Sitting of 29 January 2002

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Asylum Seekers
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
9.30 am
Mr. Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden): I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the issue of asylum seekers from France.
Mrs. Thatcher said of Lord Young of Graffham that most people brought her problems, but he brought solutions. Most people bring to the Chamber problems and issues that they want to highlight. I want to emulate Lord Young and bring a solution, or at least a partial remedy, to a problem. I do not need simply to highlight the problem and issue of asylum seekers from France, as that is constantly before us in the newspapers. We are aware of a continuous stream of people who often risk their lives and great hardship to get to this country across the channel from France. We know stories of attempted mass breakthroughs at Christmas. Only the other day, gangs' attempts were discovered to rig the signals so that people could stow away on Eurostar trains. People are conscious that the flow has become one way. Asylum seekers come from France to this country and they are not returned.
I want to make a practical proposal, which I hope that the Government will take seriously. They should have taken this measure four years ago to alleviate the problem, but they could still implement it if they set about it with a will. I will set the scene in relation to asylum seekers. The House of Commons believes that we should be and remain a safe haven for that minority of asylum seekers who genuinely suffered persecution and torture in their home countries, or who face persecution and torture should they return. I go further: we should be sympathetic to most asylum seekers, although they are "bogus"—a word that the Prime Minister used—and are not genuine asylum seekers. [Interruption.] I assure the Minister that the Prime Minister described them as bogus. They are economic migrants who seek to enter this country to better their conditions and those of their families. They are often admirable people who would be of great benefit to this country. However, hon. Members from all parties recognise that this country is simply not in a position to become a country of mass immigration. We cannot alleviate the problems of economic migrants or of the troubled, disturbed and impoverished countries from which they come simply by allowing them unlimited entry.
The most humane thing that we can do is speedily to return economic migrants whence they came. That is humane to them, as it avoids the prolonged anguish and agony of a long drawn-out process during which they out down roots. We have to uproot them to return them r we create an unsustainable position in this country. It also humane, as it sends the message down the chain
2WH
that it is pointless for others to try to enter this country—an attempt that, sooner or later, we must render impossible.
In principle, the easiest group to return rapidly whence they came are those who have crossed the channel from another safe country. The Geneva convention, under which we operate and by which we are bound, specifies that asylum seekers should seek sanctuary in the first safe country that they come to; they do not have the right to shop around for the country offering the most favourable conditions. Consequently, if they pass through one safe country to another, the end recipient has the right to return them under the Geneva convention, yet people pour in from France in significant numbers and are not returned.
From 1995 to 1997, many asylum seekers were returned to France under a bilateral agreement that was negotiated by the Conservative Government but allowed to lapse in autumn 1977. My modest proposal is that the Government should renegotiate the agreement. They should have done so four years ago, but it is far more important that they do so now than that I try to lay blame for the past. They would have my support and, I believe, the support of the House of Commons and the country.
The bilateral agreement between the United Kingdom and France specified that we had not only the right to return unacceptable asylum seekers to France within 24 hours but the obligation to do so or, if there were practical obstacles to overcome, to state within 24 hours that that was our intention. The agreement reflected the cordial relations that prevailed then between the United Kingdom and France. It was reciprocal and allowed movement both ways on equal terms, although in practice the flow was largely one way. We were able to return large numbers of asylum seekers who had entered the country from France.
As I said, the agreement reflected the cordial relations that existed between the United Kingdom and France, and which happened to be dear to my heart: I am a registered, paid-up and leading Francophile of long standing. It worked well: both sides had the right to terminate it with two months' notice but neither did so, because they were satisfied with it and accepted that it was a logical, sensible arrangement. I believe that the agreement remains in force for non asylum seekers; according to the Home Secretary, some 6,000 have been sent back under the agreement. However, it contained a clause that allowed the arrangements for asylum seekers to be superseded by the Dublin convention, which came into effect in September 1997. The asylum seeker aspects were allowed to lapse at that point and have not been renewed.
The Dublin convention was intended to make general what the bilateral agreement had achieved for Britain and France; namely, the return of asylum seekers to the first safe country that they reached in the European Union. In practice, the convention failed to achieve that. Instead, it makes the return of asylum seekers more difficult and complex than was previously the case. It was negotiated in the late 1980s and signed in 1990. Since then, asylum seeking has grown out of all proportion and out of all recognition in scale and sophistication. A large industry, which has grown on the

3WH
back of asylum seeking, has learned how to exploit legal complexities in a way that no one envisaged when the Dublin convention was negotiated.
With the benefit of 20:20 hindsight, we can criticise the 12 or so Governments, including ours, who signed the Dublin convention for failing to foresee the situation 10 years later when it came into force. However, if the Minister wants to rest on criticism of the past, it should apply even more strongly to those who, in 1997, let the Dublin convention supersede the bilateral agreement between Britain and France without foreseeing that, in practice, it would remove our ability to return asylum seekers to France.
It was certainly inexcusable that, once the problems emerged, the Government did not renegotiate the bilateral agreement with France, within the terms of the Dublin convention, to restore speedy "refoulement", as the conventions call the return of asylum seekers to previous safe countries. Labour Ministers have defended their inaction by saying that the rules of the Dublin convention rule out such bilateral agreements, but that is nonsense. Since the Dublin convention came into force, Germany and Denmark have agreed a similar bilateral agreement to the one that we had with France, and it works well. It enables Denmark to send back 18 per cent. of the asylum seekers who make their claims in Denmark. In contrast, under the arrangements that have been established in this country, we send back only 1 per cent. to all safe countries, not just France.
I hope that the Minister will answer the following questions. First, have the Government attempted to renegotiate the bilateral agreement between France and the United Kingdom to extend it again to include asylum seekers? Secondly, if so, will they place a paper in the Library that details the renegotiation process: the dates of meetings, participants, proposals, where and when things were discussed and why the negotiations failed?
Thirdly, if the Government have not tried to renegotiate the agreement, will they do so forthwith? I believe that that would have the wholehearted support of the House of Commons, including, I hope, my party. I look forward with interest to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins). If the Government seek to renegotiate the agreement, we will certainly be there to help them.
If the answer to those questions is no, why are the Government not taking steps to renegotiate the bilateral agreement? They sometimes give a second reason for not re-establishing the bilateral accord, which is that the French would not want it. However, they wanted it in 1995 and continued with it, even though they had the right to withdraw from it. The fact that the Government say that re-establishment is impossible is all the odder when they constantly caricature the relations that prevailed between Britain and our European partners in the past as hostile. In fact, as our success in negotiating the agreement revealed, our relations then were extremely cordial.
The Government say that they are now at the heart of Europe, have warm, friendly relations with our continental partners and have made a range of unilateral concessions—from signing the Amsterdam
4WH
treaty and the social chapter to agreeing to a European defence force—in the belief that that will give them greater influence. If that is so, let them call in their chips. If the Government have greater influence and better relations with our partners on the continent, let them turn that influence into something that is useful for Britain, in the shape of a renegotiated bilateral treaty for the rapid and speedy return of asylum seekers who reach our shores from France—a safe country.
A longer-term issue relates to the flow of asylum seekers from France. To be fair to the Government, one factor that aggravated the problem of refoulement was the decision of the British courts to rule that France and Germany were not safe countries to which we could return asylum seekers. They said that we interpreted the Geneva convention to include persecution not just by states but by rebel and opposition groups in the countries from which people came, so that people from Algeria, for example, which has endemic civil disturbance, could claim either to have been persecuted by the Government or to face persecution by the opposition. Continental courts and Governments who do not interpret the Geneva convention so widely believe that it applies only to persecution by a foreign state. The courts reached the conclusion that the foreign courts' narrow interpretation was not correct and therefore that those foreign countries were not safe countries to which we could return asylum seekers.
I am not here to make party political points. I support what the Government did in 1999 in overriding that ruling by introducing the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which specified that all EU countries were deemed to be safe places to which to return asylum seekers. We hoped that that nonsense had been put to an end. However, that decision is open to challenge under the Government's own legislation—the Human Rights Act 1998. The court, in a case last Friday, ruled that the Home Secretary cannot rely on the 1999 Act alone to rebut such claims under the Human Rights Act; it upheld him in that case, but it was a worrying caveat that the 1999 Act alone cannot provide a rebuttal of human rights claims. How do the Government interpret that case, and will they need further legislation to prevent that loophole from reopening if, indeed, it is possible without amending the Human Rights Act?
Meanwhile, however, an absurd situation arises: while our courts have ruled that French and German courts are not safe places to which to send asylum seekers, we are invited to introduce a European arrest warrant that will allow UK citizens who are not asylum seekers to be arrested at the behest of those courts and sent, without any real right of review under habeas corpus, to France and Germany to face trial in courts that we have been told are not safe for asylum seekers.
The Government's justification is that those courts are bound by the European convention on human rights; yet if our courts have said that continental courts cannot be trusted to interpret the Geneva convention safely, how can they be relied on to interpret the European convention on human rights accurately or safely if British citizens are to be sent back to them? I ask the Minister to think again about creating the extraordinary anomaly that the Government propose to introduce in the extradition Bill.

5WH
I said that I came here in the spirit of David Young, offering solutions rather than problems; I have become something of a purveyor of policy to Her Majesty's Government in recent months. I made proposals on reform of the cannabis laws, which were initially rubbished, but then the Home Secretary acknowledged that there was sufficient truth in them to move some way in the direction that I proposed. Earlier, I made proposals for reform of the health service that were initially rubbished, but now the Secretary of State for Health has adopted the rhetoric of patient choice and patient power that I proposed.
In all modesty, therefore, I make my proposal for the Government to renegotiate with France an agreement that will enable us to return to that country asylum seekers who arrive at our ports. People will welcome that essential step to stem the unsustainable flow of immigrants from the continent to this country. I remind the Minister why they come here: it is because this country is a more attractive place and a softer touch for immigrants than other continental countries. The judge in the court case that gave rise to the conclusion that France and Germany were not safe countries noted that the evidence showed that 80 per cent. of asylum claims by Algerians in France were rejected and the claimants were liable to be sent back to Algeria. Only 5 per cent. of Algerians who made claims in this country were refused asylum and sent back to Algeria.
Britain is therefore a magnet for asylum seekers. It is only right that we should try to restore the bulwarks against that excessive flow of people seeking to enter the country and return those who should, in all conscience, make their claims elsewhere. I hope that the Minister responds positively to that proposal.
9.50 am
Mr. Roger Gale: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) on securing the debate and raising, in measured terms, concerns that are shared by many hon. Members on both sides of the House, some of whom are unable to be present, and shared particularly by those who, like myself, represent what I would describe as a front-line constituency.
I represent the seat of North Thanet, which is, with Dover and South Thanet, the recipient of considerable numbers of those crossing the channel by legal or other means to seek asylum in Britain. The county of Kent—of which I am proud to represent a small part—has paid a considerable price, literally and metaphorically, because of the number of people coming into the country from the other side of the channel to claim asylum. The Minister and the Government should not underestimate the real concerns of the people of most of the constituencies in Kent, who are paying through their council tax to provide education services, health services, policing services and social services that are already overstretched. The demands on housing are already too great for us to meet. The additional burden is considerable.
When I raise the subject, I am normally branded as racist. I am not. As I have mentioned before, I think that I am still the only hon. Member who has entertained and looked after an asylum seeker in his own home and who, under those circumstances, sought and won from a
6WH
Minister in the previous Conservative Government leave for that asylum seeker who was under my care—a young Romanian—to remain permanently.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Angela Eagle): I want to place it on the record immediately that I do not regard the hon. Gentleman as racist. I would not bandy such words about, in an attempt to create a low debate, when we have to deal with difficult and serious issues to which there are no easy answers.
Mr. Gale: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that measured response to my concerns. She will know that people outside the House read the reports of our debate in the Official Report and may think otherwise. It is for that reason alone that I feel obliged to put my position clearly on the record.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden said, this country has a proud and honourable tradition dating back not just many decades but many centuries. The United Kingdom has for hundreds of years played host to refugees from all over the world, fleeing from all manner of persecution. Long may we conduct our business in a manner that continues that proud tradition. However, if that is to happen and the British people are to welcome with open arms those in genuine need of relief, succour and a safe haven, we must exercise proper controls to ensure that our systems are not exploited by those whose demands are other than asylum and safe haven.
My right hon. Friend referred to economic migrants. It is a fact that the overwhelming majority of those reaching our shores from across the channel, sometimes from halfway around the world—whether by container lorry, car, bus or truck—are economic migrants rather than asylum seekers.
We all understand the desire of people from impoverished, developing countries to better their lot and, by working over here, to send money home to support their extended family in their own countries. We also understand and sympathise with the desperation with which they seek—by almost any means, even at the risk of their own life—to come here to what they regard as a better, more prosperous and more advantaged nation.
It is impossible, however, for a small island to continue to take all corners from anywhere under any circumstances so that our ratepayers and taxpayers see their money spent to fund people working in the black economy who are not paying taxes, have no right to be here and no work permit and who, too frequently, disappear into the black economy from the registers of asylum seekers. I do not have the up-to-date figures— the Minister will be able to tell us—but a guesstimate for a two-year period is that between 20,000 and 30,000 people simply disappeared into the system. Those were people who could and should have been sent back whence they came once their cases had been determined, but of whom there is no trace. Some of those people are therefore living in the United Kingdom under entirely false pretences and circumstances.
It is incredibly easy not just to cross the channel, but to cross and re-cross it. A young man released from prison into my care, for whom I had accepted responsibility, managed to cross the channel three times

7WH
with no documentation whatever. He not only came into the United Kingdom but left it to go and see a girlfriend in Germany, where he claimed that he was being persecuted, and returned to the United Kingdom. I discovered that rather later in my representations than earlier, but it did not colour my judgment in respect of his particular need.
We have a very real problem. Arguments about the Geneva convention have been well rehearsed, as have arguments about the origins and paternity of the Dublin convention. Successive Ministers of both parties have sought to blame each other. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden said, the Dublin convention has done more harm than good: it has not achieved what it set out to achieve, it has undermined the bilateral agreement with France and, with the wonderful gift of hindsight, it has been proved not to do the job.
I am not here to score party political points this morning, but I must tell the Minister that her party, now in power for five years, has had considerable opportunity to observe the effects of the problem and to seek to effect change. I agree with my right hon. Friend that moves must be made to renegotiate a bilateral agreement. He is absolutely right that the argument that it cannot be done because of the Dublin convention is nonsense. It can be done. It has been done between Denmark and Germany and there is no reason—give or take the willingness of the French Government—why we cannot renegotiate a bilateral agreement with France.
I believe that certain things must be done swiftly. The previous Home Secretary sought to introduce a system of dispersal, to ease the burden on counties such as Kent and constituencies such as my own, by placing asylum seekers in communities of their own kind around the country. That system simply has not worked. The recipient local authorities have been few in number and considerably unwilling. The placements place a demand on their limited resources, and there is no record of the number of people who have been dispersed under the scheme. The Home Secretary said recently that it had been a great success. Having challenged him and been challenged by him on the Floor of the House, I tabled a parliamentary question to find out the measure of that success, but the Home Office had no statistics to say how many people had been dispersed, from where or where to.
Angela Eagle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gale: I will give way to the Minister, but she may want to comment on my next point. In answer to either another parliamentary question or a letter—I cannot remember which—the Home Office said that people were being dispersed and one place that they were going was Thanet. We thought that Thanet was one of the places from where they were being dispersed.
Angela Eagle: We have numbers on the cluster areas from where people have been dispersed in the National Asylum Support Service scheme, which is post 1999 and the relevant legislation. However, we have difficulty with the pre-1999 situation, in which local authorities
8WH
often organised dispersal themselves. It is possible to have an area that has no NASS dispersals but does have asylum seekers who have been dispersed there by local authorities that had made arrangements with other authorities. We are trying to get a handle on the situation by conducting surveys and contacting local authorities to establish the position, bring the different schemes together and obtain a better idea of the overall situation. The work is continuing, but at the moment, our figures cover NASS dispersal, rather than the interim scheme dispersals that have gone on with bilateral agreements between local authorities.
Mr. Gale: That is very helpful, and I thank the Minister. I wish only that some small part of that helpfulness had been reflected in the parliamentary answer. I do not want her to disavow the Home Secretary—and nor would she—but none of that information was forthcoming when I asked my question. I shall be delighted to table a further parliamentary question on the statistics that are available post 1999. I think that I am right in saying that the scheme was first introduced on all fools' day which, with hindsight, seems appropriate.
It is too early to say whether the introduction of identity cards will help, and I would welcome any measure that began to address the problem, however late in the day. I fear that we are sticking a small plaster over a large wound. The fact that the Home Secretary met a French Employment Minister begs the question: what is the Foreign Secretary doing about the situation?
I turn to the thorny issue of Sangatte and the Red Cross centre. I recently visited the migrant helpline service in Dover. It has grown like Topsy, and consists of dedicated people doing their level best to assist those coming to this country in need. They try to meet increasing demand under tremendous pressure and in difficult circumstances with limited resources, and provide, for example, basic tuition in English, so that the people who come to this country to claim asylum have at least a tentative foothold in the language that they must deploy to go about their everyday life. I pay tribute to those people, as they are doing a tremendous job, but they recognise that we are being exploited and taken for a ride.
Prior to Christmas, we saw the invasion of the channel tunnel centre close to Sangatte. Eurotunnel has made it plain that it believes that the presence of the Red Cross centre at Sangatte is an open invitation to asylum seekers from throughout the European Union and beyond to come, gather and try to cross the channel illegally by ferry or, more probably, through the channel tunnel. Eurotunnel owns the property that the French Government have appropriated to give to the Red Cross to use as a centre and, as I have described before, little more than a waiting room for illegal immigrants. While that is happening, the French Government are turning a blind eye because it suits them so to do. That is inexcusable, and whatever else the Minister defends this morning, I hope that she will not try to defend the appalling record of the French Government. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, I am a Francophile. I spend a great deal of time in France, where I have many friends, and I am the proud owner of a tumbledown barn. However, that does

9WH
not prevent me from looking with honest eyes rather than rose-coloured glasses at the actions of the Government just across the Channel.
The asylum seekers and economic migrants coming through the port of Dover to these shores have travelled across not one but probably half a dozen safe havens within the European Union. In any one of those countries, they could and should have claimed asylum under the terms of the Geneva convention if they were genuine asylum seekers—although, as we know, most of them are not. That they have not done so is reprehensible but perhaps understandable if they are travelling, as many of them sadly are, and sometimes with fatal consequences, in sealed containers. However, when they arrive at Sangatte and Nord-Pas de Calais, they are released frequently into the open air to find their way across the channel. The French Government know precisely what they are doing and why they are there. Because they are on French soil as illegally as they later are on English soil, the French Government have the opportunity to return them whence they came, or process their cases and demand that they either return to their country of origin or claim asylum in France.
Simon Hughes: This is a very important issue, and I hope to have the chance to elaborate later. When I put that point to the French ambassador here, he made the persuasive argument that many asylum seekers will not tell officials the route by which they came through Europe or own up to the first country in which they arrived. Therefore, the French do not have a greater obligation to take them than any other country through which they travelled. When asylum seekers are asked whether they want to apply for asylum in France, the small percentage who say that they do have their applications processed, but the rest say that they want to apply elsewhere. The French cannot make them apply to stay in France.
Mr. Gale: The French ambassador is charming and persuasive, but wrong. Unless he believes in magic carpets, it must be abundantly plain to him that the people arrived in France from a third country and safe haven. When they arrive in a container lorry and its route is shown on the tachograph, as it is throughout the European Union, there is proof of the countries through which they have travelled. It is absolute nonsense to say, first, that they cannot be returned to another country in most cases—although not all—and secondly, that they cannot or should not claim asylum in France if they are illegally on French soil. If they have no documentation, visa, means or willingness to demonstrate their entry into or their right to be in the European Union, the French have the absolute right to deport them to their country of origin or insist that they claim asylum. The fact is that it suits the French Government to allow them not only to use a building at Sangatte that has been appropriated from Eurotunnel, but to use and reuse it, having tried on many and successive occasions to enter the United Kingdom illegally via the channel tunnel or one of the channel ports.
Angela Eagle: I share the hon. Gentleman's frustration, but it is not always possible to find illegal immigrants with the lorries on which they have been trafficked to the European Union when they claim
10WH
asylum in-country. It is not easy to obtain proof of where they came from, the routes they used and often their nationality. That makes it difficult to send them back, in addition to which there are some countries to which we cannot send them. Most of the people at Sangatte are Iraqis and Afghanis and almost all—80 per cent. —are single young men, and they cannot be returned to those countries at the moment. I share the hon. Gentleman's frustration and wish that it was a matter of simply sending them back, but in practice it is not always that easy.
Mr. Gale: I understand what the Minister is saying, but that is a problem for the French, not us. The buck is passed smartly across the channel with the total connivance of the French Government. People live openly in the Red Cross centre at Sangatte. They are not there clandestinely; they do not hide. They walk around the town. The French Government know that they are there and they are not yet in the United Kingdom, but with the connivance of the French Government, they are effectively encouraged to move out.
The problem is even slightly worse, because although other countries in the Schengen area do not deport asylum seekers, they tell them to move on to anywhere outside that area, and of course the United Kingdom is outside it. If the Belgians, Dutch or Germans want to get rid of someone, they say, "Off to England, please. It is outside the Schengen area, so you will have left our territory and no longer be our problem." That is serious and real nonsense and we must get to grips with it.
I have not always seen eye to eye with Eurotunnel, as it well knows, but I share its anger and frustration that the French and now the British Governments are not dealing with the problem properly. It is all very well for the Home Secretary to meet a French Employment Minister and for him to try to introduce identity cards, but the root of the problem lies with the lack of bilateral agreement between this country and France. Unless and until the Foreign Secretary meets and discusses seriously with his counterparts in the French Government, and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom meets, if necessary, the President and Prime Minister of France to resolve the issue, there will not be a solution.
Angela Eagle: There have been meetings, but given the hon. Gentleman's analysis of French indifference, does he believe that a bilateral agreement is possible in the circumstances in which he has painted the French approach?
Mr. Gale: If necessary, I think we must tell the French Government that unless there is a bilateral agreement we will simply send straight back to France anyone coming into the United Kingdom.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden raised the issue this morning not from malice, mischief or spite, but to put forward a serious proposition that a bilateral agreement must be renegotiated and agreed. As a precursor to that and as a Member of Parliament representing a front-line constituency in Kent, I suggest that we must prevail upon the International Red Cross and the French Government, at the very least, swiftly to close the reception centre at Sangatte and move it to a more

11WH
distant place, if necessary within Nord-Pas de Calais. I know that the argument is that people must go somewhere and if there was no centre they would be milling around the streets of Sangatte. However, the fact is that that facility on the doorstep of the channel tunnel makes it possible for dozens of would-be economic migrants, literally nightly, to mount assaults on the defences—that is what they now are—of the entrance to the channel tunnel. Therefore, as a first step, if the French Government wanted to demonstrate any good will, they could immediately close that centre and return to Eurotunnel the use of its lawful property for lawful purposes.
Secondly, there is an organisation, with which I wish to have little truck, called the Euro-region, which comprises the county of Kent, Nord-Pas de Calais and Wallonia. Every now and then this rather peculiar institution holds meetings of dignitaries from Kent, Nord-Pas de Calais and Wallonia. I attended one of those meetings and I attended a workshop on the social issues affecting the Euro-region. Because we are used in the House to introducing measures and to negotiation, I persuaded the working group that I was on to put forward to the plenary session a proposal for consideration by the European Union that there should be established, within the Euro-region—which I do not recognise—a holding centre for all asylum seekers entering that region. It will not surprise the Minister to know that I suggested that that holding centre should be based somewhere in Nord-Pas de Calais.
The working group adopted that resolution, and it went to the plenary session and was adopted by the plenary session. Therefore, an agreement was reached by the elected representatives of Nord-Pas de Calais, Kent and Wallonia that, somewhere in that Euroregion, there should be a holding centre for asylum seekers—or economic migrants. They agreed that they would approach the European Union for support and funding for that purpose. It will not surprise anyone in the Chamber to know that precisely nothing has happened since, and that was about four years ago.
I believe that there are ways in which this problem can and should humanely be solved. I believe that there should be a centre to which people are sent, wherever they are found in the area, and that we should then seriously consider how the genuine claimants of asylum should be dispersed throughout those counties and beyond and how the rest should be returned. I hope that the Minister will take on board in her reply my concerns on behalf of my constituents and the people of Kent—the wider Kent—in the context of the measures raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Edward O'Hara): Order. Given that there are no Back-Bench speakers seeking to catch my eye, it would be equitable if, as closely as feasible, the remaining time were divided equally between the three Front-Bench speakers.
10.17 am
Simon Hughes: I was doing my maths as you rose to speak, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
12WH
I welcome the opportunity for debate that we have been given by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley). I welcome his constructive approach to this matter, as to others. From the freedom of the Back Benches one can often put forward such solutions. I come to the debate in the same way and in the same context: we are grappling here with difficult issues, and it behoves us all to try to find practical and workable ways forward.
I also want to add a couple of words of context and to preface those by saying, as I mentioned in my question to the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), that over the months I have had conversations not only with the French ambassador and his staff but with Eurotunnel and many others who are involved. Indeed, within the next two weeks I shall visit Calais, Sangatte and the Eurotunnel site to bring myself up to speed with the situation there. I make these comments in advance of that visit.
I want to rehearse some of the most recent figures that put this problem in context. Of the approximately 21 million people in the world who are refugees, asylum seekers or internally displaced, 12 million are refugees. An assessment that equates the numbers found in different countries with wealth shows that some of the poorest countries in the world have much greater problems to grapple with than we do. The figures, which were produced this month, show by league table the financial implications for developing countries hosting refugees. Guinea has 130 people of concern for every $1million of gross domestic product and Tanzania has 80. In comparison, the United Kingdom has 0.2. I hope that we can start considering the issue in context.
The other measure that places the issue in context is the number of people who arrive here or in France. I have checked the statistics concerning asylum applicants in European Union countries during the past 10 years. Germany came top, with nearly 2 million, the United Kingdom second, with nearly 450,000, and France third, with about 330,000. According to last year's figures for asylum applications per head of population, Belgium was top in the European Union, followed by Ireland, the Netherlands, Austria, Denmark, Sweden and Luxembourg. The UK is eighth and France is 10th. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, we received 80,315 asylum seekers: 1.37 per 1,000 inhabitants. France had 38,590: 0.65 per 1,000 inhabitants.
According to the figures compiled by the migrant helpline referred to by the hon. Member for North Thanet, the number of people arriving via the channel tunnel or illegal routes through the channel tunnel into Kent from northern France is decreasing. That is the latest information that I have, as of autumn 2001, but the Minister may have more accurate information. The figures are encouraging because no one wants people to seek illegal entry at risk to themselves and others.
The Home Office and the university of Wales have published research detailing asylum seekers' reasons for coming to the United Kingdom. I had heard that many had found that many of the asylum seekers found in northern France cited language and reputation as their reasons for coming here. Surprisingly, however, the research shows that people are less bothered about the particular country that they travel to than they are by what they have been told by those arranging their travel.

13WH
Many asylum seekers in northern France can apply for asylum in France: most are asked and few have said yes. The Minister is right that over 80 per cent. of people in Sangatte are from three national groups: the Afghans, the Iranians and the Kurds. That situation has persisted for some time.
I have also talked to the refugee agencies. They have met Ministers regularly and made suggestions about how to proceed. First, I do not believe that the Dublin convention ever worked, or ever will, and it is the widespread view of others in the field that it will never succeed. For the reasons cited in my intervention on the hon. Gentleman, most people have already crossed other EU borders when they come to the attention of the authorities. Most will have no documentation evidencing the route that they have taken, or be unwilling to explain the route—if they know it. Whether undertaken by the French or British authorities, it is impractical and a waste of resources to send them back to Austria, Germany, Greece, Italy, or wherever they first arrived in the EU. That is a nonsensical system. I understand why it was conceived, but it has not worked. It is understandable that the Government are seeking a new system.
Secondly, I understand the point made by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden about bilateral agreements between countries. However, such agreements do not solve the problem that many of these people come back again and again. That was evidenced by the example given by the hon. Member for North Thanet about his Romanian house guest. A bilateral agreement that simply says, "We're going to send back to France people who arrive here illegally," is not sufficient to deter people. In every interview that I have seen people give, whether they are waiting in Tangier to cross to Spain, or in Calais to cross to the United Kingdom, they make it clear that if at first they do not succeed, they will try and try again. If they are sent back from the UK to France, that does not mean that they will automatically go back whence they came.
Of course, if there is a settlement in Afghanistan that enables people to go back, they will start to do so, and we have a duty to ensure that that happens. However—with respect, because the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden makes a perfectly proper constitutional and political suggestion—I do not believe that that will significantly reduce the numbers of people returning.
Thirdly, I welcome the fact that the Government have at last recognised that there are always two categories of people in places like Sangatte. Some are genuine, honest asylum seekers who have been persecuted and left afraid for their lives. On Friday, I saw in my surgery an Afghan man who had lost his child, his wife, his mother and his whole family and was still terrified about whether it would be safe for him to go back. He was justified in being here and putting his case. Other people are economic migrants. The Government now realise that there must be a legal route for people in both queues—the asylum queue, which has never provided a legal route in to enable people to put their case, and the queue for economic migrants, who must also be able to put their case.
Mr. Lilley: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman thinks that the fact that terrible things happened in Afghanistan under the Taliban regime and during the
14WH
conflict justifies anyone's remaining here, instead of a presumption that in future refugees from Afghanistan should be returnable there. In that case, what have we been fighting for? The same applies to Kosovo.
Simon Hughes: There is no disagreement between us. The same applies in Sierra Leone, where at last all the territory has been recaptured by the Government. After a settlement there comes a time, after a short but decent interval, when the Government must make an assessment to decide whether it is safe for people to return. Some places in Afghanistan are still not yet fully under control. I accept the proposition that as soon as a civil war ends and a place is again at peace and under control—as in Kosovo—people should be free and able to go back. It is never quite as daunting a prospect as is sometimes painted. It is not a one-way traffic or an unchanging situation. Places with turmoil, conflict and persecution cease, mercifully, to be like that, and it is right that we should be able to tell people that they are now free to go home to help to rebuild the country from which they came.
Fourthly, the way forward, which is endorsed by refugee agencies in Europe and elsewhere, is to seek not merely a bilateral solution that may or may not be practical, but one that brings in all the countries of the European Union. As the hon. Member for North Thanet said, in the Schengen territories, where there are no frontier controls, it is difficult to monitor where people came from and where they are going. The reason for the queue at our front door is that we are not part of Schengen; we have separate border controls. Liberal Democrats hold to the view that we should continue to keep those, and it is my personal view that that should remain one of the ways in which we regulate matters in the UK.
Mr. Gale: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is considerable cynicism within Schengen? The approach tends to be, "As long as you're not in Schengen, you're not a problem."
Simon Hughes: I agree. There has been much passive, if not active, connivance at the attitude that says, "As long as you leave our territory, we're happy." That is not a satisfactory solution, because people will still be wandering around Europe, legally or illegally seeking to obtain established status.
I believe that the way forward is to seek to agree on a common process of application in the EU for people once they have come to the attention of the authorities. It should not follow that because someone, for example, came to the Austrian authorities' attention, they have to end up in Austria. The burden should be shared across the EU. If someone has a particular case for coming to the UK—because they speak English, for example, or are from a Commonwealth country with community links with the UK—provided they are within the fair quota of people for the UK, it should be possible for their application to be dealt with on behalf of the UK authorities, even if it is processed in Austria.
If they were working with the collaboration of bodies such as the Red Cross, under the auspices of the UNHCR, British officials in Sangatte, for example, could process applications there and then. There would not then be the risk to lives of people trying to cross the

15WH
channel. I understand that that would require a common basis for the definition of refugee, and common systems thereafter.
Can the Minister tell us whether a final agreement has been reached on the Eurodat database, which will allow the sharing of information about whether people have applied before and had their applications dealt with? Have we come to an agreement, or are we on the way to one, on the European Commission proposal for a common definition of refugee? That picks up on the question of the different definitions of refugee used by the Germans, the French and ourselves, for example over persecution by Government or others, to which other hon. Members have referred.
Do the Government anticipate that it will be possible by bilateral agreement or, more usefully this year, by European Union-wide agreement to examine a system that will accept in principle my proposal that the processing of applications should happen when a person first comes to the authorities' attention, irrespective of where that person is eventually given asylum if their claim is granted? I believe that that would be a sensible way forward and I urge the Minister and her colleagues to consider it positively.
10.32 am
Mr. Humfrey Malins: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) on securing the debate, and on the thoughtful and constructive way in which he made his persuasive argument. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), whose expertise is well known and who has a strong constituency interest and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), who speaks with experience, care and compassion on such matters.
I have had a long interest in matters to do with asylum. In 1992, I was privileged to found the Immigration Advisory Service, which provides free legal help and advice to those with rights of appeal under immigration law. I was the first chairman of its trustees, and I pay tribute to its work throughout the country.
I begin with a proposition on which we can all agree. Any decent country—ours is a decent country—must speedily and happily grant refugee status to those entitled to it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden made that point. We must always display good sense and humanity, not only in what we do but in what we say and how we say it.
One date should be engraved on the minds of those of us with an interest in the subject: 19 June 2000. On that day, 58 Chinese people were found suffocated in a van in Dover. Those poor souls suffered a dreadful death. They may have been illegal immigrants, but never let it be forgotten that they were ordinary, decent people with families, desperate for a new life.
What has happened to our asylum system? Where do we stand in 2002? It is fair to say that after four years of Labour Government, from 1997 to 2001, the system had nearly collapsed and had descended into chaos. The number of asylum applications rose from 26,000 a year
16WH
in 1990 to approximately 80,000 a year in the year 2000. By August 2001 the backlog of applications awaiting an initial decision had risen to 43,000.
My right hon. Friend made the sad point that things were so slow that many people established roots in this country. Indeed, children were born and had almost gone to school. The longer one leaves asylum seekers who will fail to gain asylum in limbo, settling into a country, the more unkind it is at the end of the day to remove them. Although there are approximately 60,000 refusals a year, in 2000 there were only 9,000 removals from this country.
The Labour Government did not know, and do not know, how many people refused asylum leave this country of their own accord, and the Home Office does not know the whereabouts of tens of thousands of failed and current asylum seekers. No wonder the Labour-dominated Select Committee on Home Affairs concluded in 2001 that the Home Office had been dilatory in enforcing the removal of people whose asylum claims had been refused and others who had gained illegal entry to the UK, and that that had attracted more people.
Dealing specifically with France, the principal means of illegal entry into this country has been lorries, 4,000 of which pass through Dover every day of the week, ferries, and trains, which, as a result of the abuse of ticketing arrangements, at one stage allowed as many as 1,000 people a month to arrive on Eurostar as illegal entrants.
The Government have done good work in the past two or three years as far as Eurostar is concerned, and many of those problems have been overcome. However, the problem remains of a customer who buys a single ticket from Brussels to Lille and remains on the train to Waterloo, unimpeded and untouched by immigration controls.
We know the principal methods by which people have got into this country from France, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden and my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet have mentioned the Red Cross centre at Sangatte, where I saw up to 1,000 people when I visited it with the Home Affairs Committee. Those people were in a safe place, they were in a safe country, and to get to Sangatte they had passed through a series of safe countries. The French authorities were well aware of their existence but they did nothing about it. Those people were poised in their jumping-off point illegally to enter this country.
It was a sorry situation, and a question occurred to me, to other members of the Home Affairs Committee and to others in this country: how can it be that those people did not claim, or were not obliged to claim, asylum either in the first safe country that they reached or in France, which is obviously a safe country? That is a blindingly obvious question, to which there seems to be no real answer. That brings me to the bilateral agreement. The Conservative party agrees with those who say that the Government should urge the French to close Sangatte. It is a mistake in principle for the French to allow a jumping-off point for illegal immigrants into this country. If such a centre is necessary, it should be moved many miles from the coast.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden forcefully pointed out that the bilateral agreement of 1995 worked well. It was negotiated by a

17WH
Conservative Government and was in force for two years or more, even though the French had an opportunity to stop it at any time at two months' notice. They did not, which says a great deal for the strong relationship between the previous Conservative Government and the French. If we refused entry to anyone coming here illegally from France, the agreement enabled us to send them back to France within 24 hours. We could and we did, and it worked well.
I agree with those who say that the Minister should explain what her Government have done to try to renegotiate the bilateral agreement. It is a tragedy that that has not been done. The Dublin convention is said to have superseded the agreement, but it has not worked well. The current Foreign Secretary told the Home Affairs Committee that it was in good company if it did not understand the Dublin convention. The key point is that the readmission agreement enabled us to return illegal entrants within 24 hours. Those who say that the Dublin convention superseded the bilateral agreement miss the obvious point that the bilateral agreement between Germany and Denmark allows for the return of asylum seekers who cross the border between those two countries, even though those countries are signatories to the convention. If that bilateral agreement can work, which it does, there is no reason why our bilateral agreement with France, which proved so effective in returning asylum seekers to that country, could not have continued after September 1997, or why a similar bilateral agreement could not operate alongside the convention.
I ask the Minister specifically what the Government have done in the past four years to try to renegotiate the bilateral agreement. If they have done nothing, why have they done nothing? If they have done something, will they tell the House of Commons in detail what they have done and the French response to it? I point again to the strong relationship between the previous Conservative Government and the French that enabled that bilateral agreement to work so well.
Life seems unreal to those who work in immigration and customs in Dover. However many people they detect entering Dover, nothing can be done about it once the word "asylum" is mentioned. It does not matter if there is one dog sniffing for illegal immigrants, two carbon dioxide probes, or three X-ray machines. The best method of finding and stopping people is the single heartbeat machine, of which there is only one. On Friday, the doors of the hangar broke, and it is not working. Even if it were, what is the point of such methods? Real work must be done on the French side of the Channel to stop people using Sangatte and the French ports to jump into this country.
We need a policy that includes a streamlined process of asylum applications and which enables quick decisions and a fair, quick removal system. We need to be able to negotiate more bilateral agreements and we urgently need to renegotiate the existing agreement with France, putting back a system that worked so well. Goodness knows what can be done throughout the EU. The Laeken summit concluded with EU heads of government asking the European Commission to draw up new and strengthened proposals on asylum procedures in three or four months. Amen to that, but I
18WH
may not be alone in lacking confidence in the EU's ability to come up with an understandable, workable and effective system.
10.46 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Angela Eagle): I welcome the debate. We are dealing with a series of difficult and interrelated issues. It has been hinted at but not explicitly stated today that we are also dealing with sophisticated international criminal smuggling gangs who make large profits from the exploitation and misery of human beings who are trafficked across borders. They have increasingly sophisticated methods. All Governments within the EU and internationally, including this one, are increasingly aware of the huge profits made from that trade and realise that an important way to disrupt it is to bring about greater cross-border police cooperation. We must deal with some of the main smuggling routes into the European Union by strengthening the EU's outer borders, whether or not we are dealing with Schengen countries; such a policy should include the sharing at police level of information, and intelligence-based work to try to disrupt the trafficking routes. I assure hon. Members that we are working hard to put more such protections in place to disrupt that trade.
The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) made much of what he called the bilateral agreement. As I discovered when I investigated the matter, the Home Office called it a gentlemen's agreement with France, which, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, was signed at an official level in 1995. It covered arrangements for the return of refused passengers and illegal entrants arriving at the channel ports or via the channel tunnel, although it was signed before the channel tunnel operated in the way that it does today. It was understood by both parties that the section on asylum applicants, rather than refused passengers, would be superseded by the Dublin convention.
As soon as the Dublin convention came into being, therefore, the asylum part of that original gentlemen's agreement with France was superseded. The right hon. Gentleman is correct that the rest of the agreement continues in place and works well. He had figures on that. In 2000, for example, 5,831 people were refused entry and returned from Dover to France as part of that agreement. However, the plain fact is that both signatories, France and Britain, explicitly said that for asylum purposes the agreement would be superseded by the Dublin convention.
For reasons that we have debated this morning, the Dublin convention is not working as well as those who drew it up would have liked. I suspect that when it was being negotiated, no one realised the extent and the sophistication of people-smuggling that countries in the European Union would have to face. That is not a criticism but a reflection of the way in which asylum and immigration issues have developed—they are likely to continue to do so. We can guard our frontiers only by continuing to move as the threat moves. When we close off one method of entry, the focus switches to others and the immigration service and the police do all that they can to respond and react—co-operating with their French counterparts—to tackle the problems.

19WH
Other bilateral agreements, particularly the German-Danish agreement, have been mentioned. It is open to any two parties within the Dublin framework to decide on a bilateral agreement, but by definition such agreements must be agreed between two parties. The German-Danish agreement works mainly because the Germans recognise that geography makes theirs the source country, and they agreed to take back most of those who end up in Denmark who must have come through Germany. France, however, is in most cases a transit country, rather than the first source of entry for asylum seekers. Hence a bilateral agreement between France and Britain is different from one between Germany and Denmark.
In seeking to develop arrangements with the French, we have our eye on transforming the Dublin convention. Currently negotiations are in progress for Dublin II. As hon. Members know, a draft was proposed by the European Commission working party, which seeks to improve on the first Dublin arrangements, particularly provisions that stymied the convention's effectiveness —those making it necessary to prove where individuals came from before sending them back to the immediate EU country. As seen in earlier exchanges, it is often impossible to prove where individuals entered the EU because the trafficking routes are hidden, because people often possess no papers and because it is not easy to establish their nationality. Some claim to be of a nationality other than their own.
Mr. Malins: I understand the Minister, but what have the Government done in the past four years to persuade France to enter another bilateral agreement?
Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that we have done considerable bilateral work with France, centring mainly on the Sangatte issue. We have focused on areas where large numbers of people gather to make an attack on our borders. Part of the Dublin II text—still only in draft form and requiring unanimous agreement—proposes a different approach to dealing with the illegal presence of individuals in different countries. At present Dublin does not recognise that but merely talks about first safe countries, which is not practically useful when we cannot prove in which first safe country individuals arrived.
On bilateral contacts with the French Government, we meet regularly to discuss immigration issues. We fully recognise the difficulties caused by illegal immigration, particularly the problem of clandestine immigrants gathering around Calais in northern France. Co-operation is important.
I congratulate the French authorities on their success last weekend in disrupting the gang of Romanians who had been interfering with signalling on the rail line to allow clandestine boarding of freight trains. Those who boarded were taken off at Frèthun, which is the freight yard, and did not get through to Britain. However, for weeks organised attempts to board by interfering with the signals put the safety of trains at risk. The work of the French in dealing with the problem is a major success story.
The juxtaposed controls at the Eurostar stations have also been extremely effective. On the point that the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Matins) raised, the Belgian
20WH
authorities conduct effective entry and exit checks on passengers before they board the Eurostar at Lille and when they leave it at Waterloo. If he has been on Eurostar recently, he will know that the checks are reinforced by our immigration officers, who go through the train checking people's information, passports and identity. We put controls in place to deal with issues as they are identified, and we are in constant contact with our Belgian and French counterparts to deal with new problems as they emerge or if we have intelligence that traffickers are focusing on a new area.
We have a biannual UK-French summit. In February 2001 we established the Cross-Channel Commission, which promotes bilateral discussion of cross-channel issues, including illegal immigration. The excellent progress that has been made on a range of issues is a clear indication of the commission's usefulness. We are dealing with the problem of illegal immigration across the channel by increasing controls and law enforcement in the Calais area.
On 12 September, the Home Secretary agreed with Daniel Vaillant, his opposite number, on several practical measures to tighten controls further at the channel ports and reduce the flow of illegal immigrants into the Calais area, including sending more immigration officers to Coquelles. France agreed to toughen up legal action against those who gain unauthorised access to the Eurotunnel site at Coquelles, and we are grateful for their action in dealing with facilitators and racketeers who operate at Sangatte. They have quickly secured several prosecutions for the mass intrusions into the Eurotunnel site at Christmas; about 40 more court cases are pending. As has been pointed out, the Home Secretary had a private meeting with Mrs. Guigou, the French Social Affairs Minister, who has responsibility for funding of the Red Cross centre at Sangatte. I understand that their constructive meeting built on our excellent working relationships and was part of the continuing process of working with the French to find a solution.
We have been perfectly open with the French about the fact that we wish the Sangatte centre to be closed; they are under no illusion that we have any other view. The Government take every opportunity to discuss the situation at Calais with our French counterparts, and it is clear that that bilateral co-operation has led to a sharp overall drop in the number of people crossing illegally from northern France to the UK. According to Eurotunnel figures, there were 27 clandestine crossings in December 2000. The route was targeted and, for example, in July 2001, 808 people arrived. The number is now down to virtually zero.
Some of the controls that we have put in place have resulted in routes being closed, which is why the Sangatte camp now has more people in it than before. They are not getting through, but we are not complacent that they will not seek other routes. That is why the routes at Fréthun and the work of the SNCF and English Welsh and Scottish Railway are so important. I assure hon. Members that we are doing all that we can and will continue to do so. I am happy that we have been able to debate the matter today.

New Towns
10.59 am
Peter Bradley (The Wrekin): I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate and to join a chorus from the new towns and elsewhere calling for the radical reform of English Partnerships' remit.
I take it to be a good sign of the Government's intentions that the current, timely review, which was launched in October, was brought forward by two years. The new towns are maturing rapidly; the development corporations have done their job and the new towns are mostly well established as centres of population and economic growth. Their local authorities, including my own—Telford and Wrekin—are keenly aware of what needs to be done to secure their future but far from being helped they are more often hampered and thwarted by English Partnerships.
Telford and the other new towns of the 1960s and 1970s are at a crossroads. Economically, the momentum of their development as major sub-regional centres needs to be renewed. Socially, estates that were designed to accommodate overspill from London or, as in Telford's case, from Birmingham and the black country, were often flung up and jerry-built in the 1960s and are in urgent need of regeneration, as my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) will make clear if he has the opportunity to contribute to the debate.
Tower blocks were not the only mistakes planners made in the 1960s and 1970s. Sprawling residential estates in the new towns are isolated from employment zones, dependent on the car, with inadequate district centres and poor public services. There is a pressing need to attend to their needs.
New towns such as Telford often lack the cultural and recreational qualities that they need if they are to mature and to generate the sense of civic identity that improves the quality of life and adds to the attraction for inward investors. Telford continues to be a new town success story, but the price we pay for our low unemployment has traditionally been a low-skilled, low-wage economy; three wards in Telford are among the 10 per cent. most deprived in the country. More than 3,000 people live on Telford Development Corporation housing estates, which were regarded in the 1960s as experimental, but 30 years on are regarded as experiments that failed. The town centre is little more than a covered shopping centre, albeit a good one, surrounded by car parks and ring roads.
We urgently need to address all those problems and we have a right to expect that English Partnerships has a key role in solving them. In a letter to Telford and Wrekin council in December last year, the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions outlined what he thinks English Partnerships is, or should be, doing for the new towns. He said:
"EP's current remit in the new towns is to use its assets to the benefit of those who live, work or carry on business in the area."
But that is not what English Partnerships is doing in Telford. It takes its cue not so much from the Government's commitment to urban regeneration and social inclusion as from the edict issued by the previous Government that it should serve as a residuary body
22WH
disposing of land as efficiently as possible and with the maximum return to the Treasury. That is Telford's current experience. English Partnerships holds all the assets; Telford and Wrekin council is lumbered with the liabilities.
As of September last year, English Partnerships controlled 5,700 hectares of land nationwide, and 820 hectares—14 per cent., its largest holding—was in Telford. More to the point, English Partnerships holds 80 per cent. of all developable land in Telford. While EP has 144 hectares set aside for housing, and 148 hectares for employment purposes, Telford and Wrekin has just 6.5 hectares of developable land and even 4.5 hectares of that is subject to clawback: if it were to develop that land it would have to pay English Partnerships up to 100 per cent. of its new, developed value.
Like most local authorities, for better or worse, Telford and Wrekin council has a vision statement, which talks about building
"an inclusive, prosperous and healthy community which offers a good quality of life for all".
Unfortunately, the council is too often in conflict with English Partnerships' remit, which is to realise asset values. Too often, English Partnerships does not help to fulfil the ambitions of the Government and local authorities for economic development, urban regeneration, social inclusion and democratic accountability; it actively frustrates them.
Most local authorities have land banks, but Telford and Wrekin has almost none. Most local authorities have a degree of control over strategic and master planning, but because of English Partnerships' section 7.1 planning exemptions, Telford and Wrekin and its community have precious little influence or control over much of the development that takes place in and around the town. Most local authorities can secure important social infrastructure through the development process, but because of those exemptions, Telford and Wrekin cannot negotiate section 106 agreements and the community benefits that they often bring. As I said, it is subject to a clawback on land that it has inherited, even in providing social housing.
Most local authorities are at least compensated for the contributions that their planning departments make to the development process, but to cap it all, even though Telford and Wrekin has to dedicate resources to English Partnerships' development ambitions, it cannot claim the standard planning fees that every other local authority collects. The council estimates that, over the lifetime of the development of land left with English Partnerships in Telford, it will forgo £1.5 million in planning fees—a substantial amount. Indeed, the estimate that the council gave me just this morning is that, if it were not for the exemptions that English Partnerships enjoys on planning fees alone, it could cut the increase in its council tax by 1 per cent. a year. That may not sound like much money, but it will mean a great deal to council tax payers. In addition, that calculation does not take into account the value of land that the council can neither use for the provision of public services, nor dispose of so that the capital receipts can be invested in those services.
Ironically, despite the need for social and economic regeneration, Telford and Wrekin is a net contributor in meeting the needs of others. Assets realised in Telford

23WH
are recycled through English Partnerships' other functions—not least that of the Urban Regeneration Agency, from which it took over some years ago—into regeneration activity in just about every corner of the country except Telford and the other new towns.
Telford and Wrekin council has a policy to establish 32 per cent. of housing development as social housing, but in the first two years of its existence as a unitary authority, English Partnerships' contribution was just 91 units of social housing. It has a major role to play and huge potential, given the land that it owns, but it makes a very modest contribution to the local authority's legitimate aims. On top of that, the council does not have access to the same regeneration funds—those are much needed on the estates that I mentioned—as other urban authorities.
The problem is not only what the presence of English Partnerships in Telford withholds from the council, but the additional burdens that it imposes. The population of Telford and Wrekin has grown by 8 per cent. since 1991 and is set to continue at roughly the same rate. Some 13,500 houses are being built over 10 to 15 years. The electorate in my constituency increased by 5,500 between 1997 and 2001–9 per cent. in four years. Incidentally, the considerable population growth is happening so rapidly that it is too often unrecognised by the Office for National Statistics and, consequently, in our standard spending assessments.
The new communities that are springing up on land disposed of for residential development by English Partnerships place a huge and growing strain on our social infrastructure and public services, to which English Partnerships contributes little. English Partnerships is at the heart of the problems faced by Telford and Wrekin council. However, it does not regard itself as part of the solution. The most obvious example relates to school provision. The Secretary of State's letter to the council stated that
"in formulating development plans for their sites, EP takes into account the relevant aspects of Government policy, such as socially and economically sustainable neighbourhoods, the provision of sites for schools, local centres, health facilities".
However, that has not been Telford's experience. I referred to the considerable growth of Telford's population, which has given rise to the need not only for primary schools, but for a secondary school. There is plenty of land on which to build that secondary school, but none is forthcoming from English Partnerships.
In February 2000, Christine Davies, corporate director of education and training at Telford and Wrekin council, wrote to me that despite the pressing needs of increasing residential populations, unfortunately English Partnerships'
"operational parameters require them to maximise income… This means that often they are only able to offer us the worst sites, inadequately located, unsuitable ground and difficult to build on.
If Telford were not a new town then the granting of planning permission for new housing would carry with it the option for funds to be generated from the private sector through planning gain."
24WH
As Christine Davies pointed out, the problem has not been the lack of sites. In her letter, she said:
"The remit that EP work to would require them to charge the Council residential values for the land. The DfEE do not provide funding for the purchase of school sites and at a potential £1m or more a site this makes it impossible to build schools where they were needed, if at all."
In July 2000, I took up the case with the Minister's predecessor, who is now the Chief Whip. She accepted the argument and said that the Government agreed that
"in areas such as Telford where EP authorises development under powers contained in the New Towns Act, it can provide sites for primary schools at no cost to the education authority, where the demand for schools is a direct result of its activities."
That was a welcome change of policy, but it puzzled me. I wrote to the Minister seeking clarification, as she specifically identified primary but not secondary schools. That is nonsense. Families who move to English Partnerships estates bring not only four-year-olds but 11-year-olds. Pupils at the primary schools that English Partnerships can build have a habit of becoming the secondary school students in schools that English Partnerships cannot provide. I heard in August that the Minister was awaiting advice from English Partnerships, and she may be able to cast some light on the issue today.
Our children cannot wait. Telford and Wrekin council recently announced plans for a new secondary school in my constituency that were widely welcomed. However, the funding will be a huge burden on the LEA, which looks as if it will go for a private finance initiative scheme—not from choice but because it has little option despite huge tracts of land and a cash-rich agency on its doorstep. There are other examples of English Partnerships' inability to contribute to the strategic planning of Telford's future.
I do not want to denigrate English Partnerships, which has made, and continues to make, a considerable contribution to Telford's growth. I have had good experiences in my dealings with the organisation and its officers in Telford. The problem is the constraints under which it works and which I hope will be radically reformed as a result of the current review. English Partnerships belatedly co-operated with the council in producing a master plan for the town centre, but it cannot, or will not be able to, contribute to its implementation. We have a fine plan that would immeasurably enhance the quality of life of Telford's people, improve the town's standing and image, and boost the value of English Partnerships' assets, yet there is currently little prospect of delivering it.
The council has to work around English Partnerships to achieve its strategic objectives, but when it comes to the accountability of the planning system to the community, English Partnerships too often works around the community. It is a constant source of frustration and grievance to councillors and communities alike. Any hon. Member representing a new town will know about that from their postbags.
What can be done? I am confident that other hon. Members in the debate will bear me out when I say that the status quo is no longer tenable. New towns have achieved critical mass and largely outgrown the development corporation-led push for growth. They are

25WH
fully fledged communities with the same needs as other urban centres for regeneration, sustainability and economic growth, all of which demand solutions and require choices. These strategic decisions must be taken by elected local authorities with a popular mandate and accountability to the communities that they represent and serve. The narrowness of English Partnerships' remit frustrates not only local authorities and local democracy but the Government's commitment to devolved decision taking, economic regeneration and social inclusion.
Various models have been put forward for consideration during consultation. I suggest a fairly modest five-point plan. All problems demand a five-point plan, and this is mine: first, an end to section 7.1 consents and the restoration to local authorities of planning powers, the right to charge fees and to negotiate section 106 agreements; secondly, a requirement for genuine partnerships between local authorities and English Partnerships in both developing and implementing strategic local plans; thirdly, the cancellation of clawbacks and covenants that prevent local authorities from developing their own land for community benefit; fourthly, an obligation for English Partnerships to provide social and public service infrastructure to support commercial development on its own land; fifthly, the recycling of receipts—it already occurs in coalfield new towns—to support local regeneration.
Other hon. Members may have other solutions, perhaps involving regional development agencies or the passing of sites from English Partnerships to local authorities. Such counter-arguments may have their merits, but those five points could form the basis of a more constructive relationship between English Partnerships and local authorities.
New towns are unfinished business. It could be argued that old development corporations, the Commission for the New Towns and the English Partnerships' involvement was necessary in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, to make those towns come out of the ground. Now that they have, we need a new approach that acknowledges the rights and needs of the people who live there, that affords new towns the same status as other towns, that no longer discriminates against them on the basis of their age and that balances the interests of the Treasury with those of other Departments, including the Minister's.
Mr. Tony McWalter: My hon. Friend has said that new towns need the same status as other towns. Does he agree that because the infrastructure ages at approximately the same rate, new towns have additional needs over and above those of other towns?
Peter Bradley: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I referred at the outset to the problems visited on local authorities by the deterioration of estates that are considered young by most standards, but because of inherent design faults, have pressing needs that cannot be solved solely through access to urban regeneration funding. That is a fair point, but my argument is that we should examine the claims of local authorities and their communities on the basis of need, irrespective of whether communities are based in new towns, old towns or in the middle of nowhere.
26WH
I am glad that that important point has been made. I am arguing for a rebalancing of the Treasury's interests with those of other Departments. I am not denying that English Partnerships represents a good income stream to the Treasury that is capable of being used wisely. I am not saying that the Treasury should be denied that income source. I am simply arguing for its duties and responsibilities to be rebalanced to represent the interests of other Departments too. That is why I look forward to hearing how the Minister will respond to the consensus that I believe will emerge among hon. Members today.
11.20 am
Chris Grayling: I apologise through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the Minister for the fact that I have escaped from a Select Committee meeting this morning to participate briefly in this debate, so I hope that she will forgive me if I cannot hear her remarks at the end of the debate.
This is an important issue and I am grateful to the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) for securing the debate. He has provided an opportunity to highlight a number of issues that have become apparent to me during my work with the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions and its Urban Affairs Sub-Committee over the past six months or so.
The hon. Gentleman has introduced the debate at a time of unprecedented pressure on many communities, many of which are the original new towns. I speak from direct experience. I was involved politically in Warrington during the mid-1990s when English Partnerships was still the Commission for the New Towns and there was already pressure of growth on land around Warrington, partly for the reasons highlighted by the hon. Gentleman and partly as a result of the Government's admirable desire to bring derelict land back into commercial, residential or other use. I have felt strongly since then that the role of what is now English Partnerships needs to be looked at thoughtfully and carefully, particularly in the context of the impact that the development of those towns is having and has had on nearby communities.
That became starkly clear to me when the Select Committee visited the north-west last autumn to examine the issue of empty housing. The hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), whom I see in the Chamber, was also on that visit. We went to Liverpool and Bootle, as well as to Burnley and parts of Manchester, but it was Liverpool and Bootle that brought home to me the need to balance the expansion of new towns with protecting much longer-standing communities.
In Liverpool we visited an area of considerable dereliction in what was once an attractive Victorian, middle-class area with substantial properties. In many parts of the north-west empty homes are in the classic terraces, with back yards and alleyways leading between two rows of houses, but that is not the case in Liverpool. If the derelict houses in that part of Liverpool were in Greater London, they would fetch many hundreds of thousands of pounds on the open market.
We also learned that there is considerable business activity in Liverpool and a significant flow of commuters into the commercial centre from places such

27WH
as Warrington that have grown over the past 20 years. The growth of Warrington has been startling. At the time of the famous by-election in the early 1980s, when Lord Jenkins, as he is now, was the candidate for the Social Democratic party, Warrington had one parliamentary seat. Today it has two, and even with two, the boundaries are beginning to burst at the seams in the way that the hon. Member for The Wrekin described. It has grown and grown so much that it is unrecognisable from the town it was 20 or 30 years ago.
The consequence of that growth is only too visible in the rundown and derelict areas of Liverpool. We must realise that encouraging the continued growth of the new towns can have a significant adverse effect on older communities. We must think about that issue carefully when we address the future planning policies and role of English Partnerships. We must take dramatic steps to curtail the relentless growth of development into green spaces, open fields and the green belt. We need to focus on bringing people back into derelict inner-city areas, which should be attractive places to live. They are close to the places in which people work and better for public transport, given today's congested roads.
David Wright: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the issue concerns not only new development for new towns, but ensuring that existing communities in new towns are sustainable? My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) made the point that much investment in new towns is 30 or 40 years old. We must revisit large urban estates in new towns to ensure that they are sustainable. It is not only about pressure for new housing development.
Chris Grayling: I listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. He is undoubtedly correct. Milton Keynes plans to expand dramatically in the next 20 years. Will the existing infrastructure be able to withstand such a dramatic development? We must be careful before we expand an area for the sake of disposing of land, which is often green countryside. With some new towns, sites were derelict and have been brought into use but in many cases there is pressure to continue developing on green, open-space farmland that has been acquired by English Partnerships. If such development were to proceed at a relentless pace there would be a loss to the amenity of the countryside around those towns.
The past two generations' focus on new towns involved the creation of new communities at Skelmersdale in the 1960s and at Milton Keynes, Warrington, Telford and others. English Partnerships and other agencies have built up considerable expertise in bringing land into use to secure the development of property. I should like more of that expertise to be brought into our inner cities because there are some good precedents.
The Hulme estate in Manchester, which we also visited, is a startling example of how to turn a rundown council estate into a mixed development that has genuine attractions, adequate affordable housing for those who need it and an environment that will bring professionals back into the city centre. It provides an interesting example of the steps that we must take to bring life back into inner-city areas.
28WH
East Manchester has set out a programme that it describes as an east Manchester new town. It is perfectly plausible to approach the construction of a new town in an existing city area in the same way as we approached creating places such as Milton Keynes on greenfield sites and green belt areas. Radical surgery to an inner-city area such as east Manchester that has become run down may mean taking painful decisions. Several individual housing estates were supported over 20 years but the money achieved nothing because it was poured into a sieve. We may need to take painful decisions about demolishing and reconstructing communities, creating diverse types of housing and bringing the things that take people out to Warrington new town into east Manchester.
Dr. John Pugh: The thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks may be encapsulated in the statement that we want a coherent outlook from English Partnerships. The English Partnerships that is taking over greenfield sites in Warrington is bolted on to regeneration through Liverpool Vision. We are collectively searching for a proper coherence of outlook, stretching not just to one town but across the whole region.
Chris Grayling: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment. He is right. My view is that English Partnerships has a wealth of expertise, built up during a good many years, but although it has a presence in some areas that need regeneration, more of its expertise could be brought to bear in places such as Liverpool, east Manchester and other parts of Manchester to try to bring life back to those urban communities.
Our society must not develop almost like a doughnut, so that it has a vacuum in the centre where our traditional cities are, and dozens and dozens of new communities, new developments and new towns further out, which creates some of the problems that the hon. Member for The Wrekin highlighted. That threatens to destroy out traditional cities. We must be careful about that.
That is my contribution to the debate and my message to the Minister. English Partnerships has done an important job over the years in bringing back into use derelict sites with potential for economic development. The hon. Member for The Wrekin has made important points about the need for English Partnerships to be more community focused. In one or two cases in Warrington, I would have liked to see the Commission for the New Towns, as it was then, do more within the local community and be more thoughtful about what it was creating. There are lessons to be learnt.
I want the expertise of English Partnerships to help to bring about a new generation of new towns in existing cities. I would like to see real radical thinking in Government, in the agencies that work with Government and in Britain as a whole about how to breathe life back into our inner cities. The lessons of our new towns and of organisations such as English Partnerships can be brought to bear to achieve that.
11.31 am
David Wright: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) on securing the debate.

29WH
I would like to dwell on the context. As the Member representing Telford, I have a significant interest in the role that English Partnerships has played over the years and in the activities of its predecessors in my area, the Telford Development Corporation and the Commission for the New Towns. Telford was created in the late 1960s and designated in 1968. It drew together a range of towns on the old east Shropshire coalfield, including Oakengates, Dawley and Madeley. It also picked up, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin said, a large influx of people from the west midlands and the black country. Communities from the west midlands conurbation largely populated some of the large estates placed between old towns and communities that the Telford Development Corporation built. It has taken a long time for some of those estates to integrate with the wider framework of the Telford area.
We must accept that the rapid expansion of the town in the 1960s and 1970s created a number of serious problems. The town's main shopping centre, as my hon. Friend has already pointed out, was intended to be a short-term building to be replaced in about 10 years, but it is still there. It has very little architectural merit. One of my friends describes it as a nuclear power station in the middle of the town. Short-term decisions and rapid investment decisions were made to try to provide retail facilities for a community arriving from the west midlands.
One of the biggest problems was the design and layout of some of the estates in south Telford, such as Woodside, Sutton Hill, Stirchley, Brookside and Malinslee. They were built very quickly, often using rapid manufacturing techniques, on what is classically called a Radburn layout, in which the structure of properties is not good for the maintenance of social order. The design is such that people gain access to their properties at the front and park vehicles at the back. There are large areas of unkempt open space, which creates problems on those estates.
When we consider new towns, it is important to remember the positive legacy of organisations such as the Telford Development Corporation and the Commission for the New Towns, which did a tremendous job. Telford was one of the biggest land reclamation projects ever undertaken in western Europe. It is a fantastic and vibrant town, but it is 30 years old and no longer a new town. That is part of the problem with using that title for such communities. They are new towns that are not new any more. Because they were built in one phase of development during a 10-year period from the late 1960s onwards, a lot of the initial investment has come to the end of its useful life. Communities living in large housing estates, or using services and facilities in the town are commenting on how tired parts of the town look. People are not racing into my surgery every fortnight and raising the issue of whether English Partnerships could do more in Telford. However, many communities involved in regeneration projects are beginning to realise the role that English Partnerships should play.
My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin covered the issues relating to English Partnerships that we need to tackle in Telford. I would like to focus on three specific areas: first, housing regeneration, secondly, the sustainability of the wider urban environment, and thirdly, ensuring that Telford is the economic engine for
30WH
the future of the west midlands. It has been in the past, and we need to ensure that it is in the future. Before doing so, I return to the issue of English Partnerships' landholdings.
Telford is not a traditional town in the sense that many other towns are. Many local authorities are able to deploy land resources and assets to facilitate regeneration activity. They assemble wide-scale partnership schemes, using land assets accumulated throughout many decades, to lever investment into local communities. That is my experience of working on housing regeneration activity in the west midlands. We do not have that luxury in Telford, because we do not have the same level of land supply available for deployment by the local authority in a strategic context. I would like to quote from the submission of Telford and Wrekin council to the part 1 EP review process:
"EP's remaining uncontracted stock of consented s7:1 land for housing development is 144ha (360ac) and 158ha (390ac) for employment development. In comparison the Council's total committed development land is 16ha (39ac) and of this 11 ha is subject to EP clawback. The above starkly illustrates the imbalance of assets held by the respective organisations and that the Council is essentially bereft of assets to reinvest in the development and regeneration of the town."
Unlike other cities, Telford is hampered by the fact that land is largely held, controlled and disposed of by English Partnerships, whose remit is not to be strategic, but to secure maximum income for the Treasury from the disposal of sites in the town.
On the issue of housing-led regeneration, many 1960s estates, often on the Radburn layout, hold communities together through strange road patterns and pedestrian networks, with large areas of unkempt open space. They have their own local centres, which were developed at the time. Housing was often poorly designed and running into disrepair, and many estates experienced housing abandonment and the decline of retail premises.
Woodside estate in the south of my constituency was developed using Radburn principles. At its centre are several walk-up flats that are experiencing severe levels of abandonment. Communities in those areas are starting to recognise, through the engagement of the council with community organisations, that English Partnerships needs to play a role in the redevelopment of their areas. The disposal processes and policies employed by Telford Development Corporation have made large parts of those estates fairly unmanageable.
In the last few years of the TDC, there was a significant push to dispose of social housing. The Shropshire Star carried advertisements saying, "Buy your house at a knock-down price before the end of the month, or the price will go up and you'll have to pay more." A very aggressive disposal strategy was pursued during the 1980s. Of course, that fitted into the ideology of the Government of the time. That strategy led to the desperate problem of dispersed land ownership. On many estates, people do not know who is responsible for their maintenance, and many small-scale private landlords do not manage and maintain their property. That problem was compounded by the transfer of the council's housing stock to a new registered social landlord. Essentially, I supported that move because it brought new investment into the town, but it has created a problem on estates such as Woodside, which has a range of property owners with little co-ordinated activity.

