears for their safety at the workplace. Will he do whatever he can to bring both sides together to resolve that serious dispute before it escalates any further?
  Mr. Darling: From the figures we have as of lunchtime, fewer people are on strike today than during the previous so-called national strike in December, and significantly fewer offices have closed. The problem that the PCS—the Public and Commercial Services union—has to face is that it does not have the support of anything like a majority of staff in its campaign to retain screens in benefit offices. Today, nearly three quarters of department staff are in work. Critically, the vast majority of staff working in the new Jobcentre Plus offices—the offices that are predominantly unscreened—have been in work since they opened last year.
  My hon. Friend is right. The evidence so far shows that with Jobcentre Plus, we see people more often, we can check facts more easily, and we can make benefit payments more accurately than in the past. I want to be clear. The Government intend to roll out the Jobcentre Plus offices throughout the entire office network. We do not believe that the strike is justified. Indeed, the fact that most of the staff in these offices have been in work since they opened tends to suggest that our approach is the right one.
  Andrew Mackinlay: How extensive is fraud in relation to adopting the national insurance number and the name of another person? What measures are there to combat that? What measures are taken to inform other agencies when it is discovered, such as the police national computer, the Child Support Agency and credit agencies? This is a serious problem facing one of my constituents and, I understand, the constituents of many other people.
  Mr. Darling: No matter where it occurs in the system, fraud is extremely serious, although in the scale of things, national insurance fraud is a lot less of a problem than, for example, people who falsely represent their circumstances. None the less, we take it seriously. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that about two years ago, during a pilot project in the Balham office in south London, we carried out far more extensive checks into people's identity. That resulted in a number of false claims being found, people being referred for prosecution and one or two people being deported.
  We are ensuring that we tighten up the system across the country. There are more checks, which means that some cases are taking longer to process, but that is inevitable.
  On swapping information across departments, we are looking at that. It is not straightforward. There are data protection and legitimate privacy issues to consider but I think that most of us and most members of the public take

  5
  the view that if one arm of government knows something about someone, it is not unreasonable to expect another arm of government to know the same thing.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: The Secretary of State will know that the local government ombudsman for London has said that the housing benefits administration system is in chaos. Can he give an assurance that that administration will be radically improved, particularly in many London boroughs? Without that, there is no question but that the tackling of fraud will not be at its most effective.
  Mr. Darling: As I said earlier, what is striking—this applies to London as much as to the rest of the country—is that some local authorities administer housing benefit well and others, in administration is appalling. I am determined to ensure that we drive up standards in those local authorities where standards are way below an acceptable level. That is the best way to bear down on fraud and error.
  John Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that not all cases of benefit fraud are due to the Conservative party, although we have tried to blame it for everything? Does he agree that perhaps the time has come for us to look at benefit fraud and at what happened in years gone by when the Opposition manipulated the figures and put people on benefit? It is time to get them off.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The policy of the Opposition is nothing to do with the Secretary of State.
  Mr. David Willetts: I shall try to attack the Secretary of State as effectively as his own colleague, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), did.
  Will the Secretary of State confirm that two reports from his own Department have shown that the targeting fraud advertising campaign that he launched has succeeded in persuading people that benefit fraud is "easier to commit"? He has spent £16 million on an advertising campaign, the main effect of which has been to persuade people that they can get away with fraud. Unusually for the Government, this an accurate advertising campaign because people are getting away with it, as questions from my hon. Friends have shown. Also, we know that, after all the hype about the targeting fraud website, it has led to just one successful prosecution, and that national insurance fraud—which he dismissed as being not very big in the scale of things—is estimated to be running at £400 million a year.
  Why are Ministers making the system so complicated? Would it not be better to get to the root of fraud by simplifying the system so that error does not lead to fraud, instead of having the Government's remorseless preoccupation with making all benefits more complicated, more prone to error and more prone to fraud?
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman's argument would have more force were it not for the fact that no serious attempt was made to even measure fraud in the social security system until 1995, about 15 years after the Conservative party was elected to government. Also, there was no systematic measuring of fraud until after 1997,
  6
  following the general election in that year. In that time, we have put in place a number of measures that, as I have said, are now beginning to bear fruit. The fact that I can tell the House that fraud and error in income support and jobseeker's allowance are down by 18 per cent.—something my predecessors could never have said—shows that our efforts are getting results.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the advertising campaign. The campaign was designed to raise people's awareness of benefit fraud, just as the drink driving campaigns have raised awareness over the years. The research also shows that the public is becoming less tolerant of benefit fraud. It is important that we win people's hearts and minds on this matter because we need public support.
  Lastly, on the simplification of benefits, the hon. Gentleman and his predecessors who served in government will know that there is a superficial attraction to standing up and saying that we should simplify the benefits system. However, once it is discovered that such simplifications would involve removing people's right to support, we see—as I hope that he would accept—that the task of simplification is not as straightforward as he makes out. We do not want to end up by taking money away from people who should be getting it. However, we want to maintain our drive to tighten up the system to cut fraud and error, which is precisely what we are doing.

  Welfare to Work
  Ms Karen Buck: What assessment he has made of the impact of welfare-to-work policies in London. [28139]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): In London, more than 70,000 people have been helped into work through our new deal programmes, including 42,000 young Londoners. In addition, more than 10,000 more have moved into work in some of the most deprived areas through employment zones and action teams for jobs. Altogether, our policies have helped to reduce unemployment in London by more than 30 per cent. since 1997 and long-term unemployment has fallen by nearly 60 per cent.
  Ms Buck: Fraud is very important, but it is also important that those people who are entitled to benefits get the help that they need when they require it. It is of some concern to me that despite the national success of the working families tax credit in topping up the incomes of low-income families, Londoners are less likely to receive that benefit. In particular, low-income single parents are half as likely to receive working families tax credit as people in the country as a whole. Will the Government commit themselves to a research project to establish why we have these variations, and to find out how much of it is due to a lack of awareness and how much is due to structural problems that can be removed to make sure that Londoners get the help that they require?
  Malcolm Wicks: I know of my hon. Friend's great interest in this matter in her constituency and London as a whole. I shall go through these matters with her to see whether there is a need for research. Across the country—including in London—the working families tax credit has been of enormous help to two and one-parent families. In London alone, some 95,000 families have benefited from the working families tax credit.

  7
  In addition, 70,000 people in London have benefited from the national minimum wage. That demonstrates that along with making work possible for Londoners, and everyone else in the country, we also need to make work pay.
  Mr. David Heath: Is not the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) right to say that the key to the success of these policies is access? Given that the take-up of working families tax credit in her constituency and others in London is extremely low, will the Minister tell us what will happen when working families tax credit migrates to child tax credit in 2003? How will those who do not have bank accounts receive their credit if the universal bank is not up and running by then? Secondly, with 40,000 of his staff on strike today—a fact dismissed by the Secretary of State—is it not time that the Government and the management spoke constructively to their staff, to enable them to provide the advice that they should be providing to those who need it?
  Malcolm Wicks: There was a lot there in terms of quantity, but the hon. Gentleman greatly inflates the number of people on strike. The strike has not been a success, and we urge people to return to work to make a success of what is already a successful project—Jobcentre Plus. We talked about fraud earlier, and just as we need to bear down on fraud—as we are doing—we need to enable people to claim the benefits to which they are entitled, in a variety of ways. We are pleased by the success of working families tax credit, and the new child tax credit will also be a success, but we will look at any sensible ideas for increasing take-up.
  Mr. Ian Davidson: Does the Minister accept that part of the welfare-to-work programme involves an incentive, and that in London and other cities, such as Glasgow, where rent and council tax levels are higher, those in low-paid jobs do not have so much incentive to go into work because they lose their council tax and rent rebates when they do so? Would the Minister be prepared to consider the pilot project suggested by Glasgow city council to waive the loss of rent and rate rebates for a period for people going into work? If that project were successful, and if it were adopted elsewhere, it would undoubtedly assist people in London and Glasgow.
  Malcolm Wicks: I recognise that we need to do all that we can to inform people about what will happen when they go off benefit full-time and go back into work. Many people are, understandably, ignorant about those effects. That is why, in Jobcentres and Jobcentres Plus, we do a "better-off calculation", to demonstrate to people exactly how much better off they will be in work. Many are pleasantly surprised at the result. That is because people still receive housing benefit when doing a low-paid job. They are also entitled to the minimum wage, and tax credits bite in with good effect.
  Mr. James Clappison: Is not the Minister concerned that so few of those leaving the new deal in London are being taken on by central Government Departments? Is he not also concerned that, since March last year, when the Select Committee said that it was "extremely disappointed" by the failure of Departments to
  8
  recruit more people from the new deal—and when the Minister's own Department promised to set up special programmes to encourage Departments to recruit more from it—the number being recruited by central Government has fallen still further? A few moments ago, the Secretary of State said that it was important for the different arms of government to work together. Is it not clear that, when it comes to the new deal, they are not? The Government are snubbing their own policies, and other Departments are snubbing the policies of his Department.
  Malcolm Wicks: The hon. Gentleman talks from a position of some principle. That principle is that he is against the new deal. The fact is that we have enabled young people to enter different forms of employment in the public sector and in the private sector, and also to take routes into training and education. What the House needs to understand—and what the Opposition do not wish to understand—is that the new deal has been a great success in enabling people in London and elsewhere to get into the world of work.

  Pensioners (Hospital Patients)
  Laura Moffatt: What additional (a) financial and (b) practical help is offered to pensioners who are in hospital for more than six weeks. [28140]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): There is no additional financial help, although community care grants may be available to help with fares for other family members to visit a person in hospital. After six weeks in hospital, a person with a basic rate pension would receive £58 a week, or £44.20 if they had no dependants. Housing benefit would remain in payment for people on the minimum income guarantee. In terms of practical help, every patient should have a discharge plan, including an assessment of their future care needs, developed from the beginning of their hospital admission. All hospital in-patients have access to a social worker. From this April, patients in every NHS trust will have access to a patient advice and liaison service to help them with their dealings with the hospital.
  Laura Moffatt: I completely understand the principle behind the clawback from pensioners, but I was a nurse for many years and spoke to many couples who had a loved one in hospital, and the extra burden—including, as she rightly said, transport—is often difficult over a sustained period. I hope that the Minister can consider other practical measures to ensure that our pensioners do not suffer if they have to spend an extended time in hospital.
  Maria Eagle: I assure my hon. Friend that the Department keeps all matters relating to all our benefits under review—but I must also make the point that in written answers on 8 January to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser), recorded at columns 699–700W of Hansard, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions made it clear that at present we have no plans to make any changes in the hospital downrating provisions. The principle of avoiding double provision is a key cornerstone of the system of national insurance; it was introduced more

  9
  than 50 years ago, and has been supported on both sides of the House. Indeed, as recently as Thursday, Lord Higgins, who speaks for the Conservative party in the upper House, supported it by suggesting that one way round the problem that arises on the resumption of benefits would be to continue them throughout a hospital stay, but to charge the individual for rent, accommodation and so forth. That is the Tory answer.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: Can the Minister give some reassurance to Age Concern in Tiverton? I met its representatives on Friday night, and they expressed concern about the increasing number of elderly people in hospital who are demanding to be sent home just before the six weeks are up. One of the factors behind that is the long delay in getting their benefit books back after they have to surrender them for the adjustment. Is there no minimum turn-round time that the Benefits Agency has to work to? If so, it is not working in my constituency. Will the Minister take a particular interest, and do something about that?
  Maria Eagle: I would be happy for the hon. Lady to refer those cases to me so that I can look into them in detail. The Department does have a target for those who are claiming back a benefit. The target for dealing with a new claim for income support and the minimum income guarantee is 12 days, and the latest figures show that in fact we turn such claims round in 9.4 days. For claims concerning changes of circumstance the target is four days, and our performance shows that in fact we turn those claims round in an average of two and a half days. If the hon. Lady is running into problems in her constituency, I shall be more than happy to look into them if she refers them to me.
  Mr. Bill Tynan: Obviously I do not want to raise an individual case, because that sort of thing caused some controversy last week—but is my hon. Friend aware that there is concern, especially among elderly people, who are most vulnerable during a stay in hospital, and who may feel that they will lose all their benefits? Will she examine the situation and make sure that social workers give adequate information to the people who are most vulnerable?
  Maria Eagle: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes; it is important that when people are vulnerable in hospital they get proper advice. However, as I am sure everyone in the House would accept, giving people benefits advice when they are not feeling well could cause confusion and fear. There is no reason why the rules should not be well known—they have been operating for 54 years, since the beginning of the welfare state—and I hope that those dealing with vulnerable elderly people make the position clear to them. It has not changed recently.
  Mr. Tim Boswell: It seems risky being a pensioner in hospital these days. Will the Minister at least acknowledge that there is fresh and growing concern about the hospital downrating rules? They may have been around since 1948, and be based on the principle of avoiding double provision, but will she at least acknowledge that there is a problem in getting clear advice to patients while they are in hospital? Even when
  10
  they are sick, they may still be worried about their benefit situation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said, there may be a particular problem in getting people back on to their benefits when they leave hospital. The process needs to be streamlined as much as possible, so will the Minister undertake to discuss the whole project in good faith with Age Concern and others who have direct experience of the human and practical implications?
  Maria Eagle: Of course we have ongoing discussions with Age Concern and other organisations with an interest in these issues and we will certainly continue to do so. This rule has been in existence for 54 years; the Conservative party was in power for 35 of those years and did not do anything about it. However, I notice that the Leader of the Opposition's Parliamentary Private Secretary has signed early-day motion 542, so perhaps that signals a change in the Conservative party position. I remind my right hon. and hon. Friends about the Conservative party's views on bed and breakfast in hospital, which was reiterated as recently as Thursday in the other place.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps we will leave that.

  Pensioners (Annuities)
  Mr. George Osborne: What plans he has to abolish the rule requiring pensioners to purchase an annuity by the age of 75 years. [28141]
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Alistair Darling): It is important that pension funds built up with the support of tax relief are used to provide pensioners with a secure income in retirement. For the majority, buying an annuity is the best way of ensuring that they have a secure income throughout their retirement. We have no plans, therefore, to change that rule. The principle will underline the approach in the forthcoming consultation paper on annuities which was announced in the pre-Budget report last year.
  Mr. Osborne: Millions of pensioners will be disappointed with that answer and dismayed if the consultation paper rules out any reform of annuities. If the Government want people to save for their retirement, why do they not trust them to invest their savings in retirement? Will the Secretary of State and the Government support the private Member's Bill on annuity reform that received the overwhelming support of the House on Second Reading?
  Mr. Darling: The Tories certainly turned up in force—that is true. The problem with the Bill's proposals and those which I suspect that the hon. Gentleman supports is that they would benefit only a minority of people who have retired. The average pension fund is at present some £30,000. Indeed, in the year 2000, the average amount used to buy an annuity was only £23,000. The proposals in the private Member's Bill and those commonly espoused by the Conservatives tend to be aimed at people who have pension funds of something like £250,000.
  The forthcoming consultation document will consider options to make the annuity market work better than it does, but we must have regard to anything that we do so

  11
  that it does not adversely affect the general level of annuity rates. We need to ensure that we prevent any tax avoidance becoming commonplace because of changes that might be made. We also need to ensure that if tax relief is given to people to save for their retirement, that is what they use the money for, rather than avoiding using the money for their pension and relying on state benefits instead. The hon. Gentleman will see the consultation document in the not-too-distant future, but it is worth bearing in mind how many people would benefit from any proposal. We would not want only a few people to benefit, which is what I suspect the Conservatives have in mind.
  Mr. George Mudie: Does the consultation paper deal with the bizarre and unfair situation whereby, on the death of the annuity holder, the remaining capital reverts to the institution and not the family? If the Secretary of State believes that to be a matter for the insurance companies, will he, in the short term, take steps to change the rule under which the tiny number of schemes that enable people to allow an inheritance to pass to their family can operate only when the money is invested abroad? That seems quite wrong.
  Mr. Darling: I shall not go into the detail of what the consultation paper proposes, for obvious reasons. The House will see it in the not-too-distant future. However, if we were to change the rules, with the result that more and more people, on their death, could pass the remaining part of their pension fund on to their children or whoever, there would be less money in the system, which would adversely affect annuity rates for people who are currently pensioners. That is why it is important that any changes that the Government make benefit the majority of people. It would be wrong for us to put in place changes, which I think are supported by the Conservative party, from which only a tiny minority of the population would gain.
  I repeat that in the last year for which we have figures, the average amount used to buy an annuity was only £23,000 A very small number of people—something like 5 per cent. of the population—will have pension pots of £250,000 or so. It would be disastrous if we made changes that benefited only a tiny minority of people, making the majority worse off. We certainly do not want to get into such a situation.
  Mr. David Willetts: But will the Secretary of State answer this simple question: why should a pensioner be obliged to buy an annuity if he or she has enough income to ensure that they will not be dependent on means-tested benefits? Provided that condition is met, what business do the Government have forcing them to buy an annuity?
  Mr. Darling: The reason that people receive tax relief during their working life is to make sure that they can build up a pension for their retirement. Our concern is that if changes were made along the lines that I think that the hon. Gentleman supports, the majority of people would lose out because annuity rates would fall as a result of his proposals. That would not be a desirable course of events because it would mean—all other things being equal—that the state would have to pick up the bill for that change.
  No matter what changes we may contemplate in the future, it is important that we bear in mind the fundamental principle that tax relief is given to people so
  12
  that they can save for their retirement. We do not want to change the rules and find that a majority of people are actually worse off.
  Mr. Willetts: It is no good the Secretary of State hiding behind this tax relief. Let me quote from a letter from the former Economic Secretary, who wrote:
  "there is no tax revenue reason why pension schemes should have to buy annuities."
  The Secretary of State cannot hide behind the Treasury to explain the policy, any more than Treasury Ministers can hide behind the Department for Work and Pensions to do so. This policy is one on which the Government suffered their biggest defeat in the House since 1997. That suggests that the policy is wrong and that it is about time the Government promised to give a fair wind to the Bill that received its Second Reading only a fortnight ago—a Bill which would tackle, with no losers, a well-acknowledged grievance.
  Mr. Darling: To put the hon. Gentleman's latter point in its proper perspective, we are talking about a private Member's Bill and it is certainly true that many Conservative Members happened to find themselves in London at about 2.30 pm on that particular Friday. Such things happen; successive Governments have had that experience and we live with it, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.
  On the central point, the Bill's proposals would mean that a 65-year-old man would need a pension fund of about £72,000 to derive an income that would put him above the minimum income guarantee. I remind the House that the average amount used to buy an annuity is nothing like £72,000; it is actually £23,000. The result of the proposals in the Bill that the hon. Gentleman clearly supports would mean that although some people—a minority|—might find that they were better off, the majority might very well find that their annuity rates fell. That would not be desirable.
  The principles are clear. If people receive tax relief to save for their pension, we expect them to accumulate sufficient to live on in their retirement. We do not want people to avoid using that money for their retirement so that they can pass it on; nor do we want a situation to arise in which the majority of people would be worse off due to the changes that had been made. The consultation document will be put before the House and the general public in the not-too-distant future. No one should be in any doubt that the principle of annuitisation is important for the future of pension provision

  Departmental Accounts
  Mr. Richard Bacon: If he will make a statement on the extent of and reasons for the irregular expenditure by his Department which has caused the Department's current financial statements to receive a qualified opinion from the Comptroller and Auditor General [28145]
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Alistair Darling): The Department's accounts have been qualified since 1988 for two main reasons. The first is fraud and error. Despite the first-ever reductions in fraud and error, the levels remain unacceptably high.

  13
  The second problem is the poor state of the Department's information technology, which makes it impossible to track payments through the system. That problem is being addressed by a multi- million pound investment programme that will steadily replace the Department's out-of-date computer systems.
  Mr. Bacon: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his reply. Will he tell the House whether he has a target date for the publication of a set of accounts that are not qualified because of fraud? Does he understand how much hard work goes into earning the money paid in tax that his Department then loses? If he takes fraud extremely seriously, as he said in an earlier answer, will he explain why he has still not answered my written question of 8 January?
  Mr. Darling: In relation to the written question, I shall certainly make inquiries to see what has happened.
  On the more general point, I have said repeatedly this afternoon that the level of fraud and error in the system is unacceptably high, and has been so for many years. As I said, the accounts of the former Department of Social Security were qualified from 1988—indeed, according to the criteria used by the National Audit Office, they should have been qualified from 1948.
  The replacement of our IT systems, now under way, will enable us to track payments more accurately than we have done in the past. We have introduced other measures that have brought about a reduction in fraud and error of 18 per cent. in income support and the jobseeker's allowance. Those measures will be spread across the whole Department and we shall steadily bear down on fraud. But I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I fully expect the next set of accounts to be qualified, and they are likely to be qualified for some time to come, until that investment and those improvements are fully put in place.
  Mr. Peter Pike: My right hon. Friend has rightly said that none of us condones fraud. Does he think that there is full compatibility between computer systems in local authorities and various Departments using national insurance numbers to ensure that fraud is cut to an absolute minimum, by using those systems far more effectively than perhaps we have done in the past?
  Mr. Darling: I agree with my hon. Friend. The short answer is no, the information technology systems are not compatible at the moment, but that will improve year on year. That is particularly important with regard to housing benefit for local authorities, but we are replacing the Department's entire IT system. That should have happened at least 10 years ago; it is now well under way, and it will have a significant impact on our ability to control fraud and error in the system.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does the Secretary of State understand that no one will think his Department is acting properly so long as we receive letters from Ministers that include paragraphs and sentences such as this:
  "To take no account of DLA or SDP would have significant expenditure implications for the ILF, and the Terms of Reference of the quinquennial review required of the ILF's policies"?
  14
  How on earth is anyone supposed to understand anything that goes on in that Department?
  Mr. Darling: I hope that I did not sign that letter. If I did, I shall have another look at it. I do not understand it either, so I shall cause inquiries to be made.
  The hon. Gentleman raises a serious point, to which I attach some importance: in the past, too many letters from the former Department of Social Security, and I dare say other Departments, have not been written in a way that people would readily understand. We are making determined efforts to try to improve that, but just occasionally the odd letter slips through the net, and I hope that he will forgive us.

  Personal Advice (Job Centres)
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: What plans he has to increase the amount of personal advice available to unemployed people at job centres. [28146]
  The Minister for Work (Mr. Nicholas Brown): The Employment Service and those parts of the Benefits Agency that deal with people of working age are being brought together to form Jobcentre Plus. Some 56 Jobcentre Plus pathfinder offices have now opened, providing for the first time a fully integrated employment and benefit service. Reactions from individual customers and employers have been overwhelmingly positive. There will be a significant further roll-out of Jobcentre Plus across Great Britain from April this year.
  Mr. Hoyle: I welcome my right hon. Friend's answer, but what extra help and support can be given to those people with disabilities or to carers who wish to go to work? I wonder what we can do.
  Mr. Brown: There is a full range of services in the Jobcentre Plus network, and provided by the Department more generally, for those with disabilities and those who care for them. We find that carers tend to worry about their own prospects in the job market, as well as their responsibilities as carers. Very few of them are available for full-time work, but many are interested in part-time work. We also know from survey evidence that about million of those who currently receive incapacity benefit, and, in some cases, disability living allowance, would like to work if they had the opportunity to do so. The purpose of the new, new deal for the disabled, which is being piloted, is to try to help those who are disadvantaged in the labour market into the jobs that, with a bit of help and support, they can get.
  Dr. Vincent Cable: What advice would those in jobcentres give to people such as Mr. Stephen Cann—one of my constituents—and a group of other long-term unemployed people from south-west London, who, having been expensively trained by the Minister's Department for 18 months as driving instructors, suddenly found a few weeks before the test that his Department had arbitrarily abandoned the course? In view of the

  15
  information that I have given him, will he agree to investigate what seems to be a serious abuse of public money and a waste of people's lives?
  Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing the case to my attention. However, for the sake of completeness, I should point out that he did so at 1.15 pm today. I am willing to consider the individual case, but it is very much the exception and not the rule. I will do what I can to help his constituents, because it is not the Government's intention that people should be left unable to complete their course because of a withdrawal of the project that was facilitating it.
  David Cairns: My right hon. Friend will recall from his visit to the Jobcentre Plus in my constituency that it continues to provide an excellent service despite the fact that industrial action has gone on continuously since last September. Although I accept that there is undoubtedly a political element to the industrial action, does he agree that some of the people on strike have genuine and sincere fears for their safety as they administer the new system? Will he give an assurance and a guarantee that, as Jobcentre Plus is rolled out across the country, instances of misconduct and so on will be closely monitored and that the provisions, such as new security guards and closed circuit television, that have rightly been put in place to replace screens will ensure that those fears are ungrounded?
  Mr. Brown: I regret the strike very much. The people who are on strike are our employees and they help to deliver public services. I would very much prefer for us all to work together for a common purpose. That common purpose must be the modified, modernised and unified service that we are providing through Jobcentre Plus. It is the Government's intention to roll out the Jobcentre Plus model right across the country and to maintain the very high standards that we had in place for the pilot schemes. Moreover, early evidence from the Jobcentre Plus premises is that open planning, the ability to make appointments and the modern and proactive way of working are welcomed by clients and have reduced the number of incidents that take place on the premises.
  Although it is early days, Jobcentre Plus is turning out to be a stunning success for all those reasons. I urge those Members who have not yet visited a Jobcentre Plus premises to make such a visit so that they can see the differences and changes that we have made by investing public money and so that they understand what we are trying to do. It is not the old service with the screens down, as some allege, but a brand-new service and brand-new way of working in brand-new premises.
  Mr. Paul Goodman: Is the Minister aware that, in my constituency of Wycombe, there is evidence to suggest that personal advisers have only an hour a week in which to follow up the cases of individual clients? Does he think that that is good enough? If not, what does he propose to do about it?
  Mr. Brown: The Government are strongly committed to proactive working with jobseekers. If the hon. Gentleman sends me his evidence about the amount of time that caseworkers can spend on individual cases, I will be happy to consider it. However, I have no evidence
  16
  to suggest that not enough time is being allowed to deliver the service in the modern way that the Government have set out.
  Mr. Frank Field: I hope that the Government will be supported in these and similar policies. Does my right hon. Friend accept that, in a significant number of areas around the country, there simply are not enough jobs for the people who want to work?
  Mr. Brown: There are localised difficulties in some parts of the country, mainly in those constituencies, such as my right hon. Friend's and mine, that were over-reliant on single industries. Of course, we realise that those communities face special problems, but none of that detracts from the generality of the Government's approach, which is that the jobs are out there and that, by proactive work, we can get the people into them. About 6 million of our fellow citizens changed jobs last year and we know of a third of a million job vacancies in the United Kingdom economy today. The jobs are there; we need to help people into them.
  My right hon. Friend is right to point to the difficulties faced in industrial communities that were over-reliant on jobs that were mostly in heavy industry. However, citing local difficulties does not detract from the Government's general approach which has, after all, seen record numbers of people in employment.

  Relationships (Civil Registration) Bill
  Jane Griffiths: What assessment he has made of the impact the enactment of the Relationships (Civil Registration) Bill would have upon the work of his Department; and if he will make a statement.[28147]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): The Department is participating in work across Government to review the Bill's implications. This work has just started and therefore we are not yet in a position to reach a judgment.
  Jane Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. He will know that some 88 per cent. of pension schemes in the private sector make provision for unmarried partners. He will also know that in the House last year, hon. Members voted to provide that protection in our households, should we wish it. Does he agree that the continuing deliberations in his Department should take into account the fact that to seek to deny to public sector workers what we have awarded to ourselves is nothing short of bad faith?
  Malcolm Wicks: Occupational pension schemes need to make their own judgments and examine the cost implications of those. Our review has only just started. It is important that we think the matter through carefully in terms of trends and many other issues. As I said, we are not yet able to reach a judgment, but the review is ongoing.
  Andrew Selous: Given the new research from the Office for National Statistics, which shows that children of married couples are half as likely to see their parents separate as children of cohabiting couples, and given that the report on the costs of family breakdown for the Lords and Commons family

  17
  and child protection group conservatively estimates the costs of family breakdown—not least to the Minister's Department—to be about £15 billion a year, will the Minister be circumspect about the registration of civil relationships, not least because the country is unlikely to be able to afford it?
  Malcolm Wicks: Before entering the House, I spent 10 years at the Family Policy Studies Centre examining such issues. I understand that children from all sorts of family backgrounds are often the victims of the revolution that has affected family life in this country and many others. I do not think that the issues are directly relevant to the review that we are undertaking, on which we shall deliver a judgment when we can.

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Mark Francois: If he will make a statement on the number of people in employment in the United Kingdom. [28148]
  The Minister for Work (Mr. Nicholas Brown): The number of people in employment is 28.2 million—a new record level. There are 252,000 more people in work than a year ago, and 1.33 million more than in 1997. We are committed to employment opportunity for all, which is why we have introduced Jobcentre Plus, extended the new deals, increased the number of action teams for jobs and introduced the rapid response and StepUp initiatives.
  Mr. Francois: I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he explain why unemployment under both the claimant count measure and the International Labour Organisation's measure has been rising for more than three months? Why is it that unemployment is going up on this Government's watch, and what are they doing about it?
  Mr. Brown: It is always disappointing to hear of rises in unemployment, but the hon. Gentleman must put it in context. We have record levels of employment in the economy. Some 6 million people changed their jobs in the last year, reflecting the mobility in the labour market. For the hon. Gentleman to suggest that that is evidence of a growing national crisis is very mistaken.
  The Government have the right policies to bear down on unemployment by the proactive management of the labour market. There would be cause for concern if the jobs were not available. However, the Government know of a third of a million jobs that are available in the British economy, and we believe that the total number of available jobs in the economy that are reported to us is about a third of the total.
  Mr. David Miliband: I hope that my right hon. Friend remembers with fondness his trip to South Tyneside on 7 January. It included a visit to the action team for jobs that is helping to tackle unemployment and raise employment in a part of the country that has not yet benefited as much as it might have from the economic growth of which the Government
  18
  are justifiably proud. Has he had a chance to think about the plea from that action team to extend its service from just six wards to the whole borough?
  Mr. Brown: Yes I have, although I cannot make an announcement on that today. I was very impressed by the work that I saw being carried out by the action team in my hon. Friend's constituency. It deals with an employment base that I know well, as it is very similar to the constituency that I represent on the other side of the river. There are structural difficulties with the labour market and yet local people, making the best possible use of the Government's initiatives, are working hard to overcome them. I congratulate everyone involved.

  Private Pensions
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: What targets his Department has to increase private pension provision. [28151]
  The Minister for Pensions (Mr. Ian McCartney): As I said in November—it seems such a long time ago.[Laughter.] A civil servant with a sense of humour. As I said in November, we are committed to encouraging private saving to meet the long-term challenges of an ageing population, and we remain committed. That is why we are introducing the pension credit, making sure that it pays to save, and why we have introduced stakeholder pensions, which are a secure, value-for-money method of making private provision. We have launched the simplification review to reduce the layers of regulation which increase costs; we have replaced the minimum fund requirement; and we are implementing the recommendation of the Myners review. Our pension education campaign is driving home the message that saving now is the best way to guarantee security tomorrow.
  Mr. Blunt: I think that that means the Minister accepts that the success of private pension provision is an essential national economic interest, not only for the future wealth of pensioners but because it has to date given the United Kingdom vastly more resources to invest in the UK and around the world than are available to equivalent countries in the European Union. All that is threatened by the triple whammy of increased regulation, the taxation of pensions and the fall in annuity rates. Does the Minister accept that if policy does not change, we will be on our way to a long-term calamity of missed opportunity in this area?
  Mr. McCartney: As far back as the 1960s, generations of colleagues on this side of the House have been in favour of a robust private sector. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the last Conservative Administration, rather than bolstering savings for pensions, got involved in the mis-selling of tens of thousands of pounds worth of policies. It has taken this Government to replace that resource because of what the Conservatives did and the shambles that they left behind.

  19
  As I said in my earlier reply, we are sympathetic on regulation, which is why we have set up the Pickering review. We are sympathetic about changes in the market, which is why the Sandler review has been set up. Not only are we sympathetic but we want to work with the industry, which is why both reviews are very open to the industry and the organisations that represent current and future pensioners. At last we have a Government who have a long-term vision for pensions, both in the public and the private sector.
  Paul Holmes: What measures will the Government take to deal with the abuse of final salary pension schemes? In the past eight months, workers at two companies in my constituency have discovered that their final salary schemes have become almost worthless. Last week, in an Adjournment debate, we heard about the problems that have arisen throughout the country concerning United Engineering Forgings, which has gone through exactly the same process, along with five or six other companies including Chesterfield Cylinders in my constituency. No laws were broken; it was effectively legalised robbery of private final salary pension schemes into which my constituents had paid, in some cases for up to 35 years, only to find that most of their money had gone when it came to the pension scheme paying out. That has also happened to other firms—
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. McCartney: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman puts in for an Adjournment debate, so that we can openly debate the specific circumstances. If he wants to raise issues concerning a particular company, he is welcome to write to me. We take strong action on these matters, which is why we have OPAS, the Office of the Pensions Advisory Service, and OPRA, the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority, and we have set up a quinquennial review on pensions. We are committed to ensuring that we assist pensioners by trying to rub out fraud wherever it takes place.

  Benefit Fraud
  Angela Watkinson: What progress has been made in reducing benefit fraud since June 2001. [28152]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear earlier, we have already delivered an 18 per cent. reduction in the level of fraud and error in the payment of income support and the jobseeker's allowance—that is against a target of 10 per cent—and we expect that good progress to continue. From April, we will begin to implement new powers in the Social Security Fraud Act 2001 which will further strengthen our fight against fraud.
  Angela Watkinson: The level of benefit take-up in my constituency is remarkably low compared with the level of need, which is due in part to the complexity of the application process and to the complexity of individuals' own circumstances. Does the Minister recognise the strong link between the reduction in benefit fraud and the release not only of additional funds for genuine claimants but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) pointed out earlier, of additional time to enable social security staff to deal with the very complex needs of genuine claimants?
  Malcolm Wicks: The purpose of Jobcentre Plus is to do precisely that. We need to ensure that everyone behaves responsibly by claiming only the benefit to which they are entitled and no more, and that everyone is clear about the fact that they have the right to claim their entitlement. That is our aim throughout our entire modernisation programme. However, let there be no mistake—fraud is a major problem. We are not complacent, but the targets have been exceeded and we are beginning to win the war against the fraudster. The whole House must join in that endeavour, so that the money raised by taxpayers can be spent on the priorities, not on the fraudster.

Reconstruction of Afghanistan
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): I would like, Mr. Speaker, to report to the House on the Afghanistan reconstruction conference which was held in Tokyo last week. The conference marked the turning of the focus and attention of the international community on to the reconstruction of Afghanistan. I believe that we now have an important opportunity to provide the people of Afghanistan with the real chance of a better future.
The conference lasted from 21 to 22 January and was attended by Ministers and representatives from 61 countries and 21 international organisations. It was co-chaired by Japan, the United States, the European Union and Saudi Arabia. Chairman Hamid Karzai led a strong delegation from the Afghan Interim Administration, I led the United Kingdom delegation, and there were delegations from the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Asian Development Bank, the Islamic Development Bank and United Nations agencies. Kofi Annan also attended and addressed the conference. In the margins of the conference, experts met to discuss military demobilisation, military and police training, de-mining and narcotics.
Chairman Karzai, who performed impressively throughout the conference, outlined current and future priorities for the reconstruction of Afghanistan. A 21-member commission is to be set up through the offices of the UN to oversee the emergency Loya Jirgah process, which will lead to the establishment of a full transitional Government in five months' time.
The Interim Administration's priorities for the next few months—on seeing the list, one understands the task to which we must rise—will be to expand emergency assistance programmes; to establish an effective Government administration; to provide peace and establish the rule of law; to ensure that as many children as possible, especially girls, are in school when the new school year begins on 1 March; to begin to reconstruct the country's shattered infrastructure, in particular, roads, electricity and telecommunications; to rebuild an agricultural system and eliminate poppy cultivation; and to accelerate mine-clearing.
The conference was clear in its conclusion that women's rights and women's empowerment should be fully honoured and mainstreamed throughout all programmes during the reconstruction process. Chairman Karzai stressed the Interim Administration's commitment to responsible economic management, transparency, efficiency and accountability. He also made it clear—and we strongly agree with him—that Afghan ownership of the process of reconstruction will be vital to its success and to the full implementation of the Bonn agreement.
We have the best opportunity in a generation to bring about development and lasting stability in Afghanistan. We must build on the lessons learned from previous efforts to reconstruct failed states such as Cambodia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone and East Timor. That experience makes it clear that the United Nations must play a pivotal role, and that we must continue to strengthen the capacity and effectiveness of the UN system to undertake the task.
The conference recognised and greatly appreciated the role that the special representative of the Secretary-General, Mr. Lakhdar Brahimi, has played and his
22
continuing role in promoting peace and stability in Afghanistan. We will need to continue to support his efforts and those of the United National Development Programme, which has been appointed to co-ordinate the early recovery efforts on behalf of the UN system.
It will be crucial to maintain and enhance the existing humanitarian effort while putting in place arrangements for long-term reconstruction. UNICEF will lead the effort to reopen schools. The World Health Organisation and UNICEF will work with the Red Cross to improve health care, and the UN mine action service will lead and co-ordinate the de-mining effort. The World Food Programme will continue to supply food for 6 million people; it will also develop food-for-work schemes across the country so that local communities can begin to rebuild, plus feeding schemes in schools that are focused especially on encouraging girls' attendance.
We must also make urgent efforts to strengthen the Interim Authority and build their capacity to lead the reconstruction effort. To take that process forward, a common trust fund will be established and we will work to encourage co-ordinated support for the Interim Authority's strategy, rather than a proliferation of donor projects provided directly by different countries, which might undermine the Interim Authority.
The preliminary needs assessment undertaken by the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and the UNDP to prepare for the conference concluded that Afghanistan's funding requirements would amount to just over $10 billion over the next five years. At the conference, $4.5 billion from 36 countries was pledged, including $1.8 billion for 2002, which was more than was requested for that year. I announced a commitment from the UK—funded from the Department for International Development—of £200 million over the next five years. In addition, my Department will make substantial contributions through the EC, the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. This commitment is additional to the £60 million that we have allocated in the current financial year for humanitarian and recovery assistance.
Since my last statement to the House, much has been achieved in Afghanistan. The conference in Tokyo was an excellent example of how the international community can achieve results when it works collectively. However, there is still a great deal to do. The humanitarian situation in Afghanistan remains fragile and it is not yet clear whether there will be a fourth year of drought, but there is a real danger that there will be. We should strongly congratulate the UN system and particularly the World Food Programme on having averted a major humanitarian catastrophe in Afghanistan, and we must be clear that these efforts will have to continue for some time while arrangements for long-term reconstruction are put in place.
The most urgent issue that now needs to be addressed is the need to provide security across Afghanistan, and begin the process of demobilisation and disarmament and the building and training of an Afghan army and police force. As a first step, the UK has offered to work with the Afghan Interim Administration on a scoping study. The greatest danger to the future of Afghanistan is the risk of mounting disorder, criminality and faction fighting, which will create an obstacle to the reconstruction effort throughout the country.

23
With the Taliban removed, the Interim Administration in place and the widespread commitment by the international community to the future of Afghanistan made clear in Tokyo, there is real hope now for a better life for the people, and especially for the children of Afghanistan. We must not fail to grasp this opportunity.
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I welcome the statement and thank the Secretary of State for letting me have a copy of it in advance.
The £200 million announced in Tokyo to fund reconstruction in Afghanistan is extremely welcome. Many were quick to suggest that the west would bomb Afghanistan and then abandon it again. It is encouraging to see that that is not the case.
I share the right hon. Lady's belief that the people of Afghanistan now have a chance of a better future. We should pay tribute to all those who are engaged in liberating Afghanistan from the Taliban and al-Qaeda. I wish them success in completing that task.
When I was in Pakistan, local Afghan aid workers impressed on me the need to work with and through the new Administration. Does the Secretary of State accept that with the difficulties facing Afghanistan, reconstruction will fail unless the basic infrastructure of the new Government is in place? Given her high praise for Hamid Karzai, which I am sure is entirely justified, does she accept that reconstruction is something that is done with a country and not to a country?
Our key concern is that Afghanistan should see the pledges of reconstruction money turned into reality simply and effectively. Is the right hon. Lady satisfied that the reforms to EU development assistance are sufficiently well advanced to make that a good vehicle for a significant proportion of our aid giving?
We welcome the shift in emphasis in EU development assistance towards poor countries like Afghanistan. Learning the lessons from Kosovo, what assurances has the right hon. Lady received that this assistance will take on board the regional context? Many of the surrounding countries are poor and fragile. For example, only today, the entire regional government of Kurdistan resigned. Does she agree that intervening unilaterally in one country could destabilise others in the same area? The quality of co-ordination of the aid efforts will be key to the success of reconstruction. Can the Secretary of State reassure the House that DFID's staff deployment will be sufficiently senior to ensure prompt and effective decision making?
The Secretary of State will be aware that more than 4 million Afghan refugees are in Iran and Pakistan. Remarkably, since 1998, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has repatriated 4.6 million Afghan refugees. Could the Secretary of State confirm whether there is provision in the reconstruction package for the repatriation of refugees? Looking at the long-term rehabilitation of Afghanistan, the international community will need to consider debt relief. Even before 11 September, Afghanistan had substantial overhanging debt. Can she give assurances that she will look imaginatively at ways of helping the new Afghan Government to deal with debt relief? In that regard, I welcome the news that a trust fund is to be established.
24
The Secretary of State twice mentioned the need to stamp out opium production. Does she accept that getting proper irrigation systems in place should be prioritised so that alternative crops can be grown? As I am sure she is aware, I am determined to help land mine victims in Afghanistan. I welcome the news of the involvement of the UN mine action service in what she described as accelerated land mine clearance. However, I draw her attention to the problems of land mines in the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan; there is a real fear that as Afghan refugees return through those tribal areas, more may become land mine victims.
We welcome the commitment to women in the reconstruction process. What assistance could be given to Afghan women refugees in this country to encourage them to return and play an active part in restoring their country's fortunes? Finally, I welcome once again the Government's statement and the results of the Tokyo conference. If we can reconstruct Afghanistan properly, that will be another victory for the war on terrorism
Clare Short: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and agree with her. If she remembers, at the beginning of the crisis, there were some elements or loud voices in the United States, but not in the Administration, who said that nation building was none of our business. Anyone who took that position is now seeing the error of their ways. Terrorist groups, criminals, drug dealers and disorderly forces who want to be destructive and spread hate and violence in the world are nurtured by, and hide themselves in, failed states.
We always need the capacity to prevent such action and to build efficient modern states that are part of the international community so that it is not vulnerable to terrorist organisations such as those responsible for 11 September. In the case of Afghanistan, everyone should be haunted by the great error that was made after the Soviet withdrawal, when everyone left and armed groups took over the country; there was no order, leading to the rise of the Taliban and everything that has flowed from that. We owe it to ourselves and the people of Afghanistan not to make that error again.
The hon. Lady asked whether the reforms for which we have been working hard since 1997 in the European Union's development efforts are sufficiently advanced to trust that they will make a contribution in Afghanistan. A serious reform effort is in place, but it needs to be fully implemented. However, we were committed to a much bigger proportion of our funding going through the European Commission by the previous Administration. We therefore worked hard to get the Commission to commit to considerable spending in Afghanistan, as a proportion of our money had to go through it anyway and could well have been spent on less needy countries. The Commission is not the most efficient operator, but at least we should direct the money to the right sources. We should try to collaborate with the Commission to make sure that the money that has to be funnelled through it is spent well in Afghanistan; that is the task in which we will be engaged.
I agree with the hon. Lady very much that Kurdistan, Uzbekistan, Turkistan—all the "Stans"—are in enormously bad shape. Some of them are poor, highly indebted and full of instability. Just as we have got a chance in Afghanistan and Pakistan, we need to work with the "Stans" to try to lift that world region, overcome the

25
problems of terrorism and conflict and give all the people a better chance. My Department is looking to make a bigger effort in co-ordination throughout the "Stans" in the hope that that part of the world will have a better future.
I promise the hon. Lady that my staff will be deployed at the right levels. I have said it before, but it really is true: they are respected and honoured throughout the international system and I am sure that they will make a leading contribution in Afghanistan. We shall try not just to introduce a UK programme, which we would do well, but get behind the Interim Authority and build up their capacity and work with the World Bank and the UN to get the co-ordination effort going properly, which is a more difficult but important task that must be carried out.
On refugees, the UN humanitarian agencies made a separate appeal for short-term help. We will have to assist refugees to return home, but they should not be forced. The big job is to build up the country. Living in refugee camps in Pakistan is a miserable life and I am sure that people will want to go home, but they must be supported until they are ready and then be helped with getting home and reconstructing their houses and agricultural lands.
I do not believe that Afghanistan has a large debt problem, but I shall look at that again. It has been so cut off from the international community for so long that it has not racked up lots of debts and the subject has not been mentioned by any international agency in preparing for reconstruction, but I shall consider the question and write to the hon. Lady.
Fields have already been planted with opium this year and we need to move quickly to ensure that the crop is not brought to market to carry on the corruption that drug dealing leads to. I agree with the hon. Lady that we need to restore irrigation. Lots of irrigation systems were destroyed during the bombing in the war against Soviet occupation, but destroying the irrigation alone is not enough, because that could lead to better poppy cultivation.
We must offer people alternative crops and a better legitimate life so that they do not want to be part of an illicit and corrupt drug-dealing life. These are very poor people who do not use drugs, which became the only alternative crop for them to keep their families alive. We must make them a better legitimate offer that they want to be part of.
Afghanistan was littered with land mines before the recent crisis and a high-quality UN operation was already working there. Now the conflict is over, it has a real chance to work throughout the country to clear up all the land mines. The operation assesses where the mines are and has programmes to warn refugees—a massive effort will be made. There is a genuine chance to clear the country of mines, if we can prevent it from returning to conflict.
The hon. Lady's last point was about helping skilled women refugees in this country to return to their country. The International Organisation for Migration has set up a register of all Afghans—most educated Afghans have left the country and are refugees across the world—to record
26
their skills and talents and to link them with the needs of the new Administration so that people can be helped to return home permanently or temporarily to assist with rebuilding their country.
David Winnick: My right hon. Friend's statement will be welcomed on both sides of the House. She mentioned the rule of law. Will the barbaric practices of cutting off hands and stoning people to death for alleged sexual reasons finally be ended? Would it not be a good thing for those practices to go for good in a liberated Afghanistan?
Clare Short: Yes indeed. The whole country has been liberated and it is absolutely clear that people from all parts of Afghanistan are overjoyed that the Taliban no longer rule. Some of the most barbaric practices that came in with the Taliban are already disappearing, and they were never supported by the people of Afghanistan. I completely support my hon. Friend's point.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I thank the Secretary of State for letting us have sight of the statement in time for us to be able to comment on it and I welcome greatly her awareness of the needs of the "Stans"—I also refer to those countries as such. The whole of that area of central Asia is suffering the same drought from which Afghanistan has suffered. I welcome her statement that they will get help too and that the drought has been taken into account, but, mindful of the appalling health statistics and, in particular, maternal and child mortality rates in Afghanistan, what proportion of aid will go on health care?
Lastly, it is outrageous that the money for reconstructing Afghanistan is coming from the Department's budget, not the Treasury contingency reserve. Is the right hon. Lady not angry that, once again, her Department alone has to pay for damage inflicted on behalf of the international community?
Clare Short: I very much agree with the hon. Lady's first point. This new situation is a real opportunity for the whole area: Pakistan, Iran and all the "Stans". There is oil and gas in that part of the world, but they have not been able to get it out because pipelines could not be built as there has been so much disorder. There is now a real chance that all those countries can be helped to build up their economies. The problems in Afghanistan were spreading and corrupting the state, which led to growing drug use in all the neighbouring countries. The whole region has suffered from desperate poverty, so the reconstruction programme represents an important opportunity for it.
I cannot at the moment tell the hon. Lady how much will be spent on health care. The World Health Organisation, UNICEF and the Red Cross are already moving rapidly to expand immediate health care and immunisation. The Red Cross has been helping land mine victims for some time. There will be an immediate effort to improve health care while the Health Ministry and the country's long-term, sustainable health care system are being built up. As the work goes on, I shall be able to give the hon. Lady the figures that she has requested.
I need to explain how my Department's budget works. We have a contingency reserve within the Department that we deploy as emergencies arise in the world. Of the

27
£60 million that we have found since 11 September, £10 million or £20 million was contributed by the Treasury, but the rest came from my Department. The sums that we are now deploying come from my Department. That is right, provided that we have enough in our contingency reserve. If there were crises all over the world we would need additional funding. Let us hope that there are not.
Joan Ruddock: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her considerable achievements in Japan, and on her positive and continuing support for women's rights. Does she share my concern that the Minister for Women in Afghanistan is working out of her front room with one cell phone and one personal computer, and has no staff and no resources? Can my right hon. Friend tell us when Sima Samar will get the resources to build up that critical Ministry within the Interim Administration.
Clare Short: Yes. I had a meeting with Jim Wolfensohn while I was in Tokyo. The UK and other countries agreed that we will immediately resource the Ministry for Women's Affairs in Afghanistan, and the preparations for that are going on as we speak.
Tony Baldry: The results of the Tokyo conference are very welcome, as is the United Kingdom's contribution. Is the Secretary of State aware that when the Select Committee on International Development was in Brussels last week, European Union Commissioners made it clear to us that for the EU's contribution to Afghanistan it had to raid every cupboard, and the larder is now bare? Afghanistan is not the only failing state. Does not that show the need to ensure that the EU development budget is as poverty-focused as the UK budget? It seems daft that we give money through the EU to countries such as the Czech Republic and to support the Moroccan fisheries agreement when many countries in Africa are, in their different ways, in as dire need as Afghanistan.
Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Under the Cotonou agreement the European Development Fund is poverty-focused, because it is for Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific regions. People who speak for the Commission always say that that is its poverty focus, but the other half of its development budget is focused on Europe's middle-income countries, which is money not well spent. There is an underspend on Asia, which is why the Commission has had so much difficulty making money available for Afghanistan. The balance of the spend is going even further away from poverty. We are making a major effort to reform that process, and I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support. We must seek support across the European Union. The transfer of resources to middle-income countries does not help reform. They should look after their own poor, and they need help to restructure so that they can do that, but the resource stream should go to poor countries that need investment to improve their performance.
Ann Clwyd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a much larger international security force needs to be deployed throughout Afghanistan? It is not sufficient
28
to have that force in Kabul alone. It should be deployed throughout the country, so it must be increased. As my right hon. Friend knows only too well, aid is still not reaching parts of Afghanistan, because of the difficulties of security. Every night, children die in camps because of inadequate aid.
Clare Short: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I have said, insecurity, criminality and fighting between factions pose the greatest threat to our ability to deploy resources well, start rebuilding the country and give people hope for a better future.
Throughout the crisis, when the press pretended to know all there was to know about Afghanistan and people tended to repeat what the press said, it was widely suggested that it would be entirely unacceptable to deploy an international force in Afghanistan. In fact, the deployment has been welcomed massively in Kabul: people desperately want the security that an international force will bring.
The suggestion that there should be an international force in all major cities is not an easy proposition, but the Interim Authority have called for that. We should respect the proposition, examine it, and see whether the international community can respond to it. At the same time, however, we must get on with the job of demobilising all the armed factions and building an Afghan army. We want those people to hand over their weapons in the hope of becoming part of an army, or a proper police force, and indeed taking other jobs.
That is the real hope for the future. We need to consider how the international force can be enhanced, and how, as rapidly as possible, we can demobilise the factions and create legitimate security forces led by Afghans.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Does the right hon. Lady agree that, although it is obviously vital in the short term that Afghanistan's rather antiquated irrigation system should be repaired—notwithstanding the fact that it is one of the chief causes of rivalry between the tribes—what Afghanistan needs in the longer term is a much greater supply of water and power? It so happens that its geographical configuration—the positioning of its rivers, valleys and mountains—is ideal for the building of power dams like the Kariba and Aswan dams. Will the right hon. Lady point out to our American allies that when President Roosevelt launched the new deal he put the Tennessee valley dam system at the forefront of it, and that by spending a good deal less than they have spent on bombing Afghanistan, the Americans could give it a proper dam system?
Clare Short: I agree that Afghanistan needs a new deal. These are hard-working, enterprising people who have managed to cope in the most difficult circumstances. It was Afghan lorry drivers who kept food moving throughout the crisis and Afghan workers who continued the emergency humanitarian effort when all the international staff were withdrawn.
I agree that our efforts should be focused on empowering Afghans to run their own country, and giving them proper irrigation and power systems. I do not know

29
enough about the geography to know whether dams are appropriate, so I cannot comment on the soundbite, but I concur with the broad sentiment.
Donald Anderson: The human infrastructure is vital. Can my right hon. Friend tell us a little more about the register of refugees?
Because of the disorder, instability and insecurity of the past 20 years, many professionals have fled Afghanistan—who can blame them?—and found more comfortable lives outside their country. What incentives can be given to such people, including those in the United Kingdom, to return to Afghanistan—if only for brief periods—and give of their talents?
Clare Short: This is a feature of failed states. Most educated Sierra Leoneans are not in Sierra Leone; many are in Britain, making important contributions. Because of Guyana's history from the 1950s on, many highly educated and indeed political Guyanese are in the UK rather than Guyana. They are welcome, and they make an important contribution in our country; but the presence here of an educated group who are the first people needed to restore a country are not in that country when reconstruction begins.
Afghans working in the World Bank have gone back, and are starting to help support the reconstruction effort. Afghans all over the world are being asked to register their skills on the register from the International Organisation for Migration. The aim is to provide a gateway to deliver information about all the projects and recruitment taking place in Afghanistan.
We will do our best to facilitate the recruitment of Afghans. Many who have been away for a long time and have children at school will find it impossible to uproot themselves and go home, but many will want to engage for a time in the reconstruction of their country, and the necessary arrangements are in place.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I welcome the content of the right hon. Lady's statement and the great progress that seems to be being achieved. I have two brief questions. It is obvious that Afghanistan cannot wait to have an Administration who develop the capacity and competencies necessary to build the infrastructure that can reach down to local level. What steps are being taken to ensure that the aid moneys will reach community levels as well as the Interim Administration? Can she say anything about the role that Afghan civil groups, the ordinary people of Afghanistan, including women, will have in the way those moneys will be spent?
Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is important for the authority of the Interim Administration and the success of the Bonn process—going from a transitional Government to elections, including all the people of Afghanistan and all the ethnicities so that there is a stable long-term future—that the Interim Administration deliver across the country to all localities. We are very aware of that but all the administrative structures have been broken. What is needed is easy to conceptualise but not so easy to achieve.
It will be possible—the United Nations system is lined up for this—to go into a humanitarian-plus phase. The World Food Programme, for example, will say to every
30
community, "What do you want to rebuild?" It will look for groups, particularly women-led groups because they tend to be the most practical in local communities, and ask, "Is it the school or road you want to rebuild?" Then food for work could be introduced. People could start rebuilding across the country. Similarly, schools could be opened across the country, with food provided for children who go to school; that tends to incentivise girls to go to school.
Already there is an effort to pay civil servants across the country. The Interim Administration are paying, but I was insistent in Tokyo that we ensure that those civil servants are doing something real. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are aware of the point that he makes and determined to deliver to the localities so that money is properly spent.
Mr. George Howarth: I welcome the positive and constructive role that my right hon. Friend and her Department are playing in reconstructing Afghanistan. I welcome too the fact that one of the objectives that came out of last week's conference in Tokyo was the elimination of poppy cultivation. Has she seen recent press reports that there has been a step increase in the planting of poppy fields in Afghanistan while attention is elsewhere, and apparently open trading of heroin in Kabul market? Will she impress on the Interim Administration the fact that that is wholly unacceptable?
Clare Short: I have already said that more poppy has been planted. If the House pauses and thinks for a minute, that is inevitable. These are people with nothing: no seed, no tools. They have been growing poppy to survive; they have not been using it. Without some external intervention, they have nothing else to plant and no other way to make a living.
There is no doubt about the commitment of the Interim Administration. They made that clear in Tokyo but they need the capacity. They have banned the cultivation of poppy but need the capacity to intervene. That crop needs to be rooted out. Local people must be offered an alternative. Have we not learned from Latin America that we cannot just destroy a crop and offer onions, or whatever it may be? We must offer people a legitimate life that will be better than the illegitimate life: the chance for their children to go to school, the chance to begin to get public services.
I agree with my hon. Friend that this matter is urgent. We are focused on the urgency but we must help the Interim Administration to do something about it, not just shout at them. They are determined to stop it, but capacity is their problem.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: I too warmly welcome the Secretary of State's statement. Are there any early lessons to be learned yet from the delivery of aid, which seems to have been very varied across Afghanistan? For example, Herat seems to be the success story. Is that because the local governor is Ismail Khan? Is it because Iran is rather more logistically effective at getting aid through than what she called the various "Stans", which are less developed?
Clare Short: I follow these matters closely, but it is not my understanding that things are particularly better in

31
Herat, which we know was a fine, ancient and civilised city that has now been destroyed. Communities everywhere are restoring themselves, but I am not aware that things are better in Herat. My own view is that no one can praise the UN system enough for the way in which it has coped through the crisis. Just think; some 6 million people daily are absolutely dependent on the food trucked in by the World Food Programme as the crisis, the fighting and the bombing have been going on. The system has held up and the food has been getting in. Afghan drivers have been taking food in and reporting on where it is safe to go and on whether the warehouses are working. When warehouses were looted, the World Food Programme took the food directly to local communities to distribute.
The system has held up; that is a phenomenal achievement, but we must all keep that going as we build the long-term reconstruction. In some areas there is still conflict, and there has been criminality, with food supplies being stolen. In some remote communities, there are some very hungry children. I am not saying that everything is perfect, but the catastrophe that, without the conflict, might well have occurred has been avoided. The UN is to be praised, but there is an awful lot to do to make sure that we build on what has been done.
Glenda Jackson: May I add my congratulations to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) on the remarkable part played by my right hon. Friend and her officials at the conference in Japan? I thank her for her warm commitment to women's rights and to ensuring that the women's Ministry has rather more facilities than clearly it has at the moment. Although, as she has made clear, a great number of Afghan experts have had to flee the country, will she confirm that there are still people in Afghanistan who can make a contribution, most particularly in health care and education? Is it part of the UN's programmes in these areas as far as possible to incorporate that home-grown ability, particularly in employing women in these areas?
Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It was not just me in Tokyo who was committed to women's rights, as one might have expected. That commitment was felt very strongly across the board at the conference by all sorts of Governments and by the Interim Administration. That does not mean that the work will be done without more pushing, but the commitment was very strong, which is a good thing.
Afghans have kept the whole humanitarian effort going in the most difficult situation. After 11 September, when all the international staff were withdrawn and the Taliban said that even using the telephone to keep in touch with the humanitarian agencies could result in a life sentence, Afghans kept things going. It would be intolerable—we have seen this in other states—for all the international staff to come in, with their Land Rovers, their UN equipment, their housing and their high salaries, while the locals are marginalised. We have seen that before, time and again. We must avoid that in Afghanistan and we
32
must build on the local staff, who have performed heroically. They will reconstruct their country, and they must not be marginalised.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that those of us who have consistently supported intervention—whether in Kosovo, Sierra Leone or, more recently, in Afghanistan—are always confronted by a particular argument, which is that when the fighting is over, our forces will be turned into permanent policemen? In view of her answer earlier to her hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), about the need to have more forces in all parts of Afghanistan to maintain security, what contact is she having with her counterparts in other European countries to see if they can help in that policing, given that most of them contribute a lot less to the fighting than the United Kingdom has had to?
Clare Short: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it has been honourable and essential for us to intervene in Kosovo, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan. There are other failed states in the world that are causing enormous suffering to their peoples and endangering the future security of the world. They include the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Angola, Sudan and, although it is much smaller, Somalia. It is part of our task in the 21st century to have the capacity to bring these conflicts to an end and to build effective modern states that will deliver order to their people and co-operation with the international community. We must, therefore, be able to engage and disengage with them, and to show that this is a sensible process.
In Sierra Leone, our forces are fewer in number but they have been engaged in building a new Sierra Leone army that is disciplined and properly responsible to the political authority there. The training team has now become an international training team. Something very similar has to happen in Afghanistan. The United Kingdom will hand over the lead of the international force to another country—Turkey is being talked about, and Germany might also take over the lead in the future. The question of whether countries will be willing to commit more forces so that the international force can maintain a presence in all the major cities has not been resolved, and will be an urgent matter for international discussion.
As in Sierra Leone, we must start the training of the Afghan army and the Afghan police force. The Germans are taking the lead on police retraining; we have taken the lead on a scoping study. The way out—the exit strategy—is to build the Afghan army and police force, and we must get on with that immediately.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: I welcome what my right hon. Friend had to say about the register of skills, and about other steps that are being taken to help refugees to return. People should not, however, be forced to return, given that the situation in Afghanistan is still fragile and that there is not yet security across the whole country. Will my right hon. Friend take the time to draw that to the attention of her colleagues in the Home Office, who seem to be considering returning asylum seekers to Afghanistan?
Clare Short: I would be happy to ask my officials to draw my remarks to the attention of the Home Office.

33
We are talking about a lot of different people in this context. The most needy are probably the millions of poor people living in very poor conditions in camps in Iran and Pakistan, who will want to go home if things get better and who will need help to do so. They should not, however, be forced to go home before the appropriate conditions are in place to receive them. Other Afghan people are spread across the world. There are a number of them in my constituency, some of whom have been given full refugee status—as my hon. Friend knows, that means that they will make their own choices—and some of whom are still asylum seekers. We shall all have to make sure that their interests are properly protected.
Mr. David Tredinnick: The right hon. Lady has given an impressive account of co-operation and conciliation in Afghanistan. What lessons learned there can now be applied to the middle east peace process? Does she agree that the failure of that process threatens not only the peace process in Afghanistan but the stability of the Arab nations in the area? She spoke about the pivotal role of the United Nations; does she recall that there are United Nations resolutions relating to Israel and Palestine that have not been implemented? Should there not now be just as strong a focus on Israel and Palestine as on Afghanistan?
Clare Short: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Prime Minister made that clear during some of his early travels, trying to consolidate the coalition so that the world would hold together to deal with the al-Qaeda problem in Afghanistan. The problem in the middle east is the cause of a great deal of suffering and death. The road that it is on, with both sides inflicting and suffering terrible injury, represents a tragedy that only deepens the bitterness and that must, in the end, be turned around. Both sides must find peace for all those people to have a future. It is a desperate situation, and we all need to work together to make things better.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is the biggest cause of anger and bitterness in the Arab and Muslim world. We must all commit ourselves to redoubling our efforts to turn the tragedy around and to give young Palestinians and Israelis the chance of a peaceful, better future.
Mr. Piara S. Khabra: Will the Secretary of State tell the House how many women have been nominated to the Administration that has been set up in Afghanistan? Will she also tell us what will be the role of women in the Loya Jirgah, which is a very traditional institution that is 100 per cent. male dominated? The Loya Jirgah will play an important role in the setting up of a democratic Government in Afghanistan.
Clare Short: I cannot remember the exact number of women Ministers in the Interim Administration.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): Two.
Clare Short: I met one of them, the Health Minister, in Tokyo. She is a surgeon, a professor and a general. She is quite a powerful woman; I saluted her, literally. I do not think that anyone would take her lightly.
34
As I understand it, Ambassador Brahimi is about to make an announcement about the make-up of the commission that will prepare the Loya Jirgah. Each of those bodies is widening the ethnic representation and making it more proportional, to get some legitimacy into the new institutions. The announcement has not been made yet, but it is imminent; I know that there will be some women on the commission, but I cannot give my hon. Friend a number today. I very much agree with him that the next step will be to make sure that women are properly represented in the Loya Jirgah—the big informal consultation across the country that will agree on the transitional Government. My hon. Friend makes his point well, and it is important; there has been some progress, but we need more.
Norman Lamb: I welcome the emphasis that the Secretary of State put on the need to eliminate poppy production. Can she give more details of how it can be eliminated in practice, and of how we can create a mechanism to incentivise farmers to go into food production, and also create a market so that they can get a price for the food that they produce? How concerned is she that there may be Northern Alliance leaders who are still involved in the drugs trade? Could that not undermine the effort to eliminate poppy production in Afghanistan?
Clare Short: I do not know any particulars about those who have made lots of money out of the drugs trade, but I am certain that they are still out there, and that they would wish to continue their activities. Of course, well governed states are the enemy of drug dealers who want to make vast sums of money, because to do that they need disorder and corruption. I am sure that those people are out there, and we must ensure that the space that they have to operate in is destroyed.
I want to be completely honest in answering the hon. Gentleman's question: there is not a firm strategy in place to deal with the poppy crop that has recently been planted and is still in the ground in Afghanistan. I promise him that we will engage both the Foreign Office and my Department in trying to ensure that such a strategy is in place.
There have been proposals to buy up the crop as soon as it is harvested, but that tends to be a disastrous strategy, because if we buy up a crop in a very poor country, what will the people with neighbouring fields think about growing next season? There is an urgent need to root out the crop so that it is not harvested—but then we have to offer people the chance of a better future.
The lesson of the anti-poppy work throughout the world is that bombing and destroying crops and then offering people seeds for another crop, but not a better, legitimate life, is not enough. We need to offer people the package. People do not want to grow drugs and be marginalised, and come under attack from their own army and police force, either in Latin America or in Afghanistan. If people can have legitimate crops and get themselves an income, put their children in school, and have health care and a vote in the governance of their country, they will all choose that—and we must put in place a package that makes them want to choose that. The need is extremely urgent, but that package is not in place yet.
Mr. Stephen McCabe: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's contribution, and

35
her statement today. In the context of the prospects for peace and reconstruction work, how concerned is she about the weekend news reports that intelligence agents and military officials from Iran are operating, especially in the Herat area, with a view to undermining Chairman Karzai and the prospects for central Government authority?
Clare Short: I met the Iranian Foreign Minister in Tokyo. The situation in Afghanistan has caused enormous destabilisation in Iran, with very large numbers of refugees and a drugs problem that has spread to Iranian young people, because of all that traffic. The Iranian Government are therefore very supportive of the Bonn agreement, and anxious that the process should be successful. They have made a big pledge of financial commitment to the reconstruction effort, and are highly engaged.
There are strong relationships between Herat and Iran. The people are related ethnically, by language and by the tradition within Islam, so that is natural. There have been suggestions that there may have been some unhelpful activity, but that is denied. I believe that the Iranian Government want to make a success of the process, and we need to work with them to ensure that it is a success.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: May I join in the almost universal and, in my case, heartfelt and genuine welcome for the Secretary of State's commitment to the reconstruction of Afghanistan? What mention was made of democracy in Tokyo? We hear about the Loya Jirgah and the commission. Does she believe that there is an appetite among the people who will make up the Loya Jirgah for proper, democratic and legitimate representation? Of course it is difficult, but there is no reason why the ordinary person in the street, however ill educated, male or female, should not be allowed to express their views on how they are governed.
Clare Short: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is the underpinning objective of the Bonn process, but it is a question of getting from here to there. We do not have the time or the organisation to have instant elections that would be representative across the country. The Interim Authority is slightly representative, although not perfect, but it is what Ambassador Brahimi
36
could do to get agreement out of Bonn. The commission will be more representative of all the various groups in Afghanistan, and then the Loya Jirgah will have discussions with the elders and leaders of the whole country. A full Interim Administration will follow, and then elections.
We need a process of widening legitimacy and inclusivity, while taking enough time to have proper, legitimate elections, which require a census and electoral registration. What I have described is the intention of the Bonn agreement. Provided that we reinforce the Interim Authority and the people of Afghanistan see the process delivering for them, we will end up with a legitimate, functioning, democratic, representative Afghan Government.
Hugh Robertson: I add my welcome to the Secretary of State's statement. The right hon. Lady mentioned internal security concerns in Afghanistan. Is she in favour of broadening the remit of the troops already there to safeguard the delivery of humanitarian aid and, critically, to ensure that the aid that is there gets to the people who need it as soon as possible?
Clare Short: The remit of the forces in Afghanistan is determined by Security Council resolutions. There has to be consensus across the international community to move these matters forward. I would not like to elaborate on any modification of the Security Council remit in specific terms. The big question is whether the international force will deploy to other cities in Afghanistan and whether the will and resources are available for it to do so.
My view on the military engaging in humanitarian efforts is that the military should do what the military can do and humanitarians should do what humanitarians can do. We should not muddle the two, but they can often be complementary. The most important thing is to bring order and then humanitarians can operate. Part of bringing order is to get the trust of the local community, and UK troops tend to be very good at that, partly because of the lessons learned, painfully, in Northern Ireland.
My Department provides funding for small projects that the troops tend to carry out with local communities, such as fixing up schools and arranging games of football with the children. That increases the troops' authority and legitimacy and provides a sense of well-being. That is the best way to organise these matters, and UK troops are the best in the world at that kind of peacekeeping and working with local communities.

Orders of the Day
GENERAL
Amendment proposed: No. 1, in page 2, line 24, leave out "2003" and insert "2004".—[Mr. Beith.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 157, Noes 261.

Division No.143]

[6.40 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Amess, David

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Chope, Christopher

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Clappison, James

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Bacon, Richard

Baker, Norman

Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

Baldry, Tony

Collins, Tim

Baron, John

Cotter, Brian

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Cran, James

Bercow, John

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Djanogly, Jonathan

Blunt, Crispin

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Boswell, Tim

Duncan, Alan(Rutland & Melton)

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Evans, Nigel

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Fabricant, Michael

Brady, Graham

Field, Mark(Cities of London)

Brake, Tom

Flight, Howard

Brazier, Julian

Flook, Adrian

Breed, Colin

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Brooke, Mrs Annette L

Francois, Mark

Browning, Mrs Angela

Gale, Roger

Burstow, Paul

Garnier, Edward

Burt, Alistair

Gibb, Nick

Butterfill, John

Gidley, Sandra

Cable, Dr Vincent

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Goodman, Paul

Cameron, David

Gray, James

Cash, William

Grayling, Chris

72

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Greenway, John

Ottaway, Richard

Grieve, Dominic

Paice, James

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Pugh, DrJohn

Hague, Rt Hon William

Randall, John

Hammond, Philip

Rendel, David

Harvey, Nick

Robathan, Andrew

Hayes, John

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

Heald, Oliver

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Heath, David

Rosindell, Andrew

Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

Sanders, Adrian

Hendry, Charles

Sayeed, Jonathan

Hermon, Lady

Selous, Andrew

Hoban, Mark

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Holmes, Paul

Shepherd, Richard

Horam, John

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

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Soames, Nicholas

Hunter, Andrew

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Spicer, Sir Michael

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Spring, Richard

Jenkin, Bernard

Streeter, Gary

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Stunell, Andrew

Key Robert

Swayne, Desmond

key, Robert

Syms, Robert

Kirkbnde, Miss Julie

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Lamb, Norman

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Lansley, Andrew

Taylor Sir Teddy

Laws, David

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Leigh, Edward

Tredinnick, David

Letwin, Oliver

Trend, Michael

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Turner Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Liddell—Grainger, Ian

Tyler, Paul

Lidington, David

Viggers, Peter

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Walter, Robert

Llwyd, Elfyn

Waterson, Nigel

Luff, Peter

Watkinson, Angela

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Webb, Steve

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Whittingdale, John

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Wiggin, Bill

McLoughlin, Patrick

Wilkinson, John

Malins, Humfrey

Willetts, David

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Wilshire, David

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

May, Mrs Theresa

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Mercer, Patrick

Yeo, Tim

Moore, Michael

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Moss, Malcolm

Younger-Ross, Richard

Murrison, Dr Andrew

Norman, Archie

Tellers for the Ayes:

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Bob Russell and John Thurso.

Öpik, Lembit

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

Ainger, Nick

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Allen, Graham

Bradshaw, Ben

Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

Brennan, Kevin

Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Atherton, Ms Candy

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Atkins, Charlotte

Bryant, Chris

Austin, John

Buck, Ms Karen

Bailey, Adrian

Burden, Richard

Baird, Vera

Burgon, Colin

Banks, Tony

Burnham, Andy

Barron, Kevin

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Battle, John

Cairns, David

Benn, Hilary

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Berry, Roger

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Betts, Clive

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Blackman, Liz

Caplin, Ivor

Blears, Ms Hazel

Casale, Roger

Blizzard, Bob

Cawsey, Ian

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Challen, Colin

73

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Clapham, Michael

Hoyle, Lindsay

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Illsley, Eric

Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Clelland, David

Jamieson, David

Clwyd, Ann

Jenkins, Brian

Coaker, Vernon

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Coleman, Iain

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Connarty, Michael

Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Cooper, Yvette

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Cranston, Ross

Kelly, Ruth

Crausby, David

Khabra, Piara S

Cruddas, Jon

Kidney, David

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Davidson, Ian

Lammy, David

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Laxton, Bob

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Lazarowicz, Mark

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

Lepper, David

Leslie, Christopher

Dawson, Hilton

Levitt, Tom

Dean, Mrs Janet

Linton, Martin

Denham, Rt Hon John

Lloyd, Tony

Dismore, Andrew

Lucas, Ian

Dobbin, Jim

McAvoy, Thomas

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

McCabe, Stephen

Doran, Frank

McCafferty, Chris

Dowd, Jim

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

Drew, David

McDonagh, Siobhain

Drown, Ms Julia

MacDonald, Calum

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

McDonnell, John

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

MacDougall, John

Efford, Clive

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Ellman, Mrs Louise

McIsaac, Shona

Etherington, Bill

Mackinlay, Andrew

Farrelly, Paul

McNulty, Tony

Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Flint, Caroline

Mallaber, Judy

Flynn, Paul

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Follett, Barbara

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Marshall—Andrews, Robert

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Martlew, Eric

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Merron, Gillian

Galloway, George

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

Miliband, David

Gerrard, Neil

Miller, Andrew

Gibson, Dr Ian

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Gilroy, Linda

Moffatt, Laura

Godsiff, Roger

Mole, Chris

Goggins, Paul

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Moran, Margaret

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Morley, Elliot

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Mudie, George

Hanson, David

Mullin, Chris

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Munn, Ms Meg

Havard, Dai

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Healey, John

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Hepburn, Stephen

Norris, Dan

Heppell, John

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Heyes, David

O'Hara, Edward

Hill, Keith

Olner, Bill

Hinchliffe, David

O'Neill, Martin

Hodge, Margaret

Organ, Diana

Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Palmer, Dr Nick

Hope, Phil

Pearson, Ian

Hopkins, Kelvin

Perham, Linda

Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

Pickthall, Colin

74

Pike, Peter

Stinchcombe, Paul

Plaskitt, James

Stoate, Dr Howard

Pollard, Kerry

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Pope, Greg

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Tami, Mark

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Quinn, Lawrie

Timms, Stephen

Rapson, Syd

Touhig, Don

Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

Truswell, Paul

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Rooney, Terry

Tynan, Bill

Ross, Ernie

Vaz, Keith

Roy Frank

Vis, Dr Rudi

Ruddock, Joan

Walley, Ms Joan

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Ward, Ms Claire

Salter, Martin

Wareing, Robert N

Sarwar, Mohammad

Watson, Tom

Savidge, Malcolm

Watts, David

Sawford, Phil

White, Brian

Sedaemore Brian

Whitehead, DrAlan

Shaw,Jonathan

Wicks, Malcolm

Shipley, Ms Debra

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Simon, Siôn

Wills, Michael

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Winnick, David

Skinner, Dennis

Woodward, Shaun

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Woolas, Phil

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Wright, David (Telford)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Soley, Clive

Wyatt, Derek

Squire, Rachel

Steinberg, Gerry

Tellers for the Noes:

Stevenson, George

Mr. Fraser Kemp and Jim Fitzpatrick.

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Question accordingly negatived.
Order for Third Reading read.
6.52 pm
Mr. Leslie: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
In the vast amount of time that we have for Third Reading, I wish to point out that the Bill is a modest yet important measure, designed to re-establish good practice in the budget-making process in a small area of policy—the funding of emergency planning preparation in local authorities throughout England and Wales. It does not specify the sums of money to be allocated in the next financial year for civil defence grant; it is concerned solely with the mechanism and framework for doing so, allowing Ministers legally to set a grant in the first place.
We are endeavouring to re-establish a fair and equitable means to distribute the grant; that is the Bill's precise remit. However, it also provides a number of useful opportunities to pay tribute, as Opposition Members have done, to the sterling work of emergency planning officers the length and breadth of the country. In Committee and on Report, we considered questions of finance and money. Following the Merseyside legal challenge, which caused the demand-led system to be imposed, the Government now estimate that the level for this financial year and the next will settle at about £18.6 million, up from £14 million in the previous financial year.
I was pleased to announce in a parliamentary answer last Wednesday that following negotiations, we have completed our consideration of what is necessary and

75
affordable. We have decided to maintain the total grant at about this year's level, currently estimated at £18.6 million, which is a satisfactory outcome to negotiations. We are looking at maintaining the 28 per cent. increase on the figure of £14 million for the previous financial year. Fears voiced earlier of cuts have proved groundless. The next stage is to decide how the grant will be distributed and what formula is to be used.
Much attention has focused on the discretion given to Ministers in the Bill, and I have sought to give assurances about those provisions. I have written to Committee members giving examples of legislation in which different formulae are applied to local authorities; I have also provided information about the formulae that might be applied in the distribution of grant. I can reassure the House that powers in the Bill are not unprecedented, will be used reasonably and will be based on rational judgments.
I am minded to use a formula to distribute civil defence grant, and anticipate that it will build on the one used most recently; I am still working on the details with officials. We will shortly be able to consult the Local Government Association in a genuine but rapid round of consultation; I am eager that local authorities should know their allocations as soon as possible. An emergency planning review is under way; assumptions have altered, and threats have changed since the Civil Defence Act 1948, which is no longer an adequate foundation. We need to bring civil defence functions more within the delivery of mainstream local government services. We aim to co-operate closely and develop our plans with local authorities and other representative bodies.
Future comprehensive reform may aim at improving the consistency of approach across the country and promoting best practice. Partnership and community leadership by local authorities is extremely important. Life in the United Kingdom is normally prosperous, peaceful and calm, but we always need to guard against those abnormal and rare threats which may endanger the life of the community, including the hazards of major accidents; the ravages of natural disasters; and the consequences of a deliberate hostile attack.
The Bill provides the means to fund part of that battle—advanced planning and preparation for civil contingencies at the local level. It may seem a technical measure, but it is essential that the whole nation is ready to cope with whatever eventualities befall us. Our debate today has highlighted the dedication and value of those involved in day-to-day civil contingency planning. I am glad that, should the circumstances ever arise, there are people with a wealth of skill and ability throughout the country who are ready, willing and able to deal with emergencies. It is for the sake of continuing a national strategic approach to civil defence funding that I commend the Bill to the House.
6.57 pm
Mr. Beith: The Bill is not needed because the figure for the next financial year has already been announced. If the Bill is used, it could result in some emergency planning authorities getting less money in the coming year than they did this year. The matter could, and should, be dealt with when the Government's civil defence review is completed and legislation is introduced to implement it.
6.57 pm
Mr. Collins: There are 34 county emergency planning officers in England and Wales; no fewer than 24 have expressed strong opposition to the Bill. Patrick Cunningham, chief emergency planning officer for Durham and Darlington, says:
"We are crying out for positive legislation".
However, all that officers are getting is "negative legislation" which, Mr. Cunningham says,
"sends the wrong message at the wrong time."
Other professionals on whom we and our constituents rely for protection in a national emergency have variously described the Bill as a disaster, a disgrace and peculiarly ill-timed. It is the wrong legislation at the wrong time; we will oppose it.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes 155.

Division No.144]

[6.58 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Clelland, David

Ainger, Nick

Coaker, Vernon

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Allen, Graham

Coleman, Iain

Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

Connarty, Michael

Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Cooper, Yvette

Atherton, Ms Candy

Cranston, Ross

Atkins, Charlotte

Crausby, David

Austin, John

Cruddas, Jon

Bailey, Adrian

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Baird, Vera

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Banks, Tony

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Barron, Kevin

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Battle, John

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Benn, Hilary

Davidson, Ian

Berry, Roger

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Betts, Clive

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Blackman, Liz

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

Blears, Ms Hazel

Blizzard, Bob

Dawson, Hilton

Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Denham, Rt Hon John

Bradsnaw, Ben

Dismore, Andrew

Brennan, Kevin

Dobbin, Jim

Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Doran, Frank

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Dowd, Jim

Bryant, Chris

Drew, David

Buck, Ms Karen

Drown, Ms Julia

Burden, Richard

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Burgon, Colin

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Burnham, Andy

Efford, Clive

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Cairns, David

Etherington, Bill

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Farrelly, Paul

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Caplin, Ivor

Flint, Caroline

Casale, Roger

Flynn, Paul

Cawsey, Ian

Follett, Barbara

Challen, Colin

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Clapham, Michael

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Galloway, George

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

Gerrard, Neil

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Gibson, Dr Ian

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Gilroy, Linda

77

Godsiff, Roger

Miller, Andrew

Goggins, Paul

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Moffatt, Laura

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Mole, Chris

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Hanson, David

Moran, Margaret

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Morley, Elliot

Havard, Dai

Mudie, George

Healey, John

Mullin, Chris

Hepburn, Stephen

Munn, Ms Meg

Heppell, John

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Heyes, David

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Hill, Keith

Norris, Dan

Hinchliffe, David

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Hodge, Margaret

O'Hara, Edward

Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Olner, Bill

Hope, Phil

O'Neill, Martin

Hopkins, Kelvin

Organ, Diana

Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

Palmer, Dr Nick

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Pearson, Ian

Howells, Dr Kim

Perham, Linda

Hoyle, Lindsay

Pickthall, Colin

Humble, Mrs Joan

Pike, Peter

Illsley, Eric

Plaskitt, James

Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

Pollard, Kerry

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

Pope, Greg

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Jamieson, David

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Jenkins, Brian

Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Quinn, Lawrie

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Rapson, Syd

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Kelly, Ruth

Rooney, Terry

Khabra, Piara S

Ross, Ernie

Kidney, David

Roy, Frank

Kilfoyle, Peter

Ruddock, Joan

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Salter, Martin

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Sarwar, Mohammad

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Savidge, Malcolm

Lammy, David

Sawford, Phil

Laxton, Bob

Sedgemore, Brian

Lazarowicz, Mark

Shaw, Jonathan

Lepper, David

Shipley, Ms Debra

Leslie, Christopher

Simon, Siôn

Levitt, Tom

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Linton, Martin

Skinner, Dennis

Lloyd, Tony

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Lucas, Ian

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

McAvoy, Thomas

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

McCabe, Stephen

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

McCafferty, Chris

Soley, Clive

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

Squire, Rachel

McDonagh, Siobhain

Steinberg, Gerry

MacDonald, Calum

Stevenson, George

McDonnell, John

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

MacDougall, John

Stinchcombe, Paul

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Stoate, Dr Howard

McIsaac, Shona

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Mackinlay, Andrew

Stuart, Ms Gisela

McNulty, Tony

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Mactaggart, Fiona

Tami, Mark

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Mallaber, Judy

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Marris, Rob

Timms, Stephen

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Touhig, Don

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Truswell, Paul

Marshall—Andrews, Robert

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Martlew, Eric

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Merron, Gillian

Tynan, Bill

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Vaz, Keith

Miliband, David

Vis, Dr Rudi

78

Walley, Ms Joan

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Wareing, Robert N

Woodward, Shaun

Watson, Tom

Woolas, Phil

Watts, David

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

White, Brian

Wright, David (Telford)

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Wicks, Malcolm

Wyatt, Derek

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wills, Michael

Mr. Fraser Kemp and Jim Fitzpatrick.

Winnick, David

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Hayes, John

Amess, David

Heald, Oliver

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Heath, David

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Hendry, Charles

Bacon, Richard

Hermon, Lady

Baker, Norman

Hoban, Mark

Baldry, Tony

Holmes, Paul

Baron, John

Horam, John

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Bercow, John

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Hunter, Andrew

Blunt, Crispin

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Boswell, Tim

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Jenkin, Bernard

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Brady, Graham

Key, Robert

Brake, Tom

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Breed, Colin

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Brooke, Mrs Annette L

Lamb, Norman

Browning, Mrs Angela

Lansley, Andrew

Burstow, Paul

Laws, David

Burt, Alistair

Leigh, Edward

Butterfill, John

Letwin, Oliver

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Cameron, David

Liddell—Grainger, Ian

Cash, William

Lidington, David

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Llwyd, Elfyn

Chope, Christopher

Luff, Peter

Clappison, James

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

McLoughlin, Patrick

Collins, Tim

Malins, Humfrey

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Cotter, Brian

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Cran, James

May, Mrs Theresa

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Mercer, Patrick

Djanogly, Jonathan

Moore, Michael

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Moss, Malcolm

Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

Murrison, Dr Andrew

Evans, Nigel

Norman, Archie

Fabricant, Michael

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Field, Mark (Cities of London)

Öpik, Lembit

Flook, Adrian

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Ottaway, Richard

Francois, Mark

Paice, James

Gale, Roger

Pugh, Dr John

Garnier, Edward

Rendel, David

Gibb, Nick

Robathan, Andrew

Gidley, Sandra

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Goodman, Paul

Rosindell, Andrew

Gray, James

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Grayling, Chris

Sanders, Adrian

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Greenway, John

Selous, Andrew

Grieve, Dominic

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Shepherd, Richard

Hague, Rt Hon William

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

Hammond, Philip

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Harvey, Nick

Soames, Nicholas

79

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Walter, Robert

Spicer, Sir Michael

Waterson, Nigel

Spring, Richard

Watkinson, Angela

Streeter, Gary

Webb, Steve

Stunell, Andrew

Whittingdale, John

Swayne, Desmond

Wiggin, Bill

Syms, Robert

Wilkinson, John

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Willetts, David

Wilshire David

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Thurso, John

Yeo, Tim

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Tredinnick, David

Younger—Ross, Richard

Trend, Michael

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Tellers for the Noes:

Tyler, Paul

Mr. John Randall and Mr. Julian Brazier.