31WH
Over the years, Government policy created many of the problems that we see on our estates in south Telford. English Partnerships does not acknowledge its role in dealing with the mistakes that were made. After all, its prime duty is to dispose of land effectively to generate receipts. If we are to sustain, redevelop and regenerate the large estates in south Telford, English Partnerships must begin to engage strategically in the process.
Because Telford is called a new town, it tends not to figure in debates about the urban renaissance, but there is a significant opportunity for us to engage in that debate and to facilitate large-scale investment in many estates in south Telford. We should be radical and use the best principles of quality design to help to alleviate some of the mistakes that were made at the end of the 1960s. That requires the promotion of genuine partnerships.
English Partnerships, its successor organisation or, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin suggested, the local authority, will need to engage with the Housing Corporation, local communities and developers to deploy assets collectively across south Telford. Part of the problem is that English Partnerships does not have a significant interest in estates such as Woodside—it divested itself of that interest through the policies of its predecessors—but it does hold some of the best sites around south Telford. Those resources must be drawn together into an approachable housing market renewal strategy across south Telford, which could be piloted with the use of English Partnerships' current assets.
As a minimum, we require the recycling of receipts from disposals by English Partnerships into local communities. That happens in coalfield communities, and I do not see why it cannot happen more generally in new town communities. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be pleased to hear that this is a spend-save principle. If we do not deal with the problem now we shall have to return to it in 10 or 20 years' time, when the bill will be much bigger and the problem much more complex. We can either decide to invest strategically now, using land resources and assets to create sustainable communities, or walk away, only to have to return to the problem later and spend more money to alleviate problems that we are encountering now and will in future.
That leads me on to sustainability, which should be at the core of any proposal to develop a new town. The principle of sustainability was not comprehensive and was perhaps too advanced for some of the planners in the late 1960s. Much of the development in Telford was short term and its urban environment is uninspiring in places. We should knit English Partnerships' landholding more closely into the strategic framework and deploy its assets more effectively. Its landholdings are dominated by 7.1 consents and its disposals tend to be project-specific and not strategic. It is time for that framework to disappear.
I used to be a member of the local authority in Telford and 7.1 consents were sometimes convenient because, when a difficult planning decision was required, we did not have to make it. That was a luxury, but did not help because we were not properly engaged in the strategy for the future of our town. We have reached the point at
32WH
which 7.1 consents in a mature community of 30 years are no longer acceptable. Local communities should be given the right and the power to take control of the destiny of their towns.EP disposes of its assets on a one-off basis far too often and should integrate its approach with that of the local authority and other players.
I welcome some of the investment that EP has committed to Telford recently. I have met the staff and, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin said, they are co-operative and positive but are held back by EP's general principles and rules, which must be modified. I have met the chief executive of EP, who is committed to seeing Telford grow, but her hands are tied by the remit laid down by central Government. I should like some of the skills in the organisation to be deployed more effectively in Telford.
EP has recently funded feasibility studies into redevelopment of the shopping centre to which I referred, and it has put resources into development of a master plan for the area. That positive move was welcomed by the community, but no resources will be made available to implement the plan. We have some fantastic proposals, but no contribution from EP to implement them. They should be implemented.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I want to probe the hon. Gentleman's thinking. Does he envisage that all regeneration schemes in Telford will be entirely publicly funded, or does he anticipate new regimes levering in private sector finance to help to make the development projects more economically sustainable?
David Wright: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. I envisage the involvement of private sector finance through the regeneration vehicles. It is clear that public funding cannot alone deal with the issues that arise on housing estates in south Telford and the shopping centre. Private finance will be at the core of regenerating the south of the town. That is why I referred to a housing market renewal area not just focusing on social housing but deploying private sector resources to diversify and change the housing market to make it more sustainable and effective in the long term. I envisage private finance playing a major and probably leading role in terms of the percentage of resources drawn into the town for regeneration. That does not clash with the broad principles of English Partnerships, which are to lever in private sector investment. At the moment it is not doing so strategically enough for the needs of the wider community.
My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin said that in terms of promoting sustainability, we should consider transferring planning powers, particularly to allow the use of section 106 agreements. That is a major problem for the town in promoting sustainability. In many areas, local authorities use section 106 agreements to secure myriad advantages and opportunities for local communities through the planning process. At the moment we do not have that luxury in Telford. A large proportion of the land supply is disposed of and little community gain is drawn back through such arrangements. We could secure significant improvements for local communities on their estates if we were able to deploy those powers.

33WH
Some hon. Members mentioned that the regional development agency—in our case Advantage West Midlands—could get involved in the future of English Partnerships' assets in Telford. I would be somewhat concerned by such a development. I can the see the logic, but Advantage West Midlands is committed to drawing significant resources into regenerating the conurbation. That is important, but I do not want resources from Telford that go into the wider Exchequer pot to go into the black country conurbation. We need a different role and perspective in which local authorities take the lead.
My next point concerns Telford's role as an economic engine. It was a growth point and must be again. We must ensure that investment is made across the whole regeneration agenda, not just through site-by-site disposals or asset realisation. English Partnerships is good at devoloping industrial sites, and we should praise it for that. It provides a range of opportunities for economic growth in the town, but should fit into the wider strategic framework.
Finally, how do we move forward? I support the quality five-point plan of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin. I like such things, and it was excellent. We must examine the possibility of local strategic partnerships leading on new town regeneration using EP assets. Perhaps local authorities should not have a dominant role; perhaps the system should be more widespread. I have said already that there could be opportunities to use structures such as housing market renewal areas or company structures to deliver change. I would prefer English Partnerships' assets to be in the local authority's control. We must see the recycling of receipts into the new towns and allow Telford and other towns access to the asset base that traditional communities have for the regeneration of their areas. As a minimum, we want a stronger strategic commitment to the new towns from English Partnerships. I look forward to the Minister's response.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Edward O'Hara): It may be helpful for hon. Members to know that the winding-up speeches will start not later than 12 o'clock, with a 10-minute allocation to each Front Bencher.
11.52 am
Mr. Colin Pickthall: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a great pleasure both to call a fellow north-west MP Mr. Deputy Speaker and to participate in the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) on securing the debate, as will every other Member who represents a new town. I agree with my hon. Friend's five-point plan—eerily, it reminds me of five-year plans. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) allow me to be brief because they covered most of the major points.
I represent Skelmersdale, which was built in the 1960s and 1970s on the Radburn principle of design layout that my hon. Friend the Member for Telford described. Indeed, in describing his estates, he described mine in Skelmersdale. The town was designed largely for the Liverpool overspill population and to separate vehicles from pedestrians with a system of courtyard layouts and cul-de-sacs emerging off spine streets. That leads to hugely disproportionate costs in street cleaning, refuse
34WH
collection, ground and street furniture maintenance and, particularly, policing. It was built on an old coalfield that was exhausted long before Skelmersdale new town was started, which leads to an enormous need for ground remediation and rehabilitation for any development that takes place. It was built around a series of cloughs—in Cumbria they are called gills—which are deep clefts in the moorside that go down into the middle of the town. They are a great environmental asset but are extremely costly, as they disrupt transport systems and so on.
Skelmersdale was built using every innovative and experimental building technique known to man and a few that were not. Some of them were catastrophic and need expensive remedies. For example, many houses were built with central heating outlets in the ceiling. The fact that heat rises seemed to be ignored, so the bedrooms were heated moderately well but not the downstairs rooms. Even now, hon. Members could put their hands through the wall and pick flowers from the garden because the houses' metal frames are corroded and the concrete slabs have collapsed.
Skelmersdale was handed over to West Lancashire district council in the late 1980s incomplete, especially the town centre, but already in desperate need of refurbishment. There are about 42,000 people in Skelmersdale with no cinema, hospital, town hall, or civic assembly rooms. Despite its palpable needs, the council is unable to secure access to assets to help to remedy problems and to regenerate the town and the sub-region. The assets, formerly in the hands of the Commission for the New Towns, are now in the hands of English Partnerships.
Fifteen years ago, I organised a series of all-party petitions and attacks on the Secretary of State who was then responsible for the matter, Michael Heseltine. The reply every time was that over the years Governments had spent a lot of money building the new towns and wanted as much of that money back as possible.
Our experience in West Lancashire is that English Partnerships must realise its land assets in isolation, even if that queers the pitch for strategic development. It is a major problem in my town. Much of the available land asset is subject to clawback, depriving the local authority of the use of assets from the area for necessary regeneration.
At present, the district council holds 10 hectares of land, seven of which are affected by clawback; English Partnership currently has 62 hectares of land in the town, which will give hon. Members some idea of the disparity in power in the area. Furthermore, as a good council following the Government's edicts, West Lancashire has set up a local strategic partnership, which I chair for my sins. It is limited in its capacity to regenerate Skelmersdale because of the complex circumstances relating to land holdings in the town.
Skelmersdale's problems need sorting out. First, the democratically elected council requires overall planning powers and the power to realise public assets to allow it effectively to regenerate the town and especially to put together a strategic plan for the area surrounding the town centre—I, too, recognise the description of the nuclear power station. The land is owned by several different interests, including two councils and, substantially, English Partnerships. Secondly, coherent

35WH
planning is impossible when English Partnerships has a separate planning remit. A national organisation such as English Partnerships cannot sensibly be aware of, and party to, the detailed planning and regeneration needs of a community such as Skelmersdale. Such plans should be subject to democratic local scrutiny and control.
English Partnerships has not absorbed Skelmersdale's special needs or those of other new towns. It lacks focus; it has many disparate responsibilities and its expertise lies more and more in inner-city regeneration. West Lancashire council is working with the original development agency, which has a grasp of the implications of land assets in the town for the regeneration of West Lancashire and the sub-region.
English Partnerships in Skelmersdale, with the best will in the world, is out of step, undemocratic and sometimes obstructive. That is not a criticism of individual staff with whom I have had to work, who have been excellent.
Like most new towns, Skelmersdale was built in a hurry, so all its problems arose simultaneously; housing, layout and infrastructure difficulties bring many social problems in their wake. We need every possible asset and inch of planning gain to fund developments and to turn the problems around. I strongly support the recent case that was made by the new town local authorities that the land assets of English Partnerships in new towns should go to the relevant LEAs without the powers of clawback.
12 noon
Dr. John Pugh: I congratulate the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) on securing the debate. I apologise for not being able to rival his expertise in the subject, or that of other hon. Members who have spoken. The hon. Gentleman raised an important subject, to which the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions will turn soon. I largely accept his argument that new towns are peculiarly disadvantaged.
The debate is timely because the Government are reviewing the role of English Partnerships. The hon. Gentleman is right: this state of affairs has not been scheduled, as it were, or thought out. It is not part of a plan of one particular Government. The situation evolved, beginning with the Commission for the New Towns. The urban regeneration companies and authorities were then set up, followed by the regional development agencies. The template is more a patchwork than anything else.
Importantly, some of the objectives of English Partnerships coincide with those of the regional development agencies. I recently came across a copy of the old Buchanan report, which was published in 1962, priced 10s 6d, in which the notion of the regional development agency was first mooted. It was modelled on the Commission for the New Towns.
I feel sorry for any authority operating in the new towns because it is obliged by Government to implement a community plan and to work hard for service improvements of various sorts but handicapped
36WH
in delivering the service improvements and changes. The hon. Member for The Wrekin and other hon. Members representing new towns have spoken about the peculiar transport problems of new towns, which were designed on the basis of Mr. Buchanan's ideas. Visitors to a new town have no difficulty getting into it but tremendous difficulty finding their way out; that is particularly true of the town represented by the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall). In new towns, much of the industry is itinerant. It moves away rapidly, leading to high unemployment.
No one has argued that the new towns are assisted in the discharge of their duties by having on the scene a powerful player with sizeable assets that is able to impose sizeable burdens on the local authority, and that has appreciable and rather strange planning powers—the Government described them in their own review document as increasingly anachronistic. A natural conclusion may be that English Partnerships should relinquish its current role in the new towns and concentrate on other areas, as the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) said, such as regenerating the core of inner cities. One could argue that new towns have reached maturity, but do not forget that new towns and English Partnerships began as an aspect of Government, or national, planning policy. New towns are not organic creations. They are a planned entity and the policy imperatives that led to them still operate. English Partnerships conducts an appreciable amount of research and provides resources for regeneration. The regional development agencies appear to be set on the same mission.
On the review, we must bear it in mind that regional development agencies are precisely that: they are regional in scope. There will still be a residual role for an organisation that ensures that local regeneration aligns with national policy, and can act as a catalyst, partner and funder of forward-looking initiatives that dovetail happily with national imperatives. I draw attention to the good role that English Partnerships plays with Liverpool Vision. It adds extra impetus to that initiative, which is pan-regional in scope.
To agree with all that is not to conclude that new towns are in any way assisted by having a massive landowner with enormous planning authority on their doorstep. I sympathise with all hon. Members who represent new towns because, fundamentally, such communities are disempowered and disadvantaged. The hon. Member for West Lancashire referred to local strategic partnerships, but I do not understand how they can perform the same function for new towns as they do elsewhere. English Partnerships is left with all its power in place.
Eventually, new towns must become towns. There must be disengagement, and the Minister's thoughts would be best addressed to how that may take place. There is a fear, unmerited or merited, that there will be a land bonanza for new town local authorities and misuse of precious resources that could be used for development. The Government are on the horns of a dilemma. The discussion document states:
"at present receipts from CNT disposals can only be used to support other CNT activities and not wider regeneration. A recent internal review found no easy solution to this issue."

37WH
The big problems have been highlighted today: a degree of planning anarchy in new towns that does not exist elsewhere; a serious democratic deficit, in which locally elected representatives cannot guarantee results for their community; and—this applies across the country, not just to new towns—a lack of joined-up government on regeneration while the role of English Partnerships is not defined. I support the thrust of what hon. Members have said.
12.7 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to you for allowing me to catch your eye, Mrs. Adams. Before I go any further, I should declare my registered interest as a chartered surveyor, although I do not think that I stand to gain any pecuniary advantage from the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) on securing the debate. So far, there has been a lot of consensus. However, we may begin to differ when I propose some solutions.
The hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) outlined the genesis of English Partnerships. It is probably time that we reviewed its role to determine whether we can return to local authorities some of the control that it exercises. Regeneration schemes work best if local people are involved in the decision making, because they have a sense of ownership of such schemes. The 7.1 planning exemptions that have been mentioned so often seem like the dead hand of the state imposing control over new town corporations. That is an outdated concept that we should begin to dismantle. Therefore, I warmly welcome what has been said and agree that we should consider the future role of English Partnerships.
Having said that, we must consider the Government's role in urban regeneration. We should examine the recently published White Paper entitled "Our Towns and Cities: The Future—Delivering an Urban Renaissance", which was trumpeted by the Deputy Prime Minister recently. On the whole, it was a damp squib. For example, on 17 November 2000, The Independent said:
"After a delay of three years, John Prescott published his Urban White Paper to a disappointing response. Most of Lord Rogers' Urban Task Force recommendations were barely addressed. Indeed, as Lord Rogers himself remarked, 'this… White Paper falls short of what is going to be required to engender a real urban renaissance."
We all agree that there are significant problems, but the question is how to solve them.
In preparation for today's debate, I examined the number of quangos set up to deal with the problem of urban regeneration. It is worth reading their names out. I shall then invite the Minister to reflect on whether we might simplify the process. The more quangos are in operation, the less people understand what they do. The more bureaucracy is created, the less effective they are. Here is the list of quangos: regional development agencies, a neighbourhood renewal unit, the European regional development fund, the single regeneration budget, the neighbourhood renewal fund encompassing a national strategy action plan, local strategic partnerships, the new deal for communities, urban regeneration companies, the English cities fund and a
38WH
host of tax incentives for regeneration. Since the present Government came to power, new quangos have further fragmented the process.
David Wright: That list is a mix of organisations delivering funding initiatives on the ground. They are not quangos in the context of the Housing Corporation, for example.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Some are initiatives on the ground and some are quangos. Reading out the list illustrates how the entire system is too complicated and too bureaucratic.
Having to bid for public funding is another serious problem. Bidding raises the standard of preparation of individual projects. It is fine for the urban corporation or borough council whose bid is successful; it obtains the public money. For those bodies whose bids are not successful, however, considerable time is wasted by officialdom.
Peter Bradley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I will give way—it is the hon. Gentleman's debate—but will he allow me to finish?
Failed bids involve much wasted time. If the Government want to move closer to a bidding system, they need a much more streamlined process. Those who are unlikely to succeed should be told earlier and given a chance to improve their bid and to reach a standard that may succeed. People's time should not be wasted preparing bids that will never succeed, which breeds a culture of disappointment and stops people bothering in future. We should encourage imaginative, well-designed schemes, not replicate the mistakes of the 1960s when both Governments vied with each other to produce the maximum number of houses without being sufficiently concerned about design and durability.
Peter Bradley: The hon. Gentleman has suggested how active the Government are in urban regeneration, but I am unsure what that has to do with the title of the debate. Is not his objection to competition an indictment of his own Government's activities during the 1980s and 1990s? Competition was the cornerstone of their efforts to introduce regeneration, and it was one of the key reasons why it failed.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am not going to be tempted down the path of history: I am interested in the future and how the present Government are operating. The planning system is a key part of urban regeneration, and we welcome a number of proposals, particularly on streamlining the system and on moving much more quickly.
Section 106 agreements have been mentioned several times. Hon. Members will be aware that the Government propose to move towards a tariff system, so that many larger developments are not delayed excessively by having to negotiate a 106 agreement. Now, a project receives planning permission but is often delayed for a year or more while that agreement is negotiated. In principle, we welcome the tariff proposals to simplify and streamline the planning system, but they must be defined more carefully.

39WH
We called for responsibility for regeneration to be brought under a single Minister. Currently, several Departments play a role, notably the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, but also the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury. One Minister should be responsible. I thought that that was to be the Deputy Prime Minister, but sadly he seems to have relinquished the role.
We called for the establishment of local regeneration companies across England and Wales as flagships for urban renewal. Those powerful new bodies would lever in private finance and would be headed by people with significant private sector expertise. The local authority and the community would be involved.
In a Westminster Hall debate last week, I mentioned the concept of town centre management schemes. I wish the Government would seriously consider those schemes, which could be composed of local authorities, English Partnerships, the voluntary sector and, above all, businesses. All sectors need to be involved in urban regeneration if they want it to be a success.
We should like to see research based on enterprise zones, urban development corporations and the city challenge schemes of the 1980s and 1990s, which showed that local regeneration schemes create new investment and business growth in the long term and do not just divert resources from neighbouring areas. My former right hon. Friend Michael Heseltine was criticised, but he introduced development corporations that managed to cut much of the red tape that stifled regeneration in our cities for generations.
I caution the Minister that, if we relinquish the assets of English Partnerships to local authorities, we may return to the monolithic control of the 1960s. Indeed, many local authorities throughout the country are sitting on billions of pounds worth of assets that they are not using..
Finally, I shall suggest a source of money that I suspect the Government will now take up with alacrity. Some hon. Members have mentioned the transfer of local authority housing stock to housing associations through large-scale voluntary transfer schemes, which were initiated by the last Conservative Government. We welcome such schemes, although they could be improved, as could tenant participation in housing associations.
A substantial amount of new money could be levered in if the remaining council houses were transferred in that way. Between 1988 and 1999, 400,000 council houses were transferred, which resulted in proceeds of £5.9 billion of private investment being levered in—the equivalent in 1999 prices of £6.5 billion. If the remaining 3.3 million council houses in England received the same level of private investment as existing LSVT schemes have levered in—let us say £16,400 per dwelling in 1999 prices—in theory up to £54 billion of private new investment could be generated. There is a substantial pot out there, and if the Labour party is looking for a new way of levering funds into urban regeneration, that would be a major way of doing so.
David Wright: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will not give way, because I am in the last minute of my speech.
Suffice it to say that urban regeneration is a continuing problem. However, there have been some imaginative schemes, especially those proposed by Michael Heseltine. One has only to consider the imaginative schemes in Leeds and Glasgow city centres and in docklands to see what can be done when red tape is cut. I urge the Government to consider not only how much money they are investing in the schemes but what they are getting for that money and how effective it is in the regeneration of older and newer town centres.
12.20 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 The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) on securing the debate, and I assure him that I will address the issues of new towns and English Partnerships.
Many important matters were raised. I may not be able to deal with all the constituency issues, as I want to address issues that relate to the review, but I will respond to my hon. Friend's five points. I ask hon. Members to be tolerant if any constituency issues remain. I will deal with them in writing after the debate.
We must recognise that the creation of the new towns was one of the great achievements of the post-war Labour Government. They provided new residential areas and areas of economic growth for people to live and work in, and transformed the lives of people who made the journey from overcrowded inner cities. We should also recognise the pressures on housing, infrastructure and communities in the new towns, which all hon. Members considered in one way or another. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) raised some issues relating to the community and the wider service. What was a great vision of the Attlee Government is starting to show its age, and it is time to look at what is going on.
The Commission for the New Towns' role as a residuary body was not always helpful. Historically, the commission's principal objective was to liquidate its portfolio as quickly as possible, consistent with achieving value for money. Over 50 years, mistakes were made; that was bound to happen. There were mistakes in the handover, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) referred, and in engaging with the community. Issues remain, and feelings are strong. However, English Partnerships has tried to change the approach by becoming an investor in, rather than a liquidator of, new towns, using its portfolio to underpin the economic development aspirations of local authorities, regional development agencies and local communities. At the same time, it aims to create value and achieve wider community benefits over the medium term, and to demonstrate the practical application of the Government's urban renaissance agenda. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Telford that it is important that the new towns are part of the Government's agenda for urban renaissance.
I could list the many ways in which English Partnerships has changed its methods of operation, but I will select only a few. In a previous debate, my hon.

41WH
Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) raised the issue of town centre renewal, which is an essential component of the Government's approach to urban renaissance. English Partnerships recognises that many central areas of new towns require substantial reinvestment to create vibrant, mixed-use and competitive town centres. It is working with several local authorities on potential schemes in towns such as Bracknell, Harlow and Crawley. I will give my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire some more information about Skelmersdale, which has also been discussed.
English Partnerships and Milton Keynes have some ambitious proposals to transform the centre of Milton Keynes from a familiar low-density, car-dominated environment into a high-density, mixed-use city centre of regional significance. That clearly shows the shift in EP's approach.
I want to deal briefly with housing issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Telford spoke eloquently about some of the problems in his constituency. As he said, about 70 per cent. of the deck-access blocks in the central area of Telford are empty. Some difficulties have been created by the diversity of ownership; small-scale private speculators bought some of the housing at an early stage and they have not managed it well. English Partnerships and the local authority are considering how to deal with the problems, especially on the Woodside estate. There will have to be a development package to put the programme into place. The Bournville Trust is also considering providing a new type of housing in Lightmoor urban village, and is asking the local authority to look at planning consents. Sensitive matters have been raised.
Hon. Members asked whether English Partnerships could apply its expertise elsewhere; the hon. Member for Southport mentioned Liverpool. I flag up the involvement of English Partnerships in the millennium
42WH
communities in Greenwich, for example, and its work in considering how to regenerate some of the appalling, rundown areas in the coalfield communities.
English Partnerships has changed the way it works. The review, which has been brought forward, will consider EP's role and functions in that context. The terms of reference are to consider its role in delivering the Government's policies and the future ownership of the Commission for the New Towns' assets and liabilities, to recommend any changes that may be necessary in the light of the review, and to examine EP's structure and processes to ensure effective delivery of its wide-ranging remit. We hoped to complete the first part of the review before Christmas, but that was not possible, partly because of the strong interest in it. However, we hope to be able to publish the review shortly.
I cannot prejudge the outcome of the review, but I can say that a number of the five points mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin will be dealt with. We are sympathetic to the restoration of planning rights. I hope that I have shown that English Partnerships is involved in genuine partnerships. The review will deal with substantial issues, including the cancellation of clawbacks and the recycling of receipts. There is already the obligation to provide public service infrastructure. I completely agree with my hon. Friend's points in that respect.
In the past two years, substantial progress has been made in shifting English Partnerships' agenda, taking account of some of the points made by hon. Members in the debate. I do not doubt the validity of the original vision of creating new towns to provide good homes and jobs for people from overcrowded inner cities. However, it is equally clear that mistakes have been made and that we must find a way forward. I believe that the review will enable us to consider those issues carefully, take the matter forward and provide a clear way of realising the Attlee Government's vision of decent homes and jobs for all.

Blackpool Victoria Hospital
12.29 pm
Mr. Michael Jack: Thank you, Mrs. Adams, for calling me to put the case for an additional computed tomography scanner at the three-star Blackpool Victoria hospital. May I say at the outset how delighted I am to see the hon. Members for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) and for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble)? I thank them for their support for this initiative.
The hospital was recently praised in the local newspaper, The Blackpool Gazette, which said:
"The Vic hailed as a 'super hospital'."
However, in spite of Herculean efforts by the clinical staff, there is tremendous pressure on the existing scanner facilities. I hope that the debate will make a case on their behalf to ensure that the current capacity is increased.
Mrs. Joan Humble: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way so early in his contribution to this important debate. Is he aware that the Department of Health has not yet determined the criteria for allocating new scanners through the renewal programme? Does he agree that the Blackpool Victoria trust must develop the case-of-need document that it has to submit to the Government and outline how vital additional scanning facilities are for my constituents, his constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South?
Mr. Jack: The hon. Lady makes a valid and relevant point. I shall develop that theme later in my remarks. The purpose of the debate is to accelerate the process that she has carefully described, because the pressures exist now and must be addressed.
The hospital has one CT scanner and one magnetic resonance imaging scanner, both bought as a result of public subscription. There is strong feeling in the area that the time has come for capacity to be expanded, but not by public subscription out of public funds.
I want to put on record my appreciation of the help given to me in preparing for this debate by Dr. Neil Flanagan, the senior radiologist at the hospital, who first drew my attention to this matter, as well as to Mark Lambert, one of the consultant surgeons, Dr. Graham Hoadly, the clinical director for radiology, David Gill, the chief executive, and to my own researcher, Caroline Evans. All of them have managed to put together what I believe is a very good case for the development of scanning facilities at the Blackpool Victoria hospital. The hospital, local Members of Parliament and patient groups are at one in arguing for this case.
How have we reached the point of having to raise this matter in Parliament? In the national cancer plan, the Government have rightly reduced the time between the initial request by a patient to see his or her general practitioner and the granting of an out-patient appointment to a minimum of two weeks. As the consultant radiologist told me, one problem that has arisen, as people come forward more quickly for their out-patient appointment, is that the demands on them
44WH
to go for urgent scanning treatment have also increased. The result, as I shall demonstrate statistically in a moment, is that urgent cases form an ever-increasing queue, but for those who need routine use of the CT and MRI scanners the wait has become longer as they have been bumped down the list.
Urgent action is needed on this matter because an implication of the national cancer plan is, as I understand it, that by 2005 there should be a two-week time frame for urgent CT scans. Other developments, such as the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and the national service framework for older people, require all patients admitted to hospital with a suspected stroke to receive a CT brain scan within 48 hours by April 2004. That illustrates the pressures building up on scanning facilities at the Victoria hospital. To return to the intervention of the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood, if action is not taken now, we will not have sufficient scanning capacity to meet those very important new requirements and criteria.
Mr. Gordon Marsden: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, and for securing the debate. Although it concerns the hospital in my constituency, it affects all on the Fylde. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood referred to the criteria allocation. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that, in deciding the database for allocation in the region, sufficient attention should be given to the peculiar and specific circumstances of the Blackpool Victoria hospital? It treats a large number of visitors and tourists, and the Department of Health is not sufficiently addressing those criteria.
Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman raises an important dimension of the work of the Blackpool Victoria hospital, which is not always recognised in formulas for funding and resource allocation. He makes a valid point about the pressure on the hospital, which I am sure the Minister will want to acknowledge when she winds up the debate.
Looking at the matter from the patients' standpoint, I was struck by a letter from the Lymphoma Association. The regional co-ordinator of that association and a patient, Mr. Philip McIntyre, wrote that he was diagnosed four years ago with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. He said:
"Within 16 days I had undergone X-rays, ultrasound, and biopsy, including a CT scan and started on my first session of chemotherapy.
As you already are aware, the cancer workload at Preston and Chorley hospitals is similar to Blackpool. They have three scanners and Blackpool Victoria hospital has only one, this being provided from charitable donations… To be told you have cancer can be devastating both to the patient and the whole family, to have to wait upwards of 8 weeks for a scan is totally unacceptable.
Four years have gone by, if I was being diagnosed today and having to wait 8 weeks for a CT scan due to only one scanner being available, my outcome does not bear thinking about."
That emphasises the human dimension. It is not something for the cheap headline, nor is it simply about resources; it is about people who are extremely worried and want quick answers to the searching questions, "What's wrong with me and what can be done to deal with it?"

45WH
The hospital has not taken the current pressures lying down. On 31 March 2001, the health authority agreed to provide £150,000, and a further £300,000 will be available from 1 April 2002 to increase scanning capacity. I want to put on record my appreciation of the efforts of Dr. Rodger Berry at the hospital. Despite personal injury and illness, he came in to try to help with the work being done to increase the existing system's throughput. Extra scanning sessions have been arranged, some of the work has been moved from the CT scanner to the MRI scanner and work has been undertaken at weekends.
The additional permanent scanning hours have funded much additional work, but have put tremendous pressure on the clinicians and their support staff. There are two vacancies for radiography posts in Blackpool. As the hospital put it to me, there is little chance of bringing more people in despite the fact that those currently there are being worked to the limit.
Mr. Marsden: On that point, I too pay tribute to the diligence of the hospital staff in extending those hours. I raised the issue at the end of last year in correspondence with my noble Friend Lord Hunt and received the response that weekend that extra hours were being worked. Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern that that inevitably puts pressure on those facilities and that if, God forbid, there were to be problems regarding the overuse of that scanner, it would make the situation at Blackpool Victoria even more urgent and perilous?
Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman makes a succinct and relevant point, which I shall not embroider.
While we are looking at the question of patients, I received a copy of a letter from a constituent of the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood—although, looking at the address on the letter, he may be a constituent of the hon. Member for Blackpool, South—who commented on the pressure on patients. He has an orthopaedic problem, but because an X-ray failed to show damage he was told that he must wait 15 to 16 months for a scan. Officially, there is a four-week wait for urgent CT and MRI scans, but more tellingly there is a 10-month wait for routine CT scans and a 15 to 16-month wait for MRI scans.
A local primary care group attempted to introduce direct GP referrals to a hospital in Liverpool to get round those roadblocks. Unfortunately, that did not work out as the GPs had hoped, but the Blackpool Victoria trust took up some of that capacity by moving 500 cases to Liverpool. We have not seen the benefit of the extra hours that are being worked because the more difficult cases reside in Blackpool. That has affected the productivity of the scanning facilities and illustrated the pressures on capacity. The Chorley and South Ribble and Preston Acute Hospitals NHS trust have one scanner per 300 acute beds; Southport, a place similar to Blackpool, has one scanner per 456 acute beds; Blackpool has one scanner per 658 acute beds, which makes it the 11th worst acute hospital trust in the United Kingdom for scanner capacity. That figure is telling.
I acknowledge that the Government are minded to increase national scanning capacity, and their programme to replace the 100 oldest scanners, which are
46WH
more than 10 years old, is laudable. Their programme to put 15 new MRI and CT scanners in place is also welcome, but the timetable is worrying. If we examine the effect of the extra scanners on CT scans, once the new capacity is introduced, there will be one scanner per 151,500 members of the population. The current situation in the north-west region is one scanner per 153,800 people. If we consider the sub-region of Lancashire and South Cumbria, which includes the excellent Rosemere unit in the Chorley and South Ribble and Preston Acute Hospital NHS trust that has five scanners doing remarkable work in the treatment of cancer, we have one scanner per 181,800 people. Blackpool has one scanner per 347,000 people, which illustrates why we need greater capacity straight away.
There is a good business case for why we should have a new scanner. The question of upgrading the existing scanner was looked at, but there were significant disadvantages, especially from the radiographers' point of view because they feel that this would provide insufficient throughput to meet the forward demands of the new national cancer plan, and the NICE and national service framework recommendations. A second CT scanner would double patient throughput, reduce patient waiting times, provide a better response to in-patient requests, facilitate better training opportunities for staff, allow the department to acquire a modern scanner capable of enhanced functions that are currently not available, provide extra cover in the event of the other machine breaking down, allow additional capacity to be phased in on a sessional basis and, most importantly, anticipate future demand.
The Minister may, rightly, mention the question of resources. I am advised that what is required is capital investment of between £0.5 million and £0.75 million, with additional investment for new radiographers and the associated team. That is a relatively small price to pay in relation to overall expenditure on the health service, bearing in mind that the good people of the Fylde coast have already made their contribution by purchasing the existing CT and MRI scanners by public subscription.
Mr. Marsden: On that point, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government have made an entirely laudable commitment to replacing scanners and to upgrading generally, and that it is important that the case for an additional scanner at Blackpool Victoria hospital is not downplayed purely and simply because we have had the good fortune to raise the funding for the initial scanner by public subscription, so that it is not one of the older scanners that might be automatically replaced?
Mr. Jack: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. My purpose in initiating the debate was not to bash the Government, because in fairness they recognise the problem. The case that all three Members for the Fylde coast want to underscore is that, if we go by the timetable given to me by the Minister's Department in parliamentary questions, then before we can even look at the criteria for the allocation of a new scanner we will have to wait for the programme to replace scanners that are more than 10 years old, and with every day that goes by we shall fall behind in our ability to meet the demands on scanning capacity.

47WH
The hon. Member for Blackpool, South is right to draw attention to the worry that the criteria that will be used to determine the allocation of the extra 50 CT scanners are not yet in the public domain. Some people inside the NHS say quietly and privately that there is a nasty smell suggesting that this might be a done deal; that words may have been exchanged behind closed doors about where in general the new scanners are supposed to go, and that any public consultation exercise to determine the criteria will be a sham. As the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood said in her telling intervention, that would deny us the opportunity fully to air the arguments for Blackpool to be a beneficiary of one of the new machines.
I want to close with a paragraph from the consultant haematologist, Dr. Flanagan, whom I earlier accused of being a radiologist. He made some telling comments in a letter to me dated 23 February last year:
"I am determined to ensure that my patients and others in the Fylde with cancer have an equal availability of diagnostic facilities and that a definite date for the provision of these facilities is published. After all, what is the point of a Governmental edict that all cancer patients should see a Specialist within two weeks if their subsequent diagnostic procedures are delayed for up to three to four months before treatment can start? I would love to find that commonsense prevailed here so that I could quietly fade into the background again. However, if I have to continue to make waves until these patients get their deserved service then so be it."
Blackpool was battered by storms yesterday. I hope that calm will descend on the hospital after the Minister responds to the well-reasoned, moderate, sensible and widely-supported argument that we should press the fast forward button to allow one of the new scanner facilities to be granted to us at the earliest possible opportunity.
12.48 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) on his success in securing this Adjournment debate on scanning facilities at the Blackpool Victoria hospital and I welcome the comments and support of my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) and for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble).
The scanning facilities at Blackpool Victoria hospital are a matter of strong feeling on the part of the local Members and their constituents. I welcome the strong support that they have shown for local health services and their improvement. I will try to respond to their points.
Blackpool Victoria hospital is a large acute hospital serving around 350,000 people on the Lancashire coast. That includes those in urban and rural communities, affluent neighbourhoods and areas of social deprivation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South pointed out, the hospital must serve the resident population and millions of holidaymakers every year, placing additional demands on health services. The trust was awarded three stars in September's performance tables, achieving all but one of the nine key targets. Such quality indicators matter to patients and their relatives. Blackpool's star rating is a tribute to everyone who works in the hospital and they deserve our congratulations.
48WH
My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Health has been invited to Blackpool on Friday to open formally phase 5 of the Victoria hospital. That is a major new development, consisting of expanded accident and emergency and critical care facilities, a medical admissions unit, coronary care unit, seven acute medical wards and a cardiology ward.
The right hon. Member for Fylde focused on the need for additional scanning capacity. At present, the hospital has two scanners: one computed tomography, or CT, scanner and one magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI, machine. Both were installed comparatively recently, so neither is due for replacement in the near future. By 2004, we are committed to phasing out all machines used in the diagnosis of cancer that are more than ten years old.
The difficulty at Blackpool has not been old and unreliable equipment, but escalating demand. The signs are that activity will continue to rise for the foreseeable future.
A year ago, waiting times for urgent and routine CT and MRI scans at Blackpool Victoria hospital had risen to what were considered to be unacceptable levels. Consequently, the trust submitted a business case to North West Lancashire health authority, suggesting three alternative strategies to increase capacity. After negotiations with trust management and radiology staff, the health authority agreed to release additional funding for 2001–02 and 2002–03 to pay for additional scanning sessions. That enabled the trust to arrange extra scanning time at weekends, which it hopes will add about 700 scans to the annual total by the end of 2001–02.
Last month, the trust introduced another 10 hours scanning time each week on each machine. That is a permanent arrangement, but its full implementation is conditional on the hospital's successfully recruiting more radiologists. Over a 12-month period, extra operating hours should deliver more than 2,000 CT and MRI scans.
The trust will address staffing in a number of ways. It is reviewing staffing roles and responsibilities, so that radiographers can be trained to carry out certain tasks in place of radiologists. It will recruit a specialist registrar to the radiology team, and promote Blackpool as an attractive location for consultants. The introduction of a booked admissions approach should deliver service planning advantages.
The chief executive, Mr. David Gill, wrote to hon. Members in November, detailing the current position and the actions that had already been taken to alleviate long waits. He outlined the measures proposed for the future, and I am pleased to say that the situation has improved since then.
The latest figures that I have seen are for 10 January, when urgent waiting times stood at three weeks for both types of scan. As that is a week less than in mid-November, some progress is being made. Routine waiting times are 10 months for CT, 16 months for MRI, and five months for brain scans. Provided the necessary staff can be identified, more sessions are planned from 1 April when the 2002–03 money becomes available.
Mr. Jack: What does the Minister's Department think is an acceptable time for a routine scan? If I had

49WH
been told that I needed such an investigation, it would worry me enormously to wait longer than 10 months. What can be done about that?
Yvette Cooper: Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman is right. There are concerns about long waits for routine scans and we must speed up access to those scans across the board. The evidence of progress is welcome, but hon. Members are right to say that there is still some distance to go before a breakthrough can be achieved. The projected levels calculated by the trust suggest that although the improvements will restrict the rate of increase, they do not amount to a long-term solution.
From April 2004, we expect all patients who are admitted to hospital with suspected strokes to receive a CT brain scan within 48 hours. Hospitals such as the Blackpool Victoria should have plans in place by April this year to meet the new standard.
From David Gill's letter, it is clear that the trust has researched the subject carefully. He correctly says that the north-west as a whole has above average access rates to scanners on a per capita basis, but it is equally correct that overall distribution is patchy with some localities undeniably served better than others. In recognition of that situation, which we inherited, not just in the northwest but throughout the country, we have introduced a series of initiatives aimed at levelling up provision throughout the country to reduce access times and to ensure that patients are not faced with long journeys from home to add to their anxiety. Hon. Members will understand that years of under-investment cannot be put right overnight. It takes time to manufacture and install equipment.
Additional replacement scanners have been or are being delivered through the new opportunities fund, the cancer capital modernisation fund and the NHS and cancer plans, but demand still exceeds supply. The Department's cancer services team, in conjunction with cancer networks throughout England, is drawing up criteria for allocating new machines as equitably as possible, taking account of relevant factors such as existing provision. Any bids presented by the Blackpool Victoria will be evaluated with those from elsewhere in the country against a common set of criteria. That is the fairest way of determining where top priorities lie. Since April 2000, 27 new MRI scanners and 63 CT scanners have been installed and by the end of 2004, a further 123 CT scanners will be delivered as well as additional equipment.
Hon. Members are right to say that discussions are still taking place about allocation of the 50 additional CT scanners and the 50 additional MRI scanners identified in the cancer plan. The cancer networks and
50WH
regional cancer co-ordinators are, rightly, at the centre of discussions to decide where the additional machines should be located. They are aware of the depth of feeling in Blackpool about lengthening queues, and I shall ensure that they are made aware of the comments made by hon. Members today on behalf of their constituents and the concerns that they have raised.
We are seeing a gradual increase in the number and quality of scanners as old equipment is replaced and new machines are delivered. Geographical coverage is also improving. Hon. Members will understand that I cannot make commitments about individual bids at this stage and the case will need to be considered against the cases made by other areas that also face need.
Mr. Jack: When will the criteria be published, so that we may make representations?
Yvette Cooper: I cannot answer that now, but I shall write to hon. Members.
We must ensure that available scanners and equipment are used in the best possible way. I know that the local trust has done a lot in that context, but we need to do more throughout the country. I note that two out of 10 local consultant radiologist posts are vacant when candidates are in short supply nationwide. The supply of skilled radiographers is also an issue if we are to ensure that we are using existing scanners and equipment to full capacity. Nationally, we are working with the Society of Radiographers and bodies such as the Royal College of Radiologists to improve the radiography work force, including an increase in the number of radiography training places, which have increased by 20 per cent. in the past year and will increase by 55 per cent. by April 2002, extending the careers of radiotherapy staff who are currently working in the NHS and developing new ways of working in radiotherapy to allow staff to develop and extend their roles in the profession.
There is scope for innovative solutions and the right hon. Member for Fylde said that some patients have had knee scans in Merseyside under a pilot scheme agreed between the health authority and the Royal Liverpool university hospital. More innovative solutions will need to be considered throughout the country to deal with capacity problems.
In Blackpool, as in other parts of the country, the conclusion is clear. Yes, we need more scanners. Yes, we need more investment in the NHS. That is already happening, but it must continue fairly throughout the country. We also need reform and modernisation to ensure that we make the best use of facilities in the fairest possible way to improve access and care for local patients.

Cat and Dog Fur Trade
1 pm
Dr. Nick Palmer: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue, which has aroused widespread concern. An early-day motion calling for a ban on the use of cat and dog fur in Britain was signed by 223 hon. Members from all parties. That number is one of the largest for any issue in this and the previous Parliament. A recent public opinion survey showed that a massive majority supports an outright ban on the use of cat and dog fur and those findings are not necessarily based on widespread recognition of the extent and severity of the fur farms involved.
I acknowledge the input of the leading campaign in this matter—the Nottingham-based Respect for Animals. I shall quote from its research and from work done by undercover investigators employed by the Humane Society of the United States, which is the American equivalent of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. I am also grateful for input from Charles Tannock, Member of the European Parliament for London for the initiative that he and others have taken in the European Parliament.
It is estimated that 2 million cats and dogs are slaughtered annually as part of the trade. Typically, around 50 cat or dog skins are used to make one full-length fur coat, although skins are also used for trimming and on coats made of fur from other animals.
Animals are generally kept in a long row of wire cages, like battery chickens, in an open-sided shed. The environmental impact is significant even in well-regulated countries such as Denmark and Finland and even more so in the generally less regulated developing world. Under the World Bank's industrial pollution protection system—IPPS—fur dressing and dyeing rank among the worst five industries for toxic metal pollution. Some products used in the process are banned in the European Union—for example, arsenic, which is a multiple carcinogen. In practice, furs are not biodegradable despite being natural products because the chemicals, including the carcinogens, needed to preserve the coat are not degradable and so add to the issues surrounding landfill sites when coats are discarded.
Fur farms in China and the Philippines were filmed by undercover investigators and showed cats and dogs being treated in ways that the United States Congress report on the subject recently described as gruesome. I shall not go into detail, but animals were filmed in appallingly cramped conditions and being beaten and skinned alive.
With that background, there is no reasonable doubt that very few British consumers would knowingly wear cat or dog fur. However, the fur is often disguised with fraudulent labelling and there is often no description of fur trimming on cloth coats or it is described as "other fur". Furs are bleached and dyed to make them resemble more expensive fur, and that process also uses carcinogens such as benzene.
The trend for using cat and dog fur is increasing for two reasons. First, the intense trapping of wildlife has greatly reduced the supply of other fur. Secondly, the pressure of cost has pushed more and more of the trade
52WH
to the far east where wages are lower and there is less regulation. The Hong Kong trade and development council noted that most firms in Hong Kong have moved production to the mainland because of its less stringent environmental regulations.
There is a tradition in China of eating cat and, in particular, dog meat and people there are more desensitised to the issues involved than those in other countries. The trend to move fur production to China, the Philippines and other east Asian countries increases the likelihood that low-cost cat and dog furs will be used. The current estimate is that around 2 million cats and dogs are being used.
I have several concrete questions. First, does that affect Britain? In 2000, more than 21 metric tonnes of "other fur", which is the category that includes cat and dog fur, was imported into the UK from China and Hong Kong. As the figure is not broken down further, and as we know that there is substantial evasion of labelling, it is difficult to be more precise than that, but we are discussing a substantial block.
Secondly, is this an issue for the European Union or for us? We have had a ruling on that from Pascal Lamy, the relevant Commissioner, who says that it is a matter for subsidiarity—in other words, that each country should decide for itself. That has been borne out by the Italian Parliament's recent decision to ban fur imports.
It is important to consider whether a ban would be legal. Britain, as a major trading nation, has an interest in ensuring that we do not set a bad example by violating international trade agreements and that we support the need for sensible and responsible free trade. World Trade Organisation rules specify that we may not interfere in the way in which a product is produced, but we may ban a particular product. The classic example of that is battery hens: we could ban eggs, but we cannot ban battery hen eggs. In this case we are, however, discussing a specific product that we do not produce in Britain, and there is no question of attempting surreptitiously to protect our home industry in cat and dog fur because we would be banning an entire product range. In addition, no countries openly admit to the trade. The likelihood of someone bringing an action under the WTO rules is small because they would first have to admit that they conducted the trade.
The United States, which is as sensitive to the issue as we are, has implemented a full ban with stringent regulations covering what happens if one attempts to evade it. We can reasonably ask whether there is a need for a ban given that the British Fur Trade Association has promised not to deal in cat and dog fur. As Baroness Symons noted in another place, some traders are outside the BFTA and are not bound by its rules.
A "Newsnight" investigation showed a reputable member of the fur trade who was prepared systematically to mislabel dog fur imports. We must be careful about accepting the word of a trade association on behalf of its members and all non-members. With the best will in the world, such an association is unable to back up such statements in practice.
I welcome Baroness Symons's comments in another place on 11 December in which she described the trade in domestic dog and cat fur as "abhorrent", and said:
"It is not illegal per se to import cat and dog fur…we are exploring what proportionate and enforceable steps we might take to ban any such imports."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 December 2001; Vol. 629, c. 1234.]

53WH
That is what people who are concerned were anxious to hear. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to the widespread feelings on this matter and to tell us more.
1.9 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) for securing this Adjournment debate and for his interest in the trade in domestic cat and dog fur. I am of course aware that he is the primary sponsor of early-day motion 11 on the subject.
My noble Friend the Minister for Trade and Investment recently answered an oral question and subsequently wrote to all hon. Members explaining how the Government propose to proceed. As she said, the Government share people's concerns about cruelty to animals overseas and practices in those countries that do not observe the same high standards of animal welfare that we have in the United Kingdom. We shall continue to raise animal welfare standards wherever possible.
Let me be clear that the Government believe that the import and export of and trade in domestic cat and dog fur is abhorrent, and we are exploring whether proportionate and enforceable steps can be taken to discourage such trade, both to and from this country and domestically.
If we are to consider a ban on imports we must satisfy ourselves as to the extent of any imports that are taking place, so our starting point must be the import trade statistics. As I explained to the House last November, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen), our trade statistics do not separately identify cat and dog fur. Any imports of such fur would be classified under the catchall heading of "other fur"—that is, furs that are not separately classified elsewhere. More recent figures for 2001 suggest a slight upwards trend towards cheaper fur imports. However, that may be as much to do with fashion trends as with anything else. Certainly, at this stage there is not enough evidence to identify the animal composition of such imports.
Over coming months we will examine the trade statistics in more detail to try to determine how much, if any, domestic cat and dog fur is being imported into and exported from the UK. For the classification reasons that I mentioned, that will necessarily take some time as we will need to ascertain the facts behind the trade statistics.
An additional related problem is that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for Customs and Excise officers to identify by sight at the point of entry any imports of cat and dog fur separately from other unidentified fur, especially if it is mixed with fur from other animals. As my hon. Friend pointed out, furs can be bleached or dyed to disguise their origins and to simulate more expensive furs. Ultimately, forensic examination of all consignments containing fur would be required to identify any cat and dog fur that may be included in them. That would be disproportionate. given that we are not aware of the scale of any problem, and would be ultra vires where the importation is not illegal per se.
54WH
In addition to a closer study of the trade figures, we will pursue other sources of information and consult more widely among interested parties. We have already spoken to the British Fur Trade Association and to several non-governmental organisations. The BFTA told the Government that none of its members deals in domestic cat or dog fur.
The second problem of identification is that no fur is required to be labelled as cat or dog fur in this country. The only fur for which there is such a legal requirement in the UK is sealskin. Some fur is labelled simply as fur or exotic fur. It is not illegal to do that.
Hon. Members will note that the UK import statistics that I gave to my hon. Friend identify made-up garments containing fur separately from sealskins and those of sheep or lambskin or other such garments containing fur. It is illegal to misrepresent fur as coming from rabbit or wolf, for example, when it is not from those animals. Should that happen, legislation already exists to prevent consumers from being misled. Under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, it is a criminal offence to apply false or misleading statements to goods by any means.
The United States ban on the import, production and use of cat and dog fur was referred to in the early-day motion. It is clear to the United States authorities that large quantities of cat and dog fur were being imported and mislabelled, which was misleading consumers. We understand that the United States Government took into account a video by the Humane Society of the United States when considering whether to ban the trade in domestic cat and dog fur. The video was made two years ago and focused on trade in the United States. In November 2000, the United States passed legislation banning the import, export, marketing, sale, and use of domestic dog and cat fur. The ban cites mislabelling of imports from China, which could mislead consumers, as the primary reason, and a further justification was that trade in cat and dog fur products is aesthetically abhorrent to United States citizens. That is the first time that aesthetics have been introduced in aid of an import ban.
The Act in the United States takes a blanket approach, requiring any product that contains even the smallest amount of fur to be DNA checked. That is an expensive exercise that requires enforcement personnel to be trained and equipped with state of the art technology, and the accreditation of special laboratories.
Dr. Palmer: Does my hon. Friend agree that British consumers probably feel similarly to American consumers, regardless of the quantities involved? The permission to import cat and dog fur is in itself abhorrent. Would he agree that the fur trade is damaged by the suspicion that legitimate furs are being sold that might yet be cat or dog fur?
Nigel Griffiths: Everyone knows that the practice is abhorrent. What we are getting to the heart of is the principled reason underlying the United States' ban, which concerned a volume of imports designed to mislead consumers and reflected a terrible scale of animal cruelty in countries from which the animals originated. That contrasts with the difficulty that we

55WH
have had in securing evidence of such practices in the United Kingdom. There is no evidence of anything on the scale of what has been experienced in the United States. Nevertheless, I have undertaken to pursue such evidence and collect it where possible. I realise that my hon. Friend has heightened awareness of the practice, and for that we are grateful. However, I am concerned—I know that he will share my concern—that legislation applicable to the United States could be difficult to transfer here, for a number of reasons
The situation in the United Kingdom is different. First, in the United States there was, as I have said, clear evidence of an import trade in this type of fur. So far, we have found no similar evidence in imports into the UK. Second, the aim of the United States measure was primarily to control the mislabelling problem. That raises the question whether, if applied to the UK, it would constitute a proportionate response in relation to the amount of trade involved and the availability of other remedies. In the UK we normally consider the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 as sufficient. Clearly the United States has no comparable legislation.
Third, as I am sure we are all aware, the United Kingdom cannot, unlike the United States, act unilaterally in regard to imports and exports with third countries, as this is a matter of exclusive community competence. Any measures that we may consider would therefore have to be discussed first with our European partners, and, for that discussion to be credible, we would first need clear evidence of a problem in this country, which we do not have at present. I know from bilateral meetings with colleagues in Europe and Ministers in each of the European countries that, in advancing any change or improvement in legislation, they look for the evidence. That is why we have undertaken to evaluate any evidence that emerges. Without such evidence, we are not likely to have fruitful dialogue with our colleagues in the European member states.
Dr. Palmer: Can my hon. Friend the Minister clarify the application of subsidiarity? I understand that Pascal Lamy has said that the EU would not wish to deal with the matter at a European level but that it was a matter for individual countries. Is that not my hon. Friend's understanding?
Nigel Griffiths: My hon. Friend will find that Pascal Lamy did not address imports and exports but internal production and marketing.
As I have said, we need to investigate further the present situation in the United Kingdom when we consider whether to introduce a similar import ban. Furthermore, any regime introduced in this country as a result of our current investigations must have a strong possibility of working in practice and must be proportionate: we must ensure that the resources that we commit to tackling it are in proportion to evidence of abuse. As I said, the United States has clearer evidence than has been supplied to us of widespread abuse and the perpetration of consumer fraud. Thirdly, any regime must be enforceable, an issue that I shall touch on in a minute. Those are reasonable parameters—I see my
56WH
hon. Friend nodding assent—which my noble Friend has outlined, and we shall consider the issue on that basis.
We have noted a newspaper article published just before Christmas stating that the Government will ban the trade in cat and dog fur in the coming months. The House will realise from my comments that we are not yet at a stage when we can make that decision. Our investigations continue, and we must consider action that is enforceable and proportionate. We shall report further in due course.
The newspaper article stated that a fur collar obtained from a large London store was found to contain DNA traces of Canidae. However, that is not conclusive proof that domestic dog fur is being imported into the UK, because Canidae is the Latin term for the canine family, which covers no fewer than 14 genera and 34 species. About half those species are on the lists of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of wild fauna and flora and therefore need CITES documentation to enter the country. The domestic dog, otherwise known as canis lupus familiaris, is only one of those 34 species. Others are the coyote, the dingo, the jackal, the wolf, the fox and the dhole. Some of those species are even culled as pests in other parts of the world.
Having begun our investigations into the trade in domestic cat and dog fur in the UK, we must proceed with the further work being urged on us by my hon. Friend. The Government view it as an emotive matter. I hope that what I have said will reassure him that we take the issue seriously through our investigations. We have looked in some detail at the position in the United States, so we do not lag behind it in the ability to carry out any necessary detection. However, the scale of the problem in the United States appeared, from my hon. Friend's and other comments, to be so horrendous that action was needed, and not just to protect consumers, although I understand that that was the primary reason for introducing the ban in the United States.
I hope that I have also demonstrated that we are aware of the issues surrounding Pascal Lamy's powers and desires and are more than willing, if pan-European action is needed on the basis of evidence that we do not yet have, to enter into a dialogue with the Commission and other countries. Before we consider introducing legislation, it is essential that we have the evidence that does not at present exist. If we or the groups with whom my hon. Friend is in touch can do anything to help to collect that evidence, that would be especially welcome.
I understand that our officials have viewed the video from the United States, which, as I said earlier, applies only to that country, and are in dialogue with colleagues there about the issue. However, as the problem is not as large in the UK or the European Union, that sort of evidence will be necessary to change minds. Without it, we shall not succeed. I realise that, for consumers, this is an ethical and not an economic issue and that in other cases, such as cosmetics, the Government have left the moral decision to consumers but have ensured that they are fully informed.
The Government hope to make suggestions towards the end of this year on advancing the issue. I assure my hon. Friend that they will write to all hon. Members on the outcome of the investigations.

57WH
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to all Members of Parliament about early-day motion 11 setting out succinctly some issues on which I have touched in this Adjournment debate. I hope that hon. Members found that information useful, and that what I have said today has reassured them that we take the issue seriously.

Young Female Offenders
1.30 pm
Mr. Richard Allan: I was pleased to secure this debate, which was motivated by an urgent case involving one of my constituents.
I shall begin by making a couple of remarks about the spirit in which I am raising the matter. I shall refer to a particular constituency case, but I do not intend to use it as a stick with which to beat the Government. Following last week's events, I have a clear understanding of how we should raise constituency matters, which is to seek a constructive dialogue with the relevant Minister about the way in which improvements can be made. I shall listen to the Minister in a positive frame of mind and look for signs that things are being improved.
The fact that debate should be conducted in that manner was brought home to me on Sunday when I visited a Jewish hospital service on holocaust memorial day to raise money for Sheffield's hospitals. The curate from Sheffield's Royal Hallamshire hospital pointed to the way in which we currently conduct political debate, and there was some resonance from the audience at the idea that politicians should always seek to improve matters rather than raising cases in a way that is destructive rather than constructive. I shall raise a particular case, but I expect general comments from the Minister because it is difficult to comment on a case that is in progress. I shall look for helpful and hopeful signs about preventing such situations from occurring again.
The other reason why I want to raise a particular case is that my constituent's father, who has been heavily involved with it—he first came to me in 1997, soon after my election to Parliament—has analysed the system and passed his conclusions on to me, and I have found his comments about the difficulties of working with the system to be informative. Rather than concentrating on his specific case, he sees a wider public function in raising the matter, trying to learn some lessons and seeking improvements for the future. I have spoken to him, and he has spoken to my constituent who is currently in secure accommodation. They are happy that I should raise the matter in the spirit of seeking to improve matters for the future.
The case involves a constituent called Claire who turned 18 at the end of last year. She was convicted in 2000 at the age of 16 of threatening someone with a knife. It is clear that the event took place, and she was properly sentenced to secure accommodation through the criminal justice system. Her background of problems goes back to when she was 13, when she was off school for a period with clear behavioural problems that meant that no school in the local authority would take her. There was a long delay as the LEA sorted things out, during which she became involved with the kind of people who, sadly, seek to take advantage of young women in our society.
In spite of the best efforts of her parents—anyone who has sought to control a difficult 13 or 14-year-old will know that no parent can maintain 24-hour supervision—she had time on her hands and became involved with people against whom there was evidence of sexual abuse. She began self-harming, and a lot of her subsequent behaviour has a psychiatric component,

59WH
which is clearly a large element in the way in which she has approached life. She has a lot of frustration and anger, much of which she has taken out on herself.
Claire went through two years of seeking to find appropriate accommodation, which takes us to the point at which I became involved. Her father tried to get various agencies to find the right accommodation for her, and other cases have since been referred to me that also fall on the borderline of not yet being a criminal justice problem: the individuals concerned have not yet committed the kind of offences that mean that they can go through the courts and be sentenced, yet they are clearly at risk and could put others at risk by some of their behaviour.
The difficulty is that that problem sits in the border between social services and education and health providers. In my constituency case, wherever my constituent's father turned, the matter seemed to be somebody else's responsibility. If the youngster was deemed to be at risk, the issue fell largely within the domain of social services; if the problem was that the youngster was deemed to require something to occupy them educationally, the focus fell on the LEA and whether it could find a suitable placement; if the problem was deemed psychiatric, it fell to health. A great deal of debate took place about trying to find a suitable placement. What the parents and the young lady needed was a secure environment in which a difficult youngster could develop and perhaps avoid some of what occurred later.
For a couple of years, when she was between 14 and 16, the young lady was held in various forms of accommodation—some psychiatric, some in the Sheffield area, some outside—but the difficulties continued. Her behaviour was tough, there were further suggestions of sexual abuse, and she returned to Sheffield in 1999, still clearly disturbed, and with none of the fundamental problems addressed. A few months later in 2000, having again become involved with inappropriate people and having acquired a heroin habit in the meantime—there were also suggestions of informal prostitution—she went over the top and threatened somebody with a knife. While no physical assault occurred, the attempt had clearly taken place and was properly prosecuted.
The young lady, then 16, was sentenced to secure accommodation. The judge had difficulty in finding a suitable placement for her and felt, he said, that there was nowhere he could send her. Indeed, he delayed sentencing and held her on remand in New Hall prison. While there, unfortunately, she attempted suicide, and the difficulties clearly continued. Eventually, a place became available, and she was transferred to Medway secure training centre. I was pleased to find from the Youth Justice Board proposals, to which I shall refer later, that the expansion of secure training centre places for young women is part of its agenda for the coming year. After the difficulties in finding appropriate accommodation in the non-criminal justice system—I recognise that that is not the Minister's responsibility, although the borderlines are often blurred—there were further difficulties in finding appropriate placement in secure accommodation once that became necessary.
60WH
The young lady spent some time in Medway. She committed violent offences while she was there, and there is no doubt that it was a difficult time. She has been transferred again to New Hall prison, awaiting the end of her sentence, which is approaching. That is another reason for my raising the matter now. The catalogue of events is disturbing, but we need to think through some of the difficult cases and see how people, particularly young women, arrive in such circumstances.
The case brought to mind another, which again was raised with me soon after I had first been elected to Parliament. A Sheffield woman called Irene Ivison campaigned for a long time after the death of her daughter, and wrote a book, "Fiona's Story". Fiona Ivison was 16 when she was murdered while working as a prostitute in Doncaster. In a sense she had followed a similar trajectory to Claire's—her home environment had been such that her parents were keen to keep her and were doing all they could, but she rebelled comprehensively, became engaged with the wrong people, and turned her back on home. At a vulnerable and difficult age, she took the path towards drugs—heroin addiction—and casual prostitution, and she ended up murdered in a car park in Doncaster. Irene Ivison, who has since passed away, properly spent some years asking how a civilised society can prevent our youngsters from being drawn down that path. From her account to me, I know that the difficulty lay in finding someone with the authority to intervene and who could find the appropriate placement for that youngster. That is not a universal problem, but cases are occurring and have occurred for many years. As a civilised society, we should deal with such difficult cases and find appropriate placements in the system.
In terms of the Government's response, I was pleased to see that the Youth Justice Board issued a statement last March about its four-year plan. One of the three main priorities was the provision of more appropriate accommodation for young women outside the prison service so that they were not placed with adult offenders. It is important to draw a clear distinction in that respect. The new deal for young women includes several welcome proposals about placing people appropriately, especially girls, including phasing in new units in the secure training centre. What progress has been made on that? Some individuals who are going through the system cannot wait any longer. My constituent is reaching a different stage, but other Claires and Fionas will come into the system, and I hope that we can offer them more hope for the future through the kind of care that could put them back into society as individuals who have broken the cycle of self-destructive behaviour.
My constituent raised several key points about the way in which the system works. First, progress must be made on appropriate placements. The transfer from Medway back to Newhall was unwelcome, and some time was spent struggling against it. There is a lack of flexibility in the system, especially in relation to difficult youngsters who also have psychiatric problems. That is a risk in the Medway environment as it is currently configured.
Secondly, it is important to facilitate joined-up working. Many agencies, including social services, education, housing authorities and criminal justice authorities, are already involved in such cases, and now we have the Youth Justice Board and the youth

61WH
offending teams. I understand that the underlying logic of the latter two agencies is to bring everything together. However, there still is not the necessary authority to deal with a situation in which, for example, an educational placement is required. As teenagers get older, such placements may be in local colleges of further education, which are now outside local education authority control. From a youth justice point of view, someone should have the authority to say, "It is vital that this individual has a placement at college and therefore we will secure it", or, "It is essential that we get a certain form of housing so we will secure it." That is left to the parent of the youngster or to the professionals involved.
My constituent said that all the professionals involved in the case have been utterly committed to trying to resolve it; they have been excellent, and no problems have arisen in that respect. However, although they are trying to do their best, they do not have the necessary authority. Joined-up working can fall apart if there is no authority to tell agencies that a service must be provided and agencies have no reciprocal commitment to do so. That one element can endanger the whole situation. A youngster who has been placed in the right housing with the right probation support may fall apart because they do not have the college place that they need. If one brick is taken out, the wall is not stable.
Thirdly, we must try to remove delays in the system. Delays of several months may be relatively insignificant in cases involving older people, but very significant in rapidly evolving situations involving 13 to 16-year-olds. I have heard about two such delays. One concerned the provision of education at the crucial time when Claire first started having major difficulties at around 13 or 14. The second was an inappropriate delay in the provision of psychiatric assessments, which were essential at the time that they were requested. She has now had the assessments, but there was a long wait, which affected the decisions that were taken about her future placement. We want to remove delays in the system in all Government services, but in dealing with vulnerable youngsters, those delays can be the difference between a constructive and a difficult future.
The final element was the involvement of psychiatric care in the criminal justice system. If one digs under the surface of such cases, one finds that many young women who end up in secure accommodation have psychiatric problems related to drug abuse, self-harm and other forms of abuse, particularly sexual. There is concern that such care has been slow to develop. The criminal justice system has reacted, but the necessary psychiatric involvement has been slower than is helpful.
I recognise that the Minister, quite properly, will not comment on a specific case that is still going through the system, but I would like to discuss the case in private, if there are difficulties. We are dealing with a situation that is critical for the youngster involved. One of the options is long-term detention in a secure hospital such as Rampton, but there are not sufficient facilities to safeguard both the individual and others. Once someone has undergone formal sentencing and comes out, how do we progress? Do we need placements in society where help can be provided? An 18-year-old coming out of custody would have to choose between a long-term secure non-therapeutic hospital and a social placement with inadequate support. Both options would cause fear.
62WH
As well as addressing the teenager's case, I hope that the Minister will consider individuals who have come through the system. They may settle down, but they need a soft landing, which will require more intensive work than is currently offered. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response, and I hope that we can offer a future that will ensure that my constituents' problems will not arise again, although I accept that there is no easy solution.
1.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Beverley Hughes): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) for enabling us to draw conclusions about a disturbing case. I am also grateful for the way in which he has dealt with it. I feel more constrained than he did because he has permission to give the details that he has given us today. We must be careful when referring to individual cases, but I want to deal thoroughly with his points, and the issues that arise from the case.
I assure the hon. Gentleman, the young person concerned and her parents that I have read all their recent letters, including the detailed history that outlines the difficult circumstances with which they have had to contend and the difficult experiences that the young person has had, which undoubtedly have had a bearing on her current difficulty. I have also had reports from the Youth Justice Board, the probation service, the Prison Service, and the Home Office. Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, in dealing with the problems presented by the child, the parents have felt badly let down by a fractured system. They felt that no one was prepared to take responsibility for the issue, and they were grappling with some serious issues, largely on their own. They are very well-meaning people, as I remember from the father's most recent letter. The hon. Gentleman said that, and praised the father's recent efforts in the current situation on behalf of his daughter, but, as he says, what counts is results. I understand that he is looking for those.
There will be a case conference in the next week, and the Home Secretary and I have asked to be kept fully informed. We shall closely monitor the situation. The hon. Gentleman is welcome to speak to me at any time on the specifics of the case on behalf of the parents.
The hon. Gentleman raised general issues from the case, with which I would like to deal. He asked what progress had been made towards a variety of different kinds of placement to meet the needs of different young people and towards the provision of appropriate placements. I shall deal with that later, if I can. Other issues that he raised include: whether lack of coordination, such as that which the family experienced early on, is improving; the fact that no one appeared to have authority to take the lead and make sure that things happened; delays in the system, especially in relation to psychiatric assessment; and the involvement of psychiatric care in the prison and criminal justice system.
On the core of the hon. Gentleman's argument, the Government's position is that the use of custody for juveniles under 18 should be a last resort. We have done a lot—I am glad that the hon. Gentleman referred to this—through our youth justice reforms to try to

63WH
strengthen, and widen the variety of, effective non-custodial options for the courts. That is continuing, and is very important. However, as he outlined, a small number of young people are serious risks to themselves and to others, and they present a variety of difficult and complex problems. We are dealing with such a situation in this case.
At the moment, about 170 girls are in custody. The hon. Gentleman may know that there is a ministerial commitment to remove all 15 and 16-year-old girls from Prison Service custody by the summer. I am glad that he referred to the Youth Justice Board's commitment to create 64 new places for girls in secure training centres during this year. That will help us to achieve our objective.
Obviously, the provision of secure psychiatric health sector accommodation for young people is especially relevant to this case. I share, as does the Home Secretary, the hon. Gentleman's concern about the need for sufficient secure psychiatric facilities for young people with mental health problems in custody. In any given area, as he will know from the details of the case, securing those resources for young people needing psychiatric treatment in secure facilities is the local authority's role. However, the Government clearly have a responsibility to see that the level and quality of that provision is sufficient, and I would not pretend otherwise. The Home Office, the Youth Justice Board and the Department of Health are trying hard to address that.
There is a scarcity of such provision. Although we are trying to address the problem, it arises largely because we started from a very low base in 1997. Sufficient attention had not been given to children and adolescent mental health services in general nor to the specialist services that the young people who end up in custody need in particular.
The Youth Justice Board is making great inroads into the general quality of the secure estate. As the hon. Gentleman will know, it now commissions secure places for young people in custody. General standards and provision in custody, including access to mental health services, are beginning to change significantly. I hope that that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that.
Through the Department of Health, the Government have also put in an extra £85 million between 1999 and 2002 to develop a national approach to those services. I know that we must do more, but we had to start somewhere. The Department of Health is considering whether a national commissioning route for adolescent forensic mental health services is the best way forward. Although the cases are serious, they are relatively few in number. Does it make sense for individual local areas to have to go all over the country to find something suitable? Should there not instead be a national system? As well as looking at the case for such a system, the Department of Health is commissioning an extra 28 beds in 2002, 24 beds in 2003 and a further unit for London after that.
There is progress. Resources have been allocated, the problem is being carefully considered and there are plans to increase the number of beds for adolescent forensic services. As a result of my visits to youth
64WH
offender institutions and skill training centres, I am aware of the need. There is still unmet need in the system, and I accept that we must make more progress. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no lack of political will or attention; the problem is the size of the gap that we are trying to fill and the fact that it cannot be filled in a short time. However, we are resolved, jointly, to do it.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned lack of coordination, authority and so on. We have tried to address that through the Youth Justice Board, which is beginning to work for people now in the system. I accept that the system was entirely different during the late 80s and early 90s for the young woman to whom the hon. Gentleman referred. That is why we changed it. The youth justice reforms were instituted to introduce effective multidisciplinary working. We have some way to go in making sure that the connections between custodial and non-custodial routes exist, because that is the route that an offender will take—from the community into custody and back into the community. We focus on the need to ensure that the connections between the agencies, which in a sense are artificial boundaries, do not allow young people to fall through the gaps. The hon. Gentleman will know that the inspectors of probation and prisons have produced a report called "Through the Prison Gate". We are working on a report being done by the social exclusion unit, which again points to the need for effective case management, because we need to strengthen those links.
I accept the hon. Gentleman's points, which raise general issues that we need to address and are addressing, but this is such a difficult case that it would be hard even in a perfect system to deal with some of the issues. For instance, there was a delay in the psychiatric assessment. There were also a number of points at which different psychiatrists could not agree on the root of the young person's problems. That had knock-on effects in relation to where she could appropriately be placed and within the law. Was the problem fundamentally one of mental health? Was it a treatable mental health illness? We need psychiatrists to help us to answer those questions, but until we have a view we cannot legally decide on the most appropriate placement. Since the hon. Gentleman is nodding, I appreciate that he is aware of those problems without my going into further detail.
In conclusion, I shall do what I can on this case and the hon. Gentleman will keep me informed. In general, by transforming the approach to youth justice, focusing on multi-agency working, developing custodial provision in all sectors and developing child and adolescent psychiatric services—in particular forensic secure psychiatric services—in the way that I have outlined, we are trying to make progress. I agree that we would like progress to be faster, but we are going in the right direction. I am sorry that this family has had a very difficult experience. I hope that families will not have the same experience in the future. That is my intention.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Two o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Departmental Recruitment
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will publish summary information on DTI recruitment for the 15 months from 1 January 2000

  Gender

  Ethnic background

  Range

  Permanent

  FTA

  Stand by

  Other

  Male

  Female

  White

  Ethnic minority

  Not stated

  Disability

  11

  11

  9

  —

  —

  16

  4

  7

  2

  11

  —

  10

  18

  17

  1

  —

  24

  12

  10

  3

  22

  1

  9

  12

  2

  —

  1

  11

  4

  2

  0

  13

  —

  8

  21

  1

  —

  —

  11

  11

  7

  1

  14

  1

  7

  14

  2

  —

  —

  15

  1

  6

  1

  9

  —

  6

  8

  2

  —

  —

  6

  4

  7

  1

  2

  —

  5

  47

  2

  —

  5

  29

  25

  16

  7

  31

  2

  4

  15

  6

  —

  11

  13

  19

  11

  5

  16

  —

  3

  9

  10

  —

  23

  24

  18

  8

  1

  33

  —

  2

  13

  8

  —

  11

  17

  15

  8

  2

  21

  1

  1

  30

  —

  —

  1

  17

  14

  5

  7

  19

  3

  Faststream

  23

  —

  —

  —

  9

  14

  13

  1

  9

  —

  Total

  221

  59

  1

  52

  192

  141

  100

  31

  200

  8

  The number of occasions on which the permitted exceptions to fair and open competition and selection on merit have been used at each level (except for appointments of up to 12 months) are categorised as follows. Details of the exceptions are underneath the relevant category.

  (a) Extensions of appointments of up to 12 months up to a maximum of 24 months: None

  (b) Recurrent short-term appointments: None

  (c) Re-appointment of former civil servants:

  5 Range 11s

  1 Range 8s

  1 Range 4s

  2 Range 3s

  3 Range 2s

  (d) Extensions of short-term appointments beyond the initial publicised period, including conversion to permanency: 1 Range 10

  (e) Appointments under government programmes to assist the long term unemployed: 18 candidates under the New Deal Scheme

  (f) Secondments:

  1 Range 11

  5 Range 10s

  4 Range 9s

  2 Range 8s

  (g) Transfer of staff with their work (not under TUPE):

  1 Range 11

  156W
  to 31 March 2001 and the use of permitted exceptions to the principles of fair competition and selection on merit. [31933]

  Ms Hewitt
  It is DTI policy that recruitment is carried out on the basis of fair and open competition and selection on merit, subject to the exceptions permitted by the Civil Service Commissioners. My Department has systems in place, which ensure that the principles of fair and open competition are understood and followed in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Commissioners' recruitment code. These systems are subject to internal check and to external check by the Commissioners' approved auditors.

  The following table and narratives describe DTI recruitment other than to the senior civil service, the DTI's executive agencies and the Government office network for which there are separate arrangements for publishing recruitment data.

  3 Range 10s

  1 Range 10 fixed term appointment

  4 Range 5 s

  4 Range 7s

  4 Range 9s

  2 Range 9s fixed term appointment

  7 Range 1s

  (h) Transfer of staff from other public services without work (unless from a public body staffed exclusively by civil servants): None

  (i) Appointments of surplus acceptable candidates to shortage posts: None

  (j) Disabled candidates appointed under modified selection arrangements: None

  (k) Any use of the exceptions reserved for the Commissioners (i.e. appointments on the basis of the proven distinction of the individual and appointments not in order of merit): None.

  Energy and Industry Council
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the outcome of the Energy and Industry Council of 4 and 5 December 2001. [31932]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Council considered several matters of interest to the United Kingdom.
  157W
  An exchange of views on the internal market in electricity and gas and on the Commission's Green Paper "Towards a European Strategy for the Security of Energy Supply" formed the centrepiece of this Energy Council.

  The key point to emerge from the discussion on the internal market in electricity and gas was that several member states are resisting a fully liberalised regime for gas, arguing that integrated companies should not be split and that prices for accessing pipelines should be negotiated rather than published. The UK maintained that legal unbundling of transmission system operators from the supply side was essential and that third party access to the system should be governed by "ex-ante" rules approved by the regulator and based on published prices. There was a large measure of agreement to this from other member states so far as electricity was concerned. In discussion of the draft directive's handling of public service obligations (PSOs), most member states, including the UK, were in favour of the definition of PSOs being left to subsidiarity though some argued for a more prescriptive approach.

  Member states generally endorsed the proposal by ETSO (European Transmission System Operators Association) for a temporary solution to the problem of cross-border trade in electricity, but most warned that this should be seen only as an interim solution for one year. The UK expressed concern at the lack of a clear road map to reach a definitive solution, arguing that there should be a clear definition of responsibilities between ETSO, member states and the Commission.

  In a brief presentation on its benchmarking study, the Commission noted that it showed a wide difference in market opening, prices and customer choice among the markets in different member states and that the study's main conclusion—that markets which had opened the most had the lowest prices and the best protection for PSOs—showed the need to move towards full market opening as soon as possible.

  The views expressed on these issues will be fed into a report with the hope that the Spanish presidency will be in a position to announce significant progress at the next European Summit in Barcelona.

  The Commission hoped that a final position on its Green Paper on Security of Energy Supply would be reached at the next Energy Council (6 June 2002), noting also that while there had been agreement on many points, some, such as nuclear energy and harmonising tax measures, were controversial.

  The UK and other member states praised the overall analysis in the Green Paper, supporting the focus on improving demand side management. At the same time, they expressed themselves satisfied with existing arrangements for the management of emergency oil stocks, with the focus firmly on the International Energy Agency as the appropriate forum. Member states agreed on the importance of consumer/producer country dialogue; several emphasised that such dialogue should not be confined to any individual or group of supplier countries.

  The UK emphasised the major contribution to security of supply that a liberalised and integrated energy market in the EU would play.
  158W
  All reserves were lifted on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and the Council on the Energy Performance of Buildings, although the Commission asked for a declaration registering its dissatisfaction with the length of the implementation timetable. A presidency compromise text has therefore been agreed as a general approach. This was a good outcome for the UK as we secured flexibility that allows for other measures to be used, such as the provision of advice, to reduce the energy consumption and limit the carbon dioxide emissions of boilers.

  In their account of COP7 (7th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change), the presidency and Commission noted that the EU had been a major player in ensuring that agreement was reached. The presidency concluded that the EU should now work towards a multilateral process for achieving the convention objectives, including targets beyond 2012 and looking at greater involvement of developing countries. The Commission noted that the overall aim of its draft emissions trading directive was to have an EU system in place in 2005 ahead of an international system scheduled to be in place by 2008. The proposed approach would take account of the overall costs of reducing emissions, with the aim of ensuring that an emission trading system should not disrupt energy markets and that market distortions be kept to a minimum. While welcoming these developments, the UK argued for a more voluntary, flexible EU approach, to allow for national circumstances, than that currently proposed, and in favour of doing more to encourage business to gain experience in emissions trading. The Commission also provided information on the European climate change programme.

  On state aid to the coal industry after expiry of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) treaty, only two member states supported the security of supply justification for continued aid. The UK and others opposed this justification but were nevertheless prepared to accept some further aid to the coal industry for social, regional or economic reasons, given appropriate limiting conditions. In particular, aid should be digressive and time limited. The Spanish presidency will take the dossier forward in the new year.

  Finally, there was a brief progress report on the Energy Charter treaty and a short Commission presentation on the proposed directive on Biofuels.

  Industry Council

  The Industry Council held a debate and adopted conclusions on competitiveness and enterprise policy in the EU. The key themes were better regulation, the economic impact of September 11, research and development, and quantitative targets. The UK asked for the Commission to produce a better regulation action plan for Barcelona.

  The Council adopted conclusions on the financing of SMEs. These recognise progress made in addressing problems for SMEs in obtaining finance, but also that more can be done. A number of initiatives have been identified, such as actions promoting entrepreneurship, and to encourage contacts between SMEs, bankers and other finance providers in order to improve their mutual understanding.
  159W
  The presidency introduced their progress report on modernising competition policy. A debate followed. All member states agreed the council should work towards adoption of the proposed regulation by end 2002. Most of the discussion focused on the issue of the relationship between national competition rules and EU law (Article 3). The Commission believes Article 3 is vital to ensure equal treatment across the Community and it would also simplify the Community legal structure. All member states supported the objectives of Article 3. The UK pointed to the need for consistency and sensible case allocation in the network, but noted some concerns on the regulated sectors, actions to address market failures, mergers, and criminal penalties, on which further discussion would be necessary. All member states agreed on the broad principles for co-operation between national competition authorities in a decentralised regime. The presidency concluded that work would continue.

  Council conclusions were adopted on state aid which look forward to further work by the Commission and member states to reform the state aids regime. The Commission presented the Ninth Survey of State Aid in the EU, drawing Ministers' attention to the state aid Scoreboard and register that had been set up during the year to increase transparency.

  The presidency noted continuing discussions on the transfer of ECSC assets. Further technical legal work was necessary. The Commission briefly presented its latest report on the Monitoring of Aid to the Steel Industry. The Commission was still considering the state aid rules to apply following expiry of the ECSC treaty. Strict rules would continue as member states and the Industry wanted.

  The Council again discussed the Commission's proposals for a temporary defensive aid mechanism for shipbuilding, to be introduced in parallel with WTO action against Korea. The UK argued that the way to tackle the problem was through WTO action. The Commission's approach linking WTO action to aid had led to deadlock, from which only Korea benefited. Subsidies had not worked in the past and were further likely to weaken the WTO case. The Council was divided

  Constituency

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Ashton Under Lyne

  306,000

  145,500

  25,000

  0

  Barrow and Furness

  —

  77,800

  1,770,500

  814,800

  Birkenhead

  205,000

  164,500

  217,000

  920,000

  Blackburn

  322,500

  755,500

  461,500

  2,046,000

  Bolton, North-east

  840,000

  179,000

  261,000

  226,500

  Bolton, South-east

  0

  0

  894,600

  945,800

  Bolton, South-west

  162,000

  450,000

  0

  0

  Bolton, West

  444,000

  231,000

  1,077,500

  380,000

  Bootle

  252,300

  1,023,000

  593,000

  685,000

  Bury, North

  194,000

  199,500

  838,000

  382,000

  Bury, South

  106,000

  619,100

  245,000

  74,000

  Carlisle

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Chorley

  90,000

  23,000

  0

  99,000

  City of Chester

  18,000

  7,277,000

  180,000

  170,000

  Copeland

  0

  250,000

  983,000

  51,500

  Crosby

  70,000

  0

  75,000

  90,000

  Davyhulme

  151,000

  52,000

  285,500

  129,000

  Denton and Reddish

  27,685

  97,650

  0

  0

  Eccles

  200,000

  105,300

  0

  0

  Eddisbury

  50,000

  855,000

  175,000

  43,000

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  110,000

  1,630,000

  897,000

  1,002,000

  Halton

  2,872,000

  1,754,000

  745,000

  452,000

  Heywood and Middleton

  128,000

  199,500

  109,000

  365,000

  Hyndburn

  487,000

  2,191,500

  9,500

  0

  160W
  about the proposal, and the presidency concluded that no qualified majority existed for the subsidy proposal. The Spanish presidency would need to pick up the dossier.

  The Commission made a short statement on sustainable development, encouraging the Council to work on its environmental integration strategy and ideally complete it in time for Barcelona.

  Sunday Working
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many shop workers have taken a case to an employment tribunal because of discrimination against them for refusing to work on a Sunday; and how many were successful. [30944]

  Alan Johnson
  Since 1994 when shop workers were given new rights involving Sunday working a total of 157 applications have been made to an employment tribunal of which 14 were successful.

  Employment Agencies
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she expects to issue revised conduct regulations for employment agencies. [30162]

  Alan Johnson
  I expect to issue revised Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations in the near future, following a further short consultation on certain aspects.

  Regional Assistance (North-west)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total amount of regional assistance grant to industry for each parliamentary constituency in the north-west of England was for each year since 1992; and if she will make a statement. [30969]

  Alan Johnson
  The total amount of regional assistance grant to industry is set out in the following tables. The figures are based on the 1981 ward boundaries and represent offers of Regional Selective Assistance made by the Department of Trade and Industry.
  161W

  Constituency

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Knowsley, North

  4,658,000

  1,496,000

  1,667,000

  880,000

  Knowsley, South

  1,030,000

  1,197,000

  761,000

  484,000

  Lancaster

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Leigh

  1,462,000

  1,235,500

  221,850

  2,303,000

  Littleborough and Saddleworth

  938,000

  268,900

  470,000

  444,000

  Liverpool. Broadgreen

  892,000

  189,000

  1,834,000

  130,000

  Liverpool, Garston

  1,035,000

  1,932,000

  883,000

  1,161,000

  Liverpool, Mossley Hill

  1,826,000

  24,000

  40,000

  50,000

  Liverpool, Riverside

  1,325,000

  571,670

  666,000

  2,642,500

  Liverpool, Walton

  80,000

  126,890

  485,000

  410,000

  Liverpool, West Derby

  0

  229,500

  90,000

  0

  Makerfield

  106,500

  113,000

  431,740

  592,800

  Manchester, Blackley

  107,000

  50,500

  0

  0

  Manchester, Central

  469,500

  648,500

  49,500

  0

  Manchester, Gorton

  64,500

  346,000

  0

  0

  Morecambe and Lunesdale

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Oldham, Central and Royton

  73,000

  330,000

  949,000

  363,000

  Oldham, West

  138,000

  775,900

  379,000

  774,000

  Penrith and the Border

  1,587,500

  160,000

  95,000

  17,000

  Rochdale

  517,500

  483,500

  358,600

  621,500

  Rossendale and Darwen

  336,000

  438,000

  49,500

  596,500

  Salford East

  624,900

  183,000

  100,000

  0

  Southport

  70,000

  1,132,000

  834,000

  130,000

  St. Helens, North

  225,000

  550,500

  1,578,200

  1,960,000

  St. Helens, South

  90,000

  1,770,000

  2,667,000

  2,675,000

  Stalybridge and Hyde

  167,500

  620,000

  101,000

  0

  Stretford

  1,512,000

  230,000

  220,500

  2,673,200

  Wallasey

  63,000

  2,011,000

  635,000

  965,000

  Warrington, South

  60,000

  225,000

  264,000

  35,000

  West Lancashire

  3,190,500

  1,809,000

  1,387,500

  1,948,000

  Westmoreland and Lonsdale

  0

  0

  55,000

  0

  Wigan

  1,311,000

  2,414,500

  638,000

  852,000

  Wirral, South

  560,000

  779,300

  1,565,000

  420,000

  Wirral, West

  55,000

  1,612,000

  98,000

  197,000

  Workington

  1,106,500

  2,788,500

  384,000

  275,000

  Worsley

  2,310,000

  109,500

  144,000

  319,000

  Total

  35,026,385

  45,130,010

  29,943,490

  32,794,100

  Constituency

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Ashton Under Lyne

  40,000

  0

  0

  0

  Barrow and Furness

  1,285,000

  612,000

  306,700

  244,000

  Birkenhead

  611,000

  175,000

  514,000

  414,000

  Blackburn

  1,971,800

  871,600

  621,000

  726,000

  Bolton, North-east

  581,800

  96,000

  350,000

  75,000

  Bolton, South-east

  453,000

  195,500

  376,000

  285,000

  Bolton, South-west

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bolton, West

  165,600

  1,248,000

  149,000

  390,000

  Bootle

  292,000

  497,000

  1,751,000

  379,000

  Bury, North

  189,500

  153,500

  82,500

  115,000

  Bury, South

  156,000

  20,000

  108,000

  457,000

  Carlisle

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Chorley

  60,000

  25,000

  20,000

  33,000

  City of Chester

  766,500

  590,000

  0

  1,900,000

  Copeland

  0

  0

  84,500

  368,000

  Crosby

  183,000

  200,000

  62,500

  860,000

  Davyhulme

  650,000

  687,000

  3,044,000

  0

  Denton and Reddish

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Eccles

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Eddisbury

  125,000

  0

  126,500

  155,000

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  557,000

  13,247,000

  348,000

  1,040,000

  Halton

  320,000

  688,000

  335,000

  1,769,000

  Heywood and Middleton

  465,000

  134,000

  90,000

  99,000

  Hyndburn

  25,000

  60,000

  0

  0

  Knowsley, North

  5,011,000

  2,906,000

  3,950,000

  2,603,000

  Knowsley, South

  99,000

  0

  40,845,000

  1,240,000

  Lancaster

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Leigh

  212,950

  869,000

  1,257,000

  1,623,000

  Littleborough and Saddleworth

  899,250

  509,000

  706,000

  309,000

  Liverpool, Broadgreen

  1,239,000

  287,000

  7,000

  5,000

  Liverpool, Garston

  780,000

  386,000

  4,257,000

  7,308,000

  162W 163W

  Constituency

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Liverpool, Mossley Hill

  130,000

  15,000

  0

  0

  Liverpool, Riverside

  1,124,000

  945,000

  1,170,000

  880,000

  Liverpool, Walton

  10,000

  310,000

  0

  130,000

  Liverpool, West Derby

  0

  62,000

  12,000

  60,000

  Makerfield

  172,000

  106,000

  124,000

  5,408,000

  Manchester, Blackley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Manchester, Central

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Manchester, Gorton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Morecambe and Lunesdale

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Oldham, Central and Royton

  259,000

  252,000

  665,000

  1,124,000

  Oldham, West

  90,000

  326,000

  601,000

  45,000

  Penrith and the Border

  0

  120,000

  0

  0

  Rochdale

  588,000

  237,000

  188,500

  794,000

  Rossendale and Darwen

  195,000

  217,000

  291,000

  567,000

  Salford East

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Southport

  55,000

  50,000

  34,000

  208,000

  St. Helens, North

  459,000

  1,965,000

  553,000

  304,000

  St. Helens, South

  760,000

  1,636,000

  1,992,000

  1,062,500

  Stalybridge and Hyde

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Stretford

  270,000

  50,000

  8,000

  240,000

  Wallasey

  585,000

  333,000

  78,000

  655,000

  Warrington, South

  210,000

  1,950,000

  40,000

  1,800,000

  West Lancashire

  2,043,000

  823,000

  880,000

  1,309,000

  Westmoreland and Lonsdale

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wigan

  2,103,000

  576,500

  549,000

  1,398,000

  Wirral, South

  90,000

  1,853,000

  2,048,000

  470,000

  Wirral, West

  25,000

  70,000

  30,000

  95,000

  Workington

  320,000

  787,000

  2,034,000

  855,000

  Worsley

  109,000

  30,000

  10,000

  175,000

  Total

  26,735,400

  37,170,100

  70,698,200

  39,976,500

  Constituency

  2000

  2001

  Total

  Ashton Under Lyne

  85,000

  —

  601,500

  Barrow and Furness

  98,000

  410,000

  5,618,800

  Birkenhead

  1,000,000

  100,000

  4,320,500

  Blackburn

  180,000

  107,000

  8,062,900

  Bolton North-east

  0

  —

  2,609,300

  Bolton South-east

  0

  —

  3,149,900

  Bolton South-west

  0

  —

  612,000

  Bolton West

  0

  675,000

  4,760,100

  Bootle

  90,000

  500,000

  6,062,300

  Bury North

  0

  —

  2,154,000

  Bury South

  0

  —

  1,785,100

  Carlisle

  —

  70,000

  70,000

  Chorley

  0

  —

  350,000

  City of Chester

  0

  —

  10,901,500

  Copeland

  240,000

  —

  1,977,000

  Crosby

  0

  110,000

  1,650,500

  Davyhulme

  240,000

  —

  5,238,500

  Denton and Reddish

  0

  —

  125,335

  Eccles

  0

  —

  305,300

  Eddisbury

  0

  —

  1,529,500

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  180,000

  —

  19,011,000

  Halton

  604,000

  1,215,000

  10,754,000

  Heywood and Middleton

  0

  —

  1,589,500

  Hyndburn

  0

  80,000

  2,853,000

  Knowsley North

  5,530,000

  760,000

  29,461,000

  Knowsley South

  93,000

  800,000

  46,549,000

  Lancaster

  —

  80,000

  80,000

  Leigh

  0

  200,000

  9,384,300

  Littleborough and Saddleworth

  460,000

  150,000

  5,154,150

  Liverpool Broadgreen

  0

  245,000

  4,828,000

  Liverpool Garston

  50,000

  1,955,000

  19,747,000

  Liverpool Mossley Hill

  0

  —

  2,085,000

  Liverpool Riverside

  3,435,000

  —

  12,759,170

  Liverpool Walton

  0

  180,000

  1,731,890

  Liverpool West Derby

  0

  —

  453,500

  Makerfield

  0

  200,000

  7,254,040

  Manchester Blackley

  0

  —

  157,500

  Manchester Central

  2,100,000

  1,850,000

  5,117,500

  Manchester Gorton

  0

  —

  410,500

  Morecambe and Lunesdale

  —

  145,000

  145,000

  Oldham Central and Royton

  95,000

  —

  4,110,000

  164W

  Constituency

  2000

  2001

  Total

  Oldham West

  750,000

  940,000

  4,818,900

  Penrith and the Border

  0

  —

  1,979,500

  Rochdale

  520,000

  230,000

  4,538,600

  Rossendale and Darwen

  0

  —

  2,690,000

  Salford East

  0

  1,340,000

  2,247,900

  Southport

  190,000

  200,000

  2,903,000

  St. Helens North

  250,000

  345,000

  8,189,700

  St. Helens South

  600,000

  —

  13,252,500

  Stalybridge and Hyde

  —

  —

  888,500

  Stretford

  —

  —

  5,203,700

  Wallasey

  —

  1,950,000

  7,275,000

  Warrington South

  290,000

  —

  4,874,000

  West Lancashire

  238,000

  690,000

  14,318,000

  Westmoreland and Lonsdale

  —

  —

  55,000

  Wigan

  315,000

  450,000

  10,607,000

  Wirral South

  1,996,000

  3,485,000

  13,266,300

  Wirral West

  0

  —

  2,182,000

  Workington

  95,000

  500,000

  9,145,000

  Worsley

  0

  —

  3,206,500

  Total

  19,724,000

  19,962,000

  357,160,185

  Temporary Employment
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what studies her Department has conducted into the number of temporary employees who(a) prefer to remain in temporary employment and (b) are unable to find permanent employment. [30680]

  Alan Johnson
  This Department has conducted no recent study on this issue. However, the Labour Force Survey (LFS), which is an Office for National Statistics data set covering the UK, examines whether such individuals are temporary employees by choice or because they cannot find a permanent job. The LFS defines temporary employees as including individuals engaged
  165W
  on: employment business assignments, seasonal work, fixed term contracts and casual work. The autumn 2001 survey estimated that:

  (a) 500,000 temporary employees (30.2 per cent, of the total) preferred to remain in temporary employment, and

  (b) 416,000 (25.1 per cent) were unable to find permanent employment.

  Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the answer of 3 December 2001,Official Report, column 52W, if she will define the unnecessary restrictions on organisations in the recruitment industry, including the IT sector which are due to be removed by the draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations. [30695]

  Alan Johnson
  The Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations will remove the following restrictions:(i) Preventing employment agencies offering, directly or indirectly, any financial benefit or benefit in kind to induce a work-seeker to use their services;
  (ii) Preventing employment agencies offering their services to a worker in employment, where the agent had previously received a fee for introducing him to that employment;
  (iii) Preventing employment businesses approaching a worker in employment, to induce the worker to agree to be supplied to a hirer;

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Redundancy notifications in England

  Avon

  3,854

  4,117

  5,182

  4,378

  4,253

  Bedfordshire

  2,934

  2,227

  2,743

  7,977

  4,385

  Berkshire

  3,107

  5,027

  5,814

  6,350

  11,082

  Buckinghamshire

  4,506

  4,061

  4,318

  4,823

  5,280

  Cambridgeshire

  2,636

  3,362

  3,903

  3,536

  5,123

  Cheshire

  5,255

  7,251

  9,003

  5,581

  9,910

  Cleveland

  5,025

  5,120

  3,848

  4,259

  2,924

  Cornwall

  1,335

  580

  923

  962

  1,731

  County Durham

  2.660

  3,856

  2,214

  3,065

  3,604

  Cumbria

  2,671

  1,967

  3,886

  5,411

  4,561

  Derbyshire

  5.822

  4,332

  4,484

  6,489

  7,291

  Devon

  2,027

  3,979

  2,436

  3,459

  9,008

  Dorset

  1,201

  2,353

  1,252

  2,495

  3,408

  East Sussex

  363

  1,945

  1,164

  423

  1,486

  Essex

  4,823

  8,152

  7,550

  9,184

  9,467

  Gloucestershire

  2,347

  3,987

  2,294

  2,966

  4,756

  Greater London

  18,776

  24,049

  27,601

  27,323

  60,325

  Greater Manchester

  7,250

  9,292

  9,657

  8,340

  11,950

  Hampshire

  5,659

  7,757

  8,625

  9,379

  15,985

  Hereford and Worcester

  2,676

  3,279

  2,429

  3,007

  2,816

  Hertfordshire

  3,743

  4,004

  5,205

  4,395

  14,308

  Humberside

  3,373

  2,558

  1,255

  3,524

  1,434

  Isle of Wight

  252

  386

  313

  578

  1,090

  Kent

  5,979

  6,863

  7,107

  21,848

  7,812

  Lancashire

  11,008

  11,340

  15,901

  15,244

  17,974

  Leicestershire

  4,951

  6,384

  5,254

  7,634

  6,643

  Lincolnshire

  1,844

  5,918

  3,623

  5,226

  5,723

  Merseyside

  7,274

  7,626

  7,970

  6,998

  9,553

  Middlesex

  4,504

  4,920

  9,598

  7,239

  8,887

  Norfolk

  2,668

  2,409

  3,326

  3,617

  3,476

  Northamptonshire

  3,390

  2,511

  4,252

  4,317

  5,453

  Northumberland

  690

  924

  2,293

  1,446

  1,252

  Nottinghamshire

  4,755

  5,812

  8,721

  9,133

  7,681

  Oxfordshire

  2,120

  2,107

  4,139

  4,761

  5,453

  Shropshire

  1,706

  1,634

  2,979

  3,606

  3,028

  Somerset

  985

  2,679

  2,849

  2,821

  5,463

  Staffordshire

  4,165

  6,710

  5,916

  7,592

  9,767

  166W
  (iv) The requirement for employment agencies and employment businesses to inform the Secretary of State in writing of their terms of business;

  (v) The requirement for employment agencies and employment businesses to keep records on their premises.

  Small Business Service Offices
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many small business service offices are situated in the coalfield communities. [29298]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Small Business Service has an office in each of the nine English regions. The SBS contracts via regional teams with 45 Business Link Operators to provide business support services throughout England. All of the coalfield communities are served by this local network irrespective of the specific location of the office.

  Redundancies
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many redundancies were notified, broken down by(a) constituency, (b) region and (c) country in each year since 1997. [30297]

  Alan Johnson
  The following table shows the numbers of planned redundancies notified for each year from 1997 to 2001. Companies are required to notify only where they plan to make 20 or more people redundant. I regret there are no similar statistics for individual constituencies.
  167W

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Suffolk

  2,868

  1,903

  2,415

  2,469

  3,261

  Surrey

  3,936

  5,242

  12,292

  6,566

  8,908

  Sussex

  2,454

  3,508

  2,952

  4,018

  1,242

  Tyne and Wear

  14,533

  10,756

  8,002

  7,846

  9,575

  Warwickshire

  1,506

  4,492

  8,155

  7,887

  5,402

  West Midlands

  10,019

  12,040

  19,024

  22,399

  20,444

  West Sussex

  902

  1,824

  3,068

  793

  6,159

  Wiltshire

  2,248

  5,097

  3,012

  3,343

  6,558

  Yorkshire

  22,005

  23,338

  26,764

  25,065

  47,075

  Total

  208,805

  249,678

  285,711

  309,772

  402,966

  Redundancy notifications in Scotland

  Borders

  2,305

  2,060

  887

  542

  899

  Central

  2,001

  837

  1,087

  353

  1,503

  Dumfries and Galloway

  318

  1,786

  1,200

  2,532

  619

  Fife

  1,464

  2,805

  4,011

  1,709

  4,148

  Grampian

  3,156

  4,024

  3,759

  3,864

  1,497

  Highland

  80

  259

  2,816

  824

  708

  Highland and Island

  433

  223

  1,937

  189

  275

  Lanark

  349

  1,021

  3,714

  2,809

  9,052

  Lothian

  5,322

  5,516

  6,623

  5,800

  9,301

  Strathclyde

  9,261

  9,952

  7,828

  6,034

  11,168

  Tayside

  940

  638

  788

  594

  1,516

  Western Isles

  0

  0

  0

  0

  82

  Total

  25,629

  29,121

  34,650

  25,250

  40,768

  Redundancy notifications in Wales

  Clwyd

  763

  2,583

  946

  1,611

  790

  Dyfed

  814

  317

  199

  264

  475

  Gwent

  1,991

  2,396

  3,663

  4,833

  4,723

  Gwynedd

  258

  839

  352

  787

  714

  Mid Glamorgan

  680

  2,100

  1,119

  1,396

  1,211

  Powys

  194

  594

  1,513

  392

  1,038

  South Glamorgan

  3,358

  1,996

  2,265

  3,138

  3,797

  Wales

  413

  622

  1,610

  2,159

  5,380

  West Glamorgan

  809

  1,764

  1,267

  585

  185

  Total

  9,280

  13,211

  12,934

  15,165

  18,313

  Postal Services
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will place in the Library a copy of the Consignia/UBS Warburg strategic plan for postal services. [30105]

  Ms Hewitt
  Any Consignia strategic plan would be commercially confidential and therefore under Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information could not be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she has taken to replace the construction industry retention system as regards central Government, agency and local authority contracts. [29802]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  I am aware of the concerns raised in the industry with regard to retentions, but it would be premature to seek to change the current arrangements.

  The construction industry has yet to achieve 'zero-defects' or 'right first time' culture and continues to have difficulty ensuring quality. Contractors, sub-contractors and specialists in the industry, as well as government, have a role to play in ensuring that quality is a priority issue.
  168W
  The Achieving Excellence in Construction initiative, led by the Office of Government Commerce, is placing greater emphasis on team working and value for money procurement strategies and is encouraging central Government construction clients to use partnering and long-term commercial agreements with suppliers to reduce the need for retentions in the future.

  The Local Government Task Force, which was formed to promote Sir John Egan's Construction Task Force report 'Rethinking Construction' in local government, is also encouraging authorities to work with suppliers to reduce the need for retentions.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Home Zones
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement about the role of home zones in creating safer communities. [28444]

  Ms Keeble
  Home zones can help to create safer communities by increasing the neighbourly use of the street, with adults talking and children playing. I am
  169W
  delighted that we were able to announce grants totalling £30 million towards 61 new home zone schemes in England earlier this month.

  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effect on the level of road accidents, broken down by type of(a) accident, (b) injury and (c) victim, of the operation of home zones. [30325]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Home zones are not road safety schemes as such, but if they are carefully designed, they can make a contribution to overall road safety objectives. My Department is currently monitoring nine pilot home zones in England and Wales. A review of accidents is one of the elements included in the study. Data on personal injury accidents are being collected from the local authorities and interview surveys of a sample of residents in each pilot home zone include questions about road accidents. 'After' data will be collected once the schemes are completed. We would expect on-going monitoring of accidents in any home zone to be carried out by the local authority.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what he estimates to be the costs to date of external consultants advising on the administration of Railtrack and its implications for the railway and Ernst and Young. [28445]

  Mr Spellar
  Ernst and Young, as Special Railway Administrators, are officers of the High Court and, as such, are not employed as external consultants by my Department. Consequently, fees are a matter for the creditors of Railtrack plc. From 7 October to the end of December 2001, the estimated cost of external consultants working for my Department on the administration of Railtrack and on the process of exiting administration is in the region of £3.1 million.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether his officials are working as part of the team developing a company limited by guarantee to bid for Railtrack. [30236]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether all bidders for Railtrack plc, including the company limited by guarantee, will be subject to the same submission process. [30232]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is a matter for the administrator.

  Local Bus Services
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on Government investment in local bus services. [28446]

  Mr. Byers
  Since introducing the new system of local transport plans, in 1999, we have accepted or provisionally accepted for funding 30 bus-based major local transport schemes each with a minimum gross cost of £5 million. We are also making £198 million available to local authorities to support bus services in rural areas, as well as £46 million under the urban bus challenge 170W
  scheme. The bus industry is also investing heavily, having spent some £977 million on new buses over the last three years.

  Transport Review
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact his 10-year transport review will have on carbon dioxide levels. [28447]

  Mr. Spellar
  The 10-Year Transport Plan, published in July 2000, sets out the impact of the plan on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The policies and measures contained in the plan are forecast to reduce CO2 emissions by 1.6 million tonnes of carbon by 2010.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the latest estimate is of the percentage increase in council tax planned for 2002–03. [28448]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Decisions on council tax are for local authorities to take, after consulting with their local electorate and taxpayers.

  Only when councils have set their own level of council tax in March will the full national picture about actual levels of council tax be known.

  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will introduce council tax bands(a) lower than the current minimum and (b) higher than the current maximum. [28452]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In the Local Government White Paper, we said that we intend to start work on a revaluation of all dwellings in 2005. Ahead of revaluation, we will listen to the views of taxpayers and local government about council tax bands.

  We shall introduce legislation to make clear that additional council tax bands can be created without new primary legislation.

  Railway Carriages
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what measures he is taking to improve the quality of railway carriages. [28449]

  Mr. Spellar
  Since privatisation over 3,200 new vehicles, one third of the current fleet, have been ordered worth approximately £3 billion. During its re-franchising programme the Strategic Rail Authority will seek additional commitments from bidders either for additional new rolling stock or for refurbishment of existing stock.

  Travellers
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the Bellwin scheme to reimburse councils for emergency expenditure applies to the cost of cleaning sites used by travellers following unauthorised occupation of public parks and open spaces. [28451]
  171W
  Mr. Raynsford
  A Bellwin scheme of emergency financial assistance may be activated to help a local authority with uninsurable clear-up costs following a disaster or emergency that involves destruction of, or danger to, life or property. My Department gives full consideration to any proposals for the activation of a scheme. To date there have been no claims for costs of cleaning sites used by travellers following unauthorised occupation of public parks and open spaces.

  Housebuilding Targets
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has received from local authorities regarding regional and national housebuilding targets. [28454]

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent representations he has received from local authorities concerning regional and national housebuilding targets. [28474]

  Ms Keeble
  We have received representations from local authorities on a number of matters relating to planning for housing. But this Government do not set national or regional housebuilding targets. We have a national land recycling target and each region proposes its own recycling target to be established through regional planning guidance. Regional planning guidance also establishes annual rates of housing provision to be kept under regular review.

  Planning Green Paper
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has received concerning the Planning Green Paper from community organisations. [28455]

  Ms Keeble
  The consultation period runs until 18 March. The Department has so far received less than 50 representations and no analysis of the responses has yet been undertaken.

  Roads (Speeding)
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what measures he is taking to reduce accidents due to speeding on roads. [28456]

  Mr. Spellar
  The measures being taken by the Government to reduce speed related road accidents are contained in the Road Safety Strategy, "Tomorrows Roads Safer for Everyone"—published in March 2000.

  Rural Housing
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he is taking to tackle shortages of affordable housing in rural areas. [28457]

  Ms Keeble
  As we said in the Rural White Paper, we expect to deliver around 9,000 new affordable homes annually in rural areas by 2003–04. This is possible in 172W
  large partly because of a near doubling in the Housing Corporation's budget from 2000–01 levels to over £1.2 billion by 2003–04.

  We are consulting on proposals to replace the present system of negotiated planning obligations with a tariff-based approach. We expect this to secure more affordable housing generally, including in rural areas.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the local government finance settlement for the metropolitan authorities. [28458]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The final local government finance settlement for 2002–03 was made available to the House and published yesterday.

  The settlement gives a 4.8 per cent, increase in general grant for metropolitan authorities.

  Bus Services
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what measures he is taking to improve the quality of bus services. [28459]

  Mr. Spellar
  We have introduced powers under the Transport Act 2000 to enable local authorities to implement enforceable Quality Partnerships and Quality Contract schemes. The Act also empowers authorities to require operators to participate in joint ticketing schemes, and enables them to step in to provide proper passenger information, at the operators' expense, if existing arrangements are inadequate.

  Rail Safety
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress towards the implementation of recommendations made by Lord Cullen on rail safety. [28460]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Government have asked the Health and Safety Commission, the regulator for railway safety, to ensure that action is taken on all the recommendations made by Lord Cullen.

  The HSC published an action plan in November 2001 on how each of the recommendations in part 1 of Lord Cullen's report would be taken forward. The HSC hope to publish before Easter a detailed progress report on the implementation of these recommendations in the six-month period to 20 December 2001.

  The HSC are currently consulting the industry about implementing the recommendations in part 2 of Lord Cullen's report. They hope to issue a progress report by Easter for the period to 8 March 2002.

  The HSC's first action plan on the recommendations from the joint inquiry into train protection systems was published in September 2001.
  173W
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on gauge corner cracking; and what international representations Railtrack has received about its solutions to this problem. [30308]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 25 January 2002]: Railtrack has received international representations from a variety of sources.

  Local Government
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proposals he has to give local government greater independence from central Government; and if he will make a statement. [28461]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government set out their radical new vision for local government in the recently published White Paper, Strong Local Leadership-Quality Public Services. It contains a wide range of proposals to give local councils greater freedom to innovate and respond to local needs and aspirations of their communities. This Government believe in real local government which is truly in touch with the people it serves.

  M6 Corridor
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the multi-modal study on the M6 corridor will be published. [28462]

  Mr. Spellar
  The final report of the West Midlands to North-west Conurbations Multi-Modal Study will be published for general release towards the end of March.

  Railways (Wales)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the projected level of investment is in the railway system in Wales as included in the Strategic Rail Authority's 10 year plan; and if he will make a statement. [28463]

  Mr. Spellar
  Each individual rail project and improvements negotiated through franchise agreements will usually benefit more than one part of Britain. The SRA has therefore not attempted to break down its planned expenditure on a regional basis.

  Northern Distributor Scheme
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what funding will be made available for the northern distributor scheme in Sittingbourne; and if he will make a statement. [28464]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Sittingbourne northern distributor road proposal is a local road scheme for which developer funding is being sought. Kent county council, the highway authority concerned, have not identified this scheme in their local transport plan as one which requires public money, consequently no public funds have been made available for this scheme via the local transport plan settlement process.
  174W

  Newhaven-Dieppe Ferry
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the strategic importance of the Newhaven-Dieppe ferry connection for UK transport links. [28465]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are several important cross-channel ferry connections, of which the link between Newhaven and Dieppe is one. It is a matter of commercial judgment for shipping companies as to what services they choose to provide.

  Maritime Transport Policy
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Government's maritime transport policy. [28466]

  Mr. Spellar
  We have introduced the tonnage tax. Together with reforms at the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, this has helped bring about a significant increase in UK ship registration. We have improved funding for the Support for Maritime Training (SMarT) scheme. We are committed to safe and environmentally friendly shipping.

  Local Transport
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress with the first schemes funded under the 10-Year Transport Plan to encourage local transport improvements. [28468]

  Mr. Spellar
  Progress in introducing local transport improvements is contained in authorities' Local Transport Plan annual progress reports. The first such reports, covering the achievements made in 2000–01 indicate that authorities are starting to lay the foundations for a modern, integrated, local transport system. We expect the next reports, covering the first year in which the increased funding from the 10-Year Plan was available, to show further evidence of progress with local transport schemes.

  Railway Stations
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what measures he has taken to improve facilities at railway stations in the last 12 months. [28469]

  Mr. Spellar
  Train operating companies carry out works to improve station facilities at railway stations for their own commercial reasons as part of their plans to improve the service for passengers and attract greater patronage. Such improvements may also be required by the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) under a train operating company's franchise agreement, or as a passenger benefit negotiated by the authority where there has been a breach of a franchise agreement, or a change of control. An additional source of funding is provided by the SRA's Rail Passenger Partnership scheme. Up to the end of 2001, a total of £45 million had been awarded to 38 projects, including improvements to railway station facilities.
  175W

  Rail Overcrowding
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what progress he has made towards tackling overcrowding on the rail network. [28470]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Strategic Rail Authority's Strategic Plan sets out in detail the various policies and projects which are being taken forward across the network to deliver the rail targets, which include reducing overcrowding, in the Government's 10-Year Plan.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the 10 rail routes that suffer from the worst passenger congestion. [30249]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information is not held in the format requested.

  Rail Strategic Plan
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what responses he has received from the rail industry to the strategic plan for the railways. [28471]

  Mr. Spellar
  The plan has been warmly welcomed by the rail industry.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions from which previous budget the additional £4.5 billion of rail investment referred to in the SRA Strategic Plan has been drawn. [28547]

  Mr. Byers
  The additional provision comes from a £2.3 billion transfer of funds from the previously unallocated budget within the Transport 10-Year Plan and, in relation to the 2 April 2001 agreement between the Government and Railtrack, from funds which are additional to those in the Transport 10-Year Plan. This means that the total Transport 10-Year Plan public expenditure and private investment envelope has been increased from £179.7 billion to £181.9 billion.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether the SRA has sought his Department's consent to reduce the passenger growth target in the strategic plan to 30 per cent. [30251]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government's 10-Year Plan target for rail passenger growth is not altered by the SRA strategic plan. The strategic plan sets out how the SRA intends to deliver the target.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will give a schedule, broken down by financial year, of the projected allocation of the private sector contribution to the SRA strategic plan; and if he will indicate the purpose to which that contribution is expected to be put in each of those years. [30258]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The SRA strategic plan envisages private sector investment of a very similar level to that envisaged in the 10-Year Plan. An indicative profile of this investment was outlined in Table A3 of the 10-Year 176W
  Plan. Private investment will work in partnership with £33.5 billion of public investment and support to deliver the Government's 10-Year Plan objectives for rail.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assumption has been made about the rate of return required by private sector investors in framing the financial models that underlie(a) the Government's 10-Year Plan and (b) the SRA strategic plan. [30255]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The rates of return required by the private sector investors will vary with the nature of particular investments and the risks that are borne. Assumptions used in the 10-Year Plan and the SRA strategic plan modelling will not be published as they could have an adverse effect on commercial negotiations for particular mechanisms to deliver private investment.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what the projected annual allocations of the public sector contribution to the SRA Strategic Plan are, broken down by spending type; [30259]

  (2) if he will give a schedule, broken down by financial year, of the allocation of the £33.5 billion public sector contribution to the SRA Strategic Plan. [30260]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to 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.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he last met the Chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority to discuss the 10-year strategic plan. [28642]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Secretary of State meets the key players in the rail industry on a regular basis.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what is the total amount of public and private sector investment in the railways over the next 10 years assumed in(a) the transport 10-year plan assessed, and (b) the strategic plan published by the SRA. [30734]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]: Tables A2 and A3 of the 10-Year Plan for Transport set out the estimated amount and profile of private and public investment in rail.

  The SRA strategic plan anticipates a very similar level of private investment to that estimated in the 10-Year Plan. The enhanced level of public investment funding included in the strategic plan was outlined in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) on 23 January 2002, Official Report, columns 871–72W.

  London Underground
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent representations he has received on his plans to involve the private sector in the London Underground. [28472]
  177W
  Mr. Spellar
  The Deputy Prime Minister announced the Government's plans for involving the private sector in the modernisation of London Underground in March 1998. Since then the Government have received representations from a wide range of individuals and organisations.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) which London Underground lines will be provided with full fleets of new trains by June(a) 2006 and (b) 2010; [30534]

  (2)if he will list the stations that are to be refurbished by June 2006, indicating what improvements are required at each station by the PPP contracts, broken down by local authority in the London Underground area; [30531]

  (3)if he will list the service improvements that are to be delivered by the public-private partnership for London Underground by June 2006; [30533]

  (4)if he will publish targets for reductions in (a) signal failures and (b) train breakdowns set for the public-private partnership by June 2006 that would affect the users of London Underground services. [30532]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on 13 November 2001,Official Report, column 622W.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what action he is taking to improve rail freight services through the channel tunnel. [28473]

  Mr. Spellar
  There have been many contacts between the British and French Governments since November. The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Home Secretary have all written to their French counterparts to ask that all necessary measures are put in place as soon as possible, to enable full rail freight services to resume.

  Rail Investment
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his estimate is of the total level of investment and public support to be made in the railways over the next 10 years. [31445]

  Mr. Byers
  We estimate that the total level of public and private investment and public support in the railways over the 10 years to 31 March 2011 will be £64.9 billion.

  The Government have committed to provide £33.5 billion of funding to the rail industry over this period, consisting of both public investment and revenue support (including direct revenue support for private investment). This represents an increase of £4.5 billion from the £29 billion total in the July 2000 10-Year Plan for Transport. Government funding will work in partnership with an estimated private investment of £34.3 billion to help deliver our 10-Year Plan objectives for rail.

  As was made clear at the time of the 10-Year Plan, the £60.4 billion total investment and public support for rail, both public and private, is net of an adjustment to exclude
  178W
  direct revenue support for private investment. Table A2 in the 10-Year Plan makes it clear that this is necessary to avoid double counting. The revised total of £64.9 billion, consisting of the original 10-Year Plan total plus the additional £4.5 billion of Government funding announced since then, is net of the same adjustment.

  Devolution (Concordats)
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what progress his Department is making in reviewing its concordats with the devolved Administrations. [31569]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department has reached agreement with the Scottish Executive on a revision of the concordat made between it and the former Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions in November 1999, to reflect Machinery of Government changes and other necessary updates. In addition, a new concordat has been agreed between my Department and the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment. Both concordats provide the framework to guide the working relationship between the parties, to promote good communications at all levels and to foster constructive co-operation.

  Copies of both concordats are being placed in the Library. They are also being made available on my Department's website.

  Public Relations Consultant
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much was spent by(a) his Department and (b) bodies for which it is responsible on external public relations consultants in each of the last four years. [27395]

  Dr. Whitehead
  My Department and its agencies have spent the following amounts on public relations consultants over the last four years in support of publicity campaigns such as 'are you doing your bit?' which encouraged people to take simple actions to protect the environment:

  £

  Department

  Agencies

  1998–99

  0

  5,000

  1999–2000

  683,600

  4,300

  2000–01

  748,900

  84,500

  2001–021

  352,900

  13,500

  1 Estimate

  Expenditure on PR consultants by non-departmental public bodies could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Fraud
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate his Department has made of the cost to its budget since 1 May 1997 of fraud; and if he will make a statement. [27298]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Losses due to fraud, which includes theft, are as follows.
  179W

  £

  Department

  Agencies

  NDPBs

  Total

  1997–98

  13,616

  15,690

  69,690

  98,996

  1998–99

  19,850

  13,980

  115,970

  149,800

  1999–2000

  22,850

  30,291

  78,236

  131,377

  2000–01

  43,290

  47,780

  201,385

  292,455

  2001–021

  4,505

  49,210

  48,160

  101,875

  Total

  104,111

  156,951

  513,441

  774,503

  1 To date

  Assets have been valued at cost, net book value or replacement cost depending on the circumstances of the individual case. Recoveries from perpetrators or others, eg insurance claims, have been netted off. Some incidents are still under investigation and final values may change.

  Vehicle Registration Plates
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make it his policy that Northern Ireland is included in the national flags and symbols allowed to be displayed on the vehicle registration plates. [27660]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 15 January 2002]: The decision to amend the Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001 to allow for the display national flags and symbols on number plates in England, Scotland and Wales was taken in response to a broad consensus for change.

  Department

  Agencies

  NDPBs

  Item

  Number

  Value (£)

  Number

  Value (£)

  Number

  Value (£)

  1998–99

  Computer

  1

  800

  1

  425

  85

  114,150

  Laptop computer

  1

  1,800

  8

  8,000

  7

  14,205

  Computer components

  1

  150

  —

  —

  2

  145

  Other computer equipment

  2

  16,850

  6

  1,380

  —

  —

  Telephones

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mobile telephones

  —

  —

  8

  1,405

  3

  1,325

  Pagers

  —

  —

  17

  1,455

  4

  410

  Audio visual equipment

  —

  —

  15

  4,710

  4

  2,955

  Office equipment

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other equipment

  1

  250

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Vehicles and trailers

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Protective clothing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  660

  1999–2000

  Computer

  1

  800

  6

  8,850

  23

  38,675

  Laptop computer

  1

  1,250

  3

  6,800

  7

  14,801

  Computer components

  3

  300

  1

  75

  —

  —

  Other computer equipment

  1

  1,500

  2

  1,750

  6

  15,045

  Telephones

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mobile telephones

  —

  —

  1

  75

  2

  315

  Pagers

  —

  —

  27

  1,815

  —

  —

  Audio visual equipment

  1

  5,000

  7

  2,698

  4

  775

  Office equipment

  —

  —

  6

  4,800

  1

  85

  Other equipment

  —

  —

  6

  3,475

  2

  3,060

  Vehicles and trailers

  —

  —

  1

  905

  —

  —

  Protective clothing

  —

  —

  1

  135

  —

  —

  2000–01

  Computer

  11

  19,570

  2

  2,595

  21

  50,270

  Laptop computer

  10

  15,535

  9

  23,130

  13

  26,260

  Computer components

  —

  —

  1

  300

  22

  14,835

  Other computer equipment

  2

  450

  4

  5,340

  55

  71,775

  Telephones

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  180W

  Theft and Fraud
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his estimate is of the cost of theft and fraud to(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies in each of the last four years. [27980]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Losses due to theft and fraud are as follows:

  £

  Department

  Agencies

  NDPBs

  Total

  1998–99

  19,850

  13,980

  115,970

  149,800

  1999–2000

  22,850

  30,291

  78,236

  131,377

  2000–01

  43,290

  47,780

  201,385

  292,455

  2001–02 (to date)

  4,505

  49,210

  48,160

  101,875

  Total

  90,495

  141,261

  443,751

  675,507

  Assets have been valued at cost, net book value or replacement cost depending on the circumstances of the individual case. Recoveries from perpetrators or others, e.g. insurance claims, have been netted off. Some incidents are still under investigation and final values may change.

  Lost/stolen Property
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list those items valued at more than £50 which have been stolen or lost from his Department in each of the last four years. [27989]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The details are as follows:
  181W

  Department

  Agencies

  NDPBs

  Item

  Number

  Value (£)

  Number

  Value (£)

  Number

  Value (£)

  Mobile telephones

  —

  —

  8

  1,095

  10

  1,920

  Pagers

  —

  —

  7

  450

  1

  65

  Audio visual equipment

  2

  5,750

  24

  13,920

  4

  3,760

  Office equipment

  —

  —

  2

  1,600

  —

  —

  Other equipment

  —

  —

  3

  710

  —

  —

  Vehicles and trailers

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2,350

  Protective clothing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  155

  2001–02

  Computer

  —

  —

  19

  12,510

  2

  5,275

  Laptop computer

  3

  3,855

  6

  13,200

  18

  45,185

  Computer components

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1,000

  Other computer equipment

  —

  —

  3

  3,180

  —

  —

  Telephones

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mobile telephones

  —

  —

  6

  700

  2

  250

  Pagers

  —

  —

  14

  860

  —

  —

  Audio visual equipment

  —

  —

  15

  10,900

  5

  360

  Office equipment

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other equipment

  —

  —

  2

  560

  —

  —

  Vehicles and trailers

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Protective clothing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Assets have been valued at cost, net book value or replacement cost depending on the circumstances of the individual case. Recoveries from perpetrators or others, eg insurance claims, have been netted off. Some incidents are still under investigation and final values may change.

  Ministerial Transport
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions 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. [28097]

  Mr. Byers
  I last used the railway on Monday 28 January travelling from Newcastle to London King's Cross.

  Arrangements for official travel are made in line with 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 last used the train for official travel on Friday 16 November from London St. Pancras to Derby.

  EU High Speed Interoperability Directive
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the full cost of implementing the EU High Speed Interoperability Directive; and whether these costs are provided for in the £33.5 billion strategic plan allocation. [28554]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Under Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) on 23 October 2001,Official Report, column 192, and to the SRA strategic plan.
  182W
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many rail bridges would have to be raised to enable Britain to comply fully with European interoperability directives. [30247]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None. The directives provide for derogations for projects whereby the existing loading gauge, track gauge and space between the tracks can be retained. Therefore, existing rail bridges built to the current loading gauge would not have to be raised. These derogations can be given by the member states; they do not require approval from the European Commission.

  Forth Rail Bridge
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what measures are proposed to extend the capacity of the Forth Rail Bridge, as set out in the Strategic Rail Authority report. [29481]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The measures proposed include the introduction of new signalling on and around the bridge and work on other lines to divert freight trains from the route.

  Stolen Equipment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what equipment has been stolen from his Department since 1 May 1997; and what the approximate value of each item was. [26829]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: The details are as follows.
  183W

  Department

  Agencies

  NDPBs

  Item

  Number

  Value (£)

  Number

  Value (£)

  Number

  Value (£)

  1997–98

  Computer

  5

  8,200

  2

  6,100

  10

  10,000

  Laptop

  —

  —

  3

  3,605

  9

  22,500

  Computer components

  9

  3,400

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other computer equipment

  2

  200

  6

  2,880

  36

  28,980

  Telephones

  —

  —

  3

  135

  —

  —

  Pagers

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Audio visual equipment

  1

  400

  —

  —

  4

  400

  Office equipment

  2

  450

  5

  1,775

  2

  320

  Other equipment

  1

  50

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Vehicles and trailers

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3,365

  1998–99

  Computer

  1

  800

  1

  425

  59

  87,150

  Laptop

  1

  1,800

  8

  8,000

  6

  11,705

  Computer components

  1

  150

  —

  —

  1

  65

  Other computer equipment

  2

  16,850

  2

  1,380

  —

  —

  Mobile telephones

  —

  —

  4

  650

  3

  1,325

  Pagers

  —

  —

  1

  65

  —

  —

  Audio visual equipment

  —

  —

  7

  2,260

  4

  2,955

  Office equipment

  1

  250

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Protective clothing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  660

  1999–2000

  Computer

  1

  800

  6

  8,850

  21

  35,990

  Laptop

  1

  1,250

  3

  6,800

  7

  14,801

  Computer components

  3

  300

  1

  75

  —

  —

  Other computer equipment

  1

  1,500

  2

  1,750

  3

  14,340

  Mobile telephones

  —

  —

  2

  125

  4

  855

  Pagers

  —

  —

  2

  115

  —

  —

  Audio visual equipment

  1

  5,000

  5

  2,228

  4

  775

  Office equipment

  —

  —

  6

  4,800

  1

  85

  Other equipment

  —

  —

  5

  1,618

  5

  1,110

  Vehicles and trailers

  —

  —

  1

  905

  —

  —

  2000–01

  Computer

  11

  19,570

  2

  2,595

  14

  40,395

  Laptop

  10

  15,535

  9

  23,130

  14

  26,285

  Computer components

  —

  —

  1

  300

  —

  —

  Other computer equipment

  2

  450

  4

  5,340

  75

  86,120

  Mobile telephones

  —

  —

  4

  245

  10

  1,920

  Pagers

  —

  —

  1

  60

  —

  —

  Audio visual equipment

  2

  5,750

  11

  11,650

  3

  3,685

  Office equipment

  —

  —

  2

  1,600

  —

  —

  Other equipment

  —

  —

  1

  205

  —

  —

  Vehicles and trailers

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2,350

  Protective clothing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  155

  2001–02

  Computer

  —

  —

  19

  21,510

  2

  5,275

  Laptop

  3

  3,855

  6

  13,200

  16

  42,375

  Other computer equipment

  —

  —

  3

  3,180

  —

  —

  Mobile telephones

  1

  50

  8

  190

  1

  150

  Audio visual equipment

  —

  —

  13

  10,570

  5

  360

  Other equipment

  —

  —

  2

  560

  —

  —

  Voluntary Organisations
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many grants have been paid to voluntary organisations based in the Buckingham constituency from the(a) road safety small grants budget, (b) Special Grants Programme and (c) Tenant Empowerment Grant Programme, indicating the (i) level of funding and (ii) date awarded in each case. [30050]

  Ms Keeble
  My Department has made no awards to voluntary organisations based in the Buckingham
  184W
  constituency from the road safety small grants budget and the Tenant Empowerment Grant Programme. Awards to be made under the Special Grants Programme for 2002–03 are due to be announced shortly.

  Workplace Deaths
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many deaths at work there were in(a) the UK and (b) Buckinghamshire in each year since 1997. [30053]
  185W
  Dr. Whitehead
  The number of deaths of employees and self-employed people reported to the Health and Safety Executive and local authorities between 1997–98 and 2000–01 were as follows.

  Employee

  Self-employed

  (a) Great Britain

  1997–98

  212

  62

  1998–99

  188

  65

  1999–2000

  162

  58

  2000–011

  213

  78

  1 Provisional figures

  Employee

  Self-employed

  (b) Buckinghamshire

  1997–98

  2

  1

  1998–99

  1

  —

  1999–2000

  3

  3

  2000–011

  4

  1

  1 Provisional figures

  Note:

  Table (a) The figures for Buckinghamshire exclude the mining or railway industries, whose data are only available on a national basis.

  Health and Safety Prosecutions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful prosecutions for health and safety cases there were (i) in the United Kingdom and (ii) in Buckinghamshire in each year since 1997; and what the average fine per offence imposed was in each year. [30054]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The number of successful and unsuccessful prosecutions by the Health and Safety Executive and local authorities for separate health and safety offences were as follows:

  HSE

  Successful

  Unsuccessful

  Average fine (£)

  (i) Great Britain

  1997–98

  1,284

  343

  4,694

  1998–99

  1,512

  247

  4,861

  1999–2000

  1,616

  486

  6,820

  2000–011

  1,493

  584

  6,250

  (ii) Buckinghamshire

  1997–98

  11

  —

  3,455

  1998–99

  7

  —

  5,450

  1999–2000

  8

  3

  1,875

  2000–011

  17

  15

  5,824

  1 Provisional figures

  Note:

  'Unsuccessful' prosecutions includes a number of charges adjorned by the court.

  Local authorities

  Successful

  Unsuccessful

  Average fine (£)

  (i) Great Britain

  1996–97

  323

  41

  1,463

  1997–98

  440

  66

  2,224

  1998–99

  337

  87

  4,098

  1999–2000

  322

  90

  4,595

  186W

  Local authorities

  Successful

  Unsuccessful

  Average fine (£)

  (ii) Buckinghamshire

  1996–97

  —

  —

  —

  1997–98

  —

  —

  —

  1998–99

  5

  —

  1,500

  1999–2000

  1

  —

  1,000

  Note:

  Local authority data for 2000–01 will not be available until April 2002.

  Departmental Expenditure (Publications)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his estimate is of the expenditure of his Department on newspapers, magazines and periodicals in each of the last four years. [30100]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The expenditure on centrally procured newspapers, magazines and periodicals in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions for each of the last four years to the nearest £10,000 is as follows:

  £000

  1997–98

  280

  1998–99

  310

  1999–2000

  270

  2000–01

  310

  Titles covered by these spending figures include daily newspapers, weekly magazines, trade and technical journal and official publications including Hansard. The figures relate solely to central procurement in the central Department and exclude spend managed in the line as well as expenditure on the part of the Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies. Compiling the corresponding data for non-centrally procured material would involve disproportionate cost.

  Transport Infrastructure
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to change the financing of transport infrastructure investment to alter the balance between payment by funders and passengers once it is used and payment up-front. [29794]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In financing transport infrastructure projects we continually examine and keep under review alternative options, to ensure that we are providing taxpayers with value for money, within public expenditure constraints. These matters will be an important part of our review of our 10-Year Plan for Transport, which is being carried out in parallel with work on Spending Review 2002.

  Departmental Sponsorship
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the financial resources and initiatives sponsored by his Department in the last 12 months for Dorset which are additional to the Government SSA grants. [29895]
  187W
  Dr. Whitehead
  For the financial year 2001–02 local authorities in the county of Dorset were provided with the following grants and borrowing approvals:

  Housing

  £

  Authority

  Major repairs allowance (MRA)

  Annual capital guidelines (ACG)

  Disability facilities grant (DFG)

  Christchurch

  0

  291,000

  126,000

  East Dorset

  0

  509,000

  194,000

  North Dorset

  0

  593,000

  98,000

  Purbeck

  826,000

  466,000

  97,000

  West Dorset

  0

  866,000

  199,000

  Weymouth and Portland

  0

  380,000

  122,000

  Transport

  Local Transport allocation to Dorset county council was £8.435 million comprising £2.628 million for integrated transport and £5.807 for maintenance.

  Dorset Rural Bus Subsidy Grant allocation for 2001–02 was £739,801 and we also awarded the county £462,000 grant under the Rural Bus Challenge bidding round for a scheme spanning the financial years 2001–02 to 2003–04.

  Travel Plan Co-ordinators were allocated £30,000 per year, starting June 2001 going though to March 2004.

  Regional Development Agency

  The South West of England Regional Development Agency planned spending for Dorset in 2001–02 totals £1,773,260. This includes some spending in Poole and Bournemouth on its Business Recovery Fund and Skills Development Fund which has not been separated out.

  Local Authority Policies
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what effort he has made to encourage local authorities to be more(a) family friendly and (b) sensitive to caring responsibilities in order to attract and retain women representatives; and if he will make a statement. [29970]

  Dr. Whitehead
  It is for local authorities rather than central Government to establish their own terms and conditions for councillors. We would hope that in doing so they will take into account the need to be family friendly and to attract and retain female councillors, as well as members from all sections of society.

  The Local Authorities (Members' Allowances) Regulations 2001 allow local authorities to pay allowances to members for expenses of arranging for the care of their children or other dependants while carrying out their council duties.

  House Fires
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many people died in house fires in each of the last five years for which figures are available in the age groups(a) 0 to 18, (b) 19 to 40, (c) 41 to 65 and (d) over 65 years. [29752]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The table shows the number of people who have died in dwelling1 fires attended by local authority fire brigades in the United Kingdom from 1996 to 20002.
  188W
  1 Dwellings are defined as buildings occupied by households, excluding hotels, hostels and residential institutions. They include caravans, houseboats and other non-building structures used solely as a permanent dwelling.
  2 2000 data are estimated, and are subject to revision as later information from inquests and death certificates confirming cause of death is received.

  Age group

  Under 18

  19–40

  41–65

  Over 65

  1996

  76

  99

  180

  206

  1997

  68

  113

  145

  234

  1998

  74

  124

  133

  181

  1999

  45

  90

  136

  183

  20002

  40

  87

  140

  172

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many people died in fires in houses of multiple occupation in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [29753]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The table shows the number of people who have died in fires in multiple occupancy dwellings1 attended by local authority fire brigades in the United Kingdom from 1996 to 2000.

  1 Dwellings are defined as buildings occupied by households, excluding hotels, hostels and residential institutions. They also include caravans, houseboats and other non-building structures used solely as a permanent dwelling.

  Number of deaths

  1996

  209

  1997

  201

  1998

  204

  1999

  171

  20001

  153

  1 2000 data are estimated, and are subject to revision as later information from inquests and death certificates confirming cause of death is received.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what action he is taking to reduce the number of fires in houses of multiple occupation. [29754]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Housing (Fire Safety in Houses in Multiple Occupation) Order 1997 requires that local authorities ensure that adequate means of escape and other fire precaution equipment are provided in all houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) of at least three storeys. Local authorities are encouraged to use their discretionary powers to enforce adequate means of escape and other precautions in other types of HMOs. A local authority will not register an HMO under a control scheme applying to its district unless it is satisfied that adequate means of escape from fire and other precautions have been provided.

  The Home Energy Conservation Bill currently before Parliament would provide for a mandatory control scheme for HMOs of certain categories. When parliamentary time allows, all HMOs will be covered by the new housing condition regime, the Housing Health and Safety Ratings System (HHSRS). This risk assessment based system will give greater flexibility to local authorities in dealing with the potential risk of fires in individual HMOs and in enforcing remedies, than under the existing system.
  189W
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many(a) deaths and (b) injuries were caused by fire in domestic homes by constituency in each of the past five years. [30630]

  Deaths and injuries in dwelling1 fires by brigade area, United Kingdom, 1996–2000

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  20002

  Brigade area

  Deaths

  Injuries

  Deaths

  Injuries

  Deaths

  Injuries

  Deaths

  Injuries

  Deaths

  Injuries

  Avon

  3

  167

  4

  174

  4

  178

  8

  189

  4

  177

  Bedfordshire

  6

  49

  3

  53

  4

  71

  1

  52

  5

  66

  Berkshire

  12

  99

  5

  107

  7

  96

  3

  126

  5

  95

  Buckinghamshire

  4

  90

  7

  81

  2

  85

  4

  112

  7

  112

  Cambridgeshire

  9

  120

  4

  125

  2

  135

  3

  113

  3

  108

  Cheshire

  8

  218

  11

  170

  7

  212

  8

  189

  6

  215

  Cleveland

  5

  141

  10

  176

  2

  189

  3

  131

  1

  136

  Cornwall

  1

  86

  6

  74

  3

  76

  3

  66

  4

  99

  Cumbria

  3

  75

  4

  95

  5

  97

  3

  88

  3

  76

  Derbyshire

  5

  184

  7

  156

  8

  152

  7

  132

  9

  145

  Devon

  6

  211

  4

  279

  6

  266

  4

  232

  7

  279

  Dorset

  8

  60

  5

  58

  1

  83

  8

  74

  1

  110

  Durham

  3

  118

  9

  129

  4

  121

  9

  103

  6

  99

  East Sussex

  7

  191

  7

  182

  8

  157

  5

  158

  3

  136

  Essex

  13

  200

  14

  211

  6

  234

  6

  267

  10

  292

  Gloucestershire

  5

  91

  4

  76

  2

  78

  1

  76

  2

  73

  Hampshire

  15

  239

  5

  208

  8

  283

  9

  198

  9

  209

  Hereford and Worcester

  1

  123

  6

  130

  4

  128

  3

  106

  3

  83

  Hertfordshire

  10

  136

  10

  144

  7

  129

  4

  154

  6

  156

  Humberside

  8

  261

  7

  217

  10

  229

  5

  264

  7

  204

  Isle of Wight

  1

  29

  1

  18

  1

  22

  0

  15

  0

  22

  Kent

  12

  239

  7

  268

  5

  278

  5

  244

  9

  234

  Lancashire

  19

  487

  22

  538

  15

  439

  15

  490

  17

  497

  Leicestershire

  10

  123

  4

  147

  9

  125

  3

  93

  4

  117

  Lincolnshire

  4

  100

  2

  84

  7

  77

  3

  101

  4

  78

  Norfolk

  2

  129

  5

  144

  1

  154

  5

  172

  8

  137

  North Yorkshire

  7

  131

  7

  126

  8

  148

  4

  112

  2

  129

  Northamptonshire

  3

  115

  8

  144

  8

  131

  5

  146

  3

  141

  Northumberland

  0

  53

  3

  44

  1

  51

  2

  45

  1

  62

  Nottinghamshire

  11

  241

  16

  324

  10

  257

  8

  295

  3

  287

  Oxfordshire

  10

  125

  4

  76

  8

  121

  5

  155

  1

  135

  Shropshire

  1

  72

  3

  61

  0

  61

  1

  60

  8

  73

  Somerset

  5

  56

  4

  46

  1

  77

  0

  50

  1

  51

  Staffordshire

  7

  218

  10

  233

  8

  305

  7

  241

  8

  211

  Suffolk

  0

  108

  6

  87

  6

  76

  1

  103

  4

  64

  Surrey

  4

  170

  5

  104

  6

  140

  3

  102

  6

  171

  Warwickshire

  1

  51

  2

  57

  4

  36

  2

  57

  6

  59

  West Sussex

  2

  125

  5

  121

  4

  123

  7

  138

  3

  153

  Wiltshire

  7

  76

  4

  81

  0

  100

  1

  79

  0

  77

  Greater Manchester

  24

  1,378

  29

  1,676

  24

  1,761

  29

  1,630

  22

  1,496

  Merseyside

  19

  791

  10

  856

  21

  860

  8

  884

  21

  816

  South Yorkshire

  11

  268

  6

  262

  12

  268

  11

  230

  10

  259

  Tyne and Wear

  12

  370

  5

  428

  16

  361

  5

  324

  5

  347

  West Midlands

  19

  744

  16

  767

  19

  776

  22

  737

  26

  633

  West Yorkshire

  35

  678

  24

  707

  23

  652

  20

  622

  22

  611

  Greater London

  70

  1,540

  92

  1,528

  66

  1,540

  65

  1,426

  45

  1,466

  North Wales

  7

  197

  5

  184

  10

  187

  5

  197

  3

  159

  Mid and West Wales

  8

  133

  9

  197

  5

  189

  5

  239

  14

  261

  South Wales

  18

  334

  16

  394

  15

  369

  11

  380

  8

  359

  Northern Ireland

  7

  503

  26

  488

  24

  443

  27

  431

  13

  417

  Strathclyde

  56

  902

  42

  1,011

  48

  993

  40

  951

  39

  1,050

  Highlands and Islands

  7

  43

  5

  55

  8

  65

  1

  64

  3

  47

  Grampian

  9

  143

  7

  147

  5

  173

  4

  161

  5

  201

  Tayside

  4

  132

  3

  98

  5

  132

  5

  168

  5

  160

  190W
  Dr. Whitehead
  The table shows the number of deaths and injuries in dwelling fires for each local authority brigade area in the United Kingdom from 1996 to 2000. Data are not available centrally below brigade area level; therefore separate figures cannot be supplied for each constituency.
  191W

  Deaths and injuries in dwelling1 fires by brigade area, United Kingdom, 1996–2000

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  20002

  Brigade area

  Deaths

  Injuries

  Deaths

  Injuries

  Deaths

  Injuries

  Deaths

  Injuries

  Deaths

  Injuries

  Lothian and Borders

  6

  312

  8

  351

  2

  317

  14

  453

  12

  350

  Fife

  8

  114

  2

  110

  4

  92

  10

  92

  3

  88

  Central

  6

  67

  4

  59

  2

  60

  3

  86

  0

  71

  Dumfries

  0

  33

  3

  30

  2

  21

  4

  21

  0

  32

  1 Dwellings are defined as buildings occupied by households, excluding hotels, hostels and residential institutions. They also include caravans, houseboats and other non-building structures used solely as a permanent dwelling.