Viggers, Peter

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day
  Civil Defence (Grant) Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Civil Defence (Grant) Bill

    New Clause 1
    REPORT ON CIVIL DEFENCE REVIEW
    'Before 1st April 2002, the Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a report specifying the implications of the Government's civil defence review for the operation of this Act.'.—[Mr. Beith.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    4.23 pm
    Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 1, in clause 2, page 2, line 24, leave out "2003" and insert "2004".
    Mr. Beith: The significance of the date proposed in the new clause is that that is the beginning of the first financial year to which the Bill applies—namely, the coming financial year. Amendment No. I returns to an issue of great concern in Committee—that is, whether the Bill could be delayed for a year while we absorb the lessons and conclusions of the Government's civil defence review.
    People outside this place, as well as local authorities, will be surprised to learn that the Bill is not a product of 11 September or of the Real IRA threat, but of the court challenge mounted by the Merseyside fire and civil defence authority that demonstrated the complete legal confusion about the basis on which civil defence moneys are allocated. The authority challenged the whole funding basis.
    However, the matter is hardly urgent—unlike some of the issues raised by 11 September. The Bill has been around since last June. Despite all that has happened since then, and despite the fact that the Government have set up—rightly—a major review and consultation process on civil defence and emergency planning, they have plodded on with the measure.
    The new clause is sensible and would ensure that the civil defence funding system was designed to fit whatever emerges from the review. It would fit the future pattern of civil emergency planning, which will soon be decided. As long ago as 28 November, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office said of the review that
    "a clear consensus is emerging".—[Official Report, 28 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 1016.]
    That was some months ago, but the speed of the Bill's progress does not offer an entirely reliable guide as to how soon we might receive a statement from the Government on their proposals.
    The consensus was supposed to be emerging on the issues raised in the consultation document that the Government published last August. Since then, several things have happened that might influence the review and the necessary funding arrangements. There were the dreadful events of 11 September, which caused everyone
    38
    in Britain suddenly to start thinking about civil defence. It is at least partly true—although it may be unkind—to concede that civil defence has a low priority for many people. They see it as something of a joke—as some sort of "Dad's Army"—despite the fact that individuals in local authorities are working hard to maintain a proper emergency planning system and sometimes have difficulty in convincing even their local government colleagues of the importance of that work. No one can ever really know which contingency will require the operation of emergency planning.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that civil defence emergency planning has not been at the forefront of people's minds. It has been difficult for those of us who represent high-risk constituencies to raise the profile of such planning in this place. Why is he arguing for delay in respect of these powers, which clearly stem from a court decision? Would not delay mean a vacuum?
    Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman must wait a little so that I can develop my argument. I know his constituency area well and I entirely sympathise with him; there is considerable danger of attack on installations in that area and that is why he takes a close interest in the matter. Indeed, I shall refer later to a question that he put recently on the subject.
    The measure seems to be putting the cart before the horse, however. If substantial new arrangements for emergency planning are to be devised, we need a funding system that will fit them. Civil defence has not been abandoned since the Merseyside court decision, when an out-of-court settlement brought the matter to an end. The Government have not stopped signing cheques for civil defence, although they have become rather worried at the size of the amount on some of the cheques. That is partly because local authorities realised that recent events required them to initiate more extensive emergency planning work and rightly expected a reasonable contribution from the Government. We are not talking about front-line funding for the fire brigade or the police force, but funding for people back in the council offices. They are not thought about much, but they have to work out contingency arrangements so that the fire brigade and the police force can be deployed with the necessary support from other services. Those things do not happen by accident or by magic; they require planning.
    If the Merseyside settlement had brought all that to an end, we should have been dealing with emergency legislation by the next week. The Government have found a way to proceed, and they should continue on that course for a little longer in order to get the arrangements right. That is the basis of my argument.
    Mr. David Wilshire: As someone whose constituency is very close to Heathrow airport, I would argue that it is better to take time, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests. The status quo will continue while the review is being carried out. Does he agree that the effect of the Bill might be to reduce the amount of money available, so the status quo is better than a reduction?
    4.30 pm
    Mr. Beith:Yes, indeed. That is a perfectly reasonable argument. I shall shortly address the question of whether less money will be available as a result of the Bill, but I return to the basis of my argument for the new clause—at the very least we need to know the implications of the Government's review for the Bill, and it would be better if those new arrangements could be put in place before fitting the funding around them. I was reviewing what has happened during this process.
    Let us remember that all this started long before 11 September, and one of the effects of the events of 11 September, as I was saying, was to put in everyone's mind a sense that these are important matters and that they should perhaps be given more time and greater priority than they have been given hitherto. Hon. Members and people in the country started to ask questions about the preparedness of our civil emergency services.
    Other events had a similar effect, although they were of a different kind. There was discussion in Committee about flooding and flood emergencies, about which the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) has a particular interest, as do others along the Severn, for example. Their great concern is that the civil emergency planning machinery is brought into play to marshal forces to deal with floods.
    In many constituencies, including mine, the foot and mouth crisis vividly brought home the dangers of not having sufficient emergency planning in place. During the foot and mouth emergency, we saw deficiencies and difficulties of all kinds. Many local authority staff found themselves quickly transferred to emergency work for which they had no previous experience. Local authority trading standards departments became the animal movement licensing offices for the system set up for foot and mouth disease, so they probably had to abandon much of their normal trading standards work to deal with unfamiliar work, and some of them worked valiantly.
    Even officers from the Inland Revenue were brought in, to help staff round-the-clock operations at emergency control centres. Again, they did unfamiliar work, much of which was not planned. In the north-east of England, which I represent, we did not have our own emergency control centre; we had to rely on that at Carlisle, where resources were already concentrated. Everyone acknowledged that that was a disaster and a wholly unsatisfactory way to deal with the crisis in the north-east of England. No plans were in place to set up an emergency centre in Newcastle, although one was eventually set up with considerable difficulty. That helped to show the need for more emergency planning for the sort of administrative arrangements that need to be created in various kinds of emergency.
    Mr. Mark Field: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman says about foot and mouth disease. Clearly, that was a major disaster, particularly in Northumberland, in Cumbria and in the constituency that he represents. However, on the basis that such emergencies occur, we hope, only once in a lifetime—indeed, the previous occurrence took place 34 years ago—what training realistically could be undertaken by local authorities to ensure that staff would
    40
    not be inevitably transferred from trading standards or other sub-departments to deal with that specific problem, rather than a general emergency issue?
    Mr. Beith: We in Northumberland may take some wry amusement from the suggestion that foot and mouth has broken out once in lifetime; it has broken out twice in a lifetime for us. It happened in 1967, when a lot of lessons were not learned, and we want them to be learned this time.
    Clearly, every local government officer cannot be trained for every role that he or she might have to take up in an emergency, because the training depends very much on the character of the emergency. A major chemical explosion affecting a large area would give rise to different needs from those involved in closing roads and footpaths in the foot and mouth crisis, or closing off areas because of a terrorist attack. They all give rise to different problems, but devising a mechanism by which people can be put into different posts and trained rapidly is the sort of thing in which emergency planners have to engage, and they do so regularly.
    The local authorities with which I am familiar have certainly run emergency planning exercises and conferences for many years, but the reaction to the events of 11 September, and the experience of floods and especially foot and mouth disease, made them all feel that they needed to gear up their arrangements and to have more standard procedures ready, all of which require preparation. Each new wave of staff entering post needs to be familiarised with those arrangements; they cannot be put in place simply. People cannot say, "If we need them, we will go and get them," as they did with the green goddesses for the fire brigade. They must be sure that the new generation of staff are familiar with what they might have to do and with what sort of arrangements have to be made.
    All sorts of difficulties were revealed by the incidence of foot and mouth. For example, sites for the mass burial of carcases were rapidly identified with no proper arrangements for consulting the local community being made. All sorts of problems resulted from that, but local authorities, at least, have learned some lessons. Northumberland has held a county council inquiry to try to fill the gap left by the Government's failure to hold a public inquiry and that useful exercise has brought to the surface some of the lessons to be learned about features of emergency planning. Such experiences have structural implications for the composition of emergency planning teams. The teams may require more permanent emergency planning staff or more staff whose designated duties include emergency planning.
    Mr. Miller: The right hon. Gentleman referred to public consultation. Although in some respects I accept his remarks, does he not accept that post-11 September, some of the issues relating to the emergency planning that identifies specified sites are best dealt with outside the public domain?
    Mr. Beith: That is most certainly the case. If I had not known already, my experience on the Intelligence and Security Committee would have provided me with many reasons to be aware of that point. It means that local authorities must have staff who are experienced and can be trusted with relevant information that cannot be placed

    41
    in the public domain. All that requires care, and to do something on an absolutely secure basis often takes a little longer and requires a little more effort and organisation than if it were carried out on a more general basis.
    The Bill's original purpose was to allow for a return to a previous level of funding. That was the way that some of us, including my colleagues and those Conservative Members who served on the Committee, saw it. The idea was not dreamed up out of our imaginations, but clearly resulted from the statement of the Home Office Minister who was in charge of the Bill when it was published last June. He said:
    "This short, technical Bill would enable us to return to the funding levels for the Civil Defence Grant."
    That created a feeling of concern among emergency planning officers, because that would have involved reducing this year's expenditure of about £18.5 million to the £14 million of the previous year.
    The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) has done us a service—admittedly, a planted service, but none the less valuable—in asking a question that extracted from the Government an indication that, for the coming financial year, they do not propose after all to make the cut that was presaged when the Bill was published, but keep expenditure at roughly its present level.
    However, the answer was intriguing in that it left doubt as to whether there would be a formula for the figure, and that provides another argument in favour of my new clause and amendment. If the Government cannot decide whether to use the formula that they are creating under the Bill or to continue as they are at present by informal consultation with local authorities, what is the panic and rush? Let us do the job properly by considering the results of the civil defence review.
    Having made the decision that resources will not be cut and will remain at about £18.5 million, the possibility emerges that the Government will say, "Will someone please give us a formula that will enable us to distribute this money in the same proportion as it is distributed now?" I do not know how they will do that, so they had better consult the people who were in what was the Department of the Environment who worked out the standard spending assessment. However, that is an entirely facetious suggestion, because I would not let the authors of the SSA loose on any other aspect of government if I could possibly help it.
    This case conjures up the sort of mathematical poser in which one says, "This is the answer, now give us the question." If £18.5 million is the answer, will it be distributed in the way that negotiation and discussion between authorities and the Cabinet Office have determined so far or will a formula be introduced so that the same sum of money is distributed to authorities according to new and no doubt excellent principles that would undoubtedly result in less being available to some authorities and more being available to others?
    Mr. Tim Collins: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is something to commend in the findings of the Emergency Planning Society, which has asked the Government to commission an independent inquiry into the appropriate level of costs for the services?
    Mr. Beith: We would all feel much more comfortable about such an important matter if we knew that the total
    42
    amount had been independently determined by another voice. That is not necessarily the only way to achieve an outcome, but I would not complain if the Government chose to take that course. The new clause and the amendment in particular would enable the Government to do that. It would give them a bit more time to maintain the present arrangements, which is, after all, what they have really said that they will do.
    I have conjured up the possibility that they might redistribute the £18.6 million according to a new formula, but I suspect that they will simply freeze individual local authority grants at this year's levels. To do anything else would be to invite difficulty, and I shall be interested to hear from the Minister on that. If the Government freeze funding, there is no reason why they should not establish a better mechanism to decide the amount. Again, however, that should be in the light of the civil defence review.
    Mr. Wilshire: hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take my criticism of him in the spirit in which I mean it, but he was nothing like rude enough about the SSA approach to spreading money around the country. Does he agree that it is daft to apply that approach to this case, because it implies that the money will be spread around all authorities? My experience of flooding and other disasters is that they do not spread themselves across every county council and borough in the land. Instead, they are focused in an area. Although that area needs a lot of money, others do not need any.
    Mr. Beith: I am not sure that I entirely agree with the line of the hon. Gentleman's argument, although I agree that no criticism is sufficient for the SSA mechanism. I merely did not want to stray too far from what is appropriate in the debate. Were the money to be distributed according to that formula, the impact on Northumberland and Somerset, to give just two examples, would be appalling if we consider the disparities in education spending between those authorities and the national average, all helpfully set out in another parliamentary answer last week that reveals the true horror of the SSA.
    Areas that face a particular threat will have special emergency planning needs. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston referred to that and it is also relevant to the concerns of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) about Heathrow. In general, however, planning, unlike front-line facilities, such as the police and the fire brigade, needs to take place in every local authority. Any local authority might have to cope with the impact of an emergency. For example, an obscure local authority that never thought that it would face an emergency could find itself coping with a major rail crash caused by a terrorist attack on the railway system, just as police forces that were not geared up for anything so dramatic as terrorism are having to get help from elsewhere to conduct inquiries in their area into a group of terrorists that has disappeared into it. The ability to plan and to obtain help exists in all authorities.
    There is no point devising a formula unless we know what it is. As there is little likelihood that the Government will devise one for the financial year 2002–03, what is the urgency of passing the Bill in its present form? If the new clause were included in it or accepted in principle by the Minister, which would not be difficult to do, Parliament

    43
    and local authorities would at the very least have before them an indication of the implications of the defence review for the funding of emergency planning. Local authorities will have an idea of that when the magical consensus is set out. However, what constitutes that consensus will probably be determined by the Government. Local authorities and emergency planning officers will have to work within that, but they need to know the implications for their funding.
    Better still, the amendment, on which we might vote later in our proceedings if we do not get satisfactory answers, would confer the year's delay that so many hon. Members in Committee thought would be a good way to deal with the problem. It would enable us to absorb the full implications of the defence review and to mould a funding formula that arises properly from that. It might be that we can mould a different mechanism—after all, the Government may learn something from the consultation in which they have engaged in the past year.
    4.45 pm
    That process was described in Committee, in less than flattering terms, as "somebody from the Department getting on the phone to the local authority and arguing over the figures." Nevertheless, the Government may learn from the process that there is an alternative to a formula that imports none of the horrors of the SSA and enables the Government to take account of circumstances in individual areas. Whatever seems appropriate, the result could be much better determined with a year's delay. At the very least, we need to know the implications of the civil defence review before we embark on this financial year.
    This is important work. It has been an unglamorous part of work in local authorities and central Government for the happy reason that for several years we did not have to cope with many major civil, military or terrorism-related emergencies. In recent years, we have had to cope with increasing numbers of terrorist emergencies, as well as significant civil emergencies. That has all demonstrated the need to reconsider the way in which we deal with such matters.
    The Government have recognised that and have acted by initiating a consultation process. Their action on funding should be part of that, not a rushed attempt to cobble something together simply because the old funding system could no longer be sustained on legal grounds. The world has not come to an end, and emergency planning has not stopped, as a result of that legal settlement. We could continue on the present basis for another year and, in the meantime, absorb the results of these important discussions.
    Mr. Miller: I appreciate the tone in which the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) spoke to the new clause. I followed his arguments in part, but I disagree with his conclusion.
    Paragraph 4 of the Bill's explanatory notes says:
    "A Review into … emergency planning is under way, the result of which is likely to be emergency planning legislation."
    The right hon. Gentleman seeks to pre-empt that review and force out several of its results, whether or not it is ready, by 1 April. He made the point that there are
    44
    continual changes in the nature of potential civil emergencies. On the threat from terrorists, it is acknowledged that the entire world changed after 11 September.
    Mr. Mark Field: There is little doubt that, since 11 September, many parts of the country have been on a heightened alert. However, many local authorities, particularly those in central London such as the City of London and the city of Westminster, which I represent, have been able to cope relatively well and with relatively little upheaval for much of the residential and large tourist populations because the world did not change to such a great extent. Over the past 30 years, people have become accustomed, particularly in mainland Britain, to confronting the terrorist threat. Important as these provisions are, we should not operate on the pretext that the world has changed for ever.
    Mr. Miller: I shall not get drawn too far into that discussion, Madam Deputy Speaker, or you will rule me out of order, but I have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The nature of warfare has changed since 11 September, and I suspect that the Intelligence and Security Committee, on which the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed sits, has been discussing that in great detail.
    Our constituents are affected by many circumstances other than that change. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the effects of foot and mouth disease in his constituency. I respect those observations because, fortunately, my constituency—indeed, the whole of north Cheshire—escaped the ravages of that terrible disease. I also respect his observations about flooding: although in the past 12 months we have had a few localised incidents in which many residents faced severe problems, they were nothing compared with the floods in Worcester and elsewhere. However, a recent series of incidents centred on chemicals sites in and around my constituency illustrates the need for continuous review of the nature of the planning process in each area of risk.
    The nature of the risk changes constantly. In my constituency, that change is due in part to the actions of businesses in changing their product mix. Huge advances in chemicals safety have been made in the past 20 years, but even though the risk has become more remote, one must always pose the series of questions that start, "What happens if?" Another factor that comes into play is the increase in air traffic in the north-west.
    Last year, two incidents occurred that might well have sparked the need to put emergency services on full alert—indeed, they were partially mobilised. The first resulted from the actions of fuel protesters who blocked the entrances to one of Britain's major hazard sites, with the result that the fire authorities could not gain access. Emergency planners started to consider the options. Some months later, animal rights protesters playing the same game tried to blockade Ellesmere Port's Stanlow refinery.
    Opposition Members might have found some weak excuses to support the fuel protesters, but I suspect that they would not have supported the animal rights protesters. The Opposition cannot have it both ways—both incidents caused the same sort of emergency.
    Mr. Collins: Given his earlier remarks about petrochemical plants in Cheshire, the hon. Gentleman will

    45
    not be surprised to hear that when my office contacted the Cheshire county emergency planning officer to ask his views on the Bill, he raised precisely those points. Does he, as a Cheshire Member, agree with that officer that the grant mechanism that the Government should draw up should take into account the different degrees of threat affecting local authorities, and should not simply he per capita or based on acreage?
    Mr. Miller: If I can do so without stepping outside the context of the Bill, I will deal in some detail with that argument because there are some important points to be made.
    As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said, we are shifting from an arcane formula that was subject to challenge—one that I understand resulted in an out-of-court settlement—and now we need stability pending the implementation of a new system. That new system must emerge not from the Bil—it would be unreasonable to expect that of the Government—but from the emergency planning review itself. I support the concept of the Bill as a means by which to deal with the here and now, not the long-term future.
    The long-term future needs to take into account all the outcomes of the review. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give an assurance that the review will include consideration of the ways in which public resources can be used more effectively cross-departmentally so that we do not have the sort of nonsense that is set out in a letter from the Civil Aviation Authority, which tells me that it is all right for aeroplanes to circle the Stanlow refinery in a holding pattern because that is a convenient area in which to hold them. Holding them out on Liverpool bay would be considerably safer. I see the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) laughing. I think that he agrees with my observation. We need that sort of joined-up thinking from the Cabinet Office after the review. Heads must also he knocked together to some extent.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point that if a long-term review is about to come out, it is sensible to get all our ducks in a row, as it were. But what has he to say about the fact that the Ministry of Defence, in the short to medium term, is producing an extra chapter for the strategic defence review arising out of the events of 11 September? That will come through quite quickly. Is not the proposal of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) sensible, given that the conclusions of the MOD study will become available in the extra year, even if we have to wait longer for the final results of the long-term review?
    Mr. Miller: I am glad that there is some recognition among Opposition Members that my earlier point was correct, and that the events of 11 September changed things.
    Many of the risks are real, as is shown by the incidents that have occurred:foot and mouth, floods, the serious explosion at Associated Oxtel, a leak from GATTX, and the actions of fuel protesters and animal rights activists. These are real issues that affect my constituents.
    46
    A new dimension will have to be considered. I suspect that part of it will have to be dealt with by the Committee that is chaired by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed with a high degree of confidentiality. As I have said, I am dealing with the here and now.
    Richard Younger-Ross: The hon. Gentleman refers to the here and now, and we all understand that. I accept that there have been changes since 11 September. However, reviews are taking place that take into account responses since that date.
    Are we not putting the cart before the horse? I take the hon. Gentleman back to what was said in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) asked:
    "As part of the wider review, is it possible that the new system that will be implemented by the Bill will be abolished and reviewed again?"—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 11 December 2001; c. 23–24
    The Minister replied, "That is possible". Is not what we are now doing a waste of time and money, if in a year's time we may find ourselves considering these matters all over again?
    Mr. Miller: I think—I believe that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed agreed with the observation—that we do not spend enough time considering potential civil emergencies. Even if the Bill has a short life, I consider that it is necessary in the context of the here and now. It would be far better to get the issue out of the way by focusing the attention of the entire House, including Members with military expertise and those with expertise in agriculture or river systems, for example, on it. The same goes for industrial experts who can deal with potential chemical risks. We must work together to try to find a consensus on the right way forward.
    5 pm
    Mr. Adrian Flook: Would not capping the amount of money that goes to civil defence, as the Government propose, make it more difficult to decide how much money there should be for, say, safeguarding installations?
    Mr. Miller: I told the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) that I would come to that and its relationship to the standard spending assessment. Before doing so, I shall conclude my point about why we need to introduce the Bill, then consider how to join up facilities better.
    I shall give a simple example. The Highways Agency needs to engage in such debates. A few years ago, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall), a swing bridge on the A56, which passes over a canal, was scheduled to be repaired. I remind the agency, through my hon. Friend the Minister, that it is still scheduled to be repaired. At the time, a foam tender located at a fire station could not have covered emergencies to the east on the motorway network, so there were discussions about whether it should be moved further from a chemical plant, which would delay its response to emergencies there. Such an absurd situation begs the question why all the agencies do not co-ordinate to ensure that they take the best decisions, not the piecemeal decisions of the past.

    47
    In response to the hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale and for Taunton, the creation of the SSA resulted in a series of rank absurdities. Members who can remember that far back will know that the SSA was introduced at the same time as the unified business rate and coincided with the poll tax, which got all the headlines. Areas such as mine suffered a net loss because of the loss of rates from the chemical industry, and faced serious financial problems. Opposition Members who look carefully at the arguments on the SSA made by counties like Cheshire will acknowledge in hindsight that it was not smart to penalise authorities that had savings or to shift resources without considering the special requirements of some parts of the country.
    I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to find a long-term formula in the review that moves away from the presumption in the SSA. Its replacement, which, we hope, will soon come out of the review, should refund moneys spent on emergency planning to local authorities and be commensurate with the realities on the ground, which vary. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed pointed out that foot and mouth has affected his constituency twice during his time in Parliament. However, equally long-serving Members who represent other parts of the country have not experienced such things. He will never experience in his constituency some of the risks and incidents that have occurred in my constituency. Flexibility must therefore emerge from the review, but we must be wary of making a premature response. Opposition Members would rightly chide my hon. Friend the Minister for the obvious weakness if the Government simply said, "This Bill is the here and now and also the long-term future."
    However, we need to find a mechanism to achieve a stable situation so that a proper debate on shifting to a more rational basis for the formula can take place. I therefore urge the House to reject the new clause and amendment No. 1. I shall not repeat the arguments, but I hope that the House develops a consensus around a more sensible way to proceed well before 2004.
    That begs the question whether there is such a mechanism. The answer, of course, is yes. A review is being undertaken and we are told, without ambiguity, that it is likely to result in emergency planning legislation. It is difficult to assume that any such legislation would not have money implications, so the logic of pushing decisions related to the Bill further into the future does not stand detailed examination.
    Against that background, although I urge the House to reject the new clause and the amendment, I ask the Cabinet Office to listen seriously to my arguments and those made from both sides of the House about the funding mechanism that will emerge from the review. Important issues will affect a significant number of constituencies up and down the country and events can occur as a result of the entirely unforeseen. Despite all the defence expertise of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), he could not have foreseen the events of 11 September. Equally, issues surrounding foot and mouth, flooding and human error could not be foreseen and affected areas that, traditionally, were not high risk.
    48
    I hope that the Government provide reassurance that, in considering long-term plans, we shall move from piecemeal operation, with Departments acting in isolation, to a more responsive formula that takes the known risks into account, but provides enough flexibility to allow for the unknowns that are, sadly, with us.
    I hope that the Bill becomes law in approximately this form and that we get it on the statute book as quickly as possible. We must then focus the attention of the whole House, not just the handful of Members here, on the important longer-term issues.
    Mr. Wilshire: I shall focus on amendment No. 1 and I hope that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) does not press ahead with the new clause, because that might prevent us from voting on the amendment. I hope that there is a vote, because the amendment is the important measure.
    All the key decisions about the review and the Bill appear to have been taken before 11 September. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) expressed surprise that Opposition Members agree with him that 11 September is important. I am pleased that he agreed with us that 11 September was important. The significance of the Bill for me is that it had its origins before 11 September, which was not that long ago. The implications of those events were so enormous that taking until at least 2004 to conduct a review will be the reality, not just what we ought to do.
    Jim Knight: Is not there a contradiction in the hon. Gentleman's argument? The implications of 11 September for emergency planning were profound. Some of the assumptions that underpin such planning may have shifted and the threat of terrorism may have upped the ante, so we need to act quickly. It is right to close loopholes and undergo reviews, and we may want to consider other issues in the future, but to argue that we should wait until 2004 when we may want to deal with some profound issues quickly is perhaps contradictory.
    Mr. Wilshire: If that were the case, the hon. Gentleman would be right, but I do not accept that there are loopholes. If there are, this measure seems to close only one by ensuring that there cannot be any more money. In fact, there will not be as much.
    Mr. Collins: My hon. Friend may have noticed that the Government, in their explanatory notes, say:
    "The Government believes the effect of the … Bill will be to prevent unexpected increases in costs".
    It is quite clear that that is what the Bill is about.
    Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend is right. I agree with the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) that other issues will need to be addressed, but my argument and that of the Liberal Democrats is that, while we are addressing the issues that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about, we should maintain the status quo. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) said, as a result of the Bill we will have the money we need—rather than less money—while we examine the loopholes.
    The then Home Office Minister, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), told a conference in 2000 that in the Government's judgment £14 million was

    49
    enough. That was a long time before 11 September. If £14 million was adequate then, it patently is not adequate now. The Bill will drive us back to the standard spending assessment approach. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed made it clear that that approach was wrong, but it is the only approach that we will have for the moment. If we go back to the old way of doing things while the review takes place. we will adopt an SSA approach to a system that even the Government accept must be replaced. They are busily trying to come up with a new way of distributing money. It is self-evident that we should wait until we have a new way of distributing money before we proceed with any measure that will limit the amount that we spend on civil defence.
    The stupidity of the SSA system is notorious, and there are a thousand and one examples of why it should be scrapped as quickly as possible. I can give one such in my county of Surrey. The SSA allocates money to the fire service throughout the country, but it takes no account of the length of motorway in each county. Surrey has a huge chunk of the M25, including sections that have the most accidents, yet no account of that was taken in the allocation to the fire service, which was expected to provide emergency cover for road accidents. If that is the way the SSA works, heaven help us if we go back to applying it to civil emergencies on the scale of the events of 11 September.
    I know that cash is a finite item, and I accept the argument that we should not spend money that we do not have, but one of the realities of civil disasters and emergencies is that they demand large spending immediately. We should not take a cash-limiting approach and say, "This is how much we have got, so if, God forbid, a vast number of people are killed we can clear up only so much and not the rest because we will have run out of money." I do not believe that such an approach would commend itself to the British people, let alone to the House of Commons.
    Jim Knight: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could help me. I agree with his comments on the SSA. The Dorset SSA is appalling, and I am sure that we would all argue that our own SSAs do not work because the system is a bit of a joke. However, nowhere in the Bill does it say that the Government cannot increase funding. It just says that the Government should
    "determine the aggregate amount of grants to be made".
    That does not restrict the Government, but the important point is that it does not deliver a blank cheque to local government and everyone else. We need to close the loophole that currently allows a blank cheque to be written. The hon. Gentleman, who may have memories of being in government himself, will surely accept that that is dangerous.
    5.15 pm
    Mr. Wilshire: I accept the principle that it is necessary to be very careful with blank cheques. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale will deal with instances in which money will be cut. I can only say, on the basis of my experience of local government—for instance, on a fire brigade committee—that there may sometimes be an argument for, as it were, a limited blank cheque. From the moment that a disaster occurs, we cannot afford to sit down and say "We will respond,
    50
    within the limit made available by the Government." That is not the way in which disasters should be handled, but if I understand the Bill correctly, it will force us into such a position, at least until the Government have completed their review of SSAs.
    Mr. Miller: With respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the Bill. It is about the planning process. No one is saying—no Labour Member has ever argued, and the hon. Gentleman's party never argued when in government—that local authorities faced with serious emergencies such as those that he cites should not respond adequately to meet public needs at any given time.
    Mr. Wilshire: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. Perhaps the Minister will tell us that the Home Office view—expressed in 2000—that £14 million was enough has now been scrapped. Perhaps he will tell us, in that case, how much more will be provided. Until I hear how much more will be made available following 11 September, however, I will take it that £14 million is all that is available, and that is not adequate.
    Mr. Miller: I refer the hon. Gentleman to what the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said about a written answer that I was given last week.
    Mr. Wilshire: I look forward to reading what was said.
    Mr. Collins: My hon. Friend will doubtless agree that Labour Members are making an extremely powerful case for amendment No. 2, which proposes that only increases can constitute in-year alterations to legislation. We look forward to their support in the event of a vote.
    Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend has a great deal more courage than me. Although I was aware of amendment No. 2, after 14 years I have learned that those who stray on to an amendment that is not in the group under discussion are rapidly told off. I may say something about amendment No. 2 later.
    A review is being conducted, and is not yet complete. The civil contingencies committee, heaven help us, has set up 10 working groups. I gather that a while ago it had managed to examine 300 plans, with plenty more to go.
    I think that I understand the way in which the official mind works, and the way in which the official machinery grinds away. Ten working groups will probably take until at least 2004 to finish their work. If such groups are set up to review all these issues, it is only sensible to let them finish before changing legislation.
    Another factor that is causing confusion, which provides yet another reason for delay and for supporting amendment No. 1, is the transfer of Government responsibilities from the Home Office to the Cabinet Office. What little evidence I have been able to find suggests that that is causing difficulties. I mean no criticism, but when a complicated issue is being transferred between Departments, it seems eminently sensible to let that be completed, and to allow time for the whole process to be researched and bedded down, before legislating.
    Let me give an example of the current difficulties. In my constituency, one upshot of 11 September was that Heathrow airport suddenly found that many people were

    51
    stuck there because aircraft over the Atlantic had been grounded. Thousands of people had to spend the night at the airport. It was not long before every hotel in the area was full; it was not long before every hotel in the region was full; and it was not long before Heathrow Airport Ltd made a request to Hillingdon borough council, because the terminals are in Hillingdon. Heathrow estimated that at least 2,000 extra beds were needed urgently, over and above what was available; otherwise, it was the park benches or the uncomfortable seats in the terminals at Heathrow.
    The best that Hillingdon could do within its planning arrangements at the time—again, I mean no criticism of Hillingdon—was to find 150 beds. It did the obvious thing: it contacted neighbouring authorities, my own included. That yielded another 150 beds. In the end, a number of my constituents got involved. When there were no more beds to be found and the emergency planning system could not find any more, my constituents and other people's constituents around the airport said, "Come and sleep in my spare bedroom." Ultimately, that was how the crisis was solved.
    Given the fact that the Government are changing Ministries to handle such a situation, and that councils have not had any experience of that scale of disaster, it seems sensible to wait for all the reviews, including the ones that local authorities must carry out, to finish before passing legislation of this sort.
    Mr. Mark Field: My hon. Friend has given a very good, practical and specific example from the past few months. Does he agree that if this whole process is to be, as it is at the moment, demand rather than needs-led, we need at this juncture to have an entire rethink, which will inevitably take some time? It is particularly important to gain a sense of perspective beyond what has happened just in the past four months and look towards getting some pattern—inevitably, it will be a flexible pattern—into place for the years ahead to ensure that we have the right formula.
    Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend is right. He may be amazed to discover that the Government agree with him. They set up their 10 working groups to carry out exactly that process. He is right to say that it should be completed before we embark on legislation of this sort.
    As I have said, I am not sure that new clause 1 commends itself to me that much, but I want to support amendment No. 1. I sincerely hope that we will have the chance to do that. I make only one criticism of it; it is in the same spirit as my previous criticism of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. I consider that 2004 may be too soon and that the date should be later but in the absence of a chance to vote for an even later date I would be happy to support him.
    Jim Knight: Like most hon. Members here, I have concerns about emergency planning. I sit on the Select Committee on Defence, which as I am sure the House is aware, is reviewing the defence and security of the United Kingdom and emergency planning. The civil contingencies secretariat is very much part of that review but I support this legislation because it is right to end the blank cheque to local government.
    52
    With all due respect, amendment No. 1 is bizarre. It says in effect that, in 2004, the Government will be able to limit spending by making an assessment but in the meantime the loophole remains and local authorities can spend what they like: we will just have to foot the bill as the Government.
    Mr. Beith: I think that the hon. Gentleman slightly misunderstands the present situation. He is surely not suggesting that the Government are allowing local authorities to spend whatever they like. In fact they are engaged in regular consultation with local authorities to try to ensure that the funding that they provide is appropriate to an authority's needs.
    Jim Knight: Different people have given me different interpretations of the system. I have spoken to some people who are basically saying that currently it is so confused that they can go ahead and spend and Government will have some obligation to reimburse.
    Mr. Flook: It is not as simple as that. The first £25,000 is paid for by the local authority, and if that is a shire district that is a substantial amount. Under the Bellwin system, above £25,000, only 80 per cent. is clawed back, so local authorities are responsible for large elements of the money.
    Jim Knight: I accept that, but there is a danger that if we leave open the loophole, local authorities—seeing 2004 on the horizon—will have a spending bonanza, buying everything that they need to cope with a threat.
    Mr. Mark Field: The hon. Gentleman takes a cynical view of local authorities. I suspect that, like me, he has been a member of one and remembers the mad dash in the 11th or 12th month of a year to see which road-widening scheme, for example, is required. I can appreciate that the Government, understandably, take the view that they want to cap expenditure, to an extent, and do not want it to spiral out of control. But does not the hon. Gentleman see that given that the average over the past three or four years has been around £14 million, and is to be nearer £18 million for this year, and given all the disaster and emergency planning that has had to be planned for during the past 12 months, most people outside would think that a relatively small increase from £14 million to £18 million was reasonable—
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. Interventions should be much briefer.
    Mr. Field: Does the hon. Gentleman feel therefore that—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Knight.
    Jim Knight: I shall try to pick away at what the question might have been. I would not be happy to see funding continue at £14 million and I am happy to see that increase.
    Mr. Wilshire: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Jim Knight: I have been generous in giving way and I would like to make progress. However, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has such a pleading face.
    Mr. Wilshire: I am only asking the hon. Gentleman to extend to me the courtesy that I extended several times to

    53
    him. I warn him that I may have several more interventions to come. I thought that I was cynical but I have heard a level of cynicism from him that I could not surpass. His suggestion that local government will have a spending spree over the next couple of years if we pass the amendment, and will stoke up natural disasters so that it can put in bills, is the sort of cynicism that I am surprised to hear.
    Jim Knight: I have spoken to the chief fire officer in Dorset and to chief executives of local authorities, and they have a number of concerns relating to various threats. My constituency office is on a site that is regulated by the nuclear installations inspectorate which, in turn, is policed by the nuclear police. They have concerns in terms of biological, nuclear and chemical threats. If every authority thought that it needed more suits, showers or other things, the bill could get out of control. We may need an assessment of where the risks really are in order to balance the priorities. That is not total cynicism, but I know how strapped for cash local authorities can be. If they see a window and a chance to get what they need, they might leap through it without looking first.
    I have concerns about the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), which are along the same lines as those expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller). The amendment tries to anticipate the review and does not deal with the Bill. I agree with my hon. Friend that the Bill is about the here and now and deals with the problem that arose in Merseyside. After 11 September, the review is vital for England and Wales. We desperately need it, and we must look also at statutory powers and the levels of funding that underpin those powers. We will need legislation; perhaps not just one Bill, but others.
    I do not have a problem, as Conservative Members seem to, with the notion of closing a loophole, finishing a review and proposing legislation that arises out of the review.
    5.30 pm
    For example, I was sent a letter by the chief executive of Purbeck district council regarding local authority responsibilities in relation to marine pollution. I am responsible for most of Poole harbour. Let me correct myself; happily, I am not responsible for it personally, but most of Poole harbour lies within my constituency, as does the Wytch Farm oil plant, which is run by BP and located in a highly sensitive area that has just been granted world heritage status by UNESCO.
    The authorities concerned with these sites, including the Environment Agency and the county council, should agree a joint memorandum of understanding about the responsibilities assigned to them in the national contingency plan, but, because they have no statutory powers—and they certainly have no finances with which to produce such a memorandum—they have not agreed to sign it. A recent emergency planning exercise in the harbour—entitled Poolespill—examined the possibilities of major oil pollution on the world heritage coast. That exercise revealed all sorts of problems that need to be addressed, and I sincerely hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will listen carefully to Opposition Members, and
    54
    to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston and me, when we argue for more finance as a result of the review.
    I hope that the Minister will also consider the powers that the various authorities hold. The fire authority does not have the power to deal with anything other than putting out fires at the moment. It is still covered by out-of-date legislation, which needs to be updated to deal with the threats that have arisen following 11 September, and with other forms of accident response.
    I am sure that many hon. Members have attended many pleasurable party political conferences in Bournemouth, and I hope that all parties will continue to return to Dorset for their conferences. My guess is that those conferences represent the biggest risk of large-scale terrorist attacks for Dorset, and it is worth reminding the Minister that, although the police are reimbursed for the cost associated with political conferences, the fire authority is not. The fire authority incurs significant extra costs related to the running of the conferences in Bournemouth—two were held there last year. The Department of Health has now contracted fire authorities to carry out the necessary decontamination in the case of a chemical or biological attack, but I do not know whether they would be reimbursed for that work.
    I am grateful for your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, in allowing me to run through some of the reasons that I would like more statutory powers and more finance to come out of the review. The Bill is needed to close the loophole revealed by the Merseyside case. We need the legislation now, without further delay, but I am looking for a commitment from those on the Front Bench that proper resources and statutory powers will come out of the emergency planning review.
    Mr. Collins: New clause 1 has enabled us to have a useful discussion about the current status of the Government's civil defence review, which, of course, started long before the events of 11 September but has no doubt been greatly informed by them. I have some questions for the Minister about that. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), however, that amendment No. 1 has the stronger case behind it. It is similar to points that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I raised at earlier stages of the Bill's consideration, and were it to be pressed to a Division, we would be inclined to support it.
    I strongly endorse the tributes paid—on both sides of the House, I am delighted to say—to the work of the emergency planning officers. They are not the most glamorous of our public servants, and they do not have television series such as "London's Burning", "Casualty" or "The Bill" made about them. None the less, they play a very important role in the provision of emergency services in this country. Whether they are involved in military operations or emergency responses, it is the logistics and the pre-planning—the work done in advance—that can make all the difference to the effectiveness of the ambulance men, fire service personnel or police officers on the ground, and it is important that we should all pay tribute to their work.
    It is also worth noting that since we had a bit of a discussion between the parties about the level of the Government grant—the Minister is smiling now—we have seen an interesting example of a rare but not entirely

    55
    extinct event in British public life: Parliament working. The Minister appears to have listened to the representations that were vigorously made to him by the Opposition parties, both on Second Reading and in Committee, that he should not continue with the policy, which he inherited from his Home Office colleague, of reducing the grant from about £19 million to about £14 million in the coming financial year.
    I do not know whether the Minister had a tussle with the Treasury or whether it was simply an easy conversation with an old pal, but we congratulate him on having succeeded. That is why we are not expecting a 25 per cent. cut, as we were at an earlier stage.
    However—the Minister would not expect such an encomium to conclude without at least one "however"—there are still a few points on which it would be helpful to have clarification. When the Bill was introduced, the explanatory notes said that expenditure in the present financial year was expected to be about £19.5 million. Last week, however, in the welcome parliamentary answer to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), it was said that in the next financial year expenditure would be roughly the same as in the current financial year—£18.6 million.
    When the House decides whether it should support amendment No. 1, which would postpone implementation of the Bill, it would be helpful to know whether £18.6 million is a revised, updated and more accurate assessment of expenditure in the current financial year, or whether we are still facing a reduction. As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) rightly said, it would also be helpful if the Minister clarified the basis on which that figure was calculated. Parliamentary representations are a splendid basis on which to take public expenditure decisions, but they are not always the most stable and predictable indicators for local authorities, so it would be helpful to know how the figure was produced.
    Secondly, will the Minister confirm that even if spending in the current financial year will be £18.6 million rather than £19 million, the Government's proposed grant for the next financial year, although not a swingeing cut, as was at one time feared, is still a freeze? There certainly will not be an increase, so it is difficult to say that changes have been made in response to the events of 11 September.
    In that context, does the Minister recognise that the reason why many people outside the House would think it appropriate for the Bill to be passed only if a delaying amendment such as amendment No. 1 were made is that there will be incredulity at the idea that the Government are introducing legislation on emergency planning and civil defence that is not wanted by emergency planning officers at this stage, and which makes it possible for the grant to be capped, at best, if not reduced in real terms?
    Is the Minister aware that I have seen a copy of a letter sent to him a couple of weeks ago by the honorary secretary of the Emergency Planning Society, who wrote from the emergency planning unit of Hampshire county council:
    "The overall effect of floods, fuel supply problems, foot and mouth and the increased terrorist threat have demonstrably increased the workloads of local authority emergency planning officers …
    56
    We believe there is now a significant shortfall in the numbers of personnel required to prepare and maintain plans, provide adequate training and respond to emergencies of an increasingly more frequent nature".
    In other words, there is considerable concern among the professionals who have to deal with emergency planning about the amount of grant that the Government provide even now—although I repeat that £18 million or so is obviously preferable to £14 million or so.
    Mr. Miller: As the hon. Gentleman is praying in aid that letter, with its reference to fuel supply problems, will he now condemn the people who sought to create emergencies in my constituency?
    Mr. Collins: I am not sure whether we should go too far into who was responsible for what in connection with the fuel shortages in September 2000. I shall take the hon. Gentleman's attack on successive Labour Budgets in the spirit in which it was intended.
    I suspect that the most the Minister will be able to say is that the Government have, on reflection, decided to keep spending roughly at present levels. However, it is notable that even at present levels of funding, there are difficulties. For example, the county emergency planning officer of Oxfordshire says that internal funds have been spent on planning for the countering of a toxic chemical threat. In other words, the local authority had to transfer resources from other areas of its expenditure to deal with that crucial and worrying aspect of the post-11 September threats, because present funding levels were not adequate. Similarly, the officer for Gloucestershire is worried that many members of the public assume that there are large numbers of men in suits, as he puts it, ready to deal with threats of toxic or chemical warfare, when in fact there are not.
    Amendment No. 1 has particular merit, in that the context in which such decisions are being taken will presumably be much clearer in a year's time. A number of Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members have made the case for a delay for reconsideration, because we are still in a position of flux. When the Bill was originally introduced, the events of September 11 had not occurred. When the Bill had its Second Reading and was then considered in Committee, the war in Afghanistan was at an earlier stage. We still do not know the exact nature of the external threats facing our country after the successful and wholly admirable actions taken by the United States Government in Afghanistan draw to a close. However, we do know that in some respects the position is even more worrying than before. I do not wish to dilate at any great length on the discovery of British citizens in Afghanistan who had been serving with Taliban forces. It is simply enough, for these purposes, to recognise that the Government, in drawing up the Bill, cannot have been aware that there would be a number of British citizens, normally resident in this country, prepared to support a terrorist threat from that quarter. That is necessarily a matter of concern.
    I do not propose to go into the matter in any further detail, beyond using it as an opportunity to ask the Minister if he could address some of the issues relating to the review and the territory that it will cover. The review is intended to be fairly broad and all encompassing. The emergency planning officers who are deeply sceptical about the Bill are strongly in favour of the Government's review and hope that it will be undertaken swiftly.

    57
    When does the Minister expect to conclude the review? When do the Government propose to introduce legislation on the back of it? It is clear that a strong consensus exists in central and local government that new legislation will be required comprehensively to overhaul and replace the Civil Defence Act 1948. Have the Minister and his colleagues had full and detailed consultations with other Governments about the conduct of the review? Has he sought the views of Tom Ridge, who has been put in charge of homeland defence by the United States Administration? Is there not an important European Union dimension to this? We are clearly facing common threats and there may be a case at least for pooling experience if not for a joint response.
    I should like to add my congratulations to those expressed earlier in the debate to the people who worked as trading standards officers and emergency planning officers at the height of the foot and mouth crisis. My county of Cumbria was the worst affected in the country. About half the cases in the United Kingdom were in Cumbria, and an awful lot of people worked extremely hard. Can the Minister tell us, either now or later—I appreciate that he may need to write to some of us—whether the Cabinet Office's review of emergency planning will be closely linked with the work being done by the various Government-established inquiries on the lessons of the foot and mouth crisis? In particular, will the Cabinet Office ensure that there is a published contingency plan in the event of a further outbreak of foot and mouth?
    How will the review address the post-11 September concerns that many right hon. and hon. Members will have on behalf of their constituents who live near nuclear power stations? Sellafield is not in my constituency but it is in my county and—as one of my constituents rather chillingly pointed out—only 25 miles away as the fall-out flies. In the light of the events in New York a few months ago, what will the review have to say in respect of air and other defences for such facilities?
    5.45 pm
    Many people who have contacted me or my office—including professional emergency planning officers—have stressed the importance of the Government rapidly introducing what they describe as "positive legislation". Those people regard the Bill as a negative measure. They do not think that the timing is appropriate—that is why amendment No. 1 has so much to commend it.
    I am thinking in particular of the words of Patrick Cunningham. He is the chief emergency planning officer for Durham and Darlington, but he contacted my office on behalf of the Emergency Planning Society. He said that the figure of £18.6 million—the increased figure that the Minister may be about to tell us reflects the seriousness with which the Government have approached the problem—
    "was set in March, and does not take account of the increased workload of emergency planners due to foot and mouth, flooding, more recently the increased terrorist threat … The Bill is particularly disappointing for practitioners after all that has happened this year. There is 100 per cent. support for positive emergency planning legislation arising out of the emergency planning review, but we are told that it may take three or four years to get that … We are crying out for positive legislation but instead they"—
    58
    the Government—
    "are insisting on pushing through this piece of negative legislation."
    The hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) drew attention to the possibility that, without legislation or if the legislation were delayed, as it would be by amendment No. 1, local authorities might go on a spending bonanza. Mr. Cunningham, who understands precisely how the system works at present, points out:
    "The legislation sends the wrong message at the wrong time and suggests that they mistrust emergency planning officers by saying that if we are allowed to apply for funding we will apply for too much."
    The point is that at present the officers can apply for funding only for precise and specific purposes and it must, in most cases, be negotiated with the Government in advance. That is why it would be more appropriate for the present arrangement to continue until the international situation is clarified and the overall Government review of the relevant legislation is concluded.
    Mr. Miller: Will the hon. Gentleman give us an insight into the view of the official Opposition on which formula might replace the current one? That might enlighten our debate.
    Mr. Collins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question, although I was under the impression—perhaps mistakenly—that all my remarks clarified the view of the official Opposition on these matters.
    As the hon. Gentleman will recall from my comments in Committee, our position is that while Her Majesty's Government say that the scale of the international crisis facing our nation is such that the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 must be suspended—for reasons that the Home Secretary has explained and which I do not question—it is inappropriate to introduce legislation that would at best cap in real terms and at worst reduce in real terms the amount available for the vital national function of emergency planning. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, we are talking not about billions or tens of billions, but about a few million pounds.
    I hope and believe that we are also talking about a short time frame—months rather than years. It would thus make more sense to us—as it does to the Liberal Democrats—if the Government paused and reflected on the fact that emergency planning officers overwhelmingly do not want the measure now. They are saying clearly, "Please bring in overarching, positive legislation to put things on a proper basis before you make changes to the operation of the funding formula that will not be regarded with enthusiasm."
    I close my speech simply by saying that we hope that the Government's review will be completed speedily and that the Minister will make it clear that much more positive legislation will be introduced, ideally in the current parliamentary Session, but certainly no later than next Session. In particular, as we have been discussing the review, I press the Minister to tell the House whether he can guarantee that legislation to restructure the Civil Defence Act 1948 will be introduced before this Parliament is concluded.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Christopher Leslie): We have been debating new clause 1 and amendment No. 1 for some time and many

    59
    issues have arisen. I shall try my best to address many of them, not least because certain hon. Members seem a little confused about the Bill's purpose, so I should like to elaborate on it and perhaps remind them of the debates that took place in earlier stages. It is interesting that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) now speaks for the Liberal Democrats on the Bill, given that the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) did so in Committee, and the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on Second Reading, so there may have been a reshuffle.
    Mr. Beith: There has.
    Mr. Leslie: I missed it. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman and congratulate him on his new position. I am sure that the usual courtesies will apply in future debates.
    Mr. Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman may care to predict who will handle the debates on any Lords amendment to the Bill on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.
    Mr. Tom Levitt: Or even on Third Reading.
    Mr. Leslie: Or even on Third Reading, as my hon. Friend says.
    Mr. Mark Field: Perhaps the Liberal Democrats have the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) in mind as a replacement in the next reshuffle.
    Mr. Leslie: I am afraid that I cannot recall that constituency at the moment.
    We need to focus on the Bill's purpose. It primarily deals with the consequences of the Merseyside legal challenge, which prevented the Government from following the normal practice of local government expenditure—instituting a formula to distribute money across all 179 different authorities entitled to receive the grant, which led to the demand-led system that we discussed a little earlier. It seems strange that there is a reluctance, especially among those on the Liberal Democrat Benches, to apply a formula for the distribution of grant. Various tests certainly have to be considered, and local authorities cannot make unreasonable demands. Even so, I had hoped that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed would have considered previous debates in which we explained the necessity of having a nationally strategic approach to the distribution of money to ensure relative fairness and equity across the country in the way that the grant—a relatively small sum—is distributed between those local authorities.
    Mr. Beith: Of course, I carefully read the reports of the proceedings in Committee and on Second Reading, and I referred to them in my remarks, as well as to the forecast made by the Minister's predecessor, who was in the Home Office, that the Bill would enable a reduction from £19 million to £14 million in the amount spent. However, does he not recall the answer given to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) in which it was not made clear whether any formula would be applied in the coming financial year? It merely said
    60
    that £18.6 million would be the approximate figure. The Government have clearly not decided whether to use a formula in the year that we are discussing.
    Mr. Leslie: Of course, I recall the answer that was given to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller)—I gave it. The right hon. Gentleman wonders whether we intend to impose a formula for the next financial year, but that is essentially the entire purpose of the Bill. As I shall say in discussing amendment No. 1, we need to have a framework for the next financial year, so that we can ensure that the money is distributed fairly. Without that framework, we shall continue with the haphazard, demand-led system, which is not compatible with a nationally strategic approach to distributing the grant.
    As hon. Members on both sides of the House seem to acknowledge, the Civil Defence Act 1948 is relatively anachronistic; it was drafted after the second world war and focuses primarily on hostile attack. We acknowledge that there is now a need for significant reform, and it is perfectly fair to discuss new clause 1, under which the Government would have to publish the report by April, in the spirit in which it was tabled—to maintain the momentum to publish that report—but I would not want it to be enshrined in legislation for obvious reasons.
    The discussion document on the emergency planning review was published in August, and the consultation ended on 31 October, although some of the comments that have been made in the Chamber today are entirely relevant for consideration. More than 260 responses to the consultation have been received, and I have been considering them, the funding mechanisms that we have been discussing, the co-operation that we can achieve between the different authorities and how we can aim for greater consistency of approach between them—the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston.
    The consultation exercise has been extremely useful and has yielded a lot of new information. We have held discussions with our European counterparts, as well as internationally, about which the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) asked. I hope that, in so far as we can, we can comply with the code of conduct on consultations and publish the responses in the usual way. We now intend to set up a project team in the civil contingencies secretariat to work on the next steps and to consider the strong duty of partnership that we seek to develop—about which my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) asked—and further, deeper reforms and legislation may be required. I cannot give specific commitments on the timing of any legislation or on what parliamentary time is available, as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale knows. We will have to discuss those matters, and we shall make an announcement on when and if we can do so.
    We shall continue a dialogue with all the stakeholders involved, particularly the Emergency Planning Society and the Local Government Association, and I shall certainly report to Parliament on the progress in due course. There is no need for a formal, imposed primary legislative duty to be placed on me to report. I shall try my best to keep my word and to inform and update Parliament. That is why new clause 1 is unnecessary, and I urge the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the motion.

    61
    Under amendment No. I, the Bill's implementation would be delayed for a year. The Liberal Democrats tabled a very similar amendment in Committee, which was voted down on that occasion. Amendment No. 1 is essentially contrary to the Bill's purpose. It would prolong the demand-led system and prevent a nationally strategic approach from being introduced. The emergency planning review is, of course, extremely important, but the civil defence grant needs to be paid for ongoing work in the next financial year.
    We cannot ignore the fact that the next financial year is approaching relatively swiftly, and we need to ensure that our house is in order before then. We need to return to good budgeting practices as soon as possible, and sticking with the haphazard, demand-led approach would be an abdication of our national responsibilities. We have to act responsibly and maintain discipline over public expenditure, however small the sum involved. I intend to publish the Government's plans for a formula shortly, following the consultation that I intend to undertake. The formula is likely to be similar to earlier approaches that have been used.
    The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale asked about money. As has been mentioned earlier, on 23 January I announced that, subject to the Bill being passed, we intend to maintain the total grant at this year's level—currently estimated at £18.6 million. Representations have been made for more money—a natural phenomenon, which we have noticed in many other circumstances elsewhere—but it is fair to say that a 28 per cent. increase on last financial year is reasonably generous and should be welcomed as far as possible.
    The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale mentioned a technical point in relation to £18.6 million sum. I shall try my best to explain why that is the right figure, even though £19.7 million was mentioned in the explanatory notes. He may recall that, in Committee, I talked about the practice of paying 90 per cent. in September or October, and 10 per cent. for accounting purposes in the subsequent financial year. We now know that the 90 per cent. figure comes to £16.7 million, so the rough estimate is that the final figure is likely be £18.6 million. The figure remains an estimate but it is as near as possible to the final figure.
    6 pm
    Mr. Collins: The Minister will know that emergency planning officers will pore over these proceedings with particular interest, so will he clarify two points? First, if it turns out that the figure of £18.6 million is slightly below actual expenditure in the current financial year, will he assure us that whatever formula the Government use will ensure that the finance available in the next financial year will be varied accordingly? Secondly, will he tell us which financial formula he has used to work out the figure? That question was asked by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and it is nice that the Minister has come up with a formula that appears to be almost identical in cash terms in one financial year after another. What is the basis for it?
    Mr. Leslie: As I was trying to explain, we now know that payments of £16.7 million were made in October, which is 90 per cent. of the likely total. That brings us close to the figure of £18.6 million. However, that does
    62
    not mean that we have a formula for the next financial year. That is what we are working on now, and that is the purpose of the Bill. I have referred to the aggregate grant level and, in seeking to resolve the question of finance, the figure of £18.6 million is likely to be the same as for this financial year.
    Mr. Beith: Is the formula, whatever it is, designed to preserve roughly the distribution that authorities have now or is it likely to lead to a redistribution of the £ 18.6 million figure between authorities?
    Mr. Leslie: As I was saying, we must consult on the formula that we intend to use. We intend to use a formula to distribute the grant and that is why we are trying to pass the Bill. If we move beyond this legislative stage, I will be able to consider which formula to use. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the emergency planning review is considering whether the standard spending assessment is the best way of distributing the money and we have considered the representations that have been made. He winces and I take that as one such representation.
    We should use an approach similar to that which existed before the Merseyside legal dispute, and I shall consult the Local Government Association on that. We could discuss formulae until the cows come home, but I am not sure how feasible or realistic it would be to base the formula not on acreage or on a per capita assessment but on, as has been suggested, the threat assessment for each authority. I should like to use something that is similar to, and that could build on, the approach that was used previously.
    We are not so close to the next financial year that we cannot establish a formula approach. It is important that we have equity and fairness so that all local authorities believe that the system for allocating the grant is transparent. Shortly after the Merseyside legal challenge, local authorities were notified that new arrangements for 2002–03 were our target. The Government's intention has been plain from the outset.
    I hope that I have dealt with most of the points raised in the debate. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his new clause.
    Mr. Beith: I may be able to help the Minister in one respect if not in another. He asked me why I was the Liberal Democrat spokesman on the Bill. In addition to my happy duty shadowing the Deputy Prime Minister—although not in all his travels—it was thought that I should take on the rest of the Cabinet Office responsibilities that are nominally his. That is why I have a role on this Bill.
    Reading between the lines, the Minister made it pretty clear that the figure of £18.6 million will be retained for the coming year and that he will devise a formula that will probably not disturb the distribution between authorities. In other words, the Government will probably invent a formula that fits the facts that already exist. If that is so, we do not need a formula and there is no problem with waiting until the following year in the way suggested by amendment No. 1.
    Such has been the wide support expressed in the House for amendment No. 1 that I will ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to agree to a Division on it at the appropriate

    63
    stage. I wish, however, to withdraw the motion on new clause 1, because the Minister expressed his intention to keep the House informed on the progress of the review. I would have been happier if we could be absolutely certain that that would happen. None the less, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
    Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 1
    CIVIL DEFENCE: GRANTS
    Mr. Collins: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 21, at end insert—
    'only in respect of an increased determination'.
    The debate on the amendment will enable the Minister to place on the record the Government's view of a point on which many local government emergency planning officers have sought clarification. The amendment would add a few words to proposed new section 3(3)(b) and would limit the powers that the Bill otherwise gives to the designated Minister to
    "vary a determination by a further determination"
    so that, in the words of the amendment, that could be done
    "only in respect of an increased determination".
    There is much understandable concern among emergency planning officers that the Government may choose, on what local authorities may perceive to be wholly arbitrary grounds, to reduce a grant allocation in a financial year and after local authorities have begun to spend money on the basis that they would receive a certain level of grant to underpin it. At various points, the Minister has been at pains to assure Members of the House and members of the Committee that considered the Bill that such unworthy thoughts would not even cross his mind and that he would never want to do that.
    The matter was discussed in Committee and I pay tribute to the Minister for writing to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten). In the letter, which was copied to members of the Committee, the Minister was at pains to say that it was highly unlikely that the Government would ever consider cutting local authorities' grants in the middle of the year. The only reason that they needed the power would be to take account of unexpected contingencies in which he implied the Government would seek to provide additional help.
    That formulation caused considerable interest in the emergency planning department serving Herefordshire and Worcestershire. Its emergency planning officer wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and, in an interesting choice of words, said that the copy of the letter to the hon. Member for Winchester was extremely interesting. With a degree of irony, the emergency planning officer added:
    "Being naive politically and legally, I had to wonder, if the purpose of Section 3(3) is to enable Central Government to be able to make extra payments in unforeseeable situations, why it could not have been framed to say that, rather than the wording currently in the Bill, which could equally reduce grant at a whim?"
    That struck me as an extremely good question. If there has merely been an oversight on the part of the parliamentary draftsmen, it will be easy for us to correct the matter on Report to ensure that the Bill fully reflects
    64
    the Minister's intentions. Therefore, I genuinely hope to hear the Minister tell us that, on reflection, he accepts the aims of amendment No. 2. Even if he feels for some reason that escapes me that the amendment is technically defective, I hope that he will agree to the issue being reconsidered in another place.
    However, on a crucial matter of emergency planning, I certainly do not wish to hear that the Government plan to retain the power to cut a grant in the middle of the year. Local authorities incur expenditure on the basis that they will receive a certain level of grant and that grant should not be cut in a way that they cannot possibly foresee, so I hope that the Minister will not oppose the amendment on anything other than the most narrow technical grounds. If he does, we should like to know why, contrary to the view of many emergency planning officers, he believes that it would be sensible for him to have such a power.
    It is important to reflect on the fact that local authority emergency planning officers are already extremely worried about the consequences for staffing levels, for funding provision and for their ability to conduct operations on the current basis, let alone on what might come into effect if the Bill is introduced without amendment No. 2. Does the Minister agree with the Emergency Planning Society that we are talking about "an increasingly important service"? Does he also agree with it that local authorities across the country are increasingly having to subsidise their emergency planning functions from other elements of the council tax and other resources that are available to them? Is he aware that a number of local authorities have said that current funding levels are so difficult to predict and inadequate in their scope that some of them may have to pay for up to 50 per cent. of all their emergency planning functions from their own resources?
    I hope that the Minister will assure us that the Government will at least reflect carefully on the strong views that have been expressed by many county emergency planning officers who are genuinely and powerfully concerned about the flexibility that the Government are taking for themselves in proposed new section 3(3). A large number of local authorities believe that that is the heart of what they describe as negative legislation and that it will have extremely damaging consequences for them.
    On Second Reading, the Minister specifically stated that he believed that the merit of the Bill was that it offered stability for local authorities. I see that he is nodding to confirm that that remains one of the objectives. I am sure that he would therefore agree that, in terms of stability for local authorities and their ability to plan ahead, it would be far better to tell them that if there are to be any changes in the amount of grant that is allocated to them for a particular financial year, between the start of that year and its end, they will only be by way of extra resources that are provided in case of unexpected and worrying developments. They need to know that they will not face a reduction or even a clawback of a grant allocation that has already been made available.
    Local authorities are worried. That concern has been expressed by, among others, the chief emergency planning officers of Cumbria, Cheshire, Essex and Durham. There are large-scale worries. Will the Minister address the merits of the amendment? In particular, if he is not prepared to limit his power to cut a grant in year, so to

    65
    speak, will he explain the precise circumstances in which he will use the power? If he insists on retaining it, there will be widespread concern in local authorities that he could simply use the power arbitrarily. It would be helpful if he agreed to publish a code of practice under which ministerial decisions exercising such a power would be limited or preferably removed altogether.
    6.15 pm
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Amendment proposed—
    Richard Younger-Ross rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is a great help to the Chair if hon. Members indicate that they wish to participate in the debate because otherwise we might have swept on.
    Richard Younger-Ross: I shall redress that next time I want to speak.
    I shall be brief. My first knowledge of civil defence was as a boy scout. It was not so much the motto "Be prepared", which would be a good motto for civil defence, but partaking in a Civil Defence Corps exercise, that gave me an understanding of what was required to be prepared for a civil emergency.
    The local authorities that I have spoken to and others that I have heard from are concerned that if the grant is fixed at £18 million and the needs of only some authorities are taken into account, there will be winners and losers. In Committee, the Minister referred to
    "increases or reductions in grants".—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 11 December 2001; c.8.]
    Can he assure local authorities that their grants will not be reduced? They think that they have only just managed to secure adequate funds for the needs of civil defence.
    We want the determination of grant to be upwards to recognise current needs. We do not want a "Goosey-Goosey Gander" approach that leads local authorities upstairs and downstairs; nor do we want civil defence to end up like Jack and Jill, to continue the nursery rhyme. Rather than a brown paper and vinegar solution, we need a well thought-out and exercised plan. As a country, we tend to be under-prepared for disasters. We have only to consider the problems of the railways when the wrong leaves or the wrong snow are on the line. It is important that we do not have the wrong measures in place when a disaster strikes. All authorities need to have well-exercised plans and well-trained staff and to have the funding to put their plans into effect.
    Ms Joan Walley: I do not want to detain the House unnecessarily. I merely ask my hon. Friend the Minister to look closely, during the time that it takes for the Bill to complete its stages here and in another place, at the work of the Staffordshire emergency planning service. It has written to me and I understand that the chairman of the Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire fire authority has written to the Deputy Prime Minister. We have a wonderful record of joined-up processes to consider the whole issue of civil defence in Staffordshire. There are genuine concerns about the level of grant should there be any large-scale change to the formula on which
    66
    funding is allocated. Will my hon. Friend look closely at the work that has been done in Staffordshire and consider how that can be retained without any loss of service?
    Mr. Leslie: I shall look with care at the representations made by my hon. Friend's authority. Indeed, last week we announced the funding allocation for the next financial year, and we have tried to maintain the level as close to £18.6 million as possible.
    Amendment No. 2 attempts to ensure that the grant can only ever increase. I reiterate that the £18.6 million—or whatever closely similar amount is determined once the estimate is resolved—is a significant increase on last year's grant. Indeed, in Committee the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) said that if I promised to provide a grant that is maintained at this year's level, most hon. Members' objections would melt away. I hope so.
    The debate on the amendment echoes what was said in Committee on the flexibility powers that are given to Ministers, who will be obliged to exercise discretion reasonably. They must base decisions on relevant matters and use powers with due care and consideration. I am afraid that I must inform the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale that there are technical reasons why the amendment is severely deficient. It would have a number of perverse consequences. I tried to explain that currently, 90 per cent. of the grant is paid in September or October, and the remaining 10 per cent. in the subsequent financial year, when the moneys spent have been verified by the district auditor.
    The practice of not paying the last 10 per cent. of a grant until audited accounts have been presented would be inhibited if the Government had limited powers to deduct or disallow expenditure from the outstanding balance if that expenditure proved not to be for the purposes for which it was intended. That is National Audit Office best practice, and I am advised by my officials that it would be compromised by the amendment.
    Mr. Collins: I have no reason to challenge what the Minister said about the amendment's technical merits, but he will be aware that we are talking about the Minister's power to vary the determination of the grant, not about how local authorities spend money within that target. Why is it a good idea for Ministers to have the right to set a certain level of desired expenditure in a financial year and then cut that amount during that same year?
    Mr. Leslie: The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) was talking about whether a formula would create winners and losers. Of course, all formulae have that consequence; it is in the nature of allocating resources from a national to a local level. If we manage to return to a formula, we will try to make it as fair and equitable as possible and we will publish it, but it will undoubtedly create winners and losers.
    The amendment is wrong in principle because it is not responsible budgeting to enshrine in statute an ever increasing grant. We need to retain the ability to make choices and decisions about public finance. Flexibility and discretion in a national strategic framework are especially important in civil defence. As the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale knows, the previous Conservative Administration steadily reduced the civil

    67
    defence grant, presumably to reflect the fact that the world was more stable and secure after the cold war. It is a depressing outlook if, as he thinks, we will for ever require inexorably heightened civil defence.
    An amendment in the name of a Conservative Member that is, essentially, a no-cuts amendment reminds me of my early days in politics, when the funding, or underfunding, of services was central to national debate. It is charmingly counter-intuitive. I am not sure what Lady Thatcher would say about a no-cuts amendment. Indeed, I wonder whether that particular spending commitment has been cleared with the shadow Chief Secretary, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). Perhaps the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale might like to give a similar commitment on funding for schools and hospitals. This no-cuts approach is enlightening, and I find this new development in Conservative policy very interesting.
    There are good principled and technical reasons for opposing the amendment, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
    Mr. Collins: I am grateful for the Minister's remarks. Without going into the byways of wider public expenditure policy, I point out that he seems determined to retain the right to tell local authorities at the beginning of the financial year, "You may spend X," and in the middle of the financial year to say, "I am terribly sorry, but you may spend a great deal less than X, and we may claw back some of that amount." We are not convinced by his argument and wish to press the amendment to a vote.
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House proceeded to a Division: Ayes 156, Noes 257.

    Division No. 142]

    [6.24 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Cash, William

    Amess, David

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Chope, Christopher

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Clappison, James

    Bacon, Richard

    Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

    Baker, Norman

    Collins Tim

    Baldry, Tony

    Cran, James

    Baron, John

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Berth, Rt Hon A J

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Bercow, John

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Blunt, Crispin

    Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

    Boswell, Tim

    Evans, Nigel

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Field, Mark (Cities of London)

    Brady, Graham

    Flight Howard

    Brake, Tom

    Flook, Adrian

    Breed, Colin

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L

    Francois, Mark

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Gale, Roger

    Garnier, Edward

    Burstow, Paul

    Gibb, Nick

    Burt, Alistair

    Gidley, Sandra

    Butterfill, John

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Goodman, Paul

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Gray, James

    Cameron, David

    Grayling, Chris

    68

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Greenway, John

    Paice, James

    Grieve, Dominic

    Pugh, Dr John

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Rendel, David

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Robathan, Andrew

    Hammond, Philip

    Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

    Harvey, Nick

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Hayes, John

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Heald, Oliver

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Heath, David

    Sanders, Adrian

    Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Hendry, Charles

    Selous, Andrew

    Hermon, Lady

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Hoban, Mark

    Shepherd, Richard

    Holmes, Paul

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

    Horam, John

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Soames, Nicholas

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Hunter, Andrew

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Spring, Richard

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Streeter, Gary

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Stunell, Andrew

    Johnson, Boris (Henley)

    Swayne, Desmond

    Key, Robert

    Syms, Robert

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Lamb, Norman

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Lansley, Andrew

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Laws, David

    Thurso, John

    Leigh, Edward

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Letwin, Oliver

    Tredinnick, David

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Trend, Michael

    Liddell—Grainger, Ian

    Turner Andrew(Isle of Wight)

    Tyler, Paul

    Lidington, David

    Viggers, Peter

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Walter, Robert

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Waterson, Nigel

    Luff, Peter

    Watkinson, Angela

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Webb, Steve

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Whittingdale, John

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Wiggin, Bill

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Wilkinson, John

    Malins, Humfrey

    Willetts, David

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Wilshire, David

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Mercer, Patrick

    Yeo, Tim

    Moore, Michael

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Moss, Malcolm

    Younger—Ross, Richard

    Murrison, Dr Andrew

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Öpik, Lembit

    Mr. John Randall and Mr. Julian Brazier.

    Osborne, George (Tatton)

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Ainger, Nick

    Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

    Allen, Graham

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

    Brennan, Kevin

    Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Bryant, Chris

    Austin, John

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Baird, Vera

    Burden, Richard

    Banks, Tony

    Burgon, Colin

    Barron, Kevin

    Burnham, Andy,

    Battle, John

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen.

    Benn, Hilary

    Cairns, David

    Bennett, Andrew

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Berry, Roger

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Betts, Clive

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Blackman, Liz

    Caplin, Ivor

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Casale, Roger

    Blizzard, Bob

    Cawsey, Ian

    Blunkett, Rt Hon David

    Challen, Colin

    69

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Illsley, Eric

    Clapham, Michael

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

    Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Jamieson, David

    Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Clelland, David

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Clwyd, Ann

    Kelly, Ruth

    Coaker, Vernon

    Khabra, Piara S

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Kidney, David

    Coleman, Iain

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Connarty, Michael

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Cooper, Yvette

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Crausby, David

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Cruddas, Jon

    Lammy, David

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Laxton, Bob

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Lepper, David

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Leslie, Christopher

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Levitt, Tom

    Davidson, Ian

    Linton, Martin

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Lloyd, Tony

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

    Lucas, Ian

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Dawson, Hilton

    McCabe, Stephen

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    McCafferty, Chris

    Denham, Rt Hon John

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

    Dismore, Andrew

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Dobbin, Jim

    MacDonald, Calum

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    McDonnell, John

    Doran, Frank

    MacDougall, John

    Dowd, Jim

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Drew, David

    McIsaac, Shona

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    McNulty, Tony

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Efford, Clive

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Mallaber, Judy

    Etherington, Bill

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Farrelly, Paul

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

    Marshall—Andrews, Robert

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Martlew, Eric

    Flint, Caroline

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Flynn, Paul

    Merron, Gillian

    Follett, Barbara

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Miliband, David

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Miller, Andrew

    Galloway, George

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

    Moffatt, Laura

    Gerrard, Neil

    Mole, Chris

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Gilroy, Linda

    Moran, Margaret

    Goggins, Paul

    Morley, Elliot

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Mudie, George

    Hanson, David

    Mullin, Chris

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Havard, Dai

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Healey, John

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Norris, Dan

    Heppell, John

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Heyes, David

    O'Hara, Edward

    Hill, Keith

    Olner, Bill

    Hinchliffe, David

    O'Neill, Martin

    Hodge, Margaret

    Organ, Diana

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Hope, Phil

    Perham, Linda

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Pickthall, Colin

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    Pike, Peter

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Plaskitt, James

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Pollard, Kerry

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Pope, Greg

    70

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

    Tami, Mark

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Taylor, David (NWLeics)

    Rapson, Syd

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

    Timms, Stephen

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Touhig, Don

    Truswell, Paul

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Rooney, Terry

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Ross, Ernie

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Roy, Frank

    Tynan, Bill

    Ruddock, Joan

    Vaz, Keith

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Salter, Martin

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Wareing, Robert N

    Sawford, Phil

    Watson, Tom

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Watts, David

    Shaw, Jonathan

    White, Brian

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Simon, Siôn

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Wills, Michael

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Winnick, David

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Woodward, Shaun

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Woolas, Phil

    Soley, Clive

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Spellar, Rt Hon John

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Squire, Rachel

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Wyatt, Derek

    Stevenson, George

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Mr. Fraser Kemp and Jim Fitzpatrick.

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Mr. Fraser Kemp: The Ayes to the right 257, the Noes to the left 156
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Have I been given the correct information? Will the Tellers come to the Table, please?
    We will have the result again.
    Mr. Kemp: The Ayes to the right, 156; the Noes to the left, 257.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Ayes to the right were 156, the Noes to the left 257, so the Noes have it, the Noes have it.
    Question accordingly negatived.
    Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is furthest from my mind to challenge your ruling in any way, but I am intrigued to know what reason you had to believe that the Tellers were not giving correct figures. Presumably, it is for none of us to judge who may have gone through the Aye Lobby or the No Lobby. I accept that you were using your judgment at the time you stopped the declaration of the result of Division in mid-flow, but is there any precedent for doing so? On what basis did you see fit to challenge the figures given by the Tellers?
    Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Furtherto that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When you respond to the right hon. Member for Bromley and

    71
    Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I hope that you will explain to him that this is as great a triumph as the Conservatives are going to have in this Parliament.
    Mr. Wilshire: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, although the point of order is beginning to peter out.
    Mr. Wilshire: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will take the comments of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) as frivolous. The point of order deals with a serious matter and a clear explanation would be of enormous help, because a result was read out by a Teller. This has never happened in my 14 years in Parliament. Is the result the one read out by the Teller, or that read out from the Chair?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: It was apparent to me that something was irregular. The winning Tellers, who traditionally stand on the right, were reading out something that did not correspond with their position. They noticed that and a correction has been made. I am advised that this is by no means the first time that such an error has occurred.

City of London (Ward Elections) Bill
As amended, considered.
7.10 pm
John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am aware that one of the original petitioners to the Bill has written to you, because the amendments tabled by the promoters would dramatically change the Bill. Mr. Matson has written to you asking that the Bill be referred back to Committee, as those amendments are significant. That would enable him and other petitioners to raise their petitions once more and examine the Bill in detail. I wondered whether you had replied to Mr. Matson, and whether you could share that reply with the House.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me notice that he intended to raise that point of order. My reply to Mr. Matson is being despatched today. Obviously, it is a matter of judgment whether the Bill would he changed by the amendments to the extent that the hon. Gentleman suggests. In practice, when the question of revival was considered, the Bill on which I had to adjudicate was precisely the same Bill as was brought before the House in the last Parliament. That was the only issue. Of course it is open to Members to table amendments, and it is a matter for Mr. Speaker's judgment as to whether such amendments fall within the scope of the Bill. That was the judgment made in this case. I have advised Mr. Matson that, if there is a matter against which he wishes to petition, he will have an opportunity to do so when the Bill goes to the other place.
John McDonnell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point also relates to a matter raised by Mr. Matson in his earlier petitions, and to a statement that has been consistently made to the House since the Committee's original determination to refer the Bill back to the House with its recommendations. The City of London corporation promised the Committee that a package of reforms would be implemented in tandem with this legislation. Not a single one of those reforms has been processed, yet time and again they are referred to in the promoters' statement.
Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, examine whether it is possible to encourage the City of London corporation to implement those reforms, because they will bear heavily on the consideration of the Bill in this House, just as they did with the Committee, as reported in its statement.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is certainly not a matter for the Chair. Debate on such matters would be outside the scope of the Bill.

New Clause 1
EXCLUSION OF CROWN BODIES
'A government department or other body exercising on behalf of the Crown functions conferred by or under any Act shall not be treated as a qualifying body within the meaning of this Act.'.—[Sir George Young.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Sir George Young: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take amendments (a) to (d) and (f) to promoters new clause 1, amendments Nos. 33 and 35, promoters amendments Nos. I to 4, amendment No. 47, promoters amendment No. 5 and amendments (b) to (d) thereto, amendment No. 52, promoters amendments Nos. 6 to 8, promoters amendment No. 149 and amendments (a), (b) and (d) to (l) thereto, amendments Nos. 60, 68, 69, 71, 74, 75, 77 to 79, 81 to 84, promoters amendments Nos. 10 and 11, promoters amendment No. 12 and amendment (a) thereto, amendments Nos. 90, 92, 95, promoters amendment No. 13, amendments Nos. 97 to 99, 101, 102, promoters amendments Nos. 15 to 17, promoters amendment No. I8 and amendment (a) thereto, promoters amendments Nos. 19 and 20, amendment No. 125, promoters amendment No. 21, amendment No. 126, promoters amendments Nos. 22 and 25, amendments Nos. 131, 133 and 143, and promoters amendments Nos. 26 to 30.
Sir George Young: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to comment on the promoters amendments in the group that you have heroically read out. In the debate on the revival motion on 15 November last year, I referred to the promoters' intention to bring forward amendments to the Bill. I said that
"amendments will be introduced to remove the proposed voting entitlement based on the rateable value of premises and replace it with a scheme that relates voting entitlement to the number of people who work on the premises."—[Official Report, 15 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 1034.]
The new clause and the promoters amendments that we are now considering implement that undertaking.
John McDonnell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir George Young: May I make a little progress? I want to get out of the station before I stop at the first red light. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
To secure the changes needed to relate the right to appoint to work force numbers, it has been necessary to make a number of changes to the Bill. However, many are consequential, and I shall focus on the amendments that are central to the changes. I should then like to touch on some of the amendments that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has tabled.
John McDonnell: Could the right hon. Gentleman advise us why these amendments were not available to us during the debate on the carry-over? Why was there such a flurry last week? Amendments were tabled and withdrawn within two hours of the deadline, offering little opportunity for consideration by those who may wish to amend the amendments. The City of London corporation has had four years to produce the Bill.
Sir George Young: When I spoke in November, I said that amendments would be tabled to change the basis, and it should have come as no surprise to the hon. Gentleman that such amendments have indeed been tabled. He should welcome them, because the changes that have been made by the corporation take a giant stride towards the case that he has been making for many years. I hope that he will
82
not be churlish about the changes to the Bill. He has that churlish look on his face, so I shall move straight on.
7.15 pm
John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is that parliamentary language?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have heard much worse.
Sir George Young: The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington is definitely not looking churlish at the moment, and I commend him for the good humour that he is now displaying.
New clause 1 would perform the same function as clause 6. It would exclude Crown bodies, such as Government Departments, from the Bill by providing that they should not be treated as qualifying bodies. No right to appoint would therefore arise. The change is needed because the existing clause relates the exclusion of the Crown to property that is recorded as such on the local non-domestic rating list. The use of the rating list was appropriate when the right to appoint was linked to rateable values. With the disappearance of that link, reference to the local non-domestic rating list is no longer apt. Amendment No. 19 is consequential, and removes clause 6.
Mr. Andrew Dismore: I assume that the thrust of the right hon. Gentleman's amendment is to ensure that a United Kingdom Government Department or Crown body could not participate in these new arrangements. What is the position of foreign Governments who may own property?
Sir George Young: I am not sure whether they have any property that qualifies. I think that there is an amendment about the European Union, and having made inquiries, I am not sure that it has a building that would qualify. We will make diligent inquiries to see whether foreign Governments own accommodation in the City.
John McDonnell: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, who is sponsoring the Bill, is not aware that this legislation, if carried, would enable foreign Governments who have property in the United Kingdom to exercise a vote through various bodies. They would own property and they would employ staff.
Sir George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that comment.
Amendment No. 1 would remove the definitions of "hereditament" and "non-domestic rating list".
Mr. Dismore: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir George Young: I should like to make a little more progress.
With the change from rateable values to size of work forces as the parameter by which the extent of the right to appoint arises, those definitions are no longer needed.
Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 would change the way in which "occupation" is defined to take account of the removal of any reference to "hereditaments".