  2 2000 data are estimated, and are subject to revision as later information from inquests and death certificates confirming cause of death is received.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many(a) deaths and (b) injuries were caused by fires in council-owned domestic homes by local authority in each of the past five years. [30631]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what initiatives are being pursued to promote the use of sprinkler systems in domestic houses; and if he will make a statement. [30632]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Government are committed to reducing the number of accidental dwelling fire deaths. To underpin this commitment we have set a target to reduce preventable dwelling fire deaths by 20 per cent, by 31 March 2004. We aim to achieve this reduction through greater efforts in educating householders, by means of publicity campaigns, about what measures they can take to make their home safer from fire.

  It has been our policy for some time that smoke alarms have a vital role to play in saving lives as they provide the vital early warning of fire and therefore help people to escape. Since 1987, when the cost of smoke alarms became affordable at around £5, we have conducted, and will continue to run high profile national and regional television campaigns promoting smoke alarms, which have proved very successful.

  The Government nevertheless recognise that in some cases more direct protection from fire may be appropriate and therefore provides guidance on a range of other fire protection measures, such as domestic sprinklers. The issue of domestic sprinklers is included in the 'Toolbox' of education and publicity material developed by the National Community Fire Safety Centre for use by fire brigades and others. We also plan to produce later this year a publicity leaflet to inform the general public about domestic sprinklers.

  Head of Media
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he received a recommendation for his Department's new head of media; and if he will make a statement on subsequent actions. [30624]
  192W
  Dr. Whitehead
  It is not our practice to disclose details of internal advice, in line with Section 2 of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Train Operating Companies
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much money has been(a) provided in subsidies and (b) received in paybacks from each train operating company in each financial year since April 1995. [30348]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The annual reports of the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) and, prior to 1999, the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising (OPRAF) provide detailed breakdowns of subsidy and performance regime payments by individual train operating companies.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much money received in paybacks from train operating companies in each financial year since April 1995 has been spent on the railways as(a) public resource expenditure, (b) public investment and (c) public expenditure supporting private investment. [30347]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Income from receipts to the Strategic Rail Authority, and formerly to the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising, cannot be attributed to any specific expenditure by those bodies.

  National Rail Summit
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the targets set at the annual national rail summit in each year since 1998; and what progress has been made towards the targets. [30349]

  Mr. Jamieson
  National Rail Summits were held in 1999 and 2000. No targets were set at either summit, although the rail industry offered a number of commitments in 1999. A summary of progress against the 1999 commitments was included in the press notices for the 2000 summit.

  Motorways
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many miles of motorway have been opened in each of the past 10 years. [30225]
  193W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Estimates of the change in the total length of the GB motorway network are given in the table.

  (miles)

  Net change in length of motorway network

  1992

  19.5

  1993

  4.0

  1994

  17.6

  1995

  13.2

  1996

  23.0

  1997

  42.3

  1998

  28.5

  1999

  37.3

  2000

  10.7

  2001

  6.1

  Note:

  A change in road classification can reduce motorway length.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of Britain's motorway network is visible from CCTV and other monitoring cameras. [30235]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State is responsible for motorways in England.

  Approximately a third of this motorway network is visible from CCTV and other monitoring cameras.

  Rail Subsidy
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the public subsidy to the railways per passenger mile in each year since 1997. [30248]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to tables 1.1 and 4.1 of the Strategic Rail Authority's quarterly National Rail Trends bulletin for the historic series on rail passenger kilometres and Government support to the rail industry.

  Standard Spending Assessment (Reigate and Banstead)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will provide written confirmation to the borough of Reigate and Banstead about the revision of its SSA allocation for 2002–03. [30245]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Government's final proposals for distributing formula grant to local authorities for 2002–03 was laid before the House on Monday 28 January and the information on allocations has been made available to local authorities. The House will have a chance to debate the Government's proposals on Wednesday 30 January.

  Automatic Train Protection Systems
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his estimate is of the total cost of introducing automatic train protection systems on the rail network. [30253]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A steering group jointly chaired by the Strategic Rail Authority and Railway Safety is presently evaluating the options for the extension of automatic train protection and their costs.
  194W

  GNER Franchise
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the renewal process for the GNER franchise, post-the two year extension, will begin. [30242]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority will ensure that appropriate arrangements are put in place in good time before the new agreement expires in April 2005.

  Departmental Relocations
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment his Department makes of the impact on the local economy when considering proposals for the relocation of Government Department buildings and buildings used by Government-sponsored agencies. [30438]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Department is carrying out a programme of reviews of its future accommodation needs in each region for its own staff, its agencies and the Government offices for the regions. It is the Department's policy to provide any new accommodation by co-locating such bodies.

  The objectives of a co-location project are to: reduce running costs; increase operational flexibility; increase disposability of accommodation; improve the working environment; promote sustainable development; deliver high quality design; and facilitate joined-up Government. A matrix of detailed criteria, used to evaluate options for co-location, includes the requirement for the new building to attain an "Excellent" BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) rating, to be located in the centre of a town or city with good links to an integrated public transport system and to involve the redevelopment of a brownfield site, if available.

  Each co-location project includes the Government office in the region and they are able to bring into account more detailed issues relating local impact.

  Road Traffic Accidents
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many(a) fatal, (b) severe non-fatal and (c) other non-fatal injuries have been sustained in road traffic accidents by (i) drivers, (ii) passengers, (iii) cyclists and (iv) pedestrians in each of the last 10 years. [30327]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested is shown in the tables.

  (i) Driver and rider1 casualties in Great Britain

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  1991

  1,894

  23,310

  122,048

  1992

  1,815

  21,936

  124,169

  1993

  1,622

  20,504

  125,833

  1994

  1,609

  20,935

  131,168

  1995

  1,613

  20,618

  129,550

  1996

  1,670

  20,427

  137,823

  1997

  1,748

  20,489

  144,700

  1998

  1,712

  19,519

  147,002

  195W

  (i) Driver and rider1 casualties in Great Britain

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  1999

  1,709

  19,058

  146,149

  2000

  1,772

  19,127

  150,224

  1Excludes pedal cycle riders. Includes drivers and riders of all other types of motor and non-motor vehicles.

  (ii) Passenger1 casualties in Great Britain

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  1991

  936

  10,833

  73,500

  1992

  863

  10,684

  74,905

  1993

  765

  9,483

  75,713

  1994

  745

  9,970

  77,398

  1995

  757

  9,902

  76,219

  1996

  728

  9,871

  79,025

  1997

  695

  9,033

  80,901

  1998

  645

  8,586

  79,939

  1999

  672

  8,105

  78,889

  2000

  653

  7,744

  78,118

  1 Excludes passengers on pedal cycles.

  (iii) Pedal cyclist casualties in Great Britain

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  1991

  242

  3,947

  20,628

  1992

  204

  3,788

  20,777

  1993

  186

  3,611

  20,290

  1994

  172

  3,829

  20,838

  1995

  213

  3,754

  20,978

  1996

  203

  3,586

  20,795

  1997

  183

  3,409

  21,044

  1998

  158

  3,154

  19,611

  1999

  172

  3,004

  19,664

  2000

  127

  2,643

  17,842

  (iv) Pedestrian casualties in Great Britain

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  1991

  1,496

  13,528

  39,006

  1992

  1,347

  12,848

  37,417

  1993

  1,241

  11,422

  35,465

  1994

  1,124

  11,806

  35,765

  1995

  1,038

  11,259

  34,786

  1996

  997

  10,615

  34,838

  1997

  973

  10,053

  34,575

  1998

  906

  9,575

  34,405

  1999

  879

  8,955

  33,063

  2000

  857

  8,641

  32,535

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many road traffic accidents there were last year involving children in(a) 30 mph zones and (b) 40 mph zones. [30775]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In Great Britain in 2000 there were 27,731 injury road accidents on roads with a 30 mph speed limit which involved a child casualty. There were 2,151 such accidents on roads with a 40 mph speed limit. These figures include accidents involving children aged under 16 and travelling as any category of road user, including pedestrians, cyclists and passengers.

  Ordnance Survey Trading Fund
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he 196W
  will make it his policy to set up an independent regulator to ensure fair competition in the Ordnance Survey Trading Fund's competitive tendering. [30299]

  Ms Keeble
  No. As a Government Department and Executive Agency Ordnance Survey is already bound by the European Commission Public Procurement Regulations for all contracts over the agreed threshold. In addition, all tenders are subject to UK Government regulations on competitive tendering.

  Construction Industry (Scotland)
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many accidents resulting in(a) fatalities, (b) serious injury and (c) minor injury have taken place in the construction industry in Scotland during (i) 2001, (ii) 2000 and (iii) 1999, broken down by geographical area. [30328]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Local Authority Best Value Regime
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will publish the three-month reassessment of Best Value. [29904]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May).

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the review of Best Value will be completed; and for what reason the original deadline of 31 December 2001 was not met. [30215]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 25 January 2002]: I announced on 1 October 2001 a review of the Best Value regime for local authorities aimed at improving the quality of services. A review group, under the chairmanship of the Minister for Local Government, was set up to take this work forward. I asked the group to report by the end of 2001. In December 2001 the chair of the review group indicated that it had made good progress in a number of areas, but that it would like more time to consider carefully some significant proposals which had been put forward in mid December by members. I agreed to this and hope that the group can complete its work in the near future.

  Speed Cameras
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) how many fixed-site speed cameras operate in the Metropolitan police area. [31021]

  (2) how many safety cameras operating at traffic lights to detect red light running there are in the Metropolitan police area. [31023]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This information is not held centrally.

  Bus Contracts
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many quality bus contracts have been approved and where. [30760]
  197W
  Ms Keeble
  Powers under the Transport Act 2000 relating to quality bus contracts were brought into force in October last year. No local authorities have yet brought forward proposals for quality contract schemes.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list each Health and Safety Executive office building by(a) location and (b) number of people employed. [30962]

  Dr. Whitehead
  HSE properties and staffing are as follows:

  Building

  Location

  HSE staff

  Rose Court

  London

  574

  St. Hugh's House

  Bootle

  172

  St. Anne's House

  Bootle

  127

  St. Peter's House

  Bootle

  258

  Magdalen House

  Bootle

  326

  Daniel House

  Bootle

  320

  Merton House

  Bootle

  92

  Cherry Lane Warehouse

  Bootle

  0

  Belford House

  Edinburgh

  119

  Pegasus House

  Glasgow

  82

  Lord Cullen House

  Aberdeen

  107

  Longman Road

  Inverness

  5

  Sovereign House

  Sheffield

  78

  Marshalls Mill

  Leeds

  112

  Arden House

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  78

  Grove House

  Manchester

  155

  Marshall House

  Preston

  50

  Victoria Place

  Carlisle

  11

  Belgrave House

  Northampton

  64

  Stoneleigh

  Warwickshire

  8

  McLaren Building

  Birmingham

  122

  Pearson Building

  Nottingham

  83

  Intercity House

  Bristol

  61

  Ballard House

  Plymouth

  18

  Darkgate Buildings

  Carmarthen

  11

  Marches House

  Newcastle under Lyme

  50

  Haswell House

  Worcester

  23

  Crown Buildings

  Wrexham

  17

  Government Buildings

  Llanishen

  92

  East Grinstead House

  East Grinstead

  71

  International house

  Ashford

  21

  St. Dunstan's House

  London

  128

  Priestley House

  Basingstoke

  84

  Stinsford Road

  Poole

  6

  Baddow Road

  Chelmsford

  60

  Kiln House

  Norwich

  27

  Thorpe Road

  Norwich

  32

  Cardiff Road

  Luton

  95

  Broad Lane (HSL)

  Sheffield

  1291

  Harpur Hill (HSL)

  Buxton

  2137

  1Including 258 HSL staff

  2 All HSL staff

  Notes:

  1. The HSE staffing figures refer to the HSE permanent staff employed on 1 January 2002.

  2. The figures do not include any contractors' staff or agency staff employed in the building

  Liverpool-Kirkby Tram Scheme
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State
  for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the viability of Merseytravel's proposals for a tram scheme between Liverpool and Kirkby; and if he will make a statement. [30961]
  198W
  Ms Keeble
  My officials are currently considering the appraisal submitted by Merseytravel for a light rail line between Liverpool and Kirkby. I hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Drivers (Smoking)
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his policy is on action to deter or prevent people from smoking while driving a vehicle. [30741]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department has no evidence to indicate that smoking while driving is a significant cause of road traffic accidents. However, the police do have powers to deal with those who fail to maintain control of their vehicles at all times or who drive carelessly or dangerously. Failure to exercise proper control, and careless driving, carry maximum fines of £2,5000. The maximum penalties for dangerous driving are up to two years imprisonment, disqualification and an unlimited fine.

  We will continue to educate drivers about the importance of remaining alert while driving. Rule 126 of the Highway Code deals with safe and responsible driving and highlights the need to concentrate and avoid distractions.

  Bus Lanes
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what consultations he has had with organisations representing(a) pedestrians, (b) cyclists and (c) public transport operators regarding the use of bus lanes by motor cyclists. [31002]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department has had no specific consultation about the use of bus lanes by motorcyclists but is aware of a range of concerns about this use, especially among cyclists' organisations. The Department's advice does not promote motorcycling in bus lanes but we are carrying out research to see whether this should be changed. We would expect to consult organisations representing various road user groups if, following trials, any changes are proposed.

  Road Building Programme
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the effect on the number of(a) fatal and (b) non-fatal accidents of the UK road building programme, for each year up to and including 2010; and if he will make a statement. [31004]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In England, the 10-Year Plan for transport provides the resources to enable central Government, the Highways Agency and local authorities, through their Local Transport Plans, to take action on road safety to support the Government's strategy for achieving its UK road safety targets. These targets are to reduce by 2010 the number of killed or seriously injured in road accidents by 40 per cent., and children by 50 per cent., compared with the average for 1994–98. Road building is expected to make a significant contribution towards achieving these targets. However, in England, local and central Government road building plans are not yet fully defined. In particular, on the strategic road network, the
  199W
  choice of specific schemes will depend on the outcome of the multi-modal studies currently being carried out. The road building programmes for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are devolved matters.

  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the change in traffic as a result of the UK road building programme for each year up to and including 2010. [31005]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In England, the 10-Year Plan for transport includes significant investment in the strategic and local road network to tackle the problems of congestion, pollution, and safety. On the strategic road network in England, the choice of specific schemes will depend on the outcome of the multi-modal studies currently being carried out. But the increased level of investment in trunk roads in England is expected to result in 0.4 per cent, more traffic on all roads and 0.9 per cent, on inter-urban trunk roads in 2010. The 10-Year Plan as a whole is expected to reduce traffic growth in England between 2000 and 2010 from 22 per cent, to 17 per cent, on all roads and from 29 per cent, to 26 per cent, on inter-urban trunk roads. Responsibility for these matters has been devolved in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Executive Committee respectively.

  Aircraft Noise
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions further to his answers of 5 July 2001,Official Report, column 243W, and 23 October 2001, Official Report, column 194W, on aircraft noise and night flights, when he will publish the Government's response to his Department's consultation on the control of noise from civil aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [31066]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Many of the proposals set out in our consultation paper "Control of noise from civil aircraft" (July 2000) concerned enabling powers relating to noise policy issues that will be dealt with in the air transport White Paper. There are also relevant provisions in the recently proposed EC Directive on "the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise related operating restrictions at Community airports". Having examined the responses to the consultation paper in this context, we have decided that it would be more appropriate to announce conclusions on the enabling powers in the White Paper itself.

  Responses to the consultation are available for inspection at the Department's offices. We shall shortly publish a summary.

  Merchant Ships
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure that crews on ships(a) registered in the UK and (b) sailing in UK waters comply with international safety standards. [30748]

  Mr. Jamieson
  International safety standards for seafarers are enshrined in the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping 1978, as revised in 1995, known as STCW 95. Those 200W
  standards are implemented in the UK through the Merchant Shipping (Training and Certification) Regulations 1997 and the Merchant Shipping (Safe Manning, Hours of Work and Watchkeeping) Regulations 1997.

  All Parties to the STCW 95 Convention have until 1 February 2002 to comply with the requirements of the Convention. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) and the Merchant Navy Training Board (MNTB) have worked closely to ensure that all maritime training courses properly reflect STCW 95.

  To comply with the revised international standards, and to revalidate their certificates under STCW 95, seafarers have to undertake further short courses in, for example, Advanced Fire Fighting and Proficiency in Survival Craft and Fast Rescue Boats.

  Seafarers holding foreign Certificates of Competency will only be able to sail on UK registered ships if the country issuing the certificate has been assessed by the MCA to be of STCW 95 standard with training equivalent to that of the UK. The certificates of seafarers on foreign registered ships calling at UK ports are checked as part of the inspections carried out under the Port State Control regime.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he is taking to improve the recruitment rate of merchant ships' officers. [30749]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Recruitment is a matter for the individual shipping companies themselves. There are Government measures, however, to assist and encourage the training and employment of British seafarers. We provide financial support for seafarer training through the Support for Maritime Training (SMarT) scheme. Following a review of SMarT in autumn/winter 2000 and the receipt of EU state aid clearance, additional courses will be included in the scheme and levels of funding will be increased. We introduced the tonnage tax option as part of the Finance Act 2000, a key feature of which is a minimum training obligation. This feature is unique to the UK, and requires each shipping company opting for the tonnage tax to recruit and train one officer trainee each year for every 15 officer posts in its fleet and also give consideration to employment and training opportunities for ratings.

  Train Reliability
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the reliability of each train operating company over the last six months. [31122]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]: Performance figures and commentary are published in the Strategic Rail Authority's six monthly "On Track" publication, copies of which are placed in the Library of the House. The latest edition, published in December 2001, covers the six months from 1 April to 13 October 2001.

  Railway Capacity
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 23 January 2002,Official Report,

  201W
  column 871W, what is the (a) current and (b) expected capacity of the (i) London to Southampton and London to Portsmouth and (ii) Bristol to Portsmouth railway lines; by when the expected capacity will be achieved; and if he will ensure that new franchise arrangements for Island Line provide for effective connections with the London to Portsmouth line, even when its services run late. [31089]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]: There is no simple measure of capacity on the network. The part of the network used by the South West Trains franchise is congested in a few particular areas, especially where lines converge in the approaches to London. Under the proposed new franchise agreement Stagecoach plan a revision of the timetable to permit an increase in the number of trains into Waterloo from September 2003. Some new trains have already been introduced by SWT, providing additional capacity, and a further tranche are due to enter service at the end of 2002. In the longer term work to lengthen platforms will allow longer trains to operate on the Southampton and Portsmouth routes.

  The SRA are developing a franchise proposition for the replacement of the Island Line franchise. The authority are well aware of the importance of connections between trains, ferries and buses.

  Combined Fire Authorities
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will take steps to separate precepting for combined fire authorities. [31282]

  Dr. Whitehead
  We announced at paragraph 6.53 of Part II of the Local Government White Paper "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services", published on 11 December, proposals to take the legislative steps necessary to make combined fire authorities in England major precepting authorities. A copy of the White Paper is in the Library and is also available on the DTLR website: http://www.local-regions.dtlr.gov.uk/sll/index.htm.

  Rail Services (Romford)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on rail services to Romford since June 2001. [29448]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) does not monitor performance by route group. However, the SRA's public performance measure indicates that 85.6 per cent, of First Great Eastern services, which include services to and from Romford, arrived at their destination within five minutes of timetable between July and october 2001. As part of the SRA's franchise replacement process it is intended that the First Great Eastern franchise will form part of a new Greater Anglia franchise from 2004. This will provide an opportunity for the Strategic Rail Authority to secure improvements in performance and quality of service for passengers.

  Air Transport Industry (Insurance Costs)
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the level of insurance costs imposed on the air transport industry following the events of 11 September. [31285]
  202W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government are aware that following the events of 11 September there has been a significant increase in the cost of insurance for the air transport industry. This is primarily a commercial matter, and we would expect the increased premia to be passed on to users of air transport services in the normal way.

  In the case of third-party war and terrorism risks there was a market failure, with the insurance industry withdrawing cover above minimum levels in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks. In response the Government intervened to guarantee levels of cover for airlines up to the amounts held prior to 11 September, with similar arrangements for airports and ground service providers. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has recently announced that this scheme, as subsequently amended, will be carried over till 20 March 2002.

  Liquefied Petroleum Gas
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the numbers of(a) private and (b) commercial vehicles running on LPG fuel in (a)1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000, (e) 2001, (f) 2002 and (g)2003. [31278]

  Mr. Jamieson
  DVLA statistics do not provide a breakdown by fuel type, only vehicles that are dedicated gas or petrol/gas combinations. The following table shows the number of vehicles that are dedicated gas or petrol/gas combination, by tax class as they do not distinguish between private and commercial usage. DVLA statistics also do not distinguish between Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) and Natural Gas vehicles. However, cars and light commercial vehicles tend to use LPG, while heavier vehicles use natural gas:

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Private and Light Goods

  6,689

  10,121

  14,421

  21,098

  23,533

  Buses

  31

  53

  97

  121

  140

  Goods vehicles

  75

  93

  141

  171

  227

  Special vehicles

  1,327

  1,281

  1,31

  1,394

  1,413

  Other vehicles

  965

  986

  1,041

  1,184

  1,381

  Total

  9,087

  12,534

  17,010

  23,968

  26,694

  But this understates the number of vehicles because not all conversions to alternative fuelling are notified to DVLA.

  There are currently estimated to be around 50,000 LPG vehicles in the UK. Motorists are converting to LPG at an increasing rate, with the number expected to increase by about 25,000 per year over the next two years, prompted by the Government grants available, and the fact that low-cost LPG fuel is now available in all areas of the country.

  Community Transport Schemes
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he plans to announce the funding arrangements that will apply to community transport schemes in south Gloucestershire for April 2002. [31258]
  203W
  Ms Keeble
  South Gloucestershire council is able to bid for Government funding to support community transport schemes under either the urban or rural bus challenge competitions. In addition, funding allocated to it from the rural bus subsidy grant scheme may be used for continuing support of a project initially supported by a rural bus challenge award.

  The results of the latest round of the Rural Bus Challenge, including an award of £578,827 to the authority for the continuation of the Vale Link and Yate and Sobbury community transport schemes in south Gloucestershire, were announced on 25 January.

  We will be introducing shortly arrangements under which for the first time a wide range of community transport services will become eligible for the receipt of fuel duty rebate.

  Highways Agency
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the Highways Agency Business Plan for 2002–03 will be published; and what targets he has set. [31848]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Highways Agency's Business Plan, which contains the targets set for 2002–03, will be published tomorrow. A copy will be placed in the House Library.

  These targets are:
  In order to deliver best value for money, maintain the network so that the proportion requiring maintenance within the next year is held between 7 per cent, and 8 per cent.
  98 per cent, of lanes available at all times.
  90 per cent, of routine maintenance done outside of peak hours.
  complete the remaining congestion Early Action schemes in the programme.
  Achieve at least 48 of 51 major scheme milestones.
  Reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured on trunk roads in 2002–03 by at least 555 to 4,436 (compared with the 1994–98 average of 4,991).
  Reduce the slight casualty rate to no more than 21.41 slight casualties per hundred million vehicle kilometres (compared with the 1994–98 average of 22.14).
  Complete the remaining safety Early Action schemes in the programme.
  Introduce a national HA Traffic Control Centre.
  Achieve an average score of no less than 7.5 on the agency's Road User Satisfaction survey (on a scale of 1–10 with one being extremely poor and 10 being extremely good).
  Install automatic hold up warning systems on at least 200 km of motorway length.
  Achieve an average of at least 95 per cent, across four environmental sub-indicators.
  Percentage of residential properties owned that are vacant not to exceed 15 per cent, of the residential portfolio.
  Percentage of vacant habitable properties empty for more than six months at the end of the year not to exceed 3 per cent, of the residential portfolio.

  Town and Country Planning
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many notifications the Environment Agency has received from(a) Buckinghamshire county council and (b) Aylesbury
  204W
  Vale district council under the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995. [30060]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  In the period from 1 January to 31 December 2001 the Environment Agency has been consulted under the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 21 times by Buckinghamshire county council, and 87 times by Aylesbury Vale district council.

PRIME MINISTER

  Data Privacy and Sharing
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Prime Minister when he intends to publish the PIU report on data privacy and sharing. [31503]

  The Prime Minister
  The Performance and Innovation Unit's report on privacy and data sharing will be published in due course.

  Crime Reduction
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) of 9 January 2002,Official Report, column 539, if he will publish the text of the letter to which he referred and state whether it had been (a) drafted, (b) signed and (c) sent at the time of his answer. [31267]

  The Prime Minister
  The letter from my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), the Minister of State, Home Office, to which I referred on 9 January, had been written, signed personally by the Minister and a copy sent to the newspaper concerned at the time of my answer. A copy of the letter is being placed in the Library.

  Whittington Hospital
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister,pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Green) of 23 January 2002,Official Report, column 880, if he will (a) give the name and title of the author or authors of the letter to which he refers, (b) publish the text and (c) state what assistance in the drafting of the letter was (i) offered by and (ii) received from Government officials, including special advisers and NHS press officers. [31266]

  The Prime Minister
  The letter referred to is the property of the Whittington hospital NHS trust. I note that the letter sent by the trust to the Evening Standard was published on 24 January.

  No Government officials, including special advisers, gave any assistance in the drafting of this letter. NHS press officers are employed, and report to, the trusts themselves.

  Saville Inquiry
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) of 16 January 2002,Official Report, column 289, if the cost he quoted of the inquiry

  205W
  included (a) the cost to the Ministry of Defence, (b) the anticipated future costs to the Northern Ireland Office, (c) the cost of Lord Saville's salary and (d) the cost of legal aid; and if he will make a statement of the total cost (i) to date and (ii) which is anticipated. [31268]

  The Prime Minister
  The figure of £52 million in my previous answer was the expenditure by the inquiry to 7 January 2002. That cost is met by the Northern Ireland Office. For the anticipated future cost, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) on 17 December 2001,Official Report, column 40W.

  For details of the cost to the Ministry of Defence, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Minister of State for the armed forces to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) on 14 January 2002, Official Report, columns 2–3W. Other Departments have incurred some costs as a result of a relatively small amount of staff time being deployed on these issues.

  Lord Saville continues to receive his salary as a Law Lord, which is met from the Consolidated Fund.

  No expenditure has fallen to the budget of the Legal Aid scheme in Northern Ireland as a result of the Bloody Sunday inquiry.

  Golden Jubilee
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on plans for celebrating the 50th anniversary of Her Majesty the Queen's Accession to the Throne. [31611]

  The Prime Minister
  I welcome this opportunity, on behalf of the whole nation, to offer the warmest congratulations to the Queen on the 50th anniversary of her Accession, and to express gratitude for half a century of devoted service to the people of the United Kingdom.

  I announced on 23 November 2001, Official Report, column 294W, that Her Majesty will attend a National Thanksgiving Service in St. Paul's Cathedral on Tuesday 4 June 2002. That day will be a bank holiday in place of the spring bank holiday, which would otherwise fall on 27 May. Monday 3 June will be an additional bank holiday for the Golden Jubilee.

  On 22 June 2001, Official Report, column 7W, I announced the main features of the Queen's United Kingdom programme of Golden Jubilee visits and on 3 August my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport announced in a news release the main celebrations planned in central London over the Golden Jubilee weekend of 1 to 4 June 2002.

  I am pleased to be able to announce the programme of visits and other events throughout the United Kingdom from May to August this year, which will be undertaken by Her Majesty and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, to mark the Golden Jubilee.

  As I announced on 22 June 2001, the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh will be travelling as widely as possible around the United Kingdom during this year, including visits to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, although
  206W
  they will not be able to visit all cities and counties. However, their itinerary will enable them to meet as many people as possible throughout the country.

  The programme is as follows:
  29 April—the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh will attend a Dinner at No. 10 Downing street
  30 April—the Queen, accompanied by the Duke of Edinburgh, will attend a Session of the Joint Houses of Parliament in Westminster Hall at which Her Majesty will address both Houses

  South West of England (Cornwall, Devon, Somerset and Bath)

  1 May—Falmouth; Trelissick; Truro; Exeter

  2 May—Taunton; Wells; Bath

  North East of England (Tyne and Wear and County Durham)

  7 May—Sunderland; Gateshead; Newcastle

  8 May—Durham; Darlington; Stockton (the Duke of Edinburgh)

  9 May—East London

  South East of England (Buckinghamshire and Berkshire)

  10 May—Aylesbury; Marlow; Bisham Abbey

  16–17 May—the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh will attend the Royal Windsor Horse Show

  18 May—the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh will take the Salute at "All the Queen's Horses", Royal Windsor Horse Show

  20 May—the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh will attend the Chelsea Flower Show

  21 May—the Queen, accompanied by the Duke of Edinburgh, will open the new Queen's Gallery, Buckingham Palace

  22 May—the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh will attend an Arts Reception at the Royal Academy, London

  Scotland

  23 May—the Queen, accompanied by the Duke of Edinburgh, will attend a Scottish Service of Thanksgiving at Glasgow Cathedral

  24 May—Falkirk; Edinburgh (including a Reception in the Palace of Holyroodhouse)

  25 May—the Queen, accompanied by the Duke of Edinburgh, will open the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, Edinburgh; the Queen will also host a Garden Party at the Palace of Holyroodhouse

  26 May—the Queen, accompanied by the Duke of Edinburgh, will attend the General Assembly Service, St. Giles Cathedral,Edinburgh

  27 May—Isle of Skye; Isle of Lewis; Wick

  28 May Aberdeen (including a visit to the Scottish Parliament, sitting at King's College Conference Centre, Aberdeen University); Dundee

  29 May—Lauder Melrose

  Jubilee Weekend

  1 June—the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh will host the Queen's Concert (Classical Concert) in the Gardens at Buckingham Palace

  2 June—the Queen, accompanied by the Duke of Edinburgh, will attend a Jubilee Church Service, St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle

  3 June—Windsor and Slough

  3 June—the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh will host the Queen's Concert (Pop Concert) in the Gardens at Buckingham Palace, after which Her Majesty will light a National Beacon in the Mall and view a fireworks display

  207W

  4 June—the Queen, accompanied by the Duke of Edinburgh, will attend a National Service of Thanksgiving at St. Paul's Cathedral, after a Ceremonial Procession from Buckingham Palace

  4 June—the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh will attend a lunch hosted by the Lord Mayor and the Corporation of London at Guildhall in the City of London

  4 June—the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh will attend the Golden Jubilee Festival in the Mall

  4 June—the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh will make a Balcony Appearance at Buckingham Palace and watch a Royal Air Force Fly Past

  6 June—North London, followed by a Garden Party at Lambeth
  Palace

  South East of England (West Sussex)

  7 June—South of England Show, Ardingly

  10 June—the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh will give a Reception for Representatives of Different Faiths at Buckingham Palace

  Wales

  11 June—Anglesey; Colwyn Bay

  the Queen, accompanied by the Duke of Edinburgh, will attend a Welsh Service of Thanksgiving at Bangor Cathedral

  12 June—Dolau; Llanelli; Margam Park

  13 June—Bridgend; Rhondda Valley; Newport; Cardiff (including a visit to the National Assembly for Wales)

  15 June—the Queen, accompanied by the Duke of Edinburgh, will take the Salute at Her Majesty's Birthday Parade, Horseguards

  17 June—the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh will attend the Service of the Order of the Garter at St. George's Chapel,Windsor

  17 June—the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh will give a Dinner for European Sovereigns, Windsor Castle

  18–22 June—the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh will attend Royal Ascot

  25 June—West London

  26 June—the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh will give a Dinner for Representatives of the Armed Forces, Windsor Castle

  27 June—the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh will visit the
  Armed Forces, Portsmouth and visit Portsmouth

  208W
  West Midlands (West Midlands, Staffordshire and Warwickshire)

  2 July—Solihull; Birmingham

  3 July—Burton upon Trent; Stoneleigh

  4 July—South London

  5 July—the Queen, accompanied by the Duke of Edinburgh, will attend a Parade in the Gardens of Buckingham Palace for all Her Majesty's Body Guards and the In-Pensioners of the Royal Hospital Chelsea

  9 July—the Queen, accompanied by the Duke of Edinburgh, will present Medals to the winners of the Queen's Golden Jubilee Poetry Competition for Schools, at Buckingham Palace

  9 July—the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh will give a Garden Party in the Gardens of Buckingham Palace, when guests will include those born on Accession Day

  Yorkshire (West Yorkshire and the East Riding of Yorkshire)

  11 July—Leeds; Wakefield (the Duke of Edinburgh); Bradford (the Duke of Edinburgh); Harewood House (Festival)

  12 July—Beverley

  16 July—the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh will give a Garden Party in the Gardens of Buckingham Palace, when guests will include young people born since the 1977 Silver Jubilee

  East Anglia (Suffolk and Norfolk)

  17 July—Ipswich; Stowmarket; Bury St. Edmund's

  18 July—Great Yarmouth (the Duke of Edinburgh); Norwich

  18 July—the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh will give a Garden Party for Norfolk at Sandringham House

  23 July—the Queen, accompanied by the Duke of Edinburgh, will open the new Greater London Authority building

  23 July—the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh will attend a Gala at Covent Garden

  North West of England (Cheshire, Greater Manchester, Merseyside and opening the Commonwealth Games in Manchester)

  24 July—Macclesfield; Greater Manchester

  25 July—Liverpool; open Commonwealth Games, Greater Manchester

  26 July—Visit Commonwealth Games venues, Greater Manchester

  30 July—the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh will give a Garden Party in the Gardens of Buckingham Palace, when guests will include representatives of charities of which Her Majesty and His Royal Highness are Patron

  East Midlands (Lincolnshire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and Leicestershire)

  31 July—Scunthorpe; Nottingham

  1 August—Leicester; Derby

  4 August—Close Commonwealth Games in Manchester

  North West of England (Lancashire and Cumbria)

  5 August—Preston; Carlisle

  5 August—the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh will attend the Edinburgh Tattoo, Edinburgh Castle

  7 August—the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh will give a Garden Party at Balmoral Castle.

  These details, together with further information about other confirmed Golden Jubilee celebrations and events can be found on the searchable calendar of events being launched today on the official Golden Jubilee website at http://www.goldenjubilee.gov.uk/. The British Monarchy website at http://www.royal/gov.uk/ also has details of the Queen's programme and other royal engagements. These will be updated throughout the year as confirmation of events is received.
  209W

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Portcullis House
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what the policy of the Committee is towards the supply of clocks for hon. Members' rooms and those of their staff in Portcullis House; and what advice has been received from the architect of the building. [29452]

  Derek Conway
  Clocks are not provided for hon. Members' rooms or those of their staff in Portcullis House as there are several displays of the time in every office. As far as I am aware, advice was not sought from the architect.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee how many clocks have been purchased for installation in hon. Members' rooms and those of their staff in Portcullis House; and at what cost. [29450]

  Derek Conway
  I refer the right hon. and learned Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin) on 24 January 2002,Official Report, column 1002W.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what contractual limits have been placed by the architect on the use of Portcullis House by hon. Members and their staff. [29449]

  Derek Conway
  No contractual limits have been placed on the use of Portcullis House by the architect; its use is a matter for the authorities of the House.

  The House has, however, awarded a five-year commission with Michael Hopkins and Partners to provide advice on design issues when major changes are under consideration and, when appropriate, to carry out design work. In this way the House will best be able to retain the design integrity of this landmark building while making any adaptations necessary to meet long-term needs.

  Offices
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee if hon. Members and their staff are entitled to configure their offices in accordance with their personal preferences. [29451]

  Derek Conway
  Any requests for reconfiguration of offices are considered on their merits. As a general rule, rearrangement of the loose furniture or provision of additional furniture from the standard range would usually be carried out where this presented no risks to health and safety and was available at a sustainable cost. More fundamental work, such as alterations to the fitted furniture, location of doors or arrangement of services, where this would be solely to meet the preference of the current occupant, would not be carried out.

  If the right hon. and learned Member has any specific concerns, I would invite him to discuss them with the Serjeant at Arms.

  Golden Jubilee
  John Mann
  To ask the President of the Council what plans there are for a parliamentary celebration of the Queen's Golden Jubilee. [29295]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I am pleased to announce that, subject to approval by each House, it is proposed that Addresses be presented to Her Majesty on the morning of 30 April by both Houses of Parliament to celebrate her Golden Jubilee, in Westminster Hall. Further details will be announced in due course.

  Mr. John Stonborough
  David Winnick
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, how much Mr. John Stonborough will be paid. [30877]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]: Mr. Stonborough is a contractor, not a salaried employee. The House does not publish commercially-sensitive contractual details.

  David Winnick
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what role Mr. John Stonborough will play in the press presentation of the next Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. [30878]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]: Mr. Stonborough is available to advise the House of Commons Commission on all aspects of its media relations, including the appointment of a Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. His advice is given in confidence.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Sport
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Education about the encouragement of competitive sport in schools. [31174]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has regular meetings with her counterpart at the Department for Education and Skills and numerous topics are discussed, including competitive sport in schools. The School Sport Co-ordinators network, in particular, will be working with schools and clubs on competition structures that will increase opportunities for children to engage in competitive sport.

  Horserace Betting Levy Scheme
  Jeff Emu's
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement about the determination of the 41st horserace betting levy scheme. [31818]

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) whether it is her policy that the new funding scheme for the horse racing levy will be based on the sale of pictures and data to bookmakers; [30863]

  (2) when a decision is expected on a new levy scheme for the horse racing industry. [30864]
  211W
  Tessa Jowell
  As the Horserace Betting Levy Board was unable to accept the Bookmakers' Committee's recommendations for the 41st levy scheme the matter, under statute, was referred to me to determine.

  In considering the next scheme I have taken into account submission from the Chairman and independent members of the Levy Board, the Bookmakers' Committee, and the British Horseracing Board. In the interests of fairness and openness, these bodies were also given the opportunity to comment on each others' submissions.

  I have also taken account of independent advice from Organisation Consulting Partnership on those submissions. A copy of their report is being placed in the Library and is being sent to those who provided submissions.

  The criteria which customarily apply to the setting of levy schemes include the needs of horseracing and the capacity of bookmakers to pay. I can confirm that I have sought to reflect these considerations in reaching a view about how much bookmakers should be required to contribute in order to enable the Levy Board to give effect to the improvement of horseracing and its other statutory purposes.

  The exercise of my responsibility to determine the 41st scheme has been made difficult by uncertainties currently facing the betting and racing industries. These include the effect of the introduction of a gross profits tax on betting, and the potential income for racing from its proposed sale of picture and data rights to bookmakers.

  As to the former, it is difficult to judge the extent to which changes in bookmakers' turnover on horseracing betting will be reflected in their gross profits on that business. Although all recent levy schemes have been based on turnover it appears to me that, in current circumstances, it is not necessarily the fairest or most reliable indication of bookmakers' ability to pay the levy.

  In all the circumstances, I am therefore minded to determine the 41st scheme on the basis of off-course bookmakers paying an average of 9 per cent, of their gross profits on horseracing betting. (As on-course bookmakers will not be directly affected by the tax changes I am minded to continue the flat fee arrangements of the 40th levy scheme). My officials will be working with the Levy Board so that the details of the scheme can be confirmed and promulgated in time for it to take effect from 1 April.

  As to the sale of picture and data rights, it must be a cause of considerable disappointment that a full measure of agreement on the commercial terms which should apply has not yet been reached. Against this background of uncertainty and outstanding legal disputes I do not feel able to accept the Bookmakers' Committee argument that the 41st scheme should require only a nominal contribution from bookmakers from 1 May 2002. I have, however, taken account of the commitment from the British Horseracing Board that any payments in respect of
  212W
  licences to use pictures or data which are purchased by that date will be offset against levy payments which the bookmakers concerned are liable to make thereafter.

  As a result of these uncertainties it is hard to forecast how much the 41st scheme, determined in this way, will yield; but, on the basis of forecasts previously provided by the betting industry, it would be in a range from £90 million to £105 million in 2002–03. A lower yield would reflect a lower level of profits. The scheme should enable both the betting and racing industries as well as punters themselves to share in the benefits flowing from the new tax regime; and enable the Levy Board to meet its own liabilities.

  We would like to encourage the betting and racing industries to develop a modern relationship as business partners and move away from an adversarial approach. The levy scheme which I am minded to determine will give them a shared interest in developing their businesses to their mutual benefit. It is, however, clear that the levy system as a whole is flawed, and should not be needed if satisfactory commercial agreements between the parties can be made to work. We remain committed to its abolition, when parliamentary time permits.

  East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis).

  Football
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she last met representatives of the Football Association to discuss progress with proposals for a new national stadium at Wembley; and if she will make a statement. [29748]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last met representatives of The Football Association on 13 December 2001. Since then and following her announcement to the House on 19 December 2001,Official Report, columns 291–93, DCMS officials have been working closely with The Football Association, WNSL and Sport England to monitor progress on the National Stadium project.

  Golden Jubilee
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to her answer of 21 January 2002,Official Report, column 624W, on the Golden Jubilee, what activities will take place during the Jubilee Weekend of 1–4 June. [30371]

  Tessa Jowell
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 31 October 2001,Official Report, columns 758–59W.Further details will be announced as they become available.

  Christian Broadcasting
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions she has had with representatives of Christian organisations on the subject of broadcasting. [31261]
  213W
  Dr. Howells
  Ministers have had no recent meetings with representatives of Christian organisations.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will (1) review broadcasting legislation to redefine access for Christian broadcasting stations; [31263]

  (2) make a statement on what reasons there are for preventing the setting up of Christian radio and television stations. [31262]

  Dr. Howells
  The regulators have licensed a number of Christian radio and television stations using their discretion under the Broadcasting Act 1990 to award local analogue, satellite and cable sound programme and cable and satellite television service licences to religious bodies.The Broadcasting Acts do not permit them to award licences for national analogue, national digital or local digital sound programme and terrestrial analogue and terrestrial digital television services.

  I am reviewing broadcasting legislation in the light of responses to the recent "Consultation on Media Ownership Rules" which announced that the Government will bring forward legislation to allow religious bodies to hold a local digital sound programme licence. The paper also invited views on whether the restrictions on ownership of other terrestrial licences by religious bodies should be relaxed, and we are currently considering the responses. The Government will publish details of its proposals in the draft Communications Bill which we expect to publish this spring.

DEFENCE

  Project Falcon
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what budget cuts have been made to Project Falcon; and if he will make a statement. [31101]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 9 January 2002,Official Report, column 825 to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne).

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if down selection for the Falcon project will be made on the basis of the original specifications set out in November 2000; and if he will make a statement; [28726]

  (2) what role the new study required by 4 February will play in the down selection for Falcon; and if he will make a statement. [28727]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are no plans for the supplementary Falcon study to play a role in the current down selection process.

  The current work on Falcon is examining a possible reduction in the number of competing consortia prior to the assessment phase but competition will continue. The down selection is being conducted on the basis of the original capability requirement set out in November 2000.
  214W
  In keeping with the principles of Smart Acquisition, capability requirements may evolve to ensure that trade-offs between time, cost and performance are used to provide the best value for money and reflect user needs—final down selection to a single supplier will therefore take place against a requirement developed on this basis.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to ensure that capabilities of the Falcon system remain as specified in the operational requirements issued in November 2000. [28719]

  Dr. Moonie
  A key element of Smart Acquisition is an evolutionary requirements process that reflects the need to trade between time, cost and performance. Therefore, the Falcon capability requirement may evolve from that set out in November 2000, to ensure delivery of the most effective solution within cost and time constraints. We will, however, ensure that the competing consortiums are kept fully informed of the requirements against which their bids are being assessed.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what capacity for battlefield integrated system applications Falcon is specified to support; and if he will make a statement. [28721]

  Dr. Moonie
  Project Falcon will provide an operational level communications infrastructure. As such, it will support the transfer of data generated from any Battlefield Information System Application being developed as part of the Land Digitisation process.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the specification for the Falcon system will retain the requirement to avoid a single point of failure. [28720]

  Dr. Moonie
  We have defined Falcon system failure in capability terms by stating a required service availability, so providing contractors with the freedom to deliver efficient and effective solutions within time and cost constraints.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the down selection for the Falcon project will be made. [28722]

  Dr. Moonie
  We are currently examining a possible reduction in the number of competing consortia prior to the assessment phase. This initial down selection process is due to report in February 2002. In accordance with the principles of Smart Acquisition, it is planned that subsequent down selection to a single supplier will take place following completion of the assessment phase.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provision has been made to adapt AFV 432 vehicles to carry the Falcon system; and if he will make a statement. [28723]

  Dr. Moonie
  There is no specific requirement for AFV 432s to carry the Falcon system. In the longer term, Falcon will be incorporated into armoured vehicles and this process will be aligned with plans to deliver new armoured fighting vehicles.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what encryption system has been specified as part of the Falcon project; and if he will make a statement. [28725]
  215W
  Dr. Moonie
  The Falcon project includes plans to develop a new generation encryption system to enable secure communication. The precise encryption system requirement has not yet been confirmed.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provision is being made to integrate the Apache attack helicopter into the Falcon system; and if he will make a statement. [28728]

  Dr. Moonie
  On current plans, the secure voice and data communications infrastructure provided by Falcon will include Apache attack helicopter ground support facilities.

  Defence Estates
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to achieve the 10 per cent, improvement in the condition of defence estates. [30833]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Strategy for the Defence Estate "In Trust and on Trust" sets out a provisional goal to demonstrate improvements in estate condition of at least 10 per cent, by 2005.

  "The Stewardship Report on the Defence Estate 2001", which was published on 22 January, shows the baseline against which magnitudes of change year on year can be judged and reported. The report is available on the Ministry of Defence website www.mod.uk

  Animal Experiments
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many animal experiments were carried out at Porton Down in the last year for which figures are available. [31205]

  Dr. Moonie
  Dstl Porton Down submits annual returns to the Home Office detailing the number of procedures undertaken which involve the use of animals.

  In the year 2000 a total of 11,985 procedures were returned to the Home Office. The figures for 2001 are expected to be available late February 2002.

  NIBAT 2 Accommodation (Dungannon)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans exist to upgrade NIBAT 2 accommodation at Dungannon; and if he will make a statement. [31488]

  Dr. Moonie
  A contract has been let for installation of a number of additional portable accommodation units at Killymeal House, Dungannon to augment the current accommodation and improve the quality of life for the soldiers of NIBAT 2 who are stationed there on a six month roulement tour. In addition, existing accommodation is currently being painted and some minor refurbishment work is being undertaken, again to improve the quality of life for those stationed at Dungannon.

  A400M
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he had with the German Defence Minister on the subject of the A400M during the meeting in Ashfield on Friday 18 January. [31290]
  216W
  Dr. Moonie
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and the German Defence Minister, Herr Scharping, discussed a range of topics in a routine meeting held at East Midlands airport on Friday 18 January, including progress towards securing final Bundestag approval of the A400M programme. They both expressed the hope that this issue will be resolved quickly.

  Common Missile Programme
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the Common Missile Programme Memorandum of Understanding. [31100]

  Dr. Moonie
  Yes.

  Pensions
  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the latest estimate of the total cost of refunding tax to those retired Army personnel or their widows and widowers who are, or were, in receipt of a service invalidity pension. [31696]

  Dr. Moonie
  In my statement to the House of 23 January 2002,Official Report, columns 891–902, I estimated the total cost of refunding wrongly taxed Army pensioners at around £30 million. The latest Inland Revenue estimate is that, to date, it has refunded in the order of £6.5 million to eligible pensioners or their spouses. We believe that the majority of these pensioners or their spouses have already been identified but we recognise that there may be some beneficiaries eligible to claim where the pensioner is deceased. It is not easy to establish their number or the cost attached to such claims. Nonetheless, I would not expect the total to exceed £30 million, and based on the repayments that have been made to all of the cases that have been identified it is likely to be significantly less. Of those so far identified as having wrongly paid tax, only 14 have not yet had refunds.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the cost to the Armed Forces Pension Scheme of increases to future pension payments to bring them to the level which would have applied but for the pay restraint policy in the mid 1970s. [28724]

  Mr. Ingram
  A number of previous Governments have operated pay restraint policies that have affected the pensions of all public servants retiring at the time. No estimate has been made of the costs of increases to future payments to remedy these effects or that specifically relating to the pay restraint policy in the mid-1970s. Periods of "trough" are not clearly defined and we therefore see major difficulties in costing any remedial measures. Nonetheless, for the information of veterans organisations, we are looking to see whether it would be practicable to give a broad estimate of the costs that might be involved for the major periods at issue. However, it has been the policy of successive Governments that retrospective action to redress such issues would not be appropriate and we do not plan to change this policy.
  217W

  Armed Forces Pay Review Body
  Paul Farrclly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the report and recommendations of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. [31723]

  Mr. Hoon
  The 2002 Report of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body has been published today. Copies of the report are available in the Vote Office and the Library of the House. I wish to express my thanks to the Chairman and members of the Review Body for their clear and wide-ranging report.

  The AFPRB has recommended an increase in basic military salary of 3.7 per cent, for the majority of personnel and 4.2 per cent, for privates, lance corporals, captains and majors. The AFPRB has also recommended increases in the rates of additional pay (eg flying pay, submarine pay and diving pay) and in charges. The AFPRB has also recommended two Financial Retention Incentives to help address the issues identified by the Comprehensive Review of Aircrew Retention undertaken with HM Treasury and external consultants last year.

  The additional cost to the Defence budget will be £236 million. This will be met within existing departmental expenditure limits.

  The AFPRB's recommendations are to be accepted in full, with implementation effective from 1 April 2002.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions the Armed Forces Pay Review Body has taken into account the non-pensionability of specialist pay when setting rates of specialist pay in each of the last five years. [28718]

  Mr. Ingrain
  As with all the areas covered by its remit, the Armed Forces Pay Review Body recommends the rate it believes appropriate in the light of all the evidence and its terms of reference.

  Export Licences
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how the MOD Form 680 procedure functions; and how it relates to final licensing decisions; [29436]

  (2) how many export licence applications were considered under the MOD Form 680 procedure in each of the past five years; and how many received a positive response; [29437]

  (3) what proportion and how many of arms export licence applications approved by the Arms Working Party under the MOD Form 680 procedure were subsequently refused an export licence in each of the past five years. [29438]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 23 January 2002]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 14 January 2002, Official Report, column 57W to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner).

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment was given to sustainable development when the sale of the BAE Systems air-traffic control system to Tanzania was considered by the Arms Working Party under the MOD form 680 procedure. [28300]
  218W
  Mr. Moonie
  In July 1997, when the assessment took place, sustainable development was not a specific factor to be taken into account when considering F680 applications, although the impact on the economy of the recipient country was. Sustainable Development was included in the EU Code of Conduct on arms exports that came into effect in June 1998. However, as the F680 application for the Air Traffic Control System for Tanzania did not include cost information it would have been difficult to take any impact related specifically to the financing of the equipment into account.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the sale of the BAE Systems air-traffic control system to Tanzania was first raised with the Arms Working Party under the MOD Form 680 procedure. [28298]

  Dr. Moonie
  Siemens Plessey Electronic systems (now part of Alenia Marconi Systems) first submitted an F680 application relating to the supply of radar equipment to Tanzania in February 1993. A further application was submitted in July 1997, following a change to the specification of the original requirement.

  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the date was of the first involvement of the Department for International Development in considerations of the Tanzanian air traffic control system. [29444]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 23 January 2002]: The then Overseas Development Agency first heard of the proposal to sell air traffic control equipment to Tanzania in 1992. The Department for International Development (DFID) was first aware of an export licence application for the Tanzanian air traffic control system in 1997.

  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment was made by the Arms Working Party under the MOD Form 680 procedure of the adequacy of the Tanzanian air traffic control system for civilian purposes; and what the conclusions were. [29442]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 23 January 2002]: I am withholding this information under Exemptions 2 and 13 (Internal discussion and advice; and third party commercial confidences respectively) of Part II of the Government's Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State forDefence what the characteristics were of the Tanzanian air traffic control system that meant it should be considered by the Arms Working Party under the MOD Form 680 procedure. [29441]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 23 January 2002]: The F680 process is an informal process under which companies can obtain advice on the prospects for the approval of exports at the marketing stage. Any goods that are subject to Strategic Export Controls are eligible for consideration under this procedure.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent assessment he has made of the need for additional warm weather clothing and footwear for soldiers deployed in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [26641]
  219W
  Mr. Ingram
  After monitoring the climatic conditions in Afghanistan we issued a cold weather-clothing supplement to all troops deploying with the International Security Assistance Force. This supplement to Soldier 95 includes warmer and windproof clothing as well as boots more suitable for colder weather.

  As with all operations, we will continue monitoring the climatic conditions and make the necessary changes to the equipment issued.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the safety of the first contingent of Royal Marines to be flown in to Bagram in Afghanistan in November 2001 while they were being deployed. [31106]

  Mr. Hoon
  My overriding concern is for the safety of British forces deployed in any theatre of operations. Although conditions on the ground at the time were fluid, I was satisfied that the deployment could proceed at manageable risk. The deployment entirely fulfilled its objectives.

  Type 45 Destroyers
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if a decision has been made on which of the companies down selected for the supply of the medium frequency sonar for the Type 45 destroyers will be chosen; on what basis the decision is made; and if he will make a statement. [29804]

  Dr. Moonie
  BAE Systems Electronics, the Type 45 Prime Contract Office (PCO) announced on 18 January 2002 that Ultra had been selected as the preferred supplier for the Medium Frequency Sonar (MFS) for the Type 45 Destroyer. Ultra are teaming with the US sonar and combat system specialist EDO Corporation to supply the MFS-7000, a development of the proven sonar system supplied to the Brazilian Navy.

  The tenders were of high quality and the Ultra bid was selected on the grounds of performance and programme risk.

  Arms Sales (India)
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role he is playing in the promotion of arms sales to India; and what assessment he has made of the impact of sales on the(a) dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir and (b) stability in that region. [29684]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 25 January 2002]: In accordance with the need to maintain a strong defence industry, which is a vital part of our strategic defence capability, it is Government policy to help promote legitimate UK defence exports in co-ordination with industry.

  Assessment such as my hon. Friend describes are performed across Government as part of the case by case consideration given to export licence applications against the consolidated national and EU arms export licensing criteria.
  220W

  MOD Guard Service
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made on the PPP to replace the MOD Guard Service. [30794]

  Dr. Moonie
  None. There is no general public-private partnership initiative to replace the Ministry of Defence Guard Service.

  War Pensions
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what recent changes have been made to the statutory criteria to facilitate and determine the level and payment of war pensions; [30776]

  (2) on what date the present statutory criteria were issued to facilitate and determine the level of payment of war pensions. [30777]

  Dr. Moonie
  The first War Pension Scheme was established in 1917. The scheme has undergone many changes, the latest being the introduction of extended appeal rights under section 57 of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000.

  Gulf War
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what status Iraqi prisoners who were captured during the Gulf war had. [31271]

  Mr. Ingram
  Iraqi combatants taken prisoner during the Gulf war were classified as prisoners of war in accordance with the 3rd Geneva Convention 1949.

  European Technology Acquisition Programme
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the European Technology Acquisition Programme Memorandum of Understanding. [31103]

  Dr. Moonie
  Yes.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Director of Public Prosecutions
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Solicitor-General what was the average time taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions to make a decision in Northern Ireland in the last 12 months; and when the Director of Public Prosecutions will issue his direction in respect of ref 875/01. [30207]

  The Solicitor-General
  Information maintained by the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland indicates that the average time taken between the receipt of a police investigation file and the issue of a direction as to prosecution is 38 days.

  The director has sought the independent advice of senior counsel in relation to ref. 875/01 which he anticipates he will receive in February 2002. Thereafter, decisions as to prosecution will be taken as soon as possible.
  221W

NORTHERN IRELAND

  David McCombe and Padraig McCracken
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland further to his answer of 30 January 2001,Official Report, column 135W, on David McCombe and Padraig McCracken, what the outcome was of complaints filed against the RUC concerning the arrest of David McCombe and Padraig McCracken in Belfast in December 2000; and if he will ensure that an assessment of the handling of this incident is included in the UK Periodic report under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. [29247]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Police Ombudsman's Office advises that the investigation of a complaint lodged on behalf of David McCombe and Padraig McCracken against the police has been completed. Following referral of the case to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who has directed no prosecution, the Police Ombudsman is now considering whether or not disciplinary proceedings should be brought.

  The UK Periodic report under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is a general report where references to specific cases would not normally be made. Therefore it would be inappropriate to include an assessment of the handling of this case in the report.

  Departmental Expenditure (Publications)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his estimate is of the expenditure of his Department on newspapers, magazines and periodicals in each of the last four years. [30097]

  Dr. John Reid
  Details of the Department's (including its agencies) expenditure (£000) on newspapers, magazines and periodicals in each of the last four years are as follows:

  Year

  £000

  1998–99

  67.3

  1999–2000

  60.6

  2000–01

  56.6

  2001–021

  53

  2001–022

  370.6

  1 To date

  2 Full year

  3 Estimate

  UC Training
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the numbers were and what the drop out rate was during RUC training programmes conducted in(a) 1982, (b) 1992 and (c) 1997. [29813]

  Jane Kennedy
  The table shows the number of recruits and drop out rate for each of the specified years:

  Recruits

  Dropped out

  Percentage drop out

  1982

  555

  4

  0.72

  1992

  420

  2

  0.48

  1997

  287

  3

  1.05

  222W

  Environmental Appraisals
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many officials from his Department have attended the Environmental Appraisal and Integration into Policy training course run by the Civil Service College. [29032]

  Dr. John Reid
  To date, no officials from the Northern Ireland Office have attended the Environmental Appraisal and Integration into Policy training course run by the Civil Service College.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Nepal
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the components are of the planned short-term increase in development aid for Nepal; what proportion is(a) military, (b) policing and (c) intelligence-related; and if she will make a statement. [30341]

  Clare Short
  There is no short-term increase in UK development assistance to Nepal. The aid framework for 2001–02 is £20 million and DFID Nepal expects to spend all of this on development activities, including a number of short-term initiatives to deliver development benefits to people in conflict affected areas.

  DFID Nepal has worked to assist the Nepal police to develop into a more open and accountable service, and we are discussing the possibility of continuing support for reforms and modernisation. We have not of course used development assistance to fund any military or intelligence-related activities. The UK has provided training and logistics support to the Royal Nepal Army through the Global Conflict Prevention Pool, which is jointly funded by MOD, FCO, HMT and DFID.

  zimbabwe
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when her Department stopped providing funds directly to the Government of Zimbabwe. [30399]

  Clare Short
  Our direct co-operation with the Government of Zimbabwe reduced substantially in 2000. In April 2001 I halted our remaining Government to Government programmes. One programme of capacity building for rural district councils was allowed to run until its planned end date of September 2001. We continue to support a Government initiative to promote the inheritance rights of poor women, but money for this does not go through the Government. We support activities where the principal partner is not central Government, but which operate within Government systems where they are the only means of providing direct services to the poor, and where we are satisfied that they remain effective and impartial. These include the national HIV/AIDS prevention programme where our support is partially channelled through the public health system, and funding to complete long-standing commitments to rural water and sanitation projects through local government.
  223W

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the total external spend by her Department was on private finance initiative consultants in each of the last four years; how many full-time equivalent consultants were employed over this period; how many billed consultancy days there were per year; what the implied average cost of each PFI consultant was; how many consultancy firms were used by her Department over this period; and if she will make a statement. [31036]

  Clare Short
  DFID has no private finance initiative projects and we have not engaged external PFI consultants.

TREASURY

  Euro
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 17 January 2002,Official Report, column 437W, if he will list the Treasury management units which are involved in the preliminary technical work for evaluating the five economic tests for membership of the euro; and if he will make a statement. [30700]

  Ruth Kelly
  A wide range of officials from several Treasury management units is contributing.

  Spectacles
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to review the partial exemption from VAT of prescription spectacles; and if he will make a statement. [30880]

  Mr. Boateng
  Customs and Excise are to hold discussions with the optical industry about the implications of the recent legal rulings about the exemption from VAT of opticians' dispensing services provided at the same time as spectacles or contact lenses.

  Eurozone
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 17 January 2002,Official Report, column 439W, on eurozone, if he will list the interest rate forecasts prepared by the Treasury which are not for publication; and if he will make a statement. [30666]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury makes interest rate assumptions for the UK and an aggregate for the G7 for the purposes of constructing the pre-Budget and Budget forecasts. In line with the practice of previous Governments, we do not publish the interest rate paths underlying the economic forecasts.

  Adjudication Officer
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the full remit for the Adjudication Officer. [30366]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The remit of the Adjudicator for the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise is shown in detail in the booklets AO1 for the Inland Revenue and AO2 for Customs and Excise. Those booklets show what the adjudicator can and cannot do, copies of which are 224W
  available from the Adjudicator's Office and most Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise offices; and is also set out in the joint Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise Service Level Agreement with the Adjudicator's Office. Under the agreement the adjudicator provides an independent adjudication service into unresolved complaints about the way in which Inland Revenue or Customs and Excise have handled a person's tax etc. affairs but excludes matters arising out of a commercial or employment contract, or matters relating to their tax liability, valuation affairs, national insurance contributions or any issue to be determined by any court or tribunal.

  ECOFIN Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the outcome was of the ECOFIN Council held in Brussels on 22 January; what the Government's position was on each issue discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [30373]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I attended the ECOFIN on
  22 January.

  The incoming Spanish presidency and the Commission introduced their work programmes. In the ensuing debate, I stressed the need for the EU to pursue vigorous structural reforms in product, labour and capital markets to stimulate growth and create jobs.

  ECOFIN adopted Opinions on the Stability and Convergence Programmes of Austria, Belgium, Finland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Sweden.

  Ministers endorsed the Economic Policy Committee's report on Research and Development, and agreed that it should be sent to the March European Council in Barcelona. The Government support the report's proposals for boosting innovation in the EU.

  The European Commission gave an oral update on the transition to euro notes and coins. ECOFIN welcomed the smooth progress achieved so far.

  Ministers discussed the state of ratification of the Own Resources Decision. This was due to take effect from 1 January 2002, but has still to be ratified by some member states. The UK completed the process of ratification on 4 December 2001.

  The European Commission gave an oral update on negotiations with third countries regarding the draft directive on the taxation savings. ECOFIN agreed a statement on Argentina, in response to the economic crisis there.

  No votes were taken at the meeting.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Tom Harris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many employers in Glasgow, Cathcart constituency his Department identified in 2001 as paying less than the national minimum wage to their employees. [31213]
  225W
  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from hen Cook to Mr. Tom Harris, dated 29 January 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the number of employers in Glasgow, Cathcart constituency who pay their employees less than the national minimum wage (NMW). (31213)
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) does not collect information on the number of employers who pay their employees less than NMW rates. However, estimates of the number of jobs paid less than NMW rates are available for the United Kingdom and Government Office Regions on the National Statistics website at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/themes/labour_market/pay_and_earnings/measuring_low_pay.asp
  Estimates for Parliamentary Constituencies are not available.

  Births, Marriages and Deaths
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what proportion of records of births, marriages and deaths held by the General Record Office have been micro-filmed; [31476]

  (2)when he plans to make micro-filmed copies of births, marriages and deaths held by the General Records Office available to the public; [31475]

  (3)what charges he will make for public access to micro-filmed records of births, marriages and deaths held by the General Records Office. [31474]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Registrar-General. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Dr. Murrison, dated 29 January 2002:
  As Registrar General for England and Wales, I have been asked to reply to your recent questions on microfilmed records of births, marriages and deaths. (31474, 31475, 31476)
  The General Register Officer holds paper copies of all records of births, deaths and marriages registered in England and Wales from 1837 to September 2001. Those for the remainder of 2001 are expected from registrars very shortly. All records up to and including those for 2000 have been microfilmed. Microfilming of birth and death records for 2001 is underway. However, an index is essential to find the appropriate record. Computerised indexes are only available for records dating from 1983.
  On 22 January, the Government published the White Paper 'Civil Registration: Vital Change'. It includes proposals on access to registration records and their computerisation.
  Legislation is needed to implement these changes and will take at least two years. Phased implementation will follow. Charging arrangements will be determined as part of implementation.

  Pension Tax Codes
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
  pursuant to his answer of 15 January 2002,Official Report, column 224W, on pension tax codes, whether the rate of increase in the basic state pension supplied by the DWP is applied to all state pension income for tax code purposes; and if this will result in an amount in excess of people's actual state pension income being included in tax codes in years where the basic state pension is indexed by more than any additional state pension in payment. [31273]
  226W
  Dawn Primarolo
  Most pensioner tax codes are adjusted individually according to information provided by DWP about the taxpayer's state pension entitlement. In a minority of cases where information on a pensioner's state pension has not been provided by DWP, the estimated amount of state pension already included in the tax code is increased by reference to the appropriate percentage increase in state pensions as announced in the pre-Budget report.

  This estimate may be incorrect where an individual receives an additional state pension. However as soon as the pensioner or the DWP bring the correct pension to the Revenue's attention their tax code will be altered and from that point on the pensioner will be included in the DWP's yearly update.

  Insurance Premium Tax
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost was of collecting and administering insurance premium tax in 2000–01. [31550]

  Ruth Kelly
  The cost to HM Customs and Excise in collecting and administering insurance premium tax in 2000 –01 was £2 million in net current expenditure.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of insurance premium tax on the ability of British insurance companies to compete against foreign insurance suppliers for British customers. [31549]

  Ruth Kelly
  Insurance premium tax applies equally to general insurance of risks in the UK, regardless of the location of the insurer.

  Foot and Mouth
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many businesses have been allowed to defer their taxation payments to the Inland Revenue as a result of the foot and mouth crisis; what the total value is of these deferred payments; how many businesses have since been required to recommence payments on deferred taxes; and what the total value of payments is that have been received on these deferred taxes. [30548]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In the cumulative period 21 March 2001 to 20 January 2002 the Inland Revenue has helped 14,517 businesses by agreeing to defer £118.60 million tax and National Insurance contributions for mainly between three and 12 months. No businesses seriously affected by the FMD outbreak have been required to recommence payments of deferred tax and we do not have full details of payments received on deferred taxes. However, a sample review of these cases in December 2001 revealed that as much as £49.81 million had been paid voluntarily.

  Bankruptcy Petitions
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Inland Revenue's policy with regard to the use of(a) the London High Court and (b) local county courts to file bankruptcy petitions. [30367]
  227W
  Dawn Primarolo
  Where the Inland Revenue has to take bankruptcy proceedings to obtain payment of a tax debt, the proceedings are heard in the High Court in London.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [30082]

  Ruth Kelly
  The annual cost of the empty properties owned by the Chancellor's Department and the agencies in 2000–01 is estimated as £2,047,327. The total number of empty properties in this year was 30, but of these eight were disposed of in the year.

  The total open market value attributable to vacant properties in 2000ߝ01 was £15.311 million.

  Data for the previous three years can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  PAYE
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people the Inland Revenue employed in(a) PAYE coding administration, (b) all other remaining aspects of PAYE administration, (c) all other taxation matters not covered in (a) and (b) above and (d) all other tasks not covered in (a) to (c) above in (i) 1979–80, (ii) 1996–97, (iii) 1999–2000 and (iv) 2000–01 [26861]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The total numbers of staff employed in the Inland Revenue on administering PAYE and on other tasks is included in the table.

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  PAYE

  16,434

  17,854

  Other taxation

  40,900

  43,362

  Other tasks

  6,558

  5,704

  Total

  63,892

  66,920

  The Inland Revenue is unable to provide detailed staff figures for the years 1979–80 and 1996–97 as records were not kept in the manner required and it would therefore involve disproportionate cost to provide this information.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total cost of administering the PAYE system of income tax in(a) 1980, (b) 1990, (c) 2000 and (d) 2000–01 at (i) current and (ii) historic prices. [26865]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The total cost to the Inland Revenue of administering the PAYE system of Income Tax in 2000–01 was £534.4 million. In 1999–2000 the cost was £485 million. This represents £498.6 million in current prices.

  It has not been possible to provide the requested data for the years 1980 and 1990. This is because the Inland Revenue did not record PAYE work separately during this period.
  228W

  Departmental Expenditure (Publications)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the expenditure of his Department on newspapers, magazines and periodicals in each of the last four years. [30093]

  Ruth Kelly
  The answer is as follows:

  1997–98 total expenditure: £271,031

  1998–99 total expenditure: £259,112.

  Since 1999 expenditure on newspapers, magazines and periodicals has not been held centrally. Such information could be obtained only at disproportionate costs.

  Tax Receipts
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average income tax and national insurance paid per tax unit was in each of the last four years. [26277]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates for income taxpayers and income tax liabilities can be found in Inland Revenue Statistics tables 2.1 and 3.3. The latest versions can be found on the Inland Revenue website http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk.stats/income_tax/it_t01–l.htm http://www.inlandrevenue.gov. uk/stats/income_distribution/ pi_t03_l. htm. The average national insurance contributions per contributor are in the table:

  £

  Average national insurance liabilities per contributor1

  1997–98

  1,000

  1998–99

  1,000

  1999–2000

  1,000

  2000–01

  1,100

  1 Estimates are net of contracted out rebates and exclude employer contributions.

  Amounts (provided by the Government Actuary's Department) have been rounded to the nearest £50.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the regional breakdown was of the investigations carried out in respect of WFTC and DPTC in each year since the credits commenced. [23307]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The table shows the number of investigations carried out by the Inland Revenue on working families tax credit and disabled person's tax credit applications for the periods listed. This information is logged by postcode, and so any applications where a postcode has not been supplied have been listed 'region not identified'.

  Government Office Region

  WFTC investigations

  DPTC investigations

  Period 1 (1 October 1999 to 31 March 2000)

  North East

  866

  22

  North West

  1,512

  35

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  1,739

  28

  East Midlands

  1,159

  22

  West Midlands

  1,140

  32

  East of England

  948

  14

  London

  1,046

  10

  South East

  1,222

  19

  South West

  1,254

  21

  229W

  Government Office Region

  WFTC investigations

  DPTC investigations

  Wales

  608

  21

  Scotland

  1176

  23

  Region not identified

  617

  3

  Total

  13,287

  250

  Period 2 (1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001)

  North East

  1,906

  50

  North West

  3,678

  138

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  3,093

  80

  East Midlands

  1,535

  46

  West Midlands

  2,636

  94

  East of England

  1,336

  65

  London

  1,421

  47

  South East

  1,857

  49

  South West

  1,962

  54

  Wales

  1,619

  89

  Scotland

  2,020

  67

  Region not identified

  2,166

  20

  Total

  25,229

  799

  Period 3 (1 April 2001 to 30 November 2001)

  North East

  937

  48

  North West

  1,736

  111

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  1,310

  51

  East Midlands

  881

  35

  West Midlands

  1,367

  71

  East of England

  851

  37

  London

  824

  32

  South East

  911

  47

  South West

  886

  63

  Wales

  769

  52

  Scotland

  942

  58

  Region not identified

  402

  14

  Total

  11,866

  619

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Standard Spending Assessment
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to reduce the variation of education standard spending assessment per pupil between local education authorities. [28450]

  Mr. Timms
  We are currently working up proposals for a reformed system of school and LEA funding for introduction in 2003–04. We aim to create a simpler, more transparent and fairer formula that reflects fairly, on the basis of up to date evidence, the needs of authorities in different parts of the country. We do not want there to be disparities in the formula which are not justified by the education needs of children.

  In the meantime we are continuing to make significant increases in funding overall. In 2002–03 Education Standard Spending will increase by over £1.3 billion; Standards Fund grant will increase by almost £160 million: and direct grants to schools will increase by 2.75 per cent.
  230W

  School Land Sales
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the Government's policy regarding the selling of school-owned land for development purposes. [29263]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: Land at maintained schools is owned and held by a number of different bodies depending on the origins and category of school in question. Normally, only the governing bodies of foundation schools own their school land. At voluntary schools, the site ownership is usually split between school trustees and the local education authority, although at voluntary schools that were formerly grant-maintained, governing bodies will own the land transferred to them from the local authority. Local education authorities own land at community schools. It is also the case that some governing bodies may own land that is gifted to the school, but such land is usually held on specific trusts.

  Governing bodies of foundation schools have always needed the Secretary of State's consent before they could dispose of any land. At any other category of maintained school where governing bodies own land they may be required to obtain consent from the Secretary of State before they sell their land. In other cases the sale of land will be subject to the terms of the trust on which the land is held. The sale of trustee owned land at schools has always been governed by the terms of the trust under which the land is held.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her estimate is of the(a) annual cost and (b) total value of the empty properties owned by (i) her Department, (ii) her agencies and (iii) other public bodies for which she has had responsibility in each of the last four years. [30080]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The estimate of(a) annual cost of the empty properties owned by (i) my Department, in each of the last four years is £304,000 in 2000–01, £270,000 in 1999–2000, £173,000 in 1998–99 and £180,000 in 1997–98.

  The estimate of (b) total value of the empty properties owned by (i) my Department, in each of the last four years is £290,000 in 2000–01, £146,000 in 1999–2000, £133,000 in 1998–99 and £125,000 in 1997–98.

  Note:

  The Department's agencies and other public bodies do not own any empty properties.

  Bidwell Brook Community Special School
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education
  and Skills if she will make a statement on the level of funding for the Bidwell Brook Community Special School in Dartington from the targeted capital fund in 2002–03; and for what reason funding was not made available in this financial year. [30222]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]: Up to the end of this financial year, where statutory proposals at special schools have involved building work, local education authorities have been able to apply to the Department for capital support through the Annual Capital Guidelines. Resources are held in reserve for later

  231W
  allocation and released as and when the local School Organisation Committee approves the proposals and the accommodation and building plans, including costs, have received a satisfactory assessment from the Department's building consultants.

  In the case of Bidwell Brook, although the School Organisation Committee had approved the statutory proposal, substantial changes have had to be made to the building plans. These revised plans are currently with the Consultants for assessment. The resources in the reserve have now been fully allocated. The local education authority has accordingly submitted a bid to the Targeted Capital Fund for 2002–03. We expect to announce allocations by March 2002.

  Teachers (Portsmouth)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent assessment she has made of teacher shortages in Portsmouth; what steps she is taking to improve the situation; and if she will make a statement. [30278]

  Mr. Timms
  Information on the number of teacher vacancies in local education authorities is collected once a year in January as part of the annual census of teachers and vacancies. In January 2001 there were 59 vacancies for full-time teachers in maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools in Portsmouth. In recognition of the position in Portsmouth we have made £280,000 available directly to schools to fund local recruitment and retention initiatives. In addition, Portsmouth will also receive assistance through the £250 million Starter Homes Initiative which will enable teachers, as key workers, to purchase homes with the help of £10,000 free equity loans. We have also announced our proposal to accept the School Teachers' Review Body's recently announced recommendations, including a further above inflation pay increase of 3.5 per cent, for all teachers and that good, experienced, teachers should in future be able to receive a £2,148 pay increase on crossing the threshold after five years instead of seven. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out our longer term proposals for teachers and teaching in a pamphlet, "Professionalism and Trust", published in November 2001.

  Fast Track Teaching Scheme
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many applications there were from(a) teachers already in service and (b) others for the Fast Track teaching scheme by 31 December 2001 broken down by subject. [30281]

  Mr. Timms
  Applications to the second recruitment round of the Fast Track Teaching Programme were as follows.
  232W

  Subject

  Number of applications

  Primary

  217

  Secondary

  Geography

  36

  Art

  13

  Science

  149

  Business and Economics

  18

  Design and Technology

  19

  English

  118

  Modern Foreign Languages

  63

  History

  86

  IT

  30

  Maths

  79

  Music

  11

  PE

  4

  RE

  10

  Unspecified

  53

  Total

  906

  Where applications arrived after the closing date of 31 December 2001, but had been delayed for reasons beyond the applicants' control, they were accepted up to 7 January 2002. Processing of applications from teachers already in service had not begun by 31 December 2001.

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what grants have been made from the Technology Colleges Trust in each of the last four years to contribute towards the £50,000 of sponsorship money needed by schools seeking specialist status, broken down by(a) year, (b) school and (c) amount; and if she will make a statement. [30420]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave previously, 24 January 2002,Official Report, column 1016W. More detailed information cannot be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  Maintained Schools
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average cost is of a place in a maintained school for a secondary pupil between the ages of 11 and 16 years, including(a) the average spending per pupil needed to provide, maintain and equip school buildings and (b) the average administration cost per pupil, specifying the elements of capital spending and administrative costs that have been included in that figure. [30440]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 25 January 2002]: The information is not available in the exact form in which it has been requested, but the average level of total recurrent funding per secondary pupil is almost £3,700 in 2001–02 and the average level of capital funding per pupil (excluding PFI credits) is £230 per pupil.

  Parent Survey Forms
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many parent survey forms were issued by Ofsted; what the average response rate was, and what the total cost was in the last year for which figures are available. [30836]
  233W
  Mr. Timms
  Parents' views are an important part of the evidence base for an inspection. To ensure that parents have an opportunity to express those views, a parents' meeting must be arranged by the school prior to an inspection. In addition, schools are invited to distribute the parents' survey form. The decision to do so is entirely a matter for the school and any costs associated with the survey are borne by the school. An analysis of the data held by Ofsted is currently being undertaken. Once complete the results will be made available to the House through the Library.

  Examination Boards
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many complaints she has received about the performance of the EdExcel examination board(a) each month between June 2001 and 18 January 2002 and (b) since 18 January 2002. [31094]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]: The number of complaints which the Secretary of State received about the performance of the EdExcel examination board (a) during each month between June 2001 and 18 January 2002 and (b) since 18 January 2002 is set out in the table:

  Number of complaints

  June 2000

  1

  July 2001

  1

  August 2001

  0

  September 2001

  3

  October 2001

  4

  November 2001

  1

  December 2001

  1

  1–18 January 2002

  1

  18–24 January 2002

  12

  Teachers' Salaries
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills by how much the take home pay of a teacher with five years experience will increase after the rise of 3.5 per cent, in salary and London weighting. [31246]

  Mr. Timms
  A teacher in inner London with five years's experience would normally be paid on point six of the teacher's main scale, which will be worth £24,729 per annum on 1 April 2002. This represents an increase of £867 per annum over 1 April 2001. On 1 September such a teacher will assimilate to point M5 of the new main pay scale, and will earn £26,973 per annum. Take-home pay is subject to an individual's tax position.

  Assaults on Staff
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many school staff were assaulted on local education authority property in each of the London local education authorities in each of the last five years. [31366]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department does not collect this information from local education authorities.
  234W

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  India-Pakistan Border
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the number of anti-personnel mines on the India-Pakistan border. [31280]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are concerned by reports that both India and Pakistan are laying anti-personnel land mines (APLs) along the international border, and will continue to monitor the situation closely. We urge India and Pakistan to cease the deployment of land mines, to clear existing mines and to sign the Ottawa Convention. We continue to press for India and Pakistan to resolve the issues between them through dialogue.

  The British Government are completely opposed to the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of APLs. We ratified the Ottawa Convention in July 1998 banning APLs, and announced a complete ban on their use by British forces.

  Genocide
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made through the ICC on agreeing an international definition of genocide. [31265]

  Mr. MacShane
  The crime of genocide is defined in Article II of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This definition is repeated as Article 6 of the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Rome Statute will come into force once 60 states have ratified or acceded to it; 48 States have done so to date including the United Kingdom.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Terry Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has had with the Government of Gibraltar regarding the appointment of the Head of Police in Gibraltar. [30730]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]: Under the provisions of the 1969 Gibraltar constitution the Governor is responsible for the internal security of Gibraltar, including the Royal Gibraltar police. The Governor appointed the current Commissioner of the Royal Gibraltar police on 1 November 2001.

  Mr. Terry Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence the Government have collated regarding Spanish allegations on the level of smuggling out of Gibraltar; and if he will make a statement. [30731]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 26 January 2002]: We have asked the Spanish Government to make available to us evidence that they have of smuggling. We will investigate such evidence.
  235W
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will secure the support of the Government of Gibraltar for an agreement between Spain and Britain on the future status of Gibraltar before seeking the support of the people of Gibraltar through a referendum. [30698]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 25 January 2002]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Tarn worth (Mr. Jenkins) on 21 November, Official Report, column 331W. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs stated in the House on 14 January we have invited the people of Gibraltar, represented by the Government of Gibraltar, to take part in the talks under the Brussels Process. The Foreign Secretary and I discussed this further when we saw the Chief Minister of Gibraltar in London on Friday 25 January.

  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if a referendum in Gibraltar on the future sovereignty of the territory will be held before the resumption of talks with Spain under the terms of the Brussels Process. [30621]

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

  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs with which organisations he has discussed(a) the replacement of the Governor of Gibraltar and (b) an extension to the present Governor of Gibraltar's period in office. [30619]

  Peter Hain
  None. Her Majesty the Queen appoints Governors to all Her overseas territories.

  UN Subscriptions
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) of 16 October 2001,Official Report, column 1149W, whether the sum referred to in his statement has been released to the United Nations; and what proportion this represents of the total moneys due. [29730]

  Mr. MacShane
  United States Congress authorised payment of arrears to the United Nations in three tranches. Tranche I was paid in 1999. Of the tranche II total of $582 million, a $465 million cash payment was made by the United States to the United Nations in November last year. The remainder is being offset in the form of reimbursements owed to the US by the United Nations. We expect tranche III to be paid some time this year.

  Tranche II represents approximately 60 per cent, of the moneys due to the United Nations in the three-tranche package.

  Departmental Expenditure (Publications)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his estimate is of the expenditure of his Department on newspapers, magazines and periodicals in each of the last four years. [30101]
  236W
  Mr. MacShane
  The information is as follows:

  £

  1997–98

  489,895

  1998–99

  586,510

  1999–2000

  566,067

  2001–01

  588,078

  Market Research
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what expenditure has been incurred by his(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies in each of the last four years on (i) opinion polling, (ii) focus groups and (iii) other forms of market research; and if he will list the surveys commissioned and the purpose of each. [27941]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has conducted little opinion polling and market research in the United Kingdom. No focus groups were used. In the last four years total expenditure was:

  £

  1998–99

  0

  1999–2000

  0

  2000–01

  15,550

  2001–02

  39,913

  The figures cover market research for the "Know Before You Go" consular awareness campaign, and an opinion poll of public knowledge and understanding of the European Union. The results of the latter polling were laid in the Libraries of the House of Commons on 5 December 2001.

  Overseas, various embassies have commissioned surveys about attitudes towards the United Kingdom to underpin strategies aimed at increasing positive foreign perceptions of Britain.

  The FCO's non-departmental public body, the British Council also undertook an overseas research project to explore how well-informed young professionals perceive the United Kingdom. The survey was entitled "Through Other Eyes". Countries were researched in 1999 and 2000.

  In the United Kingdom, the British Council has made use of focus groups and market research: (i) to assist in the understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of UK education compared to that in the United States and Australia, (ii) to evaluate the effectiveness of initiatives to increase the number of international students studying in the UK, and (iii) to assess perceptions of the British Council in Scotland post-devolution.

  The cost of this research and activity was:

  £

  1998–99

  0

  1999–2000

  136,000

  2000–01

  15,275

  2001–02

  2,878

  1 Estimate

  237W

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Greenhouse Gases
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by what factor each of the other greenhouse gases is more damaging than carbon dioxide. [29616]

  Margaret Beckett
  The Global Warming Potential (GWP) for each greenhouse gas measures its effectiveness at global warming over the next 100 years compared to CO2. For example, an emission of 1 tonne of methane (CH4) will have a warming effect over the next 100 years that is 21 times greater than the warming produced over that time scale by an emission of 1 tonne of CO2.

  The following table shows the UK emissions of the greenhouse gases in 1999 (latest complete annual figures), the GWP of each of the gases and the amount of CO2 that would produce the same warming.

  Direct greenhouse gases

  Emissions in 1999 (kT)

  GWP (100 years)

  Equivalent kT of CO2

  CO2 (carbon dioxide)

  547,800

  1

  547,800

  CH4 (methane)

  2632

  21

  55,266

  N20 (nitrous oxide)

  138

  310

  42,890

  HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons)

  2.749

  560–12100

  6,206

  PFCs (perfluorocarbons)

  0.098

  6000–7400

  678

  SF6 (sulphur hexafluoride)

  0.055

  23900

  1,314

  Flood Defence
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to publish proposals for change to flood defence funding and related administrative arrangements. [27540]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 January 2002]: This Department is finalising a public consultation document about future funding of flood defence and related institutional and administrative arrangements with a view to issuing it as soon as possible.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many answers to parliamentary questions have not been answered by her Department under exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information in each year since 1994. [29420]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: As the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was created on 8 June 2001, the information requested is not available.

  Circuses
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will review the regulations governing the use of animals in circuses; and if she will make a statement. [30205]
  238W
  Mr. Morley
  A review of the legislation which might apply to animals kept by man for enjoyment, sport, companionship or fanning purposes is taking place. The regulations relating to circus animals are included in the review. Further details of the review can be found on the DEFRA website www.defra.gov.uk.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letters of 28 September and 31 October from the hon. Member for Buckingham on behalf of his constituent, Mr. David Body. [17065]

  Mr. Morley
  A response to the hon. Member's letters of 28 September and 31 October were sent on 20 November 2001 and 14 January 2002 respectively.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the hon. Member for West Chelmsford will be given a reply to his letter of 12 June 2001 to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which was transferred to her Department on 18 June, concerning Dr. Reza Hussain of St. John's hospital, Chelmsford. [26357]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 15 January 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 23 January 2002, Official Report, column 928W.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total external spend by his Department was on Private Finance Initiative consultants in each of the last four years; how many full-time equivalent consultants were employed over this period; how many billed consultancy days there were per year; what the implied average cost of each PFI consultant was; how many consultancy firms were used by his Department over this period; and if he will make a statement. [31030]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has been in existence only since June 2001. Information covering earlier periods is therefore not available, and could be constructed retrospectively only at disproportionate cost.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her estimate is of the(a) annual cost and (b) total value of the empty properties owned by (i) her Department, (ii) her agencies and (iii) other public bodies for which she has had responsibility in each of the last four years. [30081]

  Mr. Morley
  The information requested is set out in the tables. As the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was created on 8 June 2001, this relates to the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Department does not hold centrally information about properties occupied by non-departmental public bodies.

  Under Treasury guidelines, Departments have up to three years or more to dispose of surplus properties to ensure that the best possible price is obtained. The values of some empty properties will, therefore, be included in more than one of the total annual values shown.
  239W

  Estimated annual cost1 of empty core DEFRA properties

  £ million

  2000–01

  1.47

  1999–2000

  0.88

  1998–99

  3.26

  1997–98

  2.26

  1 Includes rent or capital charge, service charges and rates, plus estimated maintenance, facilities management, and marketing costs based on average property values.

  Estimated total value1 of empty core DEFRA properties

  £ million

  2000–01

  10.6

  1999–2000

  9.8

  1998–99

  12.5

  1997–98

  16.0

  1 Based on Valuation Office Agency capital valuation or actual sale price

  Estimated annual cost1 of empty DEFRA executive agency properties

  £ million

  2000–01

  0.15

  1999–2000

  0.21

  1998–99

  0.25

  1997–98

  0.00

  1 Includes rent or capital charge, service charges and rates, plus estimated maintenance, facilities management, and marketing costs based on average property values.

  Estimated total value1 of empty DEFRA executive agency properties

  £ million

  2000–01

  2.00

  1999–2000

  13.4

  1998–99

  1.45

  1997–98

  1.45

  1 Based on Valuation Office Agency capital valuation or actual sale price

  Genotype Test Errors
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the extent of genotype test errors by laboratories undertaking work for her Department in December 2001; and if she will make a statement. [29987]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 24 January 2002]: We announced on 14 December that DEFRA's quality control arrangements had revealed errors in the genotype results sent to the owners of five flocks participating in the national scrapie plan. The results had been provided to DEFRA by LGC, a private sector laboratory. As a precautionary measure DEFRA arranged for all of the blood samples tested so far by LGC under the national scrapie plan to be re-tested. This has involved re-testing over 4,000 samples. Although we have no had re-test results for all but 163 of those samples, the re-testing exercise is not yet complete. However, the re-testing has revealed some further errors in the original tests done by LGC. The re-testing exercise will be completed as soon as possible. All flock owners affected have been kept informed, and will be given revised results where this is necessary. DEFRA has already given corrected results to the owners of the five flocks where errors were originally
  240W
  detected. LGC has acknowledged the failure of their systems and has taken remedial action. Following a detailed inspection, DEFRA is now satisfied with LGC's revised procedures, but we regard as serious the shortcomings which have occurred, and we will be closely monitoring LGC's future performance.

  Definitive Map
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to enable local authorities to deal with applications for modifications to the definitive map more rapidly. [30120]

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she plans to take to reduce the backlog of applications for modifications of public rights of way. [30615]

  Alun Michael
  Following enactment of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, we have provided new funding to assist local authorities with their rights of way duties. This includes additional funding for processing applications for modifications to the definitive map. We are also funding a project, managed by the Countryside Agency, that will improve the quality of applications from the public. This should enable local authorities to process modification orders faster.

  Dioxins
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if her Department will produce a strategy for reducing the release of dioxins to the levels recommended by the Committee on Toxicity for the tolerable daily intake for dioxins and dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls, with particular reference to releases from(a) Environment Agency regulated activities, (b) local authority-regulated activities and (c) activities that are not regulated; and if she will make a statement. [25197]

  Mr. Meacher
  The recommendation of the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) is for a tolerable daily intake (TDI) for dioxins and dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls of 2 picogrammes TEQ/kilogramme bodyweight. The Food Standards Agency's programme of research and surveys for these contaminants has shown that the average dietary exposure in the UK (1.8 picogrammes TEQ/kilogramme bodyweight per day) is already below the new TDI, although consumers who eat a lot of fatty foods can exceed the TDI.

  Emissions from Environment Agency and local authority regulated activities are controlled under the systems of Integrated Pollution Control (which are progressively being replaced by the Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations) and Local Air Pollution Control. These and other controls have made a major contribution to the approximately 70 per cent. reduction in emissions of dioxins to air during the past decade. As the major industrial sources are reduced, the less well regulated diffuse sources such as bonfires have become relatively more important, so action is also needed in these areas. The Government believe that there is a strong case for reducing environmental emissions of dioxins and dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), particularly in the light of the revised recommended tolerable daily

  241W
  intake by the COT. In consultation with the devolved Administrations, other Government Departments and agencies the Department is, therefore, producing a UK position paper on dioxins and PCBs, which will set out proposals for achieving further reductions in emissions of these compounds, for consultation with a wide range of stakeholders.

  Date-based Export Scheme
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with her European Union counterparts regarding the continued implementation of the date-based export scheme. [30407]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 25 January 2002]: The date-based export scheme continues to be available as the means of exporting beef from the UK, although it has been in abeyance for the duration of the foot and mouth disease outbreak. We recognise that the conditions of the scheme are onerous and that this is a disincentive to potential beef exporters to operate under the scheme. For this reason we are pressing the European Commission to propose changes to the conditions of the scheme to make it a more viable prospect for a wider range of beef exporters.

  Fishing (Decommissioning)
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the source was of the funding for the £6 million offered to those vessels which successfully bid for fishing vessel decommissioning during October 2001. [30651]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]: I announced the £6 million decommissioning scheme on 10 May 2001. These funds are additional to the £5 million provision for Cornwall I announced on 24 July 2000 would be available for the period 2001–02 to 2003–04, and the £6 million which I similarly announced for the rest of England. The scheme will be co-financed by the EU under the EU structural fund for fisheries (FIFG).

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress she has made in respect of fulfilment of her Department's obligations regarding the completion of this year's fishing vessel decommissioning scheme. [30652]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]: The applications which offer best value for money have now been approved, and I have extended the final date for claims by a month at the request of applicants.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of the funding for this year's fishing vessel decommissioning scheme was(a) European and (b) UK moneys. [30650]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]: The fisheries structural fund rules apply. For vessels meeting the scheme definition as Cornish 75 per cent. of payments will be funded by the EU. For vessels from the rest of England 50 per cent. is funded by the EU.

  Impact Fishing
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent 242W
  discussions she has had with her counterparts in (a) Europe and (b) Norway, regarding the proposal to (i) take low impact fishing methods out of the quota system, (ii) introduce management regimes which encourage low impact fishing methods and (iii) establish systems which afford protection for low impact fishing methods in future policy development. [30618]

  Mr. Morley
  Under Community legislation we are required to take account of all landings for quota management purposes: there are no exceptions. However, in the context of the on-going review of the common fisheries policy, the Government have made it clear that we have at hand an opportunity to give new recognition to the role of fishermen using selective and environmentally friendly fishing techniques which have a low impact on stocks, such as North sea cod long liners and mackerel handliners. In our public response to the European Commission's Green Paper on the future of the CFP, we make exactly that point.

  In some cases, however, the Government have already introduced measures recognising the importance of certain low-impact fisheries. We have, for example, implemented enhanced underpinning arrangements in the south-west mackerel handline fishery, whereby the handliners receive a guaranteed minimum quota allocation each year. We also arrange 'quota swaps' to obtain additional fish where necessary.

  Marine Environment
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to protect the marine environment. [30335]

  Mr. Meacher
  Measures under way to provide further protection for the marine environment include the review of marine nature conservation, extension of the habitats directive out to the limit of jurisdiction of UK waters and proposals for integrated coastal zone management. The forthcoming Marine Stewardship report will set out our strategy for the sustainable development and conservation of the marine environment.

  Rural Definition
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the progress being made towards the development of a single definition of rural for use by(a) her Department and (b) other sections of Government. [30670]

  Alun Michael
  Neither the Department nor the Government as a whole uses a single definition of a rural area, and it would be unrealistic to impose a standard definition for use in all contexts. For example, within a broadly "rural" county or district, not all parishes would be properly described as "rural". However, we recognise that there is a need for a more co-ordinated and consistent approach to the categorisation and use of definitions of urban and rural areas. For that reason DEFRA, DTLR, the Countryside Agency and the Office for National Statistics are working together towards a better set of definitions of urban and rural areas. In the short term, we plan to use for statistical purposes the definitions presently used by the Countryside Agency.
  243W

  Fishing
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment she has made of the effects of industrial fishing on whitefish species; and if she will make a statement; [30356]

  (2) what action she is taking to ensure that industrial fishing vessels in the North sea do not net whitefish species while fishing for sandeels; and if she will press for an EU-wide ban on industrial fishing. [30355]

  Mr. Morley
  The annual weight of bycatch reported to the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) in relation to industrial fishing in the North sea averaged 6,000 tonnes of haddock, 9,000 tonnes of whiting and 1,000 tonnes of cod for the years 1995 to 1999.

  The following table compiled by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Research (CEFAS) from statistics reported to ICES, shows how these industrial bycatch tonnages compare with landings and estimated discards for the same species, again averaged over the period 1995–99:

  Haddock

  Whiting

  Cod

  Landings

  74,000

  36,000

  126,000

  Discards

  54,000

  22,000

  18000

  Bycatch

  6,000

  9,000

  1,000

  1 1999 only

  Although these figures leave no doubt that whitefish are caught in the small-meshed industrial fisheries, they do not in themselves, especially when viewed alongside the tonnages discarded by the whitefish fleets, make out a case for banning industrial fishing.

  However, on-going work by CEFAS, in part carried out in co-operation with Danish fishery managers, is aimed at refining our understanding of the bycatch, in particular in relation to the extent to which young fish of each of the whitefish species figure in it.

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effect of industrial fishing for sandeels on the sea-life food chain. [30357]

  Mr. Morley
  Using data from international scientific studies, CEFAS has related estimates of the abundance of the fish and seabirds in and around the North sea to information on the amount of sandeel found in their stomachs. The information results from comparing the average populations for the period 1974 to 1995 with a large amount of stomach data collected during intensive sampling of North sea stocks throughout two reference years, 1981 and 1991.

  This work suggests that, on average, natural predators have eaten about 2.7 million tonnes of sandeels each year, compared with around 700,000 tonnes currently taken by the sandeel fishery.

  On average 46 per cent. (1.2 million tonnes) was taken by mackerel, 22 per cent. (600,000 tonnes) by whiting, 6 per cent. by haddock, 5 per cent. by birds and 2 per cent. by cod.
  244W
  As a percentage averaged over the year, sandeels represented 20 per cent. of the diet for mackerel and whiting, 10 per cent. for haddock and 5 per cent. for saithe and cod. For sea birds the percentage was higher, averaging 40 per cent. for sea birds, rising to 90 per cent. during the chick rearing period. This is why sandeel fishing is currently not allowed on the Wee Bankie and why there is a seasonal closure at Shetland.

  Further national and international work is in hand to extend our detailed knowledge so that further measures can be considered if necessary.

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she last discussed the issue of industrial fishing with her Danish counterpart; what recent representations she has made; and if she will make a statement. [30358]

  Mr. Morley
  Senior officials from the Department held lengthy and productive discussions with their Danish counterparts on 16 November 2001. Scientific collaboration between Denmark and the United Kingdom on industrial fisheries is on-going, in particular in relation to by-catch and to the ground-breaking sandeel closure at Wee Bankie.

  Parish Councils
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the 2001 report of the Countryside Agency on the quality of parish councils; if she will estimate how many parish councils were classed as(a) sleeping and (b) barely active; and if she will make a statement. [30561]

  Alun Michael
  The Countryside Agency has not produced a report on the quality of parish councils, but it has undertaken to produce an indicator of community vibrancy. I refer the hon. Member to answers given on 24 January 2002 to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew),Official Report, columns 1033–34W, for information on this issue.

  IACS
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of the current financial year's integrated administration and control system payments have been received by farmers. [30868]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]: As of 23 January 2002, 85.2 per cent, of claims under IACS (Arable Area Payments Scheme) have been paid.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received concerning delays in paying farmers for claims within the integrated administration and control system; and if she will make a statement. [29080]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, has received a number of representations mainly in the form of parliamentary questions and correspondence.

  The industrial action which commenced on 20 August 2001 and which has severely impacted on claims processing was suspended for two weeks, beginning 11 January 2002. This is good news and has enabled the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) to put more resources into

  245W
  processing through overtime working. Additionally those offices with the largest backlogs are being reinforced by transferring in staff from other sites. The staff are keen to make up the lost ground and are working enthusiastically. That said there is no chance of RPA being able to recover before 31 January 2002 the several thousand man days of claims processing that has been lost. Arable Area Payments (AAPS) has been most seriously affected because this is a complex scheme on which it is not easy to deploy inexperienced staff.

  By the end of the payment window on 31 January 2002 RPA expect to have paid around 90 per cent. of claims and providing the industrial action remains suspended, AAPS payments should be completed by around mid-February 2002.

  Livestock scheme payments are also being affected but, although software has had to be upgraded to reflect regulatory changes on the bovine schemes and to carry out cross-checks on claims where holdings were affected by foot and mouth disease, RPA expect to make all the payments within the regulatory timescales.

  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, also had a meeting with the British Banking Association (BBA), including representatives of all the main clearing banks, on 22 November 2001. It is hoped that as a result of that meeting the BBA will be sympathetic to the effect that the industrial dispute is having on the cash flow of farmers who have received their payments later than normal.

  GM Crops
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Government will issue a public consultation on the future of GM crops in this country. [28251]

  Mr. Morley
  In response to their "Crops on Trial" report, we have asked the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC) to provide further advice by the end of April on how and when to promote an effective public debate on the possible commercialisation of the crops in the Farm Scale Evaluations. The full Government response to the AEBC report is available at www.defra.gov.uk.

  Refrigerators
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department has taken to deal with domestic refrigerator decommissioning following the recent European directive. [31272]

  Mr. Meacher
  EC Regulation No. 2037/2000 requires the removal of controlled ozone depleting substances from domestic refrigeration units prior to scrapping. The Department has worked closely with stakeholders to ensure that adequate disposal routes exist for domestic fridges. Waste fridges may be refurbished and re-used, disposed of via incineration, exported to other member states for recycling, or stored in the UK pending treatment. In early December the Department issued guidance on the storage of fridges pending treatment, along with draft standards for the removal of ODS from fridges, which are now being finalised by the Environment Agency. The Department also announced £6 million funding for English local authorities for 246W
  dealing with fridges and freezers until March 2002. We are continuing to assess the impacts of the regulation and will determine what further action is required beyond that.

  Aggregates Levy
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many responses were received to her Department's consultation on the distribution of aggregates levy sustainability fund; and when she will publish a response. [30354]

  Mr. Meacher
  The aggregates levy sustainability fund is a new fund with the aim of addressing the environmental effects associated with aggregates extraction.

  DEFRA published in October 2001 a consultation paper on the possible distribution of the aggregates levy sustainability fund in England.

  The consultation paper proposed to support work under three main objectives:

  Minimising the demand for primary aggregates

  Promoting environmentally friendly extraction and transport

  Reducing the effect of local aggregate extraction.

  The consultation period closed on 27 November 2001. A copy of the consultation document is available in the House of Commons Library 474 organisations were consulted. The consultation generated a total of 120 responses, 87 of which were received by 27 November. Following is a table of responses by sector.

  Responses by sector

  Number of respondents

  Percentage

  Local authorities

  54

  45

  Waste management companies

  2

  1.7

  Environmental bodies

  21

  17.5

  Countryside and rural bodies

  8

  6.7

  Minerals trade associations and operators

  10

  8.3

  Individuals

  3

  2.5

  Other interested parties

  22

  18.3

  Total

  120

  100

  We are currently reflecting on all the issues raised by the consultation and will decide on the final shape and distribution of the fund shortly.

  Nitrates
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish the scientific advice she has received concerning the designation of nitrate vulnerable zones; and if she will make a statement. [28506]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Environment Agency has provided science-based advice on the methodology used to identify areas for designation. This is included as an annex in the consultation document "How should England implement the 1991 Nitrates Directive" published on 20 December 2001.

  Nitrate vulnerable zones comprise land designated because it drains into nitrate polluted waters, or waters that could become nitrate polluted. Three methods are used to identify such waters.
  247W
  For surface waters, monitoring data for nitrates collected over recent years are analysed statistically to identify monitoring points exceeding the level of 50 mg per litre referred to in the directive. In addition, trend analysis methods will be used to identify any additional monitoring points that can be expected to exceed 50 mg per litre in the future.

  For ground waters, monitoring data from existing boreholes are processed using mathematical modelling to predict where ground water can be expected to exceed the level of 50 mg per litre, either now or in the future, as a result of nitrate leaching from land.

  For inland, coastal and estuarine waters the Environment Agency consider a variety of criteria to assess whether waters are eutrophic or may become eutrophic if no action is taken. These criteria include: nutrient concentrations; occurrence and duration of algal blooms; low dissolved oxygen concentrations; changes in fauna, plant growth and algal growth; and occurrence and magnitude of paralytic shellfish poisoning. Only those waters where nitrate is considered to be a factor causing eutrophication are included for the purposes of designating nitrate vulnerable zones.

  Aarhus Convention
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to ratify the Aarhus Convention signed on 25 June 1998; and if she will make a statement. [26936]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government strongly support the Aarhus convention and signed the treaty when it opened for signature in 1998. The three underlying principles of transparency, participation and access to justice are central to achieving sustainable development.

  The majority of the convention is already implemented in the UK although some legislative amendments will be necessary, in particular to the public access to environmental information regime. The Government intend to ratify the convention as soon as all of the necessary provisions are in place. The exact date by which this will be done is dependent on the legislative timetables of the devolved Administrations.

  Foot and mouth
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the findings and recommendations of the National Farmers Union's report entitled, "Lessions to be learned from the 2001 outbreak of foot and mouth disease"; and whether she intends to publish a response to the report. [31512]

  Mr. Morley
  I welcome the National Farmers Union report. I understand that it has been sent to the Lessons learned inquiry, which I expect will take account of the report's finding in making recommendations.
  248W

  Farm Subsidy Claims
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what penalties are imposed on farmers who make mistakes when they are filling in claim forms for farming subsidies; and whether farmers can rectify mistakes on claim forms without a penalty being imposed. [28363]

  Mr. Morley
  The penalties imposed vary according to the type and severity of the mistake. The penalties applied for the 2001 scheme year are detailed in Annex 7 of the 2001 Integrated Administration and Control System Explanatory Guide, copies of which are being placed in the Library of the House. A summary of Annex 7 follows:

  Part 1. Applications received after the closing date
  1–25 calendar days late. The applicant will lose 1 per cent. of their entitlement to aid for each working day by which the application is late and for each scheme to which the application relates.
  Over 25 calendar days late. The applicant will lose their entire entitlement to aid for each scheme to which the application relates.

  Part 2. Inaccuracies discovered in areas declared
  Area found is more than declared. No penalty, but the applicant's entitlement will be based on the declared area.
  The area found is less than declared. The applicant's entitlement will be based on the lower figure. In addition this lower figure will be adjusted as follows: if difference is more than 3 per cent, or 2 hectares, but not more than 20 per cent. of the area found, the adjustment will be twice the difference found. If the difference is more than 20 per cent., no area-linked aid will be granted.

  Part 3. Inaccuracies discovered in number of eligible animals
  Number of animals found is more than declared. No penalty, but payment will be based on the number declared.
  Number of animals found is less than declared. (In cases where a claim covers a maximum of 20 animals.)

  (i) Difference between numbers found and declared is one or two animals. The applicant's entitlement will be based on the number found, but rate of premium adjusted by the percentage difference found.

  (ii) Difference between numbers found and declared is three to four animals. The applicant's entitlement will be based on the number found, but rate of premium adjusted by twice the percentage difference found.

  (iii) Difference between numbers found and declared is more than four. No premium will be paid under the scheme concerned.

  Number of animals found is less than declared. (In cases where a claim covers 21 or more animals.)

  249W

  (i) Difference between the number declared and found is not more than 5 per cent. of the number found. The applicant's entitlement will be based on the number found, but rate of premium will be reduced by the percentage difference found.

  (ii) Difference between the number declared and found is more than 5 per cent, but not more than 20 per cent. of the number found. The applicant's entitlement will be based on the number found, but rate of premium reduced by twice the percentage difference found.

  (iii) Difference between the number declared and found is more than 20 per cent. of the number found. No premium will be paid under the scheme concerned.

  Mistakes
  Mistakes in area aid applications and livestock claims which can be classified as "obvious" according to European Commission guidelines, and where the farmer acted in good faith and there is no risk of fraud, can be rectified without penalty at any time, and are summarised as follows. All other mistakes attract the penalties listed in Annex 7 of the 2001 Integrated Administration and Control System Explanatory Guide which is summarised in Parts 1–3.

  Types of obvious errors, which can be rectified
  (i) Errors of a purely clerical nature, which are obvious during a simple examination of the claim, i.e.:
  boxes not filled in or information lacking
  erroneous statistical information
  (ii) Errors detected as a result of a contradiction appearing in a more in-depth examination (manual or computerised) of the claim, which compares information (including supporting documentation, such as a map) submitted in the same claim, i.e.:
  arithmetical mistakes
  inconsistencies between the information provided on the same form (for example, a parcel declared twice in a single claim);
  parcels declared for two different types of usage
  (iii) Anomalies involving parcel numbers or references which are detected during the crosscheck of the claim with databases, such as the parcel identification system, i.e.:
  figures reversed (parcel number 1169 instead of 1196
  mistakes in the map reference number
  number of neighbouring parcel given, resulting from map reading error.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Lost/Stolen Property
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list those items valued at more than £50 which have been stolen or lost from his Department in each of the last four years. [28006]

  Mr. Leslie
  For the purpose of this answer my Department includes the Prime Minister's Office. Items stolen or lost in each of the last four financial years, and their approximate value, are shown in the table.

  Corresponding figures for the 2001–02 financial year have yet to be collected.

  £

  Lost or stolen property

  1997–98

  Various IT equipment

  13,095

  3 Computers

  1,371

  1 Bicycle

  300

  Ladders

  200

  Cash; credit cards; payable orders

  135

  250W

  £

  Lost or stolen property

  1 Car stereo (stolen from a leased car)

  100

  Consumables

  89

  Total

  15,290

  1998–99

  Various IT equipment

  18,454

  Cash; credit cards; payable orders

  2,500

  Software

  300

  1 Computer printer

  237

  1 Car stereo (stolen from a leased car)

  100

  Total

  21,591

  1999–2000

  2 Projectors

  12,678

  6 Laptop computers

  9,800

  7 Computers

  5,600

  4 Computer printers

  990

  Tools

  850

  Other IT equipment

  657

  2 Amplifiers

  500

  1 Video recorder

  300

  2 Mobile phones

  237

  Consumables

  200

  Cash, credit cards; payable orders

  171

  1 Tape recorder

  115

  Total

  32,09

  2000–01

  13 Computers

  14,627

  10 Laptop computers

  13,800

  Cash;, credit cards; payable orders

  3,000

  1 CD writer

  800

  2 Cameras

  714

  2 Mobile phones

  333

  1 Minidisc player

  200

  1 Car stereo (stolen from a leased car)

  100

  Total

  33,574

  Theft and Fraud
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his estimate is of the cost of theft and fraud to(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies in each of the last four years. [27976]

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate his Department has made of the cost to its budget since 1 May 1997 of fraud; and if he will make a statement. [27296]

  Mr. Leslie
  The cost of theft and fraud to my Department, its agencies, and non-departmental public bodies in each of the last four years, is shown in the table.

  Corresponding figures for 2001–02 financial year have yet to be collated.

  £

  Department

  Agencies

  NDPBs

  Total

  1997–98

  15,360

  0

  0

  15,360

  1998–99

  48,472

  0

  1,000

  49,472

  1999–2000

  32,097

  0

  0

  32,097

  2000–01

  33,574

  0

  1,200

  34,774

  Public Relations Consultants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much was spent by(a) his Department and (b) bodies for which it is responsible on external public relations consultants in each of the last four years. [27389]

  Mr. Leslie
  Expenditure on external public relations consultancy is not separately identifiable on the Department's accounting system and is therefore available only at disproportionate cost.

  Market Research
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what expenditure has been incurred by his(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies in each of the last four years on (i) opinion polling, (ii) focus groups and (iii) other forms of market research; and if he will list the surveys commissioned and the purpose of each. [27949]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) on 10 December 2001,Official Report, column 594W.

  A list of the surveys commissioned and the purpose of each could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Remuneration
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will estimate the number of individuals in his(a) Department, (b) related agencies and (c) related non-departmental public bodies whose annual remuneration including benefits in kind exceeded (i) £100,000 and (ii) £200,000 in each of the last four years. [26328]

  Mr. Leslie
  The information in relation to the number of individuals in(a) the Cabinet Office, which includes the Parliamentary Counsel Office, and (b) related agencies whose annual remuneration included benefits in kind exceeded £100,000 in the last four years is set out in the table.

  No individual received an annual remuneration in excess of £200,000 during this period. Annual remuneration includes basic salary and allowances.

  As at 1 April

  Department

  Related agencies

  1998

  4

  0

  1999

  13

  0

  2000

  14

  0

  2001

  18

  0

  The information for (c) related non-departmental public bodies is available in the annual Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies" copies of which are placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Civil Service
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister in each of the civil servant grades, what proportion are(a) women and (b) from ethnic minorities. [28070]

  Mr. Leslie
  Figures for April 2001 show that 24.2 per cent, of the senior civil service were women, and 2.4 per cent, of staff at this level were from an ethnic minority background. At levels below the senior civil 252W
  service, Departments and agencies are responsible for their own grading structures, but these have been allocated to broad responsibility levels to give a common basis for tabulation.

  Percentage of female and ethnic minority staff by reponsibility level—April 2000

  Headcount

  Percentage

  Number

  Female

  Ethnic minorities1

  Grades 6 and 7

  22,750

  24.3

  2.6

  Senior/Higher Executive Officer

  74,920

  30.6

  3.1

  Executive Officer

  114,580

  50.4

  5.7

  Administrative Officer/Assistant

  249,090

  62.4

  7.5

  Grade not reported

  2,670

  37.1

  2.5

  All non-industrial staff

  467,770

  52.0

  6.0

  All industrial staff

  29,870

  14.6

  1.0

  All staff

  497,640

  49.8

  5.8

  1 Ethnic minority as a percentage of known ethnic origin

  Stolen Equipment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what equipment has been stolen from his Department since 1 May 1997; and what the approximate value of each item was. [26835]

  Mr. Leslie
  Items stolen between 1 May 1997 and 31 March 2001, and their approximate value, are shown in the table.

  Corresponding figures for the 2001–02 financial year have yet to be collated.

  Description

  Number of items

  Value (£)

  Computers

  23

  21,598

  Laptop computers

  16

  23,600

  Various other IT equipment

  —

  32,205

  Projectors

  2

  12,678

  Computer printers

  5

  1,227

  Mobile phones

  3

  570

  Cameras

  2

  714

  Car Stereos (stolen from leased cars)

  3

  300

  Video recorder

  1

  300

  Minidisc player

  1

  200

  CD writer

  1

  800

  Amplifiers

  2

  500

  Bicycle

  1

  300

  Tape recorder

  1

  115

  Ladders

  —

  200

  Software

  —

  300

  Tools

  —

  850

  Consumables

  —

  309

  Total

  96,766

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many serving magistrates live in the Knowsley, North and Sefton, East constituency; and if he will make a statement. [30973]
  253W
  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is responsible for the appointment of magistrates in Knowsley and Sefton has asked me to say that the Knowsley, North and Sefton, East constituency covers two Petty Sessions areas—Knowsley and South Sefton. 34 magistrates live in this constituency.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many magistrates serve in the Knowsley area; how many of those live in Knowsley; and if he will make a statement. [30974]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is responsible for the appointment of magistrates in Knowsley, has asked me to say that there are 88 magistrates on the Knowsley bench, 48 of whom live in the Knowsley area.

  Guardian ad Litem Service
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what targets she has set for the Guardian ad Litem Service for answering mail from(a) hon. Members and (b) members of the public. [30439]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Guardian ad Litem Service is now a part of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS). The Lord Chancellor expects CAFCASS to give a timely response to mail from both hon. Members and members of the public.

  CAFCASS is working to establish standard response times for procedures across the service. CAFCASS is also undertaking work to devise a unified complaints procedure for the Service. CAFCASS aims to meet my Department's target for replying to mail from hon. Members within 20 working days of receipt.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals she has for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the Guardian ad Litem Service. [30480]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Lord Chancellor has tasked the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) with delivering improvements to the efficiency and effectiveness of the guardian service.

  CAFCASS is developing a new, unified service bringing together: the family court welfare services previously provided by the probation service; the children's division of the official solicitor's department; and local authority guardian ad litem and reporting officer services. The establishment of CAFCASS creates a new national body with a national voice to be an effective champion for children involved in family proceedings.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what his estimate is of the(a) annual cost and (b) total value of the empty properties owned by (i) his Department, (ii) his agencies and (iii) other public bodies for which he has had responsibility in each of the last four years. [30073]
  254W
  Mr. Wills
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has owned no empty properties in the last four years. The Court Service and the Northern Ireland Court Service have owned a total of 17 properties which have been empty at some point over the last four years. In all cases the buildings were empty only while being marketed for sale, except in one case where the building was empty prior to refurbishment. The estimates of cost and value are shown in the table:

  £

  Period

  Cost

  Value

  1997–98

  275,263

  363,100

  1998–99

  122,186

  1,638,060

  1999–2000

  331,688

  2,473,210

  2000–01

  99,538

  1,816,630

  The other public bodies for which the Department is responsible have owned no empty properties in the last four years.

  Department Expenditure (Publications)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what his estimate is of the expenditure of his Department on newspapers, magazines and periodicals in each of the last four years. [30098]

  Mr. Wills
  The estimated expenditure on newspapers, magazines and periodicals in each of the last four years is as follows:

  1997–98: £60,200

  1998–99: £61,700

  1999–2000: £64,600

  2000–01: £67,500.

  Court Reporting Officers
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on the work and role of court reporting officers. [31288]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Lord Chancellor has tasked the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) with operational responsibility for the work and role of court reporting officers.

  CAFCASS is developing a new, unified service bringing together: the family court welfare services previously provided by the probation service; the Children's Division of the Official Solicitor's Department; and local authority Guardian ad Litem and Reporting Officer services. The establishment of CAFCASS creates a new national body with a national voice to be an effective champion for children involved in family proceedings.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans she has to review the role and work of court reporting officers, with particular reference to the evaluation of the reports, complaints procedures and their ability to make recommendations. [31289]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Lord Chancellor has tasked the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) with operational responsibility for the work and role of court reporting officers.
  255W
  CAFCASS has day to day responsibility for the services provided by all of its staff. There are currently no plans to review the role and work of court reporting officers. CAFCASS is undertaking work to devise National Standards and a complaints procedure. The effectiveness of such procedures will be monitored by their Inspectorate who will report their findings to me.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many regulatory impact assessments have been produced by his Department since August 2001; and if he will list those produced(a) following initial consultation with affected parties about the most appropriate methodology for assessing costs and other impacts and (b) which set out full commercial impacts, including profitability, employment, consumer prices and competitiveness, as recommended in Good Policy Making. [28408]

  Mr. Wills
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has produced two partial regulatory impact assessments since August 2001. The partial regulatory impact assessments, which were included in the relevant consultation papers, relate to:

  Payments into court in satisfaction of claims

  General pre-action protocol.

  No full regulatory impact assessments have been produced since August 2001. For further information, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 17 January 2002, Official Report, column 483W.

  Shared Residency Orders
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent research she has commissioned into the effect of shared residency orders on benefits for non-resident parents when custody is divided equally. [29791]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has not commissioned any research specifically on the effect of shared residence on benefits for non-resident parents. The Children Act 1989 makes the welfare of the child the court's paramount consideration. The Department has therefore undertaken a research review and commissioned research on the impact on children of family breakdown. Income-related benefits for non-resident parents are a matter for the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

  Law Commission Report No. 270
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans the Government have to bring forward the draft legislation contained within Law Commission Report No. 270. [30432]

  Mr. Wills
  Following the publication of the Law Commission's Report No. 270: "Limitation of Actions", the Lord Chancellor is currently considering the recommendations contained in the report and will announce his decision before the summer.
  256W

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Pensions (Prisoners)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if prisoners are entitled to receive their state pension. [15674]

  Mr. McCartney
  No. Prisoners are disqualified for receipt of social security benefits including retirement pension.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will provide a breakdown of the costs of the publicity campaign for the minimum income guarantee. [18991]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Government's MIG take-up campaign has so far resulted in more than 127,000 successful claims with newly eligible pensioner households gaining on average an extra £20 per week. Advertising and media costs of the campaign have amounted to £4.015 million.

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners he estimates are eligible to claim the MIG in Loughborough; and how many claim. [30384]

  Mr. McCartney
  As at August 2001 there were 2,000 minimum income guarantee (MIG) claimants in the Loughborough constituency. Estimates of the numbers of people who may be eligible for, but who have not claimed the MIG, are not available below national level.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate how many of the single pensioners who have failed to take up their entitlement to the minimum income guarantee are(a) male and (b) female. [31274]

  Mr. McCartney
  Estimates of take-up for the minimum income guarantee (MIG) by single male and single female pensioners were published in "Income Related Benefits—Estimates of Take Up in 1999/2000", a copy of which is held in the House of Commons Library.

  Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in Kirklees claim the minimum income guarantee. [26250]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  As at August 2001, there were 12,400 customers in receipt of the minimum income guarantee in Kirklees.

  Regulation (Costs)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the cost to public funds in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02 of regulations introduced by his Department in 2000–01. [19261]

  Mr. McCartney
  We are satisfied that the benefits of regulations introduced by the Department in 2000–01 justify the cost to public funds.
  257W

  National Teleclaims Service (Retirement Pension)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the cost in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02 of the national teleclaims service for retirement pension. [19264]

  Mr. McCartney
  The national teleclaims service for retirement pension has been in operation from October 2000. The cost in 2000–01 was £1,003,327 and is estimated at £2,265,801 in 2001–02. For both years, such costs include a subsidy for inbound calls made by customers at local call rates.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the(a) number of recipients of working families tax credit who are also in receipt of housing benefit (i) in England and (ii) each English region and (b) estimated current net cost of discounting working families tax credit for the purposes of calculating housing benefit for existing claimants. [26244]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information on the number of housing benefit recipients in England who are also receiving working families tax credit by Government office region is in the table.

  It is estimated that the net cost in 2000–01 of discounting working families tax credit in calculating entitlement to housing benefit for benefit recipients in Great Britain at May 2000 would have been £250 million.

  Government office region

  Number of housing benefit recipients also receiving working families tax credit

  North East

  12,000

  North West

  26,000

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  20,000

  East Midlands

  14,000

  West Midlands

  21,000

  East

  16,000

  London

  28,000

  South East

  29,000

  South West

  19,000

  England Total

  185,000

  Notes:

  1. The data refer to households, which may be a single person, a 1couple or a family.

  2. The figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  3. Figures include those people in receipt of either the standard working families tax credit or the 30 hour premium working families tax credit.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System, annual one per cent, sample, taken in May 2000. This is the latest available data source that provides the number of housing benefit recipients who also receive working families tax credit.

  Regulation 61 Payment Scheme
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what was the total grant available to local authorities in 2001–02 following the introduction of the discretionary payment scheme to those persons who require additional assistance to pay their rent or council tax; [26957]
  258W
  (2) how much money was claimed by local authorities from his Department in 2000–01 from the Regulation 61 payment scheme; [26955]

  (3) what are the estimated savings to his Department from the abolition of Regulation 61 payments and the introduction of the discretionary payment scheme for those persons who require additional assistance with rent or council tax; [26958]

  (4) what was the budget available to local authorities in 2000–01 for Regulation 61 payments; and how much of this money (a) was direct grant and (b) had to be funded from the general fund of local authorities; [26956]

  (5) what consultations his Department had with the local authority associations regarding the abolition of the Regulation 61 payment scheme. [26959]

  Malcolm Wicks
  From 2 July 2001 we replaced the exceptional hardship and exceptional circumstances schemes with improved arrangements that are broader in scope than the old Regulation 61 provisions. Subject to certain conditions, local authorities are now able to give additional payments to any person whose housing benefit or council tax benefit is restricted where they are satisfied the person is in need of further financial assistance with housing costs. Unlike the old scheme there are no prescribed definitions of either "exceptional hardship" or "exceptional circumstances".

  The new measures give local authorities an incentive to direct funds to helping those people most in need and were not introduced to generate savings.

  The total budget available to local authorities in 2000–01 for exceptional hardship payments under Regulation 61(3) was £50 million of which the Government contribution was £20 million. Each local authority was allocated a share of the £20 million. In the same year the budget available to each local authority for exceptional circumstance payments under Regulation 61(2) was 0.1 per cent, of its total housing benefit expenditure in that year. No Government contribution was made towards these payments.

  The total budget available to local authorities under the new arrangements from their introduction on 2 July 2001 until 31 March 2002 is £37.5 million, of which the Government contribution is £15 million.

  We consulted the local authority associations in the usual way about these changes. In addition, a user group of local authority representatives was actively involved in the development of the new arrangements.

  Local Reference Rent
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) in how many and which registration areas the Rent Service uses administrative boroughs to determine the locality by which the local reference rent is ascertained; [27418]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the implications and economic consequences of the Court of Appeal Judgment in the case of Regina (Saadat and others) v. The Rent Service; [27419]

  (3) what consultations took place in the drawing up of SI 2001, No. 3561; when the LGA was informed of SI 2001, No. 3561; and for what reason the SI was not referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee; [27420]
  259W
  (4) how he will apply SI No. 3561 to ensure that in determining local reference rent, the Rent Service is not disadvantaging otherwise eligible claimants from more affluent areas; [27421]

  (5) if the purpose of SI No. 3561 is to allow the Rent Service to continue to use administrative boundaries to set local reference rent. [27422]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 15 January 2002]: Our priorities for housing benefit are to drive up standards of service, tackle fraud and error, reduce barriers to work and tackle social exclusion. In support of these aims we want to ensure that housing benefit does not provide a disincentive to work by subsidising accommodation which a person could not otherwise afford. That is why housing benefit for rented accommodation in the deregulated private sector is restricted to the broadly average rent level for similar sized properties in a locality (the local reference rent).

  Our policy is that local reference rents should reflect the generality of the market and must therefore be based on a geographical area large enough to take account of the bigger picture, reflecting a broad choice of housing.

  Rent officers use their professional expertise and judgment to determine the size and boundaries of localities. Using fixed boundaries, such as local authority areas, would not necessarily reliably reflect the market. Moreover, market forces mean that, over time, the size and shape of localities will change. Information on those localities which happen to be co-terminous with local authority areas at a particular point in time is not collected

  The Court of Appeal in its recent judgment Regina (Saadat and others) v. The Rent Service took the view that the locality used by the rent officer to calculate a local reference rent was larger than that needed reliably to decide such a rent. The formula arrived at by the court under the order then in force runs counter to our intention that localities should be based on broad geographical areas. The application of this formula could also have led to a large increase in the number of localities nationally, making it impractical to operate, resulting in delays for people claiming benefit and putting an extra burden on local authorities.

  We therefore acted swiftly to introduce amending legislation in the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) (Amendment) Order 2001, SI 3561 which now defines locality in a way which reflects Rent Service good practice. These amendments are designed to ensure that our policy is achieved and to restore certainty. They are not designed to change the way in which localities and local reference rents are decided or to widen the definition of localities so that they increase in size. The position for people claiming housing benefit is therefore unchanged, irrespective of the affluence of the area in which they live.

  The Department wrote to the local authority associations on 1 November 2001, four days before the order was laid before Parliament, outlining the nature of the proposed amendments. No representations were received in the intervening period. There is no statutory requirement to consult the Social Security Advisory Committee about proposals to make orders, but the
  260W
  committee was informed of the proposed amendments, as a matter of courtesy, at the same time as we wrote to the associations.

  Benefit Recipients
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the number of people who will, in October 2003, be in households in receipt of one or more of(a) pension credit, (b) housing benefit, (c) council tax benefit, (d) child tax credit, (e) working tax credit, (f) income support and (g) income-related jobseeker's allowance. [27689]

  Mr. McCartney
  The estimated number of people receiving one or more of the following: pension credit, housing benefit, council tax benefit, income support and income-related jobseeker's allowance in 2003–04 is 6.9 million. Numbers of people expected to receive child tax credit and working tax credit are not available as the rates and thresholds have not yet been set.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are consistent with the expenditure totals for Social Security published in the pre-Budget report.

  2. Benefit forecasts of numbers in receipt are provided on an annual average basis.

  3. The estimated numbers in receipt of pension credit are based on an end of year figure. Recipients will have their payments backdated to October 2003.

  Market Research
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what expenditure has been incurred by his(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies in each of the last four years on (i) opinion polling, (ii) focus groups and (iii) other forms of market research; and if he will list the surveys commissioned and the purpose of each. [27939]

  Mr. McCartney
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many regulatory impact assessments have been produced by his Department since August 2001; and if he will list those produced(a) following initial Consultation with affected parties about the most appropriate methodology for assessing costs and other impacts and (b) which set out full commercial impacts, including profitability, employment, consumer prices and competitiveness, as recommended in Good Policy Making. [28405]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Department has published one regulatory impact assessment (RIA) since August 2001. This related to the Disability Discrimination (Providers of Services) (Adjustment of Premises) Regulations 2001 which come into force on 1 October 2004. A copy of the RIA is available in the Library. No other regulations introduced in this period impact on business.

  This RIA is based on one published in April 1999 on which full public consultation took place. Although no specific reference to commercial impacts was made in the RIA in that consultation, respondents were asked to suggest ways in which the assessment of costs, benefits

  261W
  and impact on small organisations could be improved. They were also asked for more general comments about the assessment and possible improvements to it.

  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer my hon. Friend, the Cabinet Office Parliamentary Secretary gave on 17 January 2002, Official Report, column 483 W, about the advice on RIAs contained in the Good Policy Making guide.

  Winter Fuel Allowance
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many men aged 60 to 64 years have claimed the winter fuel allowance in Scotland; what percentage this represents of the total number of men aged 60 to 64 years who are eligible for the allowance; broken down by local authority area in Scotland; and if he will provide this information for each winter from 1997 to date. [29706]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  Hospital Stays
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), on 14 January 2002,Official Report, column 43W on hospital stays, if he will provide corresponding estimates for 2000–01 for other benefits affected by the rules; and if he will provide a breakdown in each case between pensioners and non-pensioners. [28676]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information requested is in the table:

  Million

  Working age

  Pension age

  Total reduction

  Total reduction in benefit due to 6–52 weeks hospital downrating

  Incapacity benefit

  6

  n/a

  6

  Severe disablement allowance

  3

  0

  4

  Total reduction in benefit due to 52 weeks hospital downrating

  Incapacity benefit

  8

  n/a

  8

  Severe disablement allowance

  19

  *2

  21

  Total reduction in benefit due to benefit being withdrawn after 4 weeks in hospital

  Disability living allowance

  10

  22

  32

  Attendance allowance

  n/a

  80

  80

  Invalid care allowance

  3

  0

  3

  Notes:

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

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest million so total may not sum.

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

  Unfair Dismissal
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for each year since 1992, how much compensation for unfair dismissal the Department of Work and Pensions has paid to its employees, broken down by(a) employees of each executive agency and
  262W
  (b) employees of other parts of the Department; and how many employees have received compensation in each year. [28968]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information is not collected in the form requested except for that supplied in relation to the Employment Service. With the exception of the Employment Service approval for the settlement of these claims may be obtained either at area or head office level, these figures are not collated centrally.

  Figures for the Employment Service are available for financial years 1993–94 to date. Prior to this figures were not collected in the form requested.

  Employment Service

  year

  Total payments(£)

  Number of employees

  1993–94

  6,958.97

  3

  1994–95

  6,488.00

  3

  1995–96

  48,732.79

  12

  1996–97

  63,421.65

  6

  1997–98

  32,885.00

  3

  1998–99

  1,000.00

  1

  1999–2000

  4,334.44

  1

  2000–01

  31,251.00

  6

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what is the average amount saved by each person who has taken out a stakeholder pension. [28970]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not yet available. Information on the total amount paid into stakeholder pensions on which claims for tax relief on pension contributions have been processed, and the number of individuals covered by such claims, is published by the Inland Revenue on its website. The information does not therefore cover all stakeholder pensions sold. Further details covering the period up to the end of September 2001 will be published on the website at the end of January.

  Disabled People (Income Support)
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the maximum income support is payable to and(a) disabled pensioner and (b) disabled adult under 60 years of age. [29707]

  Mr. McCartney
  There is no maximum amount of income support or minimum income guarantee payable. The amount payable is dependent on an individuals circumstances and takes account of a number of factors. These include: whether the person is single, married or has dependants; their level of other income and savings; and receipt of other benefits such as attendance allowance.

  From April 2001 the minimum income guarantee rate for a single pensioner is £98.15 and £140.55 for a couple. The severe disability premium is £41.55 for a single person or where one member of a couple qualifies and £83.10 for a couple where both qualify.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many elderly people were waiting for their
  263W
  winter fuel payment on 1 January; and what steps he is taking to eliminate the backlog in processing winter fuel payments. [29649]

  Mr. McCartney
  Winter fuel payments are made automatically to people who are in receipt of certain benefits, which include retirement pension. These payments were issued prior to 1 January 2002 and represent the majority of winter fuel payments. Other people who are entitled to a winter fuel payment are required to submit a claim form. If the claim was received before 24 September 2001, payments were also made by 1 January 2002. However, inquiries from individuals regarding payments not yet received are investigated and a payment issued as soon as possible, where appropriate.

  Salary-related Pension Schemes
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to introduce changes to the minimum funding requirement for salary-related pension schemes; and if these changes will be applied retrospectively.[29789]

  Mr. McCartney
  On 7 March 2001 the Government announced proposals to replace the minimum funding requirement (MFR) with a long-term scheme specific standard in the context of a regime of transparency and disclosure, with additional measures to strengthen protection. Implementing these proposals in full will require primary legislation, and we are working with the pensions industry and other interested parties to develop proposals for legislation as soon as parliamentary time becomes available.

  On 18 September 2001, we published "The Minimum Funding Requirement: The next stage of reform" which sets out our plans for the next stage of reform of the MFR, including consultation on draft regulations introducing interim changes to the MFR in advance of its replacement. The consultation period on the draft regulations ended on 10 December, and we plan to introduce changes before April this year. The regulations will not be retrospective.

  Occupational Pensions
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will ensure that the review of the security of occupational pensions includes measures to protect the rights of non-pensioners to the fair value of their accrued rights in the event of insolvency. [29793]

  Mr. McCartney
  On 7 March 2001 the Government published "Security for Occupational Pensions: The Government's Proposals", which set out our proposals for providing more effective security for members of defined benefit occupational pension schemes. Implementing these proposals in full will require primary legislation, and we are working with the pensions industry and other interested parties to develop detailed proposals for legislation as soon as parliamentary time becomes available. As part of this process we are considering what arrangements should apply when a scheme is wound-up with an insolvent employer.
  264W

  Child Support
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 10 December 2001,Official Report, column 610W, on child support, for what reason the December 2001 edition of the Appeals Service suggests that all existing CSA clients will be assessed on the new basis some time in 2003; and if he will make a statement on the extra resources being devoted to the Appeals Service in preparation for the anticipated increase in CSA-related appeals. [31257]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Changes to the child support scheme will take effect for new cases from April 2002. Existing cases will be transferred once the new scheme is working well, which we expect to be about a year later. Additional funding of £1.7 million has been allocated to the Appeals Service for 2002–03. This sum includes the staffing costs for 50 additional staff. A further £398,000 has been allocated to implement the necessary changes to IT procedures, and develop new training material for staff and panel members, resulting from the new child support legislation.

  Disability Living Allowances
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to the answer of 22 January 2002,Official Report, column 813W, on disability living allowances, in which constituencies (a) the revised arrangements for obtaining relevant information from claimants' general practitioners are being piloted and (b) the alternative system for extra-costs disability benefits based on activities for managing life are being tested; and what activities are encompassed within the phrase 'activities for managing life'. [31284]

  Maria Eagle
  The revised General Practitioner Factual Report is being trialed in the Wembley Disability Benefits Centre. This centre deals with cases in an area from Oxfordshire in the west, to Great Yarmouth in the east, and from North London up to Peterborough.

  The test of the Activities for Managing Life (AML) model involves up to 600 volunteers throughout Great Britain. Volunteers are not selected on a constituency basis, but are drawn from those people making new claims for DLA/AA.

  The AML model is based on 16 functional activities necessary for self-care. In addition there are two activities (17 and 18) specifically for children aged 12 or under to test the best way of gathering information on the care needs of children.