83
The term "premises", which is a standard legislative term, is substituted, as "hereditament" is used in rating legislation but not more generally. Entitlements to appoint are no longer ascertained by reference to rateable values, so a rating term is inappropriate.
Amendment No. 5 would insert "workforce" as a principal definition in the Bill by relocating the definition currently set out in clause 4(2). That relocation is appropriate as a matter of drafting, given the adoption of the work force criterion to generate the right to appoint in place of rateable values.
Promoters amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 make changes to clause 2(2) consequent on the removal of references to rateable values and hereditaments. The practical effect of the subsection is unaltered. Promoters amendment No. 149, originally tabled as No. 9, is central to the changes now being proposed. It would add a new section, 6(1)(c), to section 6 of the City of London (Various Powers) Act 1957, which deals with electoral qualifications, and provides for the entitlement of a qualifying body to appoint any individual to be decided on the basis of the size of the work force.
New subsection (1A) sets out the extent of the entitlement. For a work force of up to five, one person may be appointed. Each additional five members of the work force will generate an entitlement of one additional appointment, up to work forces of 50. In the case of work forces over 50, the entitlement is tapered. The work force must increase by a further 50 before an entitlement to make an additional appointment arises.
The taper was selected to avoid dominance by larger firms, and to achieve a total electorate that would not produce a larger component of business voters than the Bill does now. In fact the projected figure declines by about 1,500, giving a total City electorate of approximately 38,500.
Dr. Rudi Vis: Will the right hon. Gentleman remind us of how part-time workers will be treated?
Sir George Young: I think that they will qualify if the premises involved are their principal place of work.
Andrew Mackinlay: Paragraph 9 of the statement given us by the promoters states:
"Residents are currently concentrated in four wards in the City. The wider reforms"—
which we are discussing—
"provide that the residential vote will continue to dominate in those wards."
Can the right hon. Gentleman, either now or later this evening, tell us what estimates have been made of the ratios involved in the four wards?
Sir George Young: I do not carry such important statistics in my head, but I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman receives them. The key point is that the boundaries are being changed so that the domination of the residential vote can be retained in the four wards, thus leaving the balance unchanged.
John McDonnell: I raised the issue of boundary changes in my point of order, because one of the
84
corporation's commitments was that they would be implemented. That commitment was given three years ago to Committee members who are present now, but no attempt has been made to protect residents. Is that not an act of bad faith on the corporation's part?
Sir George Young: I do not accept that criticism. I understand that the boundary changes are going through, although they are not included in the Bill.
Under proposed subsection (1B), the entitlement of any qualifying body to make appointments would be confined to situations in which the full five, or 50, increase in the size of the work force was satisfied. Remainders are ignored. A work force of nine, for instance, would generate an entitlement to one appointment, because the full step of five additional members of the work force above the one appointment generated by a work force of up to five had not been satisfied.
The quantitative assessment of the outturn in terms of the number of business voters has been a substantial obstacle to the adoption of a work force-based entitlement. Only through the results of a comprehensive land use survey in which the corporation has been engaged over the past four years—a process involving personal visits both to individual City businesses and to correspondents—has the development of the scheme now envisaged being possible. The survey will need to be updated on a continuing basis through the development of an occupiers' database. That represents a substantial ongoing commitment on the corporation's part.
The promoters still think that rateable values would have provided the most readily available and easily validated basis for the entitlement to appoint. I note that the Government's recent White Paper, "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services", anticipates the use of rateable values for the voting mechanism for business improvement districts. The promoters have, however, sought to respond to the continuing objections of the Bill's opponents in Parliament to a property-based system.
The City of London Labour party petitioned against the Bill when it was introduced. I hope that I will not offend my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) if I read a short passage from the evidence given to the Select Committee by Mr. Christopher Haines, chairman of the City of London Labour party, to which the corporation responded by tabling the new clause and amendments. He said:
"We have commended to the Corporation an alternate proposal, that votes should relate to the number of staff employed by bodies within the City, a system we refer to as a payroll vote. We do not by that mean that it is based on the amount of the payroll but rather that the company would qualify for a number of votes depending on how many people it employed within the City, not the total throughout the country. We believe that this would more closely reflect the democratic position of this country as a whole and we understand those traditions are that votes are based on people, not on buildings and not on taxes"
Mr. Haines went on to point out that such changes should be part of continuing reforms, and that changing the present Bill to achieve the system he proposed would result in substantial amendment. Members will have observed the number of amendments tabled by the promoters. I can tell them that they have been discussed with the officers of the City of London Labour party, who have responded constructively.
The new scheme maintains—albeit on a different basis—arrangements for the appointment of individuals. I want to say something about that in the context of

85
amendment No. 149. Members should realise that we are not talking about nomination or appointment to the City's governing body. The individuals appointed will become part of the electorate who, with the existing business voters, will be able to participate in the City's ward elections. Using the jargon, one could say that they would form part of the electoral college comprising all the City's voters, who will decide by secret ballot who will represent them on the City's governing body.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington asserts that there should be no element of appointment or nomination. The link between those who pay for local services and the entitlement to vote in local elections has long been recognised. It is axiomatic that people liable for council tax in any local authority area will have a residence there, and will thus be able to vote for their local council.
I accept that since the advent of the national non-domestic rate, there has been no such link between payment for local services and the local authority for businesses. The City's position, however, is different. Businesses in the City are uniquely subject to local rating powers. When the national non-domestic rate was being developed, officials at what was then the Department of the Environment calculated that without the local business rate arrangements, City residents would face yearly tax demands of £9,000 each.
These local business rate powers are not limited to businesses that currently have voting rights; they apply to all City businesses. The Bill as redrafted, however, does not simply give businesses that pay the right to a vote. It links the new entitlement to their work forces, and provides for appointments to reflect the composition of those work forces.
Phil Sawford: I recognise that this represents a fundamental shift from votes for property to an arrangement based on the numbers who work in that property, but there is a whole body of electoral law applying to the normal democratic process. There are many questions relating to part-time workers, the number of registered electors, how we will be able to verify the information and whether these will be British citizens who would be entitled to vote in other elections. Amendment No. 149 shifts the goalposts without setting out the mechanisms. That is what concerns me on the democratic deficit side.
Sir George Young: That is a criticism that the Bill's opponents made when it was in its previous form. There are very good reasons for not setting out in detail the issues to which the hon. Gentleman refers. We are talking about a legal minefield. I believe that some 50 per cent. Of legal actions, in the case of industrial ballots, relate to the operation of the law. I think it much better to set out the broad principle that the electorate should reflect the composition of the work force and leave the rest to the good sense of businesses, rather than embarking on a marathon of complex legislation that will end up before the courts. That was in the Bill before, and is unchanged by the shift to which I referred.
Mr. Mark Field: May I pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Kettering (Phil Sawford)? I hope that the question raised by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) will be answered, if not this evening, then at some point in the near future when we have the statistics to hand.
86
There is no doubt that the local councillors who will be elected in four largely residential wards will be elected by residents. Whatever formula is used, there is no question of residents' positions being usurped by a block business vote. There is a protection for local residents.
7.30 pm
Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification.
Mr. Dismore: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir George Young: I should like to make a little more progress.
The further consideration, which all those who have an interest in making the system work acknowledge, is that it should be simple to operate. Some of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington and his colleagues anticipate elections about elections by a system of proportional representation through electoral colleges or ballots, which involve such complexity that they would be guaranteed to ensure that the new system was still-born. That may indeed have been the intended consequence.
Amendment No. 10 deals with the situation where premises cross ward boundaries. In such cases the premises will be treated as being located in the ward in which the greater proportion of the premises is located. That achieves the same result as formerly provided for by clause 3(5).
Amendment Nos. 11, 17 and 20 simply change "hereditament" to "premises", to reflect the fact that the scheme is no longer based on rateable values. As I have said, "premises" is a standard legislative term.
Amendment No. 12 reproduces paragraph 13 of part 2 of schedule 1 to the present Bill. There are no changes in drafting and the purpose remains the same: to prevent the possibility of "double counting" or an entitlement to appoint individuals arising twice in respect of the same premises.
Amendments Nos. 13, 16 and 27 deal with a consequential drafting change to refer the reader to the 1957 Act rather than the current Bill and to take account of the other amendments to clause 3.
Amendment No. 15 takes account of the incorporation of the definition of "work force" in clause 2. As the term is to be defined as part of clause 2(1), there is no need for it to be repeated at clause 4(2).
Amendment No. 18 is a consequential drafting change to reflect the change from "hereditament" to "premises". It substitutes "premises" for "hereditament" and reorders the concluding words of clause 5(5).
Amendment No. 25 removes schedule 1 entirely. The schedule sets out the entitlement to appoint voters relative to the rateable values of premises. With the change to a work force-based system, it becomes redundant.
The remaining amendments—Nos. 21, 26, 27, 29 and 30—are consequential, but I should refer to amendment No. 28, which concerns the repeals schedule. It may not be clear to the House that this is a repeal and not, I hasten to add, a reintroduction of a £10 rateable value threshold. With the change to work force size as the criterion for the

87
number of appointments, the references to specific rateable values which were necessary as part of the scheme set out in schedule I become redundant.
Andrew Mackinlay: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman could enlighten us. Are places of worship treated as properties? Is there a distinction between Church of England properties, which arguably may be Crown properties, and others? He has referred to Crown properties; no doubt he can answer that point. What would be the position of other denominations that are not part of the established Church?
Sir George Young: I understand that Churches are either unincorporated or incorporated bodies and that those who work within premises owned by Churches would be eligible, although some of the amendments tabled by Labour Members would exclude them.
Mr. Dismore: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir George Young: Perhaps I can deal with any other points if there is time at the end.
I should like to deal with the other amendments that have been selected with the promoters amendments in this group.
Amendment (a) leaves out reference to bodies other than Government Departments exercising Crown functions under Acts of Parliament from the proposed exception. It is not immediately apparent what bodies are being referred to by the amendment, but presumably they would be Crown bodies other than Government Departments exercising functions under provisions other than Acts of Parliament—perhaps royal charters or the royal prerogative.
Putting aside that ambiguity, it is not clear why those particular species of Crown bodies should be outside the exception proposed. If there were any such bodies in the City, and the promoters do not know of any, they would achieve a privileged status as against other Crown bodies exercising Crown functions. That would be illogical and I advise the House to reject the amendment.
Amendment (b) points in the reverse direction and extends the exception by excluding Government-appointed bodies from the Bill's provisions. "Government-appointed" is not defined, but presumably the amendment refers to quangos. The promoters have received no representations from such bodies that their work forces should be excluded, and on the principle of inclusivity, on which the definition of "qualifying body" is based, the promoters would be reluctant to take that course. The effects would certainly be capricious. To take an example at random, there would be no obvious reason to exclude the Advisory Committee for Disabled People in Employment and Training, a quango, if it opened a City office, so I invite the House to reject amendment (b).
Amendment (c) extends the exclusion from the Bill's provisions to any institution of the European Union. There are no such institutions known to the promoters in the City, and none proposed, which is no doubt why no representations have been made in respect of them. Even if such institutions were present in the City, it would not necessarily follow that their work forces should be
88
excluded. Be that as it may, I advise the House, in the well-worn phrase, that the amendment is unnecessary. I invite the House to reject it.
Amendment (d) raises the interesting proposition that the Secretary of State should be put in charge of deciding who should be able to appoint people by giving him the power to decide which bodies will be "qualifying bodies". That does not seem an attractive or even—dare I say it?—democratic proposal. It may be said to turn the City into an oversized quango; if so, it would be inconsistent with amendment (b), so I ask the House to reject that.
Amendment (f) seeks to exclude from amendment (b) the London Development Agency. I have already commented on that amendment but perhaps I should add that apart from the dangers of inequality of treatment to which I have referred, it appears to overlook the fact that, unlike regional development agencies elsewhere, where members are appointed by the Secretary of State, the members of the London Development Agency are appointed by the Mayor under the Greater London Authority Act 1999.
The other amendments cover familiar territory: the requirements for electoral colleges, for ballots and for proportional representation. A variety of amendments would render the Bill bureaucratic and unworkable. Some exclude voluntary organisations and even trade unions. The amendments have been debated extensively on other occasions and I do not propose to weary the House by repeating the arguments against them.
John McDonnell: I say in passing that we were promised amendments when the carry-over debate occurred in November, but we had no sight of any amendments until Wednesday of last week. Then, one hour and a half before the closing deadline for any amendments to the amendments to be tabled, those amendments, among them the key amendments, were withdrawn and replaced. That is inappropriate behaviour when it comes to democratic and open government.
Ms Diane Abbott: Would my hon. Friend care to speculate on why the flurry of amendments were tabled at the last minute?
John McDonnell: Far be it from me to allege that the promoters are trying to wrong-foot opponents of the Bill.
Phil Sawford: It did not work.
John McDonnell: It did not. However, it smacks of either incompetence or conspiracy.
The amendments fall into three blocks. First, new clause 1 excludes Government Departments and agencies and various other bodies from participation in City corporation government. It could be seen as a tidying-up measure, but it is sinister in its implications and extremely important. That is why we need to spend some time on it tonight.
The second block is the promoters amendments, which are a charlatan attempt by the City corporation to deceive the House and naive Members that a compromise is on offer. It supposedly liberates the workers of the City corporation and provides them with an unfettered right to democratic participation in the processes of the City

89
corporation elections. I wish to demonstrate that that is far from the case. It is a cynical manoeuvre to con the innocent, to exploit the feeble minded by sleight of hand and to ride yet again on the backs of the workers who work in the City of London area. Bizarrely, linked to that block is a series of amendments that installs within the operation of the City of London corporation a block vote on the backs of the workers of the City of London area, which is exercisable by individual company bosses. We have seen it before.
Ms Abbott: I am listening with great attention to my hon. Friend's speech, which is remarkably succinct, given the gravity of the proposal before us. He referred to the feeble-minded. Can he give the House an assurance that, in referring to the feeble-minded, he was not referring to any of the occupants of the Treasury Bench?
John McDonnell: How could I? [Interruption.] I will rephrase that. I can give that assurance; how could I refer to occupants of the Treasury Bench in that way?
The third block is made up of amendments tabled by myself and comrades, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) and others. We propose a genuine compromise of reform; the opportunity of a real partnership approach to the City of London corporation and its governance; and a stakeholder system of democracy for the City area. Many, if not all, the amendments have been discussed previously, but this is a new Parliament and we have new Members addressing a unique problem. Much of what has been said in the past is relevant today, but we will seek to ensure that we are succinct in the debate.
New clause 1 sets out to ensure that
"A government department or other body exercising on behalf of the Crown functions conferred by or under any Act shall not be treated as a qualifying body within the meaning of this Act."
It replaces the exclusion section contained in the previous legislation, which was based upon the exclusion of Government Departments or those that exercise Crown functions and hold rateable value within the City of London corporation. The clause is an attempt to prevent Government Departments and all agencies carrying out or exercising functions of the Crown from participating in the governance of the City corporation in a way that other bodies will be entitled to under the Bill; that is, by nominating a qualifying voter.
I oppose the new clause, and I will set out my reasons why. My amendments try to limit the damage of the new clause. They also seek to extend the geographical impact and clarity of the new clause. I want to democratise its implementation by giving Government Departments and other agencies the right to a vote. However, I accept that, in many ways, Mr. Speaker, in his selection of amendments, has grouped together the thread of democracy within the amendments to see whether we can have a principled vote this evening on the issue of workers democracy.
My amendments seek clarity by updating the new clause in line with the new structure of government for London, and include a reference to the London Development Agency, which came out of legislation passed in the previous Parliament to establish the Greater London Authority and the Mayor for London.
Let me now examine the genesis of the new clause, which began in Committee. In the evidence provided by Tom Simmons, the chief executive, reference was made
90
to the various consultations that took place on the new legislation. The proposal came from the original discussions; I agree with the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) that it was contained within one of the petitioner's statements with regard to the extension of the vote based upon the individual workers being counted. However, I do not believe that the construction of the City of London Labour party was to deny the workers the right to a vote.
The genesis of the new clause was not contained in any of the consultations that took place by the City of London corporation with the residents of the corporation area. There was none, and I do not believe that there has been any since then. In the evidence given to the Committee, Mr. McLeod—who was representing the City of London corporation—set out in detail the consultation arrangements that then took place.
7.45 pm.
After the report went through the court of common council, there followed a period of extensive publicity and consultation. Mr. McLeod said that the proposals had received quite wide media coverage, but that the main thrust of the consultative effort was a publication called City View which, in a sense, was the corporation's own newspaper. Throughout those consultations, there was no reference to any debate on whether there should be a clause excluding Crown property. I certainly cannot find any reference to any discussion to a proposal to exclude the workers of Government Departments from participating in the discussions on the City corporation's government by allowing them to have a vote as part of being a qualifying body.
Mr. McLeod said that 65,000 copies were directly circulated to residents, non-residents, voters on the voting lists and businesses within the City. Again, none of those copies or any future documents contained any reference to such a clause setting out the exclusions. It appears that there was some reference made in the court of common council on reports laid before them.
Again, the clause was never referred to in any of our carry-over debates. There is an extensive list of the debates that have taken place throughout this process. I can find no reference in any of those discussions to this matter being raised. It was never included in any consultation document submitted to the Government. A list of documents and representations were presented to us at an earlier stage by the promoters; none of them includes a reference to the new clause.
The precedent has been set that amendments such as this are tabled without consultation or reference, or at the last minute with little chance to table an alternative amendment.
Mr Dismore: The intervention earlier from my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) has some force; perhaps I can put the point to my hon. Friend again. Why does he think that the new clause has been tabled in this way, bearing in mind the long history that he has outlined?
John McDonnell: I want to outline the genesis of the new clause and to try to reach an understanding of why it has been tabled so late. I am perplexed. Reference was made in Committee to setting out the exclusion order that

91
the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions was suggesting. That reference was made to a Committee in 1999. It is now 2002; we received the new clause five days, or two parliamentary days, before this debate.
The amendment was not referred to in the special report on the Bill that was presented to the House. If any members of the Committee concerned are present tonight, I would be happy to allow an intervention to allow them to confirm that it was; but it was not. That was reported on 21 April 1999 and presented as an agreed report on 15 June 1999.
Paragraph 1 of the report explained clearly that the Committee had considered the Bill and found that the measures that it proposed were broadly justified in order to correct anomalies in the existing business franchise. There was no reference to exclusion orders for Government Departments in the report. Clearly, the Committee did not consider that the purpose of the report would be to outline the issues as set out. However, it is interesting that, in one of the discussions in the Committee, there was reference to the new clause being inspired by the DETR, and that officials themselves had called for the amendment to be put before the House in some form.
Ms Abbott: I am reluctant to interrupt my hon. Friend's flow, but why would DETR officials have been responsible for the genesis of the new clause?
John McDonnell: I shall come on to that matter shortly, because it is covered in the report.
In the Committee, reference was made to the DETR having looked forward to tidying up the exclusion of Government Departments at some stage. I refer my hon. Friend to page 20 of the report of the Committee's consideration of the Bill. This became the issue of the Bank of England. It was argued that the Bank of England, as currently constituted, pays rates and would possibly have a vote. A member of the Committee asked whether the Bank of England paid rates, whether it would have votes and whether there would be a nomination. A witness to the Committee said:
"I am advised that the Bank of England, at the moment, would be entitled to put somebody forward. I am also advised that we have been asked by the DETR to make a change in the Bill to deal with the Crown property. There has actually been a change in the law relating to Crown property as it was when we started out, so we are going to have to make a change to deal with that which would take the Bank of England outside."
It is, therefore, clear where the original exclusion order came from.
At no time during the debate on the Floor of the House was that matter referred to. We are now entering our fourth year of discussions on the Bill, and at no time during that period have we been told that that was the motivation behind the original clause 6. In fact, quite the reverse is the case. We were told nothing about the matter. The Committee may well have considered that it would be important to look at the Crown property issue, as it related to the Bank of England or to any other Government Department or agency located within the City of London corporation. I do not believe, however, that the Committee considered it important to extend the
92
definition of the exclusion of Crown property by such a broad, sweeping amendment as new clause 1. The Committee's consideration of this part of the Bill is notable for its brevity. Its discussion about Crown property being excluded took up two paragraphs, and that was that.
Let me express my worries about the new clause in relation to the old clause. This could be described as the Eddie George exclusion clause, because it is deliberately designed to exclude the Bank of England and other Government bodies. It is an attempt to exclude the very body to which the Government have entrusted large sections of the management of our economy, and a large remit in terms of the pursuit of corruption, financial mismanagement and the lack of probity in financial institutions. This measure excludes Government agencies such as the Bank of England and the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions from having any role in the City of London corporation's governance.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I am very interested in what my hon. Friend has been saying in the last few minutes. I am unhappy about the voting proposal being based on the number of employees, although it is, perhaps, a tiny improvement on basing it on rateable value. I see a good argument for having Government employees and the employees of public bodies within the new arrangement as a leavening to ensure that the new body is much more broadly representative of the interests not just of the City of London but of the country as a whole. The City of London plays an important part in our economy, and it is right that there should be some Government involvement, and public employees would make a valuable contribution in that context.
John McDonnell: I must explain to my hon. Friend that I am still addressing new clause 1. There are another 30-odd amendments that I want to deal with in as much detail as I can because they are equally important. He is leaping ahead slightly in relation to my amendments (a) to (d) to new clause 1, which deal with some of the matters that he has raised.
Mr. Dismore: I can see why my hon. Friend suggests that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) is leaping ahead on that matter, but I do not think that he is, because he is addressing the issue that goes to the heart of what the promoters amendments are about. Does this not reveal the internal contradictions of those amendments, in that they are trying to base a franchise on the number of workers—in which case, surely it is in the interest of every worker to be represented and not be disfranchised because of whom they work for—yet the workers do not get a vote at all because it is still the bosses who will get the vote?
John McDonnell: Exactly, but the point that I am trying to make is that this is not a naive new clause. It will divide public sector workers from private sector workers, and act as a figleaf so some bosses can say that they qualify for votes on the basis of their employees, but not if they are public sector employees. That is bizarre.
Ms Abbott: As my hon. Friend unrolls his remarkably succinct exposition of his objections to the new clause and amendments, I must intervene on the Eddie George

93
exclusion clause. I am confounded and baffled by the institution of our highest paid public servant—a very great man—being excluded in this way. Will my hon. Friend speculate on whether this could be an underhand attack on that great man by the euro-fanatic institutions in the City, because of his recent wise pronouncement on our entry into the euro?
John McDonnell: I understand the closer working relationship that my hon. Friend has established with Eddie George over the years, and what she says is partly in line with my argument. This is not so much a conspiracy theory as a conspiracy proposition proven by fact. The new clause is not naive; it is a conspiracy. DETR officials have connived, either innocently or misguidedly, with the City corporation to exclude the Bank of England from having a role in the corporation.
Andrew Mackinlay: I am following the drift of my hon. Friend's argument. I find it deeply offensive that McDonald's has a vote, but beefeaters do not. Beefeaters attract people to the City, being a proud symbol of the City of London. They also have a view—they are articulate fellows, from my recollection—yet they will be unable to make any contribution to City government as employees, although the person in the burger bar will.
John McDonnell: Let me give another example. Arthur Andersen, the accountancy company, will have a vote—indeed, it will have more votes as a result of the proposed system—but the Bank of England will not have any.
Mr. Hopkins: Will Arthur Andersen be representing the interests of what remains of Enron?
John McDonnell: It is interesting that Enron is not located in the City of London.
Mr. Mark Field: I am not a shareholder in Enron, although I hope to have the opportunity to say a few words as I have undertaken a certain amount of public consultation on this matter, as I promised to do in our debate on 15 November. Given the rate at which the hon. Gentleman is going through his notes, that might be difficult, however. As a matter of fact, Arthur Andersen may have some small sub-offices in the City of London, but most of its offices are based in the city of Westminster.
John McDonnell: That is helpful, because I have obtained from the House of Commons Library a list of the top 100 employing companies in the City of London corporation. I shall not read them all out, but my understanding is that Arthur Andersen and Company is located at 20, Old Bailey, London EC4M 7AN. It is listed here as a firm of accountants—although some would describe them otherwise—with 1,000 employees. I leave it to hon. Members to calculate how many votes that would create.
Mr. Field: The company does, indeed, have some employees in the City, as I said in my previous intervention. The majority, however, are based in the Surrey street area, which is outside the boundaries of the City of London.
John McDonnell: I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would place on the record how many employees of Arthur Andersen and others are located within the area. Under the proposal that he may support if he does not support my amendments—although I shall be surprised if he does not do that—Andersen would, I think, gain one vote for the first five employees, 10 for the next lot up to 50, then one for every 50 after that. That could mean that Andersen would run the City of London corporation—indeed, it may well be doing so already.
8 pm
Ms Abbott: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Fortuitously, my hon. Friend has brought with him a list of the 100 top employers in the City, and as that is the electoral franchise that we are debating, would it be appropriate for him to read the names of those 100 companies into the record?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): That is not a point of order but a matter for debate.
John McDonnell: I am tempted to do that, but instead I shall try to ensure that a copy of the list is laid before Members as soon as possible. I requested the list from the Library, and it was supplied by the corporation of London's economic development unit, which I thank for that information.
Mr. Dismore: This all goes back to the Eddie George exclusion clause. I am interested in the list that my hon. Friend has produced. Are there any foreign banks, especially state-owned foreign banks, on it? It would be bizarre if they had a vote in the City yet the Bank of England did not.
John McDonnell: What interests me is that the Bank of England, which is located in Threadneedle street, has 3,000 employees—so if it were given the right to vote rather than being excluded, it would be a significant voter for the City of London corporation.
Let me read out a few names. I dare not even mention Barings bank, although it is located in the City. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Go on."] I shall not press the matter, but I would be grateful if one of my hon. Friends could find someone to photocopy the list.
Let me go back to my argument on new clause 1, and why I think that it is an attempt to exclude the Bank of England. If the Bank of England had any sort of access to the governance of the City of London corporation, it would have a responsibility, or feel a sense of duty, to reach a more thorough understanding of the corporation's finances and management, and would investigate them.
The new clause excludes the Bank of England from any role in examining the City of London's "City cash". That is the name of an account held by the City of London corporation, but the accounts are neither published nor audited by the district auditor. If the Bank of England were not excluded by this incredibly damaging new clause, surely Eddie George would want to bring to light the mysteries of the City cash.
I raised the subject of the petition from Mr. Malcolm Matson in a point of order, because it was he who, in his excellent Fabian pamphlet of a few years ago, outlined the noxious basis on which the City is funded by the

95
secret City cash. That is why we want Government Departments and the Bank of England involved in the governance of the City of London. We want to expose those secret sums, which, unlike any other local government funds or budgets, are not under the scrutiny of the district auditor.
I received a letter on that subject from a Mr. Streeter, who pointed out the origins of the City cash, and explained why the new clause had been drafted to ensure that the Bank of England and others were excluded from participation.
I shall give a small example. Some of the revenue income from the City cash—£1.2 million—is expended on feasting, and £250,000 was spent on a boardroom for the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The new clause was tabled to ensure that the Bank of England and others have no role.
Mr. Hopkins: This may sound like a light matter, but there is a serious undertone.
John McDonnell: It is serious.
Mr. Hopkins: My hon. Friend referred to feasting. I suppose that by that he means good meals. Just before I came into the Chamber, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) told me that he recently had a very good dinner at the Mansion House. Is that the sort of dinner that is meant by feasting?
John McDonnell: Is my hon. Friend raising a matter of privilege on the Floor of the House? Is the City corporation wining and dining Members of Parliament to influence their votes? Surely not.
Mr. Mark Field: I am tempted not to respond every time, but, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows, one of the ceremonial roles of the corporation of London, on behalf of the City—indeed, on behalf of the nation—is to stage dinners for state visits. Obviously those are expensive, but there is no doubt that they are also extremely useful in exporting the United Kingdom as an entity to the countries that the state visitors come from.
Those dinners are not restricted to a small clique of individuals. In my capacity as a local MP I have attended two state dinners in the seven months since my election, and it was clear that many hundreds of people from all walks of life are invited—across the political divide, and from the business community throughout the United Kingdom. There is no doubt that the City of London performs a good ambassadorial role in that way.
John McDonnell: I have no doubt about the role that the City corporation plays in eating for Britain.
Mr. Dismore: Perhaps I should declare an interest, because a couple of years ago I went to a dinner. I think that it was for the judges, although I have not been invited back because I did not wear the right clothes. My hon. Friend may rest assured that that did not influence my approach—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Interesting though this may he, we are moving away from the new clause.
John McDonnell: I agree, Madam Deputy Speaker. Like me, you have probably never been invited—or perhaps you have.
Let me explain the role of the Bank of England. Would it have much authority or influence if the amendment to exclude it were rejected? I have outlined the top 100 companies, and the Bank of England, with 3,000 employees would have, according to my calculation—although I am open to correction—about 69 votes.
That may not sound a considerable number elsewhere, but in the City of London it is. Judith Mayhew was elected chair of policy and resources in December 1998 with 27 votes, so we can see how 69 votes would be important in influencing the direction that the City of London corporation would take.
Let us compare the old clause with the new. If the new clause were adopted, it would exclude a whole range of bodies, but if it were rejected it would allow a range of expertise—the Bank of England's economists, investigators and accountants—to set about the City of London corporation's creative accountants' abilities and abuse of power.
Another body that the new clause would exclude is the Crown Prosecution Service, which is also located in the City of London. I do not have the list in front of me but from memory, the CPS has about 600 employees in its City of London offices, and I calculate that it would therefore qualify for about 16 votes. Why does the City of London corporation want to prevent the Crown Prosecution Service from having a role in its governance?
The role would be only to nominate voters for elections to the City corporation. It would not necessarily mean serving on the body, only nomination. I am deeply suspicious—
Ms Abbott: As it happens, I have a copy of the list of the top 100 employers in the City in front of me, and it is true that the Crown Prosecution Service employs 600 people. Under the terms of the new clause that my hon. Friend is debating so ably, the CPS would not have a voice, yet sleazy institutions such as Arthur Andersen and all types of foreign-owned companies would.
John McDonnell: That is why I am deeply suspicious of the new clause. I am deeply suspicious of any organisation that seeks to promote a wide-ranging amendment to exclude from any dealings that it has with the outside world the very organisations that have the expertise to root out fraud and corruption, criminal activities, financial mismanagement and economic incompetence. I would have thought that any organisation would welcome the participation of those Government agencies.
Phil Sawford: My hon. Friend referred to the special report from the Committee, on which I served. The report says:
"the electoral system within the City of London is flawed in a manner and to an extent which could not be addressed within the powers of the Bill presented."
Does he think that the amendments make the Bill any better? He referred to the numbers of votes that the Bank of England and the CPS would have. We learned in

97
Committee of three wards with no electors at all, so 69 votes could represent a bigger swing than I had in Kettering.
John McDonnell: I would not like to delve into the politics of Kettering, apart from commending the voters' good sense in electing my hon. Friend.
The Committee was not alerted to the fact that excluding such bodies means that expertise within the City of London boundaries would be excluded from participation in the good governance of the City of London corporation.
Mr. Dismore: In his list of the bodies involved in enforcement, my hon. Friend missed out the judges in the Old Bailey and the other law courts in the City. The courts are very important institutions, and we all know how many City spivs have ended up in front of a judge at the Old Bailey. Does my hon. Friend agree that judges should also have a part to play?
John McDonnell: My hon. Friend and I clearly have differing views of judges and their ability. I am not sure whether the City of London corporation would benefit from the involvement of Old Bailey judges.
Andrew Mackinlay: Could my hon. Friend or the Minister throw any light on this point? I see that the Bill's promoter is not in the Chamber.[Interruption.] Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) crossed the Bar of the House a moment ago.
I have read and re-read the new clause, which says:
"A government department or other body exercising on behalf of the Crown functions conferred by or under any Act shall not be treated as a qualifying body".
It appears that most of those employers, albeit private companies, have had conferred on them by an Act duties and responsibilities that they are fulfilling on behalf of the Crown. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can help, because that is nonsense; the new clause is sloppily drafted. A lot of people who think that they will get a vote will not if new clause 1 is accepted.
John McDonnell: My hon. Friend is about 20 pages ahead of me. I will come to that point in due course. This is a poor draft. The previous draft had some relevance because it was based on rateable value. Because the redrafting has been left to the last minute, it is very poor, and I would sack the parliamentary agents responsible.
There is a contrast between the City of London corporation excluding certain bodies yet being desperately keen to extend to others a massive number of votes. It is a disgrace. We have mentioned some of those who will gain if the new clause is accepted. There is a lack of balance. Certain bodies that could root out fraud and corruption would be excluded while others, including Arthur Andersen and Barings, which have been associated with unacceptable practices, would be given additional votes. I am staggered that firms would be extended wider voting rights or could maintain existing voting rights while bodies that are legally respected and supported in many ways by the Government and both sides of the House for their probity would be excluded.
8.15 pm
Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman will be relieved to hear that the Bank of England would not be excluded under new clause 1.
John McDonnell: That is interesting. The import of the report was that it would be excluded. That makes the draft even worse. Are we saying that the Bank of England is not a
"body exercising on behalf of the Crown functions conferred by or under any Act"?
The Bank of England is formally constituted; it exercises functions under the Bank of England Act 1998. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to confuse the House because that is inaccurate, although he may not be doing so deliberately. I ask him, because he has introduced such an element of confusion into the debate, to withdraw the Bill, seek legal advice and publish it. I say that with the greatest respect because we all hold him in deep affection—[Interruption.] All right, affection. Our confidence in him as an interpreter of legislation has been undermined by that statement. I am amazed that he should tell me that the Bank of England is not a
"body exercising on behalf of the Crown functions conferred by or under any Act".
I am happy to seek legal opinion on that statement, to be paid for by the City of London corporation.
Mr. Alan Simpson: At some stage, I hope that my hon. Friend will reflect on the verification of the numbers ascribed to each of the major employers in the City of London. It is difficult to know where those numbers were conjured up from. The Labour party has had its own experience of verification of the block vote being an important aspect of democratic accountability. We are in danger of seeing the reintroduction of the block vote, in this case for the City of London.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. John McDonnell.
John McDonnell: I invite my hon. Friend to expand on that point at a later date, because it is an invaluable contribution to the debate.
Under the old clause, exclusion was based on property or rateable value—the hereditament—as against the qualifying body status based on the definition of a body corporate or an unincorporated body other than a partnership. Is the new clause superfluous? I am unsure whether a Department can be defined as a body corporate or an unincorporated body. Perhaps the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire will clarify that point. It may be relevant and required if we are seeking to bar from qualifying body status all those bodies and agencies that exercise functions on behalf of the Crown but that are not Departments. There is a breadth in the new clause. In passing, I wish that we could amend the legislation by referring to Government functions rather than Crown functions, which are a Bagehotian fiction.
The complexity that exists today in defining the scope of Crown exclusions, which has never existed in the past, arises from the reform, over several decades, of how Government perform their functions. The complexity, which has ensnared the new clause, is based on the devolution of Government functions to agencies and other

99
bodies, including private companies. That is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) raised. Government is no longer so simple that we can draft a new clause that is all-encompassing yet at the same time restrictive.
Mr. Hopkins: I have a very simple approach to words—I read what they say. The new clause refers to
"exercising on behalf of the Crown functions conferred by or under any Act".
Some four years ago, along with other right hon. and hon. Members, I voted through the Bank of England Act 1998. It conferred specific responsibilities on the Bank of England in relation to interest rates and inflation. I cannot see how that can be separated from the new clause.
John McDonnell: May I refresh my hon. Friend's memory? I think that we voted against the measure.
The new clause would exclude any body from exercising functions allocated by the Crown under legislation. The delivery of Government functions is complex and I shall offer some examples that might be caught by the provision.
Mr. Dismore: Before my hon. Friend gives those examples, may I ask him to speculate on the case of people who work for London Underground? The legislation on London Underground is incredibly complex and is something of a moveable feast, depending on whether the public-private partnership goes ahead, whether the company should be transferred to Transport for London or whether it retains its current status—in effect as a Government function. Will London Underground workers move in and out of the franchise?
John McDonnell: That is a good point. It relates to one of my two examples—the other is Railtrack. The case of London Underground is more complex because of the nature of the public-private partnership that the Government want to impose on the people of London.
British Rail was established by statute and exercised its functions on behalf of the Government and would thus be caught by the provision. Railtrack is a private company but it exercises functions on behalf of the Government, so is it caught? What is Railtrack now that the Secretary of State has taken control of the company? Is it a public body or a private body? Is it caught by the provision or is it excluded?
The clause is a minefield because it is so badly drafted. Let us consider London Underground where there is that interesting moveable feast. If the PPP is established and takes over sections of the underground, the companies participating in the PPP constitute bodies corporate exercising functions on behalf of the Government under legislation and could thus argue that they are caught by the provision. However, some parts of those companies will exercise other functions—as is normal in private companies—so how much of the company will be caught by the provision?
Will workers engaged in the PPP work of a company be excluded while workers who serve other interests in the same company escape the provision and thus be
100
counted in the allocation of votes for the City of London corporation? The complexities of that exclusion call for significant amendment.
Ms Abbott: I do not want my hon. Friend to lose his thread but does he agree that the exclusions are even more glaring and byzantine when we consider who is included? The biggest single employer in the City of London is Merrill Lynch—a US-owned company. Lloyd's of London is also included. That company was a very cesspit of corruption in the '80s. The starving widows and orphans of former Lloyd's names can tell the tale, although I do not want to get into a discussion of what happened at Lloyd's in the '80s.
Another organisation that would be included under the new clause is Bloomberg, so a financial institution owned by the mayor of New York would have more say in the governance of the City than our own Eddie George who is as British as roast beef.
John McDonnell: The issue is well rehearsed. We are disputing those exclusions. Labour Members consider that there are established bodies—corporate or unincorporated—that exercise Government functions and have thus been excluded. There is an element of confusion among Opposition Members. May I suggest that the way forward would be for the Bill's promoters to produce a legal opinion that can be tested by the House and by independent legal advice? The amendment has put us in a quagmire of confusion.
Mr. Dismore: In relation to London Underground, there is a problem arising from the removal of the word "hereditament" and the reinsertion of the word "premises". We are probably on common ground if we say that a tube tunnel is not a hereditament but it is certainly a premises. Will tube drivers be included for part of the time—while they are in tunnels—because they would be working in premises in the City?
John McDonnell: That is a novel concept.
I have another serious example. A number of my constituents pass my way only once a year—they are travellers. They operate as a business. Will they qualify under the provision on a particular day if they are in a particular area? It is bizarre.
Hugh Robertson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the reason that many foreign firms are in the City is precisely because the City is such a successful international financial centre? Many of those firms own British companies; for example, Merrill Lynch bought Mercury Asset Management—a well-known British firm. Such firms are in the City because of its success and because of the contribution that it makes to the UK economy. We are lucky to have so many of them in this country.
John McDonnell: The hon. Gentleman has fallen into the same trap that caught many Members when we first considered the Bill in 1998. I do not blame him for that. There is conflation between the City of London corporation and the City. One is a group of masonic diners; the other is a group of organisations and companies that earn much of the wealth of this country in a particular field of activity. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can make that distinction in

101
future. We are debating not the future of the City and its financial institutions, but the governance of the City of London area which is not properly exercised because it is not representative.
Mr. Mark Field: Just as it would be crass to suggest that the City of London and the corporation are intertwined and are one and the same—an argument that no Conservative Member would make—so it is unfair to suggest that the corporation has no part to play. Some of the corporation's leading lights play a large role on the international stage. They travel worldwide; for example, Judith Mayhew, who is head of policy and resources, spends much of her time abroad. The Lord Mayor has an enormously busy diary, representing the City of London and the corporation abroad where he tries to get as much business as possible. Indeed, several of the common council men—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind all hon. Members that interventions must be brief.
John McDonnell: I understand the point that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) was making. Most of us have much respect for individual members of the corporation, especially progressive members such as Judith Mayhew. Indeed, a couple of years ago, in this place, I invited her to join the Labour party because of the progressive work that she was doing at the corporation. Unfortunately, she cannot constrain the freemason backwoodsmen who currently populate most of the City of London corporation. That is why we need definite reform.
Jeremy Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend confirm what I believe to be the case from the intervention made by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) that the City corporation is the only the local government body anywhere in Europe that has direct business representation on it and proposes to extend the franchise to business? No other successful or unsuccessful city in the world has that kind of curious relationship with a limited number of financial institutions.
John McDonnell: I confirm that that is true, but it would have been incredibly helpful and reassuring if the City corporation had accepted an amendment that my hon. Friend tabled previously, under which there would have been a declaration of interest involving the membership of freemasonry lodges by City corporation members.
8.30 pm
Ms Abbott: With reference to an earlier point, it is significant that, when an hon. Member has to cast his mind about for a singularly intelligent and forward-thinking member of the City government, the first name that comes to mind is that of a woman who was born in the antipodes. The fact is that 99 per cent. of the City corporation's role is as a freemasons' diner.
John McDonnell: If I can move on—
Mr. Mark Field rose—
John McDonnell: If the hon. Gentleman wants to rise to that, I shall not stop him.
Mr. Field: I rise only to say that the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) makes my point for me in a way. In any other council in the country, Judith Mayhew would be commonly called the leader of the council, so it was obvious that I would refer to her involvement and her great contribution to corporation and City affairs.
Mr. Dismore rose—
John McDonnell: I want to finish my last point on new clause 1 before moving on to the amendments that I have tabled. I want to put on the record very clearly the fact that we need wider instruction, debate and legal advice on the matter because new clause 1 would muddy the waters about what is excluded and what is not excluded. It does not relate to modern government.
I shall briefly explain the history of the problem. In earlier times, Crown property was excluded because it was owned by Departments, and Departments were the only bodies that exercised Crown functions. Before the second world war, several boards were established, which confused matters, so the definition of Crown exclusion was extended to those boards. After the second world war, the waters were muddied even further by the introduction of nationalised industries, so Crown exclusion was extended to them. But that has all changed now.
Under the Thatcher Government, privatisation, devolution, the establishment of agencies, the proliferation of quangos and the development of semi-autonomous bodies, the definition of Crown exclusion had not kept pace with government. That is the problem with new clause 1. In the 1980s, that delegation of functions was so vast that a proper debate on Crown exclusion needed to take place, and I am afraid that the Bill has been hoist on that petard. New clause 1 is confused and does not relate to the modern world of the delivery of government.
Mr. Dismore: No doubt my hon. Friend will recall the continuous line of cases in which it was decided that the national health service is a Crown body, so all the NHS workers in the City would be excluded, but those who work in private hospitals presumably would not. Is that equitable?
John McDonnell: I am trying to make exactly that point, and it is exactly the problem that I am trying to redress in my amendments. I should like now to move on to the amendments that I have tabled.
Ms Abbott: To illustrate that point, the workers at Moorfields eye hospital—all 900 of whom are hard-working and devoted City workers—would not have a say, but employees, such as stock jobbers and those of foreign-owned banks would.
John McDonnell: Exactly. My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Some hon. Members wish to denigrate public sector workers and to exclude them from the calculation yet again.
Mr. Mark Field: There is a reason why the employees at Moorfields eye hospital would not qualify—it is not based in the City of London.
John McDonnell: Unfortunately, that hospital is on the list supplied to us by the City of London corporation, and I can provide the hon. Gentleman with a copy of that list in due course.
Mr. Hopkins: This point was made a few minutes ago, and I have wanted to intervene since then, so I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) seemed to suggest that, because the Mayor of London does good ambassadorial work for the City of London elsewhere, we should accept an essentially undemocratic form of governance in the City of London. All over the world in democratic countries, mayors are generally elected by democratic, universal suffrage. Why should the City of London be an exception?
John McDonnell: That is useful precedent—I have tried to argue in Hayes and Harlington that there is no need for elections and to install me for life. New clause 1 needs to be rewritten.
Mr. Alan Simpson: May I ask my hon. Friend to clarify the assertion that was made by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field)—that the reason why the staff at Moorfields eye hospital would not be entitled to vote is that they are not part of the City of London? If my hon. Friend looks at the list of firms and institutions that operate in the City, he will be able to confirm that Moorfields eye hospital is, in fact, listed as operating in the City and employing 900 staff within its remit.
John McDonnell: New clause 1 will exclude those Government Departments, agencies or bodies carrying out Government functions. In answer to a query, the House of Commons Library gave me the following response:
"As requested, a list of the largest 100 companies in the City of London, by employment, supplied by the Corporation of London economic development unit".
There is a reference to using the document with care because the number of employees has not been updated. It may be a mistake by the corporation, which is hardly surprising given its accountancy techniques.
New clause 1 needs to be rewritten and redrafted. My amendments would do that, and I want to explain the meat of them. I accept that, even if my amendments are accepted, the new clause will result in a field day for the lawyers of the many bodies that exercise Government functions in some form, but which are not governmental bodies themselves. Challenges will be made.
A class of bodies exists that has a status that is something between governmental and non-governmental organisations. I suggest a nomenclature of semi-autonomous bodies—SABs. Amendment (a) would deal with that group of organisations and it would delete from new clause 1 the words
"or other body exercising on behalf of the Crown functions conferred by or under any Act".
That means that only Government Departments would he excluded from the right to be described as qualifying bodies, and thus nominate voters in City of London corporation elections.
The amendment is a compromise. If a Government Department is located in the City, that Department and its workers should have every right to a say in key issues
104
affecting the working environment. However, they are excluded under the new clause. Why should those Department employees be so excluded? It demonstrates yet again a form of discrimination against the public sector and public sector workers. Why do some Conservative Members continue to amend legislation in such an anti-public sector fashion? Amendments (a) to (e) would redress that wrong.
Mr. James Gray: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that 300 nurses who live in Bart's hospital are included in the City's franchise?
John McDonnell: They are included as residents, but they would not be included within the franchise as workers. The bulk of people who work in the public sector within the City corporation boundaries would be excluded.
Andrew Mackinlay: Surely it is because none of those 300 workers has any chance of becoming Lord Mayor. That is the rub, whether under the existing arrangements or this monstrosity of a Bill. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) seems to think that it is outrageous that such a person might be entitled to become Lord Mayor.
John McDonnell: It would be fantastical were any worker elected as Lord Mayor under the current arrangements. We have yet to see an example of a worker leading the City of London corporation.
Mr. Dismore: I want to follow the point made by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire. If, as he says, the nurses to whom he referred have a vote as residents—although I think that he is wrong—they would also have a vote, albeit indirect, as workers. In effect, they would have two votes. What kind of democracy is that?
John McDonnell: It is a bizarre democracy. That is why this new clause is so anomalous.
Ms Abbott: My hon. Friend observed in his lucid and concise speech that there has been no example of a worker becoming Lord Mayor. Is there an example of someone becoming Lord Mayor who was not a freemason?
Mr. Alan Simpson: Or a millionaire.
John McDonnell: Indeed—or a millionaire. It is difficult to determine because of the refusal by City of London members to accept the introduction of a declaration of freemasonry.
Andrew Mackinlay: Just like Opus Dei.
John McDonnell: I agree that there should be a similar registration for Opus Dei.
I asked why Government Department employees should be excluded from the franchise. If this is a radical and reforming Bill, as has been proposed in other places, to extend the franchise on the basis of the number of workers, why are public sector workers discriminated against? Amendments (a) to (e) would at least introduce increased inclusivity, and less exclusivity.

105
I accept that amendment (e) has not been called, but amendments (a) to (d) have. Even without amendment (e), there is an argument in favour of amendment (a). If a Department is located in the City, it should have every right to participate in the governance of the area, but the new clause would bar Ministers and permanent secretaries from participating and voting for members of the City of London corporation. So it keeps Stephen Byers and Gordon Brown out of the corporation's governance. I do not however want to comment on that.
Amendment (a) would soften the harshness of the dictum of the new clause and would allow all those bodies—public, private and public-private partnerships—to participate in the governance of the City corporation area in which they are located and have a work force, even though they may be carrying out some functions of the Crown bestowed on them in legislation by the House. Not to accept amendment (a) would be an affront to the House. Parliament has passed legislation to confer functions on a body and has expressed its confidence in it. I would expect no new clause or subsequent amendment to undermine the confidence that the House has in such a body.
Without the amendment, the new clause signals that although we have faith in a body to do what is in some cases our dirty work, we do not have sufficient faith in it to participate in the governance of the area in which it is located. However, we do have sufficient confidence in private companies that we have not entrusted with public duties and functions. In some instances, we would have to distinguish between private companies that operate under legislation and private companies that do not, and we will discriminate against those in which we have expressed confidence by bestowing contracts on them.
There is another anomaly to consider. Does the new clause bar the many private companies that we have entrusted to carry out the statutory functions of the district auditor from participating in the governance of the City corporation? A number of accountancy bodies in the list of the top 100 companies operate and bid for contracts as district auditors in local government. They would be caught by the exclusions in the new clause because they exercise functions as bodies corporate on the basis of legislation and of the powers conferred on them. The new clause is tantamount to saying that we have confidence in companies that operate as district auditors in local government, but that they cannot participate in the governance of the City corporation.
Mr. Dismore: I see that Deloitte and Touche is on the list, the auditors in which the excellent Mr. John Magill was a senior partner. He was instrumental in exposing the scandal at Westminster council of Dame Shirley Porter gerrymandering homes for votes.
John McDonnell: It is a bizarre commentary on the new clause that the very people who have exposed corruption in local government would be caught by its terms and refused a role in the governance of the City corporation. Perhaps it is a fear—again, I relate this to the City cash—that if such bodies participate in the governance of the City of London they would expose some of those issues to daylight as a result of functions exercised on behalf of the Crown.
Mr. Hopkins: The amendments, which I, too, have tabled, are an attempt at least to improve the new clause.
106
However, I would prefer to go further and delete it entirely. If all employees and organisations were included there would be no need to have a distinction and the lawyers would not have a field day. On reflection, does my hon. Friend think that we have gone far enough?
John McDonnell: To be honest, my amendments attempt to make the new clause work, but I am struggling. I agree with my hon. Friend. Without amendment (a), a vista of legal challenges will follow by bodies that are exercising Government functions and are excluded.
Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes an important point about legal challenges. The City includes the Temple, and barristers sometimes work for the Government—effectively exercising a government function in defending the Government in cases of judicial review—and sometimes for the other side. How would my hon. Friend's analysis accommodate the position of a barrister defending the Government in a judicial review who was suddenly asked to prosecute a judicial review concerning the interpretation of this very legislation?
8.45 pm
John McDonnell: My view is that the lawyers affected would be those who participate in challenges to the enactment of the Bill. They would be denied the human right of participation in the governance of their area on the basis of a spurious clause that tries to exclude them from engaging in a practice in which they pursue their living. I find that extraordinary.
I turn now to amendment (b), in my name. In case amendment (a) is too sweeping and would allow too great an extension to bodies linked to central Government, I have offered the House another amendment. It would limit and better define the impact of new clause 1, but maintain some flexibility. I request now, Madam Deputy Speaker, that when we come to vote, the amendments be voted on separately because they present alternatives to one another. However, I realise that if those votes are allowed, they will not take place until after we have discussed the next group of amendments.
Amendment (b) would insert the words "government appointed" into the new clause, so that it would read:
"A government department or other government appointed body exercising on behalf of the Crown functions conferred by or under any Act shall not be treated as a qualifying body within the meaning of this Act."
The aim is to limit the range of the new clause. I tabled the amendment in a spirit of compromise and clarity. It would enable the new clause to exclude Government Departments and bodies whose boards were directly Government-appointed. It is an attack on cronyism in line with the attacks on the Government by the Leader of the Opposition. I agree that there is an important part of the Bill that we need to consider, and I think that we will reject the concept of boards packed with Government-appointed cronies participating in the governance of the City corporation. It will be tempting to Members of all parties.
Mr. Dismore: I see what my hon. Friend is trying to do but I am not sure that his amendment would achieve that, since it does not say "directly appointed". My concern is that the new clause could exclude those who

107
are vicariously appointed, and that would apply to NHS workers. There is no doubt that NHS boards are appointed by the Government and the boards appoint their staff, but those staff could be excluded.
John McDonnell: I offer the amendments as options on a sliding scale of impact and compromise, and I ask my hon. Friend to take amendment (b) in that spirit.
Ms Abbott: I have listened with care to my hon. Friend's succinct and carefully marshalled arguments, and the whole House is united in its admiration for the spirit of compromise in which he has tabled the amendments. Does he agree, however, that given the gaping holes already emerging in the Bill, it is not too late for the promoters to withdraw and redraft it?
John McDonnell: I hope that as a result of the debate, if my amendments are carried, we will have a better Bill, but it will not be a good Bill. It should be withdrawn, and legal advice should be sought about some of the comments made by Conservative Members, because they are now in dispute. I urge all Officers of the House to examine the Bill with regard to the point made by Mr. Matson, the petitioner. The Bill is complex and it is so different from the original draft that it should go back to Committee for examination.
Phil Sawford: I served on the Committee that considered the Bill over five or six days. We were informed from the outset that we could work only within the parameters of the Bill presented to us. The special report says that
"the Committee could only consider the Bill on its own merits, and … the wider reforms discussed could not be a matter for its formal consideration or jurisdiction".
The matters that we are discussing this evening—my hon. Friend's serious concerns—were never subject to scrutiny. This is a completely different Bill. My hon. Friend suggested earlier that it should begin its passage again because the very first amendment, new clause 1, deals with matters that were never considered in Committee.
John McDonnell: I agree wholeheartedly. Although clause 6 of the original Bill, which includes the exclusion of Crown property, was considered in Committee, we are not now excluding Crown property; we are excluding people. We are excluding Government Departments and their employees—individuals. If this were a Government Bill, individuals would be able to claim that it was a hybrid Bill; it would go through the procedure that is now prescribed for private Bills, as we have just determined, and the Government would be forced to announce changes at the earliest opportunity. The changes that we are discussing were never announced.
Mr. Alan Simpson: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's analysis, but does he accept the point made by our hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Phil Sawford)—that the excluded are not only those who are workers in parts of the institutions operating in the City, but those who currently have rights as residents in the City? They have locus standi to object, and they objected to the Bill when it was first presented. Unless they have the right to—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
John McDonnell: That was indeed a long intervention.
108
Let me be clear: there are now issues in relation to which the clause is the key to the whole Bill. The clause becomes essential to the future of the Bill, which is why I spent some time on it, but there are 30 amendments of equal import that we need to discuss tonight. The Bill is falling apart before us, which makes a reference back to Committee critical. That is no jest—the Bill needs proper examination. We are falling into the trap of making poor legislation.
The amendment tackles the issue of appointed boards. I accept that there is a problem of allowing Government-appointed boards to have a role in the City corporation; therefore the amendment is designed to ensure that those who, because of their direct Government patronage, owe allegiance to central Government are not allowed to participate in the governance of the City corporation, or exert an influence as a result of that patronage on the City corporation in its elections. Amendment (b) limits the exclusion order in new clause 1 by deliberately not encompassing those bodies that exercise Government or statutory functions, but are not directly appointed by the Government.
Would a state school fall within the remit of new clause 1? If my amendment were accepted, it would not, because the board of governors is not directly appointed by the Government. However, under new clause 1 alone, it would be, because it carries out a function under legislation. The new clause must be re-examined, and my amendments enable us to consider how to ensure that the Bill will work. I do not want schools or health bodies that can participate in the good governance of the City corporation to be excluded. They should be represented.
I am sure that within the City corporation are many arts or charitable bodies that undertake Government functions.
Mr. Hopkins: My hon. Friend knows that I am deeply unhappy about the undemocratic nature of the proposals. However, if the other bodies that he has just mentioned were included, it would bring a little pluralist competition and balance to the arrangements. From time to time, countervailing voices might be heard, instead of only the commercial voice of business.
John McDonnell: That is true. Ameliorating the effects of the clause would enable that variety of voices to be heard.
Many long-established charitable bodies now carry out Government functions: for example, the London Community Foundation now administers the children's fund, which was established by statute, throughout London. Unless my amendments, especially amendment (b), are accepted, such bodies, whose boards are not directly appointed and are therefore independent, but which carry out Government functions, would be excluded.
Mr. Dismore: Will my hon. Friend explore the argument about arts bodies? At the Barbican are all sorts of bodies that receive central Government funding: for example, the Royal Shakespeare Company receives substantial sums from the Government through various arts bodies. How does he envisage their being affected by either new clause 1 or his amendments, bearing in mind the direct and indirect relationships we have been discussing?
John McDonnell: My amendments give the option to ensure that such bodies—I do not believe that the

109
Barbican is so caught because it is exercising a function under the City corporation and is funded in that way, so I do not think that it is exercising a Government function—address the general issue of providing more flexibility.
Amendment (d) has been alluded to by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, the promoter, and I believe that it provides the maximum flexibility. However, it is necessary to have confidence in government to endorse it.
Andrew Mackinlay: I left the Chamber recently to clarify the position of the Temple and the Inns of Court with the Library. I note that the Temple church and the master's house are held in common. Otherwise, each inn has its own hall. Can my hon. Friend throw any light on whether they are enfranchised under the proposed legislation? More importantly, does each set of chambers have a vote? To me, as a layman, we are talking in that context about a business, but probably that is not the correct status. Perhaps there is a legitimate interest, but what are the limits? If my hon. Friend cannot throw light on these questions, I hope that the issues will be flagged up by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), when he has a go.
John McDonnell: It would be invaluable—I shall give way to an intervention on this matter for an undertaking—if the impact of the Bill were to be modelled for us. In other words, it would be invaluable if we were given exemplifications of what would be excluded and what would not. It was the Committee's role to examine the model and ascertain whether it worked. However, the Bill has been so dramatically changed that the model has not been presented to anyone. The situation is rather like that of the person who understood the origins of the Schleswig-Holstein question. Lunacy is beginning to enter into the debate.
Amendment (d) would provide the maximum flexibility but it requires confidence in government. It would allow the Secretary of State to determine what is "a qualifying body". Why is that important? The amendment would overcome some of the issues that have been raised so far. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire suggested that the amendment was an iniquitous measure that would give power to the Secretary of State to intervene. I believe that it would introduce flexibility and accountability.
The amendment would provide that a body—a Government Department or anyone exercising the functions—would not be treated as a qualifying body
"unless it has been declared by the Secretary of State to be a qualifying body".
In other words, a Secretary of State could designate a school or hospital outside the exclusion. In that way, the Secretary of State would have the power to ensure that responsible bodies were not excluded. That would enable him or her to exercise such discretion when they saw fit. It would also provide accountability to the House. In this context, it would be the first stage of accountability to the House.
Mr. Hopkins: I strongly support my hon. Friend's most recent point about the Secretary of State's involvement. I would reinforce it by saying that the amendment at least brings government into the picture,
110
to an extent. Without such involvement, the new arrangements would create a City of London that would be rather like Monaco or San Marino, or some such semi-independent state surrounded by a major country. The degree of independence would be unacceptable in a unitary democratic state of the sort in which we live.
John McDonnell: The point behind such flexibility is that it acknowledges that governance changes over time. As agencies change and are established in the exercise of government functions, the Secretary of State would be able to identify whether they could be appropriately excluded from new clause 1. In that way, we would gain flexibility. For example, the involvement of the Bank of England in the governance of the City of London may well be worth while for a limited period to enable its finances to be sorted out, but after that, not; the Secretary of State could therefore designate it as not excluded by the court.
9 pm
Mr. Dismore: Initially, I was taken by amendment (d). However, suppose in a far-off scenario that the Labour party is no longer in control and an extremely centralising Conservative party is in office. Could not the Secretary of State declare his own Department a qualifying body, and would that not lead to the danger of central Government being directly involved in local government?
John McDonnell: That is exactly why I said that the amendment needs a leap of faith from the Government. The Secretary of State could designate his Department, or numerous Departments, as outside the exclusion order so that they could participate.
The Secretary of State may wish to put certain matters on the agenda of the City of London corporation, including corporate governance and financial reform, so he would want to determine that certain Departments and Government agencies are not excluded and are qualifying bodies. That would give any Secretary of State the opportunity to influence the governance of the corporation and move it towards a reform agenda; virtually every other power that has been exercised to encourage the corporation to reform has failed. The amendment therefore provides an opportunity to introduce good governance in the corporation.
It is true that certain pressures could be applied, but that would be done openly through the electoral process, rather than through secret meetings and behind-the-scenes pressures, which Governments and Secretaries of State have applied in the past. To take the example of the City cash, a Secretary of State could designate Departments to influence the corporation's governance and introduce reforms. There are immense opportunities for any legislation to be hindered, delayed or even defeated by either House of Parliament. The Lords, who have often populated the City of London corporation—many of them serve as its aldermen—seek to block the legislation that we are trying to impose on the corporation, so we may well want Secretaries of State to have influence at the grass roots, which would welcome instigated reform, rather than reform from above.
My amendment would allow the Government, via the Secretary of State, to designate a range of Departments, Government agencies and bodies as qualifying bodies,

111
enabling them to nominate voters who in turn can vote for a slate of reforming representatives to tackle any issue on which the corporation backwoodsmen remain intransigent. The amendment is therefore powerful; it may be a tortuous route, but such a power may be useful in future. I urge that it should receive consideration, and not be given up, underestimated, turned away or rejected lightly. It does not propose an abuse of power, but its proper exercise. Even without a big bang confrontation, it may well be best to give the Secretary of State flexible powers to define or designate a qualifying body.
There is considerable uncertainty about the changing structures of the Government and the bodies that they set up, or on which they rely, to deliver the functions that they perform under statute. The amendment would give the Secretary of State discretion and, in doing so, would prevent legal challenges—or at least provide a mechanism to minimise them—to the status of Government-linked bodies in future.
Amendment (c) would insert the words
"or any institution of the European Union"
in the Bill. It seeks to prevent any EU institutions having a direct role in the governance of the City of London. That matter was raised in Committee; I refer Members to page 20 of the Committee report for 5 May 1999. The argument went that European Union bodies were exempt from paying rates and paid a contribution in lieu of rates, so did not appear on the rating list and did not qualify to vote. That was a delicate and diplomatic way of excluding European institutions, but it did not prevent the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development from securing £1.2 million for refurbishment of its City offices. When the system of voting is based no longer on property but on employees, the fine argument that European institutions are thus barred is not tenable. The further argument, advanced on the Floor of the House, that currently there are no European Union bodies in the City of London area, bears some examination. Even if there are none at present, there could be some in future.|
It could be argued that EU institutions are exercising functions on the Crown's behalf, as conferred by legislation such as the Maastricht treaty et al.
Mr. Hopkins: My hon. Friend and I number among those who are concerned about Britain's future in the European Union. Indeed, there is something of a competition between the eurozone and the City of London in pursuing business in the financial world. If we are not careful, EU influence in the City could prove unhelpful to our economy and to the City's future success.
John McDonnell: Because of the confusion arising from the move from rateable value to voting on the basis of employees, the legislation could enable EU institutions to set up bodies in the City of London area and thereby exert an influence. I find that amazing.
I do not want to stir up the European debate, but, at various stages, the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) has edged towards me in the Tea Room. It is worrying, nevertheless, that there is no such specific exclusion of EU institutions.
My amendment makes explicit what might not be sufficiently clear in new clause 1—that EU institutions are not entitled to participate in the governance of the City
112
of London corporation. It could be argued that the new clause already excludes such participation, but I do not accept that. I do not believe that many such institutions can be regarded as Departments—certainly not of this sovereign Government. Moreover, they exercise not Crown functions but EU functions. My amendment makes the matter explicit by excluding those institutions, and I urge hon. Members to support it.
Mr. Dismore: Will my hon. Friend comment on the position of European Economic Area bodies, which are not EU bodies per se, but can play an important role in economic and financial affairs?
John McDonnell: My amendment would ensure exclusion of their participation in the governance of the City of London corporation. There might be an argument that those receiving EU funds are exercising—albeit tenuously—functions of government conferred on them by previous legislation passed by this House. My amendment makes it explicit that they would not so participate.
Phil Sawford: The point of the amendments is to focus on people rather than premises. I might be sympathetic to my hon. Friend's views on Europe, but would not the amendment exclude from the franchise British citizens who do a good, honest day's work in the City of London? Although there might be a conflict of interest in that regard, I am not sure that we can justify excluding such people from the vote.
John McDonnell: That is a valid issue to raise at this point, but unless my amendments are adopted and we accept the principle of balloting the work force, those workers will be excluded anyway. Amendment (e) would have addressed that issue, but it was not selected and therefore is not open for debate.
The amendments that we are discussing demonstrate the importance of ensuring that the new clause is clear. There is a wide range of arguments in favour of democratising, and to some extent constraining, this power. They go to the heart of the Bill, but the fundamental question in all the amendments is who should be eligible to vote in the governance of the City of London corporation. If, like me, hon. Members believe in universal suffrage, they will support a number of the amendments that I am coming to, which would provide for ballots rather than appointments.
The basis of universal suffrage has always been one person. one vote. If hon. Members believe in universal suffrage, they should support any extension of suffrage beyond the residential and oppose those who seek to build votes on names of workers rather than giving them a ballot. If, in the spirit of compromise, they want a negotiated settlement between all the combatants in the dispute over the City corporation franchise, like me they should be willing to examine as many compromise options as possible. The Bill, if amended as many of us wish it to be, could be a decisive agreement on the future franchise of the City corporation, and would decommission some of the corrupt practices that have gone on.
The compromise that I have repeatedly suggested is based on mutual esteem, as set out in my amendments. It recognises that all the stakeholders in the City corporation

113
should have a say in the democratic structures and procedures of their area. At present, there are limited rights for residents, for some businesses and for a group of elected-for-life aldermen, but there are no rights for the workers of the City, who create the wealth on which the City relies and of which it extols the virtues. In our amendments, we seek to install that right.
New clause 1 unamended would exclude the public sector from participating in the democratic processes of the City corporation, and would prevent that sector from having any effective say. If we are successful in introducing a ballot of workers in the exercise of the franchise based on the numbers of workers employed by each company, unless we amend new clause 1 we will exclude the public sector. That would prevent the people who work in the public sector and provide such valuable services from making a valid contribution to City governance.
If we extend the franchise based on employment, and amend the democratic processes of the City corporation, we will create a divide between public sector employees who, by being employed by bodies excluded under new clause 1, will have no participatory rights, and private sector employees, whose employment will gain them the right to vote, or at least the right to be counted. That cannot be acceptable.
Under clause 4, a qualifying body is entitled to appoint a number of persons and ensure that they reflect the composition of the work force, so the City of London corporation moved some way towards reflecting the work force, although not in a ballot. However, that is not so for public sector workers.
Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend talked about involving all the stakeholders, and he focused on the residents and the business voters via the workers. I want to put to him a point that I raised in one of the previous debates on the Bill. What about the City's customers? If we are genuinely talking about a stakeholder democracy, surely the customers must have a say as well?
John McDonnell: Shareholders of individual companies may have some influence over businesses. I cannot find a mechanism for customers that could be built into this structure, although I deal with the issue of contractors in later amendments.
It is unfortunate that new clause 1 would create a split between the public sector and the private sector, which does not reflect the real work involved in the delivery of public services and services generally in the City of London corporation.
Because a sliding scale of reforms is involved, I suggest that the proposals be voted on separately.
9.15 pm
Mr. Alan Simpson: I am sorry to be pedantic. My hon. Friend listed 100 major City institutions and the number of employees—[HoN. MEMBERS: "He did not."] Well, he mentioned them, and made copies of the details available to Members.
How do we know that the number of people registered as employees is the genuine number of employed people? What mechanisms will allow us to establish whether these are made-up numbers, genuine numbers or simply bought numbers, in an obscure voting process?
John McDonnell: That is a valid point, with which I will deal in due course.
114
In our last debate, the argument advanced against basing voting rights on the number of workers in a company was that, according to the City corporation, there was no operable way in which the number of employees could be established and registered. Now it has come up with one: it took four years, but we are nearly there. All we need do is establish a registration system based on the number of employees and their entitlement to vote, and one of my amendments deals with that.
Mr. Dismore: I will not refer to voters, because the people I refer to are not exactly voters, although they are part of the franchise. Does my hon. Friend think that they should be treated in the same way as the franchise in the rest of the country in terms of age, nationality, citizenship and so on, or does he believe, as the City seems to, that anyone should be able to vote?
John McDonnell: I am trying to arrive at a simple mechanism to allow the voters—the workers in a company, that is—to be properly registered. The Bill as presented by the corporation attempted to reflect the composition of the work force. I have tabled amendments to try to encourage that, and to find a practical way of doing so.
Jeremy Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for trying to clarify the point, and I am sorry to have missed his opening remarks.
Is the proposal based on the ordinary place of work of an individual employed by a company, on that person's permanent place of work, or on the place where the payroll is drawn up? There are people, especially in the public sector, who travel a great deal in the course of their jobs. That probably applies almost as much to those in the private sector. It will be impossible to identify a place of work definitely and to establish that someone is on the payroll unless all names and numbers are made available.
John McDonnell: The City corporation's amendments deal with some of my hon. Friend's points, and my amendments aim to construct a further device to give us some security in that regard.
Let me deal with promoters amendments Nos. 1 to 4 and 5, to which I have tabled amendments (b) to (d). The promoters amendments place emphasis on the occupying of premises. We are moving away from the link with hereditaments to qualification based on occupancy. It is proposed that the reference to rates should be deleted, but I should have thought that, if the reference to the 1957 Act remains, some definitions in the Bill should be retained. Let us, however, concentrate on the concept of "occupying". Some of the amendments introduce that concept to emphasise physical presence on the premises. Amendment No. 3 substitutes "premises" for "hereditament", and amendment No. 4 refers to "occupying for relevant purposes"—such purposes being defined in lines 15 to 18 on page 2 of the Bill.
However, the inclusion of "relevant purposes" in this instance is bizarre. It seems to refer to everything from religious worship to prostitution, which could be called a calling or a profession. Which is which?
Hon. Members should not be deceived by the amendment. It does nothing to insist on personal occupation—on someone being in physical occupation as
+++++++++++

115
we would normally understand that term. A company can still qualify by occupation through a director, officer, employee or agent of that body, or through a holder of any paid or unpaid office. The amendment to emphasise occupation by personal or physical presence is undermined by including such a wide range of people. It is a misguided approach.
Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point that begs an important question: who does the appointing on behalf of the companies? Presumably, some of the directors on the executive board may in some circumstances be said to be working in the particular building concerned and may be involved in appointing the electors, but a company is its shareholders. They may theoretically occupy the building through the company but in practice never go within 100 miles of it. Who is actually the occupier for that purpose?
John McDonnell: That argument was raised earlier. We have the concept of occupying premises and employing workers to qualify the body to gain votes, but those votes may be exercised by an individual. That is the block vote. There is no reference to shareholders being involved in that decision-making process.
Jeremy Corbyn: Could the provision apply to people who work for a major company, are based overseas but are on the payroll of the head office? Their votes would be taken into account even though they may not have even been in this country for years.
John McDonnell: The definition of occupancy is so watered down by the amendments that there is potential for absent landlords to exercise votes in that way. I urge the House to reject the amendments because they are worthless.
Mr. Dismore: To extend that point, is this not similar to the Irish peerage of the 19th century? Peers who never went anywhere near Ireland had their seats in the House of Peers as it then was and were part of the legislature. They had no contact whatever with the area that they supposedly represented, except perhaps for screwing the peasants to get money out of them.
John McDonnell: I want to move later to an amendment that addresses that point. The promoters amendment to clause 5(5) weakens the link even further.
I ask the House to reject amendments Nos. 1 to 5 because they are worthless. The promoters amendment No. 5 introduces the definition of work force. It designates the work force as
"those persons whose principal or only place of work" —
my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North raised this point—on a particular day, "the qualifying date", is ordinarily the premises concerned. On that day each year, the employees of a particular company could ordinarily work at that premises. On every other day of the year, they could be employed elsewhere. They could be working anywhere.
Mr. Hopkins: In extreme circumstances, could we not find that a company had a very small office with a very
116
small number of people, a large number of workers working remotely at screens, and a large number of representatives overseas and all over the country? On one day, they could all come together in that tiny office to make up the qualifying vote.
John McDonnell: That is one of the abuses that has been used so far in the governance of the City corporation: the registration of people at premises at which they do not work except on a particular day. The Committee tried at length to eradicate some of those abuses. On every other day of the year, these people could be employed elsewhere. The company could bus them in on the one day to boost its voting capacity in the City corporation.
Jeremy Corbyn: Companies would not stoop to that.
John McDonnell: They have stooped to that already.
Jeremy Corbyn: I cannot believe it.
John McDonnell: Look at some of the exposures of previous years.
The new clause also identifies that the people concerned must be persons who work for that body. The entitlement is based upon the number of employees who work for that body on a particular day. The day before, they could be working for anyone. On the day in question, a company could recruit a massive number of temporary workers to boost its voting entitlement, paying them nothing. They could be part-time workers—
Mr. Dismore: On two-hour contracts.
John McDonnell: Exactly. On that day, the company could boost its voting entitlement only to lay off those people the next day, having gained significant voting capacity within the City corporation.
Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend is outlining an important flaw in the proposals. As far as the electorate in the real world is concerned, we have moved away from a formal date for compiling the electoral register. We have moved towards the concept of the rolling register, which means that people can register to vote and participate in local and national democracy as and when they change address. Should we not have something equivalent for the City?
John McDonnell: There are fundamental issues at stake here, and there is a large potential for abuse. I understood the City corporation's argument that there might be problems in registering workers at a particular point in time at any particular premises. But what annoys me is that these problems could have been ironed out over the last four years of the debate; we could have set up a system of registration to overcome the problems.
Mr. Dismore: Surely compiling a register on a given day in the City of the number of employees concerned—bearing in mind the huge amount of technology available—cannot be any harder than a trade union compiling a list of its members for when it has to have a ballot for industrial action.
John McDonnell: I do not think that it is, and that is why one of my amendments places trade union registration at the heart of the Bill. It is the simplest way of identifying who is working where and who qualifies.
Mr. Hopkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are at least two possible ways of overcoming this? The

117
first is to have a register that is made up once a year, with a registration officer—from the Electoral Commission, perhaps—who does spot checks from time to time. The second is to have a reasonable occupancy level at a particular office. If an office can accommodate 10 people but 100 are registered there, clearly something is amiss.
John McDonnell: There are common-sense ways of dealing with the abuse and fraud that could result from the system, and the new clause would leave the system open to the most appalling abuse. It is not a fantastical scenario either, because it is based upon existing gerrymandering practices in the City corporation.
Mr. Dismore: Surely a way round that point is to look at the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963, which laid down a minimum floor space that an individual office worker should have to occupy. If it turned out that a company tried to register more people than its office space allowed, it should be prosecuted for breaching the legislation.
John McDonnell: I know that a proposal was drafted at one point—one that I was often induced to support by the City corporation—to use rateable value for calculating employers. That could be a fall-back position for a system in which we enforce standards upon employers and identify gerrymandering. The new clause has the potential for gerrymandering, a time-honoured tradition that the City corporation has sought to stamp out.
9.30 pm
Andrew Mackinlay: The debate is clearly focusing on how we satisfy the need for probity and a proper ethical process in relation to who should have a franchise. Will my hon. Friend consider tabling further amendments to the Bill, not to make the hefty tome that is the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 apply to the City of London corporation but to enable the Electoral Commission to deal with the matter? There is a rich seam of further thoughts for Parliament to consider in relation to whether aspects of that Act could be incorporated into the Bill. The Act has a great many provisions.
John McDonnell: Exactly. I hope that the Bill's promoters will realise the errors of some of their amendments. If they do, it will give us the opportunity to pull back the Bill and table such amendments. In my own small way, may I refer my hon. Friend to amendments (b) to (d) on page 127 of the amendment paper, in which I try to address some of the abuses that have been mentioned?
Phil Sawford: I have to say to my hon. Friend yet again that there was no discussion in Committee of how to verify these matters, or of how the registers would be drawn up. Nor did the petitioners have the opportunity to discuss the matter. On the question of numbers, and in reflecting on another major financial centre, I looked on in horror as it was explained on television that 50,000 people worked in the twin towers of the World Trade Centre. It was with relief that we realised that the actual number was significantly less, but that illustrates how we can judge such numbers by the size of a building and then discover, through a tragedy, that nothing like that number of people is inside.
Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that, as Chairman of Ways and
118
Means, you have an ongoing discretion in relation to some of the matters relating to this Bill, and that it is open to you to consider at some stage the prudence of this matter continuing in Parliament. I understand that you have, either directly or indirectly, some leverage and discretion in that matter. Bearing it in mind that the Bill started its life and completed its Committee stage before Parliament considered and enacted the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, would I or any other hon. Member be competent to put a representation to you on this question, and would you consider one? Events have overtaken us in the area of electoral law, and you might consider this a matter that should properly have been taken account of in Committee. I am not asking you to consider my submission tonight; I am just asking whether this is something of which you could legitimately take cognizance.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I cannot deal with hypothetical situations, but it is always open to hon. Members to make representations either to the Speaker or to the Chairman of Ways and Means, whoever is appropriate, at any time.
John McDonnell: On that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you may take it as read that representations will be made on this matter.
My amendments (b), (c) and (d) try to address the prospect of manipulating the count of employee numbers by insisting that the employees who make up a work force are genuine—that is, that they have worked for the company or qualifying body for a period of not less than 12 months. I accept that that does not completely reflect some of the practices operating in the City of London corporation area, because there is a high turnover in certain sectors. Nevertheless, this is a common criterion used to avoid the manipulation of ballots. It is used in legislation elsewhere, and also in the Labour party for the selection of candidates for local councils and for Parliament. Someone has to have been a member of the party for at least 12 months before the start of the selection process.
The amendment will give some security to the process. I accept that for it to operate, there would have to be some form of registration of the employment in question. I repeat that the City of London corporation has argued in the past that that would be impossible, cumbersome and administratively costly, and therefore could not be introduced—yet it is inevitable if the system is to be based on the number of people employed by a particular company on a particular day.
I am dealing now with some of the amendments that I have tabled to the amendments. I have yet to deal with my proposals for reform, so I do not expect a vote to be called.
The registration system is hardly difficult or impossible to construct. It has to carry only three pieces of information: the name of the employee, where he or she is employed, and the company that he or she works for. However, one further piece of information would be required: how long the person has been employed by that employer. That would not be an impossible task for modern systems.
Jeremy Corbyn: I agree with my hon. Friend, but will he make it clear whether he is talking about the

119
Individual's ordinary and permanent place of work, or the place where people are based and from which they could be sent to work elsewhere? In the big consulting companies that we have talked about, such as Andersen and others, people are not in the office very often, because they are always being sent off somewhere else. Would those people have a vote or not?
John McDonnell: I believe that we must insist upon there being deemed to be one sole base from which people work. That is in the spirit both of the legislation and of our amendments. Again, if continuing amendment is needed to ensure that the system works, the legislation could be amended, or we could amend the code of conduct that will be published to ensure that registration takes place properly.
I offer amendment (c), which says that the people concerned should be members of a trade union, as a way of overcoming the problem of registration. In principle, I believe that all workers should be members of a trade union; I am a member of Unison, and many other Members are members of other unions. The amendment would serve as an incentive for employers to promote trade union membership, and for employees to join a trade union.
The important thing, however, is that amendment (c) would also offer a readily available method of registering the numbers employed at a particular workplace on a particular day. I accept that trade union membership records are not infallible, but they are a useful form of information about who is employed by a firm, where and for how long. They are now recognised in statute in connection with industrial action and ballots, so there are systems already in place, based on trade union membership, which could assist us in the registration process.
The TUC and the individual trade unions operating in the City—it is usually the MSF, or Amicus, or whatever it is called now—would be only too pleased to assist in developing a reliable registration scheme for use by the City corporation. That would produce a valuable partnership between unions and employers operating in or based in the City.
Amendment (d) sets out the need to recognise that not all employees are directly employed. People are often contracted to supply services to particular bodies. The reason for tabling the amendment was that it would insert the words
"or who are contracted to supply services to that body"
That would reflect part of the debate that took place in the previous Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) took part in it, although he is not in his place now; I know that he has been unwell. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) also spoke, and chastised me for my failure to pay any regard to workers who were not directly employed by a City-based firm but were contractors. You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that was described as the "white van man" argument.
Let me put the record straight.
Mr. Dismore: The "white van man" argument is part of it, but more important is IR 35 man or woman. I do
120
not wish to pursue the arguments about IR 35 now. However, those contractors, who are self-employed but effectively still work for these companies, are a clear example of people who would not be caught within the present definition put forward by the City but ought to be included in the franchise.
John McDonnell: Under my amendment, they would be included. It would cover the full range of people who are currently employed on a contract basis to supply services. I understand and appreciate the concern that has been expressed. The issue is complex but it could be overcome.
Jeremy Corbyn: What proportion of the working time of people on IR 35 would have to be spent with one company based in the City for them to qualify for a City vote?
John McDonnell: With respect to a code of practice on registration at some future date, we would argue that, as in the other clauses, the principal employment would be the relevant one. We based that on the majority of time employed on a particular contract.
This is a difficult area, and it is difficult to cater for the full range of activities and employment in the City. The amendment seeks to reflect the modern reality of work and trade in the City area. Many workers are not directly employed; they often work for themselves or are under contract to a company that could be described as a qualifying body. Many may be contractors, but their contract status is often with one or two firms at most. They operate virtually like direct employees, so under the amendment they would be covered by the Bill.
If there is to be an allocation of votes in the City based on employment, this type of employment and employee should be recognised. Not to do so would be to fail to relate to the modern experience of employment in the City.
I turn now to my amendment No. 52 and promoters amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8. I shall discuss the amendments together as they relate specifically to occupancy. I find clause 2(2) virtually incomprehensible. Even taking into account amendment No. 6, I take it to mean that although definitions of occupancy in clause 2(1) have the emphasis correctly on personal and physical presence, those caveats are virtually meaningless for unincorporated bodies. That is why amendment No. 52 seeks to delete subsection (2). Under the subsection, it does not seem to matter whether the owner or the tenant is in occupation. Amendment No. 52 would delete the subsection as it is contrary to everything that has gone before and the emphasis on connection to place or occupancy by physical presence.
Amendment No. 7 would insert "doing" after "to be" in line 20. It would, if amendment No. 52 is accepted, become superfluous. Amendment No. 8, would also be superfluous if amendment No. 52 is accepted.
Amendment No. 149, which is the promoters' main amendment, was outlined by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire. It would amend section 6 of the City of London (Various Powers) Act 1957 dealing with qualification of voters at ward elections. My understanding is that there are three categories of voters—the owner-tenant, the resident and now the new voters,

121
the qualifying bodies occupying premises. However, under amendment No. 149, the qualifying bodies will gain votes based upon their occupation and employment.
Jeremy Corbyn: What does my hon. Friend mean by an owner-tenant? Is that the owner of the freehold, the owner of the leasehold or the tenant of a sub-lessee or a head-lessee? Who gets a vote?
John McDonnell: In my understanding, ownership or tenancy would qualify.
Qualifying bodies are the key to amendment No. 149. Does occupation of those qualifying bodies actually mean—
Sir George Young rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House proceeded to a Division
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
The House having divided: Ayes 205, Noes 46.

Division No. 145]

[9.45 pm

AYES

Ainger, Nick

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Amess, David

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

Atbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Coaker, Vernon

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Coffey, Ms Ann

Atkins, Charlotte

Conway, Derek

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Bacon, Richard

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Bailey, Adrian

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Baldry, Tony

Denham, Rt Hon John

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Djanogly, Jonathan

Bellingham, Henry

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Bercow, John

Dowd, Jim

Beresford, Sir Paul

Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

Blackman Liz

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Blizzard, Bob

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Fitzsimons Mrs Lorna

Boswell, Tim

Flight, Howard

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Bradshaw, Ben

Foulkes, George

Brady, Graham

Francois, Mark

Brake, Tom

Gale, Roger

Brazier, Julian

Garnier, Edward

Brooke, Mrs Annette L

Gidley, Sandra

Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

Gilroy, Linda

Goodman, Paul

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Gray, James

Browne, Desmond

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Bryant, Chris

Grieve, Dominic

Burnett, John

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Burt, Alistair

Hanson, David

Butterfill, John

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Harvey, Nick

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Hayes, John

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Healey, John

Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

Caplin, Ivor

Hendrick, Mark

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Hendry, Charles

Heppell, John

122

Hill, Keith

Paice, James

Hoban, Mark

Palmer, Dr Nick

Hodge, Margaret

Pearson, Ian

Hoey, Kate

Pond, Chris

Hope, Phil

Pope, Greg

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Quinn, Lawrie

Howells, Dr Kim

Randall, John

Hoyle, Lindsay

Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

Rendel, David

Hunter, Andrew

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Hutton, Rt Hon John

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Rosindell, Andrew

Jamieson, David

Sayeed, Jonathan

Jenkin, Bernard

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Jenkins, Brian

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

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

Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Keeble, Ms Sally

Soames, Nicholas

Kelly, Ruth

Spellar, Rt Hon John

Kemp, Fraser

Spicer, Sir Michael

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Spring, Richard

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Steen, Anthony

Lamb, Norman

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Lammy, David

Stoate, Dr Howard

Lansley, Andrew

Stringer, Graham

Laxton, Bob

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Leslie, Christopher

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Letwin, Oliver

Swayne, Desmond

Levitt, Tom

Syms, Robert

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Tami, Mark

Lidington, David

Taylor, sir Teddy

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

McAvoy, Thomas

Timms, Stephen

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

Touhig, Don

MacDonald, Calum

Tredinnick David

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

McIsaac, Shona

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Tyler, Paul

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Vaz, Keith

McLoughlin, Patrick

Viggers, Peter

McNulty, Tony

Ward, Ms Claire

Malins, Humfrey

Watkinson, Angela

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Watson, Tom

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Watts, David

Merron, Gillian

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Whittingdale, John

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Wicks, Malcolm

Miller, Andrew

Wilkinson, John

Moffatt, Laura

Wills, Michael

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Wilshire, David

Moran, Margaret

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Morley, Elliot

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Murrison, Dr Andrew

Woolas, Phil

Norman, Archie

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Norris, Dan

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Hugh Robertson and Mr. Mark Field.

Ottaway, Richard

NOES

Austin, John

Davidson, Ian

Barnes, Harry

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Berry, Roger,

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

Burgon, Colin

Cawsey, Ian

Dobbin, Jim

Challen, Colin

Etherington, Bill

Clapham, Michael

Gerrard, Neil

Coleman, Iain

Gibson, Dr Ian

Crausby, David

Hermon, Lady

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Hinchliffe, David

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Hopkins, Kelvin

123

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Lazarowicz, Mark

Salter, Martin

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Sanders, Adrian

McDonnell, John

Sawford, Phil

Mackinlay, Andrew

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Marshall—Andrews, Robert

Skinner, Dennis

Martlew, Eric

Steinberg, Gerry

Mole, Chris

Stunell, Andrew

Perham, Linda

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Pike, Peter

Vis, Dr Rudi

Pollard, Kerry

Wareing, Robert N

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Tellers for the Noes:

Pugh, Dr John

Jeremy Corbyn and Mr. Andrew Dismore.

Rapson, Syd

Question accordingly agreed to.
Question put accordingly,That the clause be read a Second time:—
The House divided:Ayes 200, Noes 46.

Division No. 146]

[10.2 pm

AYES

Ainger, Nick

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'tryNE)

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Amess, David

Denham, Rt Hon John

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Djanogly, Jonathan

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Dowd, Jim

Atkins, Charlotte

Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Bacon, Richard.

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Bailey, Adrian

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Baker, Norman

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Flight, Howard

Beith, Rt Hon A J.

Flook, Adrian

Bellingham, Henry

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Bercow, John

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Blackman, Liz.

Francois, Mark

Blears, Ms Hazel

Gale, Roger

Blizzard, Bob

Garnier, Edward

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

Boswell, Tim

Gilroy, Linda

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Goodman, Paul

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Gray, James

Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Bradshaw, Ben

Grieve, Dominic

Brady, Graham

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Brake, Tom

Hanson, David

Brazier, Julian

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

Harvey, Nick

Hayes, John

Browne, Desmond

Healey, John

Bryant, Chris

Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

Burnett, John

Hendrick, Mark

Butterfill, John

Hendry, Charles

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Heppell, John

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Hermon, Lady

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Hill, Keith

Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

Hoban, Mark

Caplin, Ivor

Hodge, Margaret

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Hoey, Kate

Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Hope, Phil

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

Howells, Dr Kim

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

Hunter, Andrew

Coaker, Vernon

Hutton, Rt Hon John

Coffey, Ms Ann

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Conway, Derek

Jamieson, David

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Jenkins, Brian

124

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Rendel, David

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Keeble, Ms Sally

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Kelly, Ruth

Rosindell, Andrew

Kemp, Fraser

Sayeed, Jonathan

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Lamb, Norman

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

Lammy, David

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Lansley, Andrew

Soames, Nicholas

Laxton, Bob

Spellar, Rt Hon John

Leslie, Christopher

Spicer, Sir Michael

Letwin, Oliver

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Levitt, Tom

Steen, Anthony

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Lidington, David

Stoate, Dr Howard

McAvoy, Thomas

Stringer, Graham

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

Stuart, Ms Gisela

MacDonald, Calum

Sutcliffe, Gerry

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Swayne, Desmond

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Syms, Robert

McIsaac, Shona

Tami, Mark

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Tapsell, Sir Peter

McLoughlin, Patrick

Taylor, Sir Teddy

McNulty, Tony

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Malins, Humfrey

Timms, Stephen

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Touhig, Don

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Tredinnick, David

Merron, Gillian

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Tyler, Paul

Miller, Andrew

Vaz, Keith

Moffatt, Laura

Viggers, Peter

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Ward, Ms Claire

Moran, Margaret

Watkinson, Angela

Morley, Elliot

Watson, Tom

Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

Watts, David

Murrison, Dr Andrew

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Norman, Archie

Whittingdale, John

Norris, Dan

Wicks, Malcolm

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Wilkinson, John

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Wills, Michael

Paice, James

Wilshire, David

Palmer, Dr Nick

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Pearson, Ian

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Pike, Peter

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Pond, Chris

Woolas, Phil

Pope, Greg

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Quinn, Lawrie

Tellers for the Ayes:

Randall, John

Mr. Mark Field and Hugh Robertson.

Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

NOES

Austin, John

Gibson, Dr Ian

Barnes, Harry

Gidley, Sandra

Berry, Roger

Hinchliffe, David

Brooke, Mrs Annette L

Hopkins, Kelvin

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Lazarowicz, Mark

Burgon, Colin

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Cawsey, Ian

McDonnell, John

Challen, Colin

Mackinlay, Andrew

Clapham, Michael

Marshall—Andrews, Robert

Coleman, Iain

Martlew, Eric

Crausby, David

Mole, Chris

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Pollard, Kerry

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Davidson, Ian

Pugh, Dr John

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Rapson, Syd

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

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Salter, Martin

Dobbin, Jim

Sanders, Adrian

Etherington, Bill

Sawford, Phil

Flynn, Paul

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Gerrard, Neil

Skinner, Dennis

125

Steinberg Gerry

Tellers for the Noes:

Stunell, Andrew

Taylar, David (NW Leics)

Jeremy Corbyn and Mr. Andrew Dismore.

Vis, Dr Rudi

Wareing, Robert N

Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause read a Second time.
It being after Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed Thursday 31 January.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
BARCELONA PROCESS AND ASSISTANCE TO PALESTINIAN SOCIETY
That this House takes note of European Union documents numbers 11381/00, the Commission Communication on "Reinvigorating the Barcelona Process" and 14778/00 relating to the Special Report by the Court of Auditors on the management by the Commission of the programme of assistance to Palestinian Society; and welcomes the Government's approach to EC assistance to Palestinian society and supports the Government's continuing commitment to the Barcelona Process.—[Dan Norris.]
Question agreed to.

CONVENTION ON THE FUTURE OF EUROPE
Resolved,
That, in the opinion of this House, Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory and Ms Gisela Stuart should be the national parliamentary representatives from this House to the Convention on the Future of Europe.—[Dan Norris.]

Public Transport (Pensioners)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dan Norris.]
10.14 pm
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing this debate to take place.
I congratulate the Government on many of the measures and the assistance that they have so far provided for pensioners—for example, the minimum income guarantee, the increase in the basic state pension, the £200 winter fuel payments, and the free television licences for all those aged 75 or over. In my view, that last measure should be extended to all pensioners. I shall continue to pursue the matter with support from hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is important that there should be equality between all pensioners.
I welcome also the free pass that entitles all pensioners to half-price concessionary travel on buses, which was introduced in 2001. However, many pensioners are dependent on public transport and live on extremely limited incomes. Transport costs take a significant part of pensioners' disposable income. The need for free public transport is important, especially if one lives outside town areas and in remote villages, where the costs are even greater. There are areas that have never benefited from municipal transport, and we have always been envious of towns that had that facility. Unfortunately, that benefit did not extend to most parts of Lancashire.
The need for free concessionary pensioner travel has been recognised in Scotland and Wales and in many metropolitan areas within England. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister is well aware that in Wales concessionary fares are within the remit of the Welsh Assembly. We welcome the Assembly's efforts on behalf of pensioners. It was after the 1999 elections that the Assembly decided to adhere to the decision that it would bring free travel into Wales in April this year. It is important that from April this year a pensioner can travel on buses throughout Wales. That is something of which we are envious in England.
I look to Scotland, where Fife has always allowed free travel for pensioners. Strathclyde has low travel costs. Scotland now has the ability to consider the introduction of free travel for those who are blind, disabled or pensioners. Once again, we must recognise that the poor relations will be English pensioners.
London is a good example of somewhere which offers something positive to pensioners. The standard concession in London for elderly, blind and disabled people crosses 33 boroughs. The scheme provides for free travel for pass holders on buses, the underground, the docklands light railway and other rail services. Free travel is available on buses from 9 am to 3 am the next day from Monday to Friday, and at any time on Saturday, Sunday and public holidays.
Free travel on railway services in the London area is available from 9.30 am from Monday to Friday until the last train at any time on Saturday, Sunday and public holidays. Once again, that is a benefit for pensioners within London.

127
Greater Manchester adjoins my constituency, which is in Lancashire. There, we look across the border with envy because although Manchester does not offer free travel to pensioners, it offers travel all the way across Greater Manchester at a cost of only 40p.
Mr. David Crausby: My hon. Friend will know that I represent a Greater Manchester constituency, albeit on the northern fringe. My constituents have concessionary travel, but effectively in only a southerly direction. If they lived in the centre of Greater Manchester, they would have concessionary travel in all directions. Does my hon. Friend agree that even within Greater Manchester there is still a postcode lottery?
Mr. Hoyle: I recognise that. My hon. Friend makes a valid point. He represents a constituency that is on the edge of the area. He has Lancashire to one side and Greater Manchester on the other. I understand that there is a lottery in terms of where a person lives in Greater Manchester, and I appreciate the importance to his constituents of ensuring that there is free travel and doing away with the 40p charge. However, I am still envious of what my hon. Friend's constituents enjoy. At the same time, I am aware that if they travel towards the west, the east or the north, they will suffer from the problem of paying much higher fares.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I represent a Cheshire constituency to the south of Greater Manchester. My constituents feel aggrieved that they cannot benefit from the 40p charge to which he referred. If there are to be concessionary fares for the retired, they should be universal throughout the United Kingdom and not available, in the main, only to those who live in metropolitan areas. Does the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great regard, agree with me?
Mr. Hoyle: The point of this debate is to ask for universal free travel throughout the United Kingdom; that is the starting point, and we have got to ensure that that happens. I shall look at the interest expressed by the hon. Gentleman; his constituency is near to mine and he could probably enjoy the benefit of free travel so, of course, I take his concern to heart.
I shall talk about Greater Manchester for a little longer. Perhaps the Minister will consider a 40p charge for people in Lancashire as a stepping stone. Free travel is obviously a major step, but a concessionary fare would be welcomed by many pensioners who do not have the benefit of city schemes. Free travel would be welcomed by 15,500 pensioners in my Chorley constituency. Concessionary schemes are excellent, but we must bear in mind the costs borne by pensioners in towns such as Chorley, even with the half-fare pass. Pensioners in Chorley still have to make a difficult choice; they can have a half-fare pass, but it cannot be a combined pass for rail and bus—it is one or the other. That is sad; we should aim for the goal of schemes which cover any form of public transport.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) said, a half-price ticket from Chorley to Bolton—a matter of miles—costs a pensioner
128
£1.90. Pensioners can travel across London for free; they can travel all the way across Greater Manchester for 40p. There is therefore a great difference for pensioners who do not get the benefit of such schemes. There is a strong case, not only for free travel for pensioners, but for stricter regulation of prices charged by private bus and rail operators. A half-price pass can leave pensioners facing high transport costs if prices continue to rise as they have been.
I have been approached by many pensioners who are concerned about the cost of travelling by bus and train, particularly when they hear that friends and family who live in Greater Manchester receive good treatment compared with the people of Lancashire. Better rail concessions are needed. Once again, there are varying rates for pensioners, depending on where they live. In London, travel is free; in Manchester, it is 40p. We can do much more to end those anomalies for pensioners.
Given the Government's commitment to an integrated transport system, it would make sense to introduce competitive concessionary rates or, if not, off-peak free travel for pensioners; we should aim to move towards free transport and introduce a combined pass for pensioners so that they can switch between rail and bus. If we are to encourage people to use public transport, we must make it easy for pensioners to use a combined pass that would allow them to travel anywhere on any form of transport; we must achieve that objective. For all those dependent on public transport, travel often involves using more than one form of transport and changing buses, which is costly with a half-price pass.
I am aware that my proposals would be expensive, with a possible additional cost of £300 million if free transport were introduced. However, as I have said, it could be introduced in stages over a number of years; the money would be well spent and the initiative would be welcomed throughout the United Kingdom. At the end of the day, off-peak free travel would not cost very much. We subsidise many of those routes; off-peak trains and services are empty. Why not make a start and allow free off-peak travel for all pensioners throughout the UK? We should consider the benefit of doing so.
In conclusion, we can see the benefits of free travel for Londoners; in April, free bus travel across Wales will be introduced. Cities throughout England have various schemes. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton), when leader of Derby city council, introduced free bus travel in Derby. However, Derbyshire has only half-fare passes, which is anomalous; there is struggle between the country and the city, which we must resolve. Surely it is time to ensure that villages enjoy the same benefits as cities and towns. They miss out on many opportunities, but we have a chance to take a positive step towards equality.
I find it interesting that the Government say that they will give the private Member's Bill on age equality a fair wind, but once again we see that there is no equality for pensioners. There ought to be equality for pensioners and we can make a start tonight. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will take on board a lot of what is said and give it a warm welcome. A great deal could be done for very little money and, by working through the Minister's good offices and through the Treasury to consider funding, we could achieve a better quality of life for all pensioners throughout the United Kingdom.

129
We must emphasise there should be equality for all pensioners, whether they live in Wales, Scotland or England. As a start, they should have the benefit of free off-peak travel or a limited Greater Manchester-type 40p scheme, but let us ensure that we head towards free concessionary pensioner travel.
Mr. Russell Brown: I applaud my hon. Friend's initiative on free travel for pensioners, which my area had for four years in the early 1990s with assistance provided through the local council. Quality of travel is the other issue, however, and my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) would tell the House that Stagecoach's cuts in services in our area do nothing to help pensioners and nothing to achieve the free travel that they seek.
Mr. Hoyle: I agree. Stagecoach operates in our area as well. I say to my hon. Friend that we ought to make a start. If buses and trains are running around empty, the scream goes up that they should be removed because nobody uses the service that they provide, but people would begin to use them if we provided free travel. That should develop increased provision for rural areas, because at least services would be justified. We must justify the subsidies that we offer and introducing free off-peak travel for all pensioners is the way to do it.
That is a clear means to ensure that remote areas have services and that people will use them. Those involved in local government always argue, "We've done a survey and we have worked out that one person uses this service one day a week." We all recognise that that is not acceptable, so we must persuade people to use services and give them a choice by providing public transport. If pensioners who want to visit the nearest town or to see friends know that they can travel free off-peak, they will use those services, which will justify the subsidy.
We must ensure that transport becomes more sustainable by carrying more and more people. The Government would welcome such an increase, and that could be achieved by getting away from the old, dangerous British Rail mentality. The usual story was, "We're not making enough profit, so put the prices up. The numbers that we carry don't matter." That myth went out years ago. All it meant was that the number of people using the services declined.
We want to get away from that attitude, but a half-fare pass would not achieve that. If prices go up every year, the service becomes more costly for pensioners, so free off-peak travel is the best way to ensure equality for pensioners, not just in our region, the north-west, but throughout England and the United Kingdom. That would not cost a great deal, but it would make a start on achieving equality for all pensioners. I believe that all old-age pensioners should have that benefit.
We ought not to shy away from that important issue. I know that the Minister will listen carefully and I am sure that she will take on board the points that have been raised. Pensioners are struggling, not just in Chorley, Macclesfield, Bolton, Rochdale and Derby, but throughout England. London pensioners would say, "We have a good service, but why don't our cousins in other parts of England have the same benefits?" They recognise that difference. If those pensioners want to travel outside London, why should they not he able to do so for free? The limited scope should be extended, and the benefits given to all.
130
I cannot think of any pensioner organisation or any pensioners who would not support this proposal. The clamour of support from my constituency has allowed me to introduce this debate. It is important that the debate has taken place. Hon. Members who have turned out to listen are fully supportive of my proposal. We look to the Government to ensure equality for all pensioners throughout the United Kingdom. We look forward to positive action from the Government, which they have taken on other pensioner issues.
10.30 pm
Mr. Andrew Rosindell: I congratulate the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle). I regularly agree with him on many issues, and this is yet another. I believe that our pensioners deserve better. One way to enhance the lives of many pensioners is to give them access to travel, and there are many advantages in doing so. It would enable pensioners to travel, go for days out or go shopping, and we would save a lot of money by promoting active lives for pensioners, thus reducing costs for the health service. Furthermore, if pensioners travelled, they would spend money and would thus improve their local economies.
I feel strongly that the postcode lottery must be dealt with, because it is utterly wrong that people who live on one side of a border get the advantage of a free travel pass, whereas those on the other side do not. I could mention many examples of that. The hon. Member for Chorley referred to Greater London, which has a freedom pass that allows pensioners to travel from one end of London to the other. I represent the Romford constituency, which is on the edge of London going into Essex. The problem is that people who live in Romford can travel free to Brentford in the west of London, but not to Brentwood, which is five miles up the road. They can travel free to Harrow but not to Harlow, to Southgate but not to Southend.
I should like to see a universal, freedom bus pass for all pensioners. That would have economic and health advantages. Pensioners have fought for this country and paid their taxes, and they deserve better in their later years. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chorley on raising this issue. I assure him of my full support for everything he said, and I look forward to the Minister's response.
10.33 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Ms Sally Keeble): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on securing a debate on this important aspect of older people's needs. I am aware of the interest in free travel for pensioners, which is probably why there are other hon. Members present in the Chamber, not just him and me. My hon. Friend and I have corresponded on this subject, as have a number of other hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope that my remarks will go some way to addressing the points that he has raised.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to recognise the progress that the Government have made in improving the lives of pensioners. A number of measures, such as bus passes and the winter fuel allowance, have made some of the biggest differences to older people's lives.