  The activities are:

  1. Feeding and drinking

  2. Dressing and undressing

  3. Washing and bathing

  4. Using the toilet

  5. Getting in/out and turning in bed

  6. Mobility

  7. Rising and sitting

  8. Fits or blackouts

  9. Orientation

  10. Taking medication or undergoing therapeutic procedures

  11. Reliance on machines and equipment

  12. Communication

  265W

  13. Budgeting

  14. Hygiene

  15. Daily routine

  16. Awareness of danger

  17. Childhood development

  18. Help children need in connection with their treatment.

HEALTH

  Ophthalmology
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on waiting times for ophthalmology referrals at the Kent and Canterbury hospital. [14332]

  Ms Blears
  We have been informed that over 200 patients are currently waiting more than 26 weeks for a first appointment for ophthalmology at the Kent and Canterbury hospital. However, since the start of the 2001–02 financial year, East Kent hospitals national health service trust has achieved a 4,990 reduction in the numbers of patients waiting over 26 weeks.

  The trust has taken a number of actions to reduce waiting times for ophthalmology still further and ensure it achieves its year end target.

  Wheelchair Services
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the level of funding was for the Harrow Wheelchair Service in each of the last five years; [8171]

  (2) if he will make a statement on his plans to increase funding for wheelchair services and on the method of distribution used to allocate this funding. [8172]

  Jacqui Smith
  Figures for individual wheelchair services are not held centrally. Funding for wheelchair services is part of health authorities general allocations. It is for health authorities in partnership with primary care groups/trusts and other local stakeholders to determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities for improving health, tackling health inequalities and modernising services. Health authority allocations for 2002–03 were announced on 6 December 2001.

  NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Bill
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the use of confidential information held by community health councils following the implementation of the NHS Reform Bill. [22324]

  Ms Blears
  The use and storage of confidential records is covered by the Data Protection Act 1998 and Health Service Council 1999/053 "For the Record". This issue will form part of the formal transition process to the new system that will be managed following consultation with the Transition Advisory Board.

  Beta Interferon
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with drug companies 266W
  on the reduction of the cost of beta interferon in the UK to the level of other European countries; and if he will make a statement. [23322]

  Ms Blears
  The Department has held discussions with Schering, Biogen and Serono, the manufacturers of the three beta interferon products licensed in the United Kingdom, and with Aventis and Teva, who jointly market Copaxone (glatiramer), in relation to the possible provision of these therapies for patients with multiple sclerosis in a manner which could be considered to be cost effective. These discussions began on 5 September, after the Department and other consultees had received copies of the preliminary appraisal determination of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, and are still continuing.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the prescribing policy of Gloucestershire health authority of beta interferon; and if he will make a statement. [29309]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: In Gloucestershire health authority beta interferon is prescribed to patients with relapsing/remitting multiple sclerosis who fulfil the clinical criteria of the guidelines of the Association of British Neurologists. The health authority has provided additional funding of £300,000 a year to meet the costs of this treatment. This policy will be reviewed following the publication of guidance by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 31 October 2001,Official Report, column 828W, on asylum seekers, how many local authorities claimed grant for (a) under 16-year-olds, and (b) 16 and 17-year-olds in (i) 1997, (ii) 1998, (iii) 1999, and (iv) 2000. [17822]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 27 January 2002]: The information requested is in the table. Data for 2000–01 on unaccompanied asylum-seeking children have been supplied by the Home Office which now administers the grant.

  LAs claiming UASC grant

  For under-16s only

  For over-16s only

  For both age groups

  1996–97

  41

  —

  —

  —

  1997–98

  51

  —

  —

  —

  1998–99

  76

  2

  22

  52

  1999–2000

  106

  4

  23

  79

  2000–01

  108

  —

  14

  94

  1 In 1996–97 and 1997–98 no distinction was made between age groups in terms of amounts claimable, so no separate figures are available.

  Community Nurses
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many community nurses are employed in the West Midlands. [23703]

  Yvette Cooper
  Work force data do not show figures for community nurses separately. Figures for hospital and community nurses are shown in the table.
  267W

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): Nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff within the community nursing areas of work by qualification in the West Midlands regional office area as at 30 September 2000

  Whole-time equivalents

  Headcount

  All staff

  7,460

  9,890

  of which:

  Health Visitors

  1,110

  1,410

  District Nurses

  1,400

  1,740

  Other community nursing

  4,950

  6,740

  of which:

  Qualified

  3,260

  4,260

  Unqualified

  1,690

  2,490

  Community psychiatric

  1,420

  1,550

  of which:

  Qualified

  1,180

  1,270

  Unqualified

  240

  280

  Community learning difficulties

  1,230

  1,500

  of which:

  Qualified

  590

  670

  Unqualified

  640

  830

  Community services

  2,310

  3,700

  of which:

  Qualified

  1,490

  2,320

  Unqualified

  820

  1,380

  Notes:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10

  Figures exclude learners and agency staff

  Due to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts

  Source:

  Department of Health non-medical workforce census

  Nursing Home Fees
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessments he has made of the compliance of the Review Panels to be established in order to adjudicate on the liability under Coughlan v. North Devon Health Authority, C.A. 1999 of a patient's property to be charged to pay for nursing home fees under Department of Health circular HSC 2001/015:LAC(2001)18 of 28 June, 2001 with Article VI of the Human Rights Act in (a) composition and (b) independence. [22958]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 18 December 2001]: Counsel's view was sought before Health Service Circular 2001/015: Local Authority Circular (2001)18 was released, including compliance with the Human Rights Act 2000. Article 6 requires that in the determination of a person's civil rights and obligations there should be a fair and independent decision making process. A decision about whether someone is entitled to particular national health service services or particular local authority services is not considered to be a determination of a civil right within the meaning of article 6.

  The question of whether a patient's property can be set against charges for nursing home fees is not a function of review panels.

  The issue of nursing home fees is discussed in HSC 2001/17:LAC(2001)26 "Guidance on free nursing care in nursing homes" issued on 25 September 2001.
  268W
  Neither the free nursing care nor the continuing care guidance deals with issues of whether the value of a patient's property should be included in the means test when assessing an individual's contribution towards the cost of nursing home fees. The relevant guidance, regarding local councils contribution to the costs of accommodation and board, is in the charges for residential accommodation guidance, which is underpinned by National Assistance (Assessment of Resources) Regulations 1992, regulation 25. Some of these decisions have to comply with article 6 of the Human Rights Act, and in these cases the complaints panel should be independent of the council.

  NHS Appointments
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people who have been appointed to a position within the NHS by the NHS Appointments Commission have declared a political interest, broken down by political parties; and what proportion of the total number of appointees this represents for each political party;[24635]

  (2) how many people who have been appointed to a position within the NHS by the NHS Appointments Commission have declared a party political interest; [24636]

  (3) how many appointments to positions and bodies within the NHS the NHS Appointments Commission has made since its inception. [24638]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: Since its establishment on 1 April 2001 the National Health Service Appointments Commission has made 608 appointments to 313 bodies. 218 of those appointed had declared political activity in the previous five years. The breakdown by political party is given in the table, both under the Commission, and in relation to appointments made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State immediately before the Commission was established.

  Appointments made by the Secretary of State to NHS trusts, health authorities and primary care trusts as at 31 March 2001 according to declaration on political activity

  Number

  Percentage

  Conservative

  153

  4.0

  Independent

  38

  1.0

  Labour

  823

  21.5

  Liberal Democrat

  123

  3.2

  Other

  19

  0.5

  No political activity declared

  2,671

  69.8

  Total

  3,827

  100

  Appointments made by the NHS Appointments Commission to NHS trusts, health authorities and primary care trusts, as at 10 January 2002 according to declaration on political activity

  Number

  Percentage

  Conservative

  30

  4.9

  Independent

  9

  1.5

  Labour

  143

  23.5

  Liberal Democrat

  33

  5.4

  Other

  3

  0.5

  No political activity declared

  390

  64.2

  Total

  608

  100

  269W

  Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to consult the(a) retiring and (b) incoming chairmen of the Worcestershire acute hospitals NHS trust on their preferred date for the transfer of their responsibilities; and if he will make a statement. [25404]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 9 January 2002]: Other than setting the criteria according to which appointments are made, Ministers no longer have any direct role in the appointments process for chairs of national health service trusts. The NHS Appointments Commission now has responsibility for the appointment, training and appraisal of chairs and non-executive board members of NHS trusts, health authorities and primary care trusts.

  Health Action Zones
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been invested in health action zones by the NHS in each year since 1997. [27354]

  Ms Blears
  There are 26 Health Action Zones (HAZs) based in the most deprived areas of the country. Since their inception in 1998 up to the end of the 2001–02 financial year HAZs have received total direct funding of £274.2 million to tackle issues including smoking cessation and drug misuse. Health authorities in HAZ areas have also received £101.8 million Health Inequalities Adjustment funding (HIA).

  The table shows the HAZ and HIA funding for 1998 to 2001.

  £ million

  Core funding1

  Targeted funding

  Health inequalities adjustment

  Total

  1998–99

  7.5

  —

  —

  7.5

  1999–2000

  56.5

  30

  —

  86.5

  2000–01

  59.5

  60

  —

  119.5

  2001–02

  60.8

  —

  101.8

  162.6

  Total

  184.3

  90

  101.8

  376.1

  1 Includes smoking cessation and drug misuse moneys

  Note:

  Figures have been rounded

  Insurance
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent by NHS bodies on insurance in each year since 1997. [27252]

  Ms Blears
  Information about expenditure on insurance by national health service bodies is not centrally collected by the Department.

  The risk pooling scheme for trusts (RPST) was introduced in April 1999 as an alternative to purchasing commercial insurance for non-clinical risks, other than motor vehicle insurance. More than 90 per cent, of NHS
  270W
  trusts are involved in the scheme. The figures show the net amounts contributed to the pool by trusts between 1999 and 2003:

  £million

  1999–2000

  12.3

  2000–01

  17.3

  2001–021

  9.1

  2002–031

  8.3

  1 Outstanding amounts left in the pool are rebated two years in arrears. Therefore the 2001–02 figure reflects a rebate of £10.4 million left over from 1999–2000 and the 2002–03 figure reflects a rebate of £12.3 million left over from 2000–01.

  Segregated Ablutions
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of trusts have failed to provide segregated washing and toilet facilities for patients. [27234]

  Ms Blears
  The target date for the provision of segregated washing and toilet facilities for patients is December 2002. National health service trusts are taking action, including construction schemes, to achieve this target and a report will be made at that time.

  Blood Donors
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people gave blood in Buckinghamshire in each financial year since 1997. [27780]

  Ms Blears
  Figures received from the National Blood Service show that the number of blood donors in Buckinghamshire in each financial year since 1997 is shown in the table.

  Financial year

  Number of donors1

  Donations collected

  1997–98

  2—

  2—

  1998–99

  2—

  35,378

  1999–2000

  28,137

  36,331

  2000–01

  26,901

  33,630

  2001–02

  25,970

  324,905

  1 Donor numbers taken at the mid-year point

  2 Unavailable

  3 To date

  Out-patients
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many out-patients were waiting for treatment between(a) 0 and 12 weeks, (b) 13 and 25 weeks and (c) over 26 weeks in the Portsmouth hospitals trust areas in (i) 1997, (ii) 1998, (iii) 1999, (iv) 2000 and (vi) 2001. [27681]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 16 January 2002]: Information is not collected centrally on out-patients waiting for between 0 and 12 weeks. Information in the table relates to Quarter two figures for the years 1997 to 2001.

  Portsmouth hospitals trust out-patients waiting times

  Quarter 2 figures

  Not seen 13 to 25 weeks

  Not seen 26 weeks plus

  1997

  2,273

  793

  1998

  2,441

  861

  1999

  3,185

  753

  271W

  Portsmouth hospitals trust out-patients waiting times

  Quarter 2 figures

  Not seen 13 to 25 weeks

  Not seen 26 weeks plus

  2000

  4,748

  1,274

  2001

  4,231

  1,249

  Note:

  The large increase between 1999 and 2000 is the result of incorrect counting procedures. This was picked up by Portsmouth hospitals trust and is now reporting in line with NHS Executive (south-east regional office) guidance.

  Delayed Discharges
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were waiting to leave hospital who were delayed by lack of availability of social services beds in(a) September 2001, (b) October 2001, (c) November 2001 and (d) December 2001 broken down by local authority; and if he will make a statement. [28335]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information is collected centrally on a quarterly basis and is collected on the basis of health authority. Reasons for delay are collected on the basis of "awaiting public funding" and "awaiting care home placement". The second group includes those who are not social services' responsibility. The information available for September 2001 has been placed in the Library—the information for December 2001 is not yet available.

  In October 2001 we announced the investment of an additional £300 million over this year and next as part of a radical 'cash for change' programme. This funding has gone to councils to enable them to reduce delayed discharges and targeted on the areas with the most severe problems. We are already seeing reductions in delayed discharge as a result of the funding.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists(a) are registered and (b) were registered as providing NHS dental treatment (i) in Enfield and (ii) in Haringey in each year since 1997. [28838]

  Ms Blears
  The number of principal dentists on Enfield and Haringey health authority's list who carry out the majority of their general dental service (GDS) work in that HA area is shown in the table for September in the years 1997 to 2000. Data are also shown for 31 March 2001, the day before the HA was merged with Barnet HA. The total number of GDS dentists is also included in the table.

  Separate information for Enfield and Haringey is not available.

  Between 1 April 2001 and 30 September 2001 the number of GDS dentists in Barnet, Enfield and Haringey HA increased from 370 to 377 dentists.

  General dental service: principal dentists and total number of dentists, 1997 to 2001

  Enfield and Haringey health authority1

  Principal dentists

  All GDS dentists2

  September 1997

  184

  194

  September 1998

  188

  198

  September 1999

  189

  205

  September 2000

  192

  209

  March 2001

  198

  213

  272W
  1 Dentists who do the majority of their work in Enfield and Haringey HA. Excludes dentists in the Enfield and Haringey HA area who do most of their work in other HAs.

  2 All GDS dentists cover principal dentists on the health authority list, their assistants and vocational dental practitioners.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what notice dentists are required to give patients of the termination of the availability of NHS treatment; and if he will make a statement. [28839]

  Ms Blears
  Dentists, as independent contractors, can decide whether or not to accept patients for national health service care and treatment under a continuing care arrangement (for patients over-18 years of age) or under a capitation arrangement (for those under-18).

  If a dentist decides to withdraw NHS care arrangements, under the terms of service he has the right to terminate these arrangements, provided that he gives the patients three months notice, in writing, and uses his best endeavours to complete any outstanding treatment, before the arrangements come to an end. He must also notify the health authority accordingly and give details of any care and treatment which he has agreed to provide and which is outstanding, including any arrangements made for completion of that care and treatment.

  If a dentist wishes to terminate an arrangement with less than three months notice, he must apply to the HA setting out the reasons and asking the HA to terminate the arrangement. A dentist may ask the HA to terminate the arrangement immediately in the case of violent patients.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements are in place to assist patients to register with an NHS dentist; what support is provided where a local dentist is not available; and if he will make a statement. [28840]

  Ms Blears
  We are committed to ensuring that national health service dentistry is available to all who want it through registration with an NHS dentist or via NHS Direct. In supporting this commitment we have invested over £100 million in the last two years. Significant resources have been invested in personal dental service pilots to improve access to NHS dentistry in areas with significant problems.

  Registration can play an important role in promoting oral health through strengthening the relationship between patient and dentist. However, many people do not visit a dentist regularly. The systems are now in place for NHS Direct to advise patients in all parts of the country on where they can find a NHS dentist, within locally defined time and distance standards.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many NHS registered dentists there were in the Buckinghamshire health authority area in each year since 1997; [24854]

  (2) how many dental practices in the Buckingham constituency (a) closed and (b) opened in each year since 1997. [24853]
  273W
  Ms Blears
  The total number of dentists and principals in Buckinghamshire health authority 1997 to 2001 are shown in the table.

  General dental service: Total number of dentists and principals in Buckinghamshire health authority, 1997–2001

  At 30 September each year

  All GDS dentists

  Of which: Principal dentists

  1997

  265

  248

  1998

  260

  246

  1999

  281

  262

  2000

  272

  252

  2001

  294

  273

  1 Dentists who do the majority of their work in Buckinghamshire HA. Excludes dentists in Buckinghamshire HA area who do most of their work in other HAs.

  2 All GDS dentists covers principal dentists who are on the HA's list, their assistants and vocational dental practitioners.

  In addition two Personal Dental Services schemes have commenced since 1997. The number of dentists were as follows:

  September each year

  Number of dentists

  of which: also worked in the GDS

  1999

  13

  2

  2000

  18

  3

  2001

  27

  3

  The number of dental practices in Buckinghamshire health authority that (a) closed and (b) opened is shown in the table for the years 1997 to 2000 and for January to September 2001. This information is not available by parliamentary constituency.

  Number of dental practices that have closed and opened in Buckinghamshire health authority 1997–2001

  (a) Practice closed

  (b) Practice opened

  1997

  4

  8

  1998

  5

  9

  1999

  3

  4

  2000

  6

  10

  2001(up to end September)

  —

  —

  1 Data cover the General Dental Service and Personal Dental Service

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients in Dorset were registered with an NHS dentist in April(a) 1991, (b) 1996, (c) 1997 and (d) 2001. [30319]

  Ms Blears
  The table shows the number of adults and children registered with a general dental service dentist in Dorset health authority for each of the years 1996, 1997 and 2001.

  Comparable data for 1991 are not available as registrations were only introduced in October 1990 and registration numbers had not yet had time to reach consistent levels.

  In September 1996, the registration period for new adult and child registrations was shortened to 15 months. Previously adult registrations lasted for 24 months and child registrations expired at the end of the following calendar year. This affected registration numbers from December 1997 onwards.
  274W
  Some people who are not registered with a dentist choose to attend occasionally.

  General dental service: number of adult and child registrations Dorset HA

  30 April each year

  Adults

  Children

  Total

  1996

  304,958

  99,921

  404,879

  1997

  294,422

  99,667

  394,089

  20011

  271,711

  102,348

  374,059

  1 Figures affected by the change in the registration periods to 15 months

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists in Dorset were taking new adult NHS patients in each of the years between 1991 and 2000 for which information is available. [30318]

  Ms Blears
  The number of general dental service dentists taking new adult patients for national health service treatment in Dorset health authority are estimated to be around 88 in 1999 and around 92 in 2000. These figures are estimates for November of each year, and are based on the number of dentists meeting certain registration criteria (including a minimum level for new adult registrations).

  These estimates are not available for years prior to 1999.

  Health Authority Allocations
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state in respect of(a) Buckinghamshire health authority, (b) Oxfordshire health authority and (c) Berkshire health authority, (i) their allocations from his Department for 2002–03 and (ii) the amount by which these allocations differ from their national level if they were funded in accordance with his Department's weighted-capitation funding formula. [26558]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: The 2002–03 allocations and the amounts each health authority are under their targets determined by the weighted capitation formula are shown in the table.

  £ million

  Health authority

  2002–03 allocation

  2002–03 distances from targets

  Buckinghamshire

  493.96

  -12.20

  Oxfordshire

  445.46

  -8.88

  Berkshire

  588.57

  -23.16

  Pulmonary Disease
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make it his policy to collect statistics for the number of patients in each health authority area with chronic pulmonary illnesses; [29356]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the prevalence of disability owing to chronic respiratory disease. [29354]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on the incidence of individual conditions is not routinely collected centrally. We consider that it would not be cost effective to do this, due to the many conditions involved and the large
  275W
  investment in manpower and other resources that would be required to collect, maintain and update this type of statistical information.

  In 1999, however, the Department commissioned the Wessex Institute for Health Research and Development to produce a report on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The report estimated that, in a typical health authority of 500,000 people, around 3,000 in the 45 plus age group would have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

  No estimates have been made on the prevalence of disability although the Government do recognise that lung disease can be very debilitating.

  Figures from the Office for National Statistics for causes of death show that, in 1999, around 150,000 people died from respiratory disease.

  Health Care (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the number of delayed discharges at hospitals in Gloucestershire; and if he will make a statement. [29303]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: The Gloucestershire Health Community has been working closely with Gloucestershire county council social services and the independent sector in order to reduce the number of patients who although fit to be discharged from hospital are still occupying an acute bed. Since July local information shows the average number of patients waiting for discharge has declined from 109 to 47 on 20 January.

  The national health service regional office and social care region are closely monitoring the action being taken in Gloucestershire to reduce delayed discharges.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the anticipated impact on Gloucestershire of the structural reforms proposed for the NHS. [29310]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: The structural reforms proposed for the national health service will mean that as from April 2002, primary care trusts will be responsible for securing services, improving health and integrating health and social care in their areas. PCTs are local organisations led by clinicians and local people. They will work with partners from the local community to ensure that the local health service is responsive to local needs and best represents the needs of patients. By 2004, PCTs will receive 75 per cent. of the NHS budget to help them achieve their new agenda. All three PCTs in Gloucestershire will be located within the newly created Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire health authority, an organisation which will help to develop and performance manage the health service within its borders.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the availability of carers in Gloucestershire; and if he will make a statement. [29307]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: Gloucestershire county council have the statutory duty to provide home care in that county.
  276W
  The most recent statistics on domiciliary staff numbers employed by Gloucestershire county council returned to the Department, for the year 2000, are as follows:

  Number

  Home/domiciliary care/help organizers

  58

  Assistant and trainee home care/help organizers

  16

  Home care staff/home helps

  561

  Councils generally provide a significant proportion of their home care by contracting private and voluntary sector agencies. Central data on the level of this provision are not kept.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of shortages of(a) doctors, (b) nurses and (c) scientific staff in the NHS in Gloucestershire; and if he will make a statement. [29306]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: Information on the number of vacancies at national health service trusts within Gloucestershire health authority in March 2001 that had been unfilled for more than three months are given in the table.

  Vacancies in NHS trusts in Gloucestershire HA, all staff groups, three month vacancies1 for total of each group

  Number

  Medical and dental staff

  0

  Total consultants

  0

  Other doctor and dentists (excluding training grades)

  0

  Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  50

  Qualified Allied Health Professionals

  10

  1 Three month vacancies are vacancies as at 31 March 2001 which trusts are actively trying to fill, which had lasted for three months or more (whole-time equivalents).

  Notes:

  1. Numbers are rounded to the nearest 10.

  2. Qualified Allied Health Professionals includes qualified staff from the following occupational groups: chiropody, dietetics, occupational therapy, orthoptics/optics, physiotherapy, diagnostic and therapeutic radiography.

  Source:

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey 2001

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) nursing home and (b) residential care home places there were (i) in May 1997 and (ii) at the latest date for which figures are available, in Gloucestershire; and if he will make a statement. [29304]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: The table shows the number of registered nursing beds in nursing homes, private hospitals and clinics and the number of places in residential care homes in Gloucestershire in 1997 and 2001.

  Number of nursing beds and residential places1 in Gloucestershire, 1997 and 2001—as at 31 March

  Nursing care1,2

  Residential Care

  Total care beds

  1997

  4,047

  3,737

  7,784

  2001

  3,064

  4,241

  7,305

  1 Excludes places in childrens' homes

  2 Registered beds in general and mental nursing homes, private hospitals and clinics.

  277W
  3 Information for registered nursing beds for 1997 relates to the period 1 October 1996 to 31 March 1997.

  Source:

  Department of Health Annual Statistical returns

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) nurses and (b) doctors were employed in the NHS in Gloucestershire (i) in May 1997 and (ii) at the latest date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [29308]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: The numbers of doctors and nurses employed in the national health service in Gloucestershire are shown in the table and show a 13.8 per cent. rise in the number of doctors and 2 per cent. rise in the number of nurses employed in the NHS in Gloucestershire between September 1997 and September 2000.

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): medical and dental staff1, general medical practitioners2 and nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff in Gloucestershire health authority each year as at 30 September

  Headcount

  1997

  2000

  Gloucestershire HA

  All doctors

  870

  980

  of which:

  HCHS doctors

  500

  610

  Practitioners (excluding GP retainers)

  360

  380

  All nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  5,420

  5,530

  of which:

  Qualified

  3,360

  3,590

  Unqualified

  1,830

  1,720

  Practice nurses

  230

  220

  1 Figures exclude medical hospital practitioners and medical clinical assistants, most of whom are also GPs working part time in hospitals.

  2 All practitioners (excluding GP retainers) include UPEs, restricted principals, assistants, GP registrars, salaried doctors (para. 52 SFA) and PMS others. GP retainers were collected for the first time in 1999, in 2000 there were 1,117 in England, 224 in South West RO and 44 in Gloucestershire HA.

  Notes:

  1. Due to the new regional office boundaries in 1999 the 1997 figures are an estimated regional split.

  2. Figures exclude learners and agency staff.

  3. Due to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts.

  4. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Sources:

  Department of Health Medical and Dental Workforce Census.

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics.

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  Oncology Unit, Cheltenham General Hospital
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the average time waited on the day for their treatment by out-patients at the oncology unit at Cheltenham General Hospital; and if he will make a statement. [29305]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: The information requested is not available centrally.

  Crawley and Redhill Hospitals
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the 278W
  emergency closure of the accident and emergency department at Crawley and Redhill hospitals effective from 21 January. [30115]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 24 January 2002]: The accident and emergency departments in the Surrey and Sussex healthcare national health service trust were not closed to emergency cases.

  Emergency cases where paramedics determined that the patient should be treated at the nearest accident and emergency department were accepted as were all patients self referring to the accident and emergency departments. Diversion arrangements were made for neighbouring hospitals to take other urgent (but not emergency) cases.

  Class A Drugs
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths were caused by the use of(a) ecstasy, (b) cocaine and (c) heroin in the last 12 months; what steps he is taking to reduce the incidence of deaths caused by the use of class A drugs; and if he will make a statement. [29830]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 24 January 2002]: The latest year for which figures are available is 1999. The number of deaths in England and Wales where ecstasy, cocaine and heroin/morphine was mentioned on the death certificate, with or without other substances, are as follows:

  Number

  MDMA/Ecstasy

  26

  Cocaine

  88

  Heroin/Morphine1

  754

  1 As heroin breaks down in the body into morphine, the latter may be detected at post mortem and recorded on the death certificate.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics database of deaths from drug related poisonings

  In November 2001 we launched our action plan to prevent drug-related deaths which aims, by promoting practical measures such as resuscitation training for drug users and harm reduction training for drug treatment staff, to reduce the number of these deaths. A press release was issued at launch, reference 2001/0543, and can be found on the Department's website.

  Postponed Operations
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations were postponed in South Tyneside in(a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) 2001. [30334]

  Jacqui Smith
  The number of operations postponed in South Tyneside in 1999, 2000 and 2001 is shown in the table.

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Number of elective operations

  12,044

  13,024

  13,595

  Number of operations postponed

  41

  53

  75

  Diabetes
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what scientific advice he has received on the
  279W
  relative merits of (a) cell research and (b) the further development of pharmaceutical products in developing a cure for type 1 diabetes. [30544]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have received no advice on the relative merits of cell research and the further development of pharmaceutical products in developing a cure for Type 1 diabetes. The Human Genetics Commission provides us with strategic advice on developments in human genetics and their social and ethical implications. To date, the Commission has given no advice relevant to cell research and diabetes. The Gene Therapy Advisory Committee has received no proposals for gene therapy research relating to diabetes and none is expected at present. We will, however, continue to monitor developments with interest.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice his Department provides to primary care trusts and other health bodies on screening vulnerable individuals for early signs of the onset of diabetes. [30545]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have asked the UK National Screening Committee to assess the benefits and disbenefits of screening for Type 2 diabetes. The Committee has decided that further research, which may require some complex studies, is needed to inform its advice. It will report to the Department in 2005.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have(a) Type I and(b) Type II diabetes; and what research his Department has (i) commissioned and (ii) evaluated on (A) the costs to the health service of diabetic care, (B) the numbers of undiagnosed diabetics and (C) the costs and benefits of a high risk screening programme for Type II diabetes. [31279]

  Jacqui Smith
  An estimated 1.3 million people in England have diagnosed diabetes, of whom around 15 per cent, have Type 1 diabetes and around 85 per cent, have Type 2 diabetes. In addition, as many as 1 million people may have Type 2 diabetes without yet knowing it. Around 5 per cent. of total national health service resources is used for the care of people with diabetes. We see bringing clarity to the question of screening for Type 2 diabetes as a priority. We have asked the United Kingdom National Screening Committee to assess the benefits and disbenefits. The committee will make recommendations in 2005.

  Lymington Community Hospital
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when construction of the new Lymington community hospital will(a) start and (b) be completed; and if he will make a statement. [27345]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 24 January 2002]: New Forest primary care trust, which manages Lymington hospital, has been actively working on plans for a new hospital which are now very advanced. The PCT intends to submit an outline business case to the south-east regional office of the Department of Health in February 2002 seeking approval to proceed with the detail design and build of the new hospital.
  280W

  Social Services
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Government's funding of social services in Gloucestershire, with particular reference to disabled people. [29934]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 24 January 2002]: Gloucestershire's Personal Social Services Standard Spending Assessment (PSS SSA) increases from £81.3 million for 2001–02 to £84.2 million for 2002–03, which is an increase of over 5 per cent. In addition, Gloucestershire will receive substantial increases in grants for social services. Their carers grant will increase by 21 per cent. Their building capacity and deferred payment grant will double. Their children's services grant will increase by 13 per cent.

  It is for Gloucestershire city council to decide how much of its PSS SSA to use for services for disabled people.

  Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Amendment Regulations
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations he has had from insurance companies about the introduction of the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Amendment Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [29916]

  (2) what discussions he had with insurance companies before introducing the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Amendment Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement. [29915]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 24 January 2002]: The Department advised the Association of British Insurers of planned increases under the provisions of the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act 1999 in the tariff and cap on 7 December 2001. Officials have since corresponded with the association on these matters and I understand a further approach has been made to me seeking to delay implementation. However the increased charges will not have an immediate impact as they will only apply to road traffic accidents happening on or after 28 January 2002. As the average time to settle the relevant insurance claims is around 18 months, the full effect of the increases will not occur until summer 2003.

  Occupational Health Services
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people the Government's Chief Medical Officer estimates were covered by occupational health services in(a) 1975, (b) 1985, (c) 1995 and (d) the last year for which survey figures are available. [30189]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 25 January 2002]: The only estimates of occupational health provision the Department holds are taken from the 1993 Health and Safety Executive (HSE) contract research report "Occupational Health Provision at Work" (reference: 57/1993). The HSE has recently commissioned a new survey to assess the current level of usage of occupational health support among employers.
  281W

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the implications for the payment of ambulance staff of tri-service working with police and the fire service. [30306]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 25 January 2002]: The three invest to save projects in Wiltshire, Gloucestershire and Cleveland have been established to test the cost and operational effectiveness of joint ambulance, fire and police control rooms and a range of shared support facilities such as fleet management, information technology and accommodation.

  National health service ambulance trusts have the local freedom to vary the rates paid to their staff to take account of local circumstances, including the discretion to make local pay supplements.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on pay and conditions of service for(a) ambulance technicians and (b) ambulance paramedics. [30304]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 25 January 2002]: The Ambulance Whitley Councils determine the pay for all ambulance staff on national terms and conditions. Negotiations on pay for 2002–03 will begin shortly.

  For the future we remain committed to working closely with unions, professional organisations and employers to introduce a new pay system that will offer staff working in the national health service a more attractive career structure and fairer pay.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has for personal development for ambulance staff; and what monitoring occurs of ambulance trusts to ensure that they deliver these. [30307]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 25 January 2002]: 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 which are available in the Library or can be accessed on the DOH website: www.doh.gov.uk/lifelonglearning.

  In 2001–02 £20 million has been invested in the NHS via workforce development confederations to ensure that trusts, including ambulance trusts, have the capacity to deliver training effectively and to support them in meeting personal and professional development needs identified as a result of appraisal.

  The new strategic health authorities will monitor progress on implementing the lifelong learning framework targets, through mainstream performance management processes.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will investigate the eight minute limit for emergency calls for the ambulance service, with special reference to congestion, road works and other restrictions to journeys. [30305]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 25 January 2002]: Standards, supported by evidence of clinical and cost effectiveness, have been set for ambulance responses to
  282W
  emergency and urgent ambulance calls. Current standards require that calls to people with potentially life-threatening illnesses and conditions should be responded to within eight minutes irrespective of location in 75 per cent. of cases. All other calls should be responded to within 14 minutes in urban areas and 19 minutes in rural areas in 95 per cent. of cases.

  Road conditions do have an impact on ambulance response times but clinical evidence suggests that achievement of the 75 per cent. standard could save 1,800 lives each year in people under 75 years of age suffering heart attacks.

  In March 2000, we recurrently invested an extra £21 million in the ambulance services to support the delivery of the 75 per cent. Category A eight minute target. This is being invested in more ambulance staff and front line vehicles.

  Residential Care Homes
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds there were in residential care homes(a) in May 1997 and (b) on the latest date for which figures are available in (i) England, (ii) Kent and (iii) the Tonbridge and Mailing constituency.[30016]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 25 January 2002]: The table shows the number of places in residential care homes in England and in the Kent area in 1997 and 2001. Information for Tonbridge and Mailing constituency is not collected. Information relates to 31 March each year.

  Residential care places1 in England and Kent, 1997 and 2001

  As at 31 March

  Rounded numbers

  (i) England

  (ii) Kent2

  (a)1997

  338,100

  16,000

  (b)2001

  341,200

  15,900

  1 Excludes place in children's homes.

  2 Information is presented for the county of Kent prior to local government re-organisation on 1 April 1998. Figures for 2001 therefore relate to the area corresponding to the unitary authority of Medway Towns and the county area of Kent.

  Source:

  Department of Health Annual Statistical returns

  Day Centres
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the timetable is for local authorities to deliver best value in terms of care, with specific reference to the management of day centres. [30302]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 25 January 2002]: Every council has to conduct best value reviews, which together must cover all their functions over the five year period ending 31 March 2005.

  Electronic Medical Equipment
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost to the NHS in each of the last five years has been of compensation to patients and their families as result of adverse incidents involving the use of electronic medical equipment; and what contingencies the NHS is making for the next five years. [29773]
  283W
  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]: Information about clinical negligence claims involving the use of electronic medical equipment is not held centrally. The clinical negligence scheme for trusts is a global fund paid into on an on-going basis. It does not operate as a contingency fund for specific types of claim.

  Private Hospitals
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of private hospitals have crash teams for the purpose of resuscitation. [31125]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]: This information is not held centrally at present. However, when the National Care Standards Commission takes over from health authorities the regulation of private health care services on 1 April this year, it will compile a comprehensive national database about service providers and the facilities they offer.

  Macular Degeneration
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to reduce the number of age-related macular degeneration patients eligible for treatment(a) losing sight and (b) registering blind owing to a lack of regional availability of visudyne; [30715]

  (2)what discussions his Department has held with representatives of (a) general practitioners, (b) primary care trusts, (c) health authorities and (d) ophthalmologists to discuss (i) the speed of referral for age-related macular degeneration patients eligible for treatment and (ii) the shortening of the treatment process; [30716]

  (3)if he will issue guidance to primary care trusts on treatable age-related macular degeneration to increase referral speed to an ophthalmologist and the shortening of the treatment process; [30717]

  (4)what plans he has to include screening for wet age-related macular degeneration as part of the regular sight test for the relevant age groups. [30718]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]: Research trials suggest that photodynamic therapy may be capable of arresting sight loss among certain patients with 'wet' age-related macular degeneration. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is currently undertaking an appraisal of this treatment and will advise if it should be made generally available under the national health service. The NICE Appraisal Committee will meet on 7 March 2002 to produce draft guidance. The Appraisal Committee is to have a second meeting on 15 May and guidance to the NHS is expected in July 2002, providing there are no appeals.

  The Department has asked NHS bodies to continue with local arrangements for the managed introduction of new technologies where guidance from NICE is not available at the time the technology first became available. These arrangements should involve an assessment of all relevant factors including the available evidence on effect.

  We will consider any implications for primary and secondary eye care in the light of NICE'S draft guidance.
  284W
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the number of patients with age-related macular degeneration eligible for treatment who have(a) lost eye sight and (b) been registered blind since visudyne received regulatory approval; [30714]

  (2)how many patients are eligible for photodynamic treatment for (a) wet and (b) dry age-related macular degeneration annually; [30719]

  (3)what estimates he has made of the number of age-related macular degeneration patients eligible for treatment who have lost the sight of one eye before they visit an ophthalmologist. [30721]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]: We are unable to estimate how many patients may benefit from photodynamic therapy until the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) has completed its appraisal of the therapy. NICE'S guidance is expected in July 2002.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were treated with photodynamic treatment for(a) wet and (b) dry age-related macular degeneration in the (i) NHS and (ii) private sector in the last year for which figures are available. [30720]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]: In 2000–01 there were 3,317 finished consultant episodes coded "degeneration of macular and posterior pole" in the national health service. Currently it is generally accepted that only 'wet' macular degeneration is susceptible to treatment but we do not hold information on the extent of the use of visudyne in these treatments. The Department does not routinely collect information on operations carried out in the private sector.

  Western General Hospital, Swindon
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 21 January 2002,Official Report, column 671W, on Western General hospital, Swindon, what hospital equipment is purchased (a) centrally and (b) by each trust; what budgetary controls he exercises over equipment purchases for new hospitals; what recent discussion he has had with the trust responsible for the new Swindon hospital about equipment purchases; and if he will make a statement about the procedure used to purchase the equipment for the Western General hospital at Swindon. [31007]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]: Equipment purchases are the responsibility of individual national health service trusts who are expected to obtain best value for money. The NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency does however negotiate national contracts on behalf of the NHS where these contracts produce value for money and genuine savings. It is then up to each individual trust to purchase its own equipment according to its needs. The only recent example of centrally purchased equipment is that provided for cancer care funded from the New Opportunities Fund.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had no discussions with Swindon and Marlborough NHS trust about equipment purchases. Approximately £8 million of public money has been made available for the purchase of equipment for the Great Western hospital, Swindon

  285W
  by the Swindon and Marlborough NHS trust. The procurement procedure for the equipment is a matter for the trust.

  Correspondence
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the interim reply of 15 January 2002 (ref: PQ 4078/2001/2002), when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a substantive reply to his letter of 28 November 2001 (ref: POOO1146 (27311)). [31287]

  Ms Blears
  I shall ensure that my hon. Friend receives a reply to his letter as soon as possible.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Acceptable Behaviour Contracts
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many acceptable behaviour contracts have been issued to date(a) in total and (b) in each crime and disorder partnership; and if he will make a statement. [27640]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 15 January 2002]: Figures for the number of Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABCs) are not held centrally as they are an informal measure, however we are aware that they are being used by many police forces and local authorities throughout the country. The Government recognise the effectiveness of this and other measures in turning round behaviour at the earliest opportunity and in our White Paper on police reform we encourage their widespread use and recognise the role that they can play in supporting the antisocial behaviour order process in preventing antisocial behaviour.

  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been detained under the internment provision of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001; on which day each was arrested; which have been appealed; what progress has been made in each appeal; and if he will make a statement. [28324]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 16 January 2002 to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), Official Report, column 350W.

  Appeals are proceeding in relation to each of those detained before the Special Immigration Appeal Commission. A directions hearing was held on 28 January and a substantive hearing will be set in due course.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those detained under the recent Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, indicating the reason why each one has been detained. [29230]

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many certificates he has issued using his powers under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001; if he will profile those persons detained by(a) country of origin, (b) nationality,
  286W
  (c) gender, (d) those over and under 18 years of age, (e) religious belief and (f) language spoken; and at what location detained persons have been held. [29253]

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been detained under Section 4 of the Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001; and how many remain detained. [28670]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer I gave on 16 January 2002 to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin),Official Report, column 350W.

  Appeals are proceeding in relation to each of those detained before the Special Immigration Appeal Commission. A directions hearing was held on 28 January and a substantive hearing will be set in due course.

  Errol Flynn
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to place in the Public Records Office(a) the MI5 files and (b) other records relating to Errol Flynn; and if he will make a statement. [29231]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Security Service systematically reviews and where appropriate releases historical records to the Public Record Office in accordance with the criteria agreed with them and endorsed by the Advisory Council.

  The Security Service has reviewed and released all archived files covering the First World War. Moving on to the Second World War, the second phase in its release programme, the service released in November 2001 its fourth tranche of files on the period up to the end of that war. The service is reviewing its inter-war records in preparation for further releases. It will then move on to the period after the Second World War. If there is any record about Errol Flynn, it will be reviewed as part of this process. The timing of this depends on the resources that the Service is able to devote to the process.

  The Home Office can find no other documents about Errol Flynn.

  Probation Service
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if there will be a public sector comparator in respect of the tendering for Probation Service Facilities Management Services and if the details will be published; what the estimated costs are of the procurement process in respect of the tendering of Probation Service Facilities Management Services; whether there is a better quality services review in respect of the arrangements; whether the employee status of relevant Probation Service staff would change following successful tendering of these services; and if he will make a statement. [28783]

  Beverley Hughes
  Although a public sector comparator is primarily used in Public Private Partnerships/Private Finance Initiative (PPP/PFI) type procurements, which Probation Services Facilities Management is not, it is planned to seek to use it to test whether any proposed contract represents good value for money. It is not planned to publish the details. The costs of the procurement process for tendering facilities management services is subsumed within the overall costs of arranging
  287W
  facilities and estates management services for the new national service and are therefore not separately identifiable. The principles of a better quality services review are being applied as appropriate. Should services currently provided by Probation Service staff in the future be provided by other organisations the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations (TUPE) would determine whether employee status would change. This would need to be assessed on an individual basis.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the National Probation Service will put Probation Service Facilities Management Services out to tender; when the outline business case for tendering Probation Service Facilities Management Services was published; when the final business case for the tendering of Probation Facilities Management Services will be published; if he will place a copy in the Library; whether the notice for tendering Probation Facilities Management Services was placed in the Official Journal of the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [28782]

  Beverley Hughes
  It is planned to put out to tender the National Probation Service's (NPS) facilities management functions in a phased manner between January 2002 and August 2002. The outline business case for the management of NPS property, which incorporated facilities management, has not been published and it is not normal practice to publish business cases or make them widely available during a procurement process. A notice for facilities management services was despatched on 27 November 2001 for placing in the Official Journal of the European Union.

  Young Offenders
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what specialist(a) support and (b) therapy programmes are available for young offenders to help them address the underlying problems of their actions. [28766]

  Beverley Hughes
  Juveniles receiving final warnings or sentenced to community or custodial orders undergo rehabilitation programmes designed to address their offending behaviour and give them skills which will help them avoid getting into trouble again. The programmes include family support, treatment for alcohol and drugs abuse and assessment for mental health needs.

  For young adults the National Probation Service draws up supervision plans to address individuals' needs, including specialist counselling and support.

  Community Orders
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment has been made of the scope for increased use of community orders for young women who have committed non-violent crimes as their first offence. [28765]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Government believe that serious, dangerous and persistent offenders should be sent to prison. However, it may not be the best, or most effective, option for less serious offenders, whether men or women, who can often be better dealt with in the community. The Government believe that greater use 288W
  should be made of community punishments for some non-violent offenders, such as those convicted of theft and handling or fraud.

  We are committed to seeing a reduction in the number of women who are sent to prison and to ensuring that the courts have available to them a full range of community punishments, designed using the what works principle, which are effective, strictly enforced and in which the courts and the public can have confidence.

  Child Protection Policies
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library copies of the child protection policies operating at(a) Oakington, (b) Tinsley House, (c) Yarl's Wood, (d) Harmondsworth and (e) John Gavell immigration detention and reception centres. [29593]

  Angela Eagle
  I shall arrange for copies of the relevant documents to be placed in the Library.

  Surrey Police
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason Surrey police receives the lowest per-capita grant. [30262]

  Mr. Denham
  Grant for police authorities is distributed on the basis of a formula which is intended broadly to reflect the relative needs of police authorities.

  Family Visitor Appeals
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reform the fee charges for family visitor appeals; and if he will make a statement. [28928]

  Angela Eagle
  We await the results of the review of family visitor appeals, which ends this month. We will consider the future of the scheme, including the fees, in the light of the review team's report.

  Environmental Appraisals
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the last occasion was on which he requested an environmental appraisal before making a policy decision. [29009]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: To date no such request has been made. However, the Department's policy checklist states that policy proposals should be considered in relation to Government objectives on achieving sustainable development, and the standard format for policy submissions includes a section on environmental considerations.

  EU Arrest Warrant
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the EU arrest warrant will be included in the Extradition Bill; when he expects the Bill to be published; whether the agreed text of the EU arrest warrant covers the offence of xenophobia; whether a United Kingdom citizen could be arrested under the EU arrest warrant for an alleged act which is not an offence under UK law; and whether the EU arrest warrant can be
  289W
  used to arrest a United Kingdom subject in the United Kingdom for an alleged offence committed from within the United Kingdom's boundaries. [29404]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Government have made their commitment to an Extradition Bill clear, and it will be brought before the House in the usual way; the Bill will include provisions to implement the Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between member states.

  The text of this Framework Decision, which was provisionally agreed at the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 6 December 2001, includes in the list at Article 2(2) for which the dual criminality test has been abolished, the generic heading of racism and xenophobia.

  In respect of any warrant, the offence for which surrender is sought will be framed by the issuing judicial authority under its national law. The generic headings listed at Article 2(2) relate to conduct for which there are criminal sanctions in all the member states of the European Union (EU), although the definitions of the offences do not match precisely. Where the issuing judicial authority includes an offence on the warrant which does not fall under one of the headings at 2(2), the dual criminality test may be applied by the executing judicial authority.

  Article 4(7) of the Framework Decision provides that the executing judicial authority may refuse to execute the European Arrest Warrant:
  "Where the European arrest warrant envisages offences which:
  (1)are regarded by the law of the executing member state as having been committed in whole or in part in its territory or in a place treated as the territory of that member state;
  (2)have been committed outside the territory of the issuing member state and the law of the executing member state does not allow prosecution for the same offences when committed outside the territory of the executing member state".

  The Framework Decision, therefore, contains protection against the surrender of a fugitive, of any nationality, from the United Kingdom for an alleged offence committed in the United Kingdom which is not an offence under our law. The Government's position will be finalised in the Extradition Bill.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the agreement reached on the EU arrest warrant. [29817]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  At the meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council of the European Union on 6–7 December 2001 all member states bar Italy reached provisional agreement on the European arrest warrant; on 11 December, Italy indicated that it too could accept the text. Agreement was subject to national parliamentary scrutiny reservations entered or retained by five member states, including the United Kingdom (the others were Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Ireland). The European Parliament is being reconsulted on the European arrest warrant, and the Council will need to consider its opinion, expected in February, before the European Arrest Warrant can be adopted.

  CCTV
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 8 January 290W
  2002, Official Report, column 777W, on CCTV, how many applications have been received from schemes in the Buckingham constituency; and what was the outcome in each case. [30119]

  Mr. Denham
  Two applications for funding have been received from the Buckingham constituency, both for the Buckingham Town Centre Close Circuit Television (CCTV) system.

  Under Round 2 of the CCTV Challenge Competition (1996–97), the Home Office provided part funding of £9,500 towards the installation of the system.

  Under Round 2 of the Crime Reduction Programme CCTV Initiative (2001), a bid seeking £151,045 to upgrade the system was not successful.

  Crime Reduction
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 8 January 2002,Official Report, column 778W, what progress has been made in meeting the crime reduction target. [30122]

  Mr. Denham
  National crime reduction targets are: to reduce vehicle crime by 30 per cent, by 2004, and, by 2005, to reduce domestic burglary by 25 per cent, and robbery in our principal cities by 14 per cent.

  The latest published recorded crime statistics show that in the 12 months to March 2001, thefts of and from vehicles had reduced to 968,447 offences, a reduction of 10.1 per cent, against the 1998–99 baseline; domestic burglary had reduced to 402,984, a reduction of 14.9 per cent; but robbery had increased to 68,447, a rise of 13 per cent.

  We remain determined to reduce robbery rates, and the 12 month increase is half the 26 per cent, rise in the previous year. The robbery figures relate to the following police forces: Metropolitan Police Service, Greater Manchester, Merseyside, West Midlands and West Yorkshire.

  Crime (Gwent)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes were recorded by Gwent Police in(a) 1998, (b) 1999, (c) 2000 and (d) 2001 as (i) violent crime, (ii) burglary, (iii) thefts of vehicles, (iv) thefts from vehicles, (v) drug offences and (vi) total crime; and what the percentage of each change was each year. [30154]

  Mr. Denham
  Recorded crime figures are published in financial years, with the most recent available figures being for the year ended March 2001. The information for the years from 1 April 1998 is given in the table.

  The number of recorded crimes will be affected by changes in the public's willingness to report crime and police recording practices, as well as the real extent of crime. For example, the British Crime Survey has shown that, in England and Wales as a whole, victimisation for the violent crime in the survey which is comparable to recorded crime decreased by 19 percent. between the 1999 and 2000 calendar years, whereas comparable violent crime recorded by the police increased by 9 per cent.
  291W

  Recorded crimes for Gwent—number of offences and percentage change

  Percentage change

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  1998–99 to 1999–2000

  1999–2000 to 2000–01

  Violent crime

  11,980

  14,493

  14,882

  21

  3

  Burglary

  8,416

  7,656

  6,905

  -9

  -10

  Theft from vehicle

  6,145

  5,714

  5,035

  -7

  -12

  Theft or unauthorised taking of motor vehicle

  3,601

  3,393

  3,074

  -6

  -9

  Drug offences

  2,447

  2,214

  2,196

  -10

  -1

  Total recorded crime

  58,738

  60,132

  56,728

  2

  -6

  Note:

  Violent crime is comprised of violence against the person, sexual offences and robbery

  Police (Gwent)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many whole-time equivalent police officers were employed by Gwent police in(a) 1998, (b) 1999, (c) 2000 and (d) 2001; and what the percentage change was in each year. [30158]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is set out in the table. The latest increases in Gwent police numbers have taken the force to record numbers of officers.

  Year ending 30 September

  Police officers (Fte)1

  Percentage change

  1998

  1,254

  —

  1999

  1,261

  +0.6

  2000

  1,271

  +0.8

  2001

  1,303

  +2.5

  1 Full time equivalents

  Source:

  Home Office

  Community Resource Fund
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment has been made by the Government of the cost to the taxpayer of operating the(a) Community Resource Fund and (b) neighbourhood renewal community chests; [29920]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the Community Resource Fund; and how much money has been distributed through the fund to voluntary and community organisations; [29923]

  (3) what assessment has been made by the Government of the administrative requirements on voluntary and community organisations applying to the Community Resource Fund. [29921]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 24 January 2002]: The Community Resource Fund was launched in 1999 as a three-year pilot small grants fund, with the purpose of making grants of between £50 and £500 to support community activity in areas of serious deprivation. This was a direct response to recommendation 20 in the Policy Action Team 9 report, on community self-help, where it was recognised that small sums of money with simple application procedures and a rapid response could have a substantial beneficial effect on local groups.
  292W
  The fund has been managed for the Active Community Unit (ACU) by the Community Development Foundation (CDF) and the Community Foundation Network CFN, and individual grants have been administered by local community foundations in 30 deprived neighbourhoods.

  The total grant made to the Community Development Foundation CDF in 1999–2000 and 2000–01 was £338,000, of which £308,000 was paid in small grants to local community groups, and £30,000 was allocated to cover operating costs. In the current year, it has been agreed to make a grant to CDF of £168,000, of which £72,000 will be distributed to local community groups, approximately £7,000 will be allocated in direct operating costs, and approximately £69,000 has been allocated to a research project into the alternative approaches to involving local residents in decision-making on small grants.

  The cost of operating the Community Resource Fund over three years will have been £42,000, plus a small allocation of staff time within the ACU.

  The application process for the Community Resource Fund was designed to be as simple as possible, drawing on the extensive experience of the two voluntary organisations managing the fund. Some improvements to lighten the administrative requirements on applicants were made as a result of the evaluation of year one of the Fund.

  The cost of operating the neighbourhood renewal community chests at local level will not exceed £7.5 million (out of a total allocation of £50 million, of which a maximum of £5 million (10 per cent.) will be spent on administration, and £2.5 million (5 per cent.) on outreach and development support. Some further cost will be incurred by staff in the neighbourhood renewal unit, and the Government offices for the regions, particularly on setting up the programme, but it is not possible to arrive at an accurate figure at short notice.

  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications have been made to the Community Resource Fund; and how many of these were successful. [29922]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 24 January 2002]: The number of applications made to the Community Resource Fund is 815 for years one and two. This equates to 426 in year one and 389 in year two. Out of these applications, 305 were granted in year one, and 254 were granted in year two. The average grant was £450. The Fund has been managed for the active community unit by the Community Development Foundation and the Community

  293W
  Foundation Network and individual grants have been administered by local community foundations in 30 deprived neighbourhoods.

  Drug Action Teams
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will inform drug action teams of their financial allocations for 2002–03. [30034]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  I will write shortly to the Member for Epsom and Ewell and place a copy of the reply in the Library.

  Drug Action Teams (DATs) receive funding from a variety of sources. The Spending Review 2000 (SR2000) settlement provided a total of £185 million for the year 2002–03 for the delivery of the National Drugs Strategy. In addition, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a total of £235 million—£220 million (£50 million/£70 million/£100 million) to Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships and £15 million (£5 million/£5 million/£5 million) direct to Drug Action Teams for the Communities Against Drugs Initiative (a three year programme running from 2001–04 to help local communities disrupt local drug markets and tackle drug related crime and the antisocial behaviour so often associated with it. Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships have to agree with Drug Action Teams how best to spend their allocation.

  The detail of the SR2000 for 2002–03 allocations were published as follows:

  £ million

  Young people

  29

  Communities

  29

  Treatment

  120

  The allocations for Communities Against Drugs to Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships will be announced shortly. We have communicated to Drug Action Teams the Home Office share of the treatment allocations which are due to them. Other treatment allocations are a matter for the Secretary of State for Health and the National Treatment Agency. We understand an announcement for the pooled treatment allocations will be made shortly.

  On 7 November, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills announced a further £25 million funding for three years (£7 million/£8 million/£10 million) from 2001–04. This was in addition to £7.5 million baseline for each of these years.

  In respect of other financial allocations to Drug Action Teams wrote to Drug Action Teams Chairs on 21 January setting out the terms of the DAT Development funding for 2002–03. Drug Action Team Co-ordinators were advised of their allocations of the £5 million for 2002–03 under the Communities Against Drugs Initiative on 24 January.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  (1) To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the 294W
  letter to him dated 22 October 2001 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to Mr. Aamir Akbar; [29962]

  (2) when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 10 December 2001 from the Right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to Mrs. Azad Bakhat; [29959]

  (3) when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 27 November 2001 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to Mrs. Faiza Bafadhez. [29960]

  Angela Eagle
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary wrote to my right hon. Friend on 21 January. I am sorry that he did not receive an earlier reply.

  Mobile Phone Theft
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he will bring forward to compel mobile telephony companies to track stolen handsets. [28950]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: The Government are pressing the mobile phone industry to take a whole range of measures to enhance the security of their product and prevent their customers from becoming the victims of crime. The United Kingdom operators are already working with the police on exercises to track stolen phones. They have agreed some early measures to test ways of putting stolen phones out of action, including a text-bombing initiative. They have also agreed to improve security as investment takes place in new systems. We are seeking a similar commitment from mobile phone manufacturers. We will continue to press the industry for their co-operation in tackling mobile phone theft, by enhancing security features and practices for both the current and third generation mobile phones.

  It is already the case that communications data, including location data, may be supplied voluntarily for specified purposes (eg investigation of crime) under the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Telecommunications Act 1984. It may additionally be supplied in obedience to court orders. A more tightly controlled regulatory regime will be provided for under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 RIPA.

  Stop and Search
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research has been undertaken into technology required to enable officers to provide subjects of a stop and search with an immediate printed record of the incident; what information on this research is in the public domain; and what assessment he has made of the potential applications such technology will have for other aspects of police work. [29736]

  Mr. Denham
  To date no research has been undertaken specifically on the technology required to enable police officers to issue subjects of stops and searches with an immediate printed record of the encounter.

  On 1 November 2001 my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary published an independent study entitled "Diary of a Police Officer", which considered what more could be done to free police officers from the unnecessary paperwork and other obstacles which prevent them from

  295W
  spending more time in public. Subsequently in the White Paper, "Policing a new Century" (CM 5326), published on 5 December 2001, my right hon. Friend announced the establishment of a task force, chaired by Sir David O'Dowd, to consider how to take forward the recommendations in this and other relevant reports, in order to reduce unnecessary administrative burdens on the police. The task force is considering the implementation of information technology as part of this project.

  Baton Rounds
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 19 November 2001,Official Report, column 92W, on baton rounds, how many plastic baton rounds have been procured in each year since 1981 by each of the 36 police forces in England and Wales and three non-Home Office forces; and what the annual cost of such procurement for each force was. [29737]

  Mr. Denham
  I have accepted the advice of the Association of Chief Police Officers that the disclosure of this information, on an individual force basis, would be prejudicial to operational effectiveness.

  23,090 baton rounds were purchased by Home Office and non-Home Office forces in 2000, at a total cost of £157,474; and 25,500 in 2001 at a total cost of £173,910. Information for previous years is not readily available.

  Sustainable Development
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department met its aim of identifying departmental sustainable development indicators by December 2001. [27535]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 16 January 2002]: Yes. Fifteen key topics have been identified upon which the Department has an impact, and sustainable development indicators are being finalised. They will be in line with national indicators and cross-Government targets where these exist.

  Racial Offences
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has undertaken into the operation of laws on race hate and racially aggravated offences; what the conclusions of this research are; what relevance this research has for consideration of a religious hate law; and if he will place research findings in the Library. [29734]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 23 January 2002]: We commissioned researchers from the Cambridge University Institute of Criminology to evaluate the implementation of the legislation on racially-aggravated offences as contained in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. This research explored the first two years of this legislation to find out how criminal justice agencies had responded in their use of these new laws, and in their practices and procedures. It is expected that the report will be published in the spring.

  This research was commissioned well in advance of the events of September 11 last year. It was these events that prompted our proposing the introduction of religious hatred provisions as part of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill.
  296W

  Immigration Service Staff
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 12 December 2001,Official Report, column 922W, how many Immigration Service staff speak (a) Arabic, (b) Hindi, (c) Urdu, (d) Farsi or Dari and (e) Pushtu; how many persons of what grades are trained to speak each language; and how many translators have been employed for how many paid hours in each language; and at what cost. [29821]

  Angela Eagle
  Since September 2001 the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) has held a national database of all its interpreters. The database currently holds 473 Arabic speakers, 359 Hindi, 429 Urdu, 261 Farsi, 84 Dari and 64 Pushtu. No records are currently held centrally as to the amount of hours interpreters have worked in individual languages.

  Details of the languages spoken by immigration staff are not currently held centrally and could be collected only at disproportionate cost. However, the Immigration Service is creating a database of training received and qualifications held by immigration service staff. The majority of interpreting and translation services for those in the care of the Immigration Service are largely provided by external translators.

  Police (Hampshire)
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to provide funds to increase police numbers in Hampshire. [30952]

  Mr. Denham
  Under the Crime Fighting Fund (CFF) recruitment initiative, funds have been provided to enable Hampshire constabulary to recruit a total of 243 recruits, over and above the force's previous recruitment plans, for the three years to March 2003.

  Hampshire officers appointed since 1 September 1994 and not in receipt of housing allowances, benefit from a new allowance introduced 1 April 2001 for officers in eight forces around London, in view of the higher cost of living in those force areas. The allowance followed agreement in the Police Negotiating Board and for Hampshire officers is £1,000 a year. The Home Office meets 75 per cent, of the cost of the allowance for each qualifying officer.

  All police forces, including Hampshire, benefit from the national recruitment advertising campaign funded by the Home Office. The campaign was launched in August 2000 and the latest phase began on 1 January 2002.

  Deportations
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time taken was from the refusal of asylum status and exceptional leave to remain to removal from the country in the last 12 months. [29816]

  Angela Eagle
  I regret that the information requested is not available and could be obtained only by examining individual case files at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in the last three months airlines have refused to carry deportees; what reason was given in each case; and if he will make a statement. [29823]
  297W
  Angela Eagle
  An airline may occasionally refuse to carry passengers refused entry, illegal entrants and those subject to formal deportation proceedings if it has concerns for the safety of their aircraft, crew and passengers. We are aware of a small number of incidents where airlines have refused to carry certain individuals because of concerns they have about their conduct when boarding the aircraft. Where there have been concerns, the United Kingdom Immigration Service has arranged for the individual to be escorted during the flight.

  On 11 January 2002, British Airways refused to remove a failed asylum seeker to Zimbabwe. Removal directions were temporarily suspended by the Home Office following representations from legal representatives.

  During a recent meeting with British Airways (BA), the Minister for Asylum and Immigration confirmed with BA that it was their concern for the safety of their aircraft, crew and passengers that prompted them to refuse to carry.

  Asylum Appeals
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time taken between the receipt of asylum appeals by his Department and the final appeal decision in(a) all cases, (b) the cases of single asylum seekers and (c) family cases was in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [29724]

  Angela Eagle
  For the 12 month period ending 30 September 2001 data from the Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA), for those cases where data are available, indicates that the average time taken from receipt of an asylum appeal by the Home office to final determination through both tiers of the IAA is:

  (a) 26 weeks for all asylum appeals;

  (b) 25 weeks for non-family cases (the IAA do not hold data on single asylum seekers separately);

  (c) 27 weeks for family cases.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time taken was from lodging an asylum appeal with the Home Office to the final decision in each year since 1998. [29818]

  Angela Eagle
  For the 12-month period ending 30 September 2001, data from the Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA), for those cases where data are available, indicates that the average time taken from receipt of an asylum appeal by the Home Office to final determination through both tiers of the IAA, is 26 weeks.

  Data are not available for the earlier periods.

  Asylum Cases
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time taken was from initial application to the granting of an initial decision in asylum cases for(a) all cases, (b) single adults and (c) families in the last 12 months. [29819]

  Angela Eagle
  The table provides the information requested for the period of October 2000 to September 2001, inclusive. The average decision times have been calculated using all decisions made for which data are 298W
  available, including a minimal number of cases decided under the backlog criteria, as well as new cases. These data are subject to revision following quality checking.

  Average time to initial decision1,2, October 2000 to September 2001

  Average time taken3

  All initial decisions4,5

  14

  Of which:

  Family

  8

  Individual

  14

  1 The average length of time (in months) is calculated from date application is lodged to the date of initial decision, and relates to the month in which the decisions were made.

  2 Figures are estimates based on cases for which information is recorded.

  3 Provisional figures.

  4 Based on data from A-CID (Asylum Cases Information Database).

  5 Excluding dependants.

  Asylum Induction Centres
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the trial of asylum induction centres to begin; and if he will make a statement. [29815]

  Angela Eagle
  The first induction centre opened in Dover on 21 January. This introduced a number of the initiatives outlined by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in October which are intended to deliver a more efficient and streamlined system for asylum seekers. Over the forthcoming weeks we will be developing the induction processes with a view to opening two further induction centres near London at the end of March.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many recorded asylum seekers entered the United Kingdom in 2001 who were(a) under and (b) over 18 years. [29686]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]: I regret that reliable information on the entry routes of asylum seekers, including when asylum seekers first enter the United Kingdom (UK), is not available. In 2000 more than two thirds of applications (68 per cent.) were made in-country (that is by people who had already entered the UK). Annual figures for 2001 are not yet available.

  Between January and August 2001, inclusive, 1,334 applications for asylum were lodged at UK ports by unaccompanied children under the age of 18. During the same period, it is estimated that over 16,000 applications were lodged at ports by principal applicants aged 18 or more.

  Information on unaccompanied minors is published annually in the statistical bulletin "Asylum Statistics United Kingdom", a copy of which is available in the Library, and from the RDS website: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the countries of origin were of asylum seekers who entered the UK in 2001. [29687]
  299W
  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]: I regret that reliable information on the entry routes of asylum seekers, including when asylum seekers first enter the United Kingdom, is not available. However, information on the nationality of asylum seekers who applied at port and in-country between January and September 2001, inclusive, is given in the table. Annual figures for 2001 are not yet available.

  Information on asylum applications and initial decisions is published quarterly. The next publication will present data for the final quarter of 2001, and will be available from 28 February 2002 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.

  Applications1 for asylum, received in the UK, excluding dependants, by nationality, January to September 2001, inclusive

  Number of principal applicants

  Applied at port

  Applied in-country

  Total

  Europe

  Albania

  140

  715

  855

  Czech Republic

  750

  60

  810

  FRY2

  155

  1,420

  1,575

  Poland

  305

  155

  460

  Romania

  125

  920

  1,045

  Russia

  45

  290

  335

  Turkey

  1,330

  1,525

  2,855

  Ukraine

  79

  265

  340

  Other Former USSR

  195

  695

  890

  Other Former Yugoslavia

  45

  1,440

  1,485

  Others

  105

  135

  240

  Total

  3,270

  7,615

  10,890

  Americas

  Colombia

  35

  180

  215

  Ecuador

  20

  145

  165

  Others

  110

  260

  370

  Total

  165

  585

  750

  Middle east

  Iran

  885

  1,765

  2,650

  Iraq

  2,150

  2,725

  4,875

  Others

  250

  505

  750

  Total

  3,285

  4,995

  8,280

  Africa

  Algeria

  230

  650

  880

  Angola

  140

  570

  715

  Democratic Republic of Congo

  225

  650

  870

  Ethiopia

  70

  390

  460

  Gambia

  10

  30

  35

  Ghana

  45

  70

  115

  Ivory Coast

  35

  170

  205

  Kenya

  45

  165

  210

  Nigeria

  255

  175

  430

  Rwanda

  60

  345

  405

  Sierra Leone

  655

  790

  1,445

  Somalia

  680

  4,350

  5,030

  Sudan

  125

  170

  290

  Tanzania

  15

  45

  60

  Uganda

  35

  270

  305

  Zimbabwe

  860

  365

  1,225

  Others

  495

  1,480

  1,975

  Total

  3,970

  10,695

  14,665

  Asia

  Afghanistan

  4,165

  2,650

  6,815

  Bangladesh

  80

  250

  330

  China

  1,240

  335

  1,575

  India

  300

  980

  1,275

  Pakistan

  510

  1,480

  1,990

  300W

  Applications1for asylum, received in the UK, excluding dependants, by nationality, January to September 2001, inclusive

  Number of principal applicants

  Applied at port

  Applied in-country

  Total

  Sri Lanka

  2,110

  1,930

  4,035

  Others

  280

  635

  915

  Total

  8,685

  8,255

  16,940

  Other and unknown nationalities

  375

  260

  635

  Grant total

  19,750

  32,405

  52,155

  1 Figures rounded to nearest five, and are provisional

  2 Includes applications from other Yugo.

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent advice he has received from Merseyside police concerning the future housing of asylum seekers at Landmark and Inn on the Park in Liverpool; and if he will make a statement, [30732]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]: Ministers have received two recent letters from Merseyside police about the use of the Landmark and Inn on the Park buildings to house asylum seekers.

  Officials are looking into the matters raised in these letters, and in the meantime dispersal of asylum seekers to these buildings remains suspended.

  Asylum White Paper
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with children's organisations on how the proposals in the forthcoming Asylum White Paper will impact on asylum seeking children and young people. [30360]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 25 January 2002]: Proposals relating to asylum seeking children were discussed at the last meeting of the Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children Stakeholders' Group on 10 January 2002. The Group comprises representatives from the Home Office, the Department of Health, local authorities, and non-governmental organisations including the Refugee Council and Save the Children.

  Police Morale (Havering)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on police morale in the London borough of Havering. [21014]

  Mr. Denham
  Morale within the Metropolitan Police Service is a matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. I am assured by the Commissioner that he takes action as a matter of routine to ensure that morale remains good.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many regulatory impact assessments have been produced by his Department since August 2001; and if he will list those produced(a) following initial consultation with affected parties about the most appropriate methodology for assessing costs and other impacts and (b) which set out full commercial impacts,

  301W
  including profitability, employment, consumer prices and competitiveness, as recommended in Good Policy Making. [28404]

  Angela Eagle
  Since August 2001 the Home Office has produced two regulatory impact assessments (RIAs) on the Proceeds of Crime Bill; and the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill. These RIAs are in the Library. One consultation paper has been issued since August 2001, the Motor Salvage Operators Regulations 2002, this contained a partial RIA. The consultation paper can be accessed via the Home Office website or www.ukonline.gov.uk/citizenspace/consultations/.

  On the Proceeds of Crime, consultation took place after the publication of the draft Bill. This consultation helped us review the draft Bill and some of our proposals and costings were modified. No assessment of commercial impacts was made.

  No consultation with business was carried out before the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Bill was published. The RIA made it clear that many of the powers, with significant cost implications, would only be used should the need arise and a number of other measures would depend on the proposals to be covered in secondary legislation. Such secondary legislation will be developed in close consultation with the industry to ensure that there will be effective compliance with the measures proposed and that the costs of such compliance will be minimised.

  I also refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to him on 17 January 2002, Official Report, column 483W.