131
Concessionary fare schemes offer cheap travel on local transport for people who are economically disadvantaged. They are a clear demonstration of our commitment to fighting social exclusion. We want to ensure that bus travel remains within the means of those on limited incomes. I am very much aware of the fact that for people on lower incomes, especially older people, buses are the most frequently used form of transport. My hon. Friend might also reflect on the fact that other people who are socially excluded have great difficulties travelling, and affordable and accessible bus transport is important for them, too.
As my hon. Friend said, because of the particular importance of transport to older people, last spring we implemented the provisions in the Transport Act 2000 requiring local authorities to offer a minimum of 50 per cent. reductions to elderly and disabled people using local bus services. People with disabilities, of course, also experience problems when travelling.
The necessary travel passes must be issued free of charge. Let me say to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) that although there is only a 50 per cent. reduction in the fare, it is important for people to know that they should not have to pay for their pensioners' travel passes.
Our changes currently benefit some 5.5 million pensioners and 1.5 million disabled people in England and Wales. This will be the first time many of those people have benefited from any travel concession, and the new arrangements are a real advance on what they had before.
Provision for travel concessions is contained in three Acts—the Transport Act 1985, the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and the Transport Act 2000. As I have said, local authorities in England and Wales must arrange for older and disabled people in their area to receive at least a half-fare concession. There is nothing to stop authorities providing a more generous scheme. Indeed, as Members have said, some already do, especially in London.
The 1985 Act gives local authorities discretion to offer more generous concessions on bus and other public transport services—including local trains, metros, light rail and ferries—as well as concessionary travel outside their boundaries, if they so wish. Many authorities already offer local concessions on other modes of public transport. As my hon. Friend says, many also offer transport cheaper than at half price. Obvious examples are London, Merseyside and the west midlands, where free travel is offered not just to pensioners but to people with disabilities.
Some Members mentioned better schemes in Scotland and Wales. Decisions of that sort must be made by devolved Administrations. One consequence of devolution is that those Administrations will sometimes make decisions that differ from those made by the Government in England.
As my hon. Friend said, concessionary travel schemes are important because they allow some of the most socially excluded people, especially pensioners, a chance to travel which they might not otherwise be able to afford. The Government, however, cannot ignore the resource implications. There is no doubt that concessionary fares are expensive for them. Of course it is an attractive option
132
to go further with our statutory half-fare minimum requirement, but making the standard even more generous—perhaps by providing completely free travel—would increase the cost of concessionary travel considerably. As my hon. Friend said, it would raise the total cost of bus travel by some £300 million. That would be in addition to the £490 million that local authorities in England are already spending. Whether authorities offer pensioners free travel on public transport is wholly at their discretion.
My hon. Friend mentioned rural transport, perhaps because of the position of pensioners living in villages. Concessionary fare schemes are not all that we provide to help to subsidise bus services. Only last Friday, the Government announced spending of some £30 million on a series of new rural services under the rural bus challenge scheme. That is extremely important, not because it provides extra concessionary fares but because it provides new and innovative services that meet the needs of some of the most disadvantaged people in rural areas. Some services have been particularly designed to meet the needs of pensioners. The need to be taken to hospital is one of the most obvious. Mobile services are also provided: instead of people being taken to services, the services are taken to people in country areas.
I therefore urge my hon. Friend and others to look carefully at the thoughtful work that the Government are funding local transport authorities to do to make absolutely sure that lack of transport is not a barrier to pensioners and other people with mobility problems using services, going shopping or going about their day-to-day life.
It is undoubtedly true that free or low-price rail travel would produce benefits for passengers, but a huge subsidy cost would arise from such a policy, to be met by the Government and consequently by the taxpayer. As all hon. Members well know, our policy is to stimulate investment in improvements in capacity and quality of rail services, through a mixture of public and private investment. There are no current plans to introduce free or low-price travel generally.
Some train operators promote widespread reduced fares to attract passengers to rail services. For example, the senior railcard is available to people aged 60 and over. That costs £18 a year and offers one third off most rail fares. All train operators are required by the Strategic Rail Authority to participate, and the scheme is run by the Association of Train Operating Companies. The terms of the senior railcard must be no less favourable than under British Rail and may not be amended without the SRA's agreement.
Further recognising the need for pensioners to he able to make long-distance journeys at lower prices, which is important if they are to enjoy the same rights as other people, we announced in November our agreement to a proposal under which coach operators would provide half-price fares to older and disabled passengers on long-distance scheduled coaches in England. In return for those fare concessions, operators would for the first time receive a fuel duty rebate. That will be an important step in taking travel for pensioners forward.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley probably knows, our Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Bill will equalise the entitlement to concessionary travel for men and women at the age of 60. Again, that will improve the position of pensioners.

133
I am not unsympathetic to the aims of my hon. Friend, but we must look at the financial implications of providing wholly free travel and balance the available funds with the many other competing demands on the public purse—not just services generally but the demands of different people to be able to travel at a reduced price. For example, there is always pressure to include groups such as school children, students and young people. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) recently introduced a ten-minute Bill to allow local authorities to extend schemes to people aged up to 25.
134
I hope that my remarks demonstrate how seriously the Government take the needs of older and disabled people. We have taken and continue to take measures to improve their quality of life and to ensure that transport does not act as a barrier to people enjoying their right to move properly around this country and enjoying a good quality of life.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Terrorism Act
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Solicitor-General, pursuant to her answer of 3 December 2001,Official Report, column 106W, how many and what prosecutions have been initiated under section 54 of the Terrorism Act 2000 in (a) Great Britain and (b) Northern Ireland; and how many of these charges in each jurisdiction concern (i)Northern Ireland conflict related offences and (ii)international terrorism. [29822]

  The Solicitor-General
  One prosecution has been initiated under section 54 of the Terrorism Act 2000 in England and Wales and that prosecution relates to international terrorism.

  The Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland has informed me that he is not aware of any prosecutions being initiated in Northern Ireland under section 54 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Solicitor-General, further to the Secretary of State for the Home Department's answer of 3 December 2001,Official Report,column 106W, on the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2000, (a) how many and (b) what prosecutions have been initiated under section 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the Terrorism Act 2000 in (i) Great Britain and (ii) Northern Ireland; how many of these charges in each jurisdiction concern (a) Northern Ireland conflict related offences and (b) international terrorism. [29252]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Terrorism Act 2000 came into force on 19 February 2001.

  Prosecutions for a total of 51 offences have been initiated in England and Wales under sections 11 to 18 of the Act, of which 15 offences relate to the affairs of Northern Ireland and 35 offences relate to international terrorism. Further details are given as follows:

  Section 11

  Five offences related to international terrorism.

  One offence related to the affairs of Northern Ireland.

  Section 12

  One offence related to international terrorism.

  Section 13

  One offence related to international terrorism.

  Section 14

  This section does not include an offence.

  Section 15

  One offence related to international terrorism.

  Nine offences related to the affairs of Northern Ireland. This figure is made up of three separate cases in which three defendants are charged with s.15 offences.

  Conspiracy to commit an offence under s.15

  Four offences related to international terrorism. This figure is made up of two separate cases in which two defendants are charged with conspiracy to commit an offence under s.15.

  2W

  Section 16

  16 offences related to international terrorism. This figure is made up of two separate cases in which eight defendants are charged with section 16 offences.

  Conspiracy to commit an offence under section 16

  Four offences related to international terrorism. This figure is made up of two separate cases in which two defendants are charged with conspiracy to commit an offence under s.16.

  Section 17

  One offence related to international terrorism.

  Six prosecutions have been initiated for offences related to the affairs of Northern Ireland. This figure is made up of two separate cases in which three defendants are charged with section 17 offences.

  Conspiracy to commit an offence under section 17

  Two offences related to international terrorism. This figure is made up of one case in which two defendants are charged with conspiracy to commit section 17 offences.

  The Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland is aware of only one prosecution being initiated in Northern Ireland under sections 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the Terrorism Act 2000. That prosecution was under section 11(1) of the Act and was connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Ministerial Transport
  Bob Russell
  To ask the President of the Council 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. [28104]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  By definition, my role as Leader of the House of Commons is largely confined to London. However, since 1 November I have travelled by rail on non-departmental business from London to York, Cheltenham and Brussels and from Edinburgh to Lockerbie.

  I intend to visit the National Assembly for Wales shortly to discuss their procedures and will travel to Cardiff by rail.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will list those public bodies to which his Department appoints members and which are not listed in Public Bodies 2000; [17600]

  (2) if he will list those public bodies which are the responsibility of his Department and which are not listed in Public Bodies 2000. [17601]

  Dr. John Reid
  The bodies which my Department has responsibility for and appoints members to, which are not listed in Public Bodies 2000 are as follows:

  Non-departmental Public Bodies

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel

  Northern Ireland Policing Board1

  Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland2

  3W

  Other Bodies

  Chief Electoral Officer for NI

  Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures

  Independent Commissioner for Detained Terrorist Suspects

  International Fund for Ireland3

  Life Sentence Review Commissioners

  Oversight Commissioner

  Sentence Review Commissioners

  1 Replaced Police Authority for Northern Ireland on 4 November 2001

  2 Replaced Independent Commission for Police Complaints on 6 November 2000

  3 Board members of the Fund are appointed jointly by the British and Irish Governments.

  Local Bodies
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list those local bodies which were set up under legislation which is the responsibility of his Department since May 1997. [17602]

  Dr. John Reid
  My Department has set up the following bodies since May 1997:

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel

  Equality Commission for Northern Ireland

  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission

  Policing Board for Northern Ireland1

  Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland2

  Life Sentence Review Commissioners

  Oversight Commissioner

  Sentence Review Commissioners

  1 Replaced Police Authority for Northern Ireland on 4 November 2001

  2 Replaced Independent Commission for Police Complaints on 6 November 2000

  Dublin Bombing (1974)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what request he has received for assistance from the Irish Government's Independent Commission of Inquiry into the 1974 Dublin bombing; when the request was received; what his response was; and if he will make a statement. [20973]

  Dr. John Reid
  An initial request was received by my predecessor from Mr. Justice Barron on 21 November 2000 asking for assistance in his Independent Commission of Inquiry into the Dublin, Monaghan and Dundalk bombings of 1974. All relevant Government Departments and agencies have been engaged in a comprehensive trawl of their files to establish what material may still be in existence. This has required an extremely time consuming manual trawl of a huge number of files.

  I met Mr. Justice Barron on 17 January to update him on the matter and I hope to be able to respond substantively to his request in the near future.

  Electoral Arrangements
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will begin the review of the electoral and structural arrangements deriving from the Good Friday Agreement; and if he will make a statement. [28843]

  Mr. Browne
  The recently completed Strand One Review, which looked at Assembly electoral arrangements, concluded that this issue should be looked at again in the review provided for under paragraph 8 of the Validation, Implementation and Review section of the 4W
  Belfast Agreement. As yet, no start date has been agreed but the Government intend to discuss this with the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly parties.

  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will next meet David Ford, leader of the Alliance party of Northern Ireland, to discuss matters relating to electoral arrangements for First Minister and Deputy First Minister of the Northern Ireland Assembly; and if he will make a statement. [28842]

  Mr. Browne
  No such meeting has been scheduled or, indeed, requested.

  We have just completed a three month Review of Assembly voting procedures under the provisions contained in paragraph 36 of the Strand One section of the Belfast Agreement. This was a constructive process, which helped clarify the issues for all participants. Furthermore, it was agreed at the conclusion of the review that this subject should be looked at again during the review of Assembly arrangements provided for in paragraph 8 of the Validation Implementation and Review section of the agreement.

  We have yet to decide when this review should begin—I shall need to discuss this with the Irish Government and with the Assembly parties. I expect to meet David Ford in his capacity as leader of the Alliance party as a part of this process.

  Trial Records
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how long trial records are kept for those charged with terrorist acts; what difference there is between the records kept for those found(a) guilty and (b) not guilty; and what the time limits are for keeping records for trials of (i) terrorists in Northern Ireland and (ii) other criminal trials. [27659]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I have been asked to reply.

  All records in relation to Crown court hearings in Northern Ireland are preserved permanently, as is the case for such records in England and Wales. Records in relation to magistrates courts in Northern Ireland are normally destroyed after 15 years, with the exception of records containing entries for a census year which are retained permanently. Retention schedules for records of magistrates courts in England and Wales are different.

  There is no difference between the records kept for those found guilty and those found not guilty in criminal trials either terrorist or non-terrorist.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much aid to Afghanistan for reconstruction will be given(a) bilaterally and (b) through the European Union. [31088]

  Clare Short
  As I announced at the Conference on the Reconstruction of Afghanistan earlier this week in Tokyo, the UK has committed a further £200 million over the next five financial years for both reconstruction and humanitarian assistance.
  5W
  The European Commission (EC) has pledged euro 200 million (£125 million) for 2002. It intends to propose to the European Union's budgetary authority to provide assistance at a comparable level in the subsequent four years, totalling approximately euro 1 billion (£600 million) over the period 2002–06. The UK share of EC contributions is 20 per cent. —which is charged to the DFID budget.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will report on the outcome of the Afghanistan Reconstruction Conference held in Tokyo on January 21 and 22, with particular reference to meeting the needs of Afghan women. [30413]

  Clare Short
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral statement I made to the House this afternoon at columns 21–36.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what contributions the United Kingdom(a) has made and (b) has committed itself to make to the costs of creating and supporting the interim Government of Afghanistan (i) bilaterally and (ii) through agencies of the (A) United Nations and (B) European Union. [29696]

  Clare Short
  We have set aside £20 million in this financial year to support the Interim Administration and the United Nations-led transitional recovery and rehabilitation process, while continuing to respond to humanitarian needs. This further support follows on from the £40 million of emergency humanitarian relief assistance that we have already provided to UN agencies, the Red Cross and NGOs since September 2001.

  Our support to date has included £1 million to the Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General to support peacemaking efforts and the establishment of the Afghan Interim Administration. We have also contributed $3 million (£2.075 million) to support the costs of the Interim Administration, including civil servants' salaries, through the UNDP-administered trust fund.

  As I announced at the Conference on the Reconstruction of Afghanistan earlier this week in Tokyo, the UK has committed a further £200 million ($288 million) over the next five financial years for both reconstruction and humanitarian assistance.

  This pledge is in addition to the significant sums that the UK contributes to the World Bank, European Union and Asian Development bank who will also be channelling funds into Afghanistan over coming years. The European Commission has pledged £125 million for 2002, of which the UK share, which is charged to DFID's budget, is 20 per cent.

  Departmental Expenditure (Publications)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her estimate is of the expenditure of her Department on newspapers, magazines and periodicals in each of the last four years. [30095]

  Clare Short
  The Department's core, central expenditure on newspaper and periodicals (journals and magazines) is as follows.
  6W

  £

  Newspapers

  Periodicals

  1997–98

  4,786

  57,639

  1998–99

  4,736

  61,901

  1999–2000

  5,748

  65,660

  2000–01

  2,540

  97,824

  The decline in expenditure on newspapers in 2000–01 reflects the decentralisation of non-core provision to Departments and country offices. The rise in expenditure on periodicals in the same year reflects the electronic provision of certain periodicals, which are now more easily available to a larger proportion of DFID's UK-based and overseas staff.

  World Bank Loans
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent representations she has received on replacing World Bank loans to the world's poorest countries with grants. [29628]

  Clare Short
  The US Administration are advocating that the World Bank arm that provides assistance to low-income countries should cease to focus on 40-year highly concessional loans and instead provide at least 50 per cent. grant. This proposal is opposed by all other countries. It would severely deplete the resources available to IDA and undermine the Poverty Reduction Strategy Process, which has led to greatly improved effectiveness in development partnerships in recent years. I have not received any direct representations in support of this proposal, but the issue has been discussed in many forums. The Government of the United States of America have made representations at official level. The UK—along with many other countries that contribute resources to IDA—believes that we should protect and enhance IDA' s existing role as the largest provider of concessional finance to the world's poorest countries and that grant should be provided by bi-lateral donors in a way which complements IDA lending.

  Debt Reduction
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the role of debt reduction in achieving 2015 goals on poverty reduction. [29704]

  Clare Short
  In the 41 heavily indebted poor countries, the heavy burden of servicing debt reduces the resources available for tackling poverty and offsets the benefits of development assistance. There is in these countries a strong link between debt relief and poverty reduction. Following debt relief, the social expenditures of HIPC countries are projected to rise by an average of some $1.7 billion per year. On average, a quarter of this increased social expenditure will go towards health schemes directed at HIV/AIDS and diseases like malaria and tuberculosis, with 40 per cent. being directed towards education. HIPC countries will spend on average much more on such priority social investments than on debt service. This will directly benefit the poor in those countries.

  However, while debt relief for the HIPC countries is a necessary condition for poverty reduction, it is not enough. Huge numbers of poor people live in countries which are not heavily indebted, particularly in south Asia. It is vital that their needs are not neglected as a result of

  7W
  our efforts to help the HIPC countries. In addition to debt relief, many other factors are important for reducing poverty. These include the Governments' own policies, the levels of development assistance they receive and their ability to attract foreign direct investment, to capture the benefits of trade and to create an environment where the domestic private sector can flourish. The UK is working to address all of these at the international level and through our partnerships with developing countries.

  Volcanic Eruption, Democratic Republic of the Congo
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the Foreign Office concerning the recent volcanic eruption in Goma; and what steps her Department is taking to ensure a co-ordinated approach with the Foreign Office on the provision of aid to those affected by the disaster. [30398]

  Clare Short
  My Department has been in regular consultation with our embassies in Kigali and Kinshasa. DFID and the FCO work closely together on issues affecting the region.

TREASURY

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer from the inception of the working families tax credit to date, what the average number of working days for the processing of applications for working families tax credit from families in the Perth constituency has been; and what the UK average is. [30874]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The figures requested are not available for individual constituencies, or as an average for the period since working families tax credit began in 1999. For the 12 months ending 31 December 2001, the average number of days taken to process a working families tax credit application in Great Britain was 14.5.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many applications for working families tax credit from families in the Perth constituency in the last 12 months have not been dealt with within the average number of working days for the processing of applications from families in Perth constituency. [30875]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The figures requested are not available for individual constituencies.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what has been the average sum paid out by way of compensation to applicants for working families tax credit in the Perth constituency in the last year for which figures are available; [30873]

  (2) how many applications from the Perth constituency have received compensatory payments from the Inland Revenue with respect to delays in the processing of their working families tax credit applications. [30876]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue Code of Practice allows for certain exceptional payments to be made to working families tax credit (WFTC) applicants to recognise the effects of unreasonable delays in paying 8W
  their tax credit entitlement. Figures are not available for such payments broken down by individual constituency. However, available records show that, since WFTC began in October 1999 to date, no such payments have been made to any WFTC applicants in Perthshire.

  VAT (Sports and Leisure)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to introduce further relief from value added tax for local authority sport and leisure facilities; and if he will make a statement. [30018]

  Mr. Boateng
  Decisions on taxation are considered on an annual basis as part of the Chancellor's overall Budget judgment.

  Aggregates Tax
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has discussed with the Scotland Office the implementation of the aggregates tax in Scotland. [31009]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government have received a large number of representations regarding the aggregates levy, and have held discussions regarding its implementation with a wide range of organisations both within and outside Government.

  Budget Statement
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to deliver his Budget Statement. [31612]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  On Wednesday 17 April.

  Unemployment Benefits
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are claiming benefits relating to unemployment; and if he will make a statement. [28641]

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

  Letter to Miss Anne McIntosh from Len Cook, dated 28 January 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question regarding the number of people claiming benefits relating to unemployment. (28641)
  The claimant count consists of all people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance or National Insurance credits at Employment Service local offices. They must declare that they are out of work, capable of, available for and actively seeking work during the week in which their claim is made.
  The latest available figure relates to December 2001, when the seasonally adjusted claimant count for the United Kingdom was 963,500.

  Drug Smuggling
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent action he has taken to prevent and deter drug smuggling from Jamaica to the United Kingdom. [26529]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 15 January 2002]: In partnership with police and immigration, Customs closely target flights, including those from Jamaica, identified as having a high risk of drug trafficking. Customs also work

  9W
  closely with Jamaican colleagues to help identify and arrest couriers before they board their flight to the UK. Customs are in discussion with the Jamaican authorities and others to improve the overall effectiveness of action to tackle cocaine supply from Jamaica. The UK also supports interdiction activity in the Caribbean area to stop bulk consignments of cocaine reaching Jamaica for onward shipment to the UK.

  Accidental Deaths (Children)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many children died in accidents away from home, other than road deaths, in each of the last five years for which figures are available in the age groups(a) zero to seven, (b) eight to 13 and (c) 14 to 18 years; and if he will classify them in terms of (i) holiday or adventure related, (ii) work or work related and (iii) other. [29743]

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

  Letter to Bob Russell from Len Cook, dated 28 January 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question concerning the number of children dying of accidents away from home, other than road deaths, in the last five years in the age groups (a) zero to seven, (b) eight to 13, and (c) 14 to 18 years, and if these can be classified into (i) holiday or adventure related, (ii) work or work related, and (iii) other. (29743)
  The answer to parts (a) to (c) are given in the table below:

  Number of deaths occurring away from the home caused by accidents other than road deaths1, persons by age group, England and Wales, 1996–2000

  Age group

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  0–7years2

  20

  18

  11

  23

  12

  8–13 years

  24

  23

  21

  18

  19

  14–18 years

  40

  33

  31

  26

  31

  1 International Classification of Diseases. Ninth Revision, codes E850–E869, E880–E928, E929.2–E929.9

  2 Excludes deaths under 28 days

  Note:

  Data are for occurrences of death per calendar year. Latest year's data are for 2000.

  It is not possible to provide figures for whether these deaths were (i) holiday or adventure related,(ii) work or work related, or (iii) other.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many children died in accidents in the home, other than fire, in each of the last five years for which figures are available in the age groups(a) zero to seven, (b) eight to 13 and (c) 14 to 18 years. [29742]

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

  Letter to Bob Russell from Len Cook, dated 28 January 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question concerning the number of children dying of accidents in the home, other than fire related, in the last five years in the age groups (a) zero to seven, (b) eight to 13, and (c) 14 to 18 years. (29742)
  10W
  The answer is given in the table below:

  Number of deaths in the home1 occurring from accidents other than fire2, persons by age group, England and Wales, 1996–2000

  Age group

  0–7 years3

  8–13 years

  14–18 years

  1996

  67

  8

  37

  1997

  50

  16

  50

  1998

  55

  17

  42

  1999

  75

  18

  37

  2000

  63

  11

  38

  1 Includes the category 'Residential institution'. Deaths are only coded for place of occurrence of accident for selected ICD9 codes where there was an inquest.

  2 International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, (ICD9) codes E850–E869, E880–E888, E900–E928, E929.2–E929.9 (excluding E929.4).

  3 Excludes deaths under 28 days.

  Note:

  Data are for occurrences of death per calendar year. Latest year's data are for 2000

  Tax Evasion
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) individuals and (b) businesses were investigated for tax evasion in the constituency of Buckingham in each year since 1997. [30064]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Inland Revenue records show the number of inquiries made into tax returns by its offices. However, the geographical ranges of Inland Revenue offices, particularly specialist offices, do not correspond to parliamentary constituencies.

  So while there is a record of the number of inquiries undertaken by offices located within parliamentary constituencies, it will not follow that those inquiries relate to individuals and businesses resident or operating within those constituencies. Similarly, offices outside constituency boundaries will undertake inquiries into the returns of individuals and businesses within those boundaries.

  Consequently, no meaningful figures are available of the number of inquiries into the returns of individuals and businesses within the constituency of Buckingham.

  Public Works Loan Board
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the Public Works Loan Board's interest rate on new loans is and what the rate has been in each of the last five years. [30351]

  Ruth Kelly
  The interest rate applied to a new PWLB loan is dependent on the maturity of the loan, the method of repayment the authority has chosen and the underlying gilt yield curve. It is also affected by the progress a local authority has made in applying its provisions set aside to meet credit liabilities.

  The range of PWLB interest rates applicable at 22 January in each of the last five years was:

  1998: 6⅛to 7 9/16 per cent.

  1999:4⅜ to 5 13/16, per cent.

  2000:5¼ to 6¾ per cent.

  2001: 4¾ to 5½ per cent.

  2002: 4 1/16 to 5¼per cent.

  11W

  Terrorism
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a list of organisations whose assets have been frozen under powers taken following 11 September with the reason for the action in each case; and if he will make a statement. [29445]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 24 January 2002]: The Government are committed to the fight against terrorism and since the events of 11 September 2001 have led by example in issuing asset freeze lists against individuals and organisations. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373, issued on 28 September 2001, calls on states to freeze the funds and financial assets of persons or entities involved in terrorism.

  The resolution is implemented in the UK by an Order in Council (SI 3365/2001) and where there are "reasonable grounds to suspect" that an organisation is involved in the financing of terrorism the Government will not hesitate to meet their international obligations by freezing their assets.

  Listed are the 34 organisations subject to an assets freeze under the UN order:

  1. Abu Nidal Organisation (ANO)

  2. Afghan Support Committee (ASC)

  3. Aum Shinrikyo

  4. Babbar Khalsa

  5. Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA)

  6. Continuity Irish Republican Army (CIRA)

  7. Gama'a al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group)

  8. Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Quassem

  9. Hizballah External Security Organisation

  10. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development

  11. International Sikh Youth Federation

  12. Kahane Chai (Kach)

  13. Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). Chairman Abdullah Ocalan

  14. Lashkar e Tayyaba

  15. Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)

  16. Loyalist Volunteer Force (LVF)

  17. Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK or MKO)

  18. National Liberation Army (ELN)

  19. Orange Volunteers (OV)

  20. Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)

  21. Palestine Liberation Front (PLF)

  22. Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)

  23. Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command

  24. Real IRA

  25. Red Hand Defenders (RHD)

  26. Revival of Islamic Heritage Society (RIHS)

  27. Revoluntionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)

  28. Revoluntionary Nuclei (formerly ELA)

  29. Revolutionary Organisation 17 November

  30. Revolutionary People's Liberation Army/Front/Party (DHKP/C)

  31. Shining Path

  32. Ulster Defence Association/Ulster Freedom Fighters (UDA/UFF)

  33. Ummah Tameer E-Nau (UTN)

  34. United Self-Defense Forces/Group of Colombia (AUC).

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the freezing of assets of an organisation whose administration address is a house in Leyton. [29446]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 24 January 2002]: A charitable organisation in Leyton has had its assets frozen by the Charity Commission under the Charities Act 1993.
  12W

  National Minimum Wage
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in Barnsley, East and Mexborough received the recent increase in the national minimum wage. [30525]

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

  Letter to Jeff Ennis from Len Cook, dated 28 January 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the number of people in Barnsley East and Mexborough who have received the increase in the national minimum wage. (30525)
  Estimates for Parliamentary Constituencies are not available.
  Estimates for the United Kingdom and Government Office Regions are posted on the National Statistics website at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/themes/labour_market/pay_and_earnings/measuring_low_pay.asp

  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in Motherwell and Wishaw received the recent increase in the national minimum wage. [30860]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Frank Roy, dated 28 January 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the number of people in Motherwell and Wishaw who have received the increase in the national minimum wage (NMW). (30860)
  Estimates for Parliamentary Constituencies are not available.
  Estimates for the United Kingdom and Government Office Regions are posted on the National Statistics website at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/themes/labour_market/pay_and_earnings/measuring_low_pay.asp.

  Ministerial Transport
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [28092]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I use railway services for both official duties and in a private capacity.

  I last used the railway service for official duties on 5 July 2001 to travel to Brighton for the Transport and General Workers Union Conference. All arrangements for official travel are made in line with the guidance set out in Chapter 7 of the "Ministerial Code", and the accompanying guidance document "Travel by Ministers", using the most efficient and cost effective mode of transport, and bearing in mind security considerations.

  I will continue to use the railway for official and private travel as appropriate.

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 8 January 2002,Official Report,columns 797–98W, on employment in the Buckingham

  13W
  constituency, what the average figures for working age employment in the UK were in each year from 1997 to 2001. [30126]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Bercow, dated 28 January 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the proportion of working age people in employment in the United Kingdom. (30126)
  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) provides estimates of the employment rate of working age people (ie men aged 16–64 and women aged 16–59). The annual estimates for the United Kingdom for each year from 1997/8 to 2000/1 are given in the table overleaf.

  Working age1 employment rates2: United Kingdom 1997–98 to 2000–01

  Not seasonally adjusted

  Percentage

  March 1997 to February 1998

  72.8

  March 1998 to February 1999

  73.5

  March 1999 to February 2000

  73.8

  March 2000 to February 2001

  74.1

  1 Men aged 16–64 and women aged 16–59

  2 Total employed of working age as a percentage of all persons of working age

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey (annual LADB dataset)

DEFENCE

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many C130Ks are being used in the deployment in Afghanistan; how many flying hours per week they are flying; and whether that can be increased. [26349]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 11 January 2002]: The number of C130Ks deployed to support operations in Afghanistan has varied with time, depending on operational requirements. As of 20 January, eight C130Ks were deployed. Flying hours vary depending on the operational requirement; between 13 and 19 January the deployed aircraft averaged 30 hours per week. There is no operational reason at present to increase the numbers of hours flown by each aircraft but, if it were necessary, the deployment of additional crews would allow us to do so.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements he has made to enable parcels to be sent to forces in Afghanistan. [30823]

  Mr. Ingram
  We consider delivery of mail to all overseas personnel, including parcels, to be a high priority. Accordingly, a BFPO number has been assigned to Afghanistan, and parcels can be sent at reduced rates. Mail is delivered as frequently as possible using the military aircraft deploying and sustaining the UK armed forces personnel in country, within the constraints of operational imperatives.
  14W

  Fixed-wing Aircraft
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence further to his answer of 5 December 2001,Official Report,column 359W, on fixed wing aircraft, how many and what type of fixed wing aircraft there were in the Royal Air Force in each year from 1985 to 2000; and if he will make a statement. [22387]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 13 December 2002]: The best available set of centrally held figures denoting the size of the RAF's fixed wing aircraft fleet for the period from 1985 to 1991 inclusive, is the 'RAF Form STATS 1003'. I will place a copy of these figures in the Library of the House.

  Ministry of Defence annually published figures for the years 1992–2000 are contained in either the Statement on Defence Estimates or the MOD Performance report, copies of which are in the Library of the House. Specific references are as follows:

  1992: The Statement on the Defence Estimates—pages 90–92 inclusive

  1993: The Statement on the Defence Estimates—pages 99–101 inclusive

  1994: The Statement on the Defence Estimates—pages 102–104 inclusive

  1995: The Statement on the Defence Estimates—pages 131–133 inclusive

  1996: The Statement on the Defence Estimates—Annexe D D1–D5

  1997: MOD Performance Report—pages 63–67 inclusive

  1998: MOD Performance Report—pages 63–67

  1999:MOD Performance Report—Annexe B B8—B13

  2000: MOD Performance Report—Annexe B, pages 69–72

  Combatants (Minimum Age)
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the youngest age is at which someone can(a) join the armed forces and (b) take part in operations. [29466]

  Mr. Ingram
  The lowest age at which people are able to join the armed forces is 16 years. Applicants under the age of 18 years require the formal consent of their parents or guardians before they are permitted to join.

  No service personnel under the age of 17 are deployed on operations. No personnel under the age of 18 carry out operational patrols in Northern Ireland, although 17-year-olds can be based in the Province. Under-18s are not deployed as aircrew or in submarines.

  In line with United Nations (UN) policy, we do not deploy personnel under the age of 18 on UN peacekeeping operations.

  We are currently finalising detailed administrative procedures and guidelines for the armed forces to give concrete form to the United Kingdom's commitment made on signing Optional Protocol II of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child to take all feasible measures to ensure that personnel under the age of 18 do not take a direct part in hostilities.
  15W

  Army Complement
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) the official complement and (b) the actual numbers in post in the Army are, broken down by regiment and other section headings. [29468]

  Current UKTAP manning state by arm/service at 1 December 2001 (including Gurkhas and full-time reserve service)

  Officers

  Soldiers

  Arm/service

  Liability

  Strength

  Liability

  Strength

  Staff

  715

  758

  —

  —

  Household Cavalry/Royal Armoured Corps

  861

  815

  5,011

  4,915

  Royal Artillery

  1,062

  1,020

  7,439

  6,947

  Royal Engineers

  1,139

  1,107

  7,662

  7,417

  Royal Signals

  952

  875

  7,586

  7,111

  Infantry

  2,766

  2,786

  23,971

  22,675

  Army Air Corps

  459

  411

  1,309

  1,319

  Royal Army Chaplains Department

  148

  144

  —

  —

  Royal Logistic Corps

  1,653

  1,583

  15,022

  13,152

  Royal Army Medical Corps

  882

  661

  2,040

  1,869

  Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers

  875

  817

  9,856

  8,360

  Adjutant General Corps (Provost)

  214

  178

  1,895

  1,895

  Adjutant General Corps (Staff Personnel Support)

  488

  441

  4,345

  4,036

  Adjutant General Corps (Education and Training Corps)

  335

  315

  —

  —

  Adjutant General Corps (Army Legal Service)

  90

  88

  —

  —

  Royal Army Veterinary Corps

  23

  21

  146

  126

  Small Arms Service Corps

  31

  30

  112

  122

  Royal Army Dental Corps

  149

  127

  271

  240

  Intelligence Corps

  258

  245

  1,011

  1,005

  Army Physical Training Corps

  50

  50

  354

  362

  General List

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Queen Alexandra Royal Army Nursing Corps

  343

  284

  610

  404

  Corps of Army Music

  35

  36

  1,120

  993

  Long Service List

  —

  —

  638

  577

  Unallocated

  —

  2

  —

  —

  UKTAP total

  13,528

  12,795

  90,398

  83,525

  Gurkhas

  116

  128

  2,931

  3,455

  Full-time Reserve Service

  —

  339

  —

  562

  Whole Army total

  13,644

  13,262

  93,329

  87,542

  Whole Army trained strength

  100,804

  Notes:

  1. The officer strength figures exclude 105 mobilised reservists.

  2.The soldier strength figures exclude 646 mobilised reservists.

  3.The liability figures are based on the Manpower Planning Targets (MPT) for 2001.

  4.Gurkha liability does not include an addback against UKTAP undermanning of 409 or 22 non-established posts (two officers and 20 soldiers).

  Pensions
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate has been made of the cost to the Armed Forces Pension Scheme of maintaining the early pension point; and if he will make a statement. [29494]

  Mr. Ingram
  Under the terms of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme, an Immediate Pension (IP) is paid to scheme members much earlier than most other schemes. This is to allow the services to retain the expertise of personnel who might otherwise leave during their thirties, while also recognising the needs of those to whom the services cannot offer further employment from around the age of 40.

  In reviewing the Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS), we have considered a number of alternatives to the current IP point and their effect on recruitment and retention. It was concluded that any significant delay in the IP point would require costly alternative retention
  16W
  Mr. Ingram
  The information is not centrally held in the format requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However details on the current United Kingdom Trained Adult Personnel (UKTAP) manning state by arm/service as at 1 December 2001 are in the table.

  measures likely to outweigh any savings from such a delay. The confidence of the services in the efficacy of the early IP as a well-proven manning tool led to the conclusion that it would not be sensible to undertake a costing of alternative measures or therefore a net costing of the early IP. The provisional conclusions of the review, issued for public consultation in March of last year, therefore recommended only a small change should be made to the IP point, to provide a common point at age 40 (or after 18 years service, whichever is later) for officers and other ranks.

  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to assist ex-service men who were unable to join a pension scheme during their Army careers; and if he will make a statement. [28144]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are no plans to make retrospective pension provision for ex-service men who were unable to join a pension scheme during their service careers.
  17W
  Prior to 1975, when the pension arrangements for the armed forces were brought into line with the Social Security Act 1973, there were no legal requirements for pensions to be preserved for those who left before meeting the qualifying period for payment of pension. Officers leaving the service without completing 16 years' service after age 21 and other ranks leaving without completing 22 years' service after age 18 were not entitled to a pension. Officers who left with between nine and 16 years of service and other ranks with between 12 and 22 years of service were, however, paid a gratuity in lieu of pension. Those who left with less service had no pension rights.

  There was no distinction between service personnel and members of both public and private pension schemes with regard to the fact that there was no requirement until 1975

  1 November 1998 to 31 October 1999

  1 November 1999 to 31 October 2000

  1 November 2000 to 31 October 2001

  Naval Service and Royal Marines

  327

  322

  278

  Army

  433

  445

  461

  RAF

  450

  420

  524

  Royal Marine figures are only held as part of the Royal Navy figures.

  Gurkhas
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what impact the commitment of British troops in Afghanistan will have on his plans for recruiting more Gurkhas. [29976]

  Mr. Ingram
  None. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 19 October 2001,Official Report,column 1371W. There has been no change to the Gurkha recruitment plans outlined on that occasion.

  Age

  Single

  Percentage

  Married

  Percentage

  Divorced/Separated

  Percentage

  Total

  Naval Service

  24 and under

  11,958

  96.2

  447

  3.6

  23

  0.2

  12,428

  25–29

  5,190

  66.9

  2,352

  30.3

  219

  2.8

  7,761

  30–34

  2,843

  33.8

  5,029

  59.8

  539

  6.4

  8,411

  35–39

  1,152

  15.2

  5,707

  75.2

  729

  9.6

  7,588

  40–44

  361

  9.9

  2,948

  81.1

  326

  9.0

  3,635

  45 and over

  149

  6.2

  2,120

  88.2

  135

  5.6

  2,404

  Grand total

  21,653

  51.3

  18,603

  44.1

  1,971

  4.7

  42,227

  Age

  Single

  Percentage

  Married Percentage

  Divorced

  Percentage

  Widowed

  Percentage

  Total

  Army

  24 and under

  40,029

  89.4

  4,663

  10.4

  65

  0.1

  3

  0.0

  44,760

  25–29

  10,933

  49.8

  10,475

  47.7

  553

  2.5

  5

  0.0

  21,966

  30–34

  3,409

  17.4

  15,050

  76.8

  1,127

  5.8

  17

  0.1

  19,603

  35–39

  1,040

  7.0

  12,725

  86.0

  1,038

  7.0

  17

  0.1

  14,820

  40–44

  219

  4.5

  4,379

  89.5

  293

  6.0

  14

  0.3

  4,905

  45 and over

  117

  3.4

  3,218

  93.5

  108

  3.1

  24

  0.7

  3,467

  Grand total

  55,747

  50.9

  50,510

  46.1

  3,184

  2.9

  80

  0.1

  109,521

  18W
  for preservation of pension benefits for those who left before the retirement age of the scheme. It has been the long-standing policy of successive Governments that individuals should be treated under the rules of the pension scheme applying at the time they retire. Improvements to benefits were therefore restricted to those currently in service and were not made retrospective.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) RAF and Royal Marine officers, (b) Navy officers and (c) Army officers have retired before receiving a full pension, after serving for over 10 years, in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [25836]

  Mr. Ingram
  The numbers of officers who have retired from the three services before completing the 34 years necessary for full pension, but having served for more than 10 years are as follows:

  Armed Forces (Marital Status)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of serving military personnel in(a) the Army, (b) the Royal Air Force and (c) the Royal Navy are (i) single, (ii) married, (iii) divorced and (iv) separated listed by age ranges (1) 16 to 20, (2) 20 to 24, (3) 30 to 34, (4) 35 to 39, (5) 40 to 44, (6) 45 to 49, (7) 50 to 59 and (8) 60 and over; what percentage of force strength this represents in each age range; and if he will make a statement. [27677]

  Mr. Ingram:
  [holding answer 23 January 2002]: The current strength of UK regular forces by marital status and age range is as follows:
  19W

  Age

  Single

  Percentage

  Married

  Percentage

  Divorced

  Percentage

  Separated

  Percentage

  Widowed

  Percentage

  Total

  RAF

  24 and under

  10,528

  90.0

  1,072

  9.2

  8

  0.1

  89

  0.8

  —

  0.0

  11,697

  25–29

  4,653

  52.9

  3,607

  41.0

  180

  2.0

  360

  4.1

  —

  0.0

  8,800

  30–34

  2,392

  21.0

  7,601

  66.6

  615

  5.4

  787

  6.9

  13

  0.1

  11,408

  35–39

  903

  8.4

  8,477

  79.0

  672

  6.3

  662

  6.2

  15

  0.1

  10,729

  40–44

  287

  4.9

  4,975

  84.3

  325

  5.5

  298

  5.1

  14

  0.2

  5,899

  45 and over

  124

  2.7

  4,154

  89.4

  201

  4.3

  137

  2.9

  30

  0.6

  4,646

  Grand total

  18,887

  35.5

  29,886

  56.2

  2,001

  3.8

  2,333

  4.4

  72

  0.1

  53,179

  Source:

  DASA (Tri-Service)

  Separate divorced/separated figures are not available for the Naval service. Widowed figures are also not available for the Naval service. Separate figures are not available for the Army. These are included in the married figures. Figures are provided for the UK regular forces and show trained and untrained personnel including officers and other ranks. The figures exclude gurkhas, full time reserve service personnel, home service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment and mobilised reservists.

  Plastic Baton Rounds
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 27 November 2001,Official Report, column 760W, on plastic baton rounds, what reasons HM forces have given for requiring guidelines for use at variance with those governing law enforcement officers engaged in joint operations. [29728]

  Mr. Ingram
  The armed forces are deployed to Northern Ireland to provide military support to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which has primacy for security matters in the Province. Soldiers carry out their role using the same practices and procedures that are applicable to the rest of the British Army wherever they may be deployed in the world. While these practices and procedures may be different to those of the police, they are of a commensurate standard.

  As I have already stated in my answer of 27 November 2001, Official Report,column 760W, differences between the guidelines for the police and the Army on the use of baton rounds stem entirely from the differences in their respective operational structures and practices. There are therefore no plans to bring the guidelines exactly into line with the regime governing the use of those weapons by the police.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 27 November 2001,Official Report, column 760W, on plastic baton rounds, how many plastic baton rounds have been fired in each overseas operational theatre since 1981; how many such firings have resulted in death and injury; and what compensation has been paid to victims of firings. [29727]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence's records show that there has been one occasion on which British forces have fired plastic baton rounds since 1981. On 1 February last year, 58 plastic baton rounds were fired during a public order incident at Mitrovica in Kosovo. We are not aware of any civilians being injured as a result of the firings or of any claims for compensation.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many plastic baton rounds have been procured since 1981; and at what cost. [29729]
  20W
  Mr. Ingram
  I am withholdings details of the number of plastic baton rounds procured in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. I am also withholding information on costs on the grounds of commercial confidentiality in accordance with Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Gulf War Veterans
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria have to be met in order for British Gulf war veterans to be eligible for compensation from the UK Government. [29380]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 25 January 2002]: When claims for compensation are submitted they are considered on the basis of whether or not on the balance of probabilities the Ministry of Defence has a common law liability to pay compensation. Where there is a legal liability arising from negligence to pay compensation we do so. The amount of compensation awarded is assessed in accordance with an individual's symptoms, degree of disability, personal circumstances and the levels being awarded by the courts in similar cases.

  The MOD has received about 2,000 notices of intention to claim from Gulf veterans and members of their families in respect of illness allegedly arising from the Gulf conflict, but no writs or claims of sufficient detail to be considered have been received.

  The War Pensions Agency also makes provision for ex-service personnel suffering from injury or disease attributable to their service in the form of a war pension and associated benefits.

  Tendering Process
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on encouraging the employment of local contractors for new build projects on the UK mainland. [30312]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 25 January 2002]: The Ministry of Defence is pursuing greater efficiency in the delivery of services essential to maintain and develop the Defence Estate. To fulfil this objective we aim to involve industry in a broader way through public-private partnerships, and in particular the Prime Contracting Initiative.

  Prime Contracting should not be seen as a bar to local or smaller companies. A key feature is the development of supply chains with the capability to cover the full range of the activities required to deliver estate projects. It is envisaged that this will present significant opportunities for the involvement of local contractors.
  21W
  The greater efficiencies and better value for money will also allow more work to be completed for the Department, resulting in increased opportunities for those involved in its delivery. Where companies do not wish to bid for contracts in their own right as Prime Contractors, they are fully encouraged to be part of the supply chain. Opportunities for Prime Contracts will be advertised in the Works Services Opportunities Bulletin. Sub-contracts will also be advertised.

  The MOD fully supports the objectives laid out in the Office of Government Commerce publication "Tendering for Government contracts" which sets out the opportunities and benefits within the public sector for small and medium sized enterprises.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 336W, on special educational needs, how many married accompanied service personnel, not in receipt of boarding school allowance, are serving in areas (a) under SCE educational jurisdiction and (b) not under SCE educational jurisdiction. [27477]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Defence Intelligence and Security Centre Agency
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the conclusions and recommendations of Phase I of the Quinquennial Review of the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre Agency; how many and what submissions were made to Phase I by stakeholders and other interested parties; if he will place a copy of the Phase I report in the Library; what the period to be allowed for consultation over the Phase I report is; and what is the projected Schedule leading up to the publication of the final Review. [29248]

  Mr. Ingram
  Phase 1 of the Quinquennial Review of the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre is continuing.

  On completion, once its recommendations have been agreed, I will announce the outcome and place a copy of the summary report in the Library of the House.

  Departmental Expenditure (Publications)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his estimate is of the expenditure of his Department on newspapers, magazines and periodicals in each of the last four years. [30088]

  Dr. Moonie
  Expenditure on commercial and HMSO publications, including newspapers and periodicals, by the Ministry of Defence in each of the last four years was as follows:

  Financial year

  £ million

  1997–8

  6,910,298.74

  1998–99

  8,204,787.64

  1999–2000

  7,499,237.00

  2000–01

  9,830,204.18

  22W

  Atomic Weapons Establishment
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the purpose is of AWE's Billi-G project; what its cost is; and if he will make a statement. [29955]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Billi-G programme is one element in a suite of experiments by the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) using high-energy radiation to examine the behaviour of materials when subjected to explosive shock. It is important in predicting the performance of a nuclear warhead and hence in underwriting our nuclear deterrent in a nuclear test ban era.

  The cost of the programme is included in the total AWE operating costs of £2.3 billion for the 10-year period beginning 1 April 2000. The specific costs of these experiments could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Trident
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has decided to extend the life of the Trident warhead beyond the expected service life; and what plans he has to extend the life of the submarine beyond the expected service life. [29954]

  Mr. Ingram
  No such decision has been made; as with other key military capabilities, we routinely undertake studies into options for achieving the optimum operational life and value for money.

  Defence Aviation Repair Agency
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the estimated cost is of the inter-site transportation of components and material in the Defence Aviation Repair Agency in the last 12 months. [30106]

  Mr. Ingram
  The inter-site costs of transporting components and materials across the Defence Aviation Repair Agency are not recorded separately and the information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Anti-tank Missiles
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the MOD's balance of investment of anti tank missiles study will be completed; and if he will make a statement. [30290]

  Mr. Ingram
  The most recent studies of anti-tank guided weapons were concluded in summer 2001. These studies considered the procurement of such weapon systems for mechanised infantry and armoured infantry. The conclusions reached in these studies will be used to inform any future procurement options.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the effectiveness of the existing Milan system for medium range anti-tank missiles; and if he will make a statement. [30286]

  Mr. Ingram
  The MILAN system meets the requirements for which it was designed, and is successfully deployed in over 40 countries. The system has been in service since 1977, and replacements are developed in line with technological advances and changing capability requirements. MILAN, which is due to be phased out of
  23W
  service between 2005 and 2008, is to be replaced by the Light Forces' Anti-Tank Guided Weapon (LF ATGW) system.

  Colchester Garrison
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 21 January 2002,Official Report, column 557W, on Colchester Garrison, when the temporary living accommodation for soldiers at Colchester Garrison will be ready for occupation; if he plans to allow the public to view the new buildings; and if there will be an official opening ceremony. [30550]

  Dr. Moonie
  The temporary 'portakabin' type single living accommodation for soldiers at Colchester Garrison is ready for occupation now, though it is yet to be utilised due to operational deployments. There are no plans to invite the public to view the new buildings or to hold an official opening ceremony.

  Civilian Work Force
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will announce the results of his analysis of his Department's civilian work force; and what effect this will have on the age of retirement. [31121]

  Dr. Moonie
  The review of the Ministry of Defence's age of retirement policy for civilian staff has taken rather longer than expected because it has thrown up some complex issues, but it is now nearing completion and we expect to be able to announce the findings in the next few weeks.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures his Department has put in place to aid civilian recruitment where there is a shortage of people for the appropriate grades. [31136]

  Dr. Moonie
  Recruitment to the civil service is on the basis of merit and fair and open competition. In the Ministry of Defence, most recruitment is delegated to local budget holders. Various steps are taken to try to ensure the success of our recruitment efforts, particularly in relation to women, disabled people and members of ethnic minorities, who are currently under-represented in our work force. Depending on the circumstances, we can also make available flexible working arrangements and some financial incentives.

  RAF Bases
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who owns the freehold of(a) RAF Brize Norton, and (b) RAF Lyneham. [30805]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence owns the freehold at both sites.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans he has to redevelop RAF Wroughton; [30806]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the future of RAF Wroughton. [30808]

  Dr. Moonie
  All elements of the former RAF Wroughton are now in private ownership with the exception of the married quarter estates at Langton Park and Beranburh Field. These are still in Ministry of 24W
  Defence ownership but are now surplus to operational requirements. They will shortly be sold in accordance with disposal policy. Defence Estates will not redevelop the sites.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what medical equipment there is in RAF Wroughton; and what plans he has to re-deploy it elsewhere. [30807]

  Dr. Moonie
  RAF Wroughton comprised the main airfield, married quarters estates and the Princess Alexandra hospital.

  Prior to the disposal of the hospital site the medical equipment was sold, with the exception of the MRI and CT scanners which were obsolescent. They were therefore included as fittings within the hospital sale.

  The Princess Alexandra hospital was sold to Dukeminster Ltd. on 14 January 2000.

  Army Units (Germany)
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the establishment against actual strength of British Army units in Germany; and how many requests for transfer there are for each of these units. [29650]

  Mr. Ingram
  The establishment and actual staffing levels for major British Army units in Germany, as at 1 January 2002, are shown in the table. It is not possible to say how many requests for transfer there are for each unit in Germany as this information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  British Army units in Germany1

  Establishment

  Actual strength

  HQ 1(UK) Armoured Division and TPS

  1 Div HQ

  180

  178

  12 Regt RA

  627

  563

  28 Engr Regt RE

  880

  804

  1 ADSR

  681

  586

  1CS Med Regt RAMC

  517

  443

  Chaplain pool

  28

  32

  1 Reg RMP

  350

  350

  1 GS Regt RLC

  689

  600

  2 CS Regt RLC

  886

  696

  RLC Mil Trg Wmg

  8

  8

  4 Armoured Brigade

  4 Bde HQ and Sig Sqn

  157

  164

  RDG

  590

  585

  QRL

  590

  511

  4 Regt RA

  684

  606

  21 Engr RE

  657

  657

  1IG

  744

  689

  1DWR

  741

  719

  1Bn REME

  367

  308

  RL Band

  35

  31

  7 Armoured Brigade

  7 Bde HQ and Sig Sqn

  157

  167

  SCOTS DG

  590

  491

  9/12L

  453

  440

  2 RTR

  599

  568

  3 RHA

  554

  457

  32 Engr Regt RE

  653

  638

  1 RRF

  741

  654

  1BW

  741

  660

  Cambrai Band

  35

  35

  2 Bn REME

  367

  289

  25W

  British Army units in Germany1

  Establishment

  Actual strength

  20 Armoured Brigade

  20 Bde HQ and Sig Sqn

  157

  129

  QHR

  590

  531

  26 Regt RA

  684

  607

  35 Engr Regt RE

  656

  622

  1 RRW

  741

  703

  2 RGJ

  741

  726

  3 Bn REME

  367

  281

  HQ UK Support Command (Germany)

  HQ UKSC(G)

  122

  119

  1 Signal Brigade and Rhine Garrison

  3,307

  2,955

  1 As at 1 January 2002

  Iraq
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what British aircraft, and how many, are patrolling the no fly zones in Iraq; and how many times they have been(a) locked on to by surface-to-air missile batteries,(b) attacked by surface-to-air missiles and (c) threatened by other means. [28896]

  Mr. Ingram
  The RAF currently deploys eight Tornado GR4, six Tornado F3, four Jaguar, two VC10 and one Tristar on operations in connection with enforcing the no fly zones.

  Between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2001, reports from coalition aircraft patrolling the no fly zones indicated that they were threatened or attacked on 918 occasions, broken down as follows: 64 radar threats; 55 attacks by surface-to-air missiles; and 799 other threats, primarily attacks by anti-aircraft guns.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ian Stillman
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to make representations to the Indian Government with respect to the case of Ian Stillman; and if he will make a statement. [30865]

  The Prime Minister
  I am aware of the case of Mr. Stillman. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the British high commission in New Delhi have made many high-level representations to the Indian authorities about Mr. Stillman. The most recent of these was a meeting on 2 January 2002 between the British high commissioner in New Delhi and the Indian Home Minister. We shall continue to monitor Mr. Stillman's welfare while in jail and ensure that his special needs are catered for as far as possible.

  Single European Currency
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Prime Minister if he plans to follow the precedent of the 1975 referendum on membership of the Common Market in respect of the Government's agreement to differ in a referendum on membership of the single European currency as binding. [30754]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 2 November 2001,Official Report, column 883W.
  26W

  Energy Review
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister on what date he received the final report of the Energy Review from his Performance and Innovation Unit; and on what date he intends to publish the report. [31059]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) on 9 January 2002,Official Report,column 816W.

  Defence Sales (India)
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he had with Indian Ministers, on his recent visit, about the United Kingdom selling(a) armaments and (b) war planes to the Indian Government. [30852]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) on 23 January 2002,Official Report,column 854W.

  Lost/stolen Property
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those items valued at more than £50 which have been stolen or lost from his office in each of the last four years. [28002]

  The Prime Minister
  In respect of my office, none for the last four financial years.

  Camp X-Ray
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the assurances Her Majesty's Government have obtained from the Americans that those captured in Afghanistan are being humanely treated include assurances that those people are being treated in accordance with(a) the Geneva convention and (b) international norms; and if he will make a statement. [30133]

  The Prime Minister
  US officials have stated publicly that all detainees are being treated consistently with the principles of the Geneva convention.

  As the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) told the House on 21 January, British officials visited Guantanamo Bay between 17 and 20 January and were able to have lengthy discussions with the three British detainees who were all in good physical health and none of whom complained of ill treatment or had medical conditions requiring treatment.

  I am satisfied on the basis of the public statements made by the US authorities, together with the report of the visiting British officials, that the detainees are being treated in line with international humanitarian norms.

  New Year Honours List
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister how many persons in each county were(a) knighted or equivalent and (b) admitted to each rank of the orders of chivalry in the recent New Year's Honours List. [30022]
  27W
  The Prime Minister
  The information available is outlined in the table, which shows the number of awards

  Numbers of Honours recipients in each county

  County

  GBE

  CH

  KCB

  DBE

  Kt

  CB

  CMG

  CBE

  OBE

  MBE

  Aberdeenshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  4

  2

  Angus

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Antrim

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  10

  Argyll and Bute

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  Armagh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  Ayrshire and Arran

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  Banffshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  Belfast

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  5

  10

  Berkshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  5

  8

  Berwickshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  Bristol

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  4

  Buckinghamshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  8

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  4

  1

  9

  Carmarthenshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  Ceredigion

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Channel Islands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  4

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  3

  3

  13

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Clwyd

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Cornwall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11

  Denbighshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Derbyshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  6

  Devon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  13

  Dorset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  7

  Down

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  6

  10

  Dumfries

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  6

  Dunbartonshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Dundee

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Durham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  4

  East Lothian

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  East Sussex

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  12

  Edinburgh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  5

  8

  10

  Essex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  14

  Fermanagh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Fife

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  7

  Flintshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Glasgow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  3

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  7

  Greater Manchester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  3

  2

  14

  Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Gwynedd

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Hampshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  8

  15

  Herefordshire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  6

  8

  9

  Inverness-shire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  Isle of Man

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Isle of Wight

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Kent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  3

  10

  19

  Lanarkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  4

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  5

  13

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  5

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  5

  London

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  4

  1

  17

  35

  41

  Londonderry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  6

  Lothian

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Merseyside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  10

  Mid Glamorgan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1

  6

  Middlesex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  7

  16

  Mid Lothian

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Monmouthshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  5

  Norfolk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  8

  North Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  2

  5

  Northamptonshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  4

  Northumberland

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  5

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  7

  Orkney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  28W
  made on my recommendation in each county in the New Year Honours List 2002.
  29W

  Number of Honours recipients in each county

  County

  GBE

  CH

  KCB

  DBE

  Kt

  CB

  CMG

  CBE

  OBE

  MBE

  Oxfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  2

  4

  6

  Pembrokeshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Perth and Kinross

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  Powys

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Renfrewshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  5

  3

  Ross and Cromarty

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  4

  Roxburgh, Ettrick and Lauderdale

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Shetland Island

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Shropshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  4

  Somerset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  4

  9

  South Glamorgan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  5

  South Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  7

  10

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  15

  Stirling and Falkirk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  5

  Surrey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  11

  11

  19

  Sutherland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Vale of Glamorgan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Torfaen

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Tweeddale

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Tyne and Wear

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  5

  Tyrone

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Warwickshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  4

  West Glamorgan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  4

  West Lothian

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  West Midlands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  5

  10

  West Sussex

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  3

  5

  West Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  14

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  8

  Worcestershire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  3

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on(a) the number of UK citizens arrested in Afghanistan for alleged terrorist activity by (i) United Kingdom forces, (ii) United States forces and (iii) Afghan forces or paramilitaries, (b) their present whereabouts, (c) their identities and (d) their access to consular and legal representation. [26773]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are attempting to clarify the numbers and identify all who may be British nationals detained in Afghanistan. This may be a lengthy process because we have extremely limited consular facilities in Afghanistan.

  No British nationals are being held by UK forces. There are three British nationals held by the United States forces in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The US armed forces have also confirmed that they are holding others who may be British nationals in locations in Afghanistan.

  We are seeking to verify reports of the number of possible British nationals who may have been detained by Afghan or local forces. We are aware of one British national who was detained by the Northern Alliance and are seeking information on his current whereabouts.

  In line with normal consular practice, we do not intend to release the identities of those detained.

  We are seeking access to all alleged British detainees. British officials have visited the three detainees at Guantanamo Bay from 17 to 20 January and have
  30W
  confirmed that they are all in good physical health and have no complaints about ill treatment. We have told the US authorities that we expect them to ensure that the detainees are treated in accordance with international standards, including those applicable to trial.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British citizens have been detained by(a) United States, (b) United Front and (c) other local forces in Afghanistan; and where they are now being held. [27227]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are attempting to clarify the numbers and identify all who may be British nationals being detained in Afghanistan. This may be a lengthy process because we have extremely limited consular facilities in Afghanistan.

  As I said in my statement on 21 January there are currently three British detainees at the Guantanamo Bay base.

  We are seeking to verify reports of the number of possible British nationals who may have been detained by Afghan or local forces. We are aware of one British national who was detained by the Northern Alliance during the civil war, and are seeking information on his current whereabouts.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the UK is being consulted about the handling of prisoners in custody in Afghanistan. [27835]
  31W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have not been consulted about the handling of prisoners in Afghanistan. We believe that all detainees in Afghanistan, as elsewhere, should be treated humanely and in accordance with international standards. We are seeking access to all alleged British detainees.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information British troops in Afghanistan have gathered on the fate of the women of Kabul who were taken by the fleeing Taliban forces. [28236]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  British troops in Afghanistan are there as part of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). Their mission is to assist the Afghan Interim Administration in achieving security in Kabul and the surrounding areas. However, the British embassy in Kabul have been investigating these reports and have so far been unable to substantiate them.

  We work closely with the UNHCR in Pakistan, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the UN Special Mission to Afghanistan on all matters of humanitarian concern, including the appalling treatment of women under the Taliban. We have also raised a range of women's issues with Dr. Sima Sumar, the Interim Administration's Vice Chair responsible for Women's Affairs.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 15 January 2002,Official Report,column 132W on Afghanistan, if he will make a statement on the problems the ICRC face in gaining access to detainees held at Bagram airport and those being held in a place of detention in Kabul. [30699]

  Peter Hain
  The ICRC obtained access to the detainees in Kabul on 13 January, although this information was not to hand at the time of the earlier answer.

  On 22 January the ICRC obtained access to the detainees at Bagram airport.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the(a) centres at which prisoners from the conflict are being held in Afghanistan and (b) nationalities of those who are being detained; if he will specify how many are being held there; and if the ICRC is being allowed into every centre to see all prisoners. [30664]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The UK is not holding any detainees. Information on the location and nationality of detainees is a matter for the US and Afghan authorities. We understand that ICRC is being allowed access to prisoners in Afghanistan.

  Safiyatu Hussaini
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Nigerian Government in support of Safiyatu Hussaini in advance of her appeal hearing on 18 March following her sentence of death by stoning for the crime of adultery; and if he will make a statement. [28967]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are deeply concerned at the sentence of stoning given to Safiyatu Hussaini for adultery by a Sharia Court in Sokoto State, northern Nigeria, on 9 October 2001. We are following this case 32W
  closely. The British high commission in Abuja takes every opportunity to raise the human rights implications of the extreme sentences laid down in the Sharia criminal code. We expect the Nigerian Government to meet their international human rights obligations. Nigeria ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1993. We also remind the Nigerians regularly of our opposition to the use of the death penalty.

  The Sokoto Sharia Court of Appeal has issued a stay of execution until Ms Hussaini's appeal is heard.

  Sierra Leone
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to support reform of the judiciary, police force and detention facilities in Sierra Leone. [28768]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  A strong judiciary, police force and penal system is essential to establishing the rule of law, which will help to consolidate the fragile peace in Sierra Leone. The United Nations mission has deployed throughout the country and the Sierra Leone army, police and administration is in the process of extending the Government's authority.

  Lasting stability depends on a strong and accessible legal system. The UK is working with the international community and the Government of Sierra Leone to improve the effectiveness of Sierra Leone's judicial system. This includes updating the legal code and training legal personnel.

  The Government of Sierra Leone are committed to the development of a democratic police force. The UK is helping to deliver an effective and accountable force by training and restructuring the police, and support moves towards prison reform.

  The UK has played a leading role in the successful efforts to bring peace to Sierra Leone. We remain committed to helping rebuild the country.

  Western Hemisphere Institute for Security and Co-operation
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to monitor the connections between the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security and Co-operation, the School of Americas and the committal of violent acts intended to influence the policy of other Governments. [28793]

  Mr. MacShane
  The United States Congress is responsible for scrutinising the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security and Co-operation (formally known as the School of Americas).

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his estimate is of the(a) annual cost and (b) total value of the empty properties owned by (i) his Department, (ii) his agencies and (iii) other public bodies for which he has had responsibility in each of the last four years. [30070]

  Mr. MacShane
  It is the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's policy to limit empty properties to one of four categories: (a) those that must be vacated while
  33W
  undergoing refurbishment or adaptation; (b) those that are surplus and in the process of disposal; (c) those we cannot occupy because of a break in diplomatic relations or a similar eventuality, but we expect to need in the future; and (d) short gaps between officers' overseas tours.

  Because routine management of the estate is devolved to our overseas posts, it is not possible to identify these properties or their costs without disproportionate cost.

  Gibraltar
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will postpone the Brussels talks with his Spanish counterpart until proceedings on the new constitutional proposal before Gibraltar's House of Assembly have been completed. [30634]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 25 January 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) on 12 December 2001, Official Report,columns 853–54W. We shall continue talks with Spain under the Brussels Process.

  We understand that the Select Committee on Constitutional Reform of the Gibraltar House of Assembly has agreed draft proposals for constitutional reform, and look forward to receiving these in due course.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what mechanisms will be put in place to ensure a referendum in Gibraltar resulting from any bi-lateral agreement between Spain and the United Kingdom on the future status of Gibraltar is conducted in a free and fair manner. [30697]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 25 January 2002]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on 8 January 2002, Official Report,column 580W. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said in this House on 14 January, the Government stand by the pledge that any agreement reached under the Brussels Process will be subject, in a free, secret ballot, to the wishes of the people of Gibraltar.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions are taking place with Spain to allow re-directed aircraft from Gibraltar to land in Spain. [30551]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 25 January 2002]: The Government resumed talks with Spain under the Brussels Process in July 2001:these talks continue. In accordance with the terms of the Brussels Communiqué, November 1984, the talks are aimed at overcoming all the differences between the UK and Spain over Gibraltar and at promoting co-operation on a mutually beneficial basis, including on aviation.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions have taken place with Spain on(a) direct sailings of cruise ships from Gibraltar to Spain, (b) direct flights from Spain to Gibraltar and (c) ferry links between Gibraltar and Algeciras. [30553]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 25 January 2002]: The Government resumed talks with Spain under the Brussels Process in July 2001: these talks continue. In accordance
  34W
  with the terms of the Brussels Communiqué, November 1984, the talks are aimed at overcoming all the differences between the UK and Spain over Gibraltar and at promoting co-operation on a mutually beneficial basis on economic, cultural, touristic, aviation, military and environment matters.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs under what statutory powers action can be taken against Spain in respect of(a) the open skies policy, (b) air safety and (c) direct sailings between Spain and Gibraltar. [30436]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 25 January 2002]: No such statutory powers exist.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions have taken place on including Gibraltar in the EU Open Skies Agreement. [30725]

  Peter Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) on 1 November 2001,Official Report,column 811W. There have been no further discussions with Spain on this matter, except in so far as any agreement with Spain approved by the people of Gibraltar at the European Union would resolve this issue.

  Spain
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what legal action he plans to take against Spain about(a) mobile telephone roaming and (b) border queues. [30723]

  Peter Hain
  The UK Government have no plans to take legal action against Spain. The EC Treaty confers primary responsibility for the enforcement of Community Law on the Commission.

  UK Nationals (Cuba)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if members of the UK delegation who visited the UK nationals being held by US forces in Cuba will be involved in the interrogation of those UK nationals. [30662]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The UK team which visited Guantanamo Bay has interviewed those detainees held there who claim British nationality. The team comprised members qualified to ask questions about the identity, nationality and welfare of the detainees and also to ask questions relevant to international terrorism and UK national security.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if UK nationals held by US forces in Cuba were informed before they left Afghanistan that they were to be taken to Cuba and of the length of the journey. [30656]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The report by officials did not cover this point, which is one for the US authorities.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if there were United Kingdom nationals among the wounded prisoners who arrived at the US base in Cuba in the week beginning 21 January. [30660]
  35W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have not been informed of any further transfers of British detainees. The US have assured us that they will keep us informed.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if members of the UK delegation who visited the UK nationals being held by US forces in Cuba discussed allegations of sensory deprivation with them. [30661]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The British officials responsible for the interviews gave the detainees full opportunity to express concern about their treatment, including sensory deprivation. None complained of ill-treatment and they all appeared to be in good physical health.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will ensure that Parliament is kept informed on a regular basis of the conditions under which UK nationals are being held by US forces. [30654]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I will be happy to bring any significant changes to the attention of Parliament.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the US Government about the tribunals by which the UK nationals who are being held by US forces at Guatanamo Bay will be tried. [30658]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The US has yet to make public the procedures. We have asked for information and made clear our view that these should be consistent with international norms for trial.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the UK Government were notified that the first planeload of prisoners to the US base for prisoners in Cuba included UK nationals. [30653]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have had many discussions with the US authorities about detention of British nationals, including their possible transfer. Their transfer was confirmed to our Embassy in Washington on 11 January, the day the detainees arrived in Guantanamo.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will name the officials who were members of the UK Government delegation who visited the UK nationals held by US forces in Cuba. [30657]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Under Exemptions 1a and 15 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, I am unable to publish the names of the officials.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if US personnel were present at the meetings held between the UK delegation and the UK nationals being held by US forces in Cuba. [30663]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  British officials visiting the detainees were accompanied by representatives of the US as the detaining power.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what charges have been laid against the UK nationals held by US forces in Cuba; whether their legal rights have been discussed with them; and whether they have been offered legal representation. [30655]
  36W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are not yet aware of any charges but are in regular contact with the US regarding next steps. If the detainees face prosecution, under international norms they are entitled to legal representation.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from foreign Governments on the conditions in which prisoners are being held by US forces at Guantanamo Bay. [30659]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  None.

  Iran
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to name the new ambassador to Iran; and if he will make a statement. [30733]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 14 January 2002,Official Report, column 4W.

  British Expatriates (Spain)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many UK citizens live permanently in Spain. [30726]

  Peter Hain
  According to official Spanish figures, the number of UK nationals permanently resident in Spain is in the region of 500,000.

  Morocco
  Mr. Terry Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions his Department has had with the Government of Morocco regarding the Spanish enclaves of(a) Ceuta and (b) Melilla. [30729]

  Peter Hain
  Ministers and officials have regular contacts with their Moroccan counterparts to discuss a wide range of bilateral and foreign policy issues. There have been no specific discussions regarding the Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla, as this is a bilateral matter between the Governments of Spain and Morocco.

  Hamas
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made as to which Governments(a) provide support to Hamas terrorists and (b) allow Hamas to operate within their borders. [31129]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are aware that Hamas receives some funding from Iran. Hamas also receives funding from a wide variety of sources across the middle east, including substantial funding from private foundations and individuals in the Gulf. Hamas activity covers a wide spectrum, from charitable social and educational support in the community to terrorism. We have no clear evidence of any Government allowing Hamas terrorists to operate within its borders. We take all evidence of external involvement in Hamas very seriously. Such involvement can only complicate the international community's efforts to help the Palestinians achieve viable statehood, and Israel and the region to enjoy lasting security.
  37W
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact on the middle east peace process of the intention of the Hamas terrorist group to wage an all-out war against Israel. [31131]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are gravely concerned by the violence in the middle east, including Hamas' declared intention to wage 'general war' against Israel. The Government's view on terrorism is clear: we have repeatedly condemned terrorism in all its forms. We have accordingly proscribed the terrorist wing of Hamas. We continue to urge President Arafat to make 100 per cent. effort to dismantle terrorist networks. We will continue to urge both parties to end the violence and resume substantive dialogue.

  Greenpeace
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the case of the 17 Greenpeace activists and two journalists who were arrested near Vandenberg Airbase, California. [30221]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Three British nationals were among 17 people arrested for entering a restricted area at Vandenberg Airbase, California, on 15 July 2001. Two of these British nationals have been sentenced to a period of probation of one year. The third British national is due to be sentenced on 15 April. We have offered all three detainees full consular assistance since their arrest and will continue to do so.

  Brussels Process
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what agenda has been set for future discussions under the Brussels Process; and if he will make minutes of the meeting under the Brussels Process available to Parliament. [R] [30639]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 25 January 2002]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to his question on 6 November 2001, Official Report,column 121W. We will continue to ensure that the House is kept fully informed of progress under the Brussels Process.

  Al-Aqsa Brigades
  Mr Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the links between the Palestinian Authority and the Al-Aqsa Brigades who have claimed responsbility for recent terrorist attacks. [R] [31130]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We understand that the Al-Aqsa Brigades is the name used by members of Fatah when they carry out attacks on Israeli targets. Fatah is a political party The Palestinians after the Oslo accords. As such, there is no direct link between the Palestinian Authority and the actions of individual Fatah members. Fatah is President Arafat's political party but both he and more generally the Palestinian Authority have repeatedly condemned terrorism.
  38W

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Pension Credit
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he expects to introduce the pension credit. [28153]

  Mr. McCartney
  Pension credit will be introduced from October 2003, so that no pensioner will need to live on less than £100 per week (£154 a week for couples). For the first time, we will reward—not penalise—savings, ensuring those who have worked hard to save modest amounts will gain from having done so.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what measures he will put in place to ensure the application procedures for the pension credit are transparent and easily understandable. [28168]

  Mr. McCartney
  Pension credit will be delivered, from 2003, by the Pension Service which will be launched in April this year. The aim of the Pension Service is to promote a modern service that is tailored to meet customers' needs. The Department is currently designing and developing the processes and customer products (forms, leaflets, etc) that will support the introduction of pension credit next year.

  Plans for pension credit communications are being worked up at present and we intend to engage customer representative groups and partner organisations during the first half of 2002, in helping us to develop detailed marketing, communications and take-on plans. We will also test customer products, such as the claim form and leaflet, with these expert groups to ensure that they are easy to understand. They will of course, be approved by the Social Security Advisory Committee. We will ensure that everyone who is entitled to pension credit knows in good time what they need to do to apply for their pension credit entitlement.

  Pension Schemes
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the savings ratio with respect to pension schemes. [28155]

  Mr. McCartney
  Overall contributions to non-state pensions have increased year on year since 1997. It has risen from:

  £50 billion in 1997

  £60 billion in 1998

  £65 billion in 1999

  £69 billion in 2000.

  Additionally, the introduction of stakeholder pensions has increased access to pension schemes and promoted greater pension saving generally. For example, the value of new pensions sales rose by 9 per cent. in the third quarter of 2001 to £2.8 billion.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many uncancelled national insurance numbers there are in issue. [28156]
  39W
  Malcolm Wicks
  As I explained in a reply to the right hon. Member on 7 November last year, the national insurance numbers (NINOs) currently in issue are needed for a variety of purposes.

  Since 1998 we have removed over 375,000 NINOs from the system. We are also marking suspected fraudulent NINOs when they are discovered. However our main focus is to tighten up the identification process to prevent false numbers being allocated in the first place.

  New Deal
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to make the new deal for young people more responsive to the needs of(a) young people and (b) employers. [28157]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We are continually seeking to develop the new deal for young people to ensure that it is responsive to the needs of employers and young people.

  We have already introduced a number of measures to increase the flexibility of the programme for employers and young people. For example, since June 2001 we have:
  introduced 'Recruit', a pilot initiative to help employers in deprived areas employ more people through the new deal's employment option;
  broadened training within new deal to allow training that leads to a certificate recognised by employers in their occupational areas;
  increased the permitted length of work experience placements for new dealers to eight weeks to enhance their employability; and
  revised the entry conditions for the new deal employment option, so participants can enter the option from the day they enter the programme.

  We are introducing tailored pathway pilots, the first of which began on 2 January. These pilots will enable young people to use the new deal options more flexibly and move into sustained employment. New deal clients will be able to access a mix of full-time training, work experience and employment through the new deal options.

  From February, employers will be given more flexibility in the training they provide for new deal clients taken on under the employment option. Employers will be able to give new deal clients their own in-house training so that they have greater freedom to deliver training that best meets their needs.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps are taken to safeguard the training needs of the long-term unemployed on new deal projects when the Department terminates training contracts. [28159]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The continuity of programmes for all new deal participants is of paramount importance, particularly where contracts expire or are terminated. Should termination or expiry occur, contracts contain clauses to minimise any disruption caused to participants, and to assist in the implementation of contingency plans allowing participants to complete their programme.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will extend the new deal to 14 to 18-year-olds; and if he will make a statement. [28164]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We currently have no plans to extend the new deal to 14 to 18-year-olds.
  40W
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for work and Pensions how many people have entered work through the new deal since May 1997 [28175]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Latest results show that over 600,000 people have entered work through the new deals.

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to review the taper formula for occupational pensions. [28158]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We introduced changes to the treatment of occupational pensions in incapacity benefit last April. We believe it is right to take account of pensions which duplicate the purpose of incapacity benefit, which is to provide some replacement of earnings for people of working age. The 50 per cent. taper on pension income above £85 a week encourages and rewards personal provision.

  We keep all our policies under review but have no plans to introduce further changes to the present arrangements.

  Carers
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on his plans to reform benefits for carers. [28162]

  Maria Eagle
  On 17 December, we laid a draft regulatory reform order before Parliament which, if accepted, will give those aged over 65 the right to claim invalid care allowance for the first time.

  The order would also provide for the extension of entitlement to invalid care allowance for up to eight weeks after the death of the person being cared for and a change in the name of the benefit to carer's allowance to reflect more closely the purpose of the benefit.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what action he is taking to help carers. [28823]

  Maria Eagle
  In autumn 2000 the Government announced a package of measures to enhance the current social security provision for carers, worth more than £500 million over a three year period. Two of the measures were implemented in April last year. The invalid care allowance (ICA) earnings limit was increased from £50 to £72 per week and the carer premium paid through the income-related benefits was increased from £14.15 to £24.40.

  On 17 December 2001, we laid a draft regulatory reform order before Parliament. If accepted, this will give those aged over 65 the right to claim invalid care allowance for the first time; will provide for the extension of entitlement to ICA for up to eight weeks after the death of the person being cared for; and will change the name of the benefit to carer's allowance.

  Benefit Fraud
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on progress in tackling fraud in the benefit system. [28163]
  41W
  Malcolm Wicks
  We are getting to grips with social security fraud. We have set out our strategy for tightening up the system and ensuring that from the outset the right benefits are going to the right people.

  We have introduced the Social Security Fraud Act 2001, which includes powers to improve fraud investigation and strengthen punishment for persistent offenders. We have increased the number of people sanctioned or prosecuted and we are working with local authorities to tackle housing benefit fraud and error.

  Latest figures show that from our baseline period in 1998 to March 2001 we have reduced the level of fraud and error in income support and jobseeker's allowance by nearly 18 per cent. and we expect the good progress to continue.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many prosecutions his Department has authorised, pursuant to the Targeting Fraud campaign.[28165]

  Malcolm Wicks
  It is not possible to estimate how many prosecutions have been authorised as a direct result of the Targeting Fraud campaign. However, more than 7,500 fraudsters have been successfully prosecuted since the campaign began.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners holding annuities are making claims for a non-disability benefit paid by his Department.[28166]

  Mr. McCartney
  Approximately 200,000 pensioner benefit units who are claiming income support, housing benefit or council tax benefit are in receipt of income from pension annuities.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what measures he plans to assist long-term unemployed people in deprived areas. [28167]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Our welfare to work initiatives are helping people into work in all parts of the country. The new deals have already helped well over 600,000 people into jobs.

  We introduced employment zones specifically to help long-term unemployed people in deprived areas get and keep work. The performance of the 15 employment zones is encouraging. Early indications are that almost half of participants find work. We are currently evaluating the zones before deciding how to take the initiative further.

  Action teams for jobs are helping jobless people in the most employment deprived areas in the country into work. By the end of their first year of operation (mid-October 2001), action teams had helped nearly 16,500 people into jobs. Earlier this month we increased the number of action teams from 53 to 63.

  Winter Fuel Payment
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people who became 60-years-old before 25 December 2001 were not entitled to the winter fuel payment. [28169]
  42W
  Mr. McCartney
  An estimated 150,000 people who reached age 60 before 25 December 2001 were not entitled to a payment for this winter, 2001–02. The reasons for this will have been either that they did not reach the age of 60 in or before the qualifying week, which was 17–23 September 2001, or that one of the scheme's exclusions applied in their case.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people living in tenements in Scotland have received only half their winter fuel entitlement because of a computer error; what action is being taken to identify them; when he expects all such cases to be paid in full; and what steps he is taking to prevent the error recurring. [26402]

  Mr. McCartney
  In order to ensure that the correct level of winter fuel payment is paid, the addresses of eligible people are matched. However, the Department is aware that there have been problems regarding people living in tenements in Scotland and, to alleviate this, the Department clerically matches the addresses in areas where there are many tenement flats. Figures are not available for tenements, but from over 11 million payments issued before Christmas, a total of 2,089 cases have been identified to date across Great Britain and Northern Ireland where the half rate payment has been applied in error. Where an underpayment has come to light, corrective action has been promptly taken.

  Universal Bank
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his oral answer of 10 December 2001,Official Report,column 578, on the Universal Bank, if he will make a statement on the progress of negotiations between the Post Office and its partners. [28170]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on 21 January 2002,Official Report,column 634W.

  Mining Communities
  Mr. Bryant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to enable more people in former mining communities to move off benefit and into work.[28171]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  People in former mining communities can benefit from the range of help available through their local Jobcentres. New deal programmes can help them gain new skills and advisers can help people find the job best suited to their circumstances.

  Some former mining communities are also benefiting from becoming an employment zone or an area for one of the action teams for jobs. Both of these initiatives are focusing help on some of the most deprived areas of the country to provide people with the extra support they need to move from benefits into work.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Miliband
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what progress has been made towards achieving the Government's objective of halving child poverty by 2010. [28173]
  43W
  Malcolm Wicks
  Details of the progress we are making in tackling child poverty can be found in our third annual report on poverty and social exclusion, "Opportunity for all—making progress" (CM 5260), published on 19 September 2001.

  Disabled People
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to assist disabled people who wish to secure employment. [28154]

  Maria Eagle
  We have introduced a range of measures to help people with disabilities secure work where they are ready and able to do so.

  Our new deal for disabled people pilots helped over 8,200 disabled people into work. Building on that success we have now introduced a national network of job brokers.

  We are making work pay through the disabled person's tax credit and the national minimum wage.

  Jobcentre Plus offers disabled people making new or repeat benefit claims work-focused meetings with a personal adviser so as to ensure they are aware of the help and opportunities available to them.

  Pension Service
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he expects the new Pension Service to come into operation. [28160]

  Mr. McCartney
  The new Pension Service will offer an improved service for pensioners. It will be customer focused and will give pensioners a modern, personalised, efficient service designed to meet their needs. It will also provide information for future pensioners to help them make decisions about their future pension arrangements.

  The Pension Service will bring together the backroom processing in 26 locations rather than over 400 at present. These processing centres will support a local service offering face-to-face contact for those who need it.

  The local service will work in partnership with local agencies to undertake outreach activity such as visiting, private interviews in locations which suit them and drop-in services. We will build on the Better Government for Older People and Care Direct pilots and are striving to improve local access, not reduce it, and are keen to see a much more joined up approach towards services more generally for pensioners.

  The Pension Service will roll out in a phased approach from February this year, with work continuing over the next few years.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much the CSA is owed in outstanding maintenance payments. [28161]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The amount owed to the Child Support Agency in outstanding maintenance payments as at 31 December 2001 is £584,562,023.
  44W

  Disability Discrimination
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the number of cases brought under Parts II and III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [29485]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department monitors the numbers of complaints made to the employment tribunals and the courts under Parts II and III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA). It also carries out targeted research on how the provisions of Part II and III of the DDA are working. We will shortly publish a report by Incomes Data Services Ltd., "Monitoring the Disability Discrimination Act 1995—Phase 2", which provides a statistical analysis of complaints made to the employment tribunals and county courts and a commentary on the emerging case law.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to commission research into the effectiveness of the awards against employers and service providers for discrimination against people with disabilities, with specific reference to the impact on their future behaviour. [29486]

  Maria Eagle
  We are committed to keeping the operation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) under review, including through research into the effectiveness of its provisions.

  We are currently developing proposals with the Disability Rights Commission for the next phase of the research project to monitor and analyse cases brought under the DDA.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to review the use of county and sheriff courts and their jurisdiction in cases under Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [29487]

  Maria Eagle
  We are committed to keeping the operation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 under review, including through research into cases brought under its provisions. Part III is not yet fully in force so it is too early to consider a review of specific provisions.

  Disabled Households
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many families in the Midlothian constituency include a disabled person; how many of these families have income support as their main income; and what the average amount is per week that these households spend on(a) food, (b) fuel and (c) medicines. [27178]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information is not available in the format requested.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many applications for disability living allowance were received from applicants in Perth constituency for the period 31 May 2000 to 31 May 2001; how many of those applications were refused at first instance; how many of those applicants whose applications were refused appealed; and how many of such appeals were successful(a) in whole and (b) in part. [30871]
  45W
  Maria Eagle
  In the year ending 31 May 2001, approximately 200 first applications for disability living allowance in Perth were successful at the claim stage, and 100 were unsuccessful. Local information (on a constituency basis) about appeals is not available.

  John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make it his policy in respect of a claimant in receipt of a higher rate mobility component of disability living allowance who claims a core component to require medical information to be obtained from the claimant's doctor before a decision to refuse a claim is taken. [27220]

  Maria Eagle
  The mobility and care components of disability living allowance have separate qualifying criteria and entitlement to one component does not necessarily imply, or result in, entitlement to the other.

  Disability living allowance is primarily a self-assessment benefit with no automatic requirement to obtain further evidence to support a claim. The obtaining of additional evidence on a claim inevitably increases the time taken to process it—sometimes substantially—and an approach will only be made to a claimant's doctor for further medical evidence when it is considered necessary and the doctor is deemed to be the most appropriate source for it.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many reports Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority has received of companies that failed to designate a stakeholder pension in time for the 8 October deadline; how many fines it has imposed as a result; and what the total value of fines imposed is. [24221]

  Mr. McCartney
  Opra has, up to 31 December 2001, received 220 reports of alleged failure of an employer to designate a stakeholder pension scheme for its work force. Seventy seven of those cases have been cleared, either because the employer has now designated a scheme or because the designation requirement does not apply.

  On average it can take Opra up to three months to look into a reported failure to designate a stakeholder pension scheme. Initial reports are sometimes anonymous and work can be needed to track down accurate contact details for the employer. Opra will then write to the employer to establish the facts of the case and point out the employer's responsibilities. Opra will check by telephone that the letter has been received, and will give the employer around four weeks to respond. In some situations the employer may need time to meet with their advisers to clarify their circumstances—especially where there is a possibility that they may be exempt. On receiving a response from the employer, Opra may need to contact the employer again to clarify information provided in the response or to request further information.

  The Government seek to work in co-operation with business on stakeholder pensions. Opra's overriding objective is to secure compliance with the law rather than to punish. At present, if the employer complies with the law before the investigation is completed, Opra will take no further action. Given this approach, and the normal timescales involved in following up reports, it is too early for any cases to have progressed to an Opra Board for consideration of a fine.
  46W
  At the end of November 2001, 304,750 employers had already designated a stakeholder scheme for their work force.

  Retirement Planning
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans his Department has to improve awareness of the need for retirement planning. [28022]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Government are committed to providing people with better information to improve awareness of the importance of retirement planning.

  The Government's pension education strategy includes raising awareness of retirement planning through a dedicated publicity campaign; providing more information to people about their pension provision through combined pension forecasts; and testing new ways to get information out to the public, for example through interactive Digital Television.

  The Department continues to liaise with the Financial Services Authority, employers, private pension providers and other organisations, on an on-going basis, to improve continuously the way we provide pensions information to consumers.

  Cervical Spondylosis
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to designate cervical spondylosis as a registered industrial injury. [25399]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Cervical spondylosis is a common degenerative condition which cannot result solely from an industrial injury and cannot be easily attributable to employment. In view of the lack of medical or scientific evidence to the contrary, we have no plans to designate it as a prescribed industrial disease.

  Jobcentre Plus
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the changes that individual benefit offices in the Jobcentre Plus areas have been asked to make to ensure they are accessible to incapacity benefit claimants, with specific reference to changes to(a) buildings, (b) furniture and (c) printed materials. [24219]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Jobcentre Plus is currently being delivered in 56 pathfinder offices. In the seven offices where providing entirely equal physical access to services has not been possible, alternative arrangements are in place to ensure that disabled people can still access these services. At Halifax, Darwen, Derby Normanton Road, and Wellington, there is restricted access to the first floor of these buildings, however all public services can be provided on the ground floor. At Pyle and Hoylake space restrictions mean there are some restrictions to staff movement. Only at Harlesden has public access been severely compromised by steps to the public entrance. Planning consent is being sought for a ramp. Alternative arrangements are in place to ensure service access for disabled people including home visits and assisted access at the office itself. The nearby office at Kilburn is fully accessible.
  47W
  Internally, Jobcentre Plus offices and furniture have been designed to enable full and equal access for all Jobcentre Plus customers. Adviser workstations enable both customers and staff to view the information on the monitor screen. The shape of the worktop allows wheelchair users the same access as able-bodied customers. The newly introduced self-service job vacancy terminals, known as "Jobpoints", have been designed specifically to enable access by wheelchair users.

  All Jobcentre Plus leaflets are available in alternative formats, including Braille and audiocassette. In addition to alternative formats for printed material, Jobcentre Plus offers textphone facilities and British Sign Language interpreters or other suitable communicators to help deaf or hard of hearing customers.