  Street Wardens
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations his Department has had with public and community representatives about the proposed introduction of street wardens; and what powers and authorities will be invested in street wardens in dealing with public order. [30111]

  Mr. Denham
  The Policy Action Team 6 report "Neighbourhood Wardens", published in 1999, was drawn up following visits to a number of existing schemes.

  Proposals for new functions to be carried out by non-police officers were set out in "Policing a New Century" (CM5326), which included examples of similar schemes already in operation. The proposed new powers for Community Support Officers under the control of the Chief Officer of Police, or for members of Accredited Community Safety Schemes employed by others, are set out in the Police Reform Bill.

  Cannabis
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what date he expects the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to report on the reclassification of cannabis; and if he will make a statement. [31087]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]: I understand that the council hopes to report soon.

  Heroin
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what circumstances GPs are allowed to prescribe heroin to addicts; what plans he has to change circumstances under which addicts can be prescribed heroin(a) by GPs and (b) through specialist clinics; what the timetable is for the proposed changes; and if he will make a statement. [31086]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]: Current practice is to restrict to consultant psychiatrists and their clinical assistants the issue of licences to prescribe diamorphine (medical heroin) to drug addicts. In certain circumstances a GP may act as a consultant's assistant and therefore be licensed to prescribe under that consultant's supervision.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has indicated that he would like to examine heroin prescribing for the small number of chaotic users who would benefit. The Department of Health has invited clinical experts to come together to review the current position of diamorphine prescribing, and it is intended to develop clinical guidance.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications were received for asylum from Afghan citizens(a) in the period from 11 September 2001 to the date when British peacekeeping forces were deployed in Afghanistan and (b) since the latter date. [31091]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]: I regret that the information requested is unavailable. Information on asylum applications is published quarterly and provides data for latest available months and quarter. The latest published information relates to the third quarter of 2001.

  The latest published information shows that 745 applications for asylum were lodged by nationals of Afghanistan in September, compared with 930 in August and 825 in July. These figures are provisional.

  The next publication (relating to the final quarter of 2001) will be available from 28 February 2002 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ rds/immigration1.html.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria he will use to decide whether Afghanistan is a safe country of origin for the purpose of asylum applications. [31090]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]: All applications for asylum by Afghanistan nationals are individually considered under the terms of the 1951 United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees and take full account of the conditions in Afghanistan at the time the decision is made.

  Blakenhurst Prison
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 13 December
  303W
  2001, Official Report, column 490W, on Blakenhurst prison, when the report of the inspection of HMP Blakenhurst in January 2001 will be published. [31008]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]: The report of the former Chief Inspector of Prisons' inspection of Blakenhurst was published on 19 September 2001. A copy of the report is available in the Library.

  Neighbourhood Watch
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 18 December 2001,Official Report, column 237W, how much funding was provided by central Government to neighbourhood watch in each of the financial years from 1997–98 to 2001–02; and how much will be provided in the next financial year. [25305]

  Mr. Denham
  Neighbourhood Watch is a movement of over 160,000 local schemes covering 6 million households. Local schemes are independent and largely self-financing. The police play a crucial supporting role, including providing advice on how to set up schemes and assisting with administration and publicity.

  The Government have supported the National Neighbourhood Watch Association by sponsoring the cost of their annual conference in 2001, which was £80,000. The organisation is largely self-financing with core funding being provided by the private sector. The Government recognise the role Neighbourhood Watch plays in the fight against crime and in building communities. We have given and will continue to give support in kind to the National Neighbourhood Watch Association. In 2000–01 we produced publicity and training material for Neighbourhood Watch at a cost of more than £100,000.

  Juvenile Care
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he plans to take to ensure that babies and children taken abroad are accounted for when their parents, guardians or minders return to this country; and if he will make a statement. [30137]

  Angela Eagle
  In the year 2000, 90 million people of all nationalities arrived in the United Kingdom. In light of this fact, it would be impracticable to conduct a check of all babies and children taken abroad when their parents, guardians or minders return. A child may have been left in a foreign country for an extended and legitimate period, for example for the purposes of education.

  We do however take the well-being of children very seriously. That is why, following a careful review and consultation with interested parties, the United Kingdom Passport Agency moved to a policy of separate passports for British children from 5 October 1998. The reasons for this change of policy included the need to improve identification and prevent the unauthorised addition of
  304W
  children to an adult passport, and to reduce the potential for child abduction by giving better control of documents in cases of parental difference.

  Where problems arise, the British police enjoy a close relationship with their European Union partners and exchange intelligence regularly. A Ports Precautions Scheme operates through local police to prevent the unlawful and permanent removal of a child abroad and in cases of urgent need, the assistance of Europol and, where appropriate, Interpol, may be invoked.

  Transforming Youth Work Development Fund
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the success of the Transforming Youth Work Development Fund; and if he will make a statement. [31165]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Transforming Youth Work Development Fund will be available from April 2002 to March 2004. The majority of the fund will be allocated to local authorities. Regional Government offices will be asked to carry out an approval and monitoring role. In addition the Youth Service Unit will discuss reporting and management information with Government offices following the distribution and spending of funds. To aid this process local authorities will need to clearly indicate the outputs and outcomes that they will achieve. Government offices will ensure that local authority proposals include activities linked to social and community cohesion that are consistent with Public Order and Community Cohesion and Cantle recommendations. The Youth Service is a key partner in the delivery of the Connexions Service. Government offices will ensure that funds are used to build Youth Service capacity to engage effectively with Connexions. The success of the Transforming Youth Work Development Fund will be judged against whether these outcomes are achieved.

  Agricultural Work
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the number of student permits allowed for seasonal agricultural work; and if he will make a statement.[31695]

  Angela Eagle
  Representations in support of an increase in the present quota of non-European Economic Area students participating in the Seasonal Agricultural Workers' Scheme have been made by a number of interested parties, including the National Farmers Union.

  The Government have listened to these representations and have agreed to increase the number of work cards available for use under this scheme. As agreed with the Industry, the student quota will increase from the present 15,200 to 20,200, spread over the next two years. Within that, a higher proportionate increase of 3,500 work cards will be made available to the scheme's operators this year, pro rata to the additional needs they have identified, for allocation to participants in the scheme.

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.

Railways
Lord Bradshaw Lord Bradshaw asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect improvements in reliability and punctuality on the railways.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the Government agree that rail passengers are experiencing far too many delays. Early and significant improvements are required. The rail strategic plan published on 14th February by the Strategic Rail Authority sets out short- and medium-term action to improve performance, as well as setting out the longer-term vision for Britain's railways. We welcome the steps that the SRA, under the chairmanship of Richard Bowker, is taking to improve performance across the industry.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Today, we are experiencing yet another industrial dispute on South West Trains and there have been disputes in Leeds and in Scotland. Will the Minister consider amending industrial relations law so that an aggrieved party—that is, a commuter—may test in the courts whether a company or a trade union is behaving reasonably? Industrial relations law recognises only an employee and an employer. It does not recognise the position of commuters, who are suffering damage estimated at £20 million a day.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to re-emphasise the Government's view. In this day and age, disagreements over pay should not give rise to strikes, especially in vital public services. As the noble Lord says, the present strikes are causing great inconvenience to the travelling public and are doing nothing for the recovery of the railway industry. However, it is not for the Government to intervene directly and become a party to negotiations. We shall he active in expressing the anger and frustration of the travelling public, both to management and to unions, and calling on them to resolve the issue through negotiations and not through further strike action. We believe that both the operator and the trade union side should get back round the table as soon as possible to resolve any outstanding disputes.
I noted the noble Lord's interesting question about whether unreasonable behaviour could be made actionable. 1 do not wish to dispute the suggestion out of hand, but my initial reaction is that it would certainly generate substantial employment for my learned friends.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, the Secretary of State for Transport, Mr Byers, has
68
reasonably said that if railway standards are not substantially improved he will fall on his sword. By what five economic tests is he to be judged?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, my response is: "Wait on". Clearly, without being naïve, the Government would want to set out very clearly what we expect to achieve. To some extent, this House has already seen that. The Strategic Rail Authority's plan has been published and was discussed in this House. For the first time for 50 years, it sets out a plan for a major expansion in the railway industry. However, I do not believe that my right honourable friend in another place will have to fall on his sword. The Government believe that the plan will deliver substantial improvements over the life of the plan, and that we shall begin to see some of those improvements by the time of the next general election. There are four reasons. The first is the massive commitment of the Government to do so. Secondly, we have trebled investment per annum compared to that during the last years of the previous government. Thirdly, there is a realistic plan to implement the strategy. Fourthly, there is strong leadership, through Richard Bowker, to take the plan into practice.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords. does my noble friend recall that one of the unspoken purposes behind the privatisation of the railway and breaking it up into many parts was to break the power of the public sector trade unions in that industry? Does he accept that the effect of privatisation has been exactly the reverse? As the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, immediate industrial disputes are threatened in three companies, and over the next few weeks strike ballots will be held in regard to a further two. Is it not the case that companies are having to bid against each other, and the trade unions are realising that when that happens they are put in an incredibly powerful position? Is not the way out of this situation a return to a system of centralised bargaining and centralised negotiation?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, there is widespread recognition, both in this House and outside, that we need a much better way of resolving industrial relations issues in the railway industry. That is particularly so in regard to industrial action, when one of the main sufferers is not simply the employer but the general public, on the scale that we have seen. Such matters are for the companies and the trade unions to resolve, and we welcome positive suggestions. However, all systems of pay negotiation have their disadvantages as well as their advantages. It is not absolutely clear that full national pay bargaining is necessarily the way to go—but neither is the status quo.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, where is government policy coming from on this matter? Is it coming from the Strategic Rail Authority, from the Department for Transport, or from a department in the Treasury which is conducting a review? Or is it coming from the No. 10 Forward Strategy Unit, which I understand is now looking into transport policy? Or is it coming from the noble Lord, Lord Birt? From whom is the

69
Minister receiving his briefing? When asked by the Select Committee about the role of the noble Lord, Lord Birt, the Secretary of State, Stephen Byers, said: "It keeps him occupied". Is the noble Lord aware that there are quite a few Members of this House, particularly on his side, who also need to be kept occupied occasionally? Can he tell them where they should apply for jobs?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, many of my noble friends would be extremely well qualified to apply for many jobs in both public and private sectors. As to the noble Viscount's question, apart from the bits that I make up myself as we go along I get my briefing from all parts of government, although I regret that I did not speak to the noble Lord, Lord Birt, in this case.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, should not the Government now invoke the assistance of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service ACAS—to which previous Labour Governments have always paid great attention?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am reluctant to give advice in the middle of an industrial dispute. I understand that South West Trains has indicated its willingness to go to arbitration provided it is binding, but I gather that RMT will not accept binding arbitration. If I am wrong on that, I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, is it not clear that the dispute is much more about union power than about union pay, no matter how much inconvenience may be caused to the public or how much embarrassment may be caused to the Government?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, in my experience industrial disputes are usually a complex of a whole variety of reasons. I read the papers as much as the noble Lord does and I have seen that allegation made about issues within RMT. However, it would not be helpful for me to speculate publicly about such issues from the Dispatch Box.

Decontamination of Surgical Instruments
2.44 p.m.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree Baroness Knight of Collingtree asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will now publish the conclusions of the review of the decontamination of surgical instruments in the National Health Service, as promised by the Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on llth December 2001 (HL Deb, col. 1231).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the review of decontamination of surgical instruments in the NHS in England was published on
70
llth December 2001. Copies of the report were placed in the Library of the House and it is available on the department's website. All NHS hospitals in England have access to decontamination services of an acceptable standard.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, does the Minister recall that my Question on 11th December referred to a report that was suppressed because the Government disliked its findings? He said in his Answer that he was publishing the report that day. Is he aware that I asked the Printed Paper Office for it on that day, on the following day, on the following week and on a number of occasions since, but only late this morning, after exhaustive research by the excellent staff in that office, was it found on an obscure Internet site? Is he aware that neither of the two reports on the subject—only intermittently on the Internet—has an international standard book number and thus cannot be classified as publications? Is the Minister not aware of the importance of keeping a promise made from that Box in this House?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I repeat what I said in my Answer. Copies of the report were placed in the Library of the House. The snapshot survey appears as an appendix to the survey report. In terms of the wider publication of the report, my understanding is that 1,000 copies have been distributed to the NHS. The picture tells a good story, which is that the problem of decontamination was considered, reviewed and dealt with.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, is the Minister aware that last year scientists at St Mary's Hospital Paddington estimated that half of all instruments used for tonsillectomies could be contaminated with new variant CJD? Is he therefore confident in the Department of Health's decision to abandon the use of single-use instruments because of increased morbidity and mortality associated with them? Does he feel that that is fully justified? How does he expect parents to make informed decisions for their children about whether to ask for single-use or multi-use instruments when he fails to make fully public reports such as the one just mentioned by the noble Baroness?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness is wrong, because the full results were made available on 11th December. As far as the question of single-use instruments is concerned, the point that arose from that is that the Medical Devices Agency investigated a number of problems in relation to some tonsillectomy operations. Those investigations identified one of the likely causes of the problem as due to one piece of equipment used in the operation. That is why advice was issued to the health service around single-use instruments. Of course the department's role is to ensure that such advice is promulgated throughout the health service as quickly as possible. That is what happened in this case.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, in his reply to my noble friend's Question last December, the Minister said:
"the snapshot survey to which the noble Baroness referred is being published alongside the full survey that the Government are publishing today".—[Official Report, 11/12/01; col. 1232.]
Is he also aware that, despite several searches of the Department of Health's website yesterday, using "decontamination of surgical instruments" and similar useful words, I could find no trace of that survey? Will the Minister tell us the meaning of "published" or "published alongside" in this new world of spin?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have already stated that the report, including the snapshot survey, was placed in the Library. My understanding—and I have checked with my officials this morning is that the snapshot survey is part of the documentation which is available on the website. If the noble Baroness had contacted me at any time since 11th December to say that she was having difficulty finding the report, I would have ensured that she received it forthwith.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is often quite difficult to get publications of any sort that are put out by the Department of Health through the Printed Paper Office? The PPO says that those publications do not come there automatically and have to be specially requested.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I made it clear that this would be available in the Library of the House. It seems to me that that is a perfectly appropriate way in which information can be obtained.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, the report was not available in the Library. I went immediately not only to the Printed Paper Office, but to the Library and asked for it.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am assured that a copy of the report was placed in the Library. I also say again to the noble Baroness that if she had contacted me at any time since 11th December, I would have ensured that she received a personal copy of the report. The information on the website contains 18 documents. It also provides access to a further 18. I would be delighted to ensure that the noble Baroness receives all 36 reports.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, is the Minister—
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Baroness Northover: My Lords, is the noble Lord—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I think that it is fairer for noble Lords who have not had an opportunity to go first.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, the Minister has said a lot about reports, but are the instruments being decontaminated in the hospitals? Surely that is the most important thing of all.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I could not agree more with the noble Baroness. The results of the
72
survey, which were indeed made available on 11th December, show that no decontamination facility in the NHS was considered unsafe. We have a complete programme of action which has been going for more than two years to improve decontamination facilities. There is clearly no room for complacency, but a great improvement has now taken place.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I think that we ought to move on because there is a very important Question.

House of Lords Reform
2.51 p.m.
Lord Campbell-Savours Lord Campbell-Savours asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the comments of the Lord Chancellor in the debate on House of Lords reform on 9th January about the interim nature of the Government's proposals on composition are consistent with the White Paper's title The House of Lords: Completing the Reform.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, the White Paper was called Completing the Reform following the language of the Labour manifesto of 2001. Your Lordships will recall that, in our previous debates, the removal of the rights of the hereditaries had been described as phase one and that phase two would follow. In our debate on 9th January, I was seeking to explain that the White Paper proposed a phase two which would constitute completion of the reform for the present. I added that, after a period of years, it would no doubt be correct to revisit the composition issue, so that what we were proposing was,
"a compromise for today, not a solution for all time".—[Official Report, 09/01/02; col. 565.]
Although 120 elected is the maximum possible at present if the rights of the existing 587 life Peers are to be respected, I was indicating that there could he greater flexibility over time. History never ends.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, in light of the very convincing evidence that my noble and learned friend gave last week to the Public Administration Committee in another place, is it not fair to say now on reflection that the White Paper title—Completing the Reform—was inappropriate and perhaps even unfortunate?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, from the reception of the White Paper, I am ready to agree that many people seem to have been misled by the title. As I said, however, we were signalling completing phase one and phase two for now, with the maximum number of

73
elected being consistent with respecting the right of the existing life Peers. If revisiting the issue at some stage were to be called stage three by others, I would not be uncomfortable with such a description.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend accept that the phasing of any reform—such as that proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, with the support of a few Conservative Peers, that 80 per cent of 300 Members be elected; regardless of the actual number and way in which it is arrived at—would count as the last stage of reform?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is a very far remove from any of our thinking on this subject that 80 per cent of the Members of this House should ever be elected. We believe that the pre-eminence of the House of Commons is essential to the stability that lies at the bedrock of our constitution. As your Lordships know perfectly well, and as your Lordships' two-day debate showed, the problem is that, on the issue of House of Lords reform, there are as many opinions as there are politicians to express them. So, yes, there is as yet no consensus around the White Paper proposals, but nor is there any consensus around any other set of proposals. I believe that the proposals of the Leader of the Opposition in the other place, to which reference has been made, would attract near unanimous rejection on the Conservative Benches in this House—that is, if the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, were to hold a free vote on them.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as your Lordships' principal task is to invite the government of the day and the House of Commons to think again, would it not diminish the value of your Lordships' House if we found that, owing to excessive democratisation, we had a majority here that coincided with the majority in the other place?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I said, the bedrock of stability in our constitution is that the elected Chamber is pre-eminent, and is ultimately entitled to have its way when there is conflict with this House. It must be remembered that the conventions underpinning that are premised on this House being unelected and the other place elected. It really is not real-world politics to deny that, if the proportion of elected in this House became substantial, the dynamics of the relationship between both Houses would fundamentally change. It could even be argued that a substantially elected House of Lords had a superior legitimacy, on the basis that there are some who think that PR is more legitimate than first past the post. I emphasise, however, that the Government proposed 120 elected not on the basis that it would give this House greater legitimacy, but as a means of ensuring representation in this House of the nations and the regions.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord accept that reform of the upper House cannot be complete until we have considered the
74
functions and powers as well as the composition of that House? Does he agree that the White Paper contains nothing of any significance whatever on that subject?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we can of course talk about the parliamentary aspects of reform. However, I believe that most Members of this House believe that, broadly speaking, the functions and powers of this House are correct. They operate as a check and a balance on the House of Commons. In my own view, the starting point of any consideration of the issue is not some type of bidding process about how many elected there should be, but an examination of the purpose of this House, having regard to its powers and functions. We should then ask ourselves what that tells us about the composition issue.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has announced that there is to be a third stage of reform of this House. He has also said that the Labour Party will have a free vote, and that there are no politicians who can agree on this subject. Is not the greatest place of disagreement at the heart of the Government themselves, in the Cabinet, with a fundamental disagreement between the noble and learned Lord and the leader of another place, Mr Robin Cook? Therefore, is not the best possible way of seeking to resolve these differences between parties and within parties to establish with some haste a Joint Committee of both Houses to examine those issues?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I fear that the noble Lord misheard me: no suggestion has come from me about a free vote, other than to invite him to conduct a free vote among his own Benches to confirm what we all know very well—the Leader of the Opposition's proposals in another place go down like a lead balloon on his own Benches. I have not announced that there will be a stage three; what I have said is that we shall be well able in time to revisit the issue of the number of elected Peers while at the same time protecting the preeminence of the House of Commons. If others—not the Government—were to call that stage three, that is a matter about which I am relaxed.

Afghanistan: British Detainees
3 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to ensure that the International Committee of the Red Cross or British consular officials have access to all British citizens and others entitled to British protection who have been arrested in Afghanistan, whether they are held in that country or transferred elsewhere.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, British officials have had access to three British detainees held by the United States authorities at Guantanamo Bay. The International Committee of the Red Cross now has a permanent presence at Guantanamo Bay and ICRC officials have

75
access to the detainees held there at any time. They also have access to detainees in Afghanistan. I further understand that a British official has also seen one British detainee in Afghanistan.
Lord HyIlton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. Can she say how many British persons are now held in Afghanistan and whether any of them are held in very bad conditions at Mazar-i Sharif? Can she also confirm that there will be no indefinite detention—that is to say. no hostage holding—and, finally, that those who may be charged with offences will be tried before British courts?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we know of only two British detainees in Afghanistan. As I mentioned, one has been seen by an official. But there may, of course, be others of whom we are unaware at the moment. We shall continue to make inquiries to try to find out whether there are further British detainees held in Afghanistan. There is no evidence that the United States, or any other detaining authority, is trying to hold detainees indefinitely. Most detainees have been in custody for only a few weeks and, of course, the crucial issue is that their status has not as yet been determined. The noble Lord also asked about the issue of where a trial should be held. We should be happy for trials to be held in this country if—I stress the word "if"—that were the most effective way of pursuing a prosecution and if the United States authorities were happy to proceed on that basis.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, what right does the United States have to detain British citizens even for a matter of weeks on the territory of a third party state? Is not the best course of action, if it is said that these men have committed criminal offences, for the United Kingdom to request the US authorities to deliver the men up to us so that they can be tried in British courts?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, this really does beg difficult and, if I may say so, highly complex legal questions about the status of the detainees in the first place. The noble Lord will know that there has been a great deal of speculation in our own press and in the United States about the status of the detainees. The United States as the detaining authority still has not made a decision on that issue. I believe that I have made the British Government's position clear on the question of possible trials in Britain, but I repeat that we should be happy to do that if it were a sensible and effective way of pursuing justice arid, of course, if that were something to which the United States as the detaining authority was able to agree.
Lord Acton: My Lords, can my noble friend say—
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I think that it is the turn of this side.
Lord Acton: My Lords, is it?
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, yes, it is. The noble Lord can speak in a minute. There is plenty of time.
76
Is it not correct that the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has in fact called for the return to Britain of all British citizens arrested by the Americans and others in Afghanistan? On what grounds is he doing that? Would it not be wiser to focus just on those individuals against whom there are specific British charges or specific British evidence and for them to be returned to Britain and for the rest, who may well have committed terrible crimes against Americans or others, to he investigated and tried appropriately in the United States?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord is not quite correct to say that my right honourable friend has called for the return of British detainees to the United Kingdom. I think that the noble Lord may refer to something which I also heard on Radio 4 last week. However, I make clear to the noble Lord that what matters is where the prosecuting authorities would have an effective chance of pursuing justice—that has to be determined—and, of course, as these are almost unprecedented cases, we would wish to proceed on a basis that could be agreed with the United States.
Of course, these issues are being raised between Ministers. I have raised them myself with officials from the American Embassy in London and my right honourable friend will pursue these issues with Secretary of State Powell when he visits Washington again on Thursday. I agree with the noble Lord that these are potentially horrendous crimes. However, we must not judge what has happened. People must have a fair trial. That is absolutely fundamental to the points that are worrying the noble Lord, Lord. Hylton. MI may say so, the real issues here are that there should be humane treatment, whatever the status of these individuals, and, that if they face trial, such a trial should be a fair one.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 4.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Whitt) will, with the leave of the House, repeat as a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question which is being asked in another place on the report of the Commission on the Future of Farming and Food.
Civil Defence (Grant) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

State Pension Credit Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

77
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 4 [Exclusions]:
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): I should say that if Amendment No. 48 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 49 due to pre-emption.
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 3, line 36, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
"(1) Only one member of a married or unmarried couple shall be entitled to state pension credit.
(1A) Where both members meet the conditions—

(a) they shall elect jointly which member shall receive the credit, or

(b) if they are unable to agree, the member with the lower income shall receive the credit."

The noble Baroness said: I hope that this amendment is self-explanatory. It builds on, though re-expresses, the concept in the Bill that for a married or an unmarried couple there is only one set of entitlement to state pension credit. But, importantly, it deals with who should receive that credit. The amendment proposes that in the first instance the couple should agree which of them should receive the credit, but that if they do not agree it should be paid to the person with the lower income. In practice that may mean that the credit would mainly be paid to wives or the female part of a couple as they are likely to have the lower income. But, of course, the amendment is not designed to favour the female over the male and where the male has the lower income he should receive the credit. I beg to move.
Baroness Barker: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 49, which is grouped with Amendment No. 48. It concerns a slightly different subject and it is, in the nature of these things, a probing amendment. It deals with the question of separation. The purpose behind the amendment is to seek information from the Minister about the circumstances in which a couple separate and are determined to have separated. We know from our deliberations the other day that a couple comprises a household unit of a man and woman living together as a couple.
The amendment's wording is taken from the WFTC Bill. I seek to establish what will happen to the less-welloff member in a couple. I accept the relevant point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that the man may be the lower earner. I seek to establish that in the complex workings of this Bill no pensioner will be left for a significant amount of time with less income than they would need simply through ceasing to live with the person with whom they were living when the calculation was made.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 concern issues affecting couples. We have touched on some of those issues previously in Committee.
78
Amendment No. 48 considers how disagreements will be settled in cases where neither member can agree who should make the claim. Amendment No. 49 considers the meaning of "married" and "unmarried" couples in terms of pension credit. The argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, was slightly different from the wording of Amendment No. 49, but I shall try to deal with her point. With the Committee's permission I shall deal with each amendment in turn.
Amendment No. 48 seems to do two things. First, it provides an alternative form of drafting to the current provisions in Clause 4(1) of the Bill, which ensures that only one member of a couple shall be entitled to pension credit. Secondly, the substantive part of the amendment seeks to specify in primary legislation the criteria to be followed in situations in which neither member of a couple can agree on who should make the claim. I believe that the approach we have adopted in the Bill is correct.
I start by pointing out that such cases are extremely rare. I have checked with officials who have worked in this area for more than 20 years and none has ever come across such a case. We are dealing with hypotheticals. That is not to say that there have not been cases, but on a quick check those officials had not come across any. In relation to the minimum income guarantee, such disputes, where they exist—hypothetically or otherwise—are settled by the Secretary of State, who is in effect the local decision maker, taking into account the individual circumstances of the case. Standing instructions say that in the first instance the responsibility for settling the dispute would be returned to the couple. As one would expect, the couple would be given every opportunity to resolve the problem themselves. For example, there may have been a mistake in filling in the forms.
Where a customer indicates on the claim form that their partner does not agree to their making the claim, a letter is sent to both members asking them to decide who should make the claim. Only where it is clear that they are unable to resolve the dispute or no reply to the letter has been received after 14 days would further steps be taken.
When deciding such a case, consideration would be given to a range of factors—for example, to who is normally responsible for paying the household bills. I do not believe that the noble Baroness's amendment would leave sufficient flexibility to allow the decision-maker to take account of the full range of sensitive issues that might arise in an individual case. That might involve asking detailed questions about the claimant's and the partner's incomes. For example, where income was derived from a joint bank account, it would mean making possibly arbitrary decisions on the apportionment of that income between the two partners.
We know from earlier discussions in your Lordships' House on the minimum income guarantee that customers may be reluctant to claim benefits that require excessive investigations into their financial circumstances. We seek to move away from such an approach. Given that we are dealing, so far as I can tell, with a hypothetical case, we shall lay down guidance but we hope that it will not need to be used. That will give sufficient flexibility to deal with

79
the matter in a decent and sensitive way. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, will withdraw her amendment.
Amendment No. 49 is, as I would expect, a thoughtful amendment. We thought that we understood why the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. had tabled it but now I do not think that we did. It is still probably a thoughtful amendment but it involves a different thought for the day from that which we had anticipated.
For the purposes of the clause, the amendment would align the way a "married" or "unmarried" couple is defined in pension credit and make that more in line with the meaning for tax credits. If the noble Baroness wishes, I could explain why we chose one system rather than another. Basically, she was interested—perfectly rightly—in what counts as separation. For these purposes, a married couple are married to each other and are neither separated under a court order nor separated in circumstances in which the separation is likely to be permanent. In such cases, they would be treated as two single people. For the purposes of housing benefit, they would have different accommodation.
We have a choice in this regard about aligning the different definitions of a couple to either the social security system or the system for tax credits. We have gone for the social security system because, as Members of the Committee will appreciate, 1.7 million people will be transferring from the minimum income guarantee to pension credit, whereas only about 60,000 or 70,000 are simultaneously eligible for tax credits and pension credit. It makes better sense for us to follow the old DSS vocabularies, which are well established in law, and not to try to change all the legislation that feeds into that and then go for the tax system.
I have pressed my officials on this matter. I said, "Tell me in practical terms what the difference between the two definitions is. Can you put a piece of paper between them?" They said, "No, you cannot". The implications of preceding legislation suggest that it would be simpler to keep to the somewhat different definitions. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that detailed explanation of the way in which these issues are handled in practice. My solution was perhaps much simpler and would save her officials having to ask all of those questions and make detailed decisions if there was a statutory rule. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 3, line 44, leave out "not"
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 51 and 52.
The purpose is fairly clear but I am not absolutely certain about how the Bill's provisions will operate. Effectively, the provisions are concerned with various exclusions from benefit. Clause 4(3) is apparently
80
concerned with the situation in which the amount of money that can be payable to a claimant would be very small. It refers to the amount being.
"less than a prescribed amount",
and operating in "prescribed circumstances".
It is not clear where the power to prescribe amounts and circumstances arises in the Bill. Initially, I thought it arose in Clause 3(8), which states:
"Regulations may prescribe descriptions of persons in whose case the maximum savings credit shall be taken to be nil".
However, on reflection, it appears that Clause 4(3) is concerned not with the description of a person but with the description of an amount. That led me to the conclusion that the regulatory powers are not located in Clause 3(8).
Since we are at the beginning of our proceedings today, I return to the question of regulations generally. The Minister generously said at Second Reading that she hoped that draft regulations would be provided by the time the Bill reached its Committee stage. We understand why that was not possible but perhaps she will let us know whether they are likely to be available in time for the Bill's Report stage. So much is done through regulations in the Bill that, without seeing those regulations, it is extremely difficult to make any sensible comment on large chunks of the legislation.
So much for the procedural side of things. I turn to the substance of the amendment. As I said. it appears that the purpose of subsection (3) is to ensure that the claimant gets nothing in prescribed circumstances if the amount is below a certain figure. We understand that lbr convenience it may be inappropriate to pay out a small amount from week to week or month to month, but that appeared to us to be unfair, even in those circumstances. I gather that in that regard I have the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden. Our proposal is that the payment should be made at the beginning or end of the year, whatever the amount might he. The payment should be made as an annual lump sum.
That is not a complicated concept. It is about the simplest amendment that we have debated in our entire proceedings so far and it is probably the simplest amendment that we shall consider. I hope that we shall receive a sympathetic reply from the Minister. who has conceded absolutely nothing so far. Here is a real opportunity to say, "Yes, we shall pay the amount annually". I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I have tabled Amendment No. 51, which is grouped with the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. As the noble Lord rightly said, Clause 4(3) provides that amounts of pension credit below a prescribed level will not be payable. I believe that the sum of 10p a week has been mentioned. The amendment seeks to make the credit payable annually; for example, 52 weeks at, say, 9p would amount to £4.68. Since entitlement to the credit will normally change only annually, such annual payments should cause no administrative difficulty. After all, £4.68 is £4.68.

81
If people are owed a sum of money, why should they not have it paid annually, as suggested in the amendments under discussion?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I believe that Amendments Nos. 50 and 52, when considered together, propose a change to the meaning of Clause 4(3). Amendment No. 51 has the same effect as Amendments Nos. 50 and 52. Therefore, I propose to address these amendments at the same time.
Clause 4(3) provides that pension credit will not be payable if entitlement is under a prescribed amount. The intention here is not to pay pension credit if entitlement is under 10p a week unless payment of pension credit can be combined with payment of another benefit. In fact, this rule will affect very few people—probably no more than 500, even if there were to be a 100 per cent take-up of pension credit—as we anticipate that in the vast majority of cases we shall be able to combine payment of pension credit with another benefit.
The noble Lord asks why we have not conceded anything so far. I am deeply mortified as I gathered that all his previous amendments were probing amendments. I understood that the intention of probing amendments was not to push for concessions but to explore the Government's thinking on the matter. If he does not consider that I have made our thinking sufficiently clear, I shall of course be prepared to speak at even greater length. But I believe that, on reflection, he may wish to consider his remarks further.
There will be a small number of remaining cases—possibly 500 or so—where no other such benefit is in payment. Even though pension credit would not be paid in such cases, there is an underlying entitlement—this is the substantive point which has not been mentioned by Members of the Committee—which means that, for example, the claimant would be passported on to benefits, such as housing benefit, in the normal manner, even with a trigger of an amount such as 10p.
That is a well-established rule and we consider it right to include it in relation to pension credit. If the amendments were accepted, it would mean potentially paying tiny amounts of pension credit—perhaps a matter of pence—at yearly intervals. It has always been a pragmatic decision whether to make such payments. But under this amendment the payment of 52p a year would be a possibility, and it is likely that that would be criticised by claimants as derisory.
Members of the Committee may also be persuaded by the fact that, if the amendment were accepted, we would be paying out less than £2,000 a year in pension credit at an administrative cost of well over £4,000 a year, as our computer systems do not support annual payments. It cannot be right to spend £4,000 in paying out £2,000 when the sum in question is only 52p a year. That amounts to two postage stamps.
By prescribing in regulations the precise rules which will apply to such cases, the Secretary of State will have the flexibility to adjust the circumstances in line with general changes in the methods of paying benefits. In other words, if the noble Lord is suggesting that in future
82
it will make good sense to pay the credit as an annual lump sum, then, when we have the necessary computer power, that may be an appropriate way forward. As a result of my explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Higgins: We are grateful for that explanation from the Minister. She said that no problem arises with the de minims arrangement if another benefit is payable. I am not clear whether or not that includes the other part of the state pension credit. Does "another benefit" include what used to be called "MIG"? If people receive MIG, will they receive this credit, even though it is a de mininds amount?
The noble Baroness has not clarified the point that I raised regarding the regulations which enable these prescribed amounts to be made in prescribed circumstances. As I pointed out, at first I believed that the regulations were those under Clause 3(8), which comes immediately before the exclusions clause. However, that appears to apply to persons and not to amounts, whereas what is being prescribed here is an amount payable in certain circumstances. Therefore, I am still not clear which power enables the clause which we are discussing to be operated.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The power appears under Clause 4. By virtue of Clause 17, which defines terms under the Bill, "prescribed" means specified in regulations. That relates to the last point which the noble Lord has just raised.
I now return to the wider point concerning regulations. In relation to draft regulations, I had hoped to be more helpful to Members of the Committee than they may consider me to have been. We produced an extended memorandum which sought to describe how those regulations would be used. Regulations will be developed over the next four months. As soon as I have anything which I consider to be more helpful to noble Lords than the document that I have already produced, I shall of course let them know.
Lord Higgins: We are very grateful for that. We fully understand that there is no immediate obligation on the Government to produce such regulations or, indeed, such descriptions of regulations. We always very much appreciate the way in which the noble Baroness handles these matters. However, I still have a problem in relation to the technical point. I cannot see which regulatory power enables Clause 3, which we are debating, to be implemented. If, indeed, it is the one under subsection (8), which appears before the exclusions clause, then, as I say for the third time, that concerns descriptions of persons and not amounts. What is being prescribed here is not persons but amounts. Therefore, I cannot find the regulatory power that will implement Clause 3. I am sorry to persist with this matter.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We are dealing with Clause 4. Is that the source of the problem?
Lord Higgins: I am sorry; I meant to say not Clause 3 but subsection (3) of Clause 4. Perhaps I may state again

83
that at the bottom of page 3 of the Bill is subsection (3), which we are now debating. It states that amounts may be prescribed or be payable in prescribed circumstances. I am not clear where the powers are that enable the Government to prescribe the amounts and the circumstances.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I shall write to the noble Lord if I am misleading him. However, if he looks at Clause 4(3) and then at Clause 17 at line 45 on page II of the Bill, he will see that "prescribed" means,
"specified in, or determined in accordance with regulations".
Therefore, where the amount is less than the prescribed amount—that is, less than lop—the amount payable by way of state pension credit will not be payable except in prescribed circumstances; for example, where it can be aligned with the payment of another benefit. I do not understand the problem.
Lord Higgins: Rather than delay the Committee further, I shall look at the references which the noble Baroness has given and, if need be, we can return to the matter on Report. With regard to the substance of the Bill, I am still not clear where we are with regard to whether or not the de minimis amount will be paid in relation to the other parts of the pension credit.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: There is one pension credit which comes about as a result of the move from the guarantee to the savings. Therefore, we are dealing with only one sum. If, at the end of the day, a payment of less than 10p is due under the pension credit—whichever part of the pension credit it relates to—then, if it is aligned with another benefit, it will be paid. If it is not—we believe that only 500 or so people may be affected—then it seems to me inconceivable that someone for whom only the guarantee element comes into play will not also qualify for housing benefit or council tax benefit. Such a situation may apply to a few pensioners but in normal circumstances an alignment would take place. I suspect that that situation may occur when the amount tapers out at the very end.
As I said, we are dealing with a very small number of people. If, at later stages, the arrangement appears to be more problematic, it can be revisited. We have no wish to deny anyone, but when in the past government departments have sent out cheques for 2p, 3p or 50p over the course of a year, we have usually been teased by the Front Benches opposite, and rightly so.
Lord Higgins: I promise not to tease the noble Baroness. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.30 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Income and capital of claimant, spouse etc]:
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Turner of Camden: Clause 5 provides that where the claimant is a member of a married or unmarried couple, the income and capital of the other member of the couple shall, except in prescribed circumstances, be treated as income and capital of the claimant. I have some difficulty with this clause, which is why I have put down my name to oppose it. It must be remembered that this legislation extends means testing to a much wider population than hitherto; that is, if we take seriously, as I do, the Government's own predictions of the numbers likely to be eligible for pension credit—as much as 65 per cent of the future pensioner population.
Many couples regard themselves as couples within the financial sense having joint accounts and sharing incomes and savings completely, but that is not always the case. Some people guard their financial independence jealously. That is now true of many women. In such circumstances the partner may not know of the income, capital and savings of the other partner and may never have known of them completely. How will the income of such a partner be ascertained? Will there be wholesale snooping? Will people be encouraged, or feel they are being encouraged, to be dishonest, concealing income and savings? Perhaps instead of bank notes there will be piles of euros concealed under floorboards.
I know that it will be said that there are types of benefit for which this already applies. Income support is a case in point. But again I repeat that we are talking here about an extension of means testing to a far wider population. We are talking of people who hitherto had not ever thought that it would apply to them, perhaps people who now regard themselves as rather middle class and who have acquired a personal pension that over the years has not provided the pension that they thought it would eventually provide, so they are forced to look at pension credit as a way of getting enough to live on.
I cannot think of a suitable way in which to amend the clause but I am still not happy about it. I am sure that the Government must have given some thought to how this is to be applied and enforced, and how to avoid deliberate dishonesty on the part of claimants and partners. Therefore, I would welcome the views of the Government on the points I have made.
Baroness Noakes: Perhaps I may add to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, by returning to the topic of unmarried couples, which we debated on the first day of the Committee stage. Unmarried couples have few, if any, financial obligations to each other. They certainly do not have obligations to disclose their financial circumstances to each other. If they are treated as one unit for pension credit purposes, that would mean that the details of each part of a deemed unmarried couple would have to be disclosed to the other. It could not be guaranteed that privacy would remain for one because in aggregating two, it would be a relatively simple calculation for one to discover what the other had, even if the Pension Service was able to deal with them as two individuals and add up their incomes separately.
I am not an expert on human rights but I wonder what consideration the Minister gave, when she signed the customary declaration on the Bill, to the possibility that

85
parties to the unmarried couples were being deprived of their rights to privacy. I should be interested in her comments.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My noble friend Lady Turner has long experience in social security matters. She will know, and there is a simple two-line summary, that all income-related benefits are household based. If somebody wants to enjoy an entitlement to a household benefit, we in turn must have the information on that household income. We cannot apply disaggregated or segregated tax rules to a household assessment. My noble friend knows perfectly well that if we were to follow her point, that would mean the disaggregation of social security in the concept of households into a series of individuals. Therefore, a non-working spouse of a wealthy husband, for example, would be entitled, with a very modest income, to a full pension credit. It is precisely to avoid that situation that Clause 5 makes clear that we are dealing with a household. The household is entitled to claim the benefit, subject to the discussion we have just had about who should make the claim, and so forth.
It will not come as a surprise to Members of the Committee that all income-related benefits—JSA, income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit—will all have been based on household income. It may be the case that an unmarried pensioner couple have come together as pensioners and this may be new to them. However, that would pre-suppose that neither of them has ever been in a relationship before in which they have enjoyed a household benefit. They have to make that choice. If they want to enjoy a household-based addition to their income, which is their entitlement, they have to give us the information on which to base it. That is the point of Clause 5. To receive pension credit, both members of the couple need to agree to the claim being made. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that both members of the couple should disclose the financial circumstances to each other. That is the basis of social security law.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Duty to specify assessed income period]:
[Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Fixing of claimant's retirement provision for assessed income period]:
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 5, line 6, leave out subsections (2) to (8) and insert—
"(2) The amount of the claimant's entitlement to state pension credit shall be calculated by reference to—

(a) the claimant's actual income for the year ending on the date of the relevant decision; or

(b) where the circumstances of the claimant have changed, by reference to the estimated income of the claimant for the 12 months following the relevant decision.

(3) Income shall be determined in accordance with section 15.
(4) The circumstances of the claimant shall be treated as having changed if—

(a) the claimant becomes a member of a married or unmarried couple;

86

(b) the claimant ceases to be a member of a married or unmarried couple;

(c) the claimant attains the age of 65;

(d) in a case where the claimant is a member of a married or unmarried couple, the other member of the couple attains the age of 65; or

(e) the income of the claimant for the 12 months after the date of the relevant decision is likely to be higher or lower than the income for the preceding 12 months by at least 10 per cent."

The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 55, we return to one of our themes on the Bill; that is, complexity. We have already discussed in Committee the different concepts of income that are used for the guarantee credit and the savings credit. We now come to the way that income is treated for the purposes of fixing pension credits for up to five years at a time.
Clause 7 is, indeed, complex. It has a new concept of retirement provision, which appears to cover some but not all of the income sources listed in Clause 15, to which we shall come in due course. There is a power in subsection (4) to deem that income will increase or, in some cases, decrease, over the five-year period. There are powers in subsection (7) to treat as income something which is not.
I wonder what pensioners would make of all that. At best they would be bemused and uncomprehending. At worst, I suspect they would be confused and possibly even frightened. Amendment No. 55 is designed to cut through that by basing pension credit decisions on pensioners' actual income immediately before the decision on pension credit or on the income for the next 12 months if there is a change in circumstances. A change of circumstances is defined as including the position where the income for the following year might vary by more than 10 per cent either way.
Taking that simple concept of income, there would be no need for special provisions for calculating income or different concepts of income. There would be no deemed increases or decreases, just a single figure. I should say that we are not entirely convinced that a five-year settlement of pension credit is an equitable approach. It means that a pensioner who won the lottery or had a major inheritance would be entitled to continue claiming the pension credit until the end of the five-year period. We shall debate the period a little later.
The point of the amendment is that if the Government believe that a five-year interval for settling pension credit is desirable and want to go down that route—I suspect in practical terms it may be the only way that is feasible administratively—they should do so in as simple a way as possible. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees: I must inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 55 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 56 to 59A.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: For the first time today, we are getting to the substance of the five-year period. Therefore, perhaps I may say a few words about the detail of the amendment, which is interesting and far reaching. However, again it pursues the issue of alignment with the tax system. As I understand it, it proposes to borrow from

87
the system of five-year assessed income periods covered in Clauses 6 to 10 and the five-year assessed income period itself, but then to impose limits and new classifications.
The five-year assessed income period and the processes that support it are a key feature of pension credit which will, I hope, reassure pensioners that this is a world away from the weekly means test they are currently experiencing. We would strongly resist all attempts to fetter the purpose of a five-year assessed period, so that pensioners know where they stand.
In the future a pensioner approaching pensionable age will receive his or her invitation to claim state retirement benefits. Many pensioners will then make their claim, most by telephone—some 70 per cent tell us that is what they prefer—but others will do so in more traditional ways as they please. We will ask the pensioner about the income he or she expects in retirement. When it is clear—as in most cases it will be—that the income is settled, an award of pension credit will be made.
Perhaps crucially because—and this has been raised in your Lordships' discussion—all the research indicates that pensioners do not want the intrusion of dealing with the state when it comes to their financial affairs, or in order to reduce it to a minimum, we intend that there will be no review of these affairs for five years. We shall have safeguards. We shall automatically increase income from second pensions when these occur as part of the regular annual increases in these pensions. To do otherwise would drive up the costs of pension credits significantly. 01' course, if a pensioner's income decreases during the five-year period, then we will interrupt the award to take that into account. In other words, it is "win win" for the pensioner. The pensioner can always come to us for an uplift if his or her income falls. They do not have to come to us until we review their income, apart from certain major life changes, which will be on a five-year basis. We will also take into account the normal changes in circumstances, such as death of a partner, which already exist within retirement pension.
This is a real break with the past. It has been widely welcomed by all the relevant organisations. We are seeking to achieve a break with the old means-test attitude. Perhaps I can suggest to Members of the Committee what the amendment does to that concept. First, as I understand the amendment of the noble Baroness, there would be an obligation to base the pension credit income assessment on a past year's income. Understandably, given the irrelevance of past income for new pensioners, the amendment also allows claims to be assessed on estimated income for the next 12 months. The amendment then proposes that the life changes, such as death of a partner, should also be notifiable when they occur. We have no difficulties with that. We share the same approach.
But then we have a radical departure from where we want to go. According to the amendment of the noble Baroness, at the end of 12 months if the pensioner's income has changed by 10 per cent up or down, over what it was 12 months previously, the pensioner must tell us about it. It is unclear whether that 10 per cent accumulates so that, say, at the end of the fourth year of
88
a five-year period the pensioner has to remember what he or she told us four years earlier and calculate whether t hat is within the 10 per cent tolerance.
However, I am not quibbling with the detail of the amendment. The noble Baroness can clarify her views on that. I am arguing as strongly as possible that we must break the weekly reporting of information or even the yearly reporting of that kind of information that ties the ownership of the pensioner's circumstances to us.
Obviously, a 12-month means test, which is what the noble Baroness proposes, is better than a weekly means test in the eyes of most pensioners. We would argue that giving people an assured level of income for 60 months is better than 12 months. We estimate that at least two-thirds of pensioners are unlikely to see their financial circumstances change within the five-year period, particularly after the first year when people are settling down and maybe giving up modest part-time earnings.
The noble Baroness can argue that a 10 per cent tolerance up or down is reasonable. But, if I lost £9 of a weekly income of £100 I would not imagine that the state was on my side if it told me not to bother it until I had lost £10. At the moment, if a pensioner loses £ 1 or £9 he or she can come to us. It is only if it goes up that they do not have to come to us. As the amendment is worded, the noble Baroness would require them not to be able to report losses.
Equally, if my income rose by more than I 0 per cent, I would be troubled that under the amendment I could keep this income for at most 12 months. I would much prefer to be told that I did not need to tell the state about it for five years, rather than 12 months.
I accept that what the noble Baroness proposes in the amendment in part advances on the present arrangements for pensioners. However, what we propose goes much further. It will free a great many pensioners to enjoy their income without constant inquiry from the state. The question before the Committee is whether a 12-month revisiting of a pensioner's income is more reasonable than a five-year revisiting of a pensioner's income, given that after the first year or so of being a pensioner incomes are fairly predictable. Further, given, that we are so anxious to break the old mentality of means test, intrusion and so on, I hope that the noble Baroness can join with us in what I believe is a generous but decent and proper concept, which is the five-year assessed period.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. She reminded me how difficult a job drafting is. As soon as the Minister started commenting on my suggested re-draft of the amendment, I realised that I had not drafted what I had intended. I had intended that there would indeed be a five-year prospective settlement and that it would be based on the most recent year's income, unless, looking forward, one thought that that income might vary by more than 10 per cent, particularly when one becomes a pensioner. I linked the proposal to life-changing events. So I was suggesting that there would be a five-year settlement; it would be based on the most recent year's income unless that was unlikely to be

89
representative of the following year, in which case it would be based on something else. Then it would be left for five years. That avoids the deeming of increases and decreases in income which are included in Clause 7(4).
The Minister talked about this being "win win" for pensioners and of their being able to go back if their income turned out to be less than the assumed basis. When we come to look at how income from capital, in particular, is calculated later, we find notional calculations. I do not believe that pensioners will know how to go back and ask for a re-assessment or a redetermination of their pension credit. It will leave them confused and they may lose out. I have a number of points. First, I was not trying to turn this into an annual assessment. I was merely trying to say that when it is assessed, if the previous year's income does not look representative, use another year. I confused that in the drafting of the amendment. I apologise for confusing the Minister. Beyond that, I was trying to say, "Let us do it once and then forget it for five years". I am not accepting in this argument that five years is an appropriate period. But if that is what the Government want to do, it is the least interventionist for pensioners because it is over and done with and one does not do prospectively any fancy calculations.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Baroness is suggesting that the reason for her proposal is not to change the five-year period but not to take into account any changes in pension levels and any changes in capital. On the first point, that is not reasonable because we automatically update retirement pension. Therefore it follows that we automatically update housing benefit. I do not think that one can automatically update all of that but freeze any assumptions about the income flow coming in from, for example, RPI occupational pensions. They have to be done together. My response to the noble Baroness on that issue is that I do not think that proposal is sensible; we already do it; and there is no reason on God's earth why we should not continue to do that. It is fairly simple.
On the second point, on capital, we are not looking at actual income, in which case she may have a point; we are looking at notional income drawing from capital. Capital is much more stable. Most pensioners—certainly if my parents are anything to go by—know exactly how much they have in their building society books and so on. That is the level for the most part that we are talking about. They will not know what the actual income is. The point made by the noble Baroness would be much fairer and more viable if we were trying to go for an actual income. There she might well be right. They would not know whether to come down from 4.1 to 3.7 and following calculations. But, given that it is capital, and given, as I say on the first point that retirement pensions are automatically upgraded by the computer and this follows, I hope that the noble Baroness would feel able to withdraw the amendment.
If there are other particular points about this matter, because it is a very interesting issue, I should be very happy to correspond with the noble Baroness.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that reply. I can see how she will want to make later payments of pension credit vary with other benefits. That is quite clear. The difference comes down to savers' income. I heard what the Minister said about that matter. We shall be returning to that issue several more times during Committee. I await those discussions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 5, line 10, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Baroness said: The previous amendment, Amendment No. 55, sought radically to simplify the assessed income period provisions. As anticipated, that did not find favour with the Minister. I anticipate a similar rejection in moving Amendment No. 56, while speaking also to Amendments Nos. 57 and 59. The amendments seek more limited simplifications of part of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 delete subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 7. The subsections allow the Department for Work and Pensions to deem a pensioner's income to increase or decrease. The points we discussed a moment ago probably resolve down to the treatment of savings income.
I shall return to the theme. The treatment of savings income takes a pensioner's income into a fantasy world. Pensioners will be unable to refer easily to that in due course. Claimants can ask for new determinations if their income is less; but I find it difficult to envisage how a pensioner would know when he is dealing with deemed income. What volume of pensioner inquiries seeking redeterminations could the department cope with? I understand that the five-year determination reduces significantly the administrative burden on the department. What level of potential redeterminations can the department cope with if pensioners do not understand whether the system is working to their benefit?
Amendment No. 59 is another deeming provision. It allows the department to make regulations treating income as some other type of income or to aggregate income sources. I am not clear why the department needs this power. It is not explained in the Explanatory Notes. It is another example of the potential creation of a fantasy world of people's income. I should be grateful for an explanation. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The amendments are grouped together because they all seek to amend Clause 7 of the Bill. Clause 7 is an integral part of our proposals for the assessed income period which we rehearsed a moment ago. I do not need to describe why we have the five-year period; we discussed that.
Amendment No. 56 would have the overall effect of removing the power to set a five-year assessed income period for pensioners aged 65 or more. Clause 7 contains the power to fix a pensioner's retirement provision for five years. It also contains the definition of "retirement provision" which is: retirement pension provision (other

91
than under the Contributions and Benefits Act); income from annuity contracts (other than retirement pension income); and income from capital.
Subsection (3), which the amendment seeks to remove, contains the power to fix the retirement provision so that it remains the same for the duration of the assessed income period. Without subsection (3) there would be no point to the remaining clauses concerning the assessed income period because there would be no power to fix retirement provision. I know that the noble Baroness did not intend it as a wrecking amendment but it is the closest we have come to one! The very heart of the pension credit proposals will be removed because the effect would be that we would be unable to move away from the weekly means test which, as I have already explained, is a major barrier to pensioners claiming their entitlement. I hope that I have explained the purpose of subsection (3) and justified its inclusion in Clause 7.
Amendment No. 57 would remove the power to deem known regular changes in a pensioner's income during the assessed income period. Again let me clarify why subsection (4) should remain part of Clause 7. This subsection allows for exceptions to income being fixed within the assessed income period. These exceptions are in line with two principles: safeguarding public expenditure and safeguarding pensioners' overall incomes.
In terms of protecting public expenditure, we want to ensure that foreseeable and regular changes in retirement provision are taken into account during the course of an assessed income period. We know that in most cases second pensions and annuities are liable to be increased annually. Therefore, we propose taking a power to deem the amount of the increase, thus preventing the need for the pensioner to report those changes every year.
This power will be within regulations. The intention is that the regulations will provide for the amount of income from a pension or annuity to be deemed to increase from time to time in line with the terms of a pensioner's pension or annuity arrangements. If the noble Baroness wishes to press me on how we shall know in certain circumstances, I am happy to discuss it.
Accepting Amendment No. 57 would mean, for example, ignoring increases to non-state second pensions. The cost of ignoring such increases alone during the assessed income period would amount to around £1 billion at the end of the five-year period.
I know that there will be concerns about how we propose to take account of increases in claimants' retirement provision, or indeed changes in other state benefits, during the assessed income period. It may be helpful to the Committee if I spell this out. It is a key point. Our intention is automatically to uprate the pension credit award each year taking into account changes in the state and non-state pensions the pensioner normally has during the five-year assessed income period. The calculation of the retirement provision will be based on information provided by the pensioner at the start of the claim. We know that most private pensions keep pace with inflation. Ninety per cent of them are defined benefit. They are almost all retail prices indexed (RPI'd) because they are largely public sector ones. So, if the pensioner is
92
unable to provide information about the rate at which his or her second pension will be increased, we intend to assume that it is uprated at least in line with prices.
Let me assure Members of the Committee that if doing that means that a pensioner will lose out—because we are assuming a rate of increase that is too high; in other words it is not being RPI'd—pensioners will be able to ask for their pension credit to be reassessed at any time during the assessed income period. In other words, we will notify pensioners every time there is a change in pension credit annually. Pensioners will be able to compare their actual pension with the amount on their notification. if they wish, we can make inquiries with the pension company on their behalf. We have no reason to think that this will not be an entirely Simple, straightforward and easy way of ensuring that, although we shall make RPI assumptions, where that is not the case we shall have the information to make appropriate and speedy adjustments.
Subsection (4) protects the public purse to the tune of £1 billion and supports our intention to minimise the questions we need to ask pensioners. We need to explore it further only when the pensioner is able to tell us or we know that that pensioner is not being RPI'd in ways we expect.
Amendment No. 59 seeks to remove the powers to provide continuity in treatment of income streams within the calculation of pension credit. This would mean that the flexibility of administrators to group income streams or to ignore changes of source of payment would be removed from the assessed income period within the pension credit calculation.
Paragraph (a) of subsection (7) of Clause 7 will allow regulations to provide for income of one description to be treated as income of another description. It sounds technical. The noble Baroness thought that it was fantasy land. It will apply infrequently to only a small number of pensioners. Let me give some examples 'where we would have needed the power.
Noble Lords will recall the mess—I do because I was handling a Bill from the Benches opposite—of the Maxwell affair. Pension rights which could not be met from Mirror Group Pensions were paid, at least in part, by a fund made up of donations and chanitable payments. We all hope that that situation will not recur. But under the savings credit we would want to be able to treat such payments as retirement provision for the duration of the current assessed income period and reward thent through the savings credit. This power would allow us to do just that.
The most common use of this power would be for pensioners who have a second pension paid by one employer or pensions provider who then merges with another or is taken over by another. In that situation, the pension in payment would, in effect, be the same. However, the liability may well be transferred to, and be discharged by, the new company or a third party. This provision would allow us again to continue to fix this income for the duration of the existing assessed income period and reward it as retirement provision through the savings credit.

93
I am sure the noble Baroness will understand this point. I do not need to labour it further. In the light of that explanation, perhaps I can ask the noble Baroness whether she would care to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Barker: I listened carefully to the Minister's extremely helpful explanation. In her response to Amendment No. 57, she referred to those pensioners who know that their pension funds are not automatically uprated by RPI. If at the time a person retires he knows that his occupational pension will not necessarily be uprated by RPI, will there be the facility in the new system for him to flag that and thereby trigger an annual reassessment of his income?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I had hoped that I had made that clear. Absolutely: that is the whole point. If, for example, he does not, although assumptions are being made about his state retirement pension, we shall have to ensure that similar assumptions are not transferred over to his private occupational pension. Therefore, each year the adjustments will be made accordingly.
4 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: The basic assumption of pensions being RPI'd is reasonable for public sector pensions, but I cannot believe that that applies to most pensions. It is not a universal practice by any means that private sector pensions are RPI'd. It seems to me to be a potential difficulty as it requires pensioners to reapply for a determination each year just because they have an ordinary private sector pension. In that regard, can the Minister say how many pensioners are likely to be affected? I do not know and I would not know how to decide that problem. If it is a large number I may wish to press the Minister further although perhaps not today.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The latest information I can give the noble Baroness comes from the Government Actuary statistics for 1995. I shall check to see if anything later than that is available. The information I have is that public sector defined benefit pension schemes are required by scheme rules to increase pensions annually in line with the RPI and in April. The major defined benefit schemes tend to be those of the Civil Service, local government, the teaching and health professions and the like. The 1995 survey showed that 82 per cent of those holding private sector defined benefit pensions had increases of 2 per cent to 4 per cent, which are close to the RPI of that year which was 3.5 per cent. Fourteen per cent had increases greater than 4 per cent, while only 4 per cent had increases of less than 2 per cent. We do not have information about timing.
Therefore, in terms of defined benefit schemes, I believe that we are dealing with relatively small numbers. Defined contribution schemes are obviously a different output and the noble Baroness will understand that. As I said, the pensioner will receive from his or her occupational scheme a notification of what they are to receive each year. The pensioner will be able to compare that to the notification received from us saying what we are assuming to be correct. If there is a difference they
94
refer the matter again to us. I do not see that there is a problem given that we are well aware of it. I believe that we have robust systems in place on this matter.
Baroness Noakes: Can the Minister say how many pensioners are in defined contribution schemes? I understand it is 10 per cent. As regards the figure that the Minister quoted for defined benefit schemes, it is quite often the case that such schemes have an RPI of 4 per cent or 5 per cent. The point to which the statistics refer might appear to be giving RPI-type increases, but perhaps they are base level increases which just happen to coincide. It is my experience that when inflation reached high levels, this protection was included so that large increases were not paid out. We might be dealing with quite a number of pensioners. I wonder whether it is right automatically to apply RPI to all of them.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I may make it clear again. When a pensioner first comes into the system at the age of 65, we shall go over their income with them. We shall take into account what they know about their second pensions and how they are being increased. If they say that it is 2 per cent or 4 per cent or RPI'd, we shall build that into our annual uprating for that pensioner. It is only if the pensioner cannot give us the information at that point that we shall assume an RPI increase. If we do that, and a year or so later the pensioner says that there is a disjunction between what they are told by their occupational pension scheme provider and what we assume to be the situation, the person will return to us. If the pensioner does not know and he or she authorises us to find out, we shall go to the pension provider and seek that information.
Baroness Noakes: I am grateful for that information and I shall consider it further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 57 not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 5, line 18, at end insert "and the Secretary of State shall inform the claimant of any changes in the assessed amount and of the effect of that change on his entitlement to state pension credit".
The noble Baroness said: To some extent we have dealt with this area already. The amendment is to subsection (4) of the clause which speaks about the assessed amount being deemed to increase or, in the case of income from capital, to increase or decrease,
"on such date or dates and by such amounts as may be prescribed".
We are seeking to add to the subsection the words,
"and the Secretary of State shall inform the claimant of any changes in the assessed amount and of the effect of that change on his entitlement to state pension credit".
It is important that the claimant should understand the effect of any assumed changes to his or her income so that if necessary he or she can ask for a fresh determination of the amount of the pension credit. The amendment requires the Secretary of State to provide the relevant information.
I believe I heard the noble Baroness say, in the course of her response to previous amendments, that arrangements would he made for pensioners to be notified. I am glad to hear that, but if so, what is wrong with putting it on the face of the Bill in the way I have suggested? I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes: I wish to underline some of the points which we were discussing when dealing with the last couple of amendments. These are complex matters. I believe that pensioners may well be very confused about what is happening to the pension credit that they have. It is an excellent amendment in that there is a positive duty to inform the pensioner of a change in the pension credit and at least provide an aide memoire or a reminder to pensioners that they should check that their details are correct. I hope that the notification will also inform the pensioner very clearly what he or she must do if they are concerned about any of the details. I support this amendment.
Baroness Barker: I support the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. I do so because the amendment affords an opportunity to take issue with something the Minister said at the first day of Committee stage. She indicated that it would be a source of relief to many pensioners that these complex calculations will be done by the department. I am sure that it will be given some of the examples which the Minister gave us on an earlier occasion.
However, I am not sure about that in practice. I believe that there is a danger of likening pensioners to other claimant groups and I am not sure that that is always correct. A number of pensioners worry immensely about benefits and what they receive. That worry is aggravated by the fact that most of them know that they will always be on a low income. Therefore, they worry a great deal that an over-calculation has been made and they will not have extra income to put that right. Therefore, I believe that there is an additional reason besides those already cited by the noble Baronesses for reassuring pensioners that they are receiving what they are entitled to. For that reason I support the noble Baroness, Lady Turner.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has received support from both Opposition Benches. I approve of it too because that is exactly what we are going to do and what we are already empowered to do under the decision-making Act. The only question is whether we put redundant words on the face of the Bill. There may be an argument for doing that, but it will not change anything. The parliamentary draftsman does not like adding redundant words.
Amendment No. 58 seeks to ensure that where a change in a pensioner's income from a second pension, annuity contract or capital affects their entitlement to pension credit, the Pension Service will inform the pensioner of that change and its effect.
I agree that the Pension Service must keep pensioners fully informed of their pension credit entitlement and the effect that any changes in circumstances have on that entitlement. As I said, for the vast majority of pensioners we shall set assessed income periods, usually for five
96
years, during which only limited significant changes—for example, the death of a partner—would need to be reported.
As I said, as part of our drive and in order to reduce intrusion we will automatically take into account predictable changes such as benefit changes and the annual increase in second pensions such as we have just been discussing. Details of these will be gathered in the five-year period.
Where there is a change in the level of pension credit entitlement, the Pension Service will send a letter to the pensioner with an explanation of their entitlement prior to and following the change. This will provide—this may help the noble Baroness, Lady Barker—a detailed breakdown of the change and its effect. This should ensure that pensioners understand the change when their payment is altered. That is consistent with the arrangements for handling changes to pensioner's entitlement at present.
Obviously, we have to ensure that pensioners continue to receive their full pension credit entitlement and that if it is reduced, they can ask for it to be recalculated. That is the substance of the redundant words. Pension credit decisions will fall within the existing legislation on notifying decisions. Section 12(6) of the Social Security Act 1998, which I am sure that Members of the Committee will instantly recall, and the regulations made under it—the Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 1999—already provide that a person must be given a written notice of decisions which are appealable. That existing statutory obligation will be applied to pension credit by Clause 11 and Schedule 1 to the Bill. So the Pension Service is already obliged to provide what is sought through the amendment under the established legal and operational arrangements that I have outlined. For that reason, I hope that my noble friend and the Committee will agree that this entirely well-intentioned amendment is unnecessary.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank my noble friend for that explanation. I still think that there would be no harm in writing that provision into the Bill, but in view of her positive response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 59A:
Page 5, line 36, leave out subsection (8).
The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment. I have read Sections 9 and 110 of the Social Security Act 1988 to try to understand what Clause 7(8) is intended to do, but I must confess that I am none the wiser. The Explanatory Notes say only that nothing in the Bill will affect the powers of the Secretary of State to revise decisions under Section 9. My question to the Minister is: in what circumstances can the Secretary of State use the Section 9 powers to revise a pension credit decision under the Bill? Can they be used to reduce an

97
individual's pension credit? Can they override the setting of an assessed income period? In the cause of enlightenment, I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Amendment No. 59A would severely undermine the department's ability to recover overpayments. The provision as amended would prevent the decision maker in the local office revising the original decision regarding the claimant's retirement provision if, for example, that decision was based on ignorance of a material fact caused by the fraudulent, deliberate or negligent conduct of the claimant. Under current rules, an overpayment is calculated from the date on which an incorrect award was made, or on which an award became incorrect due to a change in a person's circumstances. Where benefit has been overpaid as a consequence of a person's failure to disclose, or misrepresentation of, a material fact, the department has always sought to recover the amount overpaid. Indeed, not to do so would be contrary to government accounting procedures which require departments to try to recover debts where it is cost-effective to do so.
The Committee will be aware that a person in receipt of the minimum income guarantee has an ongoing obligation to notify the department of any change in their circumstances. However, pension credit recipients, once the five-year period has begun, will have to notify only major changes. These include when a person becomes a member of a married or unmarried couple, when a person loses their spouse, when a person attains the age of 65, or. where the claimant is a member of a married or unmarried couple, the other member attains the age of 65. The claimant is not obliged to report changes in retirement provision during the assessed income period, though he or she may report such changes if they would result in an increased entitlement to pension credit. As I have said, it is a win/win for pensioners.
That simplification will ease the burden on claimants to report every change as it happens. But—and this is where the amendment would bite—it is important that the claimant gives us accurate and full information at the start of the claim, as that will be vital to establish not only the correct level of entitlement but whether the five-year period is appropriate. If there are obviously going to be fluctuations during the next year. the five-year period will kick in only when we have a reasonably reliable income forecast. Equally, at the end of the current assessed income period, the same considerations will apply.
As drafted, the amendment would effectively curtail the department's ability to recover overpayments of pension credit where there had been an incorrect assessment of a person's retirement provision at the start of an assessed income period—where the overpayment may have arisen as a result of fraudulent omissions on the part of the pension credit recipient or their partner.
For example, Mr X might, at the start of his pension credit claim, deliberately conceal from us the fact that he has two separate occupational pensions. Let us for the sake of argument say that he told us that he had only one occupational pension, and the decision maker decided to set a five year assessed income period. Mr X would be overpaid, for obvious reasons. If the existence of his
98
second occupational pension were discovered at the end of his assessed income period, the amendment would mean that the decision maker could reassess Mr X's entitlement only from that point in time. He could not go back to the original decision, even if it were based on a calculated deceit, revise it and seek to recover the overpayment. In effect, sanctions would be heavily undermined. Such omissions, deliberate or otherwise, do occur. I am sure that none of us would wish to encourage such behaviour.
Our proposed policy for pension credit is that where an overpayment occurred as a result of a person's failure to disclose, and therefore the entitlement decision was based on a mistake as to a material fact, the claimant would be liable for recovery from the day on which the overpayment occurred. The Government want to be consistent. Were we to accept the amendment, it would create a disparity in the way in which the department treats overpayments of pension credit that arose due to a mistake in the calculation of a person's retirement provision compared with the treatment of overpayments resulting from any other circumstance, such as a non-dependant leaving the household or the repayment of an outstanding mortgage loan. The local decision maker would be able to revise a decision where the claimant misrepresented a fact about his household composition, but not where the claimant had misrepresented a fact about his retirement provision. I am sure that the noble Baroness would accept that that would be absurd.
To put the provision in statistical context, in the current year the department has sought recovery on 25,000 overpayments from people aged 60 and over receiving MIG. If the amendment were to be accepted, we could not do so in future—or not substantially—and there would be a net loss to the department of £20 million. Depending on when the claimant reported the change, we would be able to pay any other arrears.
I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that our proposals are reasonable and that the amendment would be an invitation for people to misrepresent incomes and that we would have no means for recovery. Obviously, the vast majority of pensioners try to be as truthful as they can. Sometimes mistakes occur in error, but sometimes we know that they are deliberate. We need the currently available sanctions to continue to operate.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation and my enlightenment. Will she clarify one point? She spoke throughout largely in terms of fraudulent misrepresentation. The powers apply to any overpayment where the facts are incorrect, whether because of error or oversight. There is no gradation. The powers will allow the Secretary of State—or the local office—to revise whenever there is a change, for whatever circumstance.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, if money has been paid in error, the department has an obligation to seek to recover it. I know from experience that where the department may in part be responsible for an error, it tries to take as sensitive an approach as possible in the circumstances, especially in the case of pensioners,