  Job Vacancies
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what use is made of(a) Jobpoints and (b) Employer Direct for the advertisement of vacancies in Government Departments. [18041]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  All vacancies notified to the Employment Service through Employer Direct are shown on Jobpoints. Many Government jobs are advertised on Jobpoints and the internet job bank. Government Departments advertising their vacancies in this way include the Employment Service, Benefits Agency, Office for National Statistics and the Inland Revenue. Discussions are taking place with both the Cabinet Office and NHS Executive regarding advertising vacancies on the ES website.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many employees of(a) his Department and (b) agencies sponsored by his Department work in (i) London, (ii) areas benefiting from EU objective 1 status, (iii) areas with objective 2 status and (iv) other areas. [16113]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 19 November 2001]: The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) currently covers 2,500 locations. The list of objective 2 status areas in England contains 1,700 areas. The information required for objective 2 status is therefore not easily available and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  The figures available for London and objective 1 status areas are:

  Number of staff in DWP

  London

  17,334

  Objective 1 areas

  12,654

  Other areas

  109,678

  Total

  139,666

  Retirement Statistics
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many men and women over the age of retirement are in employment; what allowances there 48W
  are for men and women over the age of 60 looking to (a) remain in and (b) return to work; and what plans he has to raise the retirement ages of men and women. [29843]

  Mr. McCartney
  Employers are responsible for setting the retirement age of their employees. They often use the age at which the State pension becomes payable, or base the decision around their occupational pension scheme. State pension age will be equalised at 65 for both men and women from 6 April 2020. Women's state pension age will be increased gradually from 60 to 65 between the years 2010 and 2020.

  The Department for Work and Pensions does encourage employers, through the Code of Practice on Age Diversity in Employment, and the Age Positive campaign, to value the contribution of older workers and to adopt flexible approaches to retirement which benefit both them and their employees.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Landfill Tax Credit Scheme
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which community projects based in the Buckingham constituency have benefited from the landfill tax credit scheme since its inception; and if he will indicate the amount of funding granted for each project. [30059]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information about the types of projects that have received funding under the landfill tax environmental bodies credit scheme is a matter for the regulator for the scheme, Entrust. I have therefore asked them to provide such data as they hold and will place a copy of their response in the Library.

  Railtrack
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what interest liability the Railtrack administrator has incurred under the commercial loan agreement. [26304]

  Mr. Spellar
  The interest which is paid to the Secretary of State, accrued up until 15 January under the commercial loan agreement, is of the order of £14.2 million. It will be rolled up into the loan and paid at the same time that principal is repaid.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he estimates that increased operating costs that Railtrack has experienced post-Hatfield will have an impact on the financial projections in the SRA strategic plan. [28545]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We will assess any impact on the SRA financial projections once the administrator or railtrack's successor has obtained a clearer picture of its underlying cost base and its operational needs.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what powers he has to end the Railtrack administration through a refinancing package for the existing company. [30026]
  49W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The powers of the Secretary of State in respect of a railway administration are set out in the Railways Act 1993 and the Railway Administration Order Rules 2001. My right hon. Friend's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) on 23 October 2001,Official Report, columns 195–97W set out the basis for a proposal for a private sector company limited by guarantee as a successor to Railtrack. We have no plans to develop other proposals.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made on the impact of(a) Railtrack administration and (b) the move to two year franchise extensions on levels of new orders for rolling stock. [28552]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are a number of mechanisms available to the SRA to secure investment under short franchise extensions, including rolling stock commitments under section 54 of the Railways Act 1993 where appropriate. I am not aware of any adverse effect on rolling stock orders caused by Railtrack going into administration.

  Rail Electrification
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many miles of railway he expects to be electrified under the 10-year plan. [26465]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No specific targets have been set. Electrification in itself is not a priority aim of the SRA when considering investment in the railways. The authority are more interested in the benefits delivered for the passenger and freight customer than in the particular form of traction used.

  Rail Safety
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of track has been inspected in each of the last five years for which records are available under Railtrack's preventative maintenance scheme; and what proportion will be inspected in the current 12-month period. [26068]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I understand that all track owned by Railtrack has been inspected in each of the last five years; and will be inspected in the current 12-month period. The frequencies and methods of inspection reflect the speed and annual tonnage of trains using the track and are set out in Railway Group Standard GC/RT 5021.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many children died in railway accidents(a) as passengers and (b) through trespass misadventure in each of the last five years for which figures are available in the age groups (i) zero to seven, (ii) eight to 13 and (iii) 14 to 18 years. [29744]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The number of fatalities to young people on the railway reported to the Health and Safety Executive's Railway Inspectorate (HMRI) over the last five years are shown in the following three tables. For statistical purposes HMRI classify children as between the ages of one to 15 years. Further information on railway fatalities to children can be found in the Chief Inspector of Railways annual reports on Railway Safety, copies of which are available in both House Libraries.
  50W

  Table 1: Passenger fatalities

  Age

  1 April to 31 March

  0–7 years

  8–13 years

  14–18 years

  1996–97

  0

  0

  1

  1997–98

  0

  1

  1

  1998–99

  0

  0

  4

  1999–2000

  0

  0

  0

  2000–01

  0

  0

  0

  Table 2: Trespasser and suicide fatalities

  Age

  1 April to 31 March

  0–7 years

  8–13 years

  14–18 years

  1996–97

  2

  4

  16

  1997–98

  1

  4

  18

  1998–99

  0

  2

  16

  1999–2000

  1

  1

  9

  2000–01

  1

  4

  19

  Table 3: Other member of the public fatalities (eg Level Crossings)

  Age

  1 April to 31 March

  0–7 years

  8–13 years

  14–18 years

  1996–97

  0

  0

  0

  1997–98

  0

  0

  1

  1998–99

  0

  0

  1

  1999–2000

  0

  0

  0

  2000–01

  0

  0

  0

  Rail Subsidy
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the total(a) direct and (b) indirect projected public subsidy to the railways (i) was in each of the past five years and (ii) will be in the next 10 years. [30254]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Total public support to the rail industry over each of the last five years is outlined in Table 4.1 of the Strategic Rail Authority's quarterly National Rail Trends bulletin. Government support via the franchised train operating companies is contained in the two 'Revenue support grant' columns contained in the table.

  The reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) on 23 January 2002, Official Report,columns 871–72W, outlines the estimated profile of Government support for the next 10 years.

  London Underground
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many(a) redeployments, (b) retirements and (c) absence of London Underground staff on medical grounds there were (i) by underground line and (ii) in total in each of the last five years and in each of the last 12 months. [27711]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is an operational matter for London Underground Ltd., who have provided the following information1.
  51W
  1London Underground are not able to provide this data disaggregated by each underground without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Year

  Redeployments

  Retirements2

  Absence3 (working days lost)

  1996–97

  85

  n/a

  n/a

  1997–98

  84

  n/a

  n/a

  1998–99

  31

  n/a

  n/a

  1999–2000

  21

  n/a

  n/a

  2000–01

  6

  n/a

  n/a

  Total (Five years)

  227

  n/a

  n/a

  Last 12 months4

  120

  115

  140,494

  n/a = Not available

  2 Data for retirements on medical grounds in each of the last five years would require disproportionate cost to collate. London Underground have said that their policy is not to retire employees on medical grounds, but instead, employees' contracts are terminated on medical grounds; employees then apply, if eligible, for their pension.

  3 London Underground have not been able to provide information on absence on the medical grounds over the last five years.

  4 January to December 2001

  Note:

  Detailed in-year operational information such as monthly data are a matter for London Underground; however a total for the last 12 months has been provided.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the level of absence and the reasons for absences on each London Underground line and in total for the last five years and each of the last 12 months. [27709]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is an operational matter for London Underground Ltd., who have provided the following information.

  Working days lost

  Absence

  Last five years1

  Last 12 months2

  Authorised

  Not available

  31,459

  Unauthorised

  Not available

  3,155

  Due to sickness

  Not available

  140,494

  Total

  458,819

  175,108

  1 January 1996 to December 2000

  2 January to December 2001

  Notes:

  1. London Underground are not able to provide data disaggregated by each underground line without incurring disproportionate cost.

  2. London Underground are unable to disaggregate the total for absence in the last five years into absence type.

  3. Detailed in-year operational information such as monthly data are a matter for London Underground. However, a total for the last 12 months has been provided.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the meetings he has had in the last 10 months with the Health and Safety Inspectorate to discuss safety on the London Underground. [28480]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There is no such body as the Health and Safety Inspectorate.

  Departmental Sponsorship
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list all(a) funding resources and (b) initiatives sponsored by his Department for (i) the private sector, (ii) the voluntary sector and (iii) local authorities. [26848]
  52W
  Ms Keeble
  Details of the resources made available by Parliament to the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in 2001–02 and their allocation are set out in the Department's Winter Supplementary Estimate presented to Parliament in November 2001 (Cm 5294). The expenditure plans 2001–02 to 2003–04 for programmes within the Department's predecessor, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, were set out in that Department's Annual Report 2001 (Cm 5105) and for programmes previously in the Home Office in that Department's Annual Report 2001 (Cm 5106). An analysis is not readily available of the allocation of funds or specific initiatives between (i) the private sector, (ii) the voluntary sector and (iii)local authorities.

  Housing Authorities
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the advantages are of stock transfer for housing authorities under the proposed local prudential capital expenditure regime. [28336]

  Ms Keeble
  The Department makes it clear that it is for local authorities to consider the relative advantages of the different financial and management options available for their housing stock.

  Former Railway Routes
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will protect former railway routes for future railway use. [28735]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority retains land with a realistic prospect of rail or other transport use in the foreseeable future, or sells it to the rail industry, local authorities or others, for those purposes. Under a new licence condition that came into effect on 15 November 2001, Railtrack plc must now seek the Rail Regulator's specific consent in important cases of disposal of land that may be required for future railway use.

  Rail Services (South-west)
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of the impact the proposed investment in rail services in the south-west will have on journey times between(a) Penzance and Paddington and (b) Exeter and Waterloo; and if targets have been set for revised journey times; [28827]

  (2) if he will make a statement on projected increases in train frequency between (a) Exeter and Waterloo and (b) Penzance and Paddington by 2005; [28828]

  (3) what the projected total levels of investment are for the (a) Penzance to Paddington and (b) Exeter to Waterloo rail routes under the SRA strategic plan. [28829]

  Mr. Jamieson
  For both routes the main purpose of the proposed infrastructure investment is to improve the reliability of services. There may be marginal improvements in scheduled journey times as a consequence. No targets have been set for revised journey times.
  53W
  There are seven Incremental Outputs Statement (IOS) infrastructure schemes planned for the Penzance to Paddington route with a current estimated value of over £25 million, and at least 13 stations on the route are due for improvements under the IOS stations programme. The frequency of services is unlikely to alter by 2005, although an IOS scheme currently under consideration could increase the level of service from Plymouth to Paddington to two trains per hour.

  On the Waterloo-Exeter route, 14 stations are included in the IOS stations programme. The value of the IOS stations work will not be known until site visits assessing the level of improvements needed has been completed. The SRA is currently awaiting the outcome of the South West Area Regional Multi-Modal Study to see if any rail infrastructure improvements are recommended. There are no current plans to increase frequency on the Waterloo to Exeter line by 2005. South West Trains introduced a regular half-hourly service instead of the previous hourly service in May 2001.

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent representations he has received regarding investment in branch lines in Cornwall. [28830]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Representations have recently been received regarding investment in the Truro to Falmouth branch line.

  Affordable Housing
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 10 January 2001,Official Report, column 976W, on affordable housing, what representations he has received regarding the number of affordable housing units in rural areas. [30001]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 24 January 2002]: Over the past three months DTLR Ministers have replied to three letters and four parliamentary questions on the issue of rural affordable housing. Affordable housing provision is a key priority for this Government and in this correspondence we outlined the measures we are taking to increase provision in rural areas.

  Over the same period, my noble Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has discussed rural affordable housing in several meetings with the Countryside Agency, with whom we have a good working relationship.

  Waverley Station, Edinburgh
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects detailed plans for the investment in Waverley station in Edinburgh will be brought forward. [29480]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority explained in their strategic plan that they and the Scottish Executive are in discussion with Railtrack about how best to take the project forward.

  SRA Strategic Plan
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) how 54W
  much of the proposed expenditure announced in the SRA strategic plan will be spent in Scotland (a) in monetary terms and (b) as a proportion of the total spending; [29458]

  (2) if he will provide a breakdown of total expenditure announced in the SRA strategic plan by nations and regions of the UK; [29457]

  (3) how much of the proposed expenditure on new rail infrastructure announced in the SRA strategic plan will be spent in Scotland (a) in monetary terms and (b) as a proportion of the total spending; [29460]

  (4) how much of the proposed expenditure on new trains announced in the SRA strategic plan will be spent in Scotland (a) in monetary terms and (b) as a proportion of the total spending. [29459]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The total public sector expenditure proposed in the Strategic Rail Authority's (SRA's) strategic plan is £33.5 billion. Many individual rail projects and improvements negotiated through franchise agreements, particularly the larger projects and improvements, will benefit more than one part of the country. The SRA has therefore not attempted to break down its planned expenditure on a regional basis.

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many of the proposals announced on 14 January in the SRA strategic plan that relate to Scotland had been announced previously. [29461]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The plan sets out for the first time a prioritised list of schemes to be taken forward, and estimates the resources needed to deliver them.

  Airport Rail Links
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the rail links to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports will be completed by 2010. [29456]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority's (SRA's) strategic plan sets out its short, medium and long-term priorities, including those for completion by 2010. Improved rail links to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports have been identified as schemes for further development. Detailed economic and engineering studies of options are being led by the Scottish Executive in partnership with Scottish Enterprise, BAA and the SRA.

  Train Drivers
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many train drivers(a) in total and (b) subdivided by train operating company worked on Britain's railways for each (i) year and (ii) month since 1988. [29588]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This information is not held centrally. The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) is encouraging train operating companies to recruit sufficient drivers to meet their service obligations.

  Road Fuel (Consumer Information)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans his Department has to give consumers information
  55W
  relating to the (a) fuel consumption and (b) carbon dioxide emissions of new cars in a form which (i) makes possible comparisons with cars of a similar size and (ii) is based on the colour-coded appliance energy label scheme. [29585]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department will shortly be consulting on future developments of the EU scheme under which information on fuel consumption and CO22 emissions is required to be displayed on labels on new passenger cars offered for sale. The consultation will focus in particular on options for banded labelling. We expect that this will result in a pilot scheme of banded label and/or focus group studies of the preferred options. We will draw on our experience of this, and of ongoing research when negotiating in the EU on development of the labelling scheme.

  Secure Stations Scheme
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the stations accredited as of 16 January, or the latest date for which information is available under the Secure Stations scheme. [29581]

  Ms Keeble
  The list set out records the name of each of the 132 stations accredited under the Secure Stations scheme as of 21 January 2002.

  The percentage of stations accredited under the scheme is small in relation to the number of stations eligible to be accredited under the scheme. However, the accredited stations account for approximately one third of the total annual passenger throughput of overground rail journeys.

  Barking (c2c Rail Ltd.)

  Basildon (c2c Rail Ltd.)1

  Benfleet (c2c Rail Ltd.)

  Chafford Hundred (c2c Rail Ltd.)

  Chalkwell (c2c Rail Ltd.)

  Dagenham Dock (c2c Rail Ltd.)

  East Tilbury (c2c Rail Ltd.)

  Fenchurch Street (c2c Rail Ltd.)1

  Grays (c2c Rail Ltd.)

  Laindon (c2c Rail Ltd.)

  Leigh-on-Sea (c2c Rail Ltd.)

  Limehouse (c2c Rail Ltd.)

  Ockendon (c2c Rail Ltd.)

  Pitsea (c2c Rail Limited)

  Purfleet (c2c Rail Ltd.)

  Rainham (c2c Rail Ltd.)

  Shoeburyness (c2c Rail Ltd.)

  Southend Central (c2c Rail Ltd.)

  Southend East (c2c Rail Ltd.)

  Stanford-Le-Hope (c2c Rail Ltd.)

  Thorpe Bay (c2c Rail Ltd.)

  Tilbury Town (c2c Rail Ltd.)

  Upminster (c2c Rail Ltd.)

  West Horndon (c2c Rail Ltd.)

  Westcliff (c2c Rail Ltd.)

  Marylebone Rail (Chiltern)1

  Stoke Mandevile (Chiltern)

  Chipstead (Connex South Central Ltd.)

  Dorking (Connex South Central Ltd.)

  Eastbourne (Connex South Central Ltd.)

  Horsham (Connex South Central Ltd.)

  Oxted (Connex South Central Ltd.)

  Tattenham Corner (Connex South Central Ltd.)

  Worthing (Connex South Central Ltd.)

  Belvedere (Connex South Eastern)

  56W

  Charlton (Connex South Eastern)

  Greenwich (Connex South Eastern)

  Hither Green (Connex South Eastern)

  Maidstone West (Connex South Eastern)

  Orpington (Connex South Eastern)

  Ashford International (Eurostar)1

  Waterloo International (Eurostar) [reaccredited]1

  Gatwick (Gatwick Station Services)

  Chelmsford (Great Eastern Railway Ltd.)

  Berwick Upon Tweed (Great North Eastern Railway Ltd.)

  Doncaster (Great North Eastern Railway Ltd.)

  Dunbar (Great North Eastern Railway Ltd.)

  Durham (Great North Eastern Railway Ltd.)

  Newark Northgate (Great North Eastern Railway Ltd.)1

  Retford (Great North Eastern Railway Ltd.)

  Wakefield Westgate (Great North Eastern Railway Ltd.)

  York (Great North Eastern Railway Ltd.)

  Chippingham (Great Western Railway Ltd.)

  St. Pancras (London and Continental Stations and Property Ltd.)

  Charing Cross (LUL)

  Edgware Road (Bakerloo) (LUL)

  Elephant and Castle (LUL)

  Kilburn Park (LUL)

  Lambeth North (LUL)

  Maida Vale (LUL)

  Marylebone (LUL)

  Oxford Circus (LUL)

  Piccadilly Circus (LUL)

  Regents Park (LUL)

  Warwick Avenue (LUL)

  Derby (Midland Main Line)1

  Kettering (Midland Main Line)

  Leicester (Midland Main Line)1

  Market Harborough (Midland Main Line)1

  Birmingham New Street (Railtrack)

  Charing Cross (Railtrack)

  Edinburgh Waverley (Railtrack Ltd.)

  Euston (Railtrack)

  Glasgow Central High Level1

  Kings Cross rail (Railtrack)

  Leeds City (Railtrack)

  Liverpool Street (Railtrack)

  London Bridge (Railtrack)

  Manchester Piccadilly (Railtrack)1

  Paddington (Railtrack)

  Victoria Rail (Railtrack)1

  Waterloo (Railtrack)

  Kew Gardens (Silverlink Train Services)

  Alton (South West Trains)

  Andover (South West Trains)

  Ascot (South West Trains)

  Basingstoke (South West Trains)

  Bracknell (South West Trains)

  Eastleigh (South West Trains)

  Fareham (South West Trains)

  Famborough (South West Trains)

  Farnham (South West Trains)

  Feltham (South West Trains)

  Fratton (South West Trains)

  Godalming (South West Trains)

  Guildford (South West Trains)

  Haslemere (South West Trains)

  Havant (South West Trains)

  Hounslow (South West Trains)

  Kingston (South West Trains)1

  Petersfield (South West Trains)

  Portsmouth Harbour (South West Trains)

  Putney (South West Trains)

  Richmond (South West Trains)1

  57W

  Salisbury (South West Trains)

  Southampton Airport Parkway (South West Trains)

  Southampton Central (South West Trains)

  Surbiton (South West Trains)

  Twickenham (South West Trains)

  Wimbledon (South West Trains)

  Winchester (South West Trains)

  Windsor and Eton Riverside (South West Trains)

  Woking (South West Trains)

  Bourne End (Thames Trains Ltd.)

  Windsor and Eton Central (Thames Trains Ltd.)

  City Thameslink (Thameslink)

  Haydons Road (Thameslink)

  Morden South (Thameslink)

  South Merton (Thameslink)

  St. Helier (Thameslink)

  Sutton Common (Thameslink)

  Tooting (Thameslink)

  West Sutton (Thameslink)

  Wimbledon Chase (Thameslink)

  Lancaster (Virgin Trains)

  Oxenholme (Virgin Trains)

  Barnstaple (Wales and West)

  Exeter Central (Wales and West)

  Gloucester (Wales and West)

  Penzance (Wales and West)

  Truro (Wales and West)

  Weston-super-Mare (Wales and West)

  1reaccredited

  Millennium Dome
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions at what stage negotiations are with Meridian Delta over the sale of the Millennium Dome; when he expects negotiations to be completed; and if he will make a statement. [29587]

  Ms Keeble
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, to my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Ian Stewart) on 18 December 2001,Official Report,columns 220–21W. Negotiations are on-going between English Partnerships and Meridian Delta Ltd.

  Deep Vein Thrombosis
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what financial assistance the Government have given to the World Health Organisation's study into deep vein thrombosis; [29796]

  (2) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) of 16 January 2002, Official Report, columns 336–37W, what target the World Health Organisation has set for the completion of their study into deep vein thrombosis;[29806]

  (3) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) of 16 January 2002, Official Report,columns 336–37W, what representations he (a) has made and (b) plans to make to the World Health Organisation as part of their study into deep vein thrombosis. [29807]
  58W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Officials from the Department of Health and from my Department have made a number of visits to the World Health Organisation in Geneva to discuss the scope and organisation of its proposed study into deep vein thrombosis. A further visit is planned shortly. A decision on funding will be made when those discussions are completed. The WHO estimates that the study will take approximately two and a half years to complete. Assuming the World Health Organisation secures the necessary funding in the early part of this year, the study should be completed by the end of 2004.

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many letters his Department has received from residents of the Buckingham constituency(a) in favour and (b) opposed to the erection of mobile phone masts in the last year. [30041]

  Ms Keeble
  The Department has received centrally five letters from members of the public in Buckinghamshire about the erection of mobile phone masts. All of these letters were either opposed to the erection of an individual mobile phone mast and/or requested clarification of our telecommunications planning policy.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many mobile phone masts there were in Buckingham constituency in each of the last five years. [30046]

  Ms Keeble
  The Department does not hold information about the number or locations of existing mobile phone masts.

  However, the Radiocommunications Agency has made information available to the public via their website (www.radio.gov.uk). The database, called Sitefinder, gives details about all operational mobile phone base stations and their emissions. Sitefinder employs a "user-friendly" map-based facility indicating the location of cellular phone base stations. More information on a particular base station is available by simply clicking on the position indicator for the base station in question.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what powers he has to ensure that mobile telecommunication companies share masts. [31120]

  Ms Keeble
  The Government's policy is firmly to encourage mast and site sharing where that is the optimum environmental solution in a particular case. Indeed, conditions attached to individual operating licences by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry include a requirement to investigate mast sharing before seeking to put up any new mast.

  Planning Policy Guidance Note 8, "Telecommunications", makes clear our expectation that developers should provide the local planning authority with clear evidence that they have considered the use of existing masts, buildings and other structures before seeking to erect any new mast, regardless of size. The authority may be justified in refusing prior approval or planning permissions if it considers the evidence regarding the consideration of alternative sites is not satisfactory.
  59W

  English Nature
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he plans that English Nature should remain a statutory consultee on proposed regional spatial strategies, local development frameworks, action plans and planning applications; and if he will make a statement. [29898]

  Ms Keeble
  The consultation paper "Planning: Delivering a Fundamental Change" sets out the Government's proposals to overhaul the planning system. One option proposed is to clarify the status of statutory consultees and reduce their number. Decisions about which bodies might be in future be statutory consultees will be made in the light of consultation.

  Tenancy Deposit Scheme
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if it is his policy to continue the Tenancy Deposit Scheme. [30035]

  Ms Keeble
  We hope shortly to reach a decision on the voluntary pilot tenancy deposit scheme and on such alternative options as there might be for safeguarding tenants' deposits from unjustified appropriation by landlords.

  Overnight Parking (Residential Areas)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to extend to smaller lorries and vans the ban on parking overnight in residential areas; and if he will make a statement. [29756]

  Ms Keeble
  Control of parking on local roads is a matter for local traffic authorities using their powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. They are in the best position to address problems taking account of particular local circumstances. Generally, goods vehicles with a gross plated weight of more than 3.5 tonnes or an unladen weight of more than 1525kg have operator licensing controls on them, which require them to be kept at an operating centre specified in the licence when not in use. The Government have no plans to ban the overnight parking on residential roads of smaller lorries and vans.

  English Partnerships
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which organisations have made submissions to stage 1 of the English Partnerships review; and if he will place the submissions in the Library. [30025]

  Ms Keeble
  Submissions have been made by the New Town Special Interest Group, the Coalfield Communities Campaign, Telford and Wrekin council, National Housing Federation, Harlow council, The Woodland Trust, and the Government office for the west midlands. The regional development agencies submitted a joint response. Further correspondence has been received from a number of individuals and organisations.

  Submissions will be placed in the Library at the conclusion of the review.
  60W

  Campaign Medal
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will review the eligibility of the merchant seamen who served while on convoy to Russia for a campaign medal; and if he will make a statement. [30118]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A 1946 Merchant Shipping Notice (M Notice) issued in 1946 gives information about the individual campaign medals which are issued to merchant seamen who served in the 1939–45 war and the qualifying conditions for their award. The M Notice specifically states that service covered by the 1939–45 Star includes voyages in the North sea, Baltic and Arctic ocean between Greenland and longitude 70.E. Similarly the Atlantic Star includes service convoys to the north of Russia; therefore the existing campaign stars cover the service in the Arctic Campaign.

  There have been several requests over many years for a separate Arctic Convoy medal. However, this Government, in line with decision of previous post war Governments, continue to uphold the ruling given in 1946 by the Interdepartmental Committee on Honours, Decorations and Medals, that no further consideration would be given to awards for 1939–45 service.

  Regional Planning
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what the total cost to his Department was of producing regional planning guidance for the English regions; [30200]

  (2) what was (a) the total bill for salaries and expenses for board members, (b) the administrative operating costs and (c) the total annual budget in the latest year for which figures are available for each regional planning conference in England. [30202]

  Ms Keeble
  Details of the costs incurred by all regional planning bodies in producing draft regional planning guidance are not available to the Department. These bodies, which range from local authorities acting collectively to voluntary regional chambers, are neither appointed by nor report to the Department but are recognised by it for the purposes of preparing and monitoring regional planning guidance. The Department contributes some £6 million a year to the upper tier local authorities on an unhypothecated basis towards the costs of producing and monitoring regional planning guidance. In addition it has an annual budget of approximately £1 million a year for running the public examinations and research. The annual staff costs of the Department and Government offices for this work are approximately £800,000.

  Train Operating Companies
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the projected requirements are for public subsidy to the train operating companies over the period of the 10 year plan. [30256]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) on 23 January 2002,Official Report, columns 871–72W, outlines the estimated profile of available Government

  61W
  resource (revenue) support. It is impossible to place precise figures on how much of this will be received by the train operating companies in advance of future commercial negotiations through the refranchising process.

  National Rail Academy
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which organisation has responsibility for taking the lead in establishing the national rail academy. [30228]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority has the lead responsibility in establishing the national rail academy with the active involvement and support of the Rail Industry Training Council, the national training organisation for the rail industry.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his oral statement of 14 January 2002,Official Report,columns 30–5w, what progress has been made in establishing the national academy for the railways, with special reference to the training of engine drivers. [28817]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A cross-industry task force is being established to define the scope, aims, funding and modus operandi of a national rail academy. The training of drivers will figure in this work along with the other skills needs of the industry.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects the proposed national rail academy to commence operations. [30263]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A cross-industry task force is being established to define the scope, aims, projected modus operandi and the funding requirements of national rail academy. This will provide the basis for full consultation with the industry with a view to operations commencing as soon as is reasonably practical.

  Low-cost Airlines
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has made to the German Government about access to the German marketplace for low-cost airlines. [30223]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None.

  European Interoperability Directives
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many stations would require alteration works to enable Britain to comply fully with European interoperability directives. [30246]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Existing stations are only required to comply with the interoperability directives when work is being undertaken on them. No assessment can be made of the alterations required, such as platform lengths and heights, until the technical specifications for interoperability (TSIs) for the conventional rail network have been drafted. This process has only just begun and is not expected to be completed before 2004. The UK is 62W
  involved in the TSI drafting process and will be seeking to ensure that they take account of the characteristics of the British network.

  Ports
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which UK ports levy port charges; and what the level of the fees is in each case. [30333]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Payment of port charges is a condition of the public right to use any harbour for which there is a statutory harbour authority. The level of such charges has not required the approval of Government since the Harbours Act 1964 and central records of charges are not kept. However, the 1964 Act does require that charges in particular ports are advertised in the harbour by the harbour authority.

  St. Kevin's Playing Fields
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will review Knowsley borough council's proposals for St. Kevin's playing fields in Kirkby following changes to the earlier proposals which he has considered. [30437]

  Ms Keeble
  Since the Secretary of State's decision on the planning application for the site has been issued he has no further jurisdiction in the matter.

  Council Housing (Birmingham)
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what information he has collated on the average(a) market value based on right to buy sales, (b) adjusted vacant possession value and (c) value for stock transfer purposes of council houses in Birmingham. [30390]

  Ms Keeble
  The values requested are not for comparable transactions. The price payable under the Right to Buy is the open market value of the house, less a significant discount based on the number of years the purchaser has been a local authority tenant. Tenants who buy their home through RTB are subsequently free to sell the house on the open market. The value of transferring stock is determined by what is known as tenanted market value. This reflects that the property is sold with sitting tenants and with an obligation for the properties to be retained for social housing tenants. Tenanted market value is based on the income from rents the landlord will receive, less an estimate for the cost of management and repairs for the next 30 years.

  (a) The average market value before discount of council houses only (ie excluding flats) sold on a right to buy basis by Birmingham in 2000–01 was £38,094.

  (b) The average vacant possession value of Birmingham's city council's dwellings (ie both houses and flats) as at April 2001 was estimated to be £28,978 at January prices.

  (c) The average value of council dwellings (ie both houses and flats) in Birmingham for stock transfer purposes is estimated to be £3,032 per unit.
  63W

  Neighbourhood Renewal
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment has been made by the Government of the administrative requirements on voluntary and community organisations applying to the Neighbourhood Renewal Community Chests. [29919]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 24 January 2002]: The Neighbourhood Renewal Community Chest will provide funding to stimulate and support community activity in deprived areas. The Community Chest programme is administered through local voluntary sector organisations who are best placed to ensure that local groups are not prevented from applying because of administrative constraints. The Government want to rationalise and simplify access to funding for community and voluntary groups and are undertaking a number of initiatives aimed at achieving this. Where appropriate we will revise the Community Chest to reflect the outcome of these initiatives.

  Planning
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what powers he has to intervene in planning proposals in cases where he has already made a determination on outline proposals but detailed later proposals are at variance with those already considered. [30963]

  Ms Keeble
  The Secretary of State's power to call in planning applications for his own decision extends to applications for the approval of reserved matters. However, his policy is to be very selective about exercising his call-in powers. He will, in general, take this step only if planning issues of more than local importance are involved. Each case is considered on its individual facts.

  Road Traffic Offences
  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to amend the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. [30649]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 25 January 2002]: There are no immediate plans to amend the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

  Road Signage
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to issue new guidance on road signage to(a) the Highways Agency and (b) other highway authorities. [30756]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We are currently consulting on draft revised guidance on the provision of traffic signs to tourist attractions and facilities on trunk roads and local roads in England, which we expect to publish in the summer. We are also preparing updated and revised Traffic Signs Regulations for publication later this year, and will be issuing guidance for all highway authorities on the changes made to the 1994 regulations, as well as publishing revised chapters 4 and 5 of the Traffic Signs Manual on the design and use of warning signs and road markings.
  64W

  Urban Stock Transfers
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his policy is on help towards debt breakage costs for urban stock transfers; and what plans he has to change it. [31343]

  Ms Keeble
  The Department requires local authorities to meet the debt breakage costs incurred on repayment of housing attributable debt subsequent to a housing stock transfer. At present there are no plans to change this policy.

  Green Waste
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if it is the Government's policy to allow the re-use of green waste on farms without a requirement for planning permission. [30727]

  Ms Keeble
  The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 requires a planning application to be submitted for the importation of waste materials on to farms unless the waste is for use in certain specified engineering or building works. It is for local authorities in the first instance to determine whether planning permission is required.

  Local Government Finance Report (England) 2002–03
  Phil Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has received on the local government finance settlement for 2002–03; and what conclusions he has reached. [31570]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have today laid before the House the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2002–03. This report establishes the amounts of revenue support grant (RSG) and non-domestic rates (NDR) to be paid to local authorities in 2002–03, and the basis of their distribution. A draft of this report was issued for consultation on 4 December 2001, and updated information on grant allocations was published on 15 December and 28 December. The Department received a total of 386 written representations within the consultation deadlines from the Local Government Association and the Association of London Government, as well as from 334 local authorities, local authority groups and hon. Members.

  Having considered the views of the local authority associations and others who have commented on my initial proposals, I have decided to make two main changes to my original proposals on grant distribution.

  I have introduced an alternative baseline for 2001–02. This change, in effect, adjusts only for the transfers of service for which shire districts, police and fire authorities are responsible. In order to guarantee a minimum 2.3 per cent. increase, I have given these authorities whichever increase is greater—2.3 per cent. on the original baseline, or 2.3 per cent. on the alternative.

  I have also made a change on the basis of the adjustment for the National Care Standards Commission transfer. We have concluded that it is correct to adjust only for the existing cost of local authority activity in this area. Otherwise, this change would have had adverse

  65W
  impacts for a number of authorities. After careful consideration, I have added extra money to the settlement to ensure that these authorities are reimbursed for the cost of this change.

  No local authority loses out as a result of these changes as I have added some £27 million to the total of RSG and NNDR I announced on 4 December.

  In addition, the final figures published today reflect the more accurate data that have become available since we published our proposals.

  This year's settlement provides a good increase in money for local authorities. For the first time every local authority has been given a grant increase at least in line with inflation and in many cases much higher. This will allow councils to improve services while setting reasonable council tax increases. There should be no reason for big increases. The Government have increased money for local councils by 20 per cent. over the last four years.

  This year, bills show clearly how much different tiers of authority are charging and by how much they have increased their part of the council tax. If any councils set substantial increases, their taxpayers and local electorate will have every reason to question their council's decision.

  I shall be sending copies of this report and a guide to the settlement to all authorities, together with tables showing each authority's Standard Spending Assessment and its entitlement to RSG and NDR. Copies of the report, tables, and the guide are available in the Vote Office and the Libraries of the House.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Gender Pay Gap (Northern Region)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the ratio of female to male earnings in the northern region. [28142]

  Alan Johnson
  The gap between male and female earnings in the north-east Government office region has narrowed in recent years. According to the New Earnings Survey, conducted by the Office for National Statistics, average hourly pay for full-time employees, excluding overtime, in the north-east, was £8.99 for men and £7.26 for women in 1998, equivalent to a female to male ratio of 80.7 per cent. By 2001, the gender pay gap in the region had narrowed to 84.1 per cent. (£10.08 for men and £8.48 for women), a reduction which can be attributed at least in part to the introduction of the national minimum wage. In Great Britain as a whole the gender pay gap has narrowed from 80.0 per cent. to 81.6 per cent. over the same period.

  Correspondence
  John Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she expects to answer the letter of 28 December from the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead regarding tobacco smuggling and the Guildford Depository. [26300]
  66W
  Ms Hewitt
  The letter from the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead regarding tobacco smuggling and the Guilford Depository was answered on 20 January 2002.

  Tanzania
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received from the International Civil Aviation Organization on Tanzania's export control licences. [29626]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Department of Trade and Industry's Export Control Organisation has received no representation from the International Civil Aviation Organization on Tanzania's export licences.

  Postal Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of(a) first and (b) second class mail was delivered within the target time in the (i) UK, (ii) HP postcode area and (iii) MK postcode area in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [30058]

  Ms Hewitt
  This is an operational matter for Consignia, subject to the regulatory powers and duties of the Postal Services Commission in respect of service standards.

  I am advised by Consignia that in the year 2000–01 the percentage of first class mail delivered the next working day in the UK was 89 per cent., in the MK postcode area was 85 per cent. and in the HP postcode area was 91 per cent. The percentage of second class mail delivered within three working days in the UK was 98 per cent., in the MK postcode area was 97 per cent. and in the HP post code area was 98 per cent.

  Post Office Network
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) of 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 1034W, on sub-post offices, if she will list the funding allocated to each scheme. [30000]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 24 January 2002]: Further to the answer given to the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) on 19 December 2001, Official Report, column 1034W, the funding allocated to the five initiatives is:

  £13,200 to Capel-le-Ferne, Kent

  £1,669 to Goadby Marwood, Leicestershire

  £208 to Risby, Herefordshire

  £10,200 to Kirk Ireton, Derbyshire

  £3,862 to Coleby, Lincolnshire.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of Consignia's strategic plan to close post offices in rural communities; and if she will make a statement. [29993]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 24 January 2002]: Consignia has submitted no such strategic plan. A formal requirement was placed on Consignia in November 2000 to maintain the rural network and to prevent avoidable closures and this remains in place and will apply in the first instance until 2006. Transitional financial assistance to the rural network is currently under consideration.
  67W
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) post offices and (b) sub-post offices there are at present in Britain; how many post offices and sub-post offices have closed since (i) 1 January 1997 and (ii) May 1997; and if she will make a statement. [30020]

  Ms Hewitt
  At the end of September 2001, the latest available figures indicated that the post office network comprised 17,687 outlets of which 17,092 were sub-post offices. As at the end of March 1997 there were 19,251 post offices of which 18,645 were sub-post offices. I understand from Post Office Ltd. that figures at 1 January 1997 and May 1997 are not available.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will publish the strategic plan for the future of the post office network recently submitted to her by Consignia; what proposals are made in this plan to change the size of the post office network; and if she will make a statement. [30019]

  Number of businesses using Business Link

  1995–96

  1996–971

  1997–981

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–022

  England

  3—

  455,339

  439,604

  393,580

  419,294

  400,813

  335,150

  North East

  3—

  37,317

  26,954

  18,348

  22,466

  16,577

  14,063

  North West

  3—

  79,752

  89,056

  74,925

  75,215

  77,930

  39,680

  Yorkshire and Humber

  3—

  29,938

  40,232

  39,577

  44,587

  38,678

  53,743

  East Midlands

  3—

  32,445

  25,398

  26,635

  30,111

  24,997

  20,845

  West Midlands

  3—

  67,213

  49,214

  49,176

  57,758

  53,628

  33,229

  East of England

  3—

  71,512

  72,346

  45,599

  47,525

  45,072

  54,074

  London

  3—

  37,541

  36,767

  39.877

  42,647

  36,944

  17,779

  South East

  3—

  58,048

  59,496

  60,928

  62,517

  72,088

  41,979

  South West

  3—

  41,573

  40,141

  38,515

  36,468

  34,898

  59,758

  1 Usage includes non-business assistance

  2 Quarter 4 data not included, quarter 3 data subject to validation procedures

  3 Not available

  Source:

  Business Link Management Information returns

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was(a) the total bill for salaries and expenses for board members, (b) the administrative operating costs for each and (c) the total annual budget in the latest year for which figures are available for each of the regional development agencies in England. [30203]

  Alan Johnson
  The RDAs' net annual budget and administrative costs for the financial year 2001–02 are as follows:

  £000s

  Regional development agency

  Net budget (excluding receipts)

  Administration budget

  One North East

  161,653

  12,853

  North West Development Agency

  281,089

  14,956

  Yorkshire Forward

  245,437

  9,989

  East Midlands Development Agency

  96,940

  7,528

  Advantage West Midlands

  170,721

  8,793

  East of England Development Agency

  62,113

  5,836

  South East of England Development Agency

  108,859

  7,143

  South West of England Regional Development Agency

  92,059

  9,099

  London Development Agency

  298,139

  9,470

  Total

  1,517,010

  85,667

  68W
  Ms Hewitt
  Consignia has submitted no such strategic plan. The Government are committed to the maintenance of a nationwide network of post offices.

  Business Links
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many businesses used business links in each year since 1995, broken down by region; and how many of these inquiries were the result of initial contact with the Small Business Service. [30547]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The table shows how many businesses used Business Links in each year since 1996–97; data for 1995–96 are not available. A business that receives advice twice within a quarter is counted only once but a business that receives assistance in separate quarters will be counted in each quarter.

  Between April 2001 and September 2001, over 12,000 inquiries were referred to Business Links from initial contact with SBS service providers. Earlier data are not available.

  These are the latest figures available and are excluding receipts. The changes from the original budget reflects in-year additional funding for things such as the Business Recovery fund to help small businesses deal with the foot and mouth crisis and new programmes such as the regional centres of manufacturing excellence.

  The RDA board members' salaries and expenses for the financial year 2000–01 are as follows:

  £000s

  Regional Development Agency

  Total Salaries for board members

  Total Expenses for board members

  One North East

  139

  14

  North West Development Agency

  139

  29

  Yorkshire Forward

  120

  7

  East Midlands Development Agency

  148

  19

  Advantage West Midlands

  138

  15

  East of England Development Agency

  148

  21

  South East of England Development Agency

  152

  17

  South West of England Regional Development Agency

  146

  34

  Total

  1130

  156

  Note:

  All figures have been rounded to the nears £000.
  69W
  London Development Agency board members are the responsibility of the Greater London Authority.

  The total salaries for board members of each region vary for a number of reasons, such as: numbers of members, date of appointment, some members waive their fees and some members have additional responsibilities for which they are remunerated. The figures for board members' salaries are taken from the RDAs' annual accounts for 2000–01.

  Fixed Term Work Directive
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on her plans to implement the European directive on fixed term work. [29348]

  Alan Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith) on 21 January 2002,Official Report, column 561W.

  Government Payment Performance
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the average number of days from the date of invoice to date of payment taken by Government Departments and non-departmental agencies during 2001 to pay accounts payable. [30144]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government take this issue very seriously and are working hard to improve their payment performance.

  All Government Departments and agencies have been required to monitor their payment performance, and are required to pay all valid invoices within 30 days or other agreed credit period.

  My Department collects the payment performance figures, which are published annually in July.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) on 19 July 2001, Official Report, column 322W.

  Regulations
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many new regulatory measures in relation to business the Government have introduced in the last year; and how many have ceased to have effect. [30145]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department was responsible for 100 regulations introduced since 1 January 2001. Of these regulations 83 imposed negligible or no costs on business and eight have saved costs.

  Records relating to repealed regulations are not held centrally. The information requested could be obtained and collated only at disproportionate cost.

  Telecommunications
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her estimate is of the net change in employment levels in the telecommunications and telecommunications equipment industries in 2002. [30148]
  70W
  Ms Hewitt
  2002 is likely to be a year of transition for both the telecommunications services and the telecommunications equipment industries following dramatic global restructuring in 2001. Given the pace of change in these sectors, it is not possible to predict the net impact on employment in 2002.

  Broadband
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to ensure that by 2005 Britain will have the most competitive and extensive broadband network in the G7. [30150]

  Ms Hewitt
  We set out the Government strategy for broadband in the UK Online report on 3 December. This report can be found on the website of the e-envoy http://www.-envoy.gov.uk/ukonline/championsh/anrepmenu.htm.

  Recruitment Agencies
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of recruitment agencies specialise in(a) IT recruitment, (b) secretarial recruitment, (c) health care recruitment and (d) transport industries recruitment; and how many recruitment agencies are classified as SMEs. [30692]

  Alan Johnson
  I have no detailed breakdown of the private recruitment industry by particular specialist areas, since many agencies and employment businesses provide work-finding services for a number of occupations. However, we estimate that of around 20,000 establishments in the industry, about 10 per cent. specialise in IT recruitment and almost 5 per cent. are licensed nurses agencies. While this industry is made up predominantly of small firms, I have no details of the number of establishments which would be classified as SMEs.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Recruitment and Employment Confederation has withdrawn support for the proposals in the draft regulations on the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations 2001; and what plans she has to hold further discussions with the Confederation. [30684]

  Alan Johnson
  I have received no indication that the Recruitment and Employment Confederation has changed its position on the draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations. I currently have no plans for further meetings with the Confederation but my officials have regular meetings with its representatives.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many representations her Department has received on her proposals for quarantine periods in the legislative framework governing agency conduct; and if she will make a statement. [30674]

  Alan Johnson
  During the latest consultation exercise on the draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations, we received 80 representations containing comments on the proposed quarantine provisions.
  71W
  The principles underlying our proposals on the quarantine periods to apply to the payment of transfer fees are in line with suggestions made by the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, the principal trade association in the private recruitment industry.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which individuals and organisations will be invited to respond to the further consultation on the draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations. [30678]

  Alan Johnson
  The further consultation on certain aspects of the draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations will cover all those consulted last time. These regulations will also be placed on the DTI website.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what studies her Department has conducted into the length of time an IT professional placed through a personal services agency must be in post to recoup an agency's initial costs. [30691]

  Alan Johnson
  The Department has undertaken no studies into the length of time an IT professional placed through a personal services agency must be in post in order to recoup the initial costs of the placement incurred by an employment business. Such information would be regarded as commercially confidential by the industry.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to exempt from the draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations those temporary staff who choose to operate through personal service companies; and if she will make a statement. [30682]

  Alan Johnson
  I have no plans to exempt work-seekers who choose to operate through personal service companies from the draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations.

  When the existing Conduct Regulations were introduced in 1975, it was very unusual for workers to be incorporated, and those working through limited companies were, therefore, left outside the protection provided. However, in recent years, incorporation has become widespread in some sectors, notably IT, and I think we should ensure that these work-seekers are also covered by the protections provided in the proposed regulations.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to meet representatives of the Association of Technology Staffing Companies during the further consultation period for the draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations. [30677]

  Alan Johnson
  I have no current plans to meet representatives of the Association of Technology Staffing Companies during the further consultation on certain aspects of the draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if she will make a statement on the length of time it has taken to draft the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations 2001 and the costs involved; [30683]
  72W
  (2) what her timetable is for the completion of the draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations; [30679]

  (3) if she will make a statement on the reasons for the delay in laying the revision of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations before the House. [30675]

  Alan Johnson
  The draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations comprise a large and detailed package, covering a wide range of issues. We have taken the time necessary to undertake extensive consultation exercises and discuss these issues with the recruitment industry. It is important to ensure that the new regulations are right for the industry, since they are likely to stay in place for some time.

  I expect to issue the revised draft regulations shortly, following a short consultation exercise on certain aspects of these regulations.

  I have no estimate of the costs involved in drafting these regulations.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recommendations the Better Regulation Task Force has made on revising the existing Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations; and if she will make a statement. [30676]

  Alan Johnson
  In 1999 the Better Regulation Task Force suggested alternative options for the transfer fee proposals in the draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations.

  The task force welcomed the Government's review of the existing Conduct Regulations and endorsed our objectives. In particular, it supported our aims of improving the protections for vulnerable people and excluded groups, while avoiding placing unnecessary burdens on the private recruitment industry. The task force shares the Government's view that this industry has a vital role to play in the economy. After further discussions with the industry we decided to adopt a modified version of one of the task force's proposals.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with the Recruitment and Employment Federation on the temporary recruitment industry. [30711]

  Alan Johnson
  I have discussed a range of issues affecting the private recruitment industry with representatives of the Recruitment and Employment Confederation (REC). At my last meeting with the REC on 9 October 2001, the subjects covered included the draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations and the proposed EU Directive on agency workers.

  Icelandic Trawlermen (Compensation)
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claims for compensation have been paid to former Icelandic trawlermen, since her Department's decision on the post-79 issue; and how many remain to be paid. [29905]
  73W
  Nigel Griffiths
  Since 26 October 2000, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced an additional £10 million being made available to former Icelandic trawlermen, 928 claims have been paid.

  There are currently 284 claims where further information is required before entitlement to compensation can be assessed and a further 386 which are in the process of being paid.

  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many payments have been made to former Icelandic trawlermen; and what the total amount of compensation claims paid is, broken down in each case by port. [29906]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The figures as of 23 January 2002 are as follows:

  Current area of residence of claimant

  Number of payments

  Amount of compensation (£)

  Hull

  1,370

  15.3m

  Grimsby

  497

  3.8m

  Fleetwood

  256

  2.5m

  Blackpool

  38

  311k

  Cleethorpes

  134

  1.1m

  Newcastle

  260

  2.9m

  West Yorkshire

  162

  1.5m

  Aberdeen

  117

  671k

  Others

  362

  3m

  Total

  3,196

  31m

  National Minimum Wage
  Shona Mclsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact of the national minimum wage in the(a) Cleethorpes and (b) Grimsby constituency. [29907]

  Alan Johnson
  Estimates for parliamentary constituencies are not available. Between spring 1998 and 2001, there has been a reduction of around 120,000 in the number of jobs paying less than the national minimum wage rates in Yorks and Humberside.

  Faulty Goods
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to introduce legislation to require retailers and manufacturers to repair faulty goods within a given time scale; and if she will make a statement. [29935]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 24 January 2002]: When the Sale of Consumer Goods Directive (1999/44EC) is transposed into UK law later this year, it will give consumers a legal right to repair, carried out within a reasonable time, if goods do not conform to contract.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total sum is of(a) premiums received by the Export Credits Guarantee Department,
  74W
  and (b) claims paid out by the Export Credits Guarantee Department in the financial years of (i) 2000–01 and (ii) 2001–02. [27213]

  Ms Hewitt
  Using the published annual report and the provisional figures to December the figures are as follows:

  £ million

  Financial year

  2000–01

  2001–021

  Earned premium

  109.5

  57.5

  Claims authorised

  298.0

  180.1

  1 Provisional to end December 2001

  The claims figures relate mostly to business with Indonesia that has been rescheduled and which ECGD expects to recover in the fullness of time. These claims are in respect of business supported before the years indicated.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 10 December 2001,Official Report,column 671W, on public appointments, if she will list the bodies with the names of those appointed. [27887]

  Ms Hewitt
  My answer of 10 December gave the number of appointments made between 7 June and 30 November as 167. Details of the bodies to which the appointments were made and the names of the appointees have been placed in the Libraries of the House, together with details of a further 11 who were appointed to the research councils in that period but whose numbers were inadvertently omitted from the original figure of 167. The total number of appointments in the period concerned was in fact 178.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 18 January 2001,Official Report, column 508W, on departmental expenditure, if she will state the calculation by which she reached her answer; and if she will make a statement. [30291]

  Ms Hewitt
  For each loan refinanced, ECGD calculates the savings generated by the reduction in the guaranteed return paid to the lending banks and the savings generated by using HMG funding as compared to alternative fixed funding over the life of the loan. The figure of £75 million represents the sum of these savings for all cases refinanced in this way up to 31 March 2001.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her estimate is of the net cost of the climate change levy to the manufacturing sector. [30168]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is not possible to say what the precise effect of the climate change levy will be on any one particular sector.
  75W

  Government Supplies
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the Government's policy is regarding credit checking its supplier companies and traders. [29903]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Office of Government Commerce published new guidance on the financial appraisal of suppliers in October 2001. The guidance stresses that while credit ratings are useful indicators they should not be used as a substitute for a more detailed financial examination of prospective suppliers.

  A copy of Supplier Financial Appraisal Guidance is available on the Office of Government Commerce website at: www.ogc.gov.uk/ogc/publications.nsf/pages/publications.html.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

  Transfer of Functions
  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 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 (SI2001/ 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 Local Government, Transport 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.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Council Tax (Police Costs)
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, by police authority, the police element of council tax per head for each year since 1995–96 and the percentage change(a) in each year and (b) for the whole period. [28667]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.

  A table showing the police authority council tax for each year since 1995–96 per head of population and the percentage change in each year, and for the whole period, has been placed in the House of Commons Library. The figures per head of population include council tax that is met by council tax benefit.

  Police Grant
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he plans to allocate police grant in 2002–03; and what the final funding allocations for police authorities will be for that year. [31248]
  76W
  Mr. Denham
  I have today laid before the House the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2002–03 (HC 533). The report sets out my determination for 2002–03 of the aggregate amount of grants that I propose to pay under section 46(2) of the Police Act 1996, and the amount to be paid to each police authority and to the Greater London Authority for the Metropolitan Police Authority.

  Allocations of police grant: 2002–03

  £

  Grant allocations

  Transitional grants

  Total

  Avon and Somerset

  91,025,174

  0

  91,025,174

  Bedfordshire

  34,313,252

  0

  34,313,252

  Cambridgeshire

  40,842,075

  0

  40,842,075

  Cheshire

  59,689,589

  0

  59,689,589

  City of London

  29,843,245

  0

  29,843,245

  Cleveland

  44,723,013

  0

  44,723,013

  Cumbria

  32,733,488

  0

  32,733,488

  Derbyshire

  56,470,734

  0

  56,470,734

  Devon and Cornwall

  94,722,350

  0

  94,722,350

  Dorset

  37,600,585

  0

  37,600,585

  Durham

  43,958,181

  0

  43,958,181

  Dyfed-Powys

  28,173,194

  0

  28,173,194

  Essex

  92,346,333

  0

  92,346,333

  Gloucestershire

  33,653,863

  0

  33,653,863

  Greater Manchester

  203,722,362

  0

  203,722,362

  Gwent

  37,640,172

  0

  37,640,172

  Hampshire

  108,365,042

  0

  108,365,042

  Hertfordshire

  61,640,063

  300,000

  61,940,063

  Humberside

  60,476,986

  0

  60,476,986

  Kent

  102,446,510

  0

  102,446,510

  Lancashire

  97,392,588

  0

  97,392,588

  Leicestershire

  55,659,650

  0

  55,659,650

  Lincolnshire

  34,305,310

  0

  34,305,310

  Merseyside

  126,336,316

  0

  126,336,316

  Metropolitan police

  1,015,895,687

  0

  1,015,895,687

  Norfolk

  46,284,453

  0

  46,284,453

  North Wales

  41,105,875

  0

  41,105,875

  North Yorkshire

  42,026,127

  0

  42,026,127

  Northamptonshire

  35,505,178

  0

  35,505,178

  Northumbria

  113,187,850

  0

  113,187,850

  Nottinghamshire

  67,683,907

  0

  67,683,907

  South Wales

  89,252,826

  0

  89,252,826

  South Yorkshire

  92,071,806

  0

  92,071,806

  Staffordshire

  60,965,947

  0

  60,965,947

  Suffolk

  37,702,731

  0

  37,702,731

  Surrey

  54,442,942

  800,000

  55,242,942

  Sussex

  91,312,691

  0

  91,312,691

  Thames Valley

  122,386,580

  0

  122,386,580

  Warwickshire

  28,078,851

  0

  28,078,851

  West Mercia

  61,765,548

  0

  61,765,548

  West Midlands

  206,139,660

  0

  206,139,660

  West Yorkshire

  155,924,778

  0

  155,924,778

  Wiltshire

  34,566,488

  0

  34,566,488

  Totals

  England

  3,808,207,933

  1,100,000

  3,809,307,933

  Wales

  196,172,067

  0

  196,172,067

  England and Wales

  4,004,380,000

  1,100,000

  4,005,480,000

  MI5
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many MI5 files were extant at 31 December 2001; how many were categorised as(a) green, (b) amber and (c) red in each category; and how many were (i) held on microfiche and (ii) held as hard-copy in each category. [28639]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: The Security Service held approximately 360,000 files at the end of December 2001, of which 210,000 are personal files and of those 40,000 were on microfiche.
  77W
  There were 20,000 personal files categorised as green, the remainder being either amber or red.

  I cannot give an immediate breakdown between these categories but I will write to the hon. Member shortly with this information and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Immigration Advisers
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) individuals and (b) organisations giving immigration advice for profit are (i) registered and (ii) in the process of registering with the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioners. [28776]

  Angela Eagle
  I understand that, as of 18 January 2002, the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) had registered 135 immigration advisers in business for profit. Of these, 87 are sole practitioners and 48 are organisations comprising two or more practitioners. The OISC has under consideration 11 registration applications from sole practitioners and nine from organisations.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) individuals and (b) organisations giving immigration advice for profit have been refused registration with the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner since 30 April 2001; and if he will publish a list of those individuals and organisations. [28777]

  Angela Eagle
  I understand that, as of 18 January 2002, the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) had refused to register 12 immigration advisers in business for profit of which eight are sole practitioners. Whether this information should be published is a matter for the OISC; I understand that there are no current plans to do so.

  Probation Service
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff were employed by the National Probation Service by division and function(a) on the last date for which figures are available and (b) in April 2001. [28784]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is given in the tables.

  Information on staff in post by grade, gender and type of employment is collected at end June and end December each year. There is a separate collection of numbers of staff in post by grade, gender and ethnicity; this was annually from December 1995 to December 2000 but has now changed to a September and March basis starting September 2001.

  The numbers of probation officers in post fell between December 2000 and June 2001 because of the transfer of Family Court Welfare Work, and associated staff, to the Children and Family Court Advisory Support Service (CAFCASS) at 1 April 2001.

  The reduction in numbers of probation officers is a reflection of the loss of "Family Court Welfare Officers". The Probation Service is no better or worse off, in terms of having enough staff, than before the transfer took place.
  78W
  The numbers exclude those in the National Probation Directorate (NPD). The numbers are purely those working in areas including Chief Officers who are appointed by the Home Office.

  Table 1: Probation officers in post, by grade and type

  Number

  England and Wales

  31 December 2000

  30 June 2001

  CPO

  T54

  42

  DCPO

  12

  11

  ACPO

  213

  209

  Area Manager

  49

  51

  Regional Training

  48

  39

  Senior Probation Officers

  Family Court Welfare

  60

  —

  Other field work

  816

  864

  Seconded to prison

  110

  121

  Hostels

  71

  82

  Other

  8

  14

  Senior Practitioner

  Field work

  105

  109

  Seconded to prison

  11

  5

  Hostels

  9

  8

  Other

  4

  12

  Main Grade

  Family Court Welfare

  543

  —

  Other field work

  4,258

  4,060

  Trainee

  564

  543

  Seconded to prison

  509

  480

  Hostels

  74

  67

  Other

  53

  69

  All probation officers1

  7,571

  6,785

  1 Whole-time equivalent. Individual figures may not round to the total because of the rounding of part-time hours.

  Table 2: Staff other than probation officers in post, by grade and type

  Number

  England and Wales

  31 December 2000

  30 June 2001

  Probation Services Officers

  1,019

  1,083

  CS schemes

  1,019

  1,083

  Seconded to prison

  132

  136

  Other duties

  869

  916

  General duties

  849

  1,076

  Clerical and Secretarial

  2,529

  2,317

  Research and Information Officers

  106

  141

  Administrative officers

  1,489

  1,532

  Sessional supervisors

  421

  444

  Others

  254

  194

  Hostels

  791

  778

  All staff other than probation officers1

  8,458

  8,616

  1 Whole-time equivalent. Individual figures may not round to the total because of the rounding of part-time hours.

  Either-way Criminal Offences
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the either-way criminal offences; and if he will make a statement. [29644]

  Mr. Denham
  There is no readily available list of triable either-way offences. Appendix Four of the annual Command Paper "Criminal statistics England and Wales" lists just over 370 triable either-way offence codes which are used for statistical purposes. Each code may cover
  79W
  more than one offence and these codes cover approximately 700 offences. Other triable either-way offences are grouped together under one ad hoc code. Copies of the Command Paper are available in the Library.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans to extend the interim regulations for the support of asylum seekers for another two years. [29834]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 24 January 2002]: Some asylum seekers fall to be supported by local authorities under the Asylum Support (Interim Provisions) Regulations 1999. These regulations came into force on 6 December 1999 and are due to end on 1 April 2002. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has decided that it would be appropriate to extend these regulations until 5 April 2004. This extension will enable Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) staff to complete the data matching exercise between its records and those held by local authorities. In addition during this time asylum seekers are to be issued with application registration cards. Once these two exercises have been completed we will have detailed information on the number of asylum seekers being supported by local authorities.

  We can then discuss with the local authorities how best to transfer the cases to the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) system of support.

  Skilled Migrant Programme
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans to attract skilled foreign workers to the UK; and if he will make a statement. [29835]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 24 January 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) on 13 December 2001, Official Report, column 1010W. Applications under the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme will be accepted by diplomatic posts overseas from 28 January. The work permit system additionally provides a fast, effective route for employers to recruit skilled people to fill vacancies where they are unable to recruit or train a resident worker. The forthcoming White Paper will further set out the Government's strategy for making sure the immigration system maximises the benefits to the United Kingdom of skilled foreign workers.

  Police Personnel Data
  John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the quality of data in recent police personnel statistics publications. [29476]

  Mr. Denham
  The Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate makes a careful assessment of the quality of any national statistics that it publishes and is carrying out a series of reviews under the National Statistics framework.
  80W
  A Police Numbers Task Force was established last year specifically to address concerns over police personnel data. This group has now completed its work and its report was made available to police forces for consultation on 18 December 2001. A copy of this report is available on the Home Office website.

  Ministerial Group on the Family
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times the Ministerial Group on the Family has met since(a) its formation, (b) the publication of Supporting Families and (c) 7 June 2001. [29931]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 24 January 2002]: The Ministerial Group on the Family, as with other ministerial groups, met when needed. Following the June 2001 general election the ministerial group was replaced by the Cabinet Committee on Domestic Affairs Sub-Committee on Active Communities and Family Issues, which is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and which co-ordinates Government policies on the family.

  Family Visitor Appeals
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the net annual income is from family visitor appeals in the first year of its operation. [29400]

  Angela Eagle
  The net income from fees for family visitor appeals in the first year of the scheme was £104,000.

  Police (Early Retirement)
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on Government policy towards police officers taking early retirement while disciplinary charges are pending. [22782]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government believe that it is unacceptable for sickness or medical retirement to be used as a means of avoiding discipline. Regulations allow for disciplinary hearings to go ahead in the absence of the accused, although the power is not used very frequently. It will require strong support from the centre—which we will provide—and firm management action to use the existing power to proceed with hearings in all but the most exceptional cases. We will amend the central guidance and, if necessary, the statutory regulations to achieve this. Where medical retirement is at issue, the police authority should consider whether it would be right to exercise its discretion not to retire the officer where the public interest in completing the proceedings in a misconduct case outweighs the medical condition.

  Violence Against Women
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken to include violence against women in his Department's recent policy initiatives on violent crime. [27860]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government have made it clear that they have committed to the reduction of all violent crime, including against women. Tackling violence against women is an integral element of our strategies to reduce violent crime.
  81W
  Domestic violence is the largest single form of violent crime against women. We have taken a number of steps to address domestic violence including issuing a new Home Office circular to the police, issuing multi-agency guidance for addressing domestic violence, and issuing guidance for prosecuting cases of domestic violence to Crown prosecutors. We have provided over £10 million funding under the Crime Reduction Programme to the Violence Against Women initiative. This initiative is aimed to discover what is effective and cost effective in reducing domestic violence, rape and sexual assault by known perpetrators.

  Ministers from across Government are working closely together to consider areas for priority action (to effectively address domestic violence and reduce incidents) such as intervention by health professionals and enhancing the interface between the criminal and civil jurisdictions.

  Police Pensions
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Police Federation on proposals to change the pension provisions for police officers. [30213]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 January 2002]: We are looking at ways of modernising police pensions to make them more flexible and affordable for future entrants and to reflect modern lifestyle patterns. Any proposals for change would of course be subject to discussion and negotiations with the Police Federation.

  Police Terms and Conditions
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with the Association of Chief Police Officers on the terms and conditions for the employment of police officers; and when he expects the new pay and terms and conditions document will be agreed. [30211]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 January 2002]: Both the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Association of Chief Police Officers are represented on the Official Side of the Police Negotiating Board (PNB) for the United Kingdom. On 27 December 2001, following negotiations, the Official Side reached agreement in principle with the Staff Side on a package of changes to police pay and conditions of service. The changes are set out in the Heads of Agreement. Both Sides are now consulting their members on the changes which have to be ratified by the end of February.

  Young Offender
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the level of youth crime in the London borough of Havering. [21012]

  Mr. Denham
  Information provided by the youth offending team in Havering shows that, in the year 2000, youth crime accounted for just under a quarter (24 per cent.) of all crime in the borough. The corresponding figure for 1999 was 31 per cent.

  The number of young offenders arrested by the police in Havering during 2001, excluding those in respect of whom no action was taken, is set out in the table.
  82W

  Male

  Female

  Total

  January to March

  155

  31

  186

  April to June

  181

  31

  212

  July to September

  161

  37

  198

  October to December1

  140

  28

  168

  Total

  637

  127

  764

  1 Up to 5 December

  Children (Supervision Orders)
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children who are the subject of supervision orders issued by each local authority in England and Wales are resident in institutions in Scotland. [27733]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 17 January 2002]: The information required is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate costs.

  Police Overtime
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact of his proposal to reduce police officers' enhanced overtime rates on the morale of frontline officers. [30113]

  Mr. Denham
  The Police Negotiating Board (PNB), on which both the Secretary of State and the Police Federation are represented, reached agreement in principle on 27 December 2001 on a package of changes to police pay and conditions of service. The changes are set out in the heads of agreement.

  One of the proposed changes is to reduce the premium rates of pay, but not to plain time, for working overtime, on rostered rest day and on public holidays. The reductions would be phased in over two years, the first stage on 1 April 2003 and the second stage on 1 April 2004. The savings from reducing the premium rates of pay would be re-invested into the new pay framework.

  The proposed reductions in premiums have to be seen in the context of all the other changes set out in the heads of agreement. Those changes include shortened pay scales for all federated ranks, a minimum increase of £402 on 1 April 2003 on each point of the pay scales, a new competence-related payment of £1,002 at the top of the scales.

  There will also be a new special priority payments scheme to reward those officers working at the sharp end of public service, doing the most difficult and demanding tasks. Officers in qualifying posts will receive a payment of between £500 and £5,000 a year. The national criteria are that posts carry a significantly higher responsibility than the norm for the rank; or are particularly difficult to fill; or have specially arduous working conditions. All parties in PNB recognise that there are a number of specialist posts where long hours are a necessary and integral part of the officers' role rather than due to management failure.

  In addition, chief constables will be able to award bonuses of between £50 and £500 for occasional work of an outstandingly demanding, unpleasant or important nature, such as hostage negotiation, or fingerprinting and searching badly decomposed bodies.
  83W
  The Government believe that, taking all the elements of the package into account, the vast majority of officers will be better off.

  Nuclear Security
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reviews of the preparedness for terrorist attack against(a) chemical industry plants and (b) nuclear industry facilities have been conducted by the civil contingencies unit following the terrorist activities in the United States on 11 September 2001. [28537]

  Mr. Blunkett
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry keeps security and safety precautions at nuclear sites under regular review. The United Kingdom's civil nuclear sites apply stringent security measures regulated by the security regulator, the Office for Civil Nuclear Security. She is also working closely with industry representatives and others to analyse the vulnerabilities of the chemical industries to terrorist attack and to identify and implement measures to maximise their resilience.

  Force

  Chief Constable

  Appointment date

  Term

  Avon and Somerset

  S. C. Pilkington Esq QPM

  February 1998

  3 years 11 months

  Bedfordshire Police

  Paul Hancock Esq

  April 2001

  9 months

  Cambridgeshire

  D. G. Gunn Esq CBE QPM

  September 1993

  8 years 4 months

  Cheshire Police

  N. Burgess Esq QPM

  October 1997

  4 years 3 months

  City of London Police

  Perry Nove QPM

  April 1998

  3 years 9 months

  Cleveland Police

  B. D. Shaw Esq QPM

  August 1995

  6 years 5 months

  Cumbria

  Michael Baxter

  December 2001

  1 month

  Derbyshire

  D. Coleman Esq

  July 2000

  1 year 6 months

  Devon and Cornwall

  Sir John Evans QPM

  September 1988

  13 years 4 months

  Dorset Police

  Mrs. Jane Stichbury QPM

  December 1998

  3 years 1 month

  Durham

  G. E. Hedges QPM

  August 1997

  4 years 5 months

  Essex Police

  D. F. Stevens Esq QPM

  March 1998

  3 years 10 months

  Gloucestershire

  Timothy Brain Esq

  March 2001

  10 months

  Gtr Manchester Police

  D. Wilmot Esq QPM

  April 1991

  10 years 9 months

  Hampshire

  P. R. Kernaghan Esq QPM

  May 1999

  2 years 8 months

  Hertfordshire

  Paul Acres Esq QPM

  February 2000

  1 year 11 months

  Humberside Police

  D. Westwood Esq QPM

  November 1998

  3 years 2 months

  Kent

  Sir David Phillips QPM

  November 1992

  9 years 2 months

  Lancashire

  Mrs. P Clare QPM

  May 1995

  6 years 8 months

  Leicestershire

  D. J. Wyrko Esq QPM

  April 1997

  4 years 9 months

  Lincolnshire Police

  R. J. N. Childs Esq QPM

  March 1998

  3 years 10 months

  Merseyside Police

  N. Bettison Esq QPM

  November 1998

  3 years 2 months

  Metropolitan Police

  Sir John Stevens QPM

  February 2000

  1 year 11 months

  Norfolk

  K. R. Williams Esq QPM

  May 1993

  8 years 8 months

  Northamptonshire Police

  Mr. Chris Fox QPM

  July 1996

  5 years 6 months

  Northumbria Police

  J. C. Strachan Esq QPM

  October 1997

  4 years 3 months

  North Yorkshire Police

  D. R. Kenworthy Esq QPM

  October 1997

  4 years 3 months

  Nottinghamshire Police

  Stephen M. Green Esq, QPM

  February 2000

  1 year 11 months

  South Yorkshire Police

  M. I. I. Hedges Esq QPM

  February 1998

  3 years 11 months

  Staffordshire Police

  J. W. Giffard Esq QPM

  October 1995

  6 years 3 months

  Suffolk

  P. J. Scott-Lee Esq QPM

  April 1998

  3 years 9 months

  Surrey Police

  Denis O'Connor CBE, QPM

  February 2000

  1 year 11 months

  Sussex Police

  Ken Jones

  January 2002

  under 1 month

  Thames Valley Police

  Peter Neyroud

  January 2002

  under 1 month

  Warwickshire Police

  John Burbeck QPM

  August 2000

  1 year 5 months

  West Mercia

  P. Hampson Esq QPM

  April 1999

  2 years 9 months

  West Midlands Police

  Sir Edward Crew QPM

  May 1996

  5 years 8 months

  West Yorkshire Police

  Graham Moore Esq QPM

  November 1997

  4 years 2 months

  Wiltshire

  Miss E Neville QPM

  October 1996

  5 years 3 months

  84W
  In addition, I chair the civil contingencies committee which, through its sub-committees, has co-ordinated reviews by the appropriate lead Government Departments and devolved Administrations into the contingency and other arrangements to protect the United Kingdom against the effects of a terrorist attack, particularly in the light of the terrorist attacks of 11 September.

  Chief Constables
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the length of service as chief constable is of each chief constable in England. [28044]

  Mr. Denham
  The appointment of a chief constable is a matter for decision by the appropriate police authority, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. In making an appointment, a police authority must adhere to Regulation 13A of the Police Regulations 1995, which provide that appointment as chief constable should be for a minimum period of four years and a maximum period of seven years.

  The current position for each force in England is given in the table. In a small number of cases, the appointment pre-dates the introduction of the fixed term regulations on 1 April 1995, and exceeds the current maximum period.
  85W

  Crime Fighting Fund
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Crime Fighting Fund officers were projected to be allocated to Hampshire in 2001–02; how many officers were allocated; how many Crime Fighting Fund officers will be allocated for 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [22438]

  Mr. Denham
  Hampshire has been allocated a total of 243 Crime Fighting Fund (CFF) recruits over and above previous recruitment plans for the three years to March 2003. This total was initially divided between the three years of the CFF recruitment scheme as follows:

  Year

  CFF allocation

  2000–01

  82

  2001–02

  77

  2002–03

  84

  As the force was unable to recruit all of its CFF allocation in 2000–01 it was allowed to carry over 63 recruits from 2000–01 to 2001–02, resulting in revised allocations as follows:

  Year

  CFF allocation

  2000–01

  19

  2001–02

  140

  2002–03

  84

  The allocation for 2002–03 is provisional and subject to the force meeting the requirements of the CFF continuation criteria.

  Domestic Violence (Buckingham)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of domestic violence were investigated by the police in the Buckingham constituency in(a) 2000 and (b) 2001. [22633]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not held centrally. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Thames Valley police collect the information by Basic Command Unit areas, but none of these areas correspond exactly with the Buckingham constituency.

  Security Costs
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what have been the costs of extra activities undertaken by his Department in connection with events following the 11 September terrorist attacks on the United States; and if these costs will be met from his Department's budget. [14077]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Some extra costs are being incurred, on departmental security measures. These costs will be met from the Home Office's budget and it is not possible to quantify them. As regards the cost of the measures announced in my Statement of 15 October 2001, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to a question from the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) on 23 January 2002,Official Report, column 914W.
  86W

  Police Numbers (London)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish(a) the most recent figures, (b) the figures for May 1997 based on the old boundaries and (c) estimated figures for May 1997 based on the new boundaries, for the number of police officers within the city of London and Metropolitan police areas, broken down by London borough. [13844]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 9 November 2001]: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has provided police strength in the Metropolitan police at 31 October 2001 and 1 July 1997 broken down by borough. Information for May 1997 is not available.

  Borough

  Strength 31 October 20011

  Strength 1 July 19971

  Kensington and Chelsea

  539.51

  648.30

  Westminster

  1,540.96

  1,712.91

  Camden

  681.72

  698.35

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  506.14

  559.65

  Hackney

  675.15

  665.64

  Tower Hamlets

  527.95

  573.09

  Waltham Forest

  449.81

  490.62

  Redbridge

  387.32

  555.00

  Havering

  322.72

  325.59

  Newham

  577.41

  599.88

  Barking and Dagenham

  285.82

  299.05

  Lambeth

  863.58

  946.10

  Southwark

  784.76

  849.46

  Islington

  564.79

  568.60

  Lewisham

  567.50

  613.75

  Bromley

  422.60

  473.84

  Harrow

  315.42

  281.60

  Brent

  604.14

  636.33

  Greenwich

  570.14

  597.65

  Bexley

  322.09

  280.65

  Barnet

  509.92

  727.16

  Richmond upon Thames

  263.17

  278.85

  Hounslow

  416.29

  446.60

  Kingston upon Thames

  256.40

  354.33

  Merton

  289.26

  315.85

  Wandsworth

  545.92

  622.94

  Ealing

  617.87

  635.97

  Hillingdon

  369.70

  403.10

  Enfield

  474.91

  538.30

  Haringey

  542.59

  546.60

  Croydon

  566.77

  604.60

  Sutton

  252.74

  406.10

  Borough Total

  16,624.07

  18,254.46

  Heathrow2

  287.26

  375.15

  Spelthorne3

  194.40

  Recruits, non borough units and HQ staff

  8,621.52

  7,846.27

  Total

  25,532.85

  26,670.28

  1Figures are full-time equivalents

  2These posts are paid for by Heathrow airport plc.

  3Spelthorne was transferred to Surrey police in April 2000.

  The Metropolitan police force area boundary was changed in April 2000. The Metropolitan Police Service are unable to provide estimated figures for officers in post in 1997 on the basis of the new boundaries.

  There were 10,040 civilians in the Metropolitan police on 31 March 2001 and 13,493 on 31 March 1997.

  The city of London police force was unaffected by the Metropolitan police force area boundary changes. The city of London Police had 859 police officers on 31 March

  87W
  1997 and 705 on 2 November 2001. The force employed 347 civilian support staff in March 1997 and 223 in March 2001.

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the advertising campaigns commissioned by his Department since May 1997, showing for each(a) its objectives, (b) its beginning and end dates, (c) the media used, (d) the criteria adopted to judge its effectiveness, (e) the extent to which effectiveness criteria were met, (f) any agency involvement and (g) its cost. [28240]

  Mr. Blunkett
  In relation to expenditure in 1999–2000 and 2000–01, I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) of 17 January, 2002,Official Report,column 465W. In relation to expenditure from 1996–97 to 1998–99 the figure are as follows:

  £ million

  1996–97

  5.23

  1997–98

  1.4

  1998–99

  1.8

  Notes:

  1. Figures include value added tax (VAT).

  2. Figures for 1997–98 and 1998–99 reflect spending levels determined in 1996.

  The Home Office uses advertising in various media to inform the public how they are affected by departmental legislation, and also to effect attitudinal and behavioural change in such areas as vehicle crime reduction, fire safety, voter registration and police recruitment. Each campaign is rigorously evaluated to ensure maximum effectiveness and value for money. Evaluation criteria are set according to the individual objectives of each campaign (for example increases in awareness and understanding of fire safety issues were measured, along with changes in public attitudes and subsequent shifts in fire statistics). The results of each evaluation exercise are used to inform future campaign development.

  Historical data on the individual communication objectives, timings and evaluation criteria for each campaign can be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  CCTV
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will offer separate funding for local closed circuit television schemes apart from the Safer Communities Initiative. [21476]

  Mr. Denham
  Under the Crime Reduction Programme Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Initiative a potential £170 million will be spent funding 686 CCTV schemes.

  Although this initiative is now closed, other opportunities for funding of CCTV schemes may exist under the Communities against Drugs or the Small Retailers in Deprived Areas initiatives. Further funding for CCTV schemes may also be available under the Safer Communities Initiative (SCI).
  88W

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Jane Coker Case
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the total cost was for all Departments arising from the case of Jane Coker v. The Lord Chancellor considered by(a) the Industrial Tribunal, (b) the Employment Appeal Tribunal and (c) the Court of Appeal; and if, in each instance, she will identify the costs of Counsel and other lawyers, outside of the Government's service. [29527]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The total legal costs for all Departments arising from the case of Jane Coker and Martha Osamor v. The Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chancellor's Department were as follows:

  (a) Costs up to and including the hearing before the Employment Tribunal—£84,349.96 (including VAT) of which £50,360.50 were Counsel's fees and £33,989.46 were Treasury Solicitor's costs;

  (b) Costs in relation to the hearing before the Employment Appeal Tribunal—£54,540.44 (including VAT) of which £40,243.75 were Counsel's fees and £14,296.69 were Treasury Solicitors' costs;

  (c) Costs in relation to the hearing before the Court of Appeal—£50,054.29 (including VAT) of which £38,639.87 were Counsel's fees and £11,414.42 were Treasury Solicitor's costs.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department for what reason there was no application for costs on her behalf in the case of Jane Coker. [29939]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  No application was made for costs on behalf of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chancellor's Department in relation to the hearings before the Employment Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal as the general rule in relation to costs before those Tribunals is that each side bears its own costs.

  No application was made for costs on behalf of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chancellor's Department in relation to the hearing before the Court of Appeal as the Lord Chancellor was by that stage aware that the case brought by Jane Coker and Martha Osamor was supported by the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality. The Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chancellor's Department did not consider it would be appropriate to seek a costs order in circumstances where publicly funded bodies with particular responsibility for promoting equal opportunities in relation to employment matters had taken the view that there was a public interest in having the legal issues raised in the proceedings resolved by the Court of Appeal.

  Colchester Magistrates Court
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the new courthouse at Colchester will be opened. [29741]

  Mr. Wills
  It is anticipated that the new courthouse will be opened in Colchester during 2005.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement about the upgrading of cells at Colchester magistrates court; what the cost involved is; and when he expects the work to be completed. [29740]
  89W
  Mr. Wills
  In the financial year 2001–02, £60,192 has been allocated to the Magistrates Courts Committee and local authority to address health and safety issues in Colchester magistrates court by removing all ligature points in the cells. This is not essentially an upgrade of the cell accommodation, but necessary work to ensure that defendants are unable to harm themselves or others. This work is expected to be completed in 2002–03, at a total cost of £63,715. The new courthouse in Colchester planned for 2005, to be constructed under the private finance initiative, should address any concerns raised over the quality of the custody accommodation.

  Shared Residency Orders
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many families in the UK in each of the last three years have been granted shared residency orders in cases where parents have divorced or separated and terms governing the custody of children must be decided and approved by the courts; and what proportion of those orders dictate that custody should be split equally between parents. [29792]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In 2001 there were 22,970 residence orders granted in private law proceedings in the county and High Courts. The Lord Chancellor's Department statistics do not differentiate between those residence orders made in favour of one or both parents. The underlying philosophy of the Children Act 1989 is that parents share responsibility for the upbringing of their children, even after their own relationship has failed.

  Census Website
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement about the initial performance of the 1901 Census website. [29899]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The 1901 Census website was successfully piloted and tested in advance of its launch on 2 January 2002. Based on benchmarking, the 1901 site was specified to allow for 1 million users, with provision to cope with peak equivalent demand of 1.2 million users, in any 24-hour period. Prior to the site being closed on 7 January 2002 to enable enhancements to be carried out, it was estimated by the PRO's business partner QinetiQ Ltd., who are responsible for the technical aspects of the service, that the maximum demand it experienced was approximately 1.2 million users per hour. This prevented many users accessing the service. A decision to close the website temporarily to general internet access was taken by the PRO and QinetiQ Ltd. in order to allow enhancements to be made. The general internet service will be restored incrementally, on completion of this work.

  The online service is currently available at the Public Record Office at Kew, the Family Records Centre in Islington, and at a number of local public libraries and archives while the enhancements are being carried out. Meanwhile, the Public Record Office has fulfilled its statutory obligations by providing microform copies of the 1901 Census returns at the Public Record Office at Kew and at local record offices and public libraries across the country.
  90W

  Waltham Forest Court
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when it is proposed to notify the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead of the closure of Waltham Forest court; for what reason the media were notified before local hon. Members; what arrangements are proposed for Leyton and Leytonstone residents who have to attend a local magistrates court as defendants, victims or witnesses; and if he will make a statement. [30138]

  Mr. Wills
  The Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority (GLMCA) issued their strategic plan on 13 December 2001. I understand that hon. Members, the press and trade unions were notified at this time by the GLMCA. No final decisions will be made on Waltham Forest magistrates court until the GLMCA has concluded statutory consultation and taken into account all representations made during this period. The GLMCA plan to commence the first stage of their consultation next month. I understand my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) will, in due course, have opportunity to comment directly to the GLMCA on the future of Waltham Forest magistrates court. The Government's policy is that decisions concerning listing practices, the number, location and future of magistrates courts are for magistrates courts committees to determine, in consultation with their local paying authority.

  Electoral Documentation
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps her Department has taken to provide an audit trail when marked registers are sent from the returning officers to her Department; and if she will make a statement. [30103]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Representation of the People Act 1983 requires the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to ensure that a record is kept of the electoral documentation received from returning officers in respect of both general and by-elections in England and Wales.

  Details are recorded on receipt at our central warehouse.

  Saville Inquiry
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what costs have been incurred by the Lord Chancellor's Department in connection with the Saville inquiry; and what her estimate is of the final cost. [29067]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  No costs have been incurred by the Lord Chancellor's Department to date in connection with the Bloody Sunday inquiry and no future costs are expected to be incurred.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Civil Service
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many Civil Service staff are on loan from each of the devolved Administrations to UK Government Departments, broken down by UK Government
  91W
  Departments; and what percentage of civil service staff the number on loan represents per the total number of civil servants for each devolved Administration. [29512]

  Mr. Leslie
  The information for the Scottish Executive is given in the table. The National Assembly for Wales has five staff currently on loan, all to the Cabinet Office; this is 0.1 per cent. of the total of 3,500 staff. Comparable figures for the Northern Ireland civil service are not available except at disproportionate cost.

  Scottish Executive

  Department

  Staff on loan at 21 January 2002

  Percentage

  Cabinet Office

  5

  0.0

  Department of Health (Food Standards Agency)

  59

  0.5

  Department of Trade and Industry

  1

  0.0

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  6

  0.1

  Forestry Commission

  2

  0.0

  HM Treasury

  5

  0.0

  Home Office

  367

  3.2

  Office of Fair Trading

  1

  0.0

  Oftel

  1

  0.0

  Prime Minister's Office

  1

  0.0

  Scotland Office

  109

  1.0

  Total staff on loan

  557

  4.9

  Total staff in post

  11,430

  100.0

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the progress which has been made in delivering the strategy to increase the numbers of(a) women and (b) ethnic minorities in Whitehall's senior civil service grades. [27851]

  Mr. Leslie
  The latest figures for April 2001 show that:

  24.2 per cent. of the senior civil service are women, up from 17.8 per cent. in 1998. The target for 2004–05 is 35 per cent.

  20.2 per cent. of those in the top 600 posts are women, up from 12.7 per cent. in 1998. The target for 2004–05 is 25 per cent.

  2.4 per cent. of staff at senior civil service level are from a minority ethnic background, up rom 1.6 per cent. in 1998. The target for 2004–05 is 3.2 per cent.

  Progress is being made in other areas. For example the number of successful candidates from minority ethnic backgrounds in the fast stream scheme has doubled from 3.4 per cent. in 1998 to 6.8 per cent. in 2000.

  Saville Inquiry
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what costs have been incurred by his Department to date in connection with the Saville inquiry; and what his estimate is of the final cost to his Department. [29590]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  The Cabinet Office does not employ staff full-time on Bloody Sunday inquiry work. Expenditure to date on staff time is estimated at £45,000. It is not possible to estimate the final cost to the Cabinet Office because of the number of uncertainties.

  Public Appointments
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what account is taken of political affiliation in making appointments to non-departmental public bodies. [31060]
  92W
  Mr. Leslie
  While information on the political affiliation of candidates is not collected, the Commissioner for Public Appointments' Code of Practice requires information on political activity to be collected. In a small minority of cases there may be a need to create a political balance. This can usually be achieved by asking political parties to nominate candidates.

  Arms Sales (BAE Systems)
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received from BAE Systems concerning the sale of arms to(a) South Africa and (b) India. [28293]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  I have not received any representations from BAE Systems concerning the sale of arms to either South Africa or India.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to visit India; and if he will raise the issue of BAE Systems bid to supply Hawk jets with his Indian counterpart. [28303]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  I have no firm plans to visit India.

  Ministerial Properties
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the properties used by Ministers for(a) residential and (b) business purposes that are owned by Government organisations. [28280]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  [pursuant to his reply, 21 January 2002, c. 599W]: I regret that my answer was incorrect since there are some costs to the public purse in the Government's use of Chequers, Dorneywood and Chevening.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Industrial Action
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish the latest figures for working days lost through industrial action within her Department and its agencies since June 2001. [27840]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 16 January 2002]: Between the launch of the Department and 14 January, a total of 16,201 working days has been lost due to strike action by departmental staff who are members of the Public and Commercial Services Union.

  Environmental Impact Assessments
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the progress FTSE 350 companies had made by the end of 2001 towards reporting on their environmental impacts; and what assessment she has made of the progress that would have been made if there was a mandatory requirement for such reports. [29325]
  93W
  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: About 79 of the FTSE 350 report while a further 24 had plans to do so. A further 10 per cent. of other companies in the FTSE 350 mentioned environmental issues, but did not report substantively on environmental performance. These figures are now being reviewed to improve the estimates and to distinguish between companies that produce quantified performance data and those that do not, since some reports contain little or no quantified information.

  A mandatory reporting requirement would have been expected to lead to environmental reporting by all the companies concerned.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many instances there were in each English region in each month since June 2000 of(a) HEES and (b) HEES Plus grant being topped-up by the recipient to pay for the full costs of the improvements; what was the average amount of the top-up; and what was the average administration cost to Eaga Partnerships and Eastern Warm Front to process each top-up. [19348]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 29 November 2001]: The Eaga Partnership Ltd. and TXU Warm Front Ltd. manage the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme, marketed as the Warm Front Team, under contract. The scheme provides packages of energy efficiency measures tailored to the circumstances of the householder and the property. Where the total cost of these cannot be met from the available grant, the scheme managers seek support from other programmes. If this is not possible, then the scheme manager advises the householder of the amount of money required to complete the work and asks them to contribute towards the excess cost if the full programme of recommended energy efficiency is to go ahead. Should they do so, the sum is paid directly to the installer concerned. If the client is unable to make the required contribution then those measures requiring additional funding are not installed.

  The majority of requests for a client contribution occur at the £1,000 grant level, when it is not possible to repair a gas central heating boiler and a replacement is required. A decision on grant levels will be made shortly and will take into account the level of client contributions and advice from the scheme managers on the expected rates of labour and materials for the forthcoming year.

  The table sets out the available information on the number of letters sent to HEES clients and the average contribution requested, month by month, since June 2000. Unfortunately, data are not available in the format requested by the hon. Member.

  Number of letters

  Average value of top-ups (£)

  2000

  June

  10

  690

  July

  10

  320

  August

  20

  210

  September

  90

  520

  October

  200

  300

  November

  290

  360

  December

  180

  420

  94W

  Number of letters

  Average value of top-ups (£)

  2001

  January

  350

  330

  February

  370

  540

  March

  400

  390

  April

  350

  430

  May

  540

  450

  June

  980

  540

  July

  1,250

  830

  August

  1,260

  640

  September

  1,190

  510

  October

  1,490

  370

  November

  1,100

  400

  The higher number of top-up requests over the last six months reflects the increasing number of householders receiving assistance through HEES. Currently, 98,000 householders are having work carried out on their properties. Since the launch of the scheme on 1 June 2000, 234,000 households have received assistance. Some 10,000 have been invited to make a contribution.

  The cost incurred in seeking contributions is incorporated within the scheme managers' fees for administering the scheme. These fees are included in their contracts with my Department. It is not possible to identify their costs separately.

  England Rural Development Programme
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list those companies which have received processing and marketing grants under the England Rural Development Programme. [26416]

  Alun Michael
  I am writing to the hon. Member today with a list of those companies that have received processing and marketing grants under the England Rural Development Programme. I am placing a copy of that letter in the Library of the House.

  EU Environment Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the outcome was of the Environment Council held in Brussels on 29 October; what the Government's stance was on each issue discussed, including its voting record; and if she will make a statement. [11896]

  Margaret Beckett
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and I represented the UK at the Environment Council held in Luxembourg on 29 October. This was the first Environment Council of the Belgian presidency. Council reached political agreement on four common positions: the UK voted in favour of each. Four sets of Council conclusions were agreed. There were two orientation debates: one, in public, on a proposed regulation concerning traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and products derived from them, and a second on the Commission's review of the Pesticides Authorisation Directive (91/414/EEC).

  Political agreement was reached without discussion on a recommendation concerning implementation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) in Europe. This aims to encourage member states to carry out a

  95W
  stocktake of institutions and laws affecting their coastal zones, and to adopt national strategies to promote integrated management.

  In reaching political agreement on a proposed amendment to Directive 97/68/EC on non-road mobile machinery emissions, the UK achieved its objective of ensuring deletion of an article permitting the use of economic incentives, noting that the directive did not have an appropriate legal base for such an article. The amended directive will introduce exhaust emission standards for small, off-road petrol engines and large diesel generators, and aims to align European provisions with existing US regulations.

  Political agreement was also reached on an amendment to Directive 94/25/EC laying down limit values for exhaust and noise emissions from new recreational craft placed on the Community market. The Council agreed limit values at the levels proposed by the European Commission in COM(2000) 639 dated 12 October 2000. Particularly in relation to noise emissions, agreement was reached on less costly methods of demonstrating compliance. Overall the agreement represents a reasonable balance between achieving challenging environmental objectives while minimising the cost to small and medium-sized business and individuals.

  Council reached political agreement on a proposed decision continuing for the period 2002–06 an annual funding programme for environmental NGOs active at a European level. The Commission's proposed total budget of EUR 32 million was agreed. The UK's main objective of ensuring that the selection and monitoring process was transparent and fair was met in the common position text.

  Ministers agreed a common approach on a proposed directive to bring Community rules into line with the second pillar of the Aarhus Convention dealing with public consultation in environmental decision-making. The UK welcomed the proposal and asked that the Commission also take steps to present another proposal seeking to apply the provisions of the Aarhus Convention to the Community institutions, in order to enable the Community to ratify the Convention.

  During a public orientation debate on a proposed regulation on traceability and labelling of GMOs, Council discussed the scope of the proposed system. While welcoming the intention of the proposal to improve safety and consumer choice in GM food and crops, the UK's current judgment was that the requirement to label and trace the source of products which contain no detectable GM material would be unworkable. The UK expressed concern about whether the information given to consumers would be reliable and whether developing countries would be able to provide the information expected from importers. The UK took the view that the Commission's proposals for allowing certain imports of crops containing GMOs that are not approved in the EU were unsatisfactory as they stood and that further urgent work was needed, particularly on agreeing an international system for identifying individual GMOs. Member states were still divided on when the EU decision-making process for GM products could be restarted. While recognising the importance of the proposal to rebuilding confidence in the decision-making
  96W
  process on GMOs in the EU, the UK called for case-by-case consideration of applications and said that it was not tenable to encourage an illicit moratorium.

  Council conclusions adopted in preparation for the seventh Conference of the Parties (COP7) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, taking place in Marrakesh from 29 October to 9 November, called on all parties to respect the Bonn agreement, and underlined the need for progress in the relevant international forums in tackling emissions from aviation and shipping. The conclusions stressed the resolve of the Community and its member states to ratify the Kyoto Protocol in a timely manner, with a view to its entry into force by the World Summit on Sustainable Development next September. Environment Commissioner Wallstrom also presented a proposal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, a draft directive on a CO2 emissions trading scheme and a Communication on the European Climate Change Programme.

  Council conclusions were adopted on a Clean Air for Europe (CAFE) Programme stressing the priority attached to the problems of ozone, particulates and acidification. Council also adopted conclusions on a Communication on Conservation of Natural Resources, and conclusions on the Commission's general Communication on Biodiversity, highlighting the need to implement biodiversity action plans and halt biodiversity decline across the EU.

  Council held a discussion to inform the adoption of six sustainable development indicators to be used in the Commission's synthesis report for the Barcelona Spring European Council. The Commission would publish its report on indicators on 31 October. An exchange of views was also held on the Commission's review of Directive 91/414/EEC on agricultural pesticides. The UK stressed the need to speed up the pace of the review of older compounds. The debate also considered the substitution principle and restrictions on those allowed to use certain categories of pesticides.

  The Belgian presidency and Commission reported on a number of proposals, including the EU Chemicals Strategy, environmental liability and a recently adopted communication on dioxins, furans and PCBs. France briefly outlined measures taken by the French Government since a major explosion at an ammonium nitrate manufacturing plant in Toulouse in September. The inquiry into this accident will inform the planned revision of the Seveso II Directive, but the Commission will not delay adoption of its proposal.

  Over lunch Ministers discussed preparations for the WTO Ministerial in Doha on 9–13 November and preparations for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Rio+10) to be held in Johannesburg in September 2002.

  Litter Fines
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what changes she plans to make to allow local authorities more easily to issue on-the-spot fines for litter. [30616]

  Mr. Meacher
  As part of the local public service agreements currently being agreed, certain local authorities are being allowed to retain the moneys received from the fixed penalty notices for litter and dog fouling offences. On return, the moneys must be reinvested back into the
  97W
  community on local environmental quality improvements. Should this be a success the Government plan to extend this scheme to all local authorities.

  Also, from 1 April 2002 the fixed penalty notices for litter and dog fouling offences will be doubled from £25 to £50.

  Waste Management
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what rules govern whether waste may be(a) composted and (b) directly applied on farms without (i) planning permission and (ii) Environment Agency approval. [30728]

  Mr. Meacher
  PPG 10 "Planning and Waste Management" advises that the large-scale commercial composting of green waste will generally require planning permission. The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 requires a planning application to be submitted for the importation of waste onto farms unless it is for use in certain specified engineering or building works. It is for local authorities to determine in the first instance whether planning permission is required in each case.

  Both composting and landspreading of waste for agricultural benefit are classified as waste recovery operations under the waste framework directive. This means that anyone carrying out these operations must do so under the terms of either a waste management licence issued by the Environment Agency under Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 or a licensing exemption registered with the agency. Licensing exemptions for composting and landspreading of waste are provided in the Waste Management Regulations 1994 regulation 17 and schedule 3 paragraphs 7 and 12.

  Food Labelling (GMOs)
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will support the European proposal not to label foods that contain up to one per cent. of an unapproved GM variety in the forthcoming European negotiations on traceability and labelling. [29503]

  Mr. Meacher
  While recognising that zero presence of non-EU approved GMOs may be impractical, the Government have reservations about the approach proposed by the European Commission for addressing the issue. Other options need to be explored. The best means of overcoming the problem of non-approved GMOs is to clear the backlog of decisions required on outstanding applications for approval within the EU, subject to labelling and traceability conditions being required in each case.

  Packaging Waste
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what monitoring is taking place for the application of revenues from packaging waste exports. [29726]

  Mr. Meacher
  The revenues from packaging waste exports come from two sources. The money received for the packaging waste from overseas reprocessors and the money received for the PERNs (Packaging Waste Export 98W
  Notes) which are provided to compliance schemes and individual compliers to show that recycling of packaging waste has been undertaken on their behalf.

  The Environment Agency collects information on the use of the PERN revenue. Accredited exporters and reprocessors are required to provide information on the amounts of PERN income spent on enhancing capacity, collection and end use markets.

  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what controls are being applied to monitor the quality of packaging waste exports. [29725]

  Mr. Meacher
  Information about overseas exports of packaging waste and quantities of such waste shipped is held at the Environment Agency's National Waste Registration Unit (NWRU).

  The NWRU receives applications from potential exporters of UK-sourced packaging waste and accredits those which have suitable information systems showing the places of packaging waste generation through to reprocessing facilities overseas. Information from accredited exporters about sources of packaging waste and destinations for export has to be provided to the NWRU.

  Radioactive Waste
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if it is her policy to ensure that radioactive waste arising from the reprocessing of spent fuel for overseas customers under contracts signed since 1976 will be returned to countries of origin without any element of substitution. [15898]

  Mr. Meacher
  This is one of the issues on which we have invited public comments in our 12 September consultation paper "Managing radioactive waste safely". A copy is in the Library. Pages 25–26 of the paper say that British Nuclear Fuels plc wishes to substitute a small volume of high level waste in place of larger volumes of intermediate or low level waste returned to overseas customers, but that is dependent on how high or intermediate level waste should be managed in the UK in the long term—the main issue addressed in the consultation paper. No decision has been taken. The paper invites views on the link between "waste substitution" and the availability of a long-term management strategy. The consultation period closes on 12 March.

  Nitrate Pollution
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of research results which have shown that nitrate does not cause eutrophication in rivers and estuaries; and if she will make a statement on the source of the research upon which her Department's policy is based. [29084]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department's current proposals to reduce nitrate pollution from agriculture arise from the requirement to comply with the European Court of Justice judgment that implementation of the Nitrates Directive is currently incomplete in the UK.

  The Department is aware of many sources of research relevant to eutrophication in rivers and estuaries. Two fundamental reports which have shaped both UK and

  99W
  world wide opinion are those published by the OECD: "Scientific Fundamentals of the Eutrophication of Lakes and Flowing Waters" published in 1968 and "Eutrophication of waters: Monitoring, assessment and Control" published in 1982. Other recent reports are the Environment Agency's publications: "An environmental strategy for the millennium and beyond" published in 1997 and "Aquatic eutrophication in England and Wales: a proposed management strategy" published in 1998.

  The Department's assessment of this body of scientific information is that it supports the view that in the UK's freshwater systems, phosphorus is generally the key nutrient limiting the eutrophication process, although nitrates may also contribute to eutrophication. In marine waters, nitrate is generally the key limiting nutrient.

  Farming and Food Report
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Government expects the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food to publish its report. [31571]

  Margaret Beckett
  The Policy Commission will publish its report to Government on 29 January. Copies of the report will be available from the Libraries of the House and from the Vote Office [PPO for Lords] at loam that day. It will also be available in electronic form from the Policy Commission website, www.cabinet-office/gov.uk/farming.
  100W

  Environment Agency
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will consult on revised statutory guidance to the Environment Agency. [31572]

  Mr. Meacher
  On Friday 25 January 2002 I published for consultation draft revised statutory guidance to the Environment Agency under section 4 of the Environment Act 1995. The guidance concerns the agency's activities in England. It states the statutory objectives which the agency should pursue over the next few years, identifies its roles in contributing to the achievement of sustainable development, and sets out the principles it should follow in deciding its priorities. The document has been developed following the first financial management and policy review of the agency, which my Department carried out last year. Copies of the consultation draft have been placed in the House Library. I would welcome responses from interested organisations and individuals, by 18 April 2002. Following public consultation, I will lay proposed statutory guidance before Parliament.

  Home Energy Conservation Bill
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will propose amendments to the Home Energy Conservation Bill to give powers to the National Assembly for Wales for the provisions of the Bill to apply to Wales; and if she will make a statement. [29280]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government have tabled amendments to this Bill giving powers to the National Assembly for Wales in respect of Wales. These are consistent with the wishes of the National Assembly for Wales. Similar amendments were also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) and others.
  101W

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many investigations there have been to date into fraud by individual learning account holders. [27160]

  John Healey
  There have been no investigations into individual learning account holders. The Department's Special Investigation Unit has had 86 learning providers referred to it: four learning providers did not require investigation and 82 learning providers are in the process of being investigated. Of these the SIU are discussing 42 with the police, a further 12 are being investigated by the police and another has been charged.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when access to the ILA website for providers of ILA courses will be restored. [29258]

  John Healey
  The Department is currently looking closely into the operation of the ILA Centre system. The system will not be reopened to providers until we are satisfied on the robustness of the control and security arrangements. We are working with Capita to assess the control and security arrangements that were in place in the ILA system and we have engaged Cap Gemini Ernst and Young Consultants to support that process.

  Theft and Fraud
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 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. [27290]

  Estelle Morris
  Cases of fraud and irregularity involving staff and direct contractors are reported annually to the Treasury for inclusion in the Treasury Fraud Report which is laid before Parliament. From 1 April 1997 to date the number of cases reported were as follows:

  £

  Number

  Estimated Cost

  Internal

  17

  1,694

  Direct contractors

  44

  16,405,635

  The above figures do not include NDPBs or sub-contractors, eg training providers operating under contracts with Training and Enterprise Councils.

  The number of training providers investigated by the Department from 1 April 1997 to date was 112 and the estimated cost of the fraud/irregularity was £15 million.

  The above figures represent 0.14 per cent. of the relevant expenditure lines, and 0.05 per cent. of total departmental spend over the last four years.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her estimate is of the cost of theft and fraud to(a) her Department, (b) its agencies and(c) non-departmental public bodies in each of the last four years. [27973]
  102W
  Estelle Morris
  An estimate of cost to the Department of cases involving potential fraud and irregularity for the last four financial years is as follows:

  £000

  1997–98

  3,816

  1998–99

  5,716

  1999–2000

  4,548

  2000–01

  17,327

  Total

  31,407

  The figure for 2000–01 includes one specific direct contractor fraud valued at £7.9 million.

  The figures represent 0.14 per cent. of the relevant expenditure lines, and 0.05 per cent. of total departmental spend over the last four years.

  Details of fraud cases reported by the Employment Service are being included in DWP's response to this PQ. Information on NDPBs is not collected centrally.

  Standard Spending Assessment (Cambridgeshire)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list for Cambridgeshire(a) the difference between the education department budget and that county's education service block SSA in each year from 1992–93 to 2002–03 and (b) that sum divided by the total number of full-time equivalent pupils financed by that education department. [27627]

  Mr. Timms
  The following table provides the latest available information:

  Difference between education budget and SSA (£ million)

  Difference per pupil (£)

  1993–94

  7.1

  70

  1994–95

  16.3

  160

  1995–96

  17.5

  170

  1996–97

  7.7

  74

  1997–98

  14.4

  138

  1998–99

  10.8

  142

  1999–2000

  3.9

  51

  2000–01

  4.1

  53

  2001–02

  11.1

  144

  Notes:

  1. Information is taken from data published in the 2001 and previous years Departmental Annual Reports. Budget figures up to 1999–2000 were taken from local authorities' latest Revenue Account returns submitted to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and for 2000–01 and 2001–02, from LEAs s52 Budget statements.

  2. The authority's budgeted spend was more than the SSA.

  3. Cambridgeshire was re-organised in 1998–99. All pupil numbers but those for 2001–02 are financial year averages, based on January Annual Census returns. The figures for 2001–02 reflect the January 2001 returns. Figures for 1990–91 to 1998–99 include grant maintained schools. Figures for 1999–2000 to 2001–02 include ex-GM schools. The total figures include pre-primary, primary secondary and special schools.
  103W

  White Hart Lane School, Tottenham
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what grants she has made to the White Hart Lane school in Tottenham to teach pupils in languages other than English; and if she will make a statement. [28108]

  Mr. Timms
  None. We understand that the school is seeking sponsorship for this proposed pilot project from a range of sources, including the local Turkish business community.

  Modern Apprenticeships
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the development of Modern Apprenticeships. [28150]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Modern Apprenticeships are an important component of the Government's strategy to boost participation and attainment in learning by young people and to meet the skills needs of employers. They provide high quality vocational pathways for young people to progress from GCSEs or A levels to their chosen profession.

  On 29 November 2001, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Education and Skills announced the new generation of Modern Apprenticeships and endorsed the main recommendations in the report of Sir John Cassels' Advisory Committee on the development, promotion and delivery of Modern Apprenticeships. These included:
  an expansion in employer places so that more than a quarter of young people can enter Modern Apprenticeships before they are 22-years-old, by 2004–05;
  an entitlement to a Modern Apprenticeship place for all 16 and 17-year-olds with five or more GCSE passes, from September 2004;
  a national framework for apprenticeship which defines basic standards and strengthens the relationship between the employer and apprentice. Technical certificates will reflect the broader knowledge and understanding acquired through off-the-job learning; and
  a £16 million marketing campaign, over three years, to promote Modern Apprenticeships and boost take-up among employers and young people.

  The Learning and Skills Council will spearhead the development and delivery of the new generation of Modern Apprenticeships working with a range of other partners, especially the Connexions Service and the new Sector Skills Councils.

  Copies of the report of the Modern Apprenticeship Advisory Committee (September 2001) and the Government's Consultation Response (March 2001) have been placed in the Library in the House of Commons.
  104W

  LEA Grants
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will provide additional 100 per cent. funded grants to local education authorities within the F40 Groups. [28373]

  Mr. Timms
  We have no plans to do so.

  Special Education Needs
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make additional funds available to compensate for the costs of supplying services to special needs children in sparsely populated rural areas. [28433]

  Mr. Timms
  The overall settlement for 2002–03 is a good one: over £1.3 billion extra in Education Standard Spending Assessments; a further increase in Standards Fund grant of almost £160 million; and an increase in the direct grant for schools of 2.75 per cent. We believe that this settlement provides sufficient resources to cover the costs of supplying services to special needs children in sparsely populated rural areas.

  However, we are currently working up a new funding system for introduction in 2003–04. As part of that work we are taking account of the costs associated with sparsely populated areas.

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools have been granted specialist status on the basis of their first application for such status(a) in total and (b) in each year since 1997; and if she will make a statement. [29201]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 23 January 2002]: Of the 685 specialist schools currently operational 315 (46 per cent.) have been granted specialist status on the basis of their first application. The number of schools granted specialist status on the basis of their first application in each year since 1997 is shown in the table.

  Year

  Number of specialist school designations

  Number of designations based on first application

  Percentage of designations based on first application

  1996–97

  74

  35

  47

  1997–98

  83

  46

  55

  1998–99

  80

  46

  58

  1999–2000

  140

  103

  74

  2000–01

  152

  64

  42

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) joint and (b) associated applications for specialist school status have been received since May 1997; and how many of these have been successful. [29203]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 23 January 2002]: There have been 48 joint applications for specialist school status since May 1997, of which 19 have been successful. A

  105W
  further 12 joint applications have been received under the current competition which are currently being assessed. Two applications we would identify as 'associated applications' are being considered in the October 2001 competition, the results of which will be announced in February.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many bids for specialist school status have been received from each local education authority area since May 1997; what proportion of such bids has been

  Specialist school application and designations, 5 years to 2001 by LEA

  Applications

  Designations

  LEA

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Barking and Dagenham

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Barnet

  2

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Barnsley

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Bath and NE Somerset

  3

  —

  3

  1

  2

  2

  —

  2

  1

  —

  Bedfordshire

  1

  2

  1

  2

  5

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Birmingham

  7

  3

  4

  16

  13

  2

  —

  4

  13

  6

  Blackburn with Darwen

  1

  —

  2

  —

  2

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Blackpool

  1

  —

  1

  2

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Bolton

  3

  2

  2

  4

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  1

  Bournemouth

  1

  1

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  Bracknell Forest

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bradford

  6

  2

  1

  2

  4

  1

  —

  1

  2

  4

  Brent

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Brighton and Hove

  —

  2

  —

  3

  3

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Bristol, City of

  4

  4

  2

  1

  3

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Bromley, LB of

  —

  1

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Buckinghamshire

  8

  2

  —

  1

  8

  2

  1

  —

  1

  4

  Calderdale

  2

  —

  2

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Cambridgeshire

  5

  2

  4

  —

  3

  1

  —

  4

  —

  3

  Camden, LB of

  3

  —

  1

  1

  —

  2

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Cheshire

  11

  6

  1

  3

  4

  1

  —

  1

  1

  1

  Cornwall

  7

  6

  1

  3

  4

  3

  —

  —

  1

  3

  Coventry

  4

  2

  —

  1

  2

  2

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Croydon, LB of

  1

  2

  —

  2

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Cumbria

  6

  5

  —

  3

  3

  1

  2

  —

  1

  3

  Darlington

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  Derby, City of

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Derbyshire

  6

  3

  —

  7

  9

  1

  —

  —

  1

  5

  Devon

  8

  2

  —

  1

  3

  2

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Doncaster

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dorset

  —

  —

  2

  4

  2

  —

  —

  2

  2

  2

  Dudley

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Durham

  1

  5

  4

  5

  10

  1

  4

  4

  2

  1

  Ealing, LB of

  2

  2

  1

  4

  2

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  2

  1

  —

  5

  1

  1

  1

  —

  2

  1

  East Sussex

  7

  2

  —

  3

  5

  1

  1

  —

  2

  3

  Enfield, LB of

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Essex

  16

  4

  4

  11

  9

  —

  1

  2

  4

  4

  Gateshead

  —

  1

  3

  1

  1

  —

  1

  2

  —

  1

  Gloucestershire

  9

  5

  4

  4

  7

  2

  1

  3

  2

  2

  Greenwich, LB of

  3

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  —

  1

  —

  Hackney, LB of

  2

  1

  2

  2

  1

  1

  1

  2

  —

  1

  Halton

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Hampshire

  4

  2

  —

  7

  5

  —

  —

  —

  4

  1

  Haringey, LB of

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Harrow, LB of

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hartlepool

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Havering

  2

  —

  —

  —

  6

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Herefordshire

  4

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Hertfordshire

  7

  3

  1

  4

  9

  —

  2

  1

  2

  3

  Hillingdon

  4

  1

  2

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Hounslow

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Isle of Wight

  1

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Islington, LB of

  —

  —

  1

  3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Kent

  12

  6

  6

  7

  8

  2

  —

  2

  1

  3

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Kingston upon Thames

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kirklees

  1

  3

  2

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Knowsley

  2

  2

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  Lambeth, LB of

  —

  1

  —

  2

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  106W
  accepted in each case; if she will break down these figures for each year from 1997–98 to 2001–02; and if she will make a statement. [29213]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 23 January 2002]: The total number of bids for specialist school status received from each local education authority each year from 1997–98 to 2000–01 and the number of those applications which were successful is provided in the table. Information for 2001–02 is not yet available as the result of the October 2001 competition has not yet been announced.
  107W

  Specialist school applications and designations, 5 years to 2001 by LEA

  Applications

  Designations

  LEA

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Lancashire

  12

  3

  2

  6

  6

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  Leeds

  —

  3

  1

  4

  6

  —

  1

  1

  3

  3

  Leicester, City of

  —

  2

  2

  3

  2

  —

  —

  2

  1

  2

  Leicestershire

  7

  2

  2

  —

  5

  3

  2

  2

  —

  1

  Lewisham

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  2

  9

  13

  —

  —

  1

  4

  7

  Liverpool

  5

  4

  —

  3

  7

  2

  1

  —

  2

  3

  Luton

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Manchester

  4

  1

  —

  3

  —

  1

  1

  —

  3

  —

  Medway

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Middlesbrough

  —

  —

  1

  1

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Milton Keynes

  1

  4

  —

  —

  1

  1

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1

  4

  —

  3

  1

  —

  1

  —

  3

  —

  Newham

  2

  1

  —

  1

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  Norfolk

  6

  3

  1

  6

  11

  —

  1

  1

  5

  2

  North East Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  North Lincolnshire

  1

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  North Somerset

  1

  3

  3

  2

  3

  —

  —

  1

  2

  1

  North Tyneside

  2

  3

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  North Yorkshire

  —

  3

  1

  3

  3

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Northamptonshire

  6

  2

  3

  3

  1

  4

  —

  2

  2

  —

  Northumberland

  4

  4

  1

  2

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  5

  4

  1

  2

  9

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  Oldham

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Oxfordshire

  5

  3

  1

  1

  4

  2

  1

  1

  1

  2

  Peterborough

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Plymouth

  —

  —

  2

  3

  —

  —

  —

  2

  3

  —

  Poole

  —

  —

  —

  3

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Portsmouth

  1

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Reading

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Redbridge, LB of

  —

  —

  —

  3

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Redcar and Cleveland

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Richmond, LB of

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rochdale

  3

  2

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Rotherham

  —

  1

  —

  1

  4

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  Salford

  —

  —

  1

  2

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Sefton

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Sandwell

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Sheffield

  3

  4

  —

  1

  4

  —

  1

  —

  —

  4

  Shropshire

  1

  —

  —

  1

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Slough

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Solihull

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Somerset

  2

  4

  3

  5

  3

  1

  2

  1

  2

  1

  South Gloucestershire

  2

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  South Tyneside

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Southampton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Southend on Sea

  —

  1

  1

  1

  3

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  Southwark

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  St. Helens

  —

  —

  1

  3

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  Staffordshire

  4

  1

  —

  2

  2

  1

  1

  —

  —

  2

  Stockport

  9

  3

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Stockton on Tees

  1

  2

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  Stoke on Trent

  —

  —

  —

  1

  4

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Suffolk

  3

  4

  2

  5

  6

  1

  2

  1

  2

  4

  Sunderland

  3

  2

  2

  1

  1

  1

  —

  2

  —

  1

  Surrey

  5

  2

  —

  8

  3

  1

  2

  —

  1

  2

  Sutton, LB of

  1

  1

  —

  1

  2

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Swindon

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Tameside

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Telford and Wrekin

  1

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Thurrock

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Torbay

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tower Hamlets, LB of

  2

  1

  —

  1

  3

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Trafford

  2

  1

  —

  1

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  Wakefield

  4

  —

  —

  2

  2

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Walsall

  3

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Waltham Forest, LB of

  1

  —

  —

  2

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Wandsworth, LB of

  6

  2

  —

  1

  1

  2

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Warrington

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Warwickshire

  —

  2

  1

  4

  2

  —

  1

  1

  2

  —

  West Berkshire

  14

  10

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  1

  1

  West Sussex

  7

  7

  —

  1

  3

  3

  3

  —

  1

  —

  Westminster

  2

  2

  —

  1

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Weston Super Mare

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Widnes

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wigan

  2

  2

  2

  3

  4

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  108W 109W

  Specialist school applications and designations, 5 years to 2001 by LEA

  Applications

  Designations

  LEA

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Wiltshire

  4

  3

  —

  5

  1

  1

  2

  —

  4

  1

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wirral

  1

  2

  —

  2

  3

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  Wolverhampton

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Wokingham

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Worcestershire

  —

  1

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1

  —

  York, city of

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  332

  219

  118

  285

  354

  73

  83

  81

  130

  152

  Central Pupil Database
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) which organisations and individuals will have access to the personal details of pupils stored on the central pupil database; [29372]

  (2)who will have responsibility for approving requests for access to information held on the central pupil database; [29373]

  (3) if it is her policy to destroy files on the central pupil database which relate to pupils who leave the state education system. [29370]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: The central pupil database will contain statistical profiles of pupils in England, built up over time from the "Pupil Level Annual Schools Census" (PLASC) returns which maintained schools will provide each January from January 2002, plus details of Key Stage assessment and examination results obtained separately from schools, marking agencies or examination boards. In order for these profiles to be accurate pupil names are needed to help ensure that all data relating to the same pupil are collated correctly.

  Access to the personal details of pupils

  The Department has no interest in the identity of individual pupils as such, and will be using the database solely for statistical purposes, with only technical staff directly engaged in the data collation process having access to pupil names.

  Any disclosures of personal data (ie data including names or other details that would enable the recipient to determine the identity of individual pupils) will have to comply with the Data Protection Act 1998 and any other legislation relevant to the particular case. Subject to this proviso, organisations or individuals who may have access to personal data are as follows:

  1. the pupil (or their parents or guardians) will be able to request a copy of their own record in order to confirm its accuracy;

  2. in the case of a child in local authority care, the local authority social services department will, as the child's "corporate parent", be able to obtain a copy of that child's record;

  3. schools and LEAs will be able to obtain information about their own pupils to which they have a statutory entitlement but may be missing (for example as a result of pupil mobility);

  4. requests from research organisations will be considered by the Secretary of State if, for a specific research project, pupil names are needed in order to link information from the central database with other information obtained by the research organisation via a separate survey;

  110W

  5. to minimise burdens on schools, for pupils approaching or above age 13, consideration is being given to the Connexions Service receiving from the central database (rather than from schools):

  (a) pupil names and any available contact details (information to which the Connexions Service has a statutory entitlement under section 117(1) of the Learning and Skills Act 2000);

  (b) other information held on the database if, and only if, the pupil or their parent (depending on the pupil's age) has not exercised their right under section 117(2) of the Learning and Skills Act to instruct that this information be withheld from the Connexions Service;

  (6) where there are legal proceedings to trace a child (for example in an abduction case) the court can require the Department to provide it with any information it has about the whereabouts of that child.

  Approval of requests for access to personal data

  No disclosures of personal data beyond those listed above are anticipated at this time. Should future developments indicate that further disclosures may be appropriate, these will be considered by the Secretary of State on their merits, subject to the overriding requirement to comply with the Data Protection Act and any other relevant legislation.

  With respect to (4) above, requests from research organisations, the precise arrangements for considering whether or not to approve such requests have yet to be decided. However the factors likely to be taken into account are:

  the bona fides of the research and the organisation undertaking it;

  a demonstrable need for information including pupil names (in many cases anonymised information may be sufficient);

  a willingness by the research organisation to take all reasonable steps to inform schools of the research and involve them in it;

  satisfactory assurances from the research organisation with regard to storing the information securely, using it only for the approved research purpose, disposing of it when that research has been completed, and not passing it on to any other person or organisation.

  In cases of doubt on any of these points, the Department would expect to err on the side of caution.

  Policy with respect to pupils leaving the state education system

  The Department does not intend to delete the records of pupils who leave the maintained schools sector, either at age 16 or 18, or before then. Information for these pupils remains of statistical and research value—for example to analyse young people's progression from school into further education and training, higher education and the labour market. The Department will be using information on past pupils for statistical and research purposes only, and any disclosures will be for

  111W
  those purposes only. On this basis section 33 of the Data Protection Act allows personal data to be retained indefinitely.

  Higher Education
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which constituencies have no higher education establishments within their boundaries. [29387]

  Margaret Hodge
  The available information, showing the number of HE institutions in each constituency in the UK, is contained in tables, copies of which have been placed in the Library. The tables only take into account the location of the main site of the institution; some institutions have more than one campus, which may be situated in a different constituency.

  Administration
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the administrative cost was of those functions of her Department concerned with schools in each year since 1997; and how much that sum represented per pupil. [29660]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 23 January 2002]: Since 1997, the Government's agenda for raising standards in schools has led to the introduction of many new policies, programmes and strategies. For example,

  Financial year

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  DFES further education administration costs (£000s)

  1,717

  1,471

  2,578

  1,763

  DFES administrative cost per full time equivalent FE students (£s)

  1.69

  1.48

  2.63

  1.69

  DfES higher education administrative costs (£000s)

  6,162

  8,358

  5,501

  6,358

  DfES administrative cost per full time equivalent HE student (£s)

  6.05

  8.17

  5.28

  5.98

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the administrative cost was of those functions of her Department concerned with early years in each year since 1997; and how much that sum represented per pupil child under five in the population. [29663]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 23 January 2002]: The estimated administrative costs of my Department concerned with early years and the sums that these represent per child under five in the population in each of the years in question were:

  Year

  Administrative costs (£000)

  Sum per child under five (£)

  1997–98

  612

  0.20

  1998–99

  1,018

  0.33

  1999–2000

  1,149

  0.38

  2000–01

  1,623

  0.54

  The increase in funding for these functions reflects this Government's manifesto commitment to expand the early years sector, helping create new provision and to extend support for existing provision. This has mostly been achieved by redeploying resources from other functions in DIES. In real terms the Department's overall administrative costs were broadly the same in 2000–01 as they were in 1997–98.
  112W
  the national literacy and numeracy strategies, working towards improved results at Key Stages 2 and 3, excellence in cities, along with modernising the teaching profession have all led to an increase in administrative spending on schools functions within the Department to ensure their effective delivery and continued success. However, this has mostly been achieved by redeploying resources from other functions in DfES. In real terms the Department's overall administrative costs were broadly the same in 2000–01 as they were in 1997–1998.

  Administrative costs for schools related functions, along with the sums that these represent per pupil, each year since 1997 were as follows:

  £ million

  £ per pupil

  1997–98

  23.4

  2.85

  1998–99

  27.0

  3.28

  1999–2000

  31.0

  3.73

  2000–01

  34.5

  4.14

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the administrative cost was of those functions of her Department concerned with(a) further and (b) higher education in each year since 1997; and how much those sums represented per full-term equivalent student. [29661]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 23 January 2002]: The figures are given in the table for the years in question:

  Adult Education
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the administrative cost was of those functions of her Department concerned with adult education and basic skills in each year since 1997; and how much that sum represented per adult in the population. [29662]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 23 January 2002]: The figures are set out in the table for the period 1998–99 to 2000–01. Figures prior to 1998–99 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. 'Adult Education' is interpreted as the local education authority secured adult education sector.

  Financial year

  DfES admin cost (£000)

  Cost per adult1(£)

  1998–99

  207

  0.01

  1999–2000

  351

  0.01

  2000–01

  351

  0.01

  1The administrative cost for each complete financial year divided by the adult (age 19+) resident population for England (from the Office for National Statistics) taken at the mid point of the calendar year which forms the first nine months of each financial year.

  113W

  Student Profiles
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the social class breakdown was in 2001 of students who(a) applied for and (b) were successful in obtaining places on degree courses at British universities in (i) law, (ii) medicine, (iii) engineering, (iv) nursing, (v) B Ed teaching, (vi) accountancy, (vii) veterinary studies and (viii) psychology; and what the percentage change in (A) applicants and (B) successful places has been since 1995, broken down by social class. [29690]

  Applicants 1and accepted applicants through UCAS to full-time and sandwich first-degree courses in the United Kingdom by social class and subject

  Social class

  Year of entry

  Professional

  Intermediate

  Skilled manual

  Skilled non-manual

  Partly skilled

  Unskilled

  Not known

  Grand total

  1995

  Applicants1

  Pre-clinical medicine

  3,489

  3,665

  879

  845

  554

  125

  490

  10,047

  Nursing

  594

  1,948

  1,066

  560

  526

  136

  560

  5,390

  Psychology

  3,726

  11,205

  4,806

  3,444

  2,303

  658

  2,991

  29,133

  Veterinary science

  348

  647

  136

  124

  62

  7

  57

  1,381

  Engineering2

  4,254

  9,544

  4,907

  2,809

  2,242

  467

  2,580

  26,803

  Law

  2,919

  7,598

  3,062

  2,259

  1,462

  480

  2,039

  19,819

  Accountancy

  1,171

  3,978

  2,216

  1,510

  1,064

  328

  1,192

  11,459

  Education3

  4,199

  16,010

  9,306

  5,338

  3,811

  1,002

  3,840

  43,506

  Accepted Applicants

  Pre-clinical medicine

  1,720

  1,571

  280

  341

  167

  29

  127

  4,235

  Nursing

  225

  596

  290

  171

  126

  31

  146

  1,585

  Psychology

  1,015

  2,671

  1,055

  782

  502

  136

  673

  6,834

  Veterinary science

  >145

  248

  27

  42

  10

  2

  8

  482

  Engineering2

  2,430

  5,034

  2,411

  1,432

  1,115

  240

  1,399

  14,061

  Law

  1,541

  3,570

  1,272

  965

  592

  166

  793

  8,899

  Accountancy

  424

  1,381

  731

  538

  354

  108

  390

  3,926

  Education3

  1,285

  4,605

  2,442

  1,513

  952

  214

  1,014

  12,025

  2001

  Applicants1

  Pre-clinical medicine

  2,805

  3,017

  690

  716

  351

  74

  1,003

  8,656

  Nursing

  538

  2,878

  1,221

  1,086

  1,222

  177

  1,560

  8,682

  Psychology

  2,969

  10,327

  4,176

  3,409

  2,143

  537

  3,179

  26,740

  Veterinary science

  394

  698

  161

  151

  71

  11

  131

  1,617

  Engineering2

  3,418

  8,277

  4,081

  2,393

  1,624

  378

  3,403

  23,574

  Law

  2,686

  7,693

  3,246

  2,584

  1,416

  476

  2,961

  21,062

  Accountancy

  1,000

  3,587

  1,943

  1,429

  850

  271

  1,479

  10,559

  Education3

  1,222

  5,912

  3,397

  2,438

  1,875

  352

  2,071

  17,267

  Accepted Applicants

  Pre-clinical medicine

  2,053

  2,037

  406

  439

  204

  36

  500

  5,675

  Nursing

  246

  1,349

  472

  431

  515

  58

  622

  3,693

  Psychology

  1,166

  3,981

  1,404

  1,305

  732

  164

  1,209

  9,961

  Veterinary science

  175

  290

  43

  48

  26

  1

  53

  636

  Engineering2

  2,058

  4,493

  2,047

  1,216

  841

  190

  1,749

  12,594

  Law

  1,731

  4,658

  1,781

  1,501

  747

  256

  1,686

  12,360

  Accountancy

  411

  1,413

  743

  649

  355

  103

  626

  4,300

  Education3

  530

  2,422

  1,320

  1,009

  777

  115

  792

  6,965

  Percentage change for applicants1and accepted applicants from 1995 to 2001

  Social class

  Year of entry

  Professional

  Intermediate

  Skilled manual

  Skilled non-manual

  Partly skilled

  Unskilled

  Not known

  Grand total

  2001

  Applicants1

  Pre-clinical medicine

  -20

  -18

  -22

  -15

  -37

  -41

  105

  -14

  Nursing

  -9

  48

  15

  94

  132

  30

  179

  61

  Psychology

  -20

  -8

  -13

  -1

  -7

  -18

  6

  -8

  Veterinary science

  13

  8

  18

  22

  15

  57

  130

  17

  Engineering2

  -20

  -13

  -17

  -15

  -28

  -19

  32

  -12

  114W
  Margaret Hodge
  Information for the years 1995 and 2001, and the percentage change, is shown in the tables. A change in the UCAS application system contributed to the decrease in applications between 1995 and 2001: in 1995 each applicant could make up to eight applications; but in 2001 each applicant could only make up to six applications.

  The Government are committed to raising the participation rates for people from less affluent family backgrounds, and have introduced Excellence Challenge, including the AimHigher campaign, which is targeted at raising attainment and aspirations among young people who traditionally would not consider going to university.
  115W

  Percentage Change for applicants1 accepted applicants from 1995 to 2001

  Social class

  Year of entry

  Professional

  Intermediate

  Skilled manual

  Skilled non-manual

  Partly skilled

  Unskilled

  Not known

  Grand total

  Law

  -8

  1

  6

  14

  -3

  -1

  45

  6

  Accountancy

  -15

  -10

  -12

  -5

  -20

  -17

  24

  -8

  Education3

  -71

  -63

  -63

  -54

  -51

  -65

  -46

  -60

  Accepted Applicants

  Pre-clinical medicine

  19

  30

  45

  29

  22

  24

  294

  34

  Nursing

  9

  126

  63

  152

  309

  87

  326

  133

  Psychology

  15

  49

  33

  67

  46

  21

  80

  46

  Veterinary science

  21

  17

  59

  14

  160

  -50

  563

  32

  Engineering2

  -15

  -11

  -15

  -15

  -25

  -21

  25

  -10

  Law

  12

  30

  40

  56

  26

  54

  113

  39

  Accountancy

  -3

  2

  2

  21

  0

  -5

  61

  10

  Education3

  -59

  -47

  -46

  -33

  -18

  -46

  -22

  -42

  1In 1995 each student could make up to eight applications; in 2001 each student could make up to 6 applications. In the tables, applicants are counted once under each subject to which they applied.

  2Includes general, civil, mechanical, aeronautical, electrical, electronic, production/manufacturing and chemical engineering courses.

  3Includes courses within the Education Group that lead to Qualified Teacher Status. In 1995, the Education group included all sports science, leisure studies and recreation management courses. Since 1997, these courses have been re-coded into other subject lines.

  Special Measures
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list(a) the name and corresponding local education authority of each school placed under special measures since May 1997 and (b) the duration for which they were under special measures. [29731]

  Mr. Timms
  I shall place in the Library a list of the names of schools which have been judged to require special measures since May 1997, together with their local education authority and the length of time they were in special measures. The list also includes a number of schools which were closed while in special measures.

  Financial Resources and Initiatives (Dorset)
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the financial resources and initiatives sponsored by her Department in the last 12 months for Dorset which are additional to the Government SSA grants. [29894]

  Mr. Timms
  The table shows the Department's allocated grants to Dorset local education authority in 2000–01 and 2001–02.

  £

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Standards Fund (revenue)

  7,369,622

  9,104,494

  Teachers Pay Reform Grant

  2,069,823

  2,699,397

  Nursery Education Grant (3-year-olds)

  395,024

  1,513,512

  Nursery Education Grant (4-year-olds)

  1,332,672

  —

  Early Years Training and Recruitment

  52,300

  231,024

  Early Years Special Education Needs Co-ordinators

  —

  33,691

  Childcare Grant

  373,700

  1,670,361

  School Standards Grant

  2,354,000

  4,866,000

  School Budget Support Grant

  343,176

  —

  Education Budget Support Grant

  —

  100,000

  Transitional Funding and Transitional Grant Insurance (former GM Schools)

  36,837

  4,742

  Capital Grant

  11,018,000

  9,061,000

  Note:

  Amounts are in cash terms. 2001–02 figures may be subject to change.
  116W
  Information on other support for projects in Dorset, provided outside the local government finance system, is not readily available.

  Direct Grants
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the direct grants for schools in north Lincolnshire and north-east Lincolnshire in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02. [29908]

  Mr. Timms
  The tables show School Standards Grant payable for each school in north Lincolnshire and northeast Lincolnshire in 2000–01 and 2001–02.

  School standards grant—north Lincolnshire LEA

  £

  School number

  School name

  2000–01

  2001–02

  1103

  Millbrook Holme PRU

  3,000

  7,000

  1105

  Young Parents Unit

  3,000

  0

  2001

  Westcliffe Primary School

  9,000

  24,000

  2100

  Alkborough Primary School

  3,000

  7,000

  2101

  Althorpe and Keadby Primary School

  9,000

  24,000

  2105

  Bottesford Junior School

  9,000

  24,000

  2106

  Brigg Primary School

  9,000

  30,000

  2107

  Broughton Infant School

  6,000

  13,500

  2108

  Burton-upon-Stather Primary School

  9,000

  24,000

  2115

  Crowle Primary School

  9,000

  24,000

  2116

  East Halton Primary School

  3,000

  7,000

  2118

  Goxhill Primary School

  9,000

  24,000

  2120

  Hibaldstow Primary School

  6,000

  13,500

  2121

  Kirton Lindsey Primary School

  9,000

  24,000

  2122

  Luddington and Garthorpe Primary School

  3,000

  7,000

  2123

  Messingham Primary School

  9,000

  24,000

  2125

  Killingholme Primary School

  6,000

  13,500

  2126

  Scawby Primary School

  9,000

  24,000

  2129

  Brumby Junior School

  9,000

  30,000

  2130

  Bushfield Road Infant School

  6,000

  13,500

  2133

  Frodingham Infant School

  9,000

  24,000

  2134

  Henderson Avenue Primary School

  9,000

  48,000

  2136

  Lincoln Gardens Junior School

  9,000

  24,000

  2137

  Lincoln Gardens Infant School

  9,000

  24,000

  2138

  South Ferriby Primary School

  3,000

  7,000

  2140

  Winteringham Primary School

  3,000

  7,000

  2141

  Worlaby Primary School

  3,000

  7,000

  2143

  Priory Lane Infant School

  6,000

  13,500

  2146

  Priory Lane Junior School

  9,000

  24,000

  2147

  Grange Lane Infant School

  9,000

  24,000

  2148

  Grange Lane Junior School

  9,000

  24,000

  2149

  Riddings Infant School

  9,000

  13,500

  2150

  Rochdale Road Junior School

  9,000

  24,000

  117W

  School standards grant—north Lincolnshire LEA

  School number

  School name

  2000 –01

  2001–02

  2152

  Riddings Junior School

  9,000

  2,400

  2155

  Enderby Road Infant School

  6,000

  7,000

  2159

  Leys Farm Junior School

  6,000

  13,500

  2168

  Parkwood Infant School

  6,000

  13,500

  2169

  Parkwood Junior School

  9,000

  24,000

  2171

  Sunway Infant School

  6,000

  13,500

  2172

  Berkeley Infant School

  9,000

  24,000

  2173

  Bottesford Infant School

  6,000

  24,000

  2174

  Berkeley Junior School

  9,000

  24,000

  2180

  Winterton Junior School

  9,000

  24,000

  2567

  Holme Valley Primary School

  6,000

  13,500

  2568

  Bowmandale Primary School

  9,000

  24,000

  2880

  Broughton Junior School

  9,000

  24,000

  2890

  Epworth Primary School

  9,000

  24,000

  2907

  Crosby Primary School

  9,000

  30,000

  2940

  Castledyke Primary School

  9,000

  24,000

  3055

  St. Barnabas CofE Primary School, Barnetby

  6,000

  13,500

  3056

  John Harrison CofE Primary School

  6,000

  13,500

  3057

  Barton St. Peter's CofE Primary School

  9,000

  24,000

  3058

  Belton All Saints CofE Primary School

  9,000

  24,000

  3063

  Gunness and Burringham CofE Primary School

  3,000

  7,000

  3064

  Haxey CofE Primary School

  6,000

  13,500

  3067

  Kirmington CofE Primary School

  3,000

  7,000

  3071

  Scunthorpe CofE Primary School

  9,000

  24,000

  3073

  West Butterwick CofE Primary School

  3,000

  7,000

  3074

  Westwoodside CofE Primary School

  6,000

  13,500

  3075

  Winterton CofE Infant School

  6,000

  24,000

  3076

  Wrawby St. Mary's CofE Primary School

  6,000

  13,500

  3077

  Wroot Travis Charity Church of England Primary School

  3,000

  7,000

  3078

  New Holland Church of England and Methodist Primary School

  3,000

  7,000

  3079

  Ulceby St. Nicholas Church of England Primary School

  6,000

  13,500

  3320

  St. Martin's CofE Primary School

  6,000

  7,000

  3322

  Wootton St. Andrew's CofE Primary School

  3,000

  7,000

  3323

  St. Mary's Catholic Primary School

  6,000

  13,500

  3324

  Saint Norbert's Catholic Primary School

  3,000

  7,000

  3325

  St. Bernadette's Catholic Primary School

  9,000

  24,000

  3326

  Saint Augustine Webster Catholic Primary School

  9,000

  30,000

  3330

  Eastoft Church of England Primary School

  3,000

  7,000

  4074

  Huntcliff School

  40,000

  70,000

  4075

  Brumby School

  40,000

  70,000

  4076

  Foxhills Comprehensive School

  40,000

  70,000

  4077

  Thomas Sumpter School

  40,000

  70,000

  4081

  South Leys School

  30,000

  58,000

  4082

  North Axholme School

  30,000

  58,000

  4083

  South Axholme Community School

  40,700

  70,000

  4087

  Frederick Gough School

  40,000

  70,000

  4088

  High Ridge School

  30,000

  58,000

  4090

  Winterton Comprehensive School

  40,000

  70,000

  4091

  Vale of Ancholme School

  30,000

  58,000

  4491

  Baysgarth School

  40,000

  70,000

  4501

  Sir John Nelthorpe School

  40,000

  70,000

  4700

  St. Bede's Catholic School

  40,000

  70,000

  7019

  St. Hugh's School,

  15,000

  28,000

  7020

  St. Luke's School

  15,000

  20,000

  School standard grant: north-east Lincolnshire LEA

  £

  School number

  School name

  2000–01

  2001–02

  1006

  Nunsthorpe Nursery School

  3,000

  7,000

  1007

  Great Coates Nursery School

  3,000

  7,000

  1012

  Scartho Nursery School

  3,000

  7,000

  1101

  Phoenix House

  3,000

  7,000

  1104

  Young Mothers Unit

  3,000

  7,000

  2000

  Allerton Primary School

  9,000

  24,000

  2001

  Yarborough Primary School

  9,000

  24,000

  2002

  Woodlands Primary School

  9,000

  24,000

  2003

  Nunsthorpe Community School

  0

  24,000

  2109

  William Barcroft Junior School

  9,000

  24,000

  118W

  School standard grant: north-east Lincolnshire LEA

  £

  School number

  School name

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2112

  Elliston Infants' School

  9,000

  24,000

  2113

  Queen Mary Infant School

  9,000

  24,000

  2114

  Reynolds Junior School

  9,000

  24,000

  2124

  New Waltham Primary School

  9,000

  24,000

  2142

  Thrunscoe Infants' School

  6,000

  13,500

  2144

  Pelham Infants' School

  6,000

  13,500

  2145

  Enfield (New Waltham) Primary School

  6,000

  13,500

  2151

  The Leas Junior School

  9,000

  24,000

  2153

  Thrunscoe Junior School

  6,000

  13,500

  2154

  Healing Primary School

  9,000

  24,000

  2175

  Signhills Infants' School

  9,000

  24,000

  2176

  Signhills Junior School

  9,000

  24,000

  2178

  Eastfield Junior School

  6,000

  13,500

  2179

  Eastfield Infants' School

  6,000

  13,500

  2181

  The Leas Infants' School

  9,000

  24,000

  2182

  Middlethorpe Primary School

  9,000

  24,000

  2183

  Reynolds Infants' School

  9,000

  24,000

  2184

  Elliston Junior School

  9,000

  24,000

  2877

  Coomb Briggs Primary School

  9,000

  24,000

  2892

  Weelsby Primary School

  9,000

  24,000

  2895

  Edward Heneage Primary School

  9,000

  24,000

  2896

  Fairfield Primary School

  9,000

  24,000

  2897

  Great Coates Primary School

  9,000

  24,000

  2898

  Springfield Primary School

  9,000

  24,000

  2899

  Western Primary School

  9,000

  24,000

  2900

  Willows Primary School

  9,000

  24,000

  2919

  Grange Infant and Nursery School

  9,000

  24,000

  2920

  Grange Junior School

  9,000

  24,000

  2921

  Macaulay Infants' School,

  9,000

  24,000

  2922

  Macaulay Junior School

  9,000

  24,000

  2923

  South Parade Infant School

  9,000

  24,000

  2924

  South Parade Junior School

  9,000

  24,000

  2925

  Strand Infants' School

  9,000

  13,500

  2926

  Strand Junior School

  9,000

  13,500

  2927

  Nunsthorpe Infants' School

  9,000

  0

  2928

  Nunsthorpe Junior School

  9,000

  0

  2929

  Scartho Infants' School

  6,000

  13,500

  2930

  Scartho Junior School

  9,000

  24,000

  2931

  Welholme Infants' School

  9,000

  24,000

  2932

  Welholme Junior School

  9,000

  24,000

  2933

  Wybers Wood Infant School

  6,000

  13,500

  2934

  Wybers Wood Junior School

  9,000

  24,000

  2935

  Old Clee Infants' School

  9,000

  24,000

  2936

  Old Clee Junior School

  9,000

  30,000

  2937

  Little Coates Primary School

  9,000

  13,500

  2938

  Laceby Acres Primary School

  9,000

  24,000

  2939

  Humberston Cloverfields Primary School

  9,000

  24,000

  2943

  Bursar Primary School

  9,000

  24,000

  3059

  St. Peter's CofE Primary School

  9,000

  24,000

  3060

  East Ravendale CofE Primary School

  6,000

  13,500

  3065

  The Humberston CofE Primary School

  9,000

  24,000

  3066

  Immingham St. Andrew's CofE Junior School

  6,000

  13,500

  3068

  Stanford Junior and Infant School

  9,000

  24,000

  3072

  Stallingborough CofE Primary School

  3,000

  7,000

  3300

  Lisle Marsden CofE Aided Primary School

  0

  30,000

  3512

  Lisle Marsden CofE (VA) Infant School

  9,000

  0

  3513

  Lisle Marsden CofE (VA) Junior School

  9,000

  0

  3514

  St. Joseph's RC Primary School

  6,000

  13,500

  3515

  St. Mary's RC Primary School

  9,000

  7,000

  4008

  Havelock School

  40,000

  70,000

  4009

  Hereford Technology School

  40,000

  70,000

  4011

  Whitgift School

  40,000

  70,000

  4013

  The Western Technology School

  40,000

  70,000

  4038

  Wintringham School

  40,000

  58,000

  4073

  The Immingham School

  40,000

  70,000

  4078

  Toll Bar School

  50,000

  82,000

  4084

  Healing Comprehensive School

  40,000

  70,000

  4086

  The Lindsey School and Community Arts College

  50,000

  82,000

  4092

  Humberston Comprehensive School

  40,000

  70,000

  4503

  Matthew Humberstone Church of England School

  50,000

  82,000

  4627

  St. Mary's Catholic School

  30,000

  58,000

  7011

  Humberston Park School

  15,000

  20,000

  7033

  Cambridge Park School

  15,000

  28,000

  119W

  Standards Funds
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the Standards Funds received by schools in north Lincolnshire and north-east Lincolnshire for the years(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–20. [29909]

  Mr. Timms
  The table shows allocations for the Standards Fund for north Lincolnshire and north-east Lincolnshire local education authorities in 2000–01 and 2001–02. The figures include both Government and local authority contributions. The amount actually paid to schools depends on local expenditure decisions by schools and the local authority.

  Standards Fund allocations

  £

  North Lincolnshire council: 2000–01

  Administrative Support for Small Schools

  263,315

  Beacon Schools

  35,300

  Best Practice Research Scholarships

  2,998

  Class Size Initiative

  1,214,276

  Devolved Formula Capital for Schools

  1,155,991

  Early Years Training and Development

  42,186

  Education and Health Partnerships

  42,401

  Ethnic Minority Pupils and Traveller Achievement

  281,121

  Key Stage 3 Numeracy: Secondary Schools Conference

  10,196

  Literacy and Numeracy: Summer Schools and Key Stage 3

  110,000

  National Grid for Learning

  815,218

  New National Curriculum

  65,100

  Performance Management Training

  149,694

  Primary Literacy and Numeracy Strategies

  525,243

  Protecting Local Authority Music Services

  190,000

  Qualifications

  37,481

  School Improvement

  941,482

  School Laboratories for the 21st Century

  127,660

  School Leadership

  110,213

  School Security

  76,870

  Secondary School Learning Support Units

  51,723

  Seed Capital Challenge

  130,270

  Small School Support Fund

  84,663

  Social Inclusion, Drugs and Youth

  403,017

  Special Educational Needs

  213,338

  Specialist Schools

  280,418

  Study Support

  50,710

  Summer Schools for Gifted and Talented Pupils

  27,000

  Support for Parent Governor Representatives

  1,200

  Supported Early Retirement Scheme for Heads

  34,702

  Teacher Incentives

  13,375

  Teaching Assistants

  432,314

  Transforming Key Stage 3

  708,500

  Working Environment Fund

  67,852

  Year 6 Literacy and Numeracy Booster Classes

  143,180

  Total

  8,839,007

  North Lincolnshire council: 2001–02

  Advanced Skills Teachers

  99,500

  Beacon Schools

  64,700

  Children in Public Care

  21,908

  Class Size Initiative

  788,758

  Devolved Capital

  1,481,065

  Drugs, Alcohol and Tobacco

  57,310

  Early Years Training and Development

  37,365

  Education Health Partnerships

  29,718

  Ethnic Minority Achievement

  281,121

  Induction of Newly Qualified Teachers

  153,788

  Information Management Strategy

  104,787

  Key Stage 3 Strategy

  633,140

  Learning Support Units

  111,916

  Literacy and Numeracy Summer Schools

  140,000

  Local Education Authority Music Services

  190,000

  National Curriculum

  64,814

  National Grid for Learning

  876,804

  NDS Condition Funding

  757,823

  Performance Management

  89,173

  120W

  Standards Fund allocations

  £

  Primary Literacy and Numeracy Strategies

  568,392

  Qualifications

  13,069

  School Achievement Awards

  181,520

  School Improvement

  742,000

  School Laboratories

  144,809

  School Leadership

  150,731

  School Security

  76,844

  Seed Capital Challenge

  141,185

  Sick Children

  6,259

  Small Schools Fund

  336,606

  Social Inclusion: Pupil Support

  437,100

  Special Educational Needs

  228,472

  Specialist Schools

  301,427

  Study Support

  186,354

  Summer Schools for Gifted and Talented Children

  18,000

  Supported Early Retirement Scheme for Heads

  40,000

  Teaching Assistants

  650,329

  Year 6 Booster Classes

  156,544

  Year 9 Booster Classes

  4,500

  Total

  10,367,831

  North-East Lincolnshire council: 2000–01

  Administrative Support for Small Schools

  136,924

  Advanced Skills Teachers

  105,000

  Beacon Schools

  10,000

  Best Practice Research Scholarships

  25,415

  Class Size Initiative

  1,207,193

  Developing and Extending Maintained Nursery School Services

  37,009

  Devolved Formula Capital for Schools

  1,208,164

  Early Excellence Centres

  212,128

  Early Years Training and Development

  41,796

  Education and Health partnerships

  29,043

  Ethnic Minority Pupils and Traveller Achievement

  43,476

  Key Stage 3 Numeracy: Secondary Schools Conference

  9,558

  Literacy and Numeracy: Summer Schools and Key Stage 3

  110,000

  Local Authority Music Services

  309,000

  Maintained Nursery Capital

  15,317

  National Grid for Learning

  767,268

  New National Curriculum

  66,800

  Nursery Capital: Wrap-around Care

  60,295

  Performance Management Training

  138,166

  Pilot Education Maintenance Allowance

  480,103

  Playing for Success

  100,000

  Primary Literacy and Numeracy Strategies

  546,906

  Qualifications

  39,460

  School Improvement

  1,112,357

  School Laboratories for the 21 st Century

  132,684

  School Leadership

  106,413

  School Security

  79,479

  Secondary School Learning Support Units

  67,572

  Seed Capital Challenge

  138,120

  Small School Support Fund

  47,758

  Social Inclusion, Drugs and Youth

  614,430

  Special Educational Needs

  299,809

  Specialist Schools

  375,380

  Study Support

  95,343

  Summer Schools for Gifted and Talented Pupils

  18,000

  Support for Parent Governor Representatives

  1,200

  Teaching Assistants

  495,318

  Teenage Pregnancies

  68,400

  Working Environment Fund

  66,606

  Year 6 Literacy and Numeracy Booster Classes

  155,129

  Total

  9,573,019

  North-East Lincolnshire council: 2001–02

  Adult: Pupil Ratios in Reception Classes

  173,396

  Advanced Skills Teachers

  110,000

  Beacon Schools

  122,000

  Children in Public Care

  27,881

  Class Size Initiative

  699,104

  Devolved Capital

  979,884

  Drugs, Alcohol and Tobacco

  48,490

  Early Excellence Centres

  470,531

  Early Years Training and Development

  34,609

  Education Health Partnerships

  28,609

  121W

  Standards Fund allocations

  £

  Ethnic Minority Achievement

  43,476

  Fresh Start

  393,800

  Induction of Newly Qualified Teachers

  262,600

  Information Management Strategy

  106,607

  Key Stage 3: National Implementation

  248,283

  Learning Support Units

  131,666

  Literacy and Numeracy Summer Schools

  70,000

  Local Education Authority Music Services

  309,000

  Maintained Nursery School Service

  37,546

  National Curriculum

  65,813

  National Grid for Learning

  847,023

  NDS Condition Funding

  1,351,460

  Performance Management

  95,561

  Playing for Success

  100,000

  Primary Literacy and Numeracy Strategies

  590,585

  Qualifications

  11,202

  School Achievement Awards

  255,850

  School Improvement

  897,000

  School Laboratories

  132,684

  School Leadership

  80,859

  School Security

  78,179

  Seed Capital Challenge

  150,835

  Sick Children

  7,966

  Small Schools Fund

  160,289

  Social Inclusion

  764,800

  Standards Fund allocations for Hampshire county council

  £

  Total allocation

  DfES contribution

  2000–01

  Administrative Support for Small Schools

  608,000

  304,000

  Advanced Skills Teachers

  136,500

  68,250

  Beacon Schools

  341,450

  341,450

  Best Practice Research Scholarships

  75,675

  75,675

  Class Size Initiative

  4,245,393

  4,245,393

  Developing and Extending Maintained Nursery School Services

  24,945

  24,945

  Devolved Formula Capital for Schools

  7,605,169

  7,605,169

  Early Excellence Centres

  98,228

  98,228

  Early Years Training and Development

  303,077

  151,539

  Education and Health Partnerships

  97,995

  97,995

  Ethnic Minority Pupils and Traveller Achievement

  397,838

  230,746

  Key Stage 3 Numeracy: Secondary Schools Conference

  61,812

  30,906

  Literacy and Numeracy: Summer Schools and Key Stage 3

  176,000

  88,000

  Local Education Authority Music Services

  1,085,380

  882,190

  Maintained Nursery Capital

  11,613

  11,613

  National Grid for Learning

  3,858,095

  1,929,048

  New Models for LEA Services

  45,000

  45,000

  New National Curriculum

  431,400

  215,700

  Performance Management Training

  907,454

  725,963

  Primary Literacy and Numeracy Strategies

  2,792,848

  1,790,773

  Qualifications

  197,363

  98,682

  School Improvement

  7,239,927

  3,619,964

  School Laboratories for the 21st Century

  550,813

  550,813

  School Leadership

  449,904

  349,952

  School Security

  510,545

  382,909

  Secondary School Learning Support Units

  239,741

  239,741

  Seed Capital Challenge

  593,728

  593,728

  Small School Support Fund

  440,681

  220,341

  Social Inclusion, Drugs and Youth

  1,776,297

  888,149

  Special Educational Needs

  741,547

  370,774

  Specialist Schools

  756,016

  756,016

  Study Support

  160,640

  80,320

  Summer Schools for Gifted and Talented Pupils

  63,000

  63,000

  Support for Parent Governor Representatives

  1,200

  1,200

  Supported Early Retirement Scheme for Heads

  180,399

  90,200

  Teacher Incentives

  82,555

  82,555

  Teaching Assistants

  2,806,098

  2,525,488

  Working Environment Fund

  485,925

  485,925

  Year 6 Literacy and Numeracy Booster Classes

  873,277

  873,277

  Total

  41,453,528

  31,235,617

  122W

  Standards Fund allocations

  £

  Special Educational Needs

  290,761

  Specialist Schools

  297,606

  Study Support

  204,534

  Summer Schools for Gifted and Talented Children

  18,000

  Supported Early Retirement Scheme for Heads

  40,000

  Teacher Recruitment Measures (Golden Hellos)

  30,762,

  Teaching Assistants

  758,026

  Teenage Preganancies

  68,400

  Year 6 Booster Classes

  163,577

  Year 9 Booster Classes

  54,000

  Total

  11,813,254

  Mr.Hoban
  To ask the secretary of state for Education and Skill pursuant tot the answer of 21 January 2002 official Report column 587 – 89W, on Standard Funds if she will list the amounts contributed by the Government to the Standard Funds(a) 2000 – 01 and (b) 2001 – 02 [30560]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 25 January 2002]: The table show allocation for the Standard Funds for Hampshire local education authority in 2000 – 01 and 2001 – 02 and the Government's contribution.
  123W

  Standards Fund allocations for Hampshire country council

  £

  Total allocation

  DfES contribution

  2001–02

  Advanced Skills Teachers

  697,500

  369,675

  Beacon Schools

  643,150

  643,150

  Child Protection Co-ordinators

  39,600

  39,600

  Children in Public Care

  136,330

  72,255

  Children of Asylum Seekers

  1,000

  1,000

  Class Size Initiative

  5,520,194

  5,520,194

  Devolved Formula Capital for Schools

  11,928,266

  11,928,266

  Drugs, Alcohol and Tobacco

  275,510

  186,628

  Early Excellence Centres

  89,030

  89,030

  Early Professional Development

  950,400

  950,400

  Early Years Training and Development

  350,537

  185,785

  Education Health Partnerships,

  86,634

  86,634

  Ethnic Minority Achievement

  250,513

  132,772

  Gifted and Talented Children

  72,000

  72,000

  Induction of Newly Qualified Teachers

  1,478,967

  783,853

  Information Management Strategy

  691,163

  691,163

  Learning Support Units

  640,155

  640,155

  Literacy and Numeracy Summer Schools

  420,000

  222,600

  Local Education Authority Music Services

  882,200

  882,200

  Maintained Nursery School Service

  53,663

  53,663

  National Curriculum

  427,613

  226,635

  National Grid for Learning

  5,595,910

  2,965,832

  NDS Condition Funding

  7,824,772

  7,824,772

  New Models for Local Education Authority Services

  100,000

  100,000

  Performance Management

  624,554

  624,554

  Primary Literacy and Numeracy Strategies

  3,279,526

  2,315,979

  Qualifications

  66,279

  35,128

  Recruitment and Retention Fund

  1,652,000

  1,652,000

  School Achievement Awards

  1,254,260

  1,254,260

  School Improvement

  4,528,000

  2,402,190

  School Laboratories

  1,101,626

  1,101,626

  School Leadership

  721,262

  612,672

  School Security

  506,853

  268,632

  Seed Capital Challenge

  687,914

  687,914

  Sick Children

  38,951

  38,951

  Small Schools Fund

  1,739,130

  921,739

  Social Inclusion: Pupil Support

  1,768,300

  937,199

  Special Educational Needs

  1,421,726

  753,515

  Specialist Schools

  854,715

  854,715

  Study Support

  1,302,976

  690,577

  Supported Early Retirement Scheme for Heads

  240,000

  127,200

  Teaching Assistants

  4,184,795

  2,217,941

  Transforming Key Stage 3

  918,789

  486,958

  Traveller Children Achievement

  177,231

  93,932

  Year 6 Literacy and Numeracy Booster Classes

  975,740

  975,740

  Year 9 Booster Classes

  319,500

  319,500

  Total

  67,519,234

  54,041,184

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of state for Education and Skills what the average(a) class size and (b) pupil: teacher ratio in (i) primary schools and

  Pupil:teacher ratio in primary and secondary schools—Position in January each year

  Yeovil constituency

  Somerset LEA

  England

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  2001

  23.3

  18.7

  22.9

  18.5

  22.9

  17.1

  2000

  23.9

  19.5

  23.7

  18.6

  23.3

  17.2

  1999

  24.3

  19.3

  24.3

  18.4

  23.5

  17.0

  1998

  24.1

  18.3

  23.9

  18.1

  23.7

  16.9

  1997

  23.6

  17.7

  23.5

  18.0

  23.4

  16.7

  1996

  1—

  1—

  23.2

  18.0

  23.2

  16.6

  1995

  1—

  1—

  22.6

  17.0

  22.9

  16.5

  1994

  1—

  1—

  22.6

  16.6

  22.7

  16.4

  124W
  (ii) secondary schools in (A) Yeovil constituency, (B) Somerset and (C) England was in each year from 1980 to 2001; and if he will make a statement. [30017]

  Mr. Timms
  The available information is shown in the following tables:
  125W

  Pupil: teacher ratio in primary and secondary schools—Position in January each year

  Yeovil constituency

  Somerset LEA

  England

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  1993

  1—

  1—

  22.5

  16.3

  22.4

  16.1

  1992

  1—

  1—

  22.3

  16.0

  22.2

  15.8

  1991

  1—

  1—

  22.1

  15.7

  22.2

  15.5

  1990

  1—

  1—

  22.2

  15.5

  22.0

  15.3

  1989

  1—

  1—

  22.8

  15.8

  22.0

  15.3

  1988

  1—

  1—

  23.1

  16.3

  22.0

  15.4

  1987

  1—

  1—

  22.9

  16.7

  21.9

  15.6

  1986

  1—

  1—

  23.9

  17.4

  22.1

  15.9

  1985

  1—

  1—

  24.2

  17.6

  22.2

  16.1

  1984

  1—

  1—

  23.8

  17.6

  22.1

  16.2

  1983

  1—

  1—

  24.6

  18.3

  22.3

  16.5

  1982

  1—

  1—

  24.7

  18.5

  22.5

  16.6

  1981

  1—

  1—

  24.7

  18.3

  22.6

  16.6

  1980

  1—

  1—

  24.7

  18.4

  22.7

  16.6

  1Not available

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census

  Average class size in primary and secondary schools1—Position in January each year

  Yeovil constituency

  Somerset LEA

  England

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  2001

  27.0

  24.1

  26.9

  23.9

  26.7

  22.0

  2000

  27.7

  24.8

  27.6

  23.6

  27.1

  22.0

  1999

  27.8

  24.1

  28.0

  23.9

  27.5

  21.9

  1998

  27.6

  24.2

  27.8

  23.9

  27.7

  21.7

  1997

  27.0

  23.2

  27.6

  23.2

  27.5

  21.7

  1996

  2—

  2—

  27.3

  23.2

  27.3

  21.7

  1995

  2—

  2—

  27.0

  22.5

  27.1

  21.5

  1994

  2—

  2—

  26.9

  22.1

  26.9

  21.4

  1993

  2—

  2—

  27.0

  22.5

  26.6

  20.9

  1992

  2—

  2—

  26.8

  21.4

  26.4

  20.6

  1991

  2—

  2—

  26.5

  21.4

  26.3

  20.3

  1990

  2—

  2—

  26.3

  20.7

  25.9

  20.0

  1989

  2—

  2—

  26.3

  21.0

  25.4

  19.9

  1988

  2—

  2—

  26.8

  20.7

  25.4

  19.9

  1987

  2—

  2—

  26.4

  21.4

  25.4

  21.7

  1986

  2—

  2—

  27.1

  21.9

  25.5

  20.3

  1985

  2—

  2—

  27.2

  22.2

  24.9

  20.4

  1984

  2—

  2—

  26.6

  22.0

  24.7

  20.4

  1983

  2—

  2—

  27.1

  22.2

  24.8

  20.6

  1982

  2—

  2—

  27.3

  22.8

  25.1

  20.7

  1981

  2—

  2—

  27.2

  22.5

  25.2

  20.8

  1980

  2—

  2—

  27.5

  22.6

  25.4

  20.9

  1One teacher classes

  2Not available

  Note:

  Data at parliamentary constituency level are not available prior to 1997

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census

  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average pupil: teacher ratios for(a) primary and (b) secondary schools were for each of the shire counties in the last year for which figures are available. [30141]

  Mr. Timms
  The figures for pupil: teacher ratios in primary and secondary schools in shire counties are shown in the table.

  Maintained primary and secondary schools pupil: teacher rations by type of school in each shire county in England

  Pupil: teacher ratios

  January 2001

  Primary

  Secondary

  Bedfordshire

  22.9

  18.8

  Buckinghamshire

  22.8

  18.3

  126W

  Maintained primary an secondary schools pupil: teacher rations by type of school in each shire county in England

  Pupil: teacher ratios

  January 2001

  Primary

  Secondary

  Cambridgeshire

  24.1

  18.7

  Cheshire

  22.9

  16.9

  Cornwall

  22.9

  18.0

  Cumbria

  22.0

  16.8

  Derbyshire

  24.2

  17.5

  Devon

  23.1

  17.7

  Dorset

  22.7

  18.5

  Durham

  22.2

  17.2

  East Sussex

  22.7

  17.1

  Essex

  22.9

  17.5

  Gloucestershire

  22.3

  17.2

  Hampshire

  23.0

  17.6

  Hertfordshire

  23.0

  16.7

  127W

  Maintained primary and secondary schools pupil: teacher ratios by type of school in each shire county in England

  Pupil: teacher ratios

  January 2001

  Primary

  Secondary

  Kent

  23.4

  17.4

  Lancashire

  23.6

  16.9

  Leicestershire

  23.2

  17.8

  Lincolnshire

  23.9

  17.2

  Norfolk

  22.1

  16.9

  North Yorkshire

  22.5

  16.6

  Northamptonshire

  22.9

  17.4

  Northumberland

  22.8

  18.6

  Nottinghamshire

  24.0

  17.6

  Oxfordshire

  22.3

  17.8

  Shropshire

  22.8

  17.3

  Somerset

  22.9

  18.5

  Staffordshire

  23.7

  17.6

  Suffolk

  22.0

  17.1

  Surrey

  22.8

  17.6

  Warwickshire

  23.0

  17.2

  West Sussex

  22.5

  17.0

  Wiltshire

  22.8

  17.5

  Worcestershire

  22.9

  18.3

  England

  22.9

  17.1

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census

  Pupil Referral and Learning Support Units
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 8 January 2002,Official Report, column 713W, on pupil referral and learning support units, how many people are employed in the Home Tuition and Hospital Teaching Service. [30102]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Buckinghamshire local education authority (LEA) have a combined hospital and home teaching service which employs one full-time hospital teacher, a part-time learning support assistant and supply teachers depending on demand. Home teachers are employed on a sessional basis as and when required. These staff are managed by, but not part of, the PRU service.

  Early Learning Places
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 5 December 2001,Official Report,column 415W, how many new free part-time early learning places will be made available in the Buckingham constituency. [30124]

  Margaret Hodge
  On 2 January 2002, Baroness Ashton announced details of £275 million of funding available in 2002–03 for the provision of free, part-time, early education places for 3-year-olds. Buckingham local education authority has been allocated £3.8 million of this funding to provide 3,100 free, part-time, early education places.

  Pupil Achievement
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of pupils achieved Level 5 or above at Key Stage 3(a) in England and (b) from schools based in the Buckingham constituency in each year since 1997. [30048]
  128W
  Mr. Timms
  The percentage of pupils achieving Level 5 or above at Key Stage 3(a) in England and (b) from schools based in the Buckingham constituency in each year since 1997 are as follows:

  Percentage

  Buckingham

  England

  English

  20011

  79

  64

  2000

  72

  64

  1999

  75

  64

  1998

  78

  65

  1997

  72

  57

  Mathematics

  20011

  75

  66

  2000

  78

  65

  1999

  73

  62

  1998

  73

  59

  1997

  72

  60

  Science

  20011

  76

  66

  2000

  68

  59

  1999

  69

  55

  1998

  70

  56

  1997

  71

  60

  1Provisional

  Source:

  National Curriculum Results

  2001 SFR40/2001—National Curriculum Assessments of 7, 11 and 14-year-olds 2001

  1997–2000 Statistical Bulletins

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of pupils achieved Level 2 or above at Key Stage 1(a) in England and (b) from schools based in the Buckingham constituency in each year since 1997. [30049]

  Mr. Timms
  The percentage of pupils achieving Level 2 or above at Key Stage 1(a) in England and (b) from schools based in the Buckingham constituency in each year since 1997 are as follows:

  Percentage

  Buckingham

  England

  Reading

  20011

  90

  84

  2000

  93

  83

  1999

  91

  82

  1998

  87

  80

  1997

  89

  80

  Writing

  20011

  92

  86

  2000

  93

  84

  1999

  93

  83

  1998

  88

  81

  1997

  90

  80

  Spelling

  20011

  83

  75

  2000

  83

  72

  1999

  80

  71

  1998

  73

  66

  1997

  70

  62

  Mathematics

  20011

  96

  91

  2000

  96

  90

  1999

  93

  87

  129W

  Percentage

  Buckingham

  England

  1998

  89

  84

  1997

  92

  84

  1Provisional

  Source:

  National Curriculum Results

  2001 SFR40/2001—National Curriculum Assessments of 7, 11 and 14-year-olds 2001

  1997–2000 Statistical Bulletins

  Departmental Expenditure (Publications)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her estimate is of the expenditure of her Department on newspapers, magazines and periodicals in each of the last four years. [30090]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The following figures cover the purchase of books as well as newspapers, magazines and periodicals. It is not possible to separate these costs further without disproportionate expense.

  Financial year

  £000

  1997–98

  209

  1998–99

  173

  1999–2000

  274

  2000–01

  269

  Assaults on Teachers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 19 December 2001,Official Report,column 402W, how many assaults there were on teachers in each LEA in each year since 1997. [30125]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department does not collect this information from local education authorities.

  Education Spending (Portsmouth)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the Portsmouth local education authority spending on education(a) above SSA per pupil for the primary and secondary sectors, (b) in total for 1990–91 to 2001–02 and (c) projected for the financial year 2002–03, adjusted for inflation at current values; and if she will make a statement. [30279]

  Mr. Timms
  Portsmouth local education authority did not exist as an LEA until 1997–98. The information for Portsmouth LEA is as follows:

  Real terms figures1

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  NCE per pupil

  Pre-pri/Primary

  2,180

  2,290

  2,460

  Secondary

  2,820

  2,860

  3,030

  Total

  2,410

  2,500

  2,680

  SSA per pupil

  Pre-pri/Primary

  2,110

  2,340

  2,460

  Secondary

  3,070

  3,120

  3,120

  Total

  2,460

  2,630

  2,710

  1Rounded to the nearest £10

  130W
  Notes:

  1. Figures for 1997–98 and 1998–99 include grant maintained schools. Figures for 1999–2000 include ex-GM schools.

  2. All figures are in real terms at 2000–01 prices, and rounded to the nearest £10.

  3. Portsmouth came into being as a result of an LEA reorganisation in 1997–98. It did not exist as a separate LEA but was part of Hampshire LEA prior to 1997–98.

  4. Expenditure is given by Net Current Expenditure (NCE) after recharges.

  5. Expenditure data for 1990–2000 is taken from section 52 outturn statements completed by local education authorities and returned to the DfES. Data for all previous years is taken from DTLR's Revenue Outturn returns.

  6. SSA figures implicitly cover funding for special schools, and there is no split available for special schools. The NCE figures provided here are for pre-primary and secondary only. Hence the two sets of figures are not comparable.

  7. Pupil numbers used in calculating per pupil figures are financial year averages, based on January Annual School Census returns.

  Information for 2000–01 and 2001–02 is not yet available and as a result it is not possible to arrive at a projection for 2002–03.

  Teachers (Returners' Bonus)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much money has been allocated for returners' bonuses for people returning to the teaching profession. [30280]

  Mr. Timms
  The allocation for the current financial year is £4.034 million.

  Standard Spending Assessment (Swindon)
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what Swindon's SSA per pupil for (i) post-16 and (ii) four-year-olds was for 1997–98 to 2002–03; and what the average figures for England were for those years. [30292]

  Mr. Timms
  The post-16 SSA and four-year-old SSA cannot be expressed meaningfully as a per pupil amount because education for those groups is not compulsory and a large part of the SSA for these sub-blocks is determined on factors other than pupil numbers.

  Student Financing
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will compensate students and former students who started their degrees in the years 1998 to 2002, if the review of student financing results in a significantly decreased debt burden for students starting their courses after 2003. [30368]

  Margaret Hodge
  No decision has been taken on the outcome of the student funding review. It is not usual practice, however, for the Government to apply any policy changes retrospectively.

  School Transport
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when the study of post-16 school transport arrangements was completed; what indications it gave as to the number of education authorities which charge for transport to school for 16 to 19-year-olds; and what action she has taken as a result of the study. [30392]
  131W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The fieldwork for the study into post-16 transport support was completed in November 2001. We are awaiting the consultants' report. Their initial findings suggest that most LEAs charge for transport for students aged 16 and over, although free transport remains available to some, e.g. students assessed as disabled. Charges for transport vary between LEAs.

  In order to make improvements to transport support for students aged 16 to 19, we have introduced a clause in the current Education Bill to revise section 509 of the 1996 Education Act and clarify the duty on LEAs so that they work with the local LSCs, colleges and others, in developing and delivering policies for support.

  We are also making £9 million available to LEAs in 2002–03 to help them to develop and test the best approaches to transport support. Information about these developments will reach LEAs in February 2002.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what deregulatory measures have been taken by the DFEE and the DFES in each of the last five years. [30441]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 25 January 2002]: The information required is not held centrally, and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The Government will very shortly he publishing their Regulatory Reform Action Plan, which includes some deregulatory measures as well as proposals for better regulation and reform.

  Coalfield Areas
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to extend education maintenance allowances to each English coalfield area. [30526]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We have no such plans at present. We will he taking decisions on any future extension of the scheme on the basis of the rigorous evaluation, which is currently being conducted.

  Golden Jubilee
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans there are to give school children a commemorative mug to mark the Queen's Golden Jubilee. [30753]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We have no plans to give school children a commemorative Jubilee mug. However, as I have commented in previous answers to such questions, the Department is involved in a range of projects to mark Her Majesty's Golden Jubilee. Last October, we announced jointly with Buckingham Palace a national poetry competition and in December, my colleague the Secretary of State for Education and Skills announced that the National Training Awards 2002 would include a special Jubilee category to mark exceptionally effective contributions to the community by individuals and organisations.
  132W
  My Department will shortly be posting information for schools and others about its various Jubilee activities on its website.

  School Closures
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) primary and (b) secondary schools have closed since 1997. [31063]

  Mr. Timms
  Schools that closed in England during the period 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2001 were as follows:

  (a) Primary—924

  (b) Secondary—197.

  The figures include schools that have closed owing to the amalgamation or merger of two or more schools, and schools that have closed in local education authorities that have moved from a three-tier system to a two-tier system.

  School Pupils (Extended Holidays)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what(a) legislation and (b) guidance requires a head teacher to take off a school's roll pupils taking extended holidays outside the United Kingdom; and what time limits apply to a head teacher keeping open a place for such pupils. [31092]

  Mr. Timms
  The Education (Pupil Registration) Regulations 1995 outline the circumstances under which a head teacher shall remove a pupil from the school roll. "Social Inclusion: Pupil Support" circular number 10/99 Annexe A provides guidance on holidays during term time.

  Examination Boards
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent communications she has had from(a) the Edexcel examination board and (b) the QCA about (i) that board's history A-level (syllabus code 9267) marking in 2001, (ii) that board's handling of parents' and examinees' complaints about examination marking and administration and (iii) that board's handling of schools' complaints about examination marking and administration. [31093]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had no communications from Edexcel or QCA about History A-level (syllabus code 9267) marking in 2001. The QCA is responsible for maintaining all awarding bodies' performance in the delivery of examinations. The authority will be publishing its audit of Edexcel's performance in the delivery of general qualifications in 2001 in the near future.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many complaints and appeals were lodged with the Edexcel examinations board relating to the A-level history (syllabus code 9267) examination in each of the last five years. [31095]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I am advised that the number of complaints and appeals lodged with Edexcel relating to the A-level history (syllabus code 9267) in each of the last five years was as follows.
  133W

  Year

  Number

  Complaints

  1997

  5

  1998

  2

  1999

  8

  2000

  9

  2001

  6

  Appeals

  Stage 1 inquiries

  1997

  1—

  1998

  6

  1999

  8

  2000

  3

  2001

  6

  Stage 2 appeals hearings

  1997

  0

  1998

  21

  1999

  0

  2000

  21

  2001

  31

  1No information.

  2Not upheld

  3Pending

  Source:

  These figures have been provided by the Edexcel Foundation

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what performance targets she sets and performance standards she expects of examination boards; when they were last reviewed; and what monitoring procedures are in place. [31096]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Government introduced statutory arrangements in 1997 to regulate external qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Details of how the regulatory authorities ensure quality and consistent standards are contained in the document: "Arrangements for the statutory regulation of external qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland" (published 2000).

  Awarding body procedures are governed by codes of practice, issued by the regulatory authorities. General codes of practice are supplemented by codes for each qualification type. All are reviewed regularly.

  To support further improvements in awarding body performance, the regulatory authorities plan to publish specific performance targets, building on proposals in the Curriculum 2000 review report.

  The regulatory authorities' regular monitoring of awarding bodies includes: audits of their management and systems of quality assurance and control; detailed scrutinies of individual subjects and the way these are managed; and an extensive programme to monitor compliance with the codes of practice.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average time taken by each examination board to handle appeals and requests for re-marking was in the last 12 months. [31097]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority has set targets for the awarding bodies to meet all requests for remarking and appeals and QCA monitors annually the awarding bodies' performance against the targets. The data for 2001 are not available at this stage, as the remarking and appeals process is not yet complete.
  134W

  FE Colleges
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the implications for FE colleges of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [31117]

  John Healey
  The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 1995 exempted educational institutions from its provisions. The DDA was amended by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 to include all FE sector colleges within its provisions.

  The Government intend to implement the new duties in three stages:
  From 1 September 2002 it will be unlawful for FE colleges to discriminate against disabled students by treating them less favourably than others. In addition, FE colleges will have a duty to provide reasonable adjustments to provision where disabled students might otherwise be substantially disadvantaged.
  From 1 September 2003 FE colleges will have a duty to make adjustments involving the provision of auxiliary aids and services.
  From 1 September 2005 FE colleges will have a duty to make adjustments to physical features of premises where these put disabled students at a substantial disadvantage.

  Colleges will be supported in implementing the new duties by additional funding, guidance and support made available through the Disability Rights Commission, the Learning and Skills Council, and the Department for Education and Skills. £66 million has been allocated over the years 2002–04.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to change the proportion of own resources further education colleges have to find for large capital projects. [31118]

  John Healey
  Funding for large further education capital projects is provided by the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) and it is a matter for the LSC what percentage of the cost of a project has to be found by the college itself.

  The percentage varies according to the circumstances and type of application which the college makes to the LSC and in some instances colleges are not required to use any of their own resources.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will review the levels of auditing and evaluation to which FE is subject to. [31119]

  John Healey
  The Department is committed to reducing the burdens faced by the FE sector. In consultation with the Department for Education and Skills, the Learning and Skills Council is reviewing the audit burden on FE colleges and the LSC is drawing up measures to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy. John Harwood, Chief Executive of the Learning and Skills Council, recently announced the setting up of a task force headed by Sir George Sweeney, Principal of Knowsley college, to carry out a national inquiry into bureaucracy in colleges. However, while looking to reduce the burden on FE sector, it is vital to ensure that the interests of learners and of taxpayers in the FE budget, worth more than £4 billion, are protected and that proper and effective systems audit and control are in place. In addition, the Department is currently working to reduce the number of funding lines for FE sector for next year, including a
  135W
  radical simplification of the Standards Fund. This will enable the LSC to simplify its own approach to funding colleges.

  Holocaust Memorial Day
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on how schools are marking Holocaust Memorial Day. [31154]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Home Office is the Government Department with responsibility for Holocaust Memorial Day (HMD) 2002. It is working with a number of Government Departments and organisations on the preparations for the day. The Department for Education and Skills is a strong supporter of the day.

  This Department produced an education pack for all schools to support last year's Holocaust Memorial Day. Nearly 40,000 packs were sent out. New resources for schools to commemorate the day in 2002 have been developed which compliment last year's education pack. This year's resources—in the form of 12 flashcards—reflect the theme of Britain and the Holocaust. The cards highlight case studies of individuals affected by the Holocaust. Schools will be using this material in assemblies, in the classroom, and through exhibitions for their schools and their communities.

  The resources have been produced by an education working group of experts on the Holocaust, racism, and education, from bodies such as the Wiener Library, the Imperial War Museum, the Holocaust Education Trust and the London Jewish Culture Centre. I am grateful for their continued support and dedication to this work.

HEALTH

  Performance Ratings
  Mr. Kevan Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on NHS trusts given a zero star rating in the 2000–01 NHS performance ratings. [31568]

  Mr. Milburn
  I shall be making an announcement shortly.

  Hospital Waiting Lists (Essex)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list each month since March 1997 when in-patient waiting lists in the mid Essex hospital trust area have been lower than in March 1997. [29777]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of patients waiting at mid Essex hospital services NHS trust increased from 5,835 in March 1996 to 8,391 at the quarter ending March 1997. The waiting list has been higher than this each quarter or month since that period. At the end of November 2001, (the most recent data available) the number of patients on the waiting list was 8,787. This is 396 greater than March 1997 but 3,047 lower than the highest peak in the waiting list at June 1998.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects in-patient waiting lists in the mid Essex hospital trust area to fall below the level of March 1997. [29778]
  136W
  Mr. Hutton
  Mid Essex hospital services national health service trust achieved its waiting list targets for 2000–01 and is well on target to achieve its targets for the end of March 2002.

  The trust has been following Government guidelines to reduce the length of wait of those on the waiting list and has robust delivery plans in place to treat patients waiting over 15 months by the end of March 2002.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the number of pensioners in resident nursing homes receiving expense allowances of £16.05 or less in(a) Great Britain and (b) south Gloucestershire. [30722]

  Jacqui Smith
  These data are not held centrally but, with a small number of exceptions, all council-supported residents in care homes are entitled to the personal expenses allowance.

  On 31 March 2001, 65,482 people were supported by councils in nursing homes in England, and 379 people were supported in nursing homes by South Gloucestershire council. The figures for Scotland and Wales are the responsibility of the devolved Administrations.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in(a) residential and (b) nursing home care (i) were self-funders, (ii) paid a proportion of the cost toward their care and (iii) had all their costs paid for by the state in each of the last five years. [24640]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: The number of people who are resident in residential care homes and paying for their own care is not collected centrally. A survey conducted in June 2001 estimated that around 42,700 residents in general and mental nursing homes were paying wholly for their own care.

  Information is not available separately for those who paid a proportion of the cost toward their care and those who had all their costs paid for by the state. Information on the numbers of people in residential and nursing care homes who had all or part of their costs paid for by councils with social services responsibilities is given in the following table.

  Residents in residential and nursing care homes supported by councils with social services responsibilities1, England, as at 31 March (rounded numbers)

  Year

  Supported residents in residential care homes

  Supported residents in nursing homes

  1997

  170,300

  66,100

  1998

  176,500

  72,900

  1999

  181,200

  73,500

  2000

  185,200

  73,900

  2001

  183,500

  71,800

  1 A supported resident is a resident whose fees are paid in part or in full by a council with social services responsibility

  Source:

  Department of Health return SR1

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on changes in bed numbers in the care home sector in Worcestershire since 1997. [26406]
  137W
  Jacqui Smith
  The information is in the following table:

  The number of places in residential care homes and the number of registered nursing beds in the Hereford and Worcester1 area between 1997 and 2001

  At 31 March

  Number of places

  Number of registered beds2

  19973

  5,552

  3,383

  1998

  5,413

  3,654

  1999

  5,543

  3,980

  2000

  5,392

  3,526

  2001

  5,080

  3,365

  1 Registered beds in general and mental nursing homes, hospitals and clinics. Information is presented on nursing beds for the two health authorities of Herefordshire and Worcestershire (equating to the former local authority district of Hereford and Worcester).

  2 Information is presented for the former local authority district of Hereford and Worcester to ensure details of residential places given in the table are on consistent boundaries. (At 1 April 1998 the unitary authority of Herefordshire and the shire county area of Worcestershire were created).

  3 Information for registered nursing beds for 1997 relates to the period 1 October 1996 to 31 March 1997.

  Source:

  Department of Health annual returns

  We are aware of concerns about capacity problems in the care home sector. On 9 October we published "Building Capacity and Partnership in Care". This sets out clear policy objectives to improve the planning and commissioning of services in partnership with the independent sector, in a way which will see standards rise within a better range of services. This will benefit service users and allow better discharge planning.

  I am advised that Worcestershire county council's allocation of £713,000 from the Government's "Cash for Change" initiative will be used to fund additional residential and nursing home placements, a home care discharge scheme and one off payments to support independent sector homes cost pressures.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 16 January 2002,Official Report,column 379W, on residential nursing home beds, how many residential and nursing home beds were available, broken down by (a) constituency, (b) health authority and (c) region in (i) 1997 and (ii) the most recent year for which figures are available. [30273]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on residential and nursing homes is not available at constituency level. Information on residential care homes is collected at local authority level, while information on nursing care homes is collected at health authority level. The number of residential care beds cannot be shown at health authority level due to inconsistent geographical boundaries. My reply of 8 January 2002,Official Report, columns 656–58W, gives the number of residential care home beds for each local authority and the number of nursing care home beds for each health authority at 31 March 1997 and 31 March 2001. Information on the total number of residential and nursing care home beds at 31 March 1997 and 31 March 2001 by national health service region is shown in the table.
  138W

  Number of residential and nursing care home beds in England by NHS region

  At 31 March

  Rounded numbers

  NHS regions

  (i) 1997

  (ii) 2001

  Residential care home beds

  England

  338,100

  341,200

  Northern and Yorkshire

  42,900

  45,300

  Trent

  33,700

  37,200

  West Midlands

  33,000

  32,100

  North-west

  47,700

  49,800

  Eastern

  32,900

  35,400

  London

  30,100

  29,300

  South-east

  70,100

  67,300

  South-west

  47,600

  44,800

  Nursing care home beds

  England

  197,500

  186,800

  Northern and Yorkshire

  28,600

  27,000

  Trent

  23,600

  20,100

  West Midlands

  19,600

  20,000

  North-west

  35,500

  31,500

  Eastern

  16,900

  14,800

  London

  15,400

  18,100

  South-east

  31,700

  31,400

  South-west

  26,200

  24,100

  Source:

  Department of Health's annual returns

  Correspondence
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 18 January 2002,Official Report,column 545W, on correspondence, when he transferred the letter referred to to the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. [30801]

  Jacqui Smith
  On 17 January.

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the numbers of meat hygiene service staff available in abattoirs in the south-west. [20153]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]: The number of meat hygiene service (MHS) staff employed in licensed premises and therefore qualified to work in abattoirs in the south-west (defined as covering the counties of Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Gloucestershire, Somerset and Wiltshire), as at the end of December 2001, was as follows:

  Grade

  Number

  Official Veterinary Surgeon (employed)

  1

  Senior Poultry/Meat Hygiene Inspector

  14

  Poultry/Meat Hygiene Inspector

  132

  Meat Technician

  40

  Cleansing and Disinfection Supervisor (FMD Controls)

  11

  Total

  198

  The MHS also contracts the services of 89 full-time equivalent official veterinary surgeons within the south-west. In addition, four veterinary surgeons along with a varying number of Meat and Livestock Commission staff currently fill MHS vacancies in over-thirty-months scheme plants.
  139W

  CJD
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the relevant data available to his Department which have not been made available to the CJD Incidents Panel. [15299]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 15 November 2001]: The chairman of the CJD Incidents Panel requested in writing a copy of "the report on standards of decontamination in England and Wales". He has also requested the results of the subsequent comprehensive survey of decontamination standards.

  A preliminary survey of some hospitals and other health premises carried out last year informed the Department that there was considerable variation of decontamination standards in the national health service. It demonstrated the need to invest in sterile services and for a comprehensive look at standards. As a result, a full survey started in October 2000 and a £200 million investment programme was announced in January 2001 to improve decontamination within the NHS over the next two years. A report on the findings of the surveys, including the snapshot survey, was published on 11 December 2001.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if it was his intention, when commissioning the study by Dr. David Hurrell on hospital sterilisation procedures, to publish its findings; [15296]

  (2) for what reason the CJD Incidents Panel did not receive a copy of the interim and final report from Dr. Hurrell; [15297]

  (3) if he will publish the study by Dr. David Hurrell on hospital sterilisation procedures that reported to him in June 2000. [15294]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 15 November 2001]: The survey was a snapshot of a small number of hospitals and other health premises and was not commissioned with a view to publication. It was prepared for specific purposes, one of which was to set in train further work—including deciding whether a full survey was needed. It told us that there was considerable variation of decontamination in the national health service and it demonstrated the need to invest in sterile services. Hence the announcement of the start of the full survey in October 2000 and the commitment to a £200 million investment programme in January 2001. We have published the results of this full national survey today.

  Mr. Hurrell was technical co-ordinator for the snapshot survey, acted as lead assessor for some of the visits and helped to analyse the information collected. Although he contributed to the production of the interim and final reports, he did not write either of them.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will publish the letter of the 28 September from the Head of NHS estates to Dr. Hurrell; [15295]

  (2) if he will publish correspondence between the Chief Executive of NHS estates and Dr. David Hurrell concerning CJD in hospitals. [15379]

  Yvette Cooper
  The correspondence—between an official in national health service estates and an external consultant—was sent during an early phase of the systematic work we have undertaken to raise the standard 140W
  of decontamination across the NHS. A full set of the papers describing the programme of work that extended over many months was made public on 11 December. These show that no hospital is assessed as being below standard. The text of the letter dated 26 September 2000 from Kate Priestley, chief executive of NHS estates to David Hurrell is set out:
  "Dear Colleague
  Re: Confidentiality requirements—Decontamination review
  You will be aware of the strict confidentiality approach, which has been continuously applied during the original national survey work and the subsequent report drafting process regarding surgical instrument decontamination and sterilisation.
  In light of the somewhat negative outcome recorded by the visiting assessors at the majority of clinical centres there is a need to ensure, at the express request of Ministers, that the final version and earlier draft reports remain strictly confidential.
  Excellent progress in terms of planning for the implementation of the conclusions and recommendations of the report is being made. However, this position and the benefits derived from it, in healthcare terms, may be compromised if the findings of the report were to enter the public domain in an inappropriate or unauthorised fashion.
  In light of the above we are reinforcing the need for confidentiality and ask that all members of the team return all report drafts as these are no longer needed. In the case of electronic copies would you please undertake to destroy these and to check that no relevant files remain on your system. Please ensure that this request is complied with promptly and confirm the destruction of electronic files by letter to the co-ordinator, Darryn Kerr.
  Thanking you for your co-operation in this and many other aspects of the work."

  Schizophrenia
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people living in the community with schizophrenia are on long-term medication. [13850]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not available centrally. In 2000, 219,000 prescription items were dispensed in the community in England for antipsychotic depot injections.

  Social Services Websites
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost was of preparing and producing the new Social Work and Social Care website. [24441]

  Jacqui Smith
  The cost of preparing and producing the Social Work and Social Care website including site maintenance until October 2002, is £49,358. The website has attracted over 11,000 visitors to the site since its inception on 19 October 2001.

  Strategic Health Authorities
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he will ensure that chief executives designate of the new strategic health authorities involve local communities and primary care trusts in the development of franchise plans. [26599]

  Mr. Hutton
  In developing three year franchise plans chief executives of strategic health authorities will be required to reflect the plans and targets of local primary care trusts, and to demonstrate how the health authority will ensure local community involvement.
  141W
  Plans will be based on a specification issued by the Department. All strategic health authorities will be required to meet the specification.

  Hearing Aid Services Project
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health from what date the Hillingdon/Harrow health trust will be included in the modernising NHS Hearing Aid Services Project. [26939]

  Jacqui Smith
  I announced on 24 December 2001 that a further £20 million would be made available in 2002–03 so that a further 30 national health service sites can join the modernising hearing aids project during that year. Decisions on which sites will become involved in the project next year will be made shortly.

  Ashworth Hospital
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many incidents of assault by members of staff at Ashworth hospital on(a) patients of Ashworth hospital, (b) visitors to Ashworth hospital and (c) members of the public were reported each of the last three years. [27201]

  Jacqui Smith
  Recorded allegations of assault on patients, visitors and members of the public, by members of staff at Ashworth hospital, for each of the last three years are as listed:

  On patients

  1999—10

  2000—14

  2001—10

  On visitors

  1999—none

  2000—none

  2001—none

  On members of the public

  1999—none

  2000—none

  2001—none.

  Ashworth hospital treats all allegations very seriously. An investigation was undertaken into each of these allegations, but none were substantiated.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the proportion of PFI contracts made by his Department where an amount in excess of 90 per cent. of the capital value of the asset is recouped by the lessor out of the capital element of lease payments over the lifetime of the contract concerned; and if he will make a statement. [27699]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not calculate or collect data on this basis.

  The balance sheet treatment of private finance initiative schemes is determined by guidance developed by Her Majesty's Treasury (Technical Note 1) and the Accounting Standards Board (FRS5), which was issued in 1998. Neither of these refer to or rely on the numeric test referred to in the question.
  142W
  A small number of early national health service PFI schemes (total approximately £250 million) have been classed as on balance sheet. These schemes reached financial closure before 1998. Although they were classed as off-balance sheet under the tests in force at the time, they were reassessed following the issue of the 1998 guidance and re-classified as being on balance sheet. The test in force prior to 1998 relied on estimates of the variability of shareholders' return, not estimates of payments recouped by lessors.

  General Practitioners (Essex)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioner vacancies there are in(a) Tendring primary care trust and (b) Colchester PCT. [28499]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are five general practitioner vacancies within Tendring primary care trust. Three vacancies are in the process of being advertised and the fourth vacancy will be advertised after 1 April 2002. The remaining vacancy is the subject of discussions which are currently taking place between Tendring PCT and the surgery.

  There are two general practitioner vacancies in Colchester primary care trust both of which are in the process of being recruited to.

  In all cases interim cover is being provided by locum or salaried general practitioners.

  Age Discrimination
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to address barriers to effective implementation of Government policy on age discrimination; [28837]

  (2) if he will implement the recommendations in the King's Fund report on anti-age discrimination policies; [28836]

  (3) what recent assessment he has made of the extent of ageism in the health and social services. [28835]

  Jacqui Smith
  The National Service Framework for Older People, published in March 2001, sets the elimination of age discrimination in accessing national health service or social care as a priority. To help achieve this, it provides a programme of actions and milestones to be achieved over the next 10 years. Much work has already been undertaken that will underpin the development of this programme. This includes:Older people and their representative organisations have been included within the national service framework's national and local implementation structure, giving them a voice in prioritising and planning.
  Detailed guidance on the development of a single assessment process across health and social care, that focuses on identifying and meeting the needs of each individual, was issued for consultation on 16 August 2001, and the final version will be published shortly.
  Audits of age-related policy in the NHS, as required by the NSF October 2001 milestone have been undertaken. Detailed information on the audits has been provided by over three-quarters of the NHS organisations involved. An initial analysis of returns on the audits undertaken in the NHS shows that age discrimination is not endemic in the health service's written policies, but rather reflects the varying local development of

  143W
  policy and practice. The audit provides for the development of local plans to review and tackle any age-discriminatory written policies found by April 2002 and will inform the development of a national approach to benchmark a range of services or treatments important in the care of older people.
  Detailed guidance on Fair Access to Care Services, covering a full review of adult social care eligibility criteria, was issued for consultation on 20 July 2001, and the final version will be published shortly.

  The detail and recommendations of the King's Fund report, "Old habits Die Hard—Tackling age discrimination in health and social care" is a welcomed addition to our knowledge of age discrimination in health and social care.

  Children's Rights Director
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health further to his answer of 1 May 2001,Official Report, column 575W, on the Children's Rights Director, what the terms of reference are of the position of Children's Rights Director; what responsibility the director will have for liaison with persons or bodies carrying out similar or equivalent functions within the devolved institutions; what responsibility the director will have for assisting in the preparation of the UK report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child; who will have the lead role in its preparation; and what progress has been made in the appointment of a director. [29245]

  Jacqui Smith
  Roger Morgan has been appointed as Children's Rights Director at the National Care Standards Commission. Draft regulations setting out the proposed functions of the Children's Rights Director were published for consultation on 17 January 2002. The Children and Young People's Unit have the lead role in the preparation of the United Kingdom report to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child.

  Carers
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further action he is taking to help carers. [28822]

  Jacqui Smith
  We are increasing the carers grant to £85 million in 2002–03 and to £100 million in 2003–04 to ensure that more carers are able to receive breaks. We are developing guidance on voucher schemes for short term breaks in consultation with external stakeholders so that the remaining provisions of the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 can be commenced in April this year. We are also revising the hospital discharge workbook, which will help national health service staff to support carers.

  Neurological Conditions
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made with preparing the National Service Framework for neurological conditions; and if he will make a statement. [29110]

  Jacqui Smith
  Good progress has been made on preparatory work for the National Service Framework (NSF). The Department has held a number of meetings with a range of voluntary and professional groups, patients and users to hear their views and received many 144W
  written submissions. A scoping event was held on 12 November at which some of the key generic issues the NSF should address were identified.

  Pulmonary Illnesses
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many pulmonary rehabilitation centres there are in England and Wales; [29355]

  (2) what his policy is on the provision of pulmonary rehabilitation centres within the NHS. [29358]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on local service configuration in England, such as the number of pulmonary rehabilitation services, is not collected centrally. We are aware that provision of pulmonary rehabilitation is a service increasingly offered by local departments of respiratory medicine.

  It is a decision for health authorities, in partnership with primary care groups/trusts and other local stakeholders, to assess the health needs of their populations, including those needing pulmonary rehabilitation, and to commission services to meet those needs.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on the training of specialist respiratory nurses and physiotherapists. [29353]

  Mr. Hutton
  Maintaining and extending the skills, potential and careers of national health service staff taking into account service developments and patient need in health and social care is a fundamental part of the NHS Plan and the Framework for Lifelong Learning for the NHS, "Working Together—Learning Together". Copies of these are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Training in many specialist areas takes place after registration and there are courses available for respiratory training for both qualified nurses and physiotherapists. Decisions on post-registration training are taken by individual practitioners and local NHS organisations in the light of local needs, and these will be better informed by National Service Framework and NHS Plan priorities.

  Statistics
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to allow continuous statistical comparisons to be made between(a) existing health authorities, (b) new primary care trusts and (c) strategic health authorities. [29709]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information needs—including the continuity of data—in the light of the current reorganisation are currently being considered. Routine statistics published at the level of individual national health service bodies will reflect the new organisational structures, but mapping to older units will be available where practicable and on request.

  From later this year primary care trusts will be taking on the majority of functions of existing health authorities and will be the focal point locally for improving the health of the community, securing high quality services and integrating health and social care locally. Data at this level will therefore be the main priority.
  145W

  Cancer
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the age standardised mortality rates for all cancers

  Trends in mortality from all malignant neoplasms (ICD9 140–208): Indirectly standardised ratios (SMR)—1989 to 1999 annually, all ages1

  Males

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  O00

  England

  SMR

  105

  105

  104

  103

  100

  98

  96

  95

  92

  91

  88

  QDD

  Bradford

  SMR

  107

  107

  117

  112

  98

  102

  100

  87

  95

  101

  93

  QDE

  County Durham

  SMR

  116

  121

  112

  113

  117

  111

  107

  113

  110

  105

  103

  QDF

  East Riding

  SMR

  116

  118

  106

  101

  105

  108

  101

  106

  95

  100

  98

  QDG

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  SMR

  149

  137

  132

  131

  131

  126

  123

  129

  112

  119

  111

  QDH

  Leeds

  SMR

  115

  112

  106

  102

  104

  101

  96

  101

  94

  93

  102

  QDJ

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  SMR

  129

  131

  130

  127

  128

  121

  113

  122

  109

  116

  112

  QDK

  North Cumbria

  SMR

  113

  109

  106

  104

  99

  105

  101

  108

  85

  95

  87

  QDM

  Northumberland

  SMR

  106

  102

  101

  109

  103

  98

  104

  106

  105

  104

  94

  QDN

  Sunderland

  SMR

  132

  129

  132

  129

  116

  124

  114

  119

  110

  120

  106

  QDP

  Tees

  SMR

  126

  138

  118

  128

  124

  125

  122

  111

  116

  114

  104

  QDQ

  Wakefield

  SMR

  115

  110

  118

  114

  107

  109

  107

  105

  100

  100

  90

  QDR

  North Yorkshire

  SMR

  94

  96

  92

  92

  94

  89

  85

  82

  84

  81

  78

  QDT

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  SMR

  108

  103

  110

  107

  101

  96

  94

  94

  95

  98

  92

  QCG

  Barnsley

  SMR

  110

  112

  111

  115

  114

  109

  106

  106

  96

  104

  99

  QCH

  North Derbyshire

  SMR

  103

  103

  105

  106

  106

  102

  105

  96

  86

  90

  87

  QCJ

  South Derbyshire

  SMR

  110

  99

  109

  103

  100

  98

  91

  90

  95

  91

  86

  QCK

  Doncaster

  SMR

  102

  114

  103

  109

  119

  102

  113

  111

  103

  99

  101

  QCL

  Leicestershire

  SMR

  104

  97

  93

  90

  90

  88

  83

  86

  82

  80

  81

  QCM

  Lincolnshire

  SMR

  102

  100

  99

  97

  100

  93

  91

  94

  85

  88

  85

  QCN

  North Nottinghamshire

  SMR

  109

  109

  102

  111

  108

  98

  102

  97

  96

  102

  92

  QCP

  Nottingham

  SMR

  111

  99

  101

  102

  107

  102

  99

  97

  100

  94

  92

  QCQ

  Rotherham

  SMR

  126

  102

  116

  114

  100

  112

  106

  90

  99

  95

  103

  QCR

  Sheffield

  SMR

  117

  113

  113

  115

  116

  107

  103

  105

  110

  101

  94

  QDL

  South Humber

  SMR

  106

  117

  120

  104

  91

  99

  112

  103

  104

  102

  100

  QD9

  Birmingham

  SMR

  113

  117

  112

  111

  109

  106

  100

  98

  95

  99

  92

  QEA

  Coventry

  SMR

  117

  117

  109

  111

  94

  96

  95

  93

  88

  91

  94

  QEC

  Dudley

  SMR

  108

  112

  107

  105

  107

  104

  102

  90

  93

  100

  94

  QED

  Herefordshire

  SMR

  113

  88

  96

  97

  97

  85

  88

  83

  92

  78

  79

  QEE

  Sandwell

  SMR

  124

  119

  118

  129

  110

  117

  110

  110

  106

  116

  104

  QEF

  Shropshire

  SMR

  93

  106

  97

  101

  102

  93

  94

  98

  89

  94

  87

  QEG

  Solihull

  SMR

  106

  100

  98

  94

  96

  89

  95

  80

  87

  93

  74

  QEH

  North Staffordshire

  SMR

  113

  120

  124

  114

  109

  111

  108

  114

  104

  101

  97

  QEJ

  South Staffordshire

  SMR

  110

  109

  106

  104

  102

  96

  100

  96

  90

  94

  83

  QEK

  Walsall

  SMR

  118

  118

  115

  107

  109

  105

  109

  94

  100

  97

  104

  QEL

  Warwickshire

  SMR

  97

  97

  100

  101

  99

  94

  97

  91

  88

  84

  85

  QEM

  Wolverhampton

  SMR

  111

  105

  114

  114

  120

  117

  96

  99

  103

  104

  100

  QEN

  Worcestershire

  SMR

  90

  95

  101

  96

  87

  91

  89

  88

  87

  85

  77

  QC1

  South Lancashire

  SMR

  101

  97

  108

  99

  100

  88

  98

  95

  97

  79

  93

  QC2

  Liverpool

  SMR

  132

  129

  135

  133

  132

  130

  126

  134

  124

  113

  117

  QC3

  Manchester

  SMR

  142

  129

  136

  129

  123

  130

  122

  117

  122

  125

  115

  QC4

  Morecambe Bay

  SMR

  118

  103

  102

  110

  103

  93

  95

  94

  92

  84

  87

  QC5

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  SMR

  126

  124

  125

  118

  119

  122

  125

  117

  115

  111

  109

  QC6

  Salford and Trafford

  SMR

  119

  123

  122

  122

  113

  115

  104

  113

  107

  102

  99

  QC7

  Sefton

  SMR

  119

  106

  120

  108

  118

  110

  111

  103

  98

  95

  98

  QC8

  Stockport

  SMR

  121

  105

  107

  113

  103

  89

  92

  94

  90

  92

  87

  QC9

  West Pennine

  SMR

  119

  123

  119

  114

  108

  118

  111

  110

  108

  109

  97

  QCT

  Bury and Rochdale

  SMR

  111

  106

  116

  108

  107

  100

  108

  97

  96

  101

  102

  QCV

  North Cheshire

  SMR

  115

  116

  124

  114

  113

  112

  107

  115

  106

  110

  101

  QCW

  South Cheshire

  SMR

  102

  106

  101

  100

  99

  93

  93

  93

  89

  91

  84

  QCX

  East Lancashire

  SMR

  106

  101

  110

  108

  106

  99

  98

  97

  101

  99

  96

  QCY

  North West Lancashire

  SMR

  100

  106

  98

  101

  104

  102

  102

  94

  90

  93

  95

  QDA

  Wigan and Bolton

  SMR

  111

  115

  115

  104

  103

  104

  105

  100

  97

  98

  104

  QDC

  Wirral

  SMR

  109

  122

  118

  120

  102

  102

  115

  104

  95

  100

  98

  QA6

  Bedfordshire

  SMR

  101

  101

  95

  99

  93

  95

  89

  92

  90

  82

  86

  QAX

  North Essex

  SMR

  90

  103

  93

  90

  95

  95

  90

  89

  82

  86

  83

  QAY

  South Essex

  SMR

  101

  101

  100

  111

  101

  96

  99

  97

  91

  90

  90

  QCF

  Suffolk

  SMR

  100

  91

  97

  92

  88

  90

  87

  87

  83

  78

  78

  QEP

  East and North Hertfordshire

  SMR

  96

  99

  97

  99

  97

  88

  87

  82

  86

  88

  83

  QEQ

  West Hertfordshire

  SMR

  96

  106

  93

  88

  92

  90

  78

  85

  84

  78

  80

  QER

  Cambridgeshire

  SMR

  101

  95

  94

  92

  92

  92

  83

  88

  83

  83

  73

  QET

  Norfolk

  SMR

  95

  98

  90

  95

  88

  88

  90

  89

  80

  83

  82

  QA2

  Hillingdon

  SMR

  105

  106

  110

  106

  95

  90

  88

  90

  89

  85

  83

  QA3

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminister

  SMR

  103

  102

  105

  102

  98

  93

  93

  86

  77

  81

  65

  QA4

  Enfield and Haringey

  SMR

  106

  106

  101

  97

  94

  95

  90

  92

  87

  85

  88

  QA5

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  SMR

  101

  100

  93

  100

  85

  96

  93

  85

  87

  93

  82

  QAA

  Bexley and Greenwich

  SMR

  106

  113

  105

  111

  102

  102

  99

  101

  103

  99

  93

  146W
  for men and women in each health authority in England were in each year since 1995. [29708]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  147W

  Trends in mortality from all malignant neoplasms (ICD9 140–208): Indirectly standardised ratios (SMR)—1989 to 1999 annually, all ages1

  Males

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  QAC

  Bromley

  SMR

  99

  99

  95

  104

  91

  91

  98

  91

  79

  84

  82

  QAD

  Croydon

  SMR

  94

  89

  99

  91

  89

  88

  96

  89

  84

  91

  90

  QAG

  Kingston and Richmond

  SMR

  87

  93

  89

  95

  87

  94

  97

  87

  88

  82

  72

  QAH

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  SMR

  119

  118

  117

  118

  111

  112

  106

  104

  100

  98

  96

  QA1

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  SMR

  110

  110

  110

  103

  109

  95

  95

  92

  96

  96

  88

  QAP

  Barking and Havering

  SMR

  119

  106

  120

  118

  109

  107

  104

  104

  101

  103

  99

  QAQ

  Barnet

  SMR

  91

  90

  97

  82

  83

  90

  76

  80

  71

  80

  67

  QAR

  Brent and Harrow

  SMR

  91

  91

  97

  90

  87

  84

  84

  79

  84

  81

  74

  QAT

  Camden and Islington

  SMR

  113

  119

  122

  120

  111

  102

  94

  99

  87

  93

  92

  QAV

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  SMR

  105

  104

  104

  100

  92

  93

  90

  97

  81

  92

  79

  QAW

  East London and the City

  SMR

  123

  122

  129

  127

  118

  114

  112

  103

  105

  104

  101

  QA7

  Berkshire

  SMR

  103

  95

  97

  95

  93

  92

  88

  90

  84

  83

  80

  QA8

  Buckinghamshire

  SMR

  105

  96

  101

  101

  91

  92

  85

  85

  76

  83

  87

  QAE

  East Kent

  SMR

  104

  100

  99

  106

  102

  101

  99

  100

  100

  92

  85

  QAF

  West Kent

  SMR

  99

  104

  106

  100

  97

  101

  101

  95

  88

  90

  89

  QAK

  East Surrey

  SMR

  95

  83

  85

  88

  94

  89

  83

  82

  80

  84

  76

  QAL

  West Surrey

  SMR

  97

  98

  94

  97

  86

  90

  86

  85

  84

  79

  77

  QAM

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  SMR

  91

  97

  98

  99

  94

  88

  92

  87

  87

  83

  82

  QAN

  West Sussex

  SMR

  94

  95

  93

  94

  91

  88

  90

  86

  80

  82

  83

  QCC

  Northamptonshire

  SMR

  108

  104

  108

  97

  98

  96

  103

  95

  95

  93

  89

  QCE

  Oxfordshire

  SMR

  91

  91

  94

  96

  95

  86

  87

  84

  80

  83

  82

  QD1

  North and Mid Hampshire

  SMR

  92

  92

  99

  97

  93

  93

  86

  85

  87

  85

  74

  QD2

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  SMR

  109

  111

  102

  101

  92

  102

  95

  93

  95

  94

  86

  QD3

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  SMR

  107

  100

  105

  101

  90

  94

  96

  92

  83

  87

  83

  QD4

  Isle of Wight

  SMR

  101

  99

  102

  105

  100

  90

  86

  88

  81

  94

  75

  QD5

  Somerset

  SMR

  87

  93

  88

  92

  85

  93

  89

  90

  87

  83

  82

  QD6

  South and West Devon

  SMR

  99

  100

  93

  99

  96

  98

  87

  90

  92

  88

  91

  QD7

  Wiltshire

  SMR

  98

  98

  96

  98

  95

  88

  87

  82

  82

  80

  80

  QD8

  Avon

  SMR

  99

  96

  100

  94

  89

  90

  90

  87

  88

  86

  81

  QDV

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  SMR

  90

  94

  92

  94

  96

  95

  91

  90

  84

  81

  86

  QDW

  Dorset

  SMR

  86

  89

  94

  91

  86

  83

  91

  84

  87

  82

  79

  QDX

  North and East Devon

  SMR

  92

  89

  96

  97

  83

  83

  86

  84

  80

  85

  82

  QDY

  Gloucestershire

  SMR

  100

  93

  83

  99

  87

  87

  91

  85

  82

  82

  83

  Females

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  O00

  England

  SMR

  105

  103

  103

  103

  100

  99

  98

  98

  96

  95

  94

  QDD

  Bradford

  SMR

  108

  111

  109

  101

  97

  105

  101

  99

  92

  102

  96

  QDE

  County Durham

  SMR

  113

  112

  115

  105

  107

  105

  105

  116

  98

  105

  100

  QDF

  East Riding

  SMR

  113

  104

  108

  105

  104

  103

  104

  105

  98

  107

  93

  QDG

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  SMR

  119

  109

  109

  116

  124

  114

  109

  110

  120

  114

  114

  QDH

  Leeds

  SMR

  111

  106

  107

  105

  102

  105

  107

  95

  97

  100

  99

  QDJ

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  SMR

  128

  114

  126

  118

  120

  116

  120

  113

  124

  105

  102

  QDK

  North Cumbria

  SMR

  114

  109

  112

  102

  100

  96

  91

  101

  100

  103

  98

  QDM

  Northumberland

  SMR

  111

  103

  106

  101

  102

  99

  104

  114

  92

  103

  101

  QDN

  Sunderland

  SMR

  116

  127

  119

  118

  123

  112

  114

  105

  105

  123

  110

  QDP

  Tees

  SMR

  120

  117

  119

  121

  118

  111

  110

  110

  108

  108

  103

  QDQ

  Wakefield

  SMR

  107

  119

  120

  113

  99

  108

  107

  101

  106

  100

  107

  QDR

  North Yorkshire

  SMR

  101

  96

  95

  91

  92

  90

  89

  97

  87

  86

  91

  QDT

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  SMR

  107

  103

  99

  99

  102

  100

  99

  99

  90

  93

  92

  QCG

  Barnsley

  SMR

  104

  101

  108

  103

  104

  118

  109

  108

  93

  119

  104

  QCH

  North Derbyshire

  SMR

  98

  104

  108

  109

  102

  102

  101

  108

  97

  99

  88

  QCJ

  South Derbyshire

  SMR

  100

  103

  109

  106

  97

  100

  99

  93

  91

  88

  90

  QCK

  Doncaster

  SMR

  120

  112

  110

  no

  114

  102

  106

  112

  104

  105

  106

  QCL

  Leicestershire

  SMR

  101

  97

  94

  92

  96

  97

  94

  94

  90

  85

  87

  QCM

  Lincolnshire

  SMR

  108

  96

  102

  105

  96

  95

  92

  90

  91

  88

  91

  QCN

  North Nottinghamshire

  SMR

  108

  98

  99

  110

  103

  98

  101

  97

  100

  96

  86

  QCP

  Nottingham

  SMR

  103

  106

  104

  109

  99

  99

  100

  98

  95

  97

  94

  QCQ

  Rotherham

  SMR

  103

  103

  96

  103

  106

  115

  108

  111

  106

  104

  86

  QCR

  Sheffield

  SMR

  105

  105

  108

  98

  100

  106

  107

  109

  110

  98

  100

  QDL

  South Humber

  SMR

  103

  109

  111

  108

  98

  101

  96

  106

  103

  102

  95

  QD9

  Birmingham

  SMR

  110

  101

  109

  105

  98

  96

  98

  102

  95

  94

  94

  QEA

  Coventry

  SMR

  106

  100

  103

  115

  100

  98

  102

  97

  103

  91

  94

  QEC

  Dudley

  SMR

  102

  106

  105

  95

  96

  101

  98

  91

  103

  89

  94

  QED

  Herefordshire

  SMR

  107

  99

  103

  100

  95

  102

  88

  94

  85

  95

  86

  QEE

  Sandwell

  SMR

  111

  101

  102

  107

  109

  116

  106

  107

  101

  98

  98

  QEF

  Shropshire

  SMR

  102

  96

  102

  100

  93

  93

  97

  95

  93

  93

  94

  QEG

  Solihull

  SMR

  101

  104

  106

  96

  98

  97

  101

  103

  89

  80

  88

  QEH

  North Staffordshire

  SMR

  107

  112

  115

  113

  111

  114

  111

  95

  100

  105

  104

  148W 149W

  Females

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  QEJ

  South Staffordshire

  SMR

  107

  104

  102

  102

  96

  103

  99

  98

  90

  97

  97

  QEK

  Walsall

  SMR

  110

  112

  105

  115

  98

  107

  92

  88

  97

  94

  87

  QEL

  Warwickshire

  SMR

  94

  99

  95

  111

  99

  96

  92

  109

  94

  94

  85

  QEM

  Wolverhampton

  SMR

  102

  100

  114

  104

  93

  100

  102

  99

  100

  96

  96

  QEN

  Worcestershire

  SMR

  100

  103

  90

  100

  92

  96

  94

  95

  91

  83

  84

  QC1

  South Lancashire

  SMR

  105

  90

  96

  103

  105

  99

  92

  100

  94

  86

  96

  QC2

  Liverpool

  SMR

  121

  134

  125

  131

  122

  122

  132

  129

  128

  126

  125

  QC3

  Manchester

  SMR

  123

  119

  115

  119

  117

  116

  120

  114

  117

  112

  126

  QC4

  Morecambe Bay

  SMR

  101

  106

  104

  106

  99

  96

  100

  92

  90

  95

  98

  QC5

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  SMR

  116

  115

  115

  107

  123

  115

  116

  108

  115

  112

  108

  QC6

  Salford and Trafford

  SMR

  120

  111

  121

  111

  110

  108

  112

  109

  108

  102

  104

  QC7

  Sefton

  SMR

  108

  96

  101

  110

  110

  97

  94

  112

  106

  94

  112

  QC8

  Stockport

  SMR

  104

  104

  103

  104

  98

  104

  96

  93

  101

  95

  90

  QC9

  West Pennine

  SMR

  116

  122

  109

  109

  113

  109

  100

  109

  100

  110

  106

  QCT

  Bury and Rochdale

  SMR

  108

  123

  114

  107

  103

  108

  110

  116

  112

  101

  104

  QCV

  North Cheshire

  SMR

  124

  118

  119

  111

  109

  106

  106

  114

  102

  113

  108

  QCW

  South Cheshire

  SMR

  106

  100

  103

  110

  92

  98

  89

  95

  96

  93

  94

  QCX

  East Lancashire

  SMR

  104

  105

  97

  111

  102

  107

  100

  104

  102

  102

  95

  QCY

  North West Lancashire

  SMR

  108

  105

  107

  95

  96

  97

  96

  99

  97

  93

  95

  QDA

  Wigan and Bolton

  SMR

  109

  106

  111

  108

  106

  104

  97

  103

  95

  97

  105

  QDC

  Wirral

  SMR

  103

  110

  110

  109

  106

  110

  104

  106

  106

  108

  101

  QA6

  Bedfordshire

  SMR

  107

  116

  108

  100

  91

  96

  88

  92

  96

  90

  86

  QAX

  North Essex

  SMR

  103

  106

  98

  97

  97

  94

  97

  92

  93

  95

  88

  QAY

  South Essex

  SMR

  103

  108

  107

  103

  101

  97

  106

  101

  94

  92

  94

  QCF

  Suffolk

  SMR

  102

  100

  97

  100

  92

  97

  94

  90

  92

  88

  83

  QEP

  East and North Hertfordshire

  SMR

  101

  107

  100

  95

  99

  92

  101

  91

  89

  103

  94

  QEQ

  West Hertfordshire

  SMR

  110

  100

  98

  98

  92

  96

  100

  91

  95

  94

  90

  QER

  Cambridgeshire

  SMR

  98

  101

  93

  97

  91

  96

  89

  89

  93

  90

  92

  QET

  Norfolk

  SMR

  97

  98

  94

  93

  95

  92

  95

  88

  89

  92

  91

  QA2

  Hillingdon

  SMR

  106

  92

  102

  105

  94

  98

  96

  102

  100

  99

  91

  QA3

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminister

  SMR

  106

  107

  99

  103

  100

  101

  94

  86

  102

  83

  79

  QA4

  Enfield and Haringey

  SMR

  101

  89

  100

  100

  92

  92

  93

  89

  86

  87

  93

  QA5

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  SMR

  102

  101

  100

  90

  89

  98

  89

  91

  84

  86

  93

  QAA

  Bexley and Greenwich

  SMR

  110

  114

  114

  100

  104

  105

  94

  97

  104

  102

  99

  QAC

  Bromley

  SMR

  95

  102

  95

  97

  96

  86

  97

  101

  99

  95

  89

  QAD

  Croydon

  SMR

  93

  101

  100

  94

  99

  93

  93

  105

  102

  95

  86

  QAG

  Kingston and Richmond

  SMR

  88

  102

  101

  95

  93

  98

  91

  94

  86

  95

  92

  QAH

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  SMR

  114

  110

  108

  110

  108

  103

  98

  99

  107

  100

  92

  QAJ

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  SMR

  101

  112

  102

  103

  103

  102

  90

  96

  96

  103

  93

  QAP

  Barking and Havering

  SMR

  120

  105

  111

  111

  114

  107

  110

  113

  95

  103

  101

  QAQ

  Barnet

  SMR

  104

  101

  96

  101

  86

  86

  89

  90

  96

  96

  86

  QAR

  Brent and Harrow

  SMR

  92

  93

  95

  93

  96

  100

  92

  97

  96

  88

  78

  QAT

  Camden and Islington

  SMR

  114

  107

  104

  112

  103

  104

  109

  96

  94

  101

  93

  QAV

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  SMR

  104

  102

  112

  105

  101

  95

  100

  97

  94

  90

  95

  QAW

  East London and the City

  SMR

  124

  113

  112

  114

  123

  109

  113

  102

  104

  99

  100

  QA7

  Berkshire

  SMR

  99

  105

  103

  103

  97

  95

  92

  96

  88

  92

  87

  QA8

  Buckinghamshire

  SMR

  102

  101

  95

  106

  94

  99

  97

  95

  92

  99

  95

  QAE

  East Kent

  SMR

  106

  108

  105

  102

  100

  104

  96

  97

  94

  92

  90

  QAF

  West Kent

  SMR

  109

  95

  102

  105

  104

  102

  98

  98

  102

  90

  100

  QAK

  East Surrey

  SMR

  100

  99

  97

  97

  98

  85

  83

  81

  81

  85

  83

  QAL

  West Surrey

  SMR

  99

  93

  90

  98

  95

  92

  89

  96

  92

  88

  88

  QAM

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  SMR

  98

  94

  94

  99

  96

  100

  96

  88

  95

  92

  92

  QAN

  West Sussex

  SMR

  101

  95

  96

  98

  94

  89

  94

  92

  86

  87

  89

  QCC

  Northamptonshire

  SMR

  107

  108

  110

  102

  99

  106

  99

  99

  94

  101

  98

  QCE

  Oxfordshire

  SMR

  100

  95

  100

  96

  96

  96

  93

  94

  95

  94

  88

  QD1

  North and Mid Hampshire

  SMR

  101

  92

  98

  103

  92

  95

  88

  92

  95

  93

  93

  QD2

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  SMR

  100

  102

  94

  104

  95

  93

  91

  100

  101

  97

  91

  QD3

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  SMR

  102

  96

  97

  93

  92

  92

  95

  93

  86

  88

  90

  QD4

  Isle of Wight

  SMR

  105

  96

  98

  85

  97

  88

  88

  89

  86

  88

  91

  QD5

  Somerset

  SMR

  108

  95

  95

  93

  91

  92

  90

  94

  85

  87

  92

  QD6

  South and West Devon

  SMR

  103

  99

  100

  102

  97

  100

  98

  94

  90

  91

  87

  QD7

  Wiltshire

  SMR

  99

  104

  95

  94

  100

  92

  93

  96

  95

  89

  92

  QD8

  Avon

  SMR

  101

  96

  96

  103

  95

  88

  93

  90

  94

  89

  86

  QDV

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  SMR

  98

  95

  105

  103

  97

  92

  95

  100

  97

  91

  90

  QDW

  Dorset

  SMR

  100

  93

  96

  94

  92

  85

  93

  83

  92

  88

  87

  QDX

  North and East Devon

  SMR

  99

  97

  96

  107

  97

  87

  87

  87

  92

  89

  90

  QDY

  Gloucestershire

  SMR

  99

  100

  97

  90

  92

  95

  95

  88

  88

  84

  88

  1 Standard rates are age-specific mortality rates in 1993

  Source:

  National Statistics
  150W 151W

  Electromagnetic Fields
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the letter from the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member of Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), of 20 December 2001 (ref POH (3)5653/13), what discussions he has had with the NRPB on action to be taken on electromagnetic fields from anti-theft security tagging systems and possible dangers from potential exposures from surveillance equipment. [26560]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: The use of electronic article surveillance devices has become widespread in use, particularly in shops and stores.

  Publicity has recently been given to a theoretical study of models of people exposed to the magnetic fields from simulated electronic article surveillance devices.

  I am advised by the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) that it is theoretically possible, under quite specific conditions, for exposures to approach or potentially exceed the guidelines recommended by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) for members of the public, including children. Limited measurements made by NRPB to date have, in practice, indicated compliance with the guidelines.

  It is important for manufacturers to ensure that, in conditions of use, exposure to magnetic fields from their equipment complies with guidelines. The Department will continue to work closely with other relevant Government Departments and NRPB to ensure that the best available advice is sought on these matters.

  MMR Inoculations
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many letters he has received on MMR inoculations from residents of the Buckingham constituency. [30056]

  Yvette Cooper
  Because of a postal address not always being given, the information requested is not available.

  NHS Trusts (Foundation Status Applications)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether NHS trusts seeking foundation status will be permitted to hire the services of management consultants, accountants, valuers and other professions to further their plans. [29655]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 23 January 2002]: National health service trusts already hire the services of management consultants and other professionals. Where necessary trusts seeking foundation status will be able to hire the services of management consultants, accountants, valuers and other professions to further their plans subject to existing standards of probity, value for money and tendering set out in good corporate governance in the NHS.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many civil servants he expects will be deployed on assessing applications by NHS trusts for foundation status. [29658]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 23 January 2002]: No estimates have been made of the number of civil servants that will be deployed on assessing applications by national
  152W
  health service trusts for foundation status. Applications will, in the first instance, be reviewed by the chief executives of the new health authorities and, in the light of this, advice will be given to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  Social Workers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 18 January 2002,Official Report, column 530W, on social workers, how many social services staff were agency and temporary staff in each year since 1991. [30274]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Health Funding
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 16 January 2002,Official Report, column 376W, on health care funding, how much funding for health care per patient there was in all English parliamentary constituencies in the last five years. [30275]

  Mr. Hutton
  Health authorities receive allocations to commission health care for their population. Health authorities for the parliamentary constituencies, and their allocations per weighted head of population and per unweighted head of population between 1997–98 and 2001–02 are shown in the tables that have been deposited in the Library.

  It is more meaningful to show health authority allocations per head of population using weighted populations. This is because funding takes into account the relative needs of populations using a weighted capitation formula.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the additional expenditure incurred by general practitioners who have registered significant numbers of asylum seekers as patients. [27550]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 24 January 2002]: The costs to the national health service incurred by general practitioners in providing services to asylum seekers are not separately identifiable within the financial frameworks for either general or personal medical services.

  Physiotherapists
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to ensure that numbers of physiotherapists working in the NHS rises from 15,600 to 24,800 between 2000 and 2009; and if he will make a statement. [30191]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 25 January 2002]: Our plan to increase the number of physiotherapists working in the national health service by 59 per cent., from 15,600 in 2000 to 24,800 in 2009, was announced in the follow-up document to the NHS Plan, "Investment and reform for NHS staff—taking forward the NHS Plan", (published 15 February 2001).
  153W
  We will meet this target by a number of measures, including increasing training commissions, a return to practice campaign, promoting flexible, supportive and family friendly policies, and international recruitment.

  For basic grade physiotherapists who have done three years training, their starting salary has increased in cash terms by 36 per cent. since May 1997. This includes the 2002 increase which will be payable from 1 April.

  For graduates who have done four years training, the increase to their starting pay is 32 per cent. in cash terms since May 1997.

  Overseas Treatment
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimates he has made of the cost of treating patients sent abroad for treatment until the end of March 2002; [29717]

  (2) if he will publish the estimated costs of the treatment of patients who were sent on 18 January to receive treatment (a) at La Louvière hospital in France and (b) in a private sector hospital in England. [29716]

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the total cost to each health authority involved of the package of care for(a) cataract and (b) joint replacement operations per patient treated in (i) the UK under the NHS, (ii) Lille and paid for by the NHS and (iii) private hospitals and paid for by the NHS. [29674]

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the total cost of treating NHS patients who were sent for treatment in French hospitals on 154W
  18 January broken down by (a) treatment costs paid to French hospitals, (b) other treatment costs, (c) travel costs, (d) non-clinical care costs and (e) other costs; if he will estimate the difference between the total costs of this form of treatment and the standard NHS costs of treatment; and if he will make a statement. [30021]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 23 and 24 January 2002]: The precise costs of the national health service funded operations purchased in Lille are commercially confidential. The same approach is taken in relation to NHS funded operations in the private sector in the United Kingdom, where we anonymise data before releasing it. Clearly this would be impossible in the present case.

  Direct comparisons of the costs of overseas treatment and NHS costs are not straightforward; for example, prices agreed so far for hip and knee replacements include intensive rehabilitation which would not be included in standard NHS reference costs. In general the prices agreed so far for treatment overseas are in excess of NHS average reference costs but comparable to those in the UK private sector. However, we would expect better prices if and when we commit to larger volumes of patients travelling overseas to individual hospitals.

  £1.1 million to fund treatment costs has been made available to the three test bed sites in south-east England who are developing processes for sending patients overseas. Depending on the case mix, this should fund 200 to 300 procedures.

  The primary care group will have to take account for how it spends its share of the public money that it receives as well as how it secures the highest possible standards of care and good value for money.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham.

Congestion Charging
Baroness Scott of Needham Market Baroness Scott of Needham Market asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made with plans to manage traffic congestion in the major towns and cities of the United Kingdom.
Lord Fiilkin: My Lords, reducing congestion is a key target in the Government's 10-year plan for transport. Many policies in the plan will contribute to achieving this. In particular, we have planned for £59 billion to improve local transport in England, with a further £25 billion for London. Local authorities are best placed to tackle congestion in their areas, and they and the Mayor for London have discretionary powers to introduce congestion charges or workplace parking levies as part of their integrated transport strategies.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I declare an interest as a member of the Commission for Integrated Transport. The congestion targets contained within the Government's 10-year strategy are based on the introduction of 20 workplace parking schemes or congestion charging schemes outside London. Given the Government's apparent ambivalence towards charging in London, can the Minister give some assurance to local authorities that if they bring these schemes forward they will be welcomed?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, given that the noble Baroness is a member of the commission, I am sure she
2
is aware that the Government have set up a body whereby 35 local authorities which have expressed interest in introducing congestion charging are working closely with the Government and the department to explore how best and when it could be introduced, if it is judged to be appropriate in their areas. The premise is therefore false—there is no ambiguity by the Government. They are clear that congestion charging should be introduced only when there is public support for it and it has been properly thought through and consulted upon.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is concern in London about the proposed charging? Is he further aware that there have been reports that, if the Greater London Authority does not come up with a scheme to reduce traffic at the same time, the Government may not approve the GLA's plan? Can my noble friend explain how the Greater London Authority can introduce measures to reduce car traffic and encourage people on to public transport if it cannot raise any money to do so through congestion charging or workplace parking levies.?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I should be very surprised if some concerns were not expressed about the proposed introduction of congestion charging anywhere in the country because it will clearly have an effect on the cost of travel for some people. On the other hand, the benefits of well-produced schemes should outweigh such concerns. The GLA has no powers in terms of the proposed congestion charging for London, although the mayor, should he decide to introduce it, would at least have to consult with the GLA upon it. The current position is that the mayor has indicated publicly that in the middle of February he will say whether, in the light of his latest consultation, he intends to proceed with the revised scheme as proposed last summer, or to put it off for further consultation or other forms of discussion. My noble friend is right, the revenues from congestion charging—which is where the Government have some

3
locus; they have to approve the spending plans—will be a major source of finance, potentially generating £130 million per year.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is the Minister aware—or has he come to suspect—that that answer was drafted by a super-cautious minion in the department? Is he further aware that many people are now in a state of mourning over the departure of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, who was starting to do some very effective work in the Department of Transport before he got buried alive in the tomb of the Cabinet Office? I invite the Minister's attention to the old problem—which contributes to congestion—of people who are allowed the quite unforgivable and unreasonable privilege of digging holes in the highway wherever they want.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I sincerely hope that all of my briefing has been drafted by super-cautious civil servants, for very good reasons. It is an excellent start to the week to hear such praise for my noble friend Lord McIntosh. I am sure the whole House endorses that.
Noble Lords: Lord Macdonald!
Lord Filkin: My Lords, it is even better to have compliments for two members of the Government within five minutes. We are really pleased to endorse them. Seriously though, my noble friend Lord Macdonald made a major contribution to transport policy in Britain. He is now making an equal contribution in the Cabinet Office. I am sure that we shall experience the benefit of that in years to come.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, speaking as a member of a local authority, is the Minister aware that the Mayor of London is already reported to have signed contracts of some £20 million with companies to implement congestion charging, and that this money will have to be paid whether or not the scheme is ultimately introduced? Will he indicate whether the Government will give support to London boroughs to compensate for this extra amount if congestion charging does not come about?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I cannot comment on whether or not the mayor has signed contracts as allegedly reported in the papers. I find it impossible to believe that a properly advised elected politician would sign contracts of that scale without a clause making it subject to the necessary consents—and the necessary consents have not, as yet, been given. It is perfectly possible that these are forward contracts subject to X, Y and Z and not of the nature described by the noble Baroness.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, the Minister may have seen the statement in today's edition of the Financial Times that we are to lose 2 million bus journeys next year as a result of companies withdrawing because of
4
congestion. Will the Government stop using the figures in the 10-year plan and face up to the reality that most local authorities will find it extremely difficult to implement congestion charging without the full-hearted support of the Government?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I find it difficult to understand any rumour that the Government are not in full-hearted support of properly prepared congestion charging schemes brought forward by local authorities. Indeed, we expect that there will be one or two such schemes over the next couple of years. The 10-year transport plan indicated that eight such schemes could be introduced.
The idea is one that I should have thought the noble Lord would support. Under the scheme, local politicians have to develop a consensus within their communities—with both business and the public—that the level of congestion in the area is bad, that public transport improvements have been put in place to deal with the displacement that is likely to take place, and that, therefore, they are ready to move forward on congestion charging. I believe that this will happen over the coming years. Therefore, I believe that the impression that there is hesitation is wrong.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, if the Government are encouraging the pedestrianisation of town centres, will they ensure that adequate arrangements for access and parking are made for disabled drivers and that this is not overlooked?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, how town centre pedestrianisation schemes are handled is largely a matter for the relevant local authorities. However, the noble Lord has a relevant comparison. When town centre pedestrianisation schemes were first proposed, there were many voices saying that they would mean the end of western civilisation and the collapse of retail trade in town centres. In practice, the reverse happened. Properly implemented congestion charging schemes may well have the same potential to deliver benefits to all sections of the public.

Rosyth-Zeebrugge Ferry Service
2.45 p.m.
Lord Burnham Lord Burnham asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they have made a grant of £12 million to a Greek-flagged ferry company operating between Scotland and Belgium.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, in November 2001 the Secretary of State announced his decision to award grant towards the capital cost of setting up a new ferry service between Rosyth and Zeebrugge. The scheme has since been refined. The Government will now pay £10.9 million to Forth Ports plc to assist with the cost

5
of a ro-ro terminal for the new service. No grant money will be paid to the Greek ferry operator, Superfast Ferries.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. I am sure the fact that the ferry is operating out of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's constituency has nothing to do with the matter. Nevertheless, this is a payment to a ferry company which is in competition with P&O in particular but also with the Danish ferry company DFDS. P&O has just paid £200 million for two new North Sea ferries. Where is the fairness in acting in this way towards one company and in another way towards P&O?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, P&O was an unsuccessful bidder for the new scheme out of Rosyth. In practice, the Government's reasons for supporting the scheme were, first, the strength of opinion in Scotland, from both business and the public, that there was a need for a direct ferry route from Scotland to the Continent, and, secondly—and fundamentally from the Government's point of view—the indication that a remarkable amount of heavy lorry traffic would come off the roads as a consequence. The Scottish Executive has forecast that 430 heavy lorry trips will come off the roads, largely in England. The operator will have to reimburse the taxpayer fully if it does not achieve the required level of traffic.
Lord Elder: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the enormous reduction in the weight of traffic on the roads between Scotland and the north-east of England, as well as producing an environmental benefit, will also assist other road users who find the congestion in that area extremely worrying and difficult? Does he further agree that there is ample evidence of sufficient trade to keep the new route in the North Sea going, providing welcome competition while not seriously threatening any other operator?
Lord Filkin: Yes, indeed, my Lords. That is substantially how the Government see the matter. Clearly, no company welcomes additional competition. However, in recent years ferry traffic on the North Sea route has been increasing by 7 per cent per annum. So we are talking about a buoyant market.
The environmental benefits are costed by a standard and accepted method; namely, by examining any consequent reduction in traffic, accidents, pollution, congestion, and so on. The benefits forecast of £36 million compares with the cost of the scheme at just under £11 million. So there is a high pay-back ratio in the scheme.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, were my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie in his place, he would, I am sure, welcome the restoration of the historic links between Scotland and the rest of Europe. It is precisely the substantial reduction in lorry miles which makes the awarding of a freight grant such an important part of transport strategy in that part of the
6
country. Do the Government have any plans to be similarly generous to, for example, the Argyll to Antrim route, which is currently a reserved matter?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, "Not to my knowledge" is the short answer, although, clearly, if a proposal comes forward from a ferry operator and a port. the Government will be happy to consider it.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am slightly confused as to why the noble Lord is answering the Question. He said a moment ago that the project was being funded by the Scottish Executive. If it was a decision by central government, why is it not being paid for by central government? If it was a decision of the Scottish Executive and being paid for by the Scottish Executive, why do the Government feel that they are accountable to this House?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, under the Scotland Act 1998, any grant for a transport linkage between Scotland and somewhere outside Scotland is a reserved matter for the UK Government. The decision therefore has to be taken by the UK Government, but it is perfectly in order for the Scottish Executive to reimburse the UK Government for that expenditure if they wish to do so.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the company that is going to be running the ferry service between Rosyth and the Netherlands recently won the European ferry service of the year award and that it will therefore provide excellent competition for the other operators across the North Sea?
Lord Filkin: No, my Lords, I was not so aware, but I am pleased and relieved to hear it.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, will the Minister be kind enough to tell me what similar subsidies or grants are being given to ferry companies operating out of other parts of the British Isles—out of England, Northern Ireland and Wales?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, to my knowledge, this is the only such scheme at this stage. Up to now, such grants have tended to be used more for inland waterways rather than for high seas ferry routes.

Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
2.51 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether American abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty implies a change in British policy towards United States use of intelligence and early warning facilities under United Kingdom sovereignty, and towards their future development.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, last December, the United States, exercising its treaty rights, gave Russia six months' notice of its intention to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The United States and Russia continue to discuss a future strategic framework for relations based on mutual confidence, openness and co-operation. Our position on the use of intelligence and early warning facilities remains unchanged. We have received no requests from the United States for the use of UK facilities for missile defence purposes and it remains premature to indicate how we would respond to any specific request.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for that reply, I note that the United States and Russia have not yet come to any agreement on what might replace the ABM Treaty. Does the Minister accept that our arrangements with the United States have to operate within the framework of international law and treaties and that if the position of the United States towards that framework begins to weaken, a number of questions will arise? Is he happy that the arrangements for Menwith Hill and Fylingdales are still covered by the NATO status of forces agreement of 1951 and that there has been no recent report to this House or to the other place reflecting the enormous changes in the use of those facilities since 1951? Is he aware that there is now a planning application before Harrogate Council for a third large radome to be erected at Menwith Hill, which I think must be for a space-based infra-red system for use in anti-missile systems? Even if the United States Government have not yet asked the British Government, the British Government might perhaps notice that it is about to be erected, as I notice the first two when I go past them.
Lord Bach: My Lords, RAF Fylingdales and RAF Menwith Hill have performed functions vital to the security of the United States, the United Kingdom and NATO for many years and will continue to do so regardless of how the United States Government seek to proceed with missile defence. We believe that the NATO status of forces agreement of 1951 still applies. The new radome that the noble Lord asked about will update equipment currently in use at the base and is unrelated to missile defence.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, is not the situation the reverse of that stated by the Minister? If the American Government abrogate the treaty, might they not be unwilling to share information with the United Kingdom, as they have done in the past?
Lord Filkin: No, my Lords. First, the United States Government have not abrogated the ABM Treaty. They have given Russia six months' notice of their intention to withdraw from the treaty. The treaty makes explicit provision for such a course of action, as Russia has acknowledged. The Americans have also made it clear that they will not violate the treaty while
8
they are bound by its terms. There will be no difference in the relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States on intelligence.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we are paddling in dangerous waters? Will he confirm to the House, in case we should be contemplating any quixotic gesture, that the balance of intelligence between this country and the United States is weighted heavily in our favour? If that exchange should cease, our national interests, not theirs, would be damaged.
Lord Bach: My Lords, whichever way it is balanced, it is clear that it is in the mutual interests of our closest allies and ourselves that intelligence should continue between us.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, for all the talk of national missile defence leading to a nuclear arms race, in fact the reverse has happened and that both the United States and the Russians are reducing their nuclear arsenals following America's plans for missile defence?
Lord Bach: Yes, my Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. There is no doubt that the new relationship between Russia and the United States and the new relationship between Russia and NATO are of huge potential benefit to world peace.
Lord Jones: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the excellence of the British intelligence agencies enhances the relationship between the British Government and the United States Government? Does he also agree that British intelligence greatly informs British foreign policy?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the answer to both my noble friend's questions is yes.

Age Discrimination in Health and Social Care
2.56 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take in response to the King's Fund's report Old Habits Die Hard: Tackling Age Discrimination in Health and Social Care.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the Government take the issue very seriously. The National Service Framework for Older People, published in March 2001, sets the elimination of age discrimination in assessing National Health Service or

9
social care as a priority. To help to achieve that, it provides a programme of actions and milestones to be achieved over the next 10 years.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I welcome that reply in part, but does not the King's Fund report illustrate the belief of senior managers that ageism is endemic in the health service? Whatever the facts of last week's incidents at the Whittington hospital, would not the Government be well advised to change their mind—as they have done on a number of other occasions—about whether to introduce a duty of age equality into the health service?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I believe that the King's Fund report is a valuable contribution to the development of policy in this area. It shows that practitioners in the NHS and personal social services recognise that there is a problem of age discrimination. I believe that the establishment of the 10-year National Service Framework to ensure that the issues will be tackled consistently throughout the country is the best approach.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the codes of conduct and practice recently issued by the General Social Care Council will be very important tools in ensuring that discrimination of any kind is not acceptable to those who work in social care and to those who employ them? In putting that question, I declare an interests as the interim chair of the General Social Care Council.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am glad to pay tribute to my noble friend's work as the interim chair of the General Social Care Council. I am sure that she is right. The King's Fund report shows that more can be done to raise awareness among practitioners and managers of the impact and manifestation of age discrimination. Some of the examples that have been given include low referral rates to particular services and unthinking and insensitive treatment from individual members of staff. As my noble friend has suggested, codes of practice and training regimes may be one of the ways in which we can bring to the minds of all staff the need to be very much aware of the potential for age discrimination.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, does the Minister agree that age discrimination in health and social care has a lot to do with structure and organisation'? For example, I know of patients with serious mental illnesses who may have been dealing with one team of workers throughout their lives, but who, at the age of 65 or 66, are told that that team can no longer look after them because of the age that they have reached. Does the Minister agree that that has nothing to do with person-centred care?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree that arbitrary cut-offs are completely unacceptable. The National Service Framework for Older People makes it
10
absolutely clear that discrimination on the basis of age in relation to treatment options is not to be tolerated. As for the noble Baroness's specific question on different policies in different parts of the National Health Service, I think that the work of the NSF shows that different approaches are taken in different parts of the NHS. The important point, however, is that all staff are trained to provide services to older people so that, regardless of how the services are provided, there is indeed a continuum of care.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, can the Minister throw any light on the number of older people, mostly women, who are in hospital when they should not be? Does he agree that the term "bed blocker"—which is hardly a human term at all—applies to such people, who are in hospital simply because there is not sufficient capacity for them outside hospital? Is that not a disgrace?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I could not agree more with the noble Baroness that the term "bed blocker" is very much to be deplored. I think that the terminology currently being used is "delayed discharge". The noble Baroness will know that the Governmem have placed an extra £100 million into the system in recent months to allow for more places to be provided outside hospitals, and that intermediate care is designed to ensure that people are not stuck in hospital but rehabilitated and enabled to go back into their own homes. That is the broad thrust of the Government's policy in dealing with that particular problem.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the front-page article last week in my local newspaper about one such case in which social services said point-blank that it did not have any money to transfer the elderly patient back into the community—where the medical staff at the hospital said that she ought to be?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not have the benefit of reading the noble Lord's local newspaper. However, on the issue of the local authority's policy, 1 point out to him that, for next year, local authorities will be receiving 3.9 per cent extra in real-terms growth for social services. I should also mention the additional money that we have put into the system this winter. We believe that, ultimately, the resources are there to ensure that local authorities can make the right decisions in relation to providing support in the community.
Earl Howe: My Lords, one concern raised in the King's Fund report is the current lack of specialist palliative care. Does the Minister recognise the severe funding difficulties being experienced by the hospice movement? What steps are the Government taking to reverse the diminishing level of public funding for hospices?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as the noble Earl will know, the Government have taken various steps to ensure that the funding needs of hospices are taken fully into account by health authorities as they develop

11
palliative care plans for their local health communities. He will also know that we are expecting to see increased expenditure in palliative care services which will benefit both services provided directly by the NHS and those provided by voluntary organisations. Of course we recognise the enormous contribution that the voluntary sector has made in this area. We expect that, because of renewed and local discussion between voluntary providers and health authorities, we shall achieve greater stability and certainty in funding support, which will be of benefit to the voluntary sector.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is not the increase—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I think that it is the turn of this corner. Is the Minister aware that older people are not only concerned about clinical discrimination but very concerned about the way in which they are treated in hospital wards? As he will be aware, they are concerned about being treated in mixed-sex wards. We were promised that such wards would be eliminated by 2002. We have reached 2002. Will the Minister give me a progress report and tell me whether mixed-sex wards have indeed been banished from the National Health Service?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, what I would say to the noble Lord in that corner is that the target to which he referred is to eliminate mixed-sex accommodation in 95 per cent of NHS trusts by December 2002. My understanding is that we are well on track to meet that target.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is not the increase in the number of elderly people needing intermediate care greater than the 3 per cent real terms increase that the Government have given local authorities?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, intermediate care is a crucial part of the strategy to provide services for older people. As for resources and funding, we expect to spend by 2003–04 an extra investment of £900 million annually for intermediate care. We reckon that, by the end of the current year, compared with 1999–2000, we shall have an additional 2,400 intermediate care beds, more than 6,000 non-residential intermediate care beds and 137,000 people in receipt of intermediate care services. I think that noble Lords will see from those figures that intermediate care has indeed provided additional services and that, overall, with the extra money we have put into the system this winter to deal with the discharge problem, considerable improvements and progress are being made.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, after the Third Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, my noble friend Lord Grocott will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on the Tokyo conference on the reconstruction of Afghanistan.
Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Convention on the Future of Europe
3.8 p.m.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean) rose to move to resolve, That in the opinion of this House, the Lord Tomlinson and the Lord Macleannan of Rogart should be appointed the alternate national parliamentary representatives to the Convention on the Future of Europe.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, during our consideration of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill we have had occasion to debate the future of Europe process on more than one occasion. At Report stage of the Bill, I promised to bring before your Lordships this Motion which seeks the agreement of your Lordships' House to nominate Members of this House as representatives from the UK Parliament to the convention. Another Motion will be debated separately in another place on two representatives from that House: one member from the Conservative Party and one from the Labour Party. Consequently, this Parliament will have representatives from both Houses and from all main parties. I believe that that outcome is a good one. I am particularly happy to have succeeded in securing representation by two Members of your Lordships' House.
The heads of government decided at the Laeken European Council that the convention should be set up to take forward the debate and to prepare a series of options for change which an intergovernmental conference in 2004 will then consider. It is a huge task and a daunting responsibility that those chosen to represent the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom Parliament will be undertaking.
Each national parliament in existing member states and candidate countries will be represented at the convention by two members and two alternate members. Your Lordships' House was ably represented at the similar Convention on the Charter of Fundamental Rights by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howells of St Davids. At that convention there were also, of course, two Members from another place.
At a meeting I held for your Lordships on this subject on 31st October 2001, the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, recounted to those present that membership of the convention that he attended had represented a great burden in terms of both time and commitment. The Government therefore feel that, as allowed to this and other parliaments by the Laeken declaration, it is sensible to nominate four members to share the burden of the convention we are now discussing. It will be even more wide-ranging than its predecessor and will last much longer. I hope, therefore, that all four nominees will be able to share the burden and, of course, have the chance to contribute their expertise and experience.
Following consultations, the Government have put forward this Motion nominating as alternate members of the convention the noble Lords, Lord Maclennan of Rogart and Lord Tomlinson. Both have excellent credentials for representing this House and this Parliament in the convention. The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, is an accomplished lawyer, specialising in international law, and will, I am sure, make an effective contribution to the debate. My noble friend Lord Tomlinson was a Member of the European Parliament for 15 years. I am sure that he will be able to use his considerable experience of that institution and the European Union in general to effect.
If your Lordships are to make the most of the opportunity before us to shape the future of Europe debate, effective lines of communication between this House, its committees and the representatives of the convention will be very important. I hope that some system can be arranged for the representatives to have a continuous dialogue with your Lordships' House while they carry out their duties. I shall be happy to contribute whatever I can in my Foreign Office capacity.
The Laeken declaration states merely that members and alternate members may not attend meetings of the convention at the same time. It does not lay down how the four representatives divide the burdens and responsibilities; nor is this a matter for the Government. It is rightly a matter for each parliament to decide how the system will work for its own representatives in practice. I hope that the members themselves will be able to reach a sensible agreement on attendance at meetings and preparation of the issues under discussion in order to maximise the influence of this Parliament in the convention's deliberations.
It is true to say that never before has there been such wide consultation in the EU about its future. We have an historic chance to bring together some of the best minds in Europe to debate the issues and suggest changes to the EU that will make it more effective, more efficient and more able to deliver the real results that people expect from it. I am very happy that two such respected and well qualified Members of your Lordships' House will be able to play a part in that process. I commend the Motion on the Order Paper to the House. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in the opinion of this House, the Lord Tomlinson and the Lord Maclennan of Rogart should be appointed the alternate national parliamentary representatives to the Convention on the Future of Europe.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
3.15 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this Motion was not agreed by the usual channels. I make that clear because normally these kinds of what you might call "housekeeping" Motions moved at this time of the afternoon are, after amicable discussions, agreed by the usual channels as fair and in the interests of your Lordships' House. However, this one is a diktat from
14
Downing Street. It is a small example of how our current elective dictatorship treats Parliament in general and this House in particular.
As the Minister said, the Motion provides for the two noble Lords mentioned to be alternate members of the body being set up to be called the Convention on the Future of Europe, by which, of course, is actually meant the future of the EU rather than of Europe, but we shall let that pass.
Under the agreement each country is entitled to one government member of the convention, plus two full members and two alternates representing the national parliament. Downing Street has decided that the two full members from the British Parliament should both be from another place, one Labour and one Conservative, and that the alternates should both be from this House, one Labour and one Liberal Democrat. Britain will, therefore, in total be represented by three Labour Members from both Houses, one Conservative Member and one Liberal Democrat Member.
One might have thought that the obvious and fair arrangement was for one full member and one alternate member to come from each House. One might also have thought—I certainly think this—that the Cross Benches have a much better right to one representative than the Labour Party has to a third representative. In some respects I think that the Cross Benches have a better right to a representative than the Liberal Democrats. After all, more Peers sit on the Cross Benches than sit on the Liberal Democrat Benches in both Houses put together. We all, including the Government, attach great importance to the independent Members of this House. although I find as I go about my day-to-day duties that all Members of this House are pretty independent! But when it comes to appointing representatives to this Euro discussion group, the Government ignore the Cross Benches altogether.
There are, of course, some Peers on the Cross Benches with particularly high expertise in this matter who have risen to very senior rank working on exactly these questions. I shall not mention names but noble Lords will know of whom I am thinking. They have deep knowledge and long experience of how the EU works; of the people and the groups involved; of what has been tried before and with what effect. They and other Cross-Benchers are the kind of people who could make an impact on a body like this to be composed of the best minds in Europe.
I do not blame the Front Bench opposite in this House for the way in which the decision has been arrived at. The Minister has done her best. Indeed, she told us that she was doing her best last week, just a few hours before the Motion was tabled. I am sure that this is the best she can do. However, the fact is that the name of the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, has emerged from some process within the Liberal Democrat Party that I know nothing about and the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, is to be the third Labour name. I am sure that they will be assiduous in their duties.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Quite. The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, has been in this House only a few months. Not all noble Lords may know him as well as some of us do. Some of us have often heard him speak in another place, sometimes for a long time—well, it seemed a long time, anyway. As the Minister explained, the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, has long experience of the European Parliament. He is well known to noble Lords and often gives us his views, or, slightly more often, the views of the Labour Party. However, neither he nor the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, will be able to give the convention their views very often. All we can give them is a ticket for a back row seat at best. I understand that it may be in the public gallery. Certainly, they are likely to sit at the back with headphones on listening to the translation, but they will not have a microphone. Therefore, they will not be able to speak. If a vote is called, they will sit as still as the pictures on the wall. The EU is not driven from the back seats.
I am sorry that none of the Cross-Bench Peers with strong European experience put their name forward, although they had precious little opportunity to do so. Perhaps that shows what they think of this convention and particularly of a back row seat—and perhaps they are right. It is an unsatisfactory matter but we should not decline to appoint anyone. We shall take what is on offer and give the two noble Lords the two back row tickets. With any luck the convention will keep them amused in Brussels.
Lord Roper: My Lords, from these Benches I welcome the rather unusual, perhaps unprecedented, opportunity for discussion of a Motion of this kind. The noble Lords proposed in the Motion are, I believe, both well qualified for this function. As has been said, the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, not only has experience as a Foreign Office Minister but also as a Member of the European Parliament and as a very active Member of the European Union Committee in this House. Although my noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart is a relatively new Member of your Lordships' House, he has been very actively involved in European matters in another place for well over 30 years. He, too, will represent us well.
I do not go quite as far as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, but I, too, regret the relatively limited time available for consideration of and consultation on the proposal and the choice of names, either between this House and another place or within this House. I also understand the concern that the noble Lord referred to about the position of the Cross-Benchers.
A Motion of this kind, whereby the House is asked its opinion in determining such a matter, is rather unusual. However, I notice that the Motion is not a decision by your Lordships' House but merely an expression of,
"the opinion of this House".
The decision, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, made clear, is that of the Government rather than of Parliament.
16
The allocation of full members and alternates between this House and another place is less than satisfactory. On this occasion all of the former were given to another place and all of the latter were given to us. That is rather unsatisfactory, in view of the comparative advantage that your Lordships' House has in the consideration of European matters. In particular, the European Union Committee, which is chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, has done much work on this and comparable issues.
It is by no means clear whether the full members will be able to attend regularly. I read in the Financial Times this morning that the convention will meet 11 days a month for at least a year. As has been said, that will be a heavy burden. It will meet considerably more often than did the body in which the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, took part, which considered the charter of human rights.
Will the Minister explain whether the alternates will be observers when the full members are present? The Laeken declaration in English states:
"The members of the Convention may only be replaced by alternate members if they are not present".
That is clear; alternates can vote or speak only if the full member is not present. However, it is not clear whether they can have seats in the public gallery, a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. That would provide an opportunity to observe and learn and to prepare for those occasions among the 11 days a month when the full members are not able to be present.
I have two further questions for the Minister. Will those members from this House and another place who are being nominated have support in terms of research facilities for what will be a fairly onerous responsibility? The Minister referred to the reporting arrangements. Clearly, there are two different sets of reporting arrangements. There are arrangements so far as Mr Peter Hain, the Government's representative, is concerned. I hope that it will be possible for him to report to this House—to the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon—and to another place. It will also be important for the two Houses of Parliament to consider how parliamentary representatives from another place and from this House can report to the two Houses. They will probably do so by making use of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon.
Despite those reservations and the fact that the way in which the conclusions were reached was not totally satisfactory, we on these Benches hope that the two Peers who have been nominated will make a useful contribution to a matter that we believe is of great importance.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I am most grateful, as I am sure are all noble Lords on these Benches, for the remarks of the Opposition and Liberal Democrat Chief Whips on Cross-Benchers and their expertise. Some unattributable intelligence and a little spadework on my part last Wednesday evening

17
revealed that one or two of the alternates might be drawn from your Lordships' House. I registered a possible Cross Bench interest with the usual channels, only to be informed on Thursday morning that there was now very little time: a Motion—the one that is before your Lordships' House—was to be tabled within a matter of minutes, and anyway the Foreign Secretary had agreed that the alternates would be from this House only that morning; that is, on Thursday.
I think that I may assert without fear of contradiction that on these Benches there are some very informed and knowledgeable Members of the House on affairs European. However, in the short time available I was not able to contact any of a number of them.
I was, however, a little taken aback and surprised to be told, when I was hoping to seek an extension of time, that the issue was all highly political. I felt bound to point out that the Cross-Benchers were all parliamentarians, and therefore politicians, albeit not from a party stable. The convention will be a major contributor to developments in Europe. Its membership deserves measured consideration.
I hope that the message will be received that, with more than 20 per cent of Members of your Lordships' House now on these Benches and an increasing number of them being regular contributors to the work of the House, the opportunity to draw on the individual and collective expertise that resides on them will be viewed from the right end of the telescope, and that time will be allowed to make contact with those who often have other than their parliamentary duties to attend to.
Those on these Benches should not be sidelined. I do not wish by these remarks in any way to question the calibre or quality of the two noble Lords whose names appear on the Motion.
Lord Elton: My Lords, when the Minister replies, I hope that she will elaborate a little on the process by which the Motion was arrived at. As I understand it, the invitation was issued not to the Government but to Parliament but that the reply has been sent not by Parliament but by the Government—dictated to this House, it would seem, by circumstances.
We do not, of course, wish to delay the process. I accept the ability of those who have been appointed in the second row, as it were, of the affairs in Europe, on our behalf. However, it is important to recognise the distinction between government and Parliament. Parliament is here in the end to oversee and control government. The power of government should not be so extended that it pre-empts the decisions of Parliament. On a matter such as this, which is riot a party political issue, the decision in the House of Commons may be predictable but the Government cannot normally count on the decision of this House, which contains that body of talented Cross-Benchers
18
and others. I hope that the Minister will show that in some ways this is not a usurpation by the Government of their function as part of Parliament.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, as the representative from this House to the convention that drew up the draft charter of human rights, I shall take a moment of noble Lords' time.
As that representative, I understand that there was a desire in your Lordships' House for a much more open process. Some noble Lords were extremely surprised when they found out that I had been appointed. I also understand that it is inevitable that the usual channels will be involved. They have a part to play in ensuring that there is a political balance, in terms of parliamentary representatives, between only four people.
However, we should not delude ourselves this afternoon into believing that the current process is in some way transparent. It may be rather more open than that involving my nomination by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, on the nomination of the usual channels. We do not know anything—or at least I do not; others may tell me that I am wrong—about how the other place came to take both full places.
As has already been said, it is somewhat extraordinary that this House should be overlooked, in view of the remarkable reputation that it has for the oversight of European Union matters and the serious manner in which its reports are received. It is also extraordinary, as my noble friend Lord Elton said, in view of the fact that these places were for the United Kingdom Parliament, not merely for the other place. I do not know—I have not read about this—whet her any representations were made by Her Majesty's Opposition in the other place to ensure that this House was represented. If no representations were made, I am sure that other noble Lords will understand that I would consider that to be somewhat unfortunate. Had the previous pattern been followed, the other full member would have been drawn from these Benches. Certainly, while there has apparently been a much publicised election, I know of no consultation with regard to who should be nominated or who, indeed, should take that place.
The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, said that I had referred to the considerable burden of the previous convention. It was a burden which I was very happy to undertake. It was an administrative burden, and I believe that that is a serious point which needs to be addressed. The process was very open. Many hundreds of documents were posted on the convention website, including the working documents. On many occasions the documents arrived late—only a short time before the meeting took place. Those who, like Members of your Lordships' House, largely look after such matters themselves, know that that involves searching for the website, running through documents and printing them off on, if any of your Lordships are like me, a rather slow printer at home. The whole process produces a great pile of paper. It is that administration which is burdensome.

19
I, together with a colleague from the other place, was fortunate to serve with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, before his elevation to Attorney-General. Although he was the Prime Minister's representative and a government representative, he and his civil servants were, as one would expect, extremely good to the parliamentary representatives. They supplied information and, if documents arrived late, ensured that we were advised.
However, he was, as will be the Government's representative at this convention, the Government's and not the parliamentary representative. I believe it is important that whoever is responsible in this House makes arrangements for those documents to be supplied to this House on a regular basis and in good time so that Members in this House who are interested in following the proceedings of the convention will be able to do so. That person also needs to provide an adequate service for the two noble Lords who are nominated as alternates if, indeed, they are called upon to serve.
Like other noble Lords, in making these comments I do not wish in any way to be seen or thought of as criticising the appointment of the noble Lords, Lord Maclennan and Lord Tomlinson. As others have said, they will bring great expertise and experience to the convention. If the convention is to be a success, it must not be too tightly governed by political parties. The previous convention, of which I had the privilege to be a member, had, to some extent among the parliamentary members, some freedom and was able to achieve results by consensus. If that process is too strictly controlled in this convention, I suspect that it will not work. We all want the convention to be a success. Certainly it requires among its members people who will bring a constructive and positive approach to the workings and future of the European Union.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I do not dissent for one moment from the noble Baroness's description of the excellent qualities possessed by the two noble Lords nominated by the Government. However, does she agree that at least 40 per cent of your Lordships oppose further European integration? Indeed, many of us believe that it has gone too far already. Conversely, no more than 60 per cent at the outside favour further European integration. That 60 per cent maximum will effectively have two representatives from this House, whereas the 40 per cent of sceptics will have none whatever. Is that fair and is it right?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, as the noble Baroness informed the House when she opened the debate, the question of representation on the convention and other matters were raised during our debates on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. It is hoped that we shall complete the final stage of that Bill today. I am not at all sure that the matters raised were resolved either in Committee or on Report. However, we now have the opportunity to discuss the
20
appointment and, indeed, the method of appointment of parliamentarians from this Parliament to the convention.
My first question goes back to the one raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I understood—I may be wrong; perhaps the Minister will put me right—that the invitations relating to both the Government and Parliament were sent to the Government. However, my view, and I should have thought the view of most, if not all, Members of this House and another place, is that the invitation to parliamentarians should have been sent either to the Clerk of the Parliaments or to the Speakers of both Houses. They are the proper routes by which invitations to Parliament for attendance at conventions and other such matters should go. I should like an answer to that point if possible.
I listened with great interest to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, who, I believe, raised a very important point. If we are to have Cross-Benchers in this House, then they should be entitled to equal consideration with all other sides of the House. I am not suggesting that this corner of the House should have equal treatment; nevertheless, the Cross-Benchers should be considered. I am surprised that they were given such short notice of the proposal which we are now discussing.
I am also surprised—no doubt there are very good reasons for it—that the noble and gallant Lord did not table an amendment to the Motion. If he had done so, he would have given the House the opportunity to make a real choice. He must have been surprised to have been given such short notice on this occasion, but in future he may like to take that into account.
As other noble Lords have said, the noble Lords who have been proposed are excellent people; there is no question about that. They have given great service to both Houses. Certainly that of the noble Lord, Lord, Lord Maclennan, is rather shorter than that of the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson. Nevertheless, he has an excellent record in Parliament, as does the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson.
However, there is a problem. I believe that both are very much in favour of further European integration and, therefore, the other point of view will not be represented. During our debates at the Committee and Report stages of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, we questioned the noble Baroness as to how the views of the very large minority—I do not believe that it is a majority—of people in this country who are opposed to further integration, many of whom would like to withdraw from the European Community entirely, would be expressed. We shall certainly need to address, first, how those views are to be sought by the representatives and, secondly, how they are to be put across.
Another question that I want to ask the noble Baroness—if, indeed, she knows the answer—is whether Eurosceptic outside bodies will be able to submit papers to the convention. If they are able to do so, will those papers be considered by the convention

21
and not merely summarised and brushed aside by the president, the two deputy presidents and the bureaucrats who serve them?
Those are the questions to which I should like to receive an answer. I believe that this is possibly the first time—and I am very pleased because I consider it to be progress—t hat this House has had the opportunity to discuss the nominations and the system.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I strongly support the nominations before us. Both are eminent noble Lords with great expertise in European matters. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, raised the issue of independence because of the way in which he perceived the process to have taken place. For 15 years I was a neighbouring Member of the European Parliament to the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson. From personal experience I know that he has a great record of being extremely independently minded and will no doubt bring that to the work he will do.
I also know that he will put first and foremost his accountability to this House in reporting back to us on the work of the convention. Indeed, with his record on budgetary matters, action against fraud and on chairing our committee in this House he will be someone in whose hands our views, concerns and opinions will be extremely safe. I would also say the same of the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I suppose that whether one supports the nomination of the two noble Lords to the convention, depends on what the agenda of the convention will be. I do not know whether the noble Baroness can enlighten us. Is there any suggestion that the convention should go hack to basics and start by wondering whether the European Union should continue at all, or has the time come to wrap it up and rely on free trade, inter-governmental collaboration, defence from NATO, and so forth?
I imagine that the noble Baroness will reply that that is a very silly question and that of course that will not be on the agenda. Therefore, if that is so, we must assume that the idea is for the United Kingdom to continue as a member of the European Union, the future shape of which is somewhat uncertain at present. However, I think we can take it for granted that it will riot be a shape which entails any less power in Brussels.
The Government say that they want a public debate on this matter. I do not see that we shall get that by the appointment of the noble Lords as proposed or, indeed, anyone else to this convention, which will, after all, be a convention of politicians and like-minded people. How are the British people to be involved in this debate? The noble Baroness will be aware that if opinion polls are to be believed, many British people, perhaps even a majority, now favour reducing our relationship with the European Union to one merely of free trade. How can the people decide this matter if they do not know what are the alternatives to our continued membership of the European Union?
22
I put it to the noble Baroness that the Government should now set up some form of cost-benefit analysis of our membership of the European Union so that the work of this no doubt excellent convention can be taken into consideration by the British public, who should then be allowed to make up their minds as to how this project should proceed, or otherwise.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Roper and Lord Stoddart, got it right when they pointed out that the very fact that we are debating this issue is unprecedented. Although the invitation to participate has been a process evolved by the Government, that was in discussions with other parties. I believe that this opportunity for both Houses to comment on the names put forward is a welcome precedent. I hoped that perhaps it would have been given a rather more generous welcome from some noble Lords on the Benches opposite.
We first discussed this matter in a Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, in October. On 31st October last year I held a consultative meeting in your Lordships' House to which every one of your Lordships was invited arid to which every single Member of this House could have come, had your Lordships so wished. That was three months ago. To describe this as having been a very rushed job is somewhat gilding the lily. We have had three months. Sadly, that meeting was poorly attended. With some honourable exceptions, noble Lords did not avail themselves. The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, was very kind insofar as he was able to give us the benefit of his knowledge about what had happened on a previous similar occasion.
Noble Lords say that this matter has not been agreed through the usual channels and that it is a great pity that the two full members—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Does she not agree that an invitation to the very important meeting which she has just described should have been made in a different way rather that in an answer to a supplementary question in your Lordships' House? I have no doubt that the noble Baroness was trying to help and wanted to hold the meeting as soon as possible. However, perhaps in future when she holds such meetings she will give better notice and in such a manner so that all people, even those who cannot catch up with Hansard every day can respond?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I would always wish to give noble Lords the maximum opportunity to attend meetings which might be of interest to them. Having made the announcement on the Floor of the House, naturally it was published in Hansard. I understand that the Whips' offices of the main parties represented in your Lordships' House were given notice of the date of the meeting. Again, that meeting was unprecedented. It was a genuine effort to try to do everything within my power, meagre as it is, to hold consultation.

23
There has been criticism that the two full members will come from another place. I have no problem with the two full members coming from the elected House. I am bound to say to the Opposition that if they had a problem with that, it was within their power to make their arguments to their own Front Bench in another place that it should be a Member of this House who was the full member from the Conservative Party. It was within their power so to do. I do not know whether they did that. Whether they took that up is entirely a matter for them. However, I find no problem with the arrangements as far as concerns the representation from my own party.
The party opposite is also very worried indeed about the representation from the Liberal Democrats. That is a matter for the Liberal Democrat Party. The Liberal Democrats were generous enough not to make comments about representation from the Conservative Party, although I understand that at one stage there was a certain amount of conjecture about that. We have to tolerate each other's ways of doing this. It is right and proper that we respect each other's processes.
The point has been made about the Cross-Benchers. Again, the Cross-Benchers had the opportunity, not only to attend the meeting to which I have just referred, but every opportunity in the past three months to make their representations. The noble Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, says that he did. As he said, to be fair to him, that was pretty late in the day, but there has been that opportunity. The Order Paper has been before your Lordships and any of your Lordships could have tabled an amendment. That has not been the case. I do not want to encourage amendments; I shall be extremely grateful if we can reach the end of this matter in fairly good order.
The noble Lord, Lord Roper, asked whether the alternate members can be observers when the principals are there. The answer is yes. The noble Lord asked about support. These are parliamentary representatives. It is up to the House to arrange that. I sought to imply that the Government will be happy to provide whatever briefing the representatives from Parliament may wish to have. In making that suggestion, I hope that I am not encroaching on any of the understandable distinctions that noble Lords would wish to draw—I say this to Members of my own side—between the Government as government and the Labour Party. The parliamentary representatives are representing the Labour interest and not the Government.
The noble Lord. Lord Roper, asked about reporting back. It is not possible for me to guarantee an amount of time for that. That will be for the usual channels to decide. However, it is important to have full reporting back. I believe that all information should be made available. I hope that the usual channels will be able to facilitate that.
24
The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, was kind enough to talk about the arrangements made last time. I fully appreciate that he would rather have received his paperwork independently. I hope that he agrees that where the Government were able to help—the system may not have worked as effectively as it might have done—that was useful. I believe that the Government's attitude on future occasions will be no different.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that 40 per cent of your Lordships opposed further integration and that, therefore, the "eurosceptic" view—-that was the term he used—should have greater representation. It is difficult to say that someone who opposes further European integration is a eurosceptic. I do not believe that that is true. But we have had a lengthy debate on the Nice Bill. I am mindful that we have Third Reading later today. Despite the 40 per cent to which the noble Lord refers, the Government have not done too badly in getting through their agenda. The Nice Bill was firmly placed in the Labour Party manifesto which went before the country in June last year and we know what happened in that election.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords. this is a difficult argument which is often produced by the Government to justify their stance on the European Union. Surely the noble Baroness will agree that the manifesto contained nearly 200 commitments, of which this was only one; that the people voted for it en Noe; and that only 59 per cent of the public bothered to vote of which a minority voted for the Labour Government. I cannot envisage how one can take the general election as a justification for the Government's europhile stance.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I remind the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, that it was his party, not mine, which sought to put Europe at the top of the general election. That is the nature of democracy. It is a tine debating point but the noble Lord knows that in this country we publish election manifestos. It was clear and unequivocal that this Government would take forward the Nice treaty. Yes, it was one of many commitments made and honoured by this Government. That is the nature of democracy, difficult as the noble Lord may find it.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I cannot allow the noble Baroness to say that the Conservative Party put "Europe" on the agenda at the last election. We did not. We put the currency on the agenda which the people knew was to he subject to a referendum. Therefore, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, stands; I tried to underline it. In this convention we are talking about the future of Europe. We are not talking about the currency. There is a big difference.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord has not answered my other point on Nice: that this takes forward the agenda. The noble Lord and I have had interesting and sometimes extremely

25
lengthy exchanges on the Nice Bill. The noble Lord may toss the matter to one side, saying that the outcome of the general election on the basis of a clearly articulated promise to the British people is neither here nor there. I take a somewhat different view.
The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, was entirely right to say that the representatives from your Lordships' House will be independent. I agree that they are independent not only on their standing with regard to the convention but also by the nature of the noble Lords concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, asked whether we would go back to first principles. The noble Lord will not like the answer which I gave in the recent exchange. We said that we shall take Nice forward. We have taken Nice forward. I hope that we shall get through Third Reading. I do not think that the Government's position could have been made clearer.
We are where we are on this. I did my best genuinely to obtain representations from your Lordships' House. I do not believe that the argument is between the Government and Parliament. The arguments adduced have been more about the balance between the two Houses. As I urged noble Lords last week to do, it was the responsibility of us all to take forward that argument through our party political channels. I say gently to the Cross-Benchers, for whom I have the greatest possible respect, that if their arguments were so pressing they could have been put some time ago. They had the opportunity for amendments.
I understand that there is still a little unhappiness. However, we shall have the opportunity to discuss the convention. We shall get our views over through the usual means: questions, debates and our own excellent committee on the European Union. With that assurance, and with the assurance that the Government will do everything they can to facilitate—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, will she answer the important question on whether the invitation to send delegates from Parliament was sent to the Government or the Clerk of Parliaments and the Speakers of both Houses?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sorry. I thought that I had answered that point in my opening remarks. It was for the Government, as all other governments, to decide the process for determining parliamentary representatives. The noble Lord should not be under the misapprehension that invitations were sent to Parliament. We discussed this matter when the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, first raised the question. I said that it was a matter ultimately for the Government to decide: that the Government would do so on the basis of as wide a consultation as possible. I believe that our tabling today of this Motion on the Order Paper fully fulfils that commitment.
On Question. Motion agreed to.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
3.58 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Incorporation of provisions of the Treaty of Nice]:
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, at beginning insert "Article 1 (other than paragraphs 7 and 8, revising Articles 29 and 31 of the Treaty on European Union),"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during our debate on 17th January at the Report stage of the Bill, I raised the question at col. 1219 of the Official Report as to whether the new European police force, Europol, was to have immunity for its actions. When I did not detect an answer in the reply of the Minister, I repeated the question at cols. 1222 and 1223. The noble Baroness still did not quite answer my question but was generous enough to say:
"Nothing in the establishing of Eurojust trespasses on the Europol issues which the noble Lord has raised. I shall do my best to put some more flesh on the bones for him. if that is possible at this stage. I understand why the noble Lord is so concerned".—[Official Report, 17/1/02, col. 1223.]
In the absence of any flesh on those bones, I am bringing forward the question again today as a specific amendment.
In the meantime I have done more homework and regret to say that it looks as though Europol's officers are indeed to have almost total immunity for their actions. I say that because I have discovered a Statutory Instrument, No. 2973, dated 17th December 1997, which appears to confirm just such immunity. The whole document is available in your Lordships' Library, but I believe it is worth placing on the record what are perhaps the two most worrying paragraphs.
The first is paragraph 6 which concerns Europol as an organisation. It states,
"Europol shall have immunity from suit and legal process, except to the extent that the Director shall have waived such immunity in a particular case, in respect of any damage caused to an individual as a result of legal or factual errors in data stored or processed at Europol".
I believe that your Lordships will agree that this could be a very wide ranging immunity indeed because,
"damage caused to an individual as a result of legal or factual errors in data stored or processed at Europol"
could presumably be very substantial damage. I trust that your Lordships will agree that it is not much comfort for the director of Europol to be given the sole power to waive the immunity granted because that leaves the organisation subject to no outside constraint in that regard at all. I shall be interested to learn from the Government how they justify having agreed to this in December 1997.
Paragraph 15 of the statutory instrument is even more worrying. It is worth placing on the record. It refers to the officers of Europol and states:
"Except in so far as in any particular case any privilege or immunity is waived by the Board, in the case of the Director, Financial Controller and members of the Financial Committee,

27
by the Director, in the case of staff members of Europol, or, in the case of the members of the Board, by the Member State of the European Union of which the member is representative"—
I trust that noble Lords can catch up on all that in Hansard. Now we come to the crunch—
"such persons"—
that is the officers of Europol—
"shall enjoy immunity from suit and legal process in respect of acts, including words written or spoken, done by them in the exercise of their official functions, except in respect of civil liability in the case of damage arising from a road traffic accident caused by them".
I suppose it is good news that these new Europol officers will remain liable for civil liability—I do not know if that includes accidental damage—if they cause a road accident. Otherwise, they are to enjoy what looks like blanket immunity. Once again, I shall be interested to learn how the Government justify having agreed to this state of affairs in December 1997.
At least one other question needs an answer from the Government today. It is generally believed that Europol has been given the green light to form its own so-called anti-terrorist squad with the right to demand intelligence from MI5 and MI6. I ask the Government whether that is true. If so, it is not reassuring to remember that EU officials were caught selling intelligence information from the Schengen information system only three years ago.
As far as I know, the instrument and the immunity it confers were not even debated in either House of Parliament: it went through on the nod. Therefore, I believe that we should let in a little light today.
I have one last question for the Minister which I also asked on 17th January, at col. 1219, and to which I did not receive a reply. Do the Government agree that Europol and Eurojust, the EU's fledgling prosecution agency which will be working under the new European judicial network, and all these new creations, when taken together with the infamous European arrest warrant, are indeed the first steps towards corpus juris or the common EU legal order? I believe that we should clarify the issue before we leave consideration of the Treaty of Nice.
If the answer to my question is yes—and it seems pretty clear that it must be—then should we not have a specific debate before long so that we can at least express a view and inform the British people of what is being done in their name with their legal system? I beg to move.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity given by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and his amendment to discuss this important question. In our earlier discussion, I gained the impression, perhaps wrongly, from the reply the noble Lord received, that the Foreign Office did not know about the legislation passed in 1997. If so that is very worrying because I believe that we should have joined-up government and that every department should know exactly what is going on in another department and what they negotiating over in Europe.
28
It seems to me that as a result of the document referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, the safeguards and constraints which apply to our own police forces do not apply to the foreign police agents of the EU, because that is what they are and no mistake should be made about it. As I understand it, the Police Complaints Authority will be powerless to act in abuse cases as will police forces and individual police officers, due to the immunity granted by the order.
I seem to recall that when the order was discussed the impression was given that immunity would apply only to a very narrow band of crimes, for example, fraud against the EU and drugs smuggling. Now, with the advent of the European arrest warrant, these foreign agents of the EU may perhaps be able to intervene and investigate all the crimes mentioned in the framework agreement on the European arrest warrant. I believe that they total 39. Frankly, that covers just about everything, so far as I can see. It is an important issue which the noble Lord has brought forward. I feel sure that those who fought and died to keep this country free must be turning in their graves at the thought of policemen, perhaps from the countries they fought to maintain that freedom, coming to this country to arrest people and have them tried in another country.
I say also to the press that there are great dangers here for them. If we follow the line of "no xenophobia" and whatever, the Sun will not be able to print headlines such as "Up Yours, Delors!" for fear of those responsible being arrested by Euro policemen, taken across the water and being incarcerated for six months or more before trial and then, if found guilty, incarcerated in a foreign gaol. I hope that that is not taking matters too far. These are the dangers that can arise. It is right that we should at least discuss them before a tragedy occurs and all hell is let loose.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Baroness a specific question. When a foreign diplomat commits an offence in this country, he has complete immunity from prosecution. On the other hand, if the offence is a serious one—an assault, for example, as opposed to a minor traffic violation—he is normally asked to leave the country. Will the same request be made to Europol officers who behave in such a way?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I have limited sympathy with one aspect of the amendment: it is useful to be sure that we are well informed as to what levels of immunity will be given to the new bodies. Having said that, I remind those who spoke to the amendment that your Lordships' Committee on the European Union has produced reports on Europol and Eurojust which investigated those matters in considerable detail. I am not sure whether those noble Lords took part in our debate on those reports.
The British police and judicial authorities find the European arrest warrants not so much a threat as useful. British criminals tend to go elsewhere in the European Community and it takes a long time to get them back. That is something that happens with

29
increasing cross-border transactions. So I see the provisions not as Gestapo-led threats to British justice but a normal consequence of large numbers of British citizens moving to Spain, for example, for usually legal, but occasionally, sadly, illegal, reasons, whom it is difficult to get back. There are also lengthy court proceedings in Dublin, in which people attempt to avoid extradition procedures intended to return them to the United Kingdom. That is one aspect of the Treaty of Nice that we ought all to welcome.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, that I am a little perplexed by the amendment. Although his remarks about Europol were interesting, I was not sure that they were about the amendment. The amendment is addressed to the establishment of Eurojust, but his remarks were addressed entirely to Europol. Officers of a number of institutions have the same degree of immunity as Europol. I shall certainly write to the noble Lord with as much information as I am able to garner on the subject. Indeed, I have already asked the Home Office to respond to some of the points that he raised about Europol. The provisions of the Bill that the noble Lord's amendment would delete are absolutely not, as he suggested, about establishing some sort of supranational European police force. The part of the Bill covering Eurojust is about inter-governmental co-operation, not some sort of super-European police force.
Previously, the noble Lord has raised his concerns about a number of issues relating to the Napoleonic code. The provisions are not about the Napoleonic code. They do not give Eurojust the opportunity to range far and wide without being answerable. Eurojust is directly answerable to justice and home affairs Ministers within the Justice and Home Affairs Council. There is no concept of a European public prosecutor concerned with the establishment of a single EU jurisdiction—to answer another point made by the noble Lord. Eurojust does none of that, as we discussed on several occasions in Committee and on Report.
The amendment would delete from the Bill the closer co-operation between judicial and other competent authorities of the member states and paragraph 2 of Article 31, which provides for Eurojust co-operation. The noble Lord ranged wide of that remit by talking about Europol. I shall certainly write to the noble Lord. Yes, Europol will have a degree of immunity. shall try to give him some more information. but there is nothing unprecedented in that. In that spirit, I hope that he will accept that I shall do what I can to help him—although I am bound to say that that is not terribly germane to the amendment. None the less, I shall do what I can to answer the noble Lord's questions.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, and to the Minister for her more helpful reply. It is probably
30
not worth our having a long debate about the intricacies of the treaty at this juncture. Article 29 includes the new words:
"including cooperation through the European Judicial Cooperation Unit ('Eurojust')".
Article 31 goes on to refer to its action. As the Minister said, the new words in the Treaty of Nice are contained in paragraph 2 of Article 31, which specifically promotes support by Eurojust for criminal investigations in cases of serious cross-border crime, especially in the case of organised crime, and taking particular account of analyses carried out by Europol. So Europol is relevant to the amendment. and it is helpful to have on the record the degree of immunity that we propose to confer on such characters.
I take it that the Minister agrees with my other point, which is that taken together, the whole juxtaposition of Europol, Eurojust. the European judicial network and the arrest warrant constitute the first step towards the European legal order, or corpus juris, as it is known in the European jargon. That ought to be on the record in your Lordships' House; it is an extremely dangerous departure for the European Union. Those powers are largely taken under the bogus cover of darkness of the events of September 11th. They have little to do with terrorism.
I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken and to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord said that he would take my silence to be assent to his point. I am sure that he knows well enough from our previous debates that he should not do that, because I have been quite explicit to the contrary.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, in that case, will the noble Baroness answer my question? Should we not have a separate debate on the progress towards corpus juris, encompassing the aspects that I mentioned: Europol, Eurojust, the judiciary and, in particular, the infamous arrest warrant and everything else that is on the way in the creation of this European federal order?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am bound to say that we have a great deal of discussion of such issues. If the usual channels find it helpful, I am sure that they will facilitate a debate of that nature. I would not want the noble Lord to take my earlier silence in any way to indicate that I followed his logic and reached his conclusions on the argument. It is a matter for the House whether we have a debate on the extremely interesting matters that the noble Lord has raised. I am bound to say that that would probably be a more appropriate channel for such a debate than the amendment.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, and I shall leave her with her silence. I trust that the House will leave me with my assertion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, in accordance with custom, I should like to say a few words before the Bill passes from your Lordships' House after our fairly protracted debates on it during the past few months. I hope that the fact that I have tabled no amendments on Third Reading will not lead anyone to think that we have any particular fondness or liking for this Bill about the Nice treaty or, as it was described in the newspapers this morning, the Nice debacle, as it is now widely agreed to have been. However, at Third Reading, we must recognise that there was a massive majority in favour of the Bill in another place. At the moment, we are still an advisory Chamber, a monitoring and long-term thinking Chamber. We do not yet have an elected element; when and if we do, the view from an elected Chamber would be very different, in the interests of the country and of parliamentary democracy. The Bill adds little to either of those causes.
There are large parts of the Bill—or of the treaty, if not the Bill—that could happily have been left out. As it says in Hymns Ancient and Modern, in which verses are sometimes starred, there are large sections that could have been omitted without injury to the general sense and purpose of the hymn, or, in this case, the Bill. It does not help particularly with enlargement, although we have been told again and again that that is its purpose. In fact, the enlargement mechanisms could probably have been handled differently and have been slowed down by the attachment of all sorts of extra commitments, devices and decorations on the treaty. So far, that has had a fatal effect. The treaty has been blocked by the decision in the Irish referendum.
All along, we have sought to ask what plan B was, and we have not really had an answer. What happens if the Irish cannot somehow turn opinion around in time? The treaty cannot be ratified. We can sign—the former Foreign Secretary has already signed us up—and both Houses of Parliament can pass it, as seems likely to happen. However, that is no good; the treaty must be ratified by all existing members, and there has been little assurance of that.
We are passing a Bill that will not lead immediately to any particular changes. I am not sure that, when it does, the changes will be at all beneficial. The issue of the future shape of the European Union moves now to the so-called Convention on the Future of Europe, which your Lordships discussed earlier this afternoon. I view the whole approach with unease born of past experience. It looks as though, once again, the nomination aspect of the operation has been hijacked by the executive. It certainly appears to have been hijacked by the Euro-elite and the pro-integration political parties.
That is exactly what happened when we had an assise in the late 1980s, in order to try to determine the future shape of Europe. Some said that more
32
democracy was needed, that matters should be returned to national parliaments, that subsidiarity should be made a reality, that repatriation of certain vital powers was overdue and that the European Union's methods belonged to the previous century—that is, we can now say, the 20th century—and were hopelessly centralised. Those views never had a chance. I hope that they will have now and that there may be at least one robust voice in our very small grouping going to the convention. My hopes are not high that that voice will be properly heard.
I remain bemused by the fact that the two Chambers of this ancient Parliament, which has a democratic legitimacy that goes back for hundreds of years, should have its voice narrowed down to so few Members in a convention at which, I understand, there will be 16 from the European Parliament, the democratic credentials of which have yet to be fully established in a way in which even its members would like. We look forward not to a more flexible pattern for a modern European Union, but to something that repeats what the traditional Europe-builders want. One need not be a Euro-sceptic, just a Euro-realist, to see the dangers of that.
The Bill fails to touch the huge, immediate and dangerous issue of the legitimacy and democratic structure of the European Union. Even its most ardent proponents and supporters realise that that is a great danger. On this side of the House, we say, "Good-bye" to the Bill without any enthusiasm. We hope that it will lead to wiser counsels but fear that it will not.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we on these Benches thank the Government for their co-operation in passing the Bill. We do not share the sentiments of the Conservatives, who seem to see conspiracies in every aspect of European legislation.
I shall repeat what I said in Committee. There is, in the House, a Gresham's law of European debate. A certain tone of discussion of European legislation tends to drive out informed discussion of where we are going. I find that unfortunate. It is extremely important that from now on, as we move from this rather modest and disappointing Bill amending the EU treaty, we should have a more constructive debate about what is proposed for the next intergovernmental conference. We hope that the Chamber will find a means of following the progress of the convention that will be equally constructive. I hope that the Government will lead in that and that they will keep the House regularly informed, through Statements and publications, of how the debates are moving forward.
From these Benches, we will give every assistance in making sure that the debate is constructive and intelligent and does not treat all foreigners as if they were threats to this kingdom.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in my view, the Bill should not have been brought before Parliament. As the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, said, the Irish people have rejected the treaty. Because of that, the treaty is, effectively, dead.

33
There is no need, therefore, for us to discuss the treaty, except, of course, to pressure the Irish people into voting differently in a future referendum, assuming that a future referendum is possible under the Republic's constitution. It is improper for Britain—in particular, Parliament—to be party to such pressure.
The treaty has been described as essential to enlargement, but, clearly, it is not. I wish that people would stop talking about it as if it were. Enlargement can proceed with or without the treaty. The Bill was rushed through the House of Commons in three days. That is a disgrace. That was completely unnecessary and completely undemocratic. I am glad that the House has been able to spend more time on the Bill, but it is farcical that the unelected Chamber should be able to discuss the Bill properly, while the elected Chamber was limited by guillotine to only three days. That cannot be right. I wish that the House of Commons would give some attention to that.
The treaty is important. There is no doubt about that. I shall not go into detail, but it takes important steps towards further European integration, including laying the foundations of a European government, foreshadowing a written constitution and setting up the nucleus of a military high command. There are some important things in it, and those are very important and vital matters.
I thank the Ministers and government spokesmen for their attention to the views of those taking part in debate for giving detailed replies to the many questions raised. I thank them also for their courtesy, good humour and tolerance. That was noted by the House and welcomed and appreciated by it. I am sure that, on that point at least, I speak for all Members of the House.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I, too, say farewell to the Bill with some fear and trepidation. I agree with my noble friend Lord Howell that the Treaty of Nice is entirely bogus if it was intended to help with enlargement. Clearly it does not do that. Enlargement was merely taken as the excuse to strengthen the power of Brussels—of the European Union—against the sovereignty of the member states. It is extremely depressing that the acquis communautaire, the ratchet, has gone on grinding relentlessly towards the ever closer union of the peoples of Europe, as the treaties demand that it must.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he agree that the acquis communautaire was frozen for enlargement and that no additional directives have been put in? Because of the Treaty of Nice, enlargement can progress without further directives on the book.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I was not referring to the aspects of the acquis communautaire to which the noble Baroness refers so much as the way in which the ratchet towards an EU megastate has moved
34
forward, in particular in the areas of a common legal framework, corpus furls, and other aspects of the treaty.
It is very simple: the European Union is dangerous for peace and irrelevant to trade. I would maintain that all those who support the European Union and the European dream do so from the basis of a fundamental belief that it is obviously good. They even dare to claim that it has had something to do with producing peace in Europe. They certainly believe that it will solidify and guarantee peace in the future, whereas I and others believe it to be a forced or premature conglomeration of different nations. Such conglomerations always end in disaster.
The Union is irrelevant to trade. European Union trade barriers are now down below 1 per cent and therefore leave us only with the Union's very dangerous political ambitions. For myself, I think that the best quotation of our debates came from the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, on the Liberal Democrat Benches. He pointed out that the European Union would not qualify for membership of the European Union if it applied to itself for that honour. Nor indeed would it.
I fear that we must leave it there. I should also like to offer my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, and her team for their unfailing courtesy in answering most of our questions. Very often those questions have been extremely detailed and I am afraid that they have also been boring questions. However, the devil is often in the detail—boring, but very important for the future of this country. Once again, I thank the noble Baroness.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, fundamental questions had to be faced by those European leaders who gathered at Nice to negotiate a treaty which would manage institutiional decision-taking in a Union almost twice as large as it is at the moment. Many of those issues went to the heart of national pride and to ideas about national influence.
Throughout our debates on the Brill, many have complained that the Treaty of Nice is not a pretty agreement and that it provides a botch-potch of solutions to the problems that have been raised. Yes, some of the solutions are inelegant, but from these Benches we would argue that inelegance is a small price to pay for making enlargement a success. Enlargement is an historic prize and I feel that it is important to remind ourselves of why enlargement is so big a prize for us all to focus on. Not only will it be the final nail in the coffin of the hugely damaging divisions between east and west, it will also actively contribute to peace and stability in Europe. Enlargement will certainly do that, although the noble Lord may doubt whether the Bill before us contributes to it.
Enlargement will consolidate democracy, good governance, the rule of law and respect for human and minority rights across our continent. Furthermore, it will mean that the biggest single market in the world will be formed, with increased prosperity for current

35
and new member states alike. It will also contribute to a greater co-ordinated effort against crime, terrorism, drugs and pollution. Those are all great ambitions, but they are ones that we believe will be taken forward with the treaty that we have been discussing.
It is a prize worth winning. We believe that it is our duty to ensure that the European Union is in a state to receive new members. The Treaty of Nice delivers the reforms that will enable us so to do.
Some noble Lords have relied on the argument that Nice contains certain provisions which are not directly related to enlargement, but I am bound to say that that does not affect the simple kernel of the argument; that is, that the Nice treaty is primarily—although I grant not exclusively—about the reforms that are necessary for enlargement.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, mentioned in his remarks a few moments ago the issue of defence. I should like to make a point about that issue once more. It is absolutely vital that the Government make it plain once again that the security and defence policy is nothing to fear. It is a capability, it is not a permanent force or army and is designed to complement NATO, not to compete with it. There will be no rival structures and no competition over managing any operations. It is enormously important to put again on the record the fact that NATO remains the cornerstone of European defence.
A number of noble Lords have mentioned the Irish question. I fully anticipated that some noble Lords would do so and I say once again that the Government respect the outcome of the Irish referendum and it is clear that the Irish people certainly had concerns about the treaty and quite possibly about the EU in general. Clearly those needs will have to be addressed but, as I would remind noble Lords, the Irish Government agreed, along with all other EU governments, that following the referendum the ratification process should continue while they consider how those concerns should be addressed.
Now is the time to look forward. The Nice treaty has laid out plans for further reform. We have discussed the means by which we shall take questions forward. That is because when the noble Lord pointed out a few moments ago from the Front Bench opposite that the Bill failed to touch on what he described as the "crucial issue" of legitimacy in the European Union, I had some sympathy with those words. But then the Bill was not designed to discuss those crucial issues. That is the debate that is designed to be taken forward in the IGC in 2004. I stress to the noble Lord that, while we have set out in the declaration a number of indicative subjects, many of which we have addressed many times in your Lordships' House, they are subjects inter alia and thus may be added to, as we have discussed in this House when I have been questioned on that point.
It is the Government's view that Nice sets out on the road to positive reform. However, its main achievement is to deliver successful enlargement through sensible reform. That is not the price of enlargement, it is one of the benefits. The Government
36
believe that the Treaty of Nice is good not only for Europe but, indeed, that it is also good for the United Kingdom.
I, too, wish to thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. I thank those who have made tireless efforts to keep us all up to the mark. I make no distinction between those who are thought to be Eurosceptics, Eurorealists or Europhiles or those who object to those terms. I say to all noble Lords that they have worked enormously hard to thrash out the arguments. All have done so painstakingly and, I believe, driven by the genuine motive of the public good. Although at times our debates have been lengthy, they have been unfailingly good-humoured. I should like to thank in particular noble Lords on my own side for their support during the debates.
Finally, I should like to thank my Bill team. Long hours are no strangers to a Bill team. The team has provided me with timely ammunition as and when I have needed it. Often that has been delivered by a reassuring nod, sometimes by raised eyebrows or by a timely note. Essentially, they have been a source of enormous expertise not only, perhaps I may say, to the Government Front Bench but also to a number of noble Lords who have raised questions with them. They have been an exemplary Bill team and have done a truly splendid job.
I hope that, having held a great deal of debate on the Bill, noble Lords will agree that the Bill do now pass.
On Question, Bill passed.

Afghanistan: Tokyo Conference
4.40 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development. The Statement is as follows:
"I should like to report to the House on the Afghanistan Reconstruction Conference, which was held in Tokyo last week. The conference marked the turning of the focus of the international community onto the reconstruction of Afghanistan. I believe that we now have an important opportunity to provide the people of Afghanistan with the chance of a better future.
"The conference lasted from 21st to 22nd January, and was attended by Ministers and representatives from 61 countries and 21 international organisations. It was co-chaired by Japan, the US, the EU and Saudi Arabia. Chairman Hamid Karzai led a strong delegation from the Afghan Interim Administration. I led the UK delegation. There were delegations from the World Bank, the IMF, the Asian Development Bank, the Islamic Development Bank and the UN agencies. Kofi Annan also attended and addressed the conference. In the margins of the conference,

37
experts met to discuss military demobilisation, military and police training, de-mining and narcotics.
"Chairman Karzai—who performed impressively throughout the conference—outlined current and future priorities for the reconstruction of Afghanistan. A 21-member commission is being set up to oversee the emergency Loya Jirga process, leading to the establishment of a transitional government in five months' time. The Interim Administration's priorities for the next few months will be to expand emergency assistance programmes, to establish an effective government administration, to provide peace and establish the rule of law, to ensure that as many children as possible, particularly girls, are in school when the new school year begins on 1st March; to begin to reconstruct the country's shattered infrastructure, in particular roads, electricity and telecommunications, to rebuild an agricultural system and eliminate poppy cultivation, and to accelerate mine-clearing. The conference was clear in its conclusion that women's rights and women's empowerment should be fully honoured and mainstreamed through all programmes during the reconstruction process.
"Chairman Karzai stressed the Interim Administration's commitment to responsible economic management, transparency, efficiency, and accountability. He was also clear, and we strongly agree with him, that Afghan ownership of the process of reconstruction will be vital to its success and to the full implementation of the Bonn agreement.
"We have the best opportunity in a generation to bring about development and lasting stability in Afghanistan. Learning the lessons of previous efforts to reconstruct failed states such as Cambodia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone and East Tin-tor, it is clear that the United Nations must play a pivotal role. We must continue to strengthen the capacity and effectiveness of the UN system. The conference recognised and greatly appreciated the role that the special representative of the Secretary-General, Mr Lakhdar Brahimi, has played and his continuing role in promoting peace and stability in Afghanistan. We shall need to continue to support his efforts and those of the United Nations Development Programme who have been appointed to co-ordinate the early recovery efforts on behalf of the UN system. It will be crucial to maintain and enhance the existing humanitarian effort while also putting in place arrangements for long-term reconstruction. UNICEF will lead the effort to reopen schools. The World Health Organisation and UNICEF will work with the Red Cross to improve healthcare and the UN Mine Action Service will lead and co-ordinate the de-mining effort. The World Food Programme will continue to supply food for six million people, and will develop food for work schemes across the country plus feeding schemes in schools focused particularly on encouraging girls' attendance.
38
"We need also to make an urgent effort to strengthen the Interim Administration and build its capacity to lead the reconstruction effort. In order to take this process forward, a common trust fund will be established, and we shall work to try to encourage co-ordinated support for the interim authority's strategy rather than a proliferation of donor projects.
"The preliminary needs assessment undertaken by the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and the UNDP to prepare for the conference concluded that Afghanistan's funding requirements would amount to just over 10 billion dollars over the next five years. At the conference, 4.5 billion dollars from 36 countries was pledged, including 1.8 billion dollars for 2002. I announced a commitment from the United Kingdom—funded from the DfID budget—of £200 million over the next five years. In addition, DfID will make substantial contributions through the EC, the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. This commitment is additional to the £60 million that we have allocated in the current financial year for humanitarian and recovery assistance.
"Since my last Statement to the House, a lot has been achieved. The conference in Tokyo was an excellent example of how the international community can achieve results when it works collectively. But there is still a great deal to do. The humanitarian situation in Afghanistan remains fragile, and it is not yet clear whether there will be a fourth year of drought. I believe that we should strongly congratulate the United Nations system, and particularly the World Food Programme, in having averted a major humanitarian catastrophe in Afghanistan. We must be clear that these efforts will have to continue for some time while arrangements for long-term reconstruction are put in place.
"The most urgent issue that now needs to be addressed is the need to provide security across Afghanistan, and to begin the process of demobilisation and disarmament and the building and training of an Afghan army and police force. As a first step the UK has offered to work with the Afghan Interim Administration on a scoping study. The greatest danger to the future of Afghanistan is the risk of mounting disorder, criminality and faction fighting.
"In conclusion, with the Taliban removed, the Interim Administration in place, and the widespread commitment by the international community to the future of Afghanistan made clear in Tokyo, there is real hope for a better life for the people, and especially the children cif Afghanistan. We must not fail to grasp this opportunity".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.47 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the Statement repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. We thank him for his courtesy in making available, in advance, a copy of the Statement.

39
The British contribution of £200 million announced in Tokyo to fund reconstruction of Afghanistan is extremely welcome. Many people were quick to suggest that the West would bomb Afghanistan, and then abandon it. It is encouraging to see that this is not the case. I pay tribute to all those engaged in liberating Afghanistan from the Taliban and Al'Qaeda. We wish them success in completing their task.
We share the Minister's belief that there is now a new opportunity for a better future for the Afghans, provided that the solution is looked at in the context of the whole region. That is as important in this part of the world as it was with Kosovo. Only today, the government of Kyrgyzstan resigned—an illustration of the fragility in the area.
There are four points that I should like the Minister to clarify. The first relates to control over spending. Given the fact that £3.1 billion has been offered to Afghanistan, does the noble Lord agree that there needs to be clear monitoring of each project that is being supported? Can the noble Lord tell the House which bodies will be scrutinising the aid provided to Afghanistan? Who will monitor where the aid is being allocated? Is any institution in place to bring coordination to the aid being provided by countries as diverse as Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States, the EU and Saudi Arabia'? Is the noble Lord confident that the aid being dispersed via the EUworth £500 million—will be dispersed quickly and effectively?
The second point concerns the civil service. Does the Minister accept the difficulties facing Afghanistan at the moment and that reconstruction will fail unless the basic infrastructure of the new government is in place? Given the Secretary of State's high praise for Hamid Karzai, does the Minister agree that the first priority for reconstruction should be to legitimise his government in the eyes of his people to help bring the necessary political stability to Afghanistan? Such reconstruction is something that you do "with" a country and not "to" a country.
My third point concerns the refugee problem. The Minister will be aware that there are more than 4 million Afghan refugees in Iran and Pakistan. Since 1998, the UNHCR has repatriated 4.6 million Afghan refugees. Can the noble Lord confirm whether there is provision in the reconstruction package for the repatriation of refugees?
Fourthly, the Secretary of State twice mentioned the need to stamp out the opium production. Does the noble Lord agree that installing new irrigation systems would help the possibility of growing alternative crops?
Finally, if we are to look at the long-term rehabilitation of Afghanistan, the international community will need to consider the issue of debt relief. Can the Minister give assurances that he will urge the Secretary of State to look imaginatively at ways of helping the new Afghan government to deal with the issue of debt relief?
40
Again. I warmly welcome the Government's Statement and the results of the Tokyo conference. If we can reconstruct Afghanistan properly, it will be another victory for the war on terrorism.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we on these Benches also welcome the Statement. The House will remember that among the problems which led to the arrival of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was the failure of the United States and other countries to remain involved after the withdrawal of Soviet forces in 1989, and the failure to spend as much effort on reconstruction after the war as on support for the war itself. Nation building is absolutely something which we and other countries have to do, a subject to which the House will return in the context of a different continent—Africa—on Wednesday.
I note with pleasure that there are some very warm words in the Statement about the role of the United Nations. How far beyond current plans do the Government intend to move in terms of strengthening the United Nations? There is much in the Statement about the need to strengthen the United Nations. The UN peacekeeping operations department has been embarrassingly weak for far too long. Progress on reform and strengthening has been painfully slow. Sadly, we may anticipate that Afghanistan will not be the last country in which there will have to he a multilateral effort to rebuild, and it should he very much part of the British and European contributions to ensure that the UN is better equipped for these tasks from now on.
It is excellent that Mr Brahimi is leading in this role. After all, the Brahimi report was about the need to strengthen the UN's capacity in this area. Can the Minister say—now or later—what effort the British Government are putting in to make sure that the Brahimi report will at last be implemented?
As Clare Short has said on many occasions, the provision of security is essential to any form of national reconstruction. There is presently an interim force in Kabul and, I understand, Mr Karzai has been talking about expanding the role of that force across the rest of the country. It would useful to know more about that and whether any expansion of that force's role will carry implications for the British, who are now playing a large role in that force.
The British have a worthwhile tradition in the provision of educational assistance to countries in need, and the entire educational system—from primary to higher education—will need to be reconstructed in Afghanistan. In the tradition of joined-up government, has the Department for Education been brought in on this?
Lastly, this cannot be about Afghanistan alone. There are problems with Afghanistan's near neighbours and we need to make sure that Iran and Pakistan are fully on board. There are a number of other extremely weak states to Afghanistan's north. The heroin trade from Afghanistan to Europe came through Tajikistan. Kazakhstan and elsewhere. Can

41
we be assured that in the response of the international community to the reconstruction of Afghanistan, the weak states of central Asia to its north—some of which also have within them a degree of Muslim terrorism—will be a part of the overall package?
4.55 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I appreciate the continued support of both parties opposite, as expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, for the Government's efforts, through the international community, to honour our commitment not to walk away from the people of Afghanistan. Both Front Benches opposite sought reassurance that that would not happen—that the Government's commitment and the commitment of the international community would continue—and I can certainly give that assurance as far as it is within my individual power to do so. It is certainly the intention of the Secretary of State and the British Government.
Both speakers drew attention to the fragility of the area as a whole—the "Stans", as the neighbouring states are referred to. It is acknowledged that we are dealing with a difficult situation in a fragile area of' the world. It will take all our skill, determination and continuing commitment to deal with it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, asked about refugees. At least 100,000 Afghan refugees have returned from Pakistan and Iran since last November, and thousands of internally displaced persons have also started to return to their homes. The Department for International Development has provided £3 million to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees to support its operations in response to the current crisis. This has included technical personnel, material and financial support.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referred to security in Afghanistan. This was specifically referred to in the Statement and the Secretary of State attaches enormous importance to it. The delivery of aid and the establishment of good governance is preconditional on having a secure country in which to deliver that aid and to begin the process of reconstruction. The interim government of Afghanistan attaches great importance to that issue, as does the United Nations, which is overseeing the operation.
The noble Baroness referred to control over spending and supervision of EU funding. I can assure her that those matters were discussed at the conference and are of great importance. However, I should emphasise two of the strengths of the way in which this on-going situation is being handled. First, there is the abiding importance of the United Nations and its involvement from the start. The Secretary-General's special representative, who has done tremendous work, has been there at all stages, and that has been vitally important. Secondly, there is the crucially important issue of the "ownership"—I do not particularly like the word but the House will know what I mean—of the operation by the people of Afghanistan and the Interim Administration which
42
has been established. The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, is absolutely right to say that we must work "with" a country and not dictate to it.
The noble Baroness also raised the question of debt relief. It is my understanding that there is no huge outstanding problem at present. If there is, I shall write to her.
Reference was made to opium production. The vital point is that we should not lecture people but give them an alternative continuous and on-going source of income. That is precisely what the intention of the international community and the Interim Administration has been.
It may be helpful to the House if I re-state the six priorities set out by the Afghan Interim Administration, as they cover many of the issues raised. The first is enhancement of the administrative capacity, with emphasis on the payment of salaries in the establishment of government administration—points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings. The second is education, especially for girls—an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. The third is health and sanitation. The fourth is infrastructure, particularly roads, electricity and telecommunications. The fifth is the reconstruction of the economic system. The sixth is agriculture and rural development—and relates particularly to the dependence on opium production.
I repeat that the welcome for the Statement from both Front Benches is greatly appreciated. We have moved an astonishingly long way since the dreadful events of last September. It is barely believable that after just five months we are talking about, as we hope, a rather more optimistic future for Afghanistan. That is what the Government and the international community—led by the United Nations and principally by the people of Afghanistan through the Interim Administration—will continue to do.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I strongly endorse the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, in referring specifically to the monitoring of projects and how the money is spent in Afghanistan. Will my noble friend check with officials in the department that post-project evaluation reports will be used as the means to ensure that money actually gets through to the projects that we want to support? I refer in particular to projects to support women. Much of the international support for the coalition came about because of the problems faced by women in Afghanistan under the Taliban regime. Many people in this country will want to know that money will get through to women's projects, and that the expenditure will be properly monitored.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I strongly agree with my noble friend. He has taken a close interest in these issues in the other place as well as in this House. I can assure him that enormous importance is attached to the monitoring of projects. I can certainly assure him about the importance that we attach to women's

43
projects, and in particular to the education of women. My noble friend is right to emphasise that, when the debate was raging throughout the world about the operations of the international coalition in Afghanistan, the issue that arose time and again in relation to the appalling nature of the Taliban regime was its treatment of women. It is no coincidence that the international community and indeed the interim Administration in Afghanistan see the empowerment of women, education for women, and the lead that women can take in development issues as fundamental to the reconstruction process.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, I declare an interest. As a recently appointed special envoy to the director-general of the World Health Organisation in relation to the eastern Mediterranean region, I led the WHO delegation to Tokyo. Inevitably, therefore, I must ask the Minister why the re-establishment of healthcare for Afghanistan plays so little part in the Statement that he has kindly laid before this House. The infant mortality rate in Afghanistan is the highest in the world—a quarter of children die under the age of five; and the average age of death is 46, the lowest globally. Therefore, should not the establishment of healthcare in that country be an absolute priority for the Department for International Development? I am surprised that it plays so little part in the Statement. I urge the Minister to recognise that the World Health Organisation has created a national health plan for Afghanistan, which has been warmly welcomed by the Minister there, a famous woman, and has now been adopted. Does the Minister agree that that plan must be supported, lest the fragmentation referred to in the Statement should occur? I urge the Government to re-cast the mechanism by which DfID policy is created, so that healthcare can again be an absolute priority, as it must for this particular nation.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, the noble Baroness has great expertise in these matters. I know it is difficult when Statements are made and documents are not always seen immediately. There was a specific reference in the Statement to the importance of the World Health Organisation; namely, that the World Health Organisation and UNICEF will work with the Red Cross to improve healthcare. In the list of priorities set out by the Interim Administration health is seen as crucially important. Specific support to the World Health Organisation amounts to £5 million in relation to the redevelopment; in relation to UNICEF, it is £8 million. I should not want anything that I have said—and I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would not want anything that she has said—in any way to diminish the importance of the statistics that the noble Baroness has placed before the House in relation to infant mortality and life expectancy. They are of crucial importance.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, which I welcome. However, is he aware of a rather worrying
44
report in today's newspapers concerning the continuing danger from cluster bombs? During the course of the bombing campaign, a number of us raised objections to their use. It appears that the bomblets arising from them are still causing deaths, particularly among children, who are attracted by the yellow colour of the bomblets. Is it not a priority that these remnants of the bombing should be cleared up as soon as possible? It looks as though they are still causing damage. injury and death among the child population.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I know that my noble friend has taken a close interest in this important issue for a long time. On the issue of mines more generally, the Department for International Development has approved a commitment of £3 million for humanitarian action in relation to mines in Afghanistan. The department has been a principal donor to humanitarian action of this kind. We do not want to go over the whole argument about cluster bombs. However, it should be said that they were carefully targeted to deal with specific issues. I understand that there is close co-operation between the military authorities and the aid agencies in dealing with the problem of cluster bombs. An important part of the reconstruction process is the further training of de-miners to deal with these types of munitions.
Lord Sandberg: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that, among the many nations involved in the conference taking place on Afghanistan, we are taking particular steps to make sure that the Government of Pakistan, a fellow member of the Commonwealth. are much involved? Pakistan has almost lost count of the number of refugees that it has "imported". Its border with Afghanistan is somewhat "porous". Refugees come and go—and, no doubt, terrorists as well. It is important that we side closely with Pakistan and help it in what is a difficult position for that country. General Musharraf has already taken a brave step and helped us all. It is important that we recognise that and give him the support that he may need.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. This has been an unbelievably difficult time for the people of Pakistan, for the reasons that he has spelt out. I mentioned earlier that at least 100,000 Afghan refugees have returned from Pakistan since last November. We are talking about a staggering number of people. I agree with the noble Lord about the importance of Pakistan. The British Government and the international community fully acknowledge the need not to walk away from the consequences for Pakistan of the conflict in Afghanistan.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I apologise for not being present for the beginning of my noble friend's Statement. How are British forces involved in the distribution of humanitarian assistance and food, either through keeping roads safe or perhaps through the use of military aircraft and helicopters to get to more remote places?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, there is co-operation at all levels in the reconstruction of Afghanistan. I fully

45
understand why my noble friend was not here at the beginning of the Statement. No doubt he was finalising the details of his grilling of the Government on Chechnya, which is coming in a few minutes. I said earlier that experts met during the conference to discuss military demobilisation, military and police training, de-mining and narcotics. Those issues were discussed during the debate on reconstruction.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, will the Minister accept my delight that the conference was clear in its conclusions that women's rights and empowerment should be fully honoured and mainstreamed through all programmes? That was a reassuring phrase. I also strongly agree with the support for the Afghan ownership of the process. In that context, can the Minister reassure the House about the position of the Minister for Women's Affairs in Afghanistan, who, until the conference, was working out of her own house with no funds for her important ministry? She should at least be supported and reinforced in that ministry.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Baroness's sentiments. I cannot reassure her that things are improving at this precise minute, but I can certainly reassure her that ensuring proper facilities for that vital government department is an issue very close to the heart of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development, as your Lordships would expect. We may not yet have all the funds that are required, but securing funds and facilities for the proper establishment of that Ministry is a recognised issue and is being addressed.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I wish to return to the Minister's answer to my noble friend Lady Turner about cluster bombs. In view of the fact that it is very difficult to get authentic news about exactly what is happening on the military front, but particularly in the light of recurrent reports that our United States allies are continuing their military use, will he convey to the American Government the profound distaste of the British Government for any use of cluster bombs at this stage, whatever the provocation may be and whatever the desire to seek a military solution may be? I am sure that the Minister agrees that these matters are of vital concern not only to my noble friend but to the country at large.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I know well enough the concerns of my noble friend and others about this issue. I must emphasise that the international coalition against terrorism—which is properly so called—involves constant dialogue between the countries concerned. The coalition has constantly re-emphasised the fundamental truth that this was never just a military operation: it is also a humanitarian operation—and my word we have seen evidence of that in the number of people who have received humanitarian assistance—and it continues on a diplomatic front. It would be a mistake to see what has
46
happened in Afghanistan as in any way one-dimensional. It would also be a mistake to focus on this particular issue without realising, as I know that my noble friend does, that the problems of mines and of large numbers of people with huge amounts of armaments in Afghanistan are now easier to address—although still phenomenally difficult—as a resullt of the military action that has been taken.
Looking to the future rather than talking about the process so far, successful though I believe that process to have been, I assure my noble friend that, as I made clear in the Statement, there is a very strong recognition of the importance of dealing with the problem that he referred to and related matters in the reconstruction process.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords—
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that, given the—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I think that it is the turn of this side and I think that it is customary to intervene on only one occasion.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I too welcome my noble friend's Statement, and particularly that part of it that assures us that women's rights will be fully honoured and mainstreamed. May I press my noble friend to say that the Government will use their influence in the process to ensure not only that women are the recipients of funding, but also that they participate in the allocation and distribution of that funding? They should not be on the receiving end only; they should be fully integrated in the decision-making about the distribution.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I can give my noble friend that absolute assurance. It is interesting that at least five or six of your Lordships have mentioned the importance of re-establishing the rightful place and role of women in the development of their country, which was so appallingly ignored by the Taliban during their period in control. My noble friend is absolutely right to say that we must ensure not only that women are the recipients of any reconstruction process, but that they are fundamental in making decisions about how the money is spent, knowing intimately as they do the needs of their own local community, whether it is for a school, a health centre or whatever else.

Russia and Chechnya
5.19 p.m.
Lord Rea Lord Rea rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will urge the Government of the Russian Federation to engage in further negotiation with the elected president of Chechnya to achieve a political rather than military solution to their ongoing conflict.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should begin by declaring an interest in that I visited Chechnya in 1995 on behalf of International Medical Relief during a lull in the first phase of the war. The safety of our group was guaranteed by General Asian Maskhadov, then commander of the Chechen forces. Last week, Ahmed Zakayev, the personal representative of Maskhadov, who since 1997 has been the elected president of Chechnya, visited London where he held a press conference and met junior officials of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—apparently much to the annoyance of the Russian Government who summoned our ambassador in Moscow to complain that we were supporting terrorists. Maskhadov's right-hand man also visited Strasbourg where he addressed the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and Paris and Turin. That and other events—such as the Chechen foreign Minister's visit to the State Department in Washington—have helped to put the war in Chechnya back on to the political agenda.
From 11th September until today's article in the Guardian, very little has been reported in the press or other media on Chechnya's continuing guerrilla war, which shows no sign of abating. In fact, however, there is much disturbing news to report. Every day, I receive 10 to 20 items on Chechnya in my e-mail box from a website that scans the world press. On Saturday, a helicopter with five high-ranking officers "crashed". But almost every day a guerrilla attack in which several Russians and/or Chechens are killed is reported. Every few days, there is news of a mopping-up operation, consisting of house-to-house searches and arbitrary arrests. The detainees are usually taken to "filtration" centres where they are interrogated, usually under torture, and too often killed. Relatives have to pay a ransom for their release or to obtain their dead and often mutilated bodies. Ahmed Zakayev gave us confirmation of those reports. He also said that the policy was not only deeply traumatic for the civilian population but demoralising and degrading for the Russians who have to implement it.
Exactly two years ago, the Council of Europe called on the Government of the Russian Federation,
"to stop … attacks against the civilian population and to start—a political dialogue".
The Council also said:
"Failure to meet these requirements will … necessitate a review of Russian continued membership of … the Council of Europe".
One year later, very limited progress had been made. The joint working group on Chechnya which was then set up listed 15 "requirements", including investigations into alleged mass killings; stopping harassment, extortion at checkpoints and arbitrary arrests and detentions; and any physical or mental abuse.
It is perfectly clear that, to date, little progress has been made. My noble friend Lord Judd will summarise the arduous and admirable work that he has done as co-chairman of the joint working group. He will also agree, however, that that work has so far produced token responses, with only a few trials of military
48
personnel who committed human rights abuses, and not necessarily of those involved in the worst cases, such as those responsible for mass killings.
More than half the population of Chechnya are now refugees. The majority of them, about 250,000, are in Ingushetia. Many of them are still living in old tents in below zero temperatures, and more are in other neighbouring countries including Dagestan, Georgia and Turkey.
So far, no meaningful negotiations have taken place between Maskhadov and high-level Russian officials. However, there was a meeting between representatives of the two presidents in Moscow on 18th November. Mr Zakayev told us that there he had put forward three very simple proposals that could lead to a ceasefire on the Chechen side. They were that the Russian Government and people should recognise that Asian Maskhadov is the elected, legitimate leader of the Chechen Republic; that mopping-up operations should cease; and that the two presidents should set up a joint working group to restore peaceful life in Chechnya.
The Russians rejected the proposals and said that no negotiations could take place unless the Chechens gave up their arms, which was unacceptable to the Chechens. However, they agreed to meet again at an unspecified date. Although that meeting has not occurred so far, there is now a small porthole of opportunity, if the will is there.
I hope very much that the Council of Europe's recent stronger tone and the fact that Russia's Chechen policy is again coming under greater international scrutiny will persuade Mr Putin that there has to be a change. I think that he is now sufficiently secure politically to take Russian public opinion with him should he decide to agree to negotiations to end the war. The Russian people are in any case becoming increasingly disenchanted with the war. It is likely that President Maskhadov would agree to some autonomy for Chechnya that is short of total independence. Any peace settlement would be more likely to succeed and endure if a regional dialogue could be initiated that included the other autonomous regions of the north Caucasus—Dagestan, Ingushetia and North Ossetia.
Having agreed to the independence of the former republics of the USSR in 1991, Russia is still reluctant to contemplate greater independence for the peripheral territories, often former colonies of the Russian Federation. As well as the north Caucasus, there are other regions whose culture, ethnic origin and religion differ from those of Russia itself and where the desire for greater self-rule is strong. In Tatarstan, for example, a high degree of autonomy has been granted and is, I understand, acceptable. There are also other provinces to be considered. Belarus and the Ukraine, which have achieved full independence, are by comparison close relatives of Russia. Perhaps the United Kingdom could act as a model. We gave up most of our colonies, particularly the more distant ones, some time ago, and very recently we have even

49
given a quite considerable degree of autonomy to our Celtic fringe. As far as I know, at least so far, the results have been quite benign.
The history of Russia and the north Caucasus is convoluted and very difficult to fully understand, and I do not think that I could even attempt to give a summary of it in my allotted time. However, I think that the Russian Government would like us to believe that the Chechen war is part of the world-wide war against terrorism. There is a widespread mythology in Russia, which is encouraged, I think, by the government, that most Chechens are terrorists or thieves; it is similar to beliefs about the Roma in central Europe. The Chechens are Russia's "bad object".
There is no doubt that some Chechens have taken part in illegal activities, raiding and kidnapping—which I think is their speciality. Particularly unacceptable was the killing of five Red Cross nurses in 1996, and the kidnapping and beheading of three British engineers in 1999. Both of those as well as other similar crimes were strongly condemned at the time by the Chechen government. It is now thought that those two crimes were committed by forces trying to undermine the credibility of Maskhadov's government. It is inherently unlikely that any Chechen hired assassin—unless he was a totally unprincipled hired assassin—would kill foreign workers providing humanitarian and technical assistance to his own country.
The disastrous explosions that destroyed blocks of flats in several Russian cities in 1999, causing a total of 300 deaths, were blamed on the Chechens without any evidence—and none has been found since. The explosions 'were taken as a major reason for launching the second phase of the war. In the city of Ryazan, where explosives were discovered in time to defuse them, there is strong evidence implicating the FSB, the successor to the KGB. A full investigation of all the explosions has not yet been conducted. I wonder why.
There is no doubt that Shamil Basayev, the independent-minded Chechen commander, moved columns of fighters into neighbouring Dagestan in September 1999, ostensibly to assist Chechens living there who were being attacked by the Russians. That act was both illegal and senseless, regardless of whether it was in response to a Russian provocation. It was not authorised by President Maskhadov. However, combined with the apartment block explosions, it was enough to give Russia a reason to start phase two of the war.
Finally, there is the accusation that Chechen fighters have assisted Al'Qaeda forces in Afghanistan. If there are any, the number is quite small; certainly none appears to have been captured. Indeed, there have been more United Kingdom nationals captured than Chechens; all Chechens capable of fighting are needed at home. In the other direction, there has certainly been assistance to Chechnya from other Islamic nations, including some fundamentalists, although the numbers are not great. The Jordanian-born Khattab is the best known. Chechens themselves, while having a strong Islamic faith, are not fundamentalists.
I conclude by asking my noble friend to draw the attention of his right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to the points that I have made, and others will make, in this short debate. Perhaps we could return the courtesy and invite, rather than summon, his excellency the Russian ambassador to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and point out how the ending of this war would not only end the suffering of many innocent families in both Chechnya and Russia but would greatly enhance Russia's reputation in the eyes of the world.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I shall be extremely brief. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for this debate.
I should also like to say how very indebted we are to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for the work that he has done as the rapporteur on Chechnya to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and as chairman of the assembly sub-committee on refugees. I look forward to hearing the noble Lord's speech. However, I should like to refer to his recent report to the Political Affairs Committee which concludes:
"the general situation in the Chechen Republic has not improved enough to ensure the full enjoyment of human rights and rule of law by the population as a whole".
That is evident from the UNHCR reports and from other human rights organisations.
During his recent visit to camps for internally displaced Chechens in Ingushetia, High Commissioner Ruud Lubbers said,
"We do understand that many of them [refugees] don't find it safe enough in the current situation and I do hope that the political process will prove to be more productive".
However, since September llth and President Putin's support for the international war against terrorism. it seems that western civilised democracies have turned a blind eye to the clean-up operations, illegal detentions by the armed forces and in particular the Interior Ministry's rape, torture and killing of civilians. Chechen people have no confidence in the Russian military authorities and that is the major reason why people refuse to return. In the words of the UN High Commissioner Ruud Lubbers,
"the Russian government was facing three main tasks: to ensure safety in Chechnya, restore housing and provide conditions for people to earn their living".
I have met with Chechen students in London who told me that most people believe that the Russian authorities created the events in 1999 to avenge the humiliation of the earlier war in 1994–96. Tens of thousands of people have been killed and villages and towns have been flattened in the name of "fighting terrorism". Perhaps it was a way to divert the attention of the Russian people from the corruption of past administration.
We know that peace can be achieved only through political dialogue and until the Russians can guarantee respect for human rights and prosecute members of their federal forces who have perpetrated crimes

51
against humanity, restoring confidence in the Chechen people will be difficult. Displaced people are spending a third winter in refugee camps rather than returning to their homes because the mop-up operations in residential areas have resulted in people experiencing human rights violations and beatings.
Although I agree with the report of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that,
"A principal task for the Council of Europe should be to prepare the way for holding democratic elections in the Chechen Republic as soon as possible",
unless all political and official elements in Chechen society feel that the elections will be free from Moscow's interference, they may not bring the stability that the people deserve.
Finally, I wholeheartedly endorse the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and ask my noble friend the Minister to urge the Government of the Russian Federation to engage in further negotiations with the elected President of Chechnya to achieve a political rather than the military solution to their ongoing conflict.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rea, on picking such a good moment to raise this issue. It follows the Prime Minister's meeting with President Putin in December and comes just after the discussions in the Council of Europe on which we very much look forward to hearing from the noble Lord. Lord Judd. It comes before the European Union/Russia summit early next month.
In the present climate of world opinion I believe that it is essential to show that military operations in Chechnya and their consequences cannot just be forgotten or swept aside on the grounds that they are anti-terrorist. Chechnya may be constitutionally part of Russia, but Russia is a member of the Council of Europe and has ratified its human rights convention and other instruments of that kind. Russia has a duty to protect civilians and non-combatants.
I have in the past complained against the use of excessive and disproportionate force and I fear that this still continues as, for example, in the recent bombardment of Argun, the third largest town in Chechnya, and alleged atrocities over the new year in the village of Tsotsin-Yurt.
Perhaps my only qualification for taking part in this debate is some study of Russian and Chechen history and some experience since 1992 of post-Soviet conflicts both in Moldova and the trans-Caucasus. Such conflicts can be extremely bitter and few, if any, can be said to be fully resolved. They mostly linger on in a frozen or semi-frozen state, despite the best efforts of mediators, international bodies and NGOs.
I suggest that it is necessary to try to understand the deep fears on all sides. Because a successful and strong Chechen mafia has flourished in Moscow and other cities, ordinary Russians tend to look on all Chechens as criminally inclined. Explosions in major cities already mentioned were, perhaps somewhat
52
improbably, blamed on Chechens and then used as a pretext for the second recent Chechen war. Rumours have been spread of large numbers of foreigners fighting alongside the Chechens linked with Al'Qaeda. However, the general heading the Federal Security Service said on 17th January that he was facing only 250 foreign fighters. He said that their influx had stopped completely and that the remainder were trying to leave the country. The next day the Federal Security Service was officially stated to be handing over to the Interior Ministry. The number of police was to be increased to 10,000, mainly locally recruited. These recent developments, however, will not easily remove the fears affecting not only the Russian man in the street but also Members of Parliament and officials at all levels.
The Chechens themselves have to cope with a bitter and bloody national history. They resisted the tsars for almost two generations. Their great leader, Shamyl, offered help to Queen Victoria during the Crimean War. Then came the revolution and Stalin's horrific deportation of the whole nation to Siberia. Chechens have recently claimed to have had 300,000 war victims and to have now 30,000 people in prisons or concentration camps with yet more displaced into Ingushetia. They say that Order 541 of 17th September 1999 authorises the persecution of, and discrimination against, Chechens throughout the Russian Federation. They allege that ever since 1994 Russia has been deliberately attacking the civilians of Chechnya.
The Russians on the other hand counter claim that many Chechens are bandits and terrorists and that 2,000 Russians have been kidnapped or killed. The fears on either side are massive and perceptions of "the enemy" are widespread and understandable. Yet these are peoples who have known each other over generations and have on occasions intermarried and traded.
In the midst of this huge gulf of misunderstanding and fear, there are groups such as the Russian Public Anti-War Committee, which has at least one member of the Duma, the human rights body Memorial, and Soldiers' Mothers. I suggest that those groups are very worthy of support. If, together with other friends and allies of Russia, they can exercise moderating influences, there may be some hope. The greatest need is probably for a ceasefire, to be followed by political negotiations leading to demilitarisation.
Whether or not that is an improbable or impossible scenario, my fear is that because of the long-standing denial of their identity and the lack of scope for self-determination, some Chechens will never reconcile themselves to living permanently under Russian sovereignty. Indeed, Dmitrii Olegovich Rogozin, the Duma member, who chairs their International Affairs Committee and leads their delegation at Strasbourg, has spoken about "irreconcilable elements". Surely there should be a safety valve for such people. A voluntary—I stress that word—emigration scheme, perhaps organised by the International Organisation for Migration, might provide such a solution. Will the Government consider how such a scheme might work,

53
recalling perhaps that in a previous century the Dhukobours and members of other minorities left Russia for North America?
Can the Minister give us a general outline of how the question of Chechnya will be handled at the forthcoming EU/Russia summit? Have the principles of a common approach been agreed? I trust that t hose will include the urgent need for a ceasefire, with generous terms for the handing-in of weapons and for voluntary emigration. Independent monitoring and verification may well be helpful and there must surely be provision for the return of displaced people, reconstruction and the highest possible level of self-determination. Finally, do the Government expect that the outcomes of the summit will be positive for Chechnya?
5.42 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is deeply grateful to my noble friend Lord Rea for having raised this subject this evening. I should declare an interest as the rapporteur of the Political Affairs Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which has reported on Chechnya, and as joint chair of the joint working group that was set up between the Parliamentary Assembly and the Duma on that subject. That has inevitably involved me in several visits to Russia and Chechnya over the past two years. I was last in Chechnya briefly last month.
The Russians sometimes ask me how September 11th has affected the whole issue. It has made me feel more strongly than ever that while military action may be necessary, the battle against terrorism is won in the long run in hearts and minds. It is for that reason that we have to take the "hearts and minds" dimension of our campaign very seriously, whether that involves the coalition in the context of Afghanistan or the Russians in the context of Chechnya.
I quote from the resolution that was adopted last week in the Council of Europe on that matter. It states:
"The Assembly reiterates that the legitimacy of military action against terrorists cannot be used by any state, including the Russian Federation, as a justification for disrespect for human rights and rule of law or refusal to seek a political solution".
I am 200 per cent behind that, which is not altogether surprising, because I drafted it.
In this debate we are right to ask about what progress there has been with regard to human rights. Progress has been frustratingly slow. I find disturbing the inability of some of those with responsibility in Russia to differentiate between initiating action and bringing legal action to a conclusion. The number of cases initiated is fairly small but the progress on those that have been initiated is not encouraging. Furthermore, we have to note that investigations into the alleged mass killings are conspicuous by their absence. That is very disturbing—I repeat the phrase that was used to good effect by my noble friend Lord Rea.
As a result of pressure by the Parliamentary Assembly and the Council of Europe, a list of cases has been prepared. When I was in Moscow last December,
54
I found in talks at the most senior level that action in relation to that list is, to say the least, disappointing. The human rights issue is still very real.
What about the military dimension? I am afraid that there is still indiscriminate and disproportionate action and there are still all too many disturbing reports of maltreatment. Indeed, from what I hear, I cannot help feeling at times that elements of the army are still out of control and that in parts of the army there is what could be described as a climate of impunity. It is true that those with responsibility have introduced new rules. For example, there is a rule that when a so-called mop-up operation is being undertaken, the prosecutor general's people should be present. From what I hear, that rule is more honoured in the breach than in the application.
The general conduct of the army is, I am afraid, counterproductive. That creates an atmosphere of oppression and it probably drives a certain number of people, particularly the young, into the arms of what I should be the first to agree are undesirable elements.
What of the people who are described as rebels? The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, correctly raised that issue. I detect three elements, but that may be an oversimplification—there are probably more than three. There are extremists, who adopt what we may call the bin Laden approach. There are opportunists—the mafiosi, if you like—who see in this terrible situation an opportunity for profiteering and of advancing their personal material advantage. There are also what have been described traditionally and repeatedly in this Chamber and the other place as freedom fighters. Their role in this context could be compared with other examples in history. They are frustrated at the impossibility of making any political progress whatever and have taken to arms. We may not feel that that is the right thing to have done but if we do not understand why they did so we shall not advance very much. Many of those people would be among the first to lay down their arms if they saw a convincing opportunity for political progress.
What I have been able to see and do makes it clear to me that if the cycle of violence is not rapidly brought to a conclusion, there will be a desolate desert in what is now called Chechnya. An article in the Economist recently referred to the situation as one of stalemate. In an interesting analysis, it argued that the rebels could not win but had control of large areas of the countryside, particularly the hills, and could do much damage at night in the cities. It said that the army and security services had control of the main urban centres during the day, that there was a stalemate and that there was now a mutual interest in getting to the negotiating table.
Of course, my noble friend Lord Ahmed is right: dialogue is now essential. If dialogue is to take place, I believe that it is right to expect the rebels to lay down their arms. But it will also be essential for the Russian federal army to be reduced in size and for the feeling or psychology of repression and oppression in Chechnya to be reduced. It will also be essential for the army to be firmly based in barracks—I do not say confined to barracks—and to be subject to firm discipline.

55
In order to take the situation forward it will also be necessary for the emphasis to be placed on advancing the cause of human rights and the rule of law. There is a very delicate balance to be drawn between human rights, the rule of law and a settlement. A political settlement will come about only if people can see that human rights and the rule of law are being advanced. Similarly, if we really want to see the cause of human rights and the rule of law fulfilled, a settlement is essential. Therefore, the two are intermingled and it is naive to believe that they can be neatly put in order, as we have seen elsewhere in the world—sometimes not far from where we are now.
The issue of an amnesty will also arise, and I believe that it will have to be generous. Meanwhile, we must also address the humanitarian situation, which is grim, particularly in winter. When I look at those in the displacement camps, I consider it to be terrible that people still suffer in such a way. Many of them are in camps in Ingushetia. I am concerned that so much of the relief mobilised by international communities seems to stop at Ingushetia and that it does not reach Chechnya. I am a sceptic about the arguments that I have heard as to why that should be the case. I believe that if there was a will, there would be a way. That is why, since my last recent visit, I have raised the issue with DfID and with my old organisation, Oxfam, of which I was privileged to be director for a number of years. I believe that there must be unremitting pressure and determination to get relief to people, wherever they are.
There is also the issue of reconstruction, which will be huge. Not unlike other conflicts elsewhere, reconstruction is always challenging. It is easy to mobilise the money for bombs, but reconstruction is much more expensive. Again, I believe that we must put our money where our mouth is and back reconstruction to the hilt. Of course, corruption is a big problem in this regard, and one should not underestimate the extent to which corruption at all levels complicates the situation.
Against all that, what is the positive potential? I believe that there has been what I would describe as an "atmospheric" change. When we started on this work two years ago, we encountered total denial. Now, it is possible to engage people at all levels, in particular at the most senior levels in Moscow, in intelligent, rational discussion about the situation. Political pluralism appears to exist.
I should also mention the courage of the Russian NGOs. Memorial has been mentioned, and I cannot praise that organisation too highly for the work that it does. There is the work of Mr Kalamanov, Mr Putin's representative on human rights in Chechnya who has experts in the Council of Europe working in his team. There is also President Putin's initiative. Whatever its limitations, he took that initiative and it would be foolish to overlook it.
There is also the parallel initiative of the Council of Europe. Under that initiative we brought together considerable numbers of Chechens to talk about the need to create a consultative council. Such a council
56
could try to bring about a political atmosphere in which it would be more possible, if I may express it in that way, for President Putin to move forward. Such a council could also begin to put forward ideas about the nature of a political solution that might stick.
However, I can only say that if a consultative council is to succeed, it must be widely based. It will be essential for the Russians to be prepared to talk with those with whom it is not easy to talk. Anyone can talk to friends; but the real challenge in making progress will be to talk to those who are the most difficult. In that context, I believe that the involvement of Mr Maskhadov and his representatives is absolutely crucial. After all, he is the last elected president of Chechnya and I am sure that he should be involved in trying to advance towards a solution.
I should also mention briefly the Council for the Protection of Human Rights, which has been established by Mr Kalamanov and his team in Chechnya. We wait to see how it will perform, but it is an important initiative.
I finish by saying simply that at the macro level I shall take second place to no one in arguing that one of the big challenges that we all face in international politics is how to bring Russia on board and enable it to play a full and dynamic part in the management of world affairs. I believe that any attempts to exclude or bypass Russia have been disastrous in their consequences. We must involve Russia.
History will judge us as to why, in the context of Chechnya, we have not made any reference to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, particularly as that court indicated that it would have been very willing to consider such a reference if one had been made. If we are to have a good relationship with Russia, firm action of that kind may have to be taken. It will be essential to say, on the one hand, "Yes, we want you as partners", and, on the other, "We are not going to turn a blind eye to things that are undermining the cause of building a stable, secure world and, in the end, defeating terrorism".
Not long ago, a Russian diplomat said to me, "Your trouble, Lord Judd, is that your aspirations for Russia are too high". My reply to him was, "No, they're not; they're high but they're not too high". I have profound respect—dare I use the word in this place—affection for Russia and its people. My God, how that country suffered in the Second World War; my God, how it suffered under Stalinism. It breaks my heart to see a Russia that went through all that not leading the campaign for a rational, decent and civilised approach to the problems in Chechnya. In the Council of Europe that is what we are determined to help to bring about in Russia. We believe that the task is to find those within Russia—they are there—with whom we can work. We need to build up their confidence and bring about, within Russia itself, a political dynamic which can lead to change. Without that, there will be none.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I pass over the unfortunate suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Rea,

57
that the English occupied Scotland as a colony. There is a family recollection that a namesake of mine in the 13th century did his best to prevent Scotland becoming an English colony. Ireland, of course, did become an English colony, and that is part of the sad and long history of Ireland with which one can make comparisons.
I very much welcome this debate and, in particular, the delicate role that the Council of Europe is playing in this area. The Council of Europe has found a very useful role working in such areas. We are talking about a long and extremely painful transition from areas that have no democratic tradition into what we hope will be a European standard of democracy, human rights and open society. We appreciate that for Russia, in particular, the problem of adjusting to the transformation from its status as an imperial power with a large number of subject peoples to accepting that it will he a looser federation with a range of independent states alongside it will not be easy. Britain made a large number of mistakes during its transition. British history in Cyprus, Malaya and Kenya is not entirely unblemished, and we must therefore remember that we should not preach too strongly.
I noted the powerful defence given by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, of the role which the Council of Europe has taken up in that respect. I also noted his praise for Memorial. I see that Mr Orlov, one of its officials, was reported by Agence France-Presse in Moscow on 22nd January as saying very critically:
"We have no hope for anything from the Council of Europe … [the Council of Europe] does not want to understand what is happening in Chechnya. It doesn't want any conflict with Russia".
I believe that we all appreciate how important, and how difficult, it is to keep the Russians on board and to help to pull the Russians in. I attended an EU-Russia forum in the winter of last year at which we heard a Russian deputy Minister justify Russian actions in Chechnya. He accepted absolutely no criticism of the role which the Russian armed forces have played. It is clear from all the information we have that there is a great deal to be criticised about the way in which the Russian armed forces have behaved. They have used far too much force. They are ill-disciplined in all sorts of ways. They have taken it out on local civilians. That has contributed immensely to the problem.
We also have to recognise, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, suggested, that Chechen culture over centuries of oppression has developed an attitude towards the state and to law which is not dissimilar to that of southern Italy. That has all sorts of implications for trying to resolve this difficult conflict.
In suggesting what the British Government should do, I should like to raise some of the broader regional issues. I know a little about Georgia and the Abkhazia conflict. I recall that part of the origins of the Chechen conflict was the encouragement by Russian federal authorities of Chechen forces to help in the secession of Abkhazia from Georgia. That is another post-imperial conflict which has not yet been resolved. The last time I was in Tbilisi there were still large numbers of Georgians from Abkhazia—the Georgians were the majority in Abkhazia—still living in decrepit hotels
58
and refugee camps across the capital. That is another area in which I sometimes ask myself whether the Russian central authorities are fully in control of their armed forces and intelligence services because they are not contributing to the security of the region. What the Russian Government have been doing in the Caucasus, and also on occasions in Azerbaijan, has clearly not contributed to the long-term stability which we need.
We have some difficulty over how much standing we have here because Chechnya is formally part of the Russian Federation. Therefore, in a sense we are in the same position as that of our allies in criticising British actions in Northern Ireland. We have taken a fair amount of criticism of British actions in Northern Ireland. Patiently, and with a great deal of restraint over the past 20 years, the British Government, with some assistance from their partners, have moved towards the resolution of that extremely painful conflict.
As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, remarked, the issue has to be very much put in the context of how the West relates to Russia as a whole and how we combine criticism of Russia's behaviour in this area with all of the overtones it has of Russia's imperial past; its links with its subordinate Muslim peoples over the centuries; the role of the Chechens as the people who came and got you in the night in Russian children's stories of the past century, and all of those old myths from the past. We have to say to our Russian friends that this is not the way to behave if they wish to move closer to NATO and the European Union and to be recognised as a valued partner of the West.
We have some means of influence. I am extremely grateful that the Council of Europe is pursuing that influence. I hope that Her Majesty's Government are using their position within the European Union to press in that respect. I am also aware, from meetings of the Russia-EU forum, that one of our problems is that the Russian central authorities are desperate to prevent any further disintegration in this very large federation. In the discussions we have had on what to do about Kaliningrad, the most difficult issue is whether it can conceivably be given more autonomy than any other area of Russia. If so, Vladivostok will ask for it next, then Chechnya after that and the whole thing will begin to disintegrate. There is a whole set of delicate relations which we wish to pursue.
At the same time we have to explain to our allies across the Atlantic that this area is one in which a delicate relationship with the West has to be maintained. There is a sad tendency within Washington at present to embrace Russia as being on our side in the clash of civilisations and to assume that the Chechens are on the other side, and therefore there is no criticism to be made. The last time I was in Washington, the group I was with had been addressed the previous night by Condoleezza Rice. She began her discussion with the heads of a number of American schools of international affairs by saying, "We have to admit that we have not spent enough time trying to understand the Muslim world". That is a message

59
which we all need to give to our American friends. This is part of that overall package in that very delicate region of the Caucasus where all these issues overlap.
We also have to say something to our Russian friends about the whole relationship between Russia and the Muslim world. That is another of the sensitive issues with which we shall have to deal. Her Majesty's Government have only marginal influence on this. I hope that they are giving all possible support to the European Union and to the Council of Europe. It is clear that we should try as hard as we can to bring Mr Maskhadov back into conversations. After all, if we can have Sinn Fein setting up offices in Westminster, there is no reason why they should not do the same. Perhaps we should bring the Russians over to see how one has to reincorporate people into the political process. That is perhaps very much the power of example which the British should be giving to the Russians. Unless that is the constructive way forward, sadly the Chechen conflict is likely to roll on.
Finally, if the Chechen conflict rolls on, problems in the Caucasus will continue to roll on with it. As we all know, this overlaps into Ingushetia, Abkhazia, north and south Ossetia and all of those problems would lead to an absence of development across that entire region.
6.6 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, as several noble Lords have observed, this is a grim, timely debate. The bloody conflict continues in Chechnya, as the news of the past few days reminds us with the killing of senior Russian officials and, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, mentioned, with the "crash" of the helicopter. It is interesting that our debates in this House seem to focus increasingly, as many people forecast they would, on the unstable areas of trans-Caucasia and beyond the Caspian on the new states of central Asia, which, unlike Chechnya, are not still within the Russian Federation but whose politics and actions suddenly are becoming central to the whole pattern of global stability.
As someone said rather sardonically the other day, those of us who seek to have some knowledge of foreign affairs will have to get to know these "stans" extremely well because we shall spend a lot of time debating them. At the moment we are not debating a "stan", except that Dagestan, within the Russian Federation, comes into our story. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, rightly observed, this is the area to which more and more attention needs to be paid if we are to get a firmer grip on the destabilising forces which blow back into Europe and the Atlantic arena and from which we cannot separate ourselves.
The question which has hung in the air since September 11th is whether that changed the Chechen situation. There is a point of view, which I would not say I am expert enough to deny, that it changed everything and that a tacit deal became established at a geo-political level that in exchange for Russian help with the grand coalition and the war against extremism—whether rightly or wrongly called Islamic
60
extremism; I never know how carefully to choose my words here—and global terrorism, and in exchange for Russia pledging the strongest help and in being as helpful as it could in Afghanistan, the US would turn a blinder eye than hitherto to some of the reported barbarities, atrocities and extreme heavy-handedness of the Russian forces in their attempt to prevent secession in Chechnya and prevent any breakaway tendencies.
At the same time it was widely asserted and indeed stated specifically by Mr Putin and senior members of the Russian Government that that was entirely fair because after all, they said that the Chechen affair was largely driven by Islamic extremist forces and by Al Q'aeda influences. Again, it is hard to distinguish the truth from the myth. There is something in that. There has been evidence of Al'Qaeda involvement.
There is, more specifically, clear evidence of Saudi Arabian money being circulated in Grozny and Chechnya. I think that a Saudi Arabian bank has opened there recently. I am sure noble Lords have no illusions: that it is the machine of Saudi money which, in its ill-distributed way, has helped to fuel a great many of the horrors that have culminated in September 11th. I suspect that with the other place we shall debate often in the coming months the potential for instability in the Gulf and Saudi Arabia if the dual policy of directing Saudi money to the Wahhabis and to extremism of the kind which has given birth ironically to the very man, Osama bin Laden, who wants to undermine the existing Saudi establishment, to get rid of the American troops—he seems to have achieved his first objective already—continues.
The important question—it is difficult to produce an answer—is this. If Mr Putin is a third, half or three-quarters right, I am cautious when people say, "Let's go all out for a political solution". There is a political solution to some issues. But political solutions with some of the maniacal figures who have been driving the terrorist movements which led to September 11th or which brainwashed, promoted and drove to extremism some of the characters we have seen appearing on the world stage are a contradiction in terms. There are no political solutions, as we have discovered bitterly in recent months, with those who do not want solutions. They do not want politics. They want only killing, terror, murder and mayhem against the civilised world. To that extent, one has to watch carefully before saying, "That's fine. Let's go for a political solution".
On the other side, if Mr Putin is only a quarter or a fifth right, and the Islamic extremist element—with talk of a jihad when the Chechens invaded Dagestan to convert it to an Islamic republic— is minor, and the basic issues are the grimly familiar ones of separatism, independence and the sentiments that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, reminded us have been brewing in Chechen minds and hearts for hundreds of years, a different approach may be right. With regard to separatism and the yearning for independence—it is everywhere, both inside and outside the Russian Federation and throughout the entire planet—perhaps political solutions are the only way; and, as

61
the Russian army has found to its bitter cost, fighting does not solve the problem. The Chechens will not be and have riot been defeated. That is the reality that Mr Putin and his advisers have to face. Although they have some control in Grozny now, and have cleaned up the Dagestan situation, the Russian army has not been able to impose a halt on the intense desire for separatism and a greater degree of autonomy and independence. How great a degree that is, I am not sure, but the Russians felt that they could never accept complete separation.
They have an impasse. The Russians have taken fearful losses. They have inflicted fearful losses with appalling bloodshed. Barbarity of the kind one tends to get, sadly, in civil wars, which in a sense this is. has occurred. If one goes down that route—I sound as though I contradict myself—political solutions may be the only ones and there must be talks with Maskhadov and the others.
In a sense, the way forward is determined by a full understanding of what is going on and a clear analysis. While urging political solutions to deal with extremists who never want them and would treat any attempt at a solution only as appeasement gleefully seized upon while more terror and horrors are planned, one has to he careful. But if dealing with genuine separatists—I think that Mr Maskhadov does represent them—it is a somewhat different proposition. In an ironic sense, September 11th may have helped because Mr Maskhadov has sought in public statements, as have some of his colleagues, to dissociate themselves to some degree from the extremists—from those who cheered when the World Trade Centre was destroyed and those who cried "I)eath to Americans" and other battlecries and mantras of the kind of extremism which threatens to poison the world.
If one can be clear about the analysis there may be some grounds for hope. The work that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, whom we all admire, and the Council of Europe seek to do may have some ground into which to plant its seed. But it must be the right ground. If it is the wrong ground that may make matters worse. The West is still tidying up the grand coalition's agenda. That will continue for a long time. It is talking language which pleases Mr Putin. I hope and suspect that Mr Putin and some of the Russian military leaders, if not all of them, realise that if they are to build successfully on being in the good books of the western alliance and Washington, with the putting aside of the analysis of the hideous barbarities which Russian troops have undoubtedly committed, their best course is to try quite hard now to reach a compromise with Maskhadov and the separatists. How one maintains cohesion and unity in a federation while at the same time allowing independence, diversity and various forms of separate politics remains one of the conundrums of the modern world.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, is expert on these matters. However, I do not believe that there is a comparison with Northern Ireland. These matters are so totally different. I always shy away from comparisons between one vastly complex situation—
62
in our case it has been going on for several hundreds of years—and another from different roots which has also been continuing for many centuries.
There are huge issues at stake. There is the cohesion of the giant Russian Federation. There are underlying causes to do with oil production. They will be even more crucial if Saudi Arabia is to be destabilised. The oil output of the region and beyond will become even more vital. There must be constant hope that well-focused humanitarian aid can somehow be brought in to raise Chechnya from the ashes and again make Grozny habitable. We must never forget that Russia is a humiliated nation. That is a dangerous state to be in. Those of us who admire the Russian people for all they have done and put up with must mix any warnings with sympathy. How to achieve that mix calls for the highest qualities of statesmanship. Those are the golden aims to which we should now turn our attention.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask what evidence he has seen in relation to Saudi money being used for terrorist activities in Chechnya. If I am correct, the noble Lord referred to a bank and whether that bank is used for channelling money to the terrorists. Does he say that the former president and government were all involved in terrorist activities? Alternatively, was it a group within Chechnya?
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the answer is that the evidence is only a series of reports. Some are to be found on the Internet but some circulate semi-privately. It is not evidence. If the noble Lord looks at Hansard he will see that I said "it is said that". I repeated what I had heard. Of course, I cannot say that these are hard facts but they have been quite widely asserted.
I am not quite sure that I understood the last point made in the noble Lord's question. If am not saying that any senior members of the Saudi Government are involved. I do not know whether Mr Maskhadov and the official Chechen regime receive any succour from this money, but certainly moneys arising from oil revenues from the Saudis have been very widely used to purchase arms and promote terrorist activity. That has been identified and seen in Grozny. That is what I am told. If the noble Lord were to say to me that he can prove that all these reports are wrong, I would not hesitate for one moment in conceding that he was right because we are all trading on anecdotes and reports, some of which are false and some of which are true.
6.21 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I believe that that last exchange illustrates just one of the numerous complexities which we have tried to address in this short debate. I know that it is a normal courtesy of this House to say that the debate has been excellent and to express gratitude to the initiator of the debate. I do that with particular sincerity in this case to my noble friend Lord Rea. I have known him over many years and he has taken a particular interest in many issues,

63
not least in some of the developments which have occurred in eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and in the present Russian Federation. He and I have both taken an interest in these matters for some time. It has been a well-informed and thoughtful debate, recognising the enormous complexities of the issues. As other speakers have emphasised, the contribution of my noble friend Lord Judd was particularly well-informed. He has devoted a large part of his energies to this issue over the past few years.
The current conflict in Chechnya has now entered its third year and, although the intensity of the fighting has died down, casualties continue to mount on both sides. A number of speakers referred to the helicopter crash at the weekend. It goes without saying that, with the latest estimate of 14 people killed, our thoughts go out to the families of those who died in the crash. While it is not clear precisely what was the cause, we await the investigation by the authorities to see what can be found out.
Casualties have occurred on both sides. The militants continue to attack both military and civilian targets. Non-governmental organisations are still making detailed allegations of serious human rights violations by Russian forces. That point was emphasised by my noble friend Lord Rea and also referred to graphically by my noble friend Lord Ahmed. A large proportion of Chechnya's population has been displaced and many are enduring their third winter in makeshift camps, dependent on aid from foreign donors. The conflict has been very costly indeed in terms of human suffering.
Since the start of the current conflict, the Government have clearly and repeatedly stated our position in public and in dialogue with the Russian authorities, most recently at the meeting between my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and President Putin on 21st December last year. As on numerous occasions in other contacts, he emphasised the importance of pursuing a political solution to the conflict in Chechnya.
We have always recognised Russia's territorial integrity as well as its right to defend its citizens from terrorism. We have condemned unreservedly Chechen attacks on civilians, their indiscriminate use of landmines and their maltreatment of Russian prisoners. But we have also stressed that Russian operations must be proportionate and in strict adherence to the rule of law. We have pressed the Russian authorities to investigate thoroughly allegations of human rights violations by federal servicemen. Those responsible should be prosecuted and, where appropriate, punished. We have also called for more effective co-operation between the Russian authorities and the humanitarian aid agencies.
It is true, of course, that the dreadful events of September 11 th have had a profound effect on our bilateral relationship with Russia and its relations with the wider world. A number of speakers have emphasised that, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. Russia is a key partner in the international coalition against terrorism. It has played an important
64
role in securing agreement at the Bonn talks on the future of Afghanistan. Russian personnel have also been hard at work delivering much-needed humanitarian aid to the Afghan people. The level of co-operation Russia has provided has been quite unprecedented. Its invaluable contribution should he recognised. We therefore support a genuine partnership between Russia and NATO, closer Russian ties with the European Union and Russia's accession to the World Trade Organisation.
Some commentators, including a number of speakers today, have suggested that we have gone further than that and somehow turned a blind eye to human rights abuses in Chechnya in order to secure Russia's participation in the war against terrorism. I can give a categoric assurance to the House that no such change of emphasis has occurred. The events of September 11th have not altered the United Kingdom's position on human rights in Chechnya or anywhere else. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Howell, emphasised the importance of our relationship with Russia and how it is developing. I endorse that.
But we understand that Russia had genuine and legitimate security interest concerns about Chechnya before the present conflict began. Kidnapping was endemic in the region. Noble Lords will recall that four engineers working for Granger Telecom, including three Britons, were brutally murdered in December 1998. Some media reports claim that that they were murdered on the orders of the Al'Qaeda network or the Taliban. We have no evidence of that and we continue our efforts to shed more light on the circumstances surrounding these tragic deaths.
However, it is clear that the influence of extremists was growing in Chechnya before the conflict broke out. In the summer of 1999, Chechen extremists occupied a number of settlements in the neighbouring Russian republic of Dagestan. Although the incursion was driven back by Russian forces, the attack on Dagestan made Russian military intervention in Chechnya virtually inevitable. Russia also suspected extremists of being behind the apartment bombings in Moscow and other cities in Russia, in which over 300 people were killed. A number of speakers have said that there are problems of evidence about that. There have been questions about who was and who was not responsible. Obviously, that is a concern of the Russian authorities and we all know how such concerns move to the forefront of people's minds in conflicts of this sort.
Extremist elements continue to operate in Chechnya. Their presence cannot be ignored or tolerated, and only serve to damage the reputation of Chechnya in the rest of Russia and abroad. We have therefore called on the Chechens, including Mr Maskhadov, to sever their links with international terror groups immediately and without preconditions.
In the meantime, Russian forces and Chechen fighters are locked in a violent stalemate. I believe that the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, on the historical relationship between the Russians and the

65
Chechens was particularly illuminating and important in this respect. We do not believe that either side can secure an end to the conflict through purely military means. The only way in which peace can be restored to this troubled republic is through political dialogue. There have been indications that the Russian Government understand that. During his recent visit to the United Kingdom to which I have already referred, President Putin remarked that it was simplistic to portray all groups currently fighting in Chechnya as terrorists. He made a clear distinction between C'hechen extremists, backed by the international terror network, and those who are motivated primarily by nationalist aspirations. We were encouraged that President Putin opened the door to talks between his representatives and those of President Maskhadov.
On 18th November, Russian and Chechen representatives met for over two hours. In the context of the history of the area, it is remarkable that those contacts took place. That was the first official meeting between the Russians and the Chechens since the conflict began. Previously, the Russian Government had ruled out such talks. Russian spokesmen had consistently described all Chechen fighters as terrorists. Unfortunately, those contacts have not, to date, developed further. Of course, we fervently hope that they do. We urge both sides to resume their discussions as soon as possible in a spirit of genuine and constructive engagement.
There have been other positive contacts, which have already been graphically described, including the tremendous input of my noble friend Lord Judd through the Council of Europe. Last November, the United Kingdom funded a Council of Europe seminar on human rights in Chechnya, bringing together members of the Russian Government, the Chechen civil administration and representatives of Mr Maskhadov. We view that and other Council of Europe initiatives as an important step in building mutual confidence and understanding between Chechen moderates and the Russian authorities.
But we are still a long way from what could be described as a peace process. There is a wide gap between the Russian and militant positions. From our experience in Northern Ireland—although I acknowledge the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, that it is sometimes difficult and may even be misleading to make international comparisons—we know how phenomenally difficult it can be trying to bridge the gap between two sides locked in disagreement, misunderstanding and conflict for centuries.
Some extremist groups will inevitably refuse to renounce violence and will do their utmost to undermine the political dialogue. But we believe that a
66
political process must be central to bringing an end to the bloodshed. It also offers the chance of isolating the extremists, reducing their influence and the threat that they pose to Russia's legitimate security interests. We have therefore encouraged President Putin to pursue further contacts.
I should briefly like to make one further point, which is to stress the importance that the British Government attach to the aid programme in that troubled part of the world. We have continued efforts to alleviate the humanitarian plight of people displaced by the conflict. The United Kingdom is one of the largest aid donors in the region, having in the last financial year contributed £3.2 million to the UN Consolidated Inter-Agency Appeal and £2.5 million to the International Committee of the Red Cross Moscow Regional Appeal. We have also provided assistance through our contributions to the European Community Humanitarian Organisation's humanitarian operations in the north Caucasus.
We have always recognised Russia's territorial integrity, as well as its right to defend its citizens from terrorism. But we do not believe that the situation in Chechnya can be resolved by exclusively military means. That is why we have always hacked a political solution to the Chechnya conflict and will continue to do so. We are making continued representations at all levels and your Lordships' contributions in this debate are much to be welcomed as a continuation of that discussion.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he say something, at least, about the EU-Russia summit? Do the Government hope for a positive outcome from that in relation to Chechnya? I gave the Minister's office notice of that question this morning.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's point. He will understand that it is standard practice—it is normal—in advance of discussions of that sort for dialogue to take place in private before statements are made and the EU position becomes clear. I cannot prejudge precisely what will happen at this stage. In a sense, do not look in the crystal ball, look at the history book—look at what the Government have done and what has been our attitude to that conflict in the past. That will give a pretty good indication as to what will be our attitude in future.

London Local Authorities and Transport for London Bill [H.L.]
Presented and read a first time.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before seven o'clock.

  Speed Limits
  Speed Limits
  Cohesive Communities
  Cohesive Communities
  British Crime Survey: Victims of Racist Crimes
  British Crime Survey: Victims of Racist Crimes
  Suspected Terrorists: Decisions on Extradition to Stand Trial
  Suspected Terrorists: Decisions on Extradition to Stand Trial
  Northern Ireland: Aggregates Tax Levy
  Northern Ireland: Aggregates Tax Levy
  Scotland: Personal Care for Elderly People
  Scotland: Personal Care for Elderly People
  Scotland: Animal Health Legislation
  Scotland: Animal Health Legislation
  Common Land
  Common Land
  Marine Environment
  Marine Environment
  Water Framework Directive and Devolved Coastal Management Strategies
  Water Framework Directive and Devolved Coastal Management Strategies
  Abandoned Vehicles
  Abandoned Vehicles
  Rural Payments Agency: Risk Management Plan
  Rural Payments Agency: Risk Management Plan
  Environment Agency: Revised Statutory Guidance
  Environment Agency: Revised Statutory Guidance
  Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food: Publication of Report
  Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food: Publication of Report
  Parades Commission for Northern Ireland: Report
  Parades Commission for Northern Ireland: Report
  Drumcree
  Drumcree
  Northern Ireland: Proposed Bill of Rights
  Northern Ireland: Proposed Bill of Rights
  Zimbabwe
  Zimbabwe
  Convention on the future of Europe: UK Government's Representative
  Convention on the future of Europe: UK Government's Representative
  Commonwealth War Graves: Pilckem Ridge
  Commonwealth War Graves: Pilckem Ridge
  Royal Air Force Hercules C130K Fleet
  Royal Air Force Hercules C130K Fleet
  Taliban and Al'Qaeda Militants Captured in Afghanistan
  Taliban and Al'Qaeda Militants Captured in Afghanistan
  Lord Birt: Forward Strategy Unit
  Lord Birt: Forward Strategy Unit
  West Coast Main Line
  West Coast Main Line
  Southport Station
  Southport Station
  Taxi Occupant Fatalities
  Taxi Occupant Fatalities
  Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway
  Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway
  State Pension
  State Pension
  Communications Data Protection and Privacy Directive: Website Operators' Use of Cookies
  Communications Data Protection and Privacy Directive: Website Operators' Use of Cookies
  Wales: Wind Power Stations
  Wales: Wind Power Stations
  Northern Ireland: Gas Transportation Tariff
  Northern Ireland: Gas Transportation Tariff
  Broadband Fixed Wireless Licences in the 28GHz Spectrum
  Broadband Fixed Wireless Licences in the 28GHz Spectrum
  Mineworkers' Compensation: Emphysema and Bronchitis Scheme
  Mineworkers' Compensation: Emphysema and Bronchitis Scheme
  Ownership of Cultural Property: 1970 UNESCO Convention
  Ownership of Cultural Property: 1970 UNESCO Convention
  Piers
  Piers
  Children's Television Viewing
  Children's Television Viewing
  Images of England Website
  Images of England Website
  Abortion Act 1967
  Abortion Act 1967
  Chiropodists
  Chiropodists
  Embryonic Stem Cell Research
  Embryonic Stem Cell Research
  vCJD
  vCJD