99
disabled people, people with a mental health problem, and so on. If we do not have such a power, the problem is not so much that there may be an innocent error as that there may be deliberate cheating, which is an entirely different situation.
Baroness Noakes: In the light of what the Minister said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 5, line 39, at end insert—
"( ) Where a recoverable overpayment of state pension credit has occurred as a result of an error, however caused, in the determination of the amount of an element of the claimant's retirement provision, the amount recoverable shall be limited to the amount overpaid in a period of 12 months or the assessed income period, whichever is shorter."
The noble Baroness said: The amendment covers similar ground to that which we have already discussed. It provides that where a recoverable overpayment of state pension credit is the result of an error, the determination of the amount recoverable should be limited to the amount overpaid in a period of 12 months or the assessed income period, whichever is the shorter.
Pension credit entitlement is fixed for a period of live years, unlike some other benefits. A relatively small weekly overpayment for which the claimant is held responsible may result in a demand for a very large repayment. The amendment therefore proposes that, in such circumstances, only 12 months' overpayments should be recoverable. I hope that my noble friend will feel that there is some justice in that request, because we are talking about a period of five years, rather than a much shorter one, as in other circumstances. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I can give my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden a fairly full answer, and I shall return to one of her points. However, I wonder whether she really needs me to, given the discussion we have already had. What she is saying is that if at the outset of establishing a five-year claim someone deliberately misrepresents their income, and we do not learn that they have done so until five years later, we could recover only one year's worth of the payment obtained by that deliberate cheating. I am sure that that is not what my noble friend intends, but that is the implication of the amendment. I hope that she will not pursue that.
The amendment would also produce unfairness of treatment. I shall give the Committee an example. Mr A is 65. He has a partner who is 58, who has irregular and intermittent earnings, which prevents our setting an assessed income period. Mr B is 65 and has an assessed income period in force. Both misrepresent the correct amount of their second pension at the start of their respective claims. In both cases, we discover the misrepresentation, say, two years or four years into their claims. In the first case, we would take steps to recover all the overpayment, as Mr A does not have an assessed income period,
100
because his partner's earnings are still fluctuating. However, in Mr B's case, we would be restricted in our recovery of overpaid pension credit to 12 months.
For those reasons, the advantage that claimants would gain by misrepresenting, knowing that once they were past the 12-month period only the money for 12 months could be clawed back, arid, secondly, the discrepancies that would be created between those who had partners below the age of 60—for women—who might still be in the labour market earning a regular income in which case we could recover the money, whereas, if someone had a partner of pension age and a fixed period, we could not. I hope that my noble friend will not pursue the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister for that explanation, but we are not talking about fraud in the amendment. We are talking about an overpayment that has arisen as a result of an error, not because of a dishonest claim. We tabled the amendment because an error could occur, and a repayment period of up to five years could be rather a heavy commitment for a pensioner. In view of what the Minister has said, I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Duration of assessed income period]:
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 6, line 28, leave out "5" and insert "3"
The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Higgins said how much the debate would be illuminated by the presence of regulations, so that we could see the practical implications of what we are discussing. I may have missed them but the noble Baroness. Lady Greengross, put down half a dozen helpful Questions for Written Answer, to which I have not yet seen replies. I would be grateful if they could be made available before Report, because they illuminate several of the issues that we have discussed tonight and at the prior sitting of the Committee. The amendment would reduce the period from five years to three. It takes us over ground covered in the context of recent amendments. I do not wish to weary the House with a long further discussion of the issue.
We live in a period of extreme financial volatility. Although deemed income—the concept that is the centrepiece of the Bill—does something to damp down that volatility, it is at its most beneficial to pensioners at a time when interest rates and returns on savings are falling, as they will receive the pension credit on the higher amount rather than the lower. However, as we know, what goes down will eventually come up again. Those circumstances are less advantageous for them.
The Minister talked about the need to break with the weekly report. It is quite a big move to go from a weekly report to a 260-weekly report. I would hope that there might be something in between. I may have misunderstood the exchanges that have gone on in the past 45 minutes. The Minister talked about a win-win

101
situation for pensioners in that they can always apply for a reassessment during the five-year period, but I am concerned that many of them will not. I am not clear as to how they will be notified or encouraged to make that reassessment at a time of rising capital values on which they could get a higher pension credit. It is an extremely complicated piece of legislation, and we have spent a great deal of time getting our mind around it. I fear that many people will just take the money and say, "Thank goodness". It will be hard for them to work out precisely what they are entitled to, particularly if their savings have, in time, increased in value in which case the deemed value that they will get will be rising as well.
Above all, it is the least sophisticated who will be most affected, those who most need our help and protection. Wherever possible, we should keep in touch with reality. The Bill is full of assumptions—the first £6,000 has a nil return, the next amount has 10 per cent and so on—but we should try to keep people who are in receipt of the credit in touch with reality. Above all, we should try to protect the less sophisticated members of our society, who may be disadvantaged.
I am not sure that I have this exactly right, and the Minister may be able to tell me that people will be told clearly when they are being disadvantaged. If they are not, if it is not absolutely clear, a three-year period of assessment would have a better effect in ironing out the volatility of financial markets without taking us back to the weekly assessment, with which, I accept, the Minister wishes to break. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes: We are not convinced that five years is the right period, for the reasons that my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts has adduced. He made a powerful case for a shorter period, and I hope that the Minister will consider it. Whether the assessed period is three years or five years, the Government should be wholehearted about it. In speaking to Amendments Nos. 63, 64 and 65, which are grouped with Amendment No. 61, 1 would like to outline a different approach.
Amendment No. 63 would remove subsections (2) and (3). Subsection (2) allows the Secretary of State to specify a period of shorter than five years or not to specify one at all if the claimant's income is not expected to be typical. A pensioner will be given the prospect of a five-year settlement only to have it whisked away at the whim of the Secretary of State or, in fact, the local official. We cannot see that that is necessary. If the policy is five years, why not just stick with it? There are several other powers to reopen cases, to deem increases or deal with the issue in other ways.
Amendment No. 64 tackles subsection (4), which sets out the life events that lead to an assessed income period coming to an end. That is fine, but why do the Government need a power to override that in prescribed circumstances? Amendment No. 64, tabled on a probing basis, would remove that power. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister why she thinks that the Government need it.
102
Similarly, Amendment No. 65 would take away the power in subsection (5) to regulate for yet more cases in which an assessment period comes to an end beyond the life events specified in subsection (4). If the Minister thinks that the power is necessary, I should be interested to hear about the cases in which it might be appropriate.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I shall do my best. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, I would say that, at the end of the day, we believe that five years is the right period. Our research shows that, after the first year or so of retirement, there is relatively little change in income that cannot be predicted or built into the retirement pension situation.
The noble Lord said that there was one thing that was unpredictable—growth in savings, given capital markets and so on. I am sure that he is right, but I must make two points. First, 85 per cent of those on pension credit have savings of less than £6,000 and need not report anything to us. As the noble Lord knows, we could have gone for a much lower deemed return from capital if we had not had that first tranche of exempt moneys. However, we listened to representations from Age Concern, Help the Aged, CABs and other organisations—I hope that I am not attributing views to them improperly—which stated that they would prefer to take out of the system the vast majority of those pensioners who do not make any claims to financial sophistication. That we have done.
The noble Lord pressed me on the question of how those pensioners holding higher capital—perhaps because their capital has grown—would know that that might lead to a higher element entitled to reward. Pensioners will be notified each year at around the time of uprating of their pension credit entitlement, how it has been worked out and how and when they should let us know about any changes. I have not consulted on this, but I would be happy to ensure that, closer to the time that the provisions come into effect in October 2003, examples of the draft letters are placed in the Library so that noble Lords can reassure themselves of their explicit, transparent and simple qualities.
It is my experience that all such communications tend to be drawn up in conjunction with the relevant organisations such as Help the Aged and Age Concern because it is in everyone's interests that the situation is made clear.
Perhaps I may turn to Amendment No. 63, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, which seeks to remove the power of the Secretary of State to set and assess an income period of under five years or not to set one at all. The point of the subsection is because often, during the first year, there may be irregular earnings or an unpredictable income. The pensioner will then not be in a position to tell us what they expect their income to be. For that reason, we accept their income for one year and then we undertake the five-year assessment once their income has stabilised. That is the reason for

103
the power and perhaps I do not need to explain it in any further detail. Amendment No. 64 would have the effect of always bringing the assessed income period to an end, with no exceptions, in circumstances where the composition of the household changed. The reason for the power is that it could be that one of the changes does not result in a change of income or the appropriate minimum guarantee—for example, where a pensioner does not receive an occupational pension on attaining the age of 65. In that case, it would be wrong to stop the assessed income period, thereby reexamining the pensioner's financial circumstances and removing them from the advantage of having their income fixed for a five-year period, when they know that basically what we are dealing with is RP rising to the £100 fulcrum figure.
We therefore intend to prescribe in regulations that such a situation should not end the assessed income period and that is the purpose of subsection (4) as drafted. I believe that, in all of these circumstances, our changes work to the advantage of the pensioner.
Amendment No. 65 would remove the power to set out in regulations the times at which or the circumstances in which an assessed income period would end. I have already described those, which cover not only changes in household composition but also include situations where pension credit entitlement ends. That could happen. for example, where the pensioner and/or their partner went to live abroad permanently. A further example could be where a partner, aged under 60, of a pensioner becomes entitled to a social security benefit which is sufficient to increase the couple's income above the pension credit upper limit. I cite here contribution-based JSA or 113. Changes could also take place which, while not ending pension credit entitlement, could produce a significant change in the pensioner's overall income stream—for example, if the younger partner of a pensioner starts work. If that were the case, it would be necessary to stop the assessed income period so that the amount of earnings could be regularly checked until a consistent pattern could be established.
At the moment, all parties are reasonably confident that, once stable incomes have been established, the five-year period can kick in. But there are circumstances above and beyond the re-formation of the household, either through a new relationship or if someone dies—one partner could go into hospital on a permanent basis, or move into long-term care—which might affect the moneys to which they would be entitled. We need powers in the regulations to meet those circumstances.
Perhaps I could enlarge on some of the examples requested by the noble Baroness, but I hope that I have now sufficiently addressed her points.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for her extremely helpful response. Can she estimate roughly how many assessed income periods are likely to be under five years; namely, how often these powers of variation are likely to be used?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We expect something in the order of two-thirds of all pension assessments to
104
run for the full five years. Within the one-third that will not will be included those which may experience a delay of a year or so. For example, if someone is 65 years old, but their partner is only 57 and has several years left to work, it may be several years before a stable income is established. There is also the possibility that some pensioners' incomes themselves may change, rising or falling, and that they would wish to report those changes.
We are expecting, more or less from day one, that two-thirds of all pensioners will be entitled to the five-year assessment period. The reasons why the remainder will not be entitled stem from a variety of causes.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am grateful to the Minister for her full comments. I do not think that I heard her respond concerning the Questions for Written Answer tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do apologise. The Answers to those Questions were tabled yesterday.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I thank the noble Baroness. This was of course a probing amendment. As I said earlier, it covers some of the ground that we have discussed on previous occasions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Barker Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 6, line 28, at end insert—
"( ) Where a claimant is in receipt of housing benefit or council tax benefit (or both), regulations may provide for the pension credit assessed income period to apply also to such benefits."
The noble Baroness said: On the first day in Committee we touched on the matter of housing benefit in relation to Amendment No. 22 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. This amendment is slightly different. It deals with the vexed question—I think it is right to call it that—of housing benefit and council tax administration.
In 1998, 2.6 million people aged 60 or over were in receipt of council tax benefit, while 1.8 million received housing benefit. Currently housing benefit and council tax benefit awards last for up to 60 weeks, although at present there is no such requirement for renewing MIG claims. For both of those benefits, any change in circumstances, such as even a small increase in income, must be reported and the benefit then reassessed. The noble Baroness has just told the Committee that the period for assessment with regard to pension credit will be five years.
The purpose of the amendment is to seek to establish whether there will be a similar assessment period of five years with regard to housing benefit and council tax benefit. In our debate on hospital downrating, Members of the Committee referred to the severe problems faced by many pensioners, in particular those on very modest incomes, when their housing benefit and council tax benefit is withdrawn. The

105
Minister will be aware that the reason is that, while most benefits are administered by the department of the noble Baroness, housing benefit and council tax benefit are administered by local authorities.
In view of all that has been said, it is a fact that pensioner circumstances do not change that much. An alignment of the two would make sense and I hope that the department would be able to accept such a proposal.
On Thursday last the noble Baroness stated at col. 1632 that:
"Local authorities will have to identify the new applicable amounts for pensioners. However, given the current state of computerisation, we are not worried about that".—[Official Report. 24/1/02; col. 1632.]
I wonder whether the noble Baroness may come to regret making that statement, or whether it may return to haunt her. It is possible to deduce from it that there must be some areas of the country which the noble Baroness has not gone round to visit lately. In particular, as I pointed out on the earlier occasion, the administration of housing benefit in some London boroughs is an absolute scandal.
We on these Benches feel that aligning the two elements would not, in most cases, make a great material difference. If a substantial change took place with regard to a person's eligibility for housing benefit, it would most likely be caused by one of those other factors already outlined by the noble Baroness, such as the death of a partner or a move into long-term care. That is the reason behind our wish to move the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Higgins: I think that we should keep a score sheet to record which Member of the Committee can rise to their feet with greater speed. At present I believe that the score is two to one in favour of the noble Baroness.
In proposing this interesting amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, has suggested that housing benefit provisions might come back to haunt the Minister. Indeed, I think that they have been haunting her for some while. In March 1999, Harriet Harman said that proposals for reform would be brought forward shortly. In June 1999, the Secretary of State said,
"the present housing benefit can't continue".
On 28th June 1999, a Treasury source said that housing benefit reform would be,
"the biggest project facing the Treasury this year".
And, of course, the Labour Party manifesto had a large paragraph on this particular issue. So, in the context of trying to integrate the two systems, perhaps the Minister can give some indication of where we are in regard to housing benefit because there is fairly general agreement that a number of its aspects are not particularly good.
On an earlier amendment, the Minister passionately advocated the new five-year proposal—of which, as she knows, we are in favour as a broad principle. We shall have qualifications but, generally speaking, we
106
are in favour of it. As the noble Baroness pointed out, in most circumstances—but not all—it may be a win/win situation for pensioners.
But, having said that, there is a considerable argument for saying that arrangements should be integrated between housing benefit and the state pension credit. As the noble Baroness who moved the amendment said, if we introduce a five-year system for state pension credit, the situation will not be the same with regard to housing benefit. If the Minister wants a system whereby pensioners know where they stand over a five-year period, there is a case for integrating the two parts of the social security system. Housing benefit and council tax benefit are among the relatively stable elements of the component parts which together make up the total benefit that any individual may receive.
However, we all know that there are real problems. Even now there are different claim forms for housing benefit among different authorities—we have been arguing for a long time that they should be uniform—and the information exchanged between the Government and local authorities is more in one direction than the other. We will need to establish to what extent the local authorities will be providing the Government with information relevant to the pensions credit, and to what extent the information the Government have on that is in turn related to housing benefit. There is a strong case for applying the five-year principle to all forms of benefit. We shall listen with interest to what the Minister has to say about that.
My understanding is that the period for housing benefit is 60 weeks as opposed to five years—there is quite a big difference—and some degree of uniformity is necessary if we are to achieve the Minister's declared objective of ensuring that people in receipt of these benefits know where they stand over a five-year period.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am not sure whether the noble Lord is seeking to tempt me into a general debate on housing benefit and its administration. If so, that is for another time and place, but not on this Bill. He knows that we are seeking to reform administration; he knows that a major reform of housing benefit policy has to follow, or be associated with, the reform and restructuring of social housing rent—and that is a 10-year job or longer. That point has been made on previous occasions.
Lord Higgins: Is the Minister saying that, despite the statements in the manifesto, nothing will happen for 10 years?
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I did not say that. I said that a major overhaul of housing benefit policy would have to follow. For example, it has been proposed to us that there should be a flat rate housing benefit incorporated into IS or JSA. Those kinds of moves, if appropriate, would have to follow a major restructuring of rents. As I have expressed

107
on many occasions in your Lordships' House, we are engaged in significant reforms of housing benefit administration—everything from not sending on the redirect giros to bringing in fraud teams to help local authorities and so on.
As the noble Baroness explained, Amendment No. 62 seeks to introduce powers which would enable the Secretary of State to make regulations allowing the assessed income period set in pension credit to be applied to housing benefit and CTB. As the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, reminded the Committee, those payments are currently restricted to a maximum of 60 weeks. At the end of that period, local authorities require a new claim. This arrangement is intended to ensure that changes in circumstances do not go unreported. The effect of the amendment would be to allow, in pension credit cases, for the 60-week period to be replaced by the pension credit assessed income period.
I am glad that this amendment gives me the opportunity to describe in more detail the arrangements we intend to put in place for pensioners receiving pension credit and housing and council tax benefits, which affects some 8 per cent of pensioners. Our aim is to streamline the delivery of benefits to pensioners. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, is right. There is no point in reducing the requirement for pensioners to report changes in pension credit, on the one hand, but continuing with the current system of annual claims in housing and council tax benefits on the other. There is an opportunity here to make the administration of housing and council tax benefits easier for local authorities, something which I am sure they would welcome.
We have concluded that where there is an award of pension credit there is no need for local authorities to continue to make regular inquiries about income. Where the guarantee credit is in payment, local authorities will award full housing or council tax benefit automatically. Until the Pension Service tells them otherwise, they will continue to pay benefit. In savings credit only cases, local authorities will need to carry out a full assessment, but we are making an amendment to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act via paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 to the Bill which will allow local authorities to use the Pension Service's assessment of the claimant's income for the duration of the assessed income period. This figure will be up-dated throughout the assessed income period to take account of the annual increase in benefits arid increases in second pensions.
I am pleased to tell the Committee that the effect of all this is that we will be doing exactly what the amendment seeks to do. Local authorities will still need to continue to review cases regularly—most tenants have a yearly rent increase and private sector tenancies are subject to the rent officer arrangements—but their inquiries will be limited to matters which concern rent, not the claimant's income. In other words, the claimant's income after the assessed period will be taken over into the housing benefit assessment.
108
We are discussing the shape of these new arrangements with local authority associations before finalising the detail. It is right that we should do so in order to give local authorities the opportunity to work with us on the development of those procedures.
I hope that the noble Baroness is not only satisfied but thrilled, delighted and overwhelmed. I hope she feels that we have gone well beyond her expectations in seeking to ensure that the rules in pension credit and housing and council tax benefit schemes work together. We are adopting a slightly different approach from the one in Amendment No. 62 because we consider that our approach will minimise the burden on local authorities. However, I have every confidence in saying that we believe the outcome will be the same. So, on the basis that the noble Baroness is getting the substance of precisely what she asks, I hope that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Higgins: Obviously I shall leave it to the noble Baroness to reply, but I wish to raise one point. What the Minister has said sounds extremely helpful—and, subject to looking at the small print, we welcome it—but does this give us an opportunity to standardise the claim forms used by local authorities and, indeed, the claim form used for the state pension credit? It is absurd that we should have this multiplicity of forms in different local authorities.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We are trying do this and we have issued model forms which we are encouraging local authorities to adopt. I cannot say how far we have reached in that regard, but I shall find out and let the noble Lord know. He is right: the more transparent, simple and similar are the arrangements, the better. We started off with every local authority having its own forms. We are now seeking to establish model forms. Let me see how far that has advanced.
Baroness Barker: I thank the noble Baroness for her extremely helpful reply. I am not sure how to characterise my emotions at this precise moment, so perhaps I should reserve my position until I have had time to read Hansard. If I said that I was mildly chuffed, would that be parliamentary language?
Joking apart, I have tried to suggest to Members of the Committee that anything that can be done to simplify housing benefit is extremely welcome. The noble Baroness is right to head me off at the pass from having an extensive debate on housing benefit. but it is a source of untold misery for thousands of people. I very much welcome the general thrust of the Minister's remarks. The five-year periods for major benefits that will have a profound effect on people's lives are to be welcomed. I shall go away and no doubt I shall be even more pleased when I read the Minister's remarks in Hansard in detail. I thank her very much I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 63 to 65 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Baroness Barker Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 66:
Before Clause 11, insert the following new clause—
"BENEFIT CHECK

(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for the pension service to offer a benefit check to all people who have attained the qualifying age for state pension credit.

(2) In this Act "a benefit check" means information about possible entitlement to state pension credit to be provided by

(a) telephone;

(b) personal visit to the pension service;

(c) home visits; and

(d) other ways as deemed appropriate."

The noble Baroness said: I find myself in the same position as the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, the other night in being uncertain of what is about to happen.
The amendment refers to benefit checks, which is in the same broad area that we have been discussing with regard to up-take and people's ability to make claims. There was a degree of scepticism on day one of our Committee proceedings about the target for up-take of this new benefit. The Government have been extremely ambitious in setting themselves a target of 100 per cent take-up by year two. Past experience of take-up of income support and MIG shows that that figure is highly ambitious.
Members of the Committee have talked extensively about the barriers to claiming, not least of which is the complexity of the forms. The Minister spoke at some length about efforts to simplify such forms. She referred earlier to 70 per cent of pensioners who choose to make inquiries by telephone, which takes us into the workings of the new Pension Service. I declare an interest in that I am speaking for the other 30 per cent who will not make claims in that way.
On such complex proposals it is ambitious to assume that people will feel that they have the wherewithal to begin the process of making a claim. These matters are extremely complex. There are, and will continue to be, pensioners with whom it will not be appropriate to deal by telephone. It will be better for them to have a benefit check in their own homes or in other ways. In saying that, I recognise that one of the main aims behind the proposals is to stop making people do something that they hate, which is spending hours and hours in really—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Grotty.
Baroness Barker: The noble Baroness says, "grotty", but I would say downright unpleasant housing benefit offices. I welcome the measure, but some people for reasons of frailty—both physical and mental—language, and other difficulties, need to be dealt with in other ways.
I wish to raise another matter, which although it is not specific to the Bill, is related to it. I refer to the position of people in residential and nursing care homes, especially those who are self-funded in such homes, who are likely to be spending their savings at a fast rate. I raised this subject at Second Reading. By definition, they are likely to be fairly frail people.
110
There is a raft of important issues, not least of which is the effect of pension credit on care charges, and so on. The circumstances of people in residential care are the most likely to have changed. There are also those who are not comfortable using the telephone. Perhaps that will change over time. I remember the noble Baroness saying the other day that the pension credit is very much for pensioners of the future and that current pensioners "are where they are". That may be, but circumstances change, and a system that endeavours to be fair, as this one does, should be flexible enough to cope.
It may sound mad to many people, but the absence of a local office to attend, which is likely under the proposals, may cause pensioners great concern. For all those reasons, and because I hope that the Government's aim of 100 per cent is not unrealistic, I beg to move.
Lord Higgins: This is an important amendment and refers, to a large extent, to take-up, although later amendments also refer to that issue. I shall defer some of my remarks until we reach that point.
The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, outlines a number of ways in which additional information might be provided to pensioners, such as by telephone, home visits, and so on, but the front end of the issue is the claims form. We have discussed claims forms in previous debates on social security. One of the notable issues was that the size of the present form had been greatly reduced, but the explanatory memorandum had increased proportionately, so that the total number of pages is almost exactly the same.
At all events, we are now engaged in a vast extension of means testing, and about 5 million people who were not previously in the scheme are now likely to come into it. As has already been said, a number of these people are somewhat above the previous benefits level and have never been involved with the scheme at all, so will be joining it for the first time. It is extremely important that the form should be sensible. Perhaps the Minister will let us have a copy—I assume that it has already been drafted—to give us an idea of how it compares with the previous, difficult ones.
Given the huge increase in the number of people who will be claiming, will staff numbers increase proportionately? Otherwise, it is unlikely that the provision mentioned in the amendments will be carried out adequately. The latest report on income-related benefits estimates of take-up in 1999-2000 show that take-up is worse, if anything. The report shows that last year 500,000 eligible pensioners were not receiving income support and that this year the figure has risen. For housing benefit, the number has increased from 150,000 to 210,000. For council tax benefit, the figure has increased from just over 1 million to almost 1,250,000. The situation is becoming worse. Indeed, according to that report, the level of take-up is not improving. We have a real problem in this respect. The Government tend to announce that extra sums of money will be devoted to this or that particular benefit,

111
but, in the event, the amount actually distributed is likely to be significantly less because of the take-up problem.
I stand open to be corrected, but I believe it is right to say that it is not the Government's target of 100 per cent: that 100 per cent is the assumption which has been made in assessing the eventual cost. We know that the costs will not be anywhere near 100 per cent. Therefore, the impression given by mention of these vast amounts of money should be somewhat modified to allow for take-up. Having said that, we must all hope that the actual arrangements made for take-up of the state pension credit will be a great deal better than what we fear could he the outcome. No doubt the Minister will wish to comment on my remarks.
5 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is entirely right to say that the 100 per cent figure is not a target. 1 t would be brilliant if that were to happen, but we all know that there is incomplete take-up on all benefits. It is a statement about the cost designed to ensure that that money is available.
However, I take issue with the noble Lord on a particular phrase that he keeps using. Each time I try to come back at him and each time he refuses to move towards my views—I believe that that is the right way to put it. He speaks about a "vast extension of means testing". It simply will not do to use that phrase when talking about pension credit. We are, for the first time, encouraging those pensioners who have made some effort to help themselves to derive some benefit by keeping the bulk of those modest, small occupational pensions, as opposed to seeing them wiped out by MIG. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that it is precisely because the level of income support, the old MIG, is sufficiently generous between retirement pension and the MIG level—that is, £77 and £100—that people with small pensions who are trapped between those two figures see no gain from it. They will now see a reward in decency and fairness for their own activity. Therefore, to talk about a "vast extension of means testing" is a Stalinist version of Orwellianism, which I hope the noble Lord will not repeat in future.
Lord Higgins: Members on this side of the Committee have accepted that a considerable amount of extra money will go to people with the same pension; we do not dispute that fact. However, the point that I am trying to make in the present context is that a large number of extra people will fall within the means testing system. That is not open to dispute. No doubt the Minister can give us the exact figure. If it is 5 million, or whatever, compared with the present number of those subject to means testing—namely, over a million or less than 2 million—allowance must be made for the number of staff engaged in the process if the take-up target is to be achieved. We are simply asking whether it is the case that the number of staff will he increased proportionately.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The number of staff will be increased by about 800 over existing staff levels
112
during the take-up period. I ask the noble Lord not to use that vocabulary about the extension of means testing. We have just—have we not?—spent the past hour discussing the five-year assessment period. Those opposite wish to cut that down to three years, two years, or even one year. That would increase means testing. We are trying to break the link that requires a weekly means test and substitute it with a five- yearly assessed income period. To call that a "vast extension of means testing" as a reward for such saving, as though we were simply writing large the existing system to 5 million more pensioners, is both an unfair and unreasonable use of words.
There is a serious point behind this argument; indeed, I sometimes take on this point with my noble friends sitting behind me. If one uses such words, they can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, because pensioners will not claim the benefit if the language used suggests that this is about means testing, charity, invasion, and so on. We are trying to promote a language of entitlement—five-year assessments and targeting—by which we can remove stigma and increase information. In future, I trust that noble Lords will join me in seeking to achieve the same objectives.
Amendment No. 66 seeks to ensure that when customers approach the qualifying age for pension credit, initially age 60, they can get access to information—or "a benefit check", as the noble Baroness describes it in the amendment—about entitlement to pension credit. Like the noble Lord, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising the issue. It is a key question and reflects precisely the sort of world that we want the Pension Service to deliver.
I do not need to repeat the steps that we propose to take, but the Pension Service will play a key role in ensuring that pensioners receive the entitlement that is due to them. We intend to provide a dedicated service for pensioners using modern technology, whether by phone or through the Internet, by post or by face-to-face contact. We aim to give pensioners a better service in the future by providing accurate information to help them make decisions about their future pension provision.
Many pensioners have told us that they prefer to make contact with us by telephone; indeed. about 75 per cent seek to do so. Business will, therefore, normally be done in that way. However, we shall offer alternative ways to do business with us—for example, by post, by e-mail, by face-to-face contact through our local service, including home visits, if necessary. We shall seek to do all we can to ensure the appropriate take-up, as mentioned by the noble Baroness. Obviously, the simplest way is by telephone. Most pensioners now feel comfortable with that form of contact.
The local service will also work closely with other locally-based organisations to provide information on the full range of local services of interest to pensioners through outreach and visiting activity. This will be made up of two key elements: direct local services provided by Pension Service staff; and partnership

113
services, where our staff will work with local authorities and voluntary sector organisations, such as Age Concern, to help them in the delivery of their roles. It will take time. The first pension centre will open for business at the beginning of February, with work continuing over the next few years. It means that pensioners will be at the heart of our service.
For customers approaching state pension age, the Pension Service will seek to establish entitlement to pension credit when we are dealing with their state retirement pension. They will be offered the choice of either telephoning the Pension Service and having an agent fill in the claim form for them, after which it will be posted to them for correction. Alternatively, they can request a claim form and complete it themselves. Exceptionally, if one of our customers is unable to use our telephone, postal or e-channels, a Pension Service visiting officer can go to his or her home to establish entitlement.
We are trying to do all we can to reach out: we are working with Age Concern and Help the Aged to ensure that they have sufficient information to promote take-up. A key element is involving them in the development stage of our information products, such as forms and leaflets. I have seen some of the early drafts of the latter. I can assure the noble Lord that they are much improved. I am rather cross with myself because I did not bring examples with me today. I could have shown them to the Committee. As I said, they are much better, but they are still not the glossy, simple and easy-to-read forms that we want to see as our final outcome. We need to test these forms with experts to ensure that they meet pensioners' needs; and that is what we propose to do.
Ensuring that everyone who might be entitled to pension credit actually receives it is a top priority of the Pension Service. We have designed the new service and the benefit to be accessible and customer friendly. For that reason, I hope that Members of the Committee will agree that the noble Baroness's amendment is unnecessary. We are working both locally and nationally with organisations and local authorities. We are devising new forms and extending the telephone service, which, where appropriate, we are backing up with a home visiting service. I believe that nothing will be left undone as a result of our activity.
In conclusion, perhaps I may bounce this with the Committee: step one will be to convert existing pensioners on MIG—the 1.7 million—over to pension credit; step two, from spring onwards until 2003, will be the general advertising for other pensioners of the benefit to be paid from October 2003; and, thirdly, step three will be writing to all pensioners directly from October 2003, with claims backdated to that date—and that will include those likely to be entitled. I am so pleased to see the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in his place. He will be pleased about the final step. Finally, we are undertaking extensive research to ascertain what obstacles there may be in the way of those who, though entitled to the benefit, are failing to claim, as well as
114
considering any efforts that we can make to overcome the problem. All of this will be backed by local partnership services.
I hope, therefore, that Members of the Committee agree—I certainly believe it—that the department is making the most extensive efforts possible to ensure that those pensioners who are entitled to it see for the first time a reward for their own savings which would otherwise be lost in the generosity of our MIG payments. I am sure that the Committee will recognise that we are reaching out in ways that are unprecedented.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: Before the Minister sits down, will she confirm the number of additional staff? Did I hear a figure of 800? Will that be sufficient to cover the 5 million people who will be entitled to this benefit and provide the service that has been referred to?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes. At present, the minimum income guarantee is on a weekly means-tested basis. In future, that element of pension credit will be assessed only every five years.
Lord Skelmersdale: Before the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, decides what to do about the amendment—I am sure that the answer will be to withdraw it—perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. She said that many of the investigations and much of the "commerce" between the department, pensions offices and individual potential claimants will be by telephone. Does she realise that for many people on many occasions the use of the telephone is a very frustrating exercise? Will ringback be available?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am delighted to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, to our deliberations. I thought I was missing something. It is very nice to see him. I do not have a clue about ringback. All I can say is that it was quite a shock to me, when dealing with the Child Support Agency, that that number was among the 10 family-friendly numbers on which a discount was available. I shall see whether the same applies to the Pension Service.
Lord Higgins: Will there be toll free numbers?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I believe so. If I am wrong, I shall inform Members of the Committee when we next discuss the issue.
Baroness Barker: I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for his correction. I believe that I made an error. However, I was not alone in doing so. Others have come to the same conclusion about the Government's figures regarding take-up. I realise that an unprecedented number of noble Lords are present to hang on my every word. I shall endeavour to be as brief and succinct as possible.

115
I hear what the Minister says about the ways in which the Pension Service will work, and in particular the ways in which it will work at local level. I decline to say too much about the detail as I do not wish to stray into areas where I have a conflict of interest.
The Minister used the word "entitlement". Based on the Government's previous research on income support, the more a benefit is seen as an entitlement, the higher the claims are. The way in which the Pension Service operates must reflect "entitlement". If it does not, it is an expensive and wasteful exercise.
I could stray into a number of other areas, but I shall not. However, I want to raise a point about language and about black and ethnic minority elders. I should like to know whether we are talking about 800 full-time staff.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Additional full-time staff.
Baroness Barker: I trust that the composition of the additional staff will reflect the pensioner population.
I still believe that it would be helpful to have on the face of the Bill an entitlement to a benefit check. However, at this stage in the proceedings, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Lord Filkin: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, before we move to the Statement, perhaps I may remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification.

Farming and Food
5.14 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whiny): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my right honourable friend Margaret Beckett to a Private Notice Question in another place on the report of the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food. The Statement is as follows:
"The independent Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food, chaired by Sir Don Curry, delivered its report to the Government this morning. Copies of the report have been placed in the House Libraries and in the Vote Office.
"The commission was set up in August of last year in fulfilment of a manifesto commitment. I would like to offer the Government's sincere thanks to Sir
116
Don and each of the commission members for the very hard work they have put in over a short but effective period of consultation. Some 1,000 organisations and individuals have offered their views. To undertake an exercise of this type in live months is indeed both a tall order and a considerable achievement.
"I very much welcome the report and the very valuable ideas it contains. The commission has delivered what we asked of it: a clear vision of a sustainable, competitive and diverse farming and food sector, playing a dynamic role in the rural economy and delivering effectively and efficiently the environmental outputs that society demands. We wholeheartedly support its broad analysis a nd conclusions.
"The key themes identified in the report seem to be the right ones. The year 2001 was a desperately difficult year for farming and rural communities. Foot and mouth was a catastrophe, but as the commission's report makes clear, farming's problems are wider and of longer standing. To make farming viable again, it is vital that we improve the links between farmers, their markets and their consumers, and reinforce the relationship between farming, the countryside and the environment.
"I am sure the House will understand that having just received this report I am not in a position to give a view on each of the very many specific and detailed recommendations it contains. I shall pick out key proposals.
"Reform of the CAP is, of course, our longstanding strategic aim. I am very pleased to see that the report endorses the UK Government's strategic objectives in this area.
"As the report rightly points out, we do already have some mechanisms available in the CAP which allow us to transfer CAP moneys out of production subsidies and into broader rural land management and environmental directions. Modulation is one such means, and the report makes ambitious recommendations to step up drastically the role of modulation. The Government accept that we should explore the use of such mechanisms and endorse the need to consider such shifts very serious.
"The commission notes the vital role of farming in contributing to a healthy and attractive environment. Under the England Rural Development Programme we have many schemes in place to enhance and protect the environment and the countryside. The commission's view is that we need to go further. Its proposals for a broad and shallow agri-environment scheme are timely, as we are just embarking on a major review of such schemes.
"The report makes clear that if we are to have a profitable industry, capable of thriving without production subsidy, there is a need for industry to take action to improve its own performance—for example, by cutting costs, by adding value, and by diversification. There is a role for government as a partner in, and a facilitator of, that process. But the

117
commission says that the impetus must come from the industry itself, working within the food chain as a whole. That is why I am pleased to see, therefore, that the report proposes the creation of a food chain centre to bring together all parts of the supply chain with the aim of monitoring and improving competitiveness.
"In other areas covered by the report, such as GMs, scrapie eradication, sheep national envelopes and animal disease insurance, the commission appears to have made recommendations which very much work with the grain of what we have been trying to achieve.
"The report is clear that its recommendations are not just for government, or, within government, just for my department. But we stand ready to work with the food and farming industries as they address the challenges that they face because we need farming to succeed.
"Mr Speaker, we all need time to consider how best to proceed and to assess the report's financial and other implications. But it is our firm intention that the kind of ideas put forward by the commission will make a substantial contribution towards a new strategy for sustainable, diverse, modern and adaptable farming, integrated with the rest of the food chain and taking into account the needs of the environment and rural economy.
"We intend to launch such a strategy in the summer, when the detailed policy measures have been developed and drawn up. We will engage stakeholders across the country in that process, beginning in March, when I hope to meet leaders of the farming and food industries and leaders of environmental, consumer and rural interests to discuss how best we should drive forward the agenda set out by the commission. I shall announce further details in due course".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.20 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing the Statement to the House this afternoon. I am slightly mystified because he has missed out some sections that were in my report. I hope that he will forgive me if I touch on a couple of those sections. Perhaps I may share them with the House. I also remind the House of my family's farming interests.
On the report hang the hopes of all within the farming community and of those allied businesses that supply them. As the Minister said, the past five years have been dire. Farm incomes have plummeted and on top of financial disaster came swine fever and the foot and mouth outbreak. A healthy farming industry is crucial to the well-being of our people and of our countryside. Tourism was directly affected by its demise.
I add my congratulations to Sir Don Curry and to his commission members for having produced a substantial report that comes forward with 31 pages of recommendations. I accept the Minister's comment
118
that it is not possible for any of us to absorb it in such a short time. That is the background against which we look at the report today. I shall touch on a few of the recommendations. Running through many of them is the central tenet that subsidies and price supports must go—and the sooner the better, in the view of the commission.
Sir Donald and his colleagues are clear that CAP has to be reformed, with a move to the second pillar, and that environmental schemes are to be encouraged, but they must be standardised and their administration simplified. I am sure that the Minister is aware that some farmers are very concerned about the modulation section in the report. They are anxious for it to be phased in and for time to be given to adapt. Does the Minister agree that farmers must collaborate and co-operate in the future? Is he in a position—as he touched on briefly in his Statement—to say how the Government intend to support that?
Will DEFRA accept the recommendation to lead a study into disease insurance, which, after BSE and FMD, is both essential and likely to be impossible for individual farmers to obtain? On the subject of disease—that was the part that the Minister, by mistake I am sure, missed out—will he explain why there are so few searches for illegally imported foods? Will the Government strengthen the controls and checks as suggested in the report? The Statement said:
"We have already stepped up checks".
Will the Minister explain how, where and what?
How do the Government view the report's recommendations on regulation, particularly the suggested move to a whole-farm approach? There is concern that the proposals could lead to yet more regulatory burdens. Will the Government undertake a cost analysis before new regulatory burdens are brought in for the industry? Will the Government ensure that farmers and food producers in this country do not have to comply by themselves when producers abroad do not comply with the same regulatory burdens?
The report recommends that DEFRA should devise and implement a comprehensive animal health strategy. When that is taken in conjunction with DEFRA's letter of consultation on animal welfare, does the Minister intend to pursue the Animal Health Bill at this time? I have noticed the difference between the two.
In the light of the profitability of the horticulture sector, will the Government support the report's recommendation to increase the quota for the seasonal agricultural workers scheme to 50,000 people? Are the Government minded to allow the Horticultural Development Council to engage in promotional activities?
Does the Minister agree that the red tractor scheme should be developed to be the common standard for all food produced in England? Perhaps he might comment on the fact that the report refers a lot to England and does not tend to touch on the devolved countries. Does he further agree that the red tractor scheme could also cover environmental standards and

119
that the Government should fund the establishment of such a brand? Will the Government also agree to the recommended extra £5 million per annum for three years for processing and marketing grants? Does the Minister further agree that the rural enterprise budget should be substantially increased at the mid-term review? The big crux question is whether the Treasury will make the necessary funds available so that many of the report's suggestions and recommendations will be possible.
From the foregoing, it will be obvious that the report is wide-ranging. On this side of the House we welcome the long-term strategy on renewables. We also welcome the section on labelling. In particular, we support the suggestion for compulsory country of origin labeffing. We welcome the accent on local farm produce. We also welcome the suggestion on educating children so that they have a better knowledge of food and of good nutrition. Does the Minister support such ideas, pointing to a profitable future for an industry that is vital to our country's survival?
I remind the Minister of the recommendation on page 109, which says:
"The key objective for public policy"—
that is government policy, not farmers' policy—
"should be to reconnect our farming and food industry: to reconnect farming with its markets and the rest of the food chain"—
and so on. Over the page there is an equally important point:
"The first question we set ourselves is how we can make farming and food production profitable again, by reconnecting it with the rest of the food chain and with consumers"
We welcome many aspects of the report, but I have raised some strong questions. Perhaps we shall have a chance to debate them further tomorrow.
5.26 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the report. I congratulate Sir Don Curry, who had to bring together an enormous quantity of evidence and submissions in a very short time and has produced a coherent report as a result. That is very welcome.
From a quick read, the report makes many excellent points. As the Minister said at the end of his Statement, it should lead to a strategy. We hope that it will not be simply another strategy that sits on the shelf and gathers dust. I should have preferred it if he had been able to come up with a government response to the report recommendation by recommendation, saying what: the Government intend to do. There are too many government strategies that are not being implemented at the moment. We do not want this area of work to be another.
Many of the recommendations are on issues that the Liberal Democrats have been advocating for some time. I shall highlight four. The section on young entrants into farming was particularly strong. With out young entrants there will be no future for farming. We were very pleased to read that section. We were also
120
pleased to read the many practical suggestions on the environmental side. I noticed that the Minister left out the words,
"That position I fully support"
from the Statement. I hope that that was simply an oversight and not because he does not support that part of the report.
We also welcome the sections on labelling, although the recommendations could be further developed. I look forward to the stakeholder discussions on how that might take place. We also felt that the section on reconnecting the food chain was very strong. The report referred to processing units that could be developed by collaborative ventures and the expectation that RDAs should help in that. Farmers have lacked the ability to process what they grow.
I have some concerns about whether the commission has managed to define the balance between sustainability and competitiveness. We need to grapple further with that issue. Although the report comes up with many good suggestions on how the industry can be more sustainable, it still accepts the validity of the argument for growing food cheap and shipping it far. The report challenges that notion a little when it addresses the issue of animal transport, but it does not present a long-term view. Although it describes a 30-year plan for food and nutrition, it does not say whether, in the next 30 years, it will be sustainable to ship food over long distances, thereby consuming fuel oil. We should address that issue further.
I hope that the Government will give us a debate in their own time so that we can discuss in detail the 100 recommendations. As the Minister said again in his statement, the issues go beyond DEFRA itself. I therefore particularly welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, is in the Chamber. Tomorrow, in our Liberal Democrat-initiated debate, I look forward to hearing his response to the report.
The need to change farming habits and the subsidy system are two major challenges. Moreover, as the report says, it will take a very long time to change the eating habits of a lifetime. Changing those habits may take even longer as they are not affected by a subsidy system.
We certainly accept that CAP reform is badly needed, and we have long called for it. However, the United Kingdom Government themselves could do much to address the issue before full reform is achieved. In view of all the report's good suggestions, is the Minister content with the speed with which the shift is being made from the first to the second pillar? Under the CAP rules, the United Kingdom could spend up to 20 per cent of subsidy on the second pillar; historically, we have spent far less. I hope that the Government will consider moving much closer towards that level. The report's suggestions, without the money to back them, will remain as just good ideas. We welcome the report, but we also look forward to the Government acting on it.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I very much welcome the positive response from both Front Benches to the report's general tenor and main outline. As for the Statement that I made, as opposed to that which both noble Baronesses have in their hands, I read out the Statement as it was delivered in the other place by my right honourable friend. The remaining text represents the Government's position on the report, and it would have resulted in a rather longer Statement.
I should clarify one or two matters and perhaps thereby clarify the report's aegis. It is a report on farming and food in England. Although development and pursuit of policy in Europe also is a matter for the UK Government, and is touched on in the report, we shall be consulting very closely on it with the devolved administrations as they may have marginally different views. We have to take that into account. The Government also have to consider both the process and all the detailed recommendations. Additionally, we have to consider the financial implications and the timing. Later this year, we have to engage in very substantial and difficult negotiations on the mid-term review of the CAP and on the longer-term changes to the CAP. The report refers to those changes, and it broadly concurs with the UK Government's objectives in the negotiations.
One of the reasons that we gave the commission a relatively tight timetable was to ensure that we had the clarity of its recommendations, and were able to assist it, in time for the coming spending round, which will end this summer. During that round, we wanted to be able to take into account the full conclusions on the consequent financial commitment. We are therefore saying that the final strategy for English food and farming will be produced in the summer, when we have the final results on the spending side.
Like others, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, picked up on the point that the key objectives and recommendations particularly for farming can perhaps be summarised in terms of "reconnection"—reconnection with markets and consumers; reconnection with the food chain in a positive, constructive and profitable way; reconnection with the countryside and the environment; and reconnection with the rural economy as a whole. The interconnection between farming and food was made very evident during the foot and mouth epidemic.
All those factors are part of the report and are interrelated. However, I do not think that there is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller suggested, a conflict between sustainability—which is the keynote of the report—and profitability. Profitability is part of sustainability. We shall not succeed as a food and farming industry unless profits can be made in the industry and unless the industry has a prosperous future. Environmental sustainability—which was a very important part of the report—economic sustainability and social sustainability, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Byford referred, are all objectives that have to be taken into account.
122
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, mentioned various points of clarification. Perhaps the key issue—and the one that has proved most controversial outside this House, in contrast to the general welcome for the report—is modulation. Modulation is the mechanism that already exists in the CAP to transfer from the first to the second pillar. I appreciate that farming organisations have some concern about it and that traditional methods of subsidising farming will be reduced to the extent that we adopt the modulation proposals.
The Government have some difficulty with the modulation proposition in that, under the rules, the money can be spent on only a relatively small range of expenditure. If we are to go for the report's recommendation of 10 per cent and beyond, it will be necessary to discuss with the European Union and our colleagues the need for greater flexibility in modulation. Therefore, in principle, we support the modulation system and the type of targets outlined in the report. However, we shall need greater flexibility in order to use it effectively.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, also asked how the Government would support farmers during that process. Many of the report's detailed recommendations on advice, support, marketing and processing require the Government's consideration. Broadly speaking, we accept the general direction of those recommendations.
The noble Baroness also asked about disease insurance, which is a very important and complex issue. Today and later this week, the department is discussing the issue with insurance and farming representatives.
The noble Baroness asked about imports. There is clear concern about the effectiveness of import controls. I have just three things to say on the disease implications of illegal imports, and I have said them to the House before. First, I recognise that, as the report says, more needs to be done. We are addressing the issue in both European regulations and our own enforcement.
Secondly, quite a lot has been done to increase the number of checks of commercial goods in containers and of checks at airports. However, I think that more needs to be done to inform the travelling public and on checks and enforcement. There may also have to be greater co-ordination between the various agencies. I hope to make some immediate proposals on that issue.
Thirdly, in containing the spread of disease, import controls and checks are no substitute for effective biosecurity and effective restrictions and movement controls. Even countries that have very tight import checks and controls still have occasional incursions of disease. The point is that, regrettably, those countries are able to stop the spread more effectively than we were able to do in the past months.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, also raised the issue of regulation. Broadly speaking, the Government are very much in favour of the commission's recommendations on moving towards whole-farm

123
forms of certification and a much broader basis for regulation, rather than a multiple and cumulative range of regulatory authorities that farmers have to deal with. It is a more holistic approach. Although it is difficult to get there from here, we agree with the objective and shall pursue it.
The noble Baroness also asked about the Animal Health Bill. I intend, for immediate purposes, to pursue the Bill in this House because we need those powers should the disease regrettably recur for one reason or another in the coming months. Although there is the longer-term issue of animal health and animal diseases, and the parallel issue of the broader rationalisation of animal welfare procedures, the Animal Health Bill is needed now—as the noble Baroness will have heard me say on Second Reacting.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Byford and Lady Miller, supported some aspects of the commission's work. Certainly the recommendations on new entrants are important and need to be developed. I fully support the general direction of recommendations on the environmental side, despite the fact that I did not read them out. Labelling is an important issue. The issue of support for the industry in terms of processing grants and so forth is also important. As regards seasonal agricultural workers, the figure of 50,000 is perhaps one we would have to consider. We have already had one increase in the seasonal agricultural workers quota and we are considering a further one. That will, of course, also be the subject of an announcement by the Home Office in relation to managed migration for non-professional jobs more generally which will be made relatively soon.
There is much that is positive in the report and there is much that we need to continue to debate. My noble friend Lord Hunt will deal with some of the issues in the broad ranging debate to be initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, tomorrow. No doubt we shall return to these issues at a later stage when we have engaged with the stakeholders and during the process of coming up with our strategy for what I hope is a sustainable, prosperous, environmentally sensitive, safe and nutritionally effective policy for food and farming in general. This is a very, very good start. I again thank the commission and I thank the noble Baronesses for their broad support.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will my noble friend, whose general approach I applaud, say something about the report's remarks on closer liaison between the farming industry and consumers and the role that the Government will play in that regard? Will he say something about the co-operation that is now envisaged with regard to the devolved areas, particularly in relation to subsidies and the environment? Finally, what role does he envisage—perhaps it is too early to comment on this—should be played by the Government as regards environmental payments?
Lord Witty: My Lords, many recommendations in the report indicate ways in which the Government can
124
help in bringing farmers in closer touch with consumers. One of the problems with the present subsidy process is that it distorts price signals and market signals to which farmers relate. We believe that a more direct and a more business-like approach, if you like, to farming and its output and also to relationships within the food chain is important. Suspicions and distortions result from the food chain being so extended and remote. particularl in certain sectors. The Government will help the industry to address those problems through the proposed food chain centre. We need to co-operate not only with the industry but also with the devolved administrations in our response to the report.
As regards environmental payments, clearly one of the considerations for the Government to develop in negotiation with the European Union is how exactly we can shift from pillar one to pillar two and the nature of the environmental support that we intend to give. The commission suggests that we should have a broad and shallow entrance level for agriculture to meet basic and important environmental standards. That seems to us sensible. Many current agri-environment schemes need rationalising both as regards their scope and their bureaucracy. It is a complicated matter bat I believe that the commission has it broadly right.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I am a farmer in partnership with my elder son who is the working partner. I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement but I am concerned about it. Like most noble Lords, I read it quickly and 1. am riot able to discuss points that no doubt will arise on food, retail supermarkets and the like.
However, as regards farming, I found it unhelpful. The prospects for farming, which is going through a bad time, are conditional upon making fresh terms as regards the CAP. I believe that the noble Lord referred to the year 2002 in that regard, but it is clear in the commission's report that no progress at all will be made before 2005 or 2006. Without serious alterations to the CAP, the scheme to strip farmers of more subsidies—I refer to the modulation payment and moving from one pillar to another—will only worsen their position. I find that extremely depressing.
The Minister also referred to various provisions for better business training. I do not think that farmers want to be faced with further bureaucracy. During the foot and mouth crisis they suffered immensely from the amount of form filling that was required. The form filling that was required in order to move stock about was quite terrifying. The document referred to trade associations being formed or merged. The NFU used to be feared by Labour governments. Indeed, it is still powerful. I hope that it will exercise its power well in proposing amendments to the commission's proposals.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord made those comments with regard to the NFU. I regret that the NFU has in part rejected a major part of the report. I believe that constructive discussions with the NFU and further consideration will persuade

125
it that, at least in outline, there is much in the report that will help its members and the future of farming. We shall listen to it but it is noticeable that the NFU is the only outside organisation which has condemned a significant part of the report. I accept that it will have problems as regards modulation. I have said that the Government will also have some problems with modulation in its present form. We need to find a way of achieving what the report's objective as regards modulation attempts to achieve. I hope that we can do so in conjunction not only with the NFU but also with the other elements within the food chain.
The commission's proposals seek to put more money into farming, land management and the rural economy than is the case at the moment. I say that cautiously as that has to be considered in terms of the spending review and we must conduct our own internal negotiations. However, on the basis of the report, no farmer should fear that less money will be allocated to the economy with which they are concerned. However, the nature of it will change. Instead of having distorting production subsidies, the subsidies will increasingly be directed to man management and the delivery of environmental objectives. Over and above that, the ultimate objective is that farmers should operate as any other business. I believe that that is a desirable outcome for most farmers.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I again declare my financial interest as an organic farmer with a dairy herd. Given our climate and our efficiency at producing grass, I find it surprising that the Statement says nothing whatever about self-sufficiency in milk and milk products and the need to balance imports and exports. I also find it strange that there is not one single solitary word in the Statement about organic farming, although it is mentioned in the report's recommendations. Are the Government aware—they must surely be—that at the present time 70 per cent of the growing consumption of organic food is imported? Would greater emphasis on that sector not help to reduce cereal surpluses, to increase biodiversity and to provide the sustainability on which everyone is so keen at the moment?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord will find that a substantial part of the report deals with organic farming, additional support for organic farming and other measures to increase environmentally sensitive farming. Therefore, organic farming is picked out as an area which deserves further support. As regards targets for self-sufficiency, Sir Don Curry made it clear that that was not an appropriate matter for the commission to consider. We are dealing with a global, competitive environment. However, we obviously believe that the steps that the report recommends the Government to take would lead to a high proportion of our food being produced by British—or, in this context, English—sources. It is therefore not sensible to have a Stalinist plan stating that 79.3 per cent of our production should be for our own consumption. The plan gives to the farming sector and the food chain as
126
a whole the ability to provide good, safe, nutritious food for British consumers. Its ability to meet that is, in a sense, up to it and not a matter for government.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I have to declare a very peripheral interest in that I am the tenant of a farmer, who farms the farm that I used to farm for 35 years. I now rent my house from him, so I have an interest in that I live in the middle of the farm.
I hope that the old politics of agriculture will not squash the report and make it impossible to move in relation to it. There is much vision in it. For the first time, it looks in the round at the whole question of the way in which we grow our food. There is much in it on which I hope we shall move forward.
I say to the Government that everything depends on their moving forward in relation to the CAP. Most of what is suggested in dependent on the CAP being changed. Modulation will help a little. We know that there are problems for everyone in that regard; that approach involves flexibility in one area. It is very important for the Government to press on in this context and to stop prevaricating when they meet our friends in Europe.
The situation with the devolved administrations is rather strange because the remit did not say that only England was involved. However, the report states on many occasions that it is talking about England. Obviously, the CAP, supermarkets, the food chain and disease relate to the whole of the United Kingdom. It is extremely important for the Government to get the devolved administrations to look very seriously and imaginatively at the report; they should do so now, rather than wait, and begin talking with the Westminster Government about what they will do. This is a UK matter. I beg noble Lords not to be so negative about the report that we do not get anywhere.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I welcome those remarks. It is important for us to engage the devolved administrations, who have produced their own government strategies. There may be differences between our approaches because there are different types of farming in different parts of the United Kingdom.
We must have an approach to the CAP that suits all parts of the UK. Reform of the CAP is key in that regard. To be realistic, we shall probably begin to negotiate the mid-term review after the French elections later this year. In that timescale, we shall begin to address the longer-term changes in the CAP, which will come into effect after 2006. In terms of changing the direction of the CAP, this is a crucial time, in view of internal pressures and the pressures from enlargement and the World Trade Organisation agreement. The next two years will see an enormous amount of intensive negotiation on the CAP. That will very much be a government priority.
Lord Rea: My Lords, the Minister will be aware of my interest in food and health. Chapter 5 of the report has some extremely useful recommendations. In fact,

127
they are so good that they could form the basis of—but not the complete policy towards—a national food policy.
The report promotes one rather nice scheme in particular, which is called the "Food Dudes Programme" and which is intended for schools. The report states:
"The programme has two main elements: video adventures featuring hero figures called Food Dudes, who like fruit and vegetables and provide effective social models for the children to imitate: and small rewards (stickers, notebooks, pencils) to ensure that children begin to taste the foods".
The report contains another interesting recommendation. It states:
"We note … that the scheme will demand 1.5 million tonnes of fruit",
for the school fruits scheme,
"which English farmers are well-placed to provide. We challenge the industry to rise to this challenge".
The Government need to give the industry some help in that regard. Fruit production in this country has suffered greatly from imports from the EU and other parts of the world, and many of our orchards have now been grubbed up. The industry will need quite a lot of encouragement to replant and increase production of the sort of fruits that children like.
I appreciate that that is a question partly for the Department of Health and partly for the Departrnent for Education and Skills but what are the Minister's thoughts on how to encourage farmers to grow more fruit?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the recommendations on health and healthy eating, particularly in schools, are an important part of this whole jigsaw. My noble friend Lord Hunt reminded me that he recently launched the "five free fruit" scheme—I believe that that is its name—in the West Midlands. It is important that part of the education commitment and the public sector commitment generally should encourage better eating. If the programme is rolled out and generalised, as the commission recommends, there will be a steady, positive and large potential market for English fruit growers. That is the biggest incentive for orchards marginal orchards—to reconsider their targeting and marketing. Perhaps more importantly for the long term, if we get children eating the amount of fruit that the Department of Health schemes intend them to eat, they will continue that habit for the rest of their lives. To plant an orchard for 40 years is a pretty good investment.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I welcome the report, but time is not on the side of the Government or the commission. Perhaps I am influenced by my constituency experiences—my constituency in the west country contained a large number of traditional family farms. The most difficult meeting that I had last year was with a constituent farmer, who asked me to come and see him, his wife and two sons. He asked whether there was a future in farming. I could not honestly say to them—they had a 200-acre farm—that I believed that there was any future in farming.
128
The Government's plans and the commission's proposals depend on people. Although there is praise for the proposals about new entrants, as the Minister rightly said, sustainability means profitability, and that means a rewarding career. Unless there is an early prospect of that, there will be a rise in the number of farms that have no successor and which have not had a machine or boot on them for the past two years—I believe that the relevant figures in the report are understated. I could point to land in my constituency to which that applies; hundreds of acres have simply been abandoned because it was not worthwhile continuing. The greatest challenge that we face is that of trying to maintain the industry's morale while these sensible changes are introduced.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I partly agree with the noble Lord—this matter is part of the challenge that we have to address and the future of relatively small farms is an important part of the jigsaw. Some people have reacted by saying that all of our schemes would prejudice small farms. In fact, the shift to environmental land management support might benefit many of the farms to which the noble Lord referred.
Having said that, there is no doubt that farming is going through a period of change and that there will be some restructuring. Some farms will merge and some will drop out. The proposals give there the prospect of a longer-term support system, which the public in general and—probably—governments of all parties would continue to support. The present system of support for such farms, which involves production subsidies, has a distorting effect on the market and on consumer prices. That does not have political support in this country or in a large part of Europe. That is why we have to negotiate our way out of the arrangements.
One of the benefits of successfully improving the CAP would be that at least some of the small farms would have a more sustainable future. I cannot guarantee, and the Government do not attempt to reassure, everybody that they will be here in four or five years' time. However, if we take a 10-year timescale there is a positive future for such farms and a real future for the industry as a whole.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, one passage in the Statement which the noble Lord did not read is:
"Where we need to regulate, we should seek to do so in better and smarter ways which take account of the burden of regulation upon those on whom they fall".
Although he did not repeat it, I am very relieved to have heard the noble Lord say to the Front Benches that that is part of government policy.
However, does he recognise that it is wholly unrealistic and, indeed, depressing and frustrating for farmers to be told that they must become competitive when the supermarkets to which they seek to sell can buy food much cheaper from places overseas which do not have the same regulatory controls and standards? What are the Government going to do to compensate farmers for the additional burdens that they have to

129
bear by reason of regulations in this country which do not apply in countries which grow similar food and export it to us?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I accept that much of the way in which we regulate and enforce regulation in this country presents a burden to farmers both in terms of time and, consequently, expense. On the other hand, I also believe that in the UK and in Europe as a whole there is likely to be a continued demand for regulation on safety, environmental and animal welfare issues. Our aim is to rationalise the system of enforcement and regulation.
However, to talk of compensation, except in very specific circumstances, seems to me to be looking backwards and to be an example of the problems which governments have in relation to farmers. The farming lobby has frequently come to us for money following every little jib and jab of change in circumstance when really it should be looking to the bigger picture. I believe that the leaders of the farming unions accept that.
This is a framework for a bigger picture, and we do not want to return to the situation whereby farmers look for a couple of hundred pounds here and a couple of thousand pounds there. We are looking to a longterm, constant and sustained framework within which farmers will operate and which everyone will understand. Within that, a big factor will be the reduction in the complexity of bureaucracy and in the multiplicity of the number of regulatory agencies with which farmers have to deal. That is an important objective of the Government and it is reflected in this report. I accept the implications of that.

State Pension Credit Bill [H.L.]
6.2 p.
House again in Committee.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: If I mention to noble Lords that the next amendment is on the subject of polyandry, polygamy and the rest, they may be tempted to stay.
Clause 12 [Polygamous marriages]:
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 7, line 37, at end insert "or polyandry".
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 67, perhaps it would also be convenient to speak to Amendments Nos. 68 and 69. I must stress that we on this side of the Committee are not sexist; that is why we want the Bill to refer to polygamy and polyandry. Thus, we come to a more interesting matter.
First, throughout some 33 years in the other place and four or five years in this House, I cannot remember ever seeing a clause in a Bill which dealt with polygamy. No doubt the Minister will be able to tell us if that is not so. At all events, Clause 12, which apparently seeks to deal with the problem, is very complicated.
Secondly, perhaps the Minister can tell us approximately how many people are involved in such a situation. The issue refers to a question under a law. I presume that that means that a man in a country other than the United Kingdom can legally marry more than one woman or, alternatively, a woman can marry more than one man. Therefore, essentially it is a matter concerning people from another jurisdiction who are immigrants into the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.
Clause 12 refers, as do so many other parts of the Bill, to making regulations. As I said earlier, in our view it is appropriate to use regulations if something is going to vary over time following the enactment of the Bill. But if an issue can be decided now and is not likely to vary over time, then it should be dealt with on the face of the Bill rather than in regulations.
Therefore, apart from adding the word "polyandry" to "polygamy", the amendment seeks to set out a specific solution to the problem. There are, of course, all kinds of alternatives; for example, a household could be aggregated in line with the approaches which apply elsewhere in social security legislation and the various members of the household could be deemed to comprise a couple. Alternatively. I suppose that one could disregard spouses other than the first wife and make them ineligible for pension credit. Other wives or spouses could then be treated as a single person. There is a whole range of different alternatives.
The matter about which we are not in the least bit clear in relation to this clause is which of the various alternatives the Government will select. I should have thought that, having given attention to the matter. they would now be in a position to tell us how they are going to deal with it. The amendment suggests that the person and other party in question should he treated as a married couple with additional spouses treated as a single person. That appears to he a straightforward way in which to deal with the matter.
At all events, I believe that this issue should be cleared up in legislation on the face of the Bill. Having said that, I hope that the noble Baroness can answer the specific questions that I mentioned at the beginning. We can then take the matter from there.
Baroness Barker: Hats off to the noble Lord. Lord Higgins, for tabling one of the most intriguing amendments in a very long time. I found it most interesting. Ever since I read the amendment, I have been racking my brains to think of a nation on earth where polyandry is a legal state. Thus far, I have not been able to find one, but no doubt the Minister has been able to because she has a crew of people who work on such matters. If I were betting, I should put my money on somewhere in Polynesia. However, I shall be interested to find out.
Lord Higgins: It is the principle that is important; one would not want to discriminate.
Baroness Barker: The noble Lord raises an interesting point. The issue appears to concern polygamous marriages which are contracted in nations

131
other than our own by people who live here. I consider that an interesting question to have raised. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. Throughout our discussions on the Bill they have attempted to clarify matters by drafting, and that has been extremely helpful to our debates. My understanding is that this matter is covered by existing social security law which recognises that some people who are migrants to this country were married abroad in circumstances where polygamy—by and large, it is polygamy—was acceptable and a part of their culture.
In speaking to the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, used the word "problem". When I read the amendment, I tried to ascertain whether a problem existed. Having asked practitioners and researchers, I was interested in the fact that no one is yet sure that there is a problem or, at least, a presenting problem. That is not to say that wives in polygamous marriages do not have problems; it is that those problems are not yet being presented to authorities. It is an interesting question as to whether or not there is a problem. It would be an interesting and useful subject upon which to have some research.
Noble Lords will have heard me say before that the older population is changing, and patterns of migration to this country mean that it is becoming more diverse. There may be a problem. It is not a pressing problem yet. However, in an inadvertent way the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has raised an interesting issue. It should not perhaps be addressed in the way in which he addressed it. None the less, it is an interesting point to raise.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, would be sorry to think that his amendment was inadvertent. I am sure that he thought it was very advertent.
I am fascinated by the Committee's interest in polygamy. This is not the first time that the subject has been raised. I was looking for some help over in a certain quarter. My understanding is that Section 133 of the Social Security Benefits Act 1992, which relates to council tax benefits, also has a specific subsection relating to polygamy. Therefore, this is not entirely new. However, I understand that the noble Lord may not have that cross reference immediately to mind.
Amendment No. 67 seeks to do a reasonable thing. It looks to give equal recognition in pension credit to the custom of a woman taking several husbands as well as recognising the practice of a man having several wives. However, it is unnecessary. Polygamy includes both men having several wives and women having several husbands. The real distinction is between polyandry and polygamy. I do not know whether the noble Lord lays claim to having studied classics or Greek at school, but "polygamy" is a politically correct word, even if the practice may not be.
The noble Baroness asks where polyandry is practised, by which she understood it to mean a situation in which a woman has several husbands. She knew perfectly well that I would not be able to resist
132
the temptation of trying to find out. Polyandry, unlike polygamy, is prohibited by law in most countries. I am told that two principal forms of polyandry exist, and they are not in Polynesia. Among the Nair people who inhabit the Malabar coast of India a woman may marry several men of equal or superior rank, known by anthropologists as the Nair family. The system also includes the matrilineal social structure, in which children are included in the mother's clan and property is inherited in the female line.
Another distinct type of polyandry is practised in areas of Tibet. In that form a woman may marry the eldest brother of a family and then take his brother also as her partner. Certainly the first form is a way of keeping property going down the female line. I thought that I would share the diffusion of useless knowledge with noble Lords.
Amendment No. 68 seeks to recognise the fact that in a polygamous marriage a person might have more than one additional spouse. Likewise, the Bill also deals with that. Under the Interpretation Act 1978, terms expressed in the singular can he taken to include the plural. So, the phrase "any additional spouse" can justifiably be read as "any additional spouses". Amendment No. 69 is more significant, however. in that it would have the effect of treating the first two members of a polygamous marriage as a married couple, with subsequent spouses treated as single people. I should like to explain to the House why we do not believe that that would be an appropriate approach to people living in such households.
We had a similar discussion on one of the other pension Bills within the memory of noble Lords, As noble Lords will know, the MIG regulations, along with those of other income-related benefits, make provision for those circumstances. Where a polygamously married household exists, a special assessment is made of the amount of benefit payable to the household. We do not know how many, but we think that we are probably talking in the order of not more than 200 households. That is based on the couple rate of benefit for the claimant and his first spouse, and the difference between the couple rate and single person rate of benefit, which is payable for each subsequent spouse. Therefore, the second wife gets the addition of what the first wife would get to the original single person's allowance, and so on clown the line. In addition, the financial resources of each member of the polygamous marriage are aggregated. I believe that that seems reasonable and provides a basis for dealing with the situation.
A glance at Clause 12, with which the amendment is grouped but to which the noble Lord did not speak, reveals that we are dealing with the same basic structure as with MIG: an unambiguous definition of what is meant by a polygamous marriage and provision to prescribe for a non- standard amount of pension credit and aggregation of the household resources. In the light of those comments, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Noakes: Before the Minister sits down, can she tell the Committee how she intends to treat unmarried polygamous family units?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I suspect that that would be blasphemous. If a person has a polygamous marriage and comes to the UK, that is being incorporated into the UK from outside. If such persons come over here as a couple and then acquire a subsequent "spouse", that "spouse" is not legal under British law and would be a mistress. There is no recognition in social security law of funding for a mistress as well as a wife for a UK resident. If I have misled the noble Baroness or in any sense cramped her or anyone else's aspirations, I shall seek to ensure that my comments are correct.
Lord Higgins: On the last point, I would have said that that is bigamy. Despite the clear explanation given by the noble Baroness, I am still unclear as to why this needs to be in regulations. I am not in the least clear about why we cannot simply put it on the face of the Bill. Presumably this is something which will not change. The noble Baroness has set this out clearly. Therefore, I would have thought that she could table an amendment on Report which puts on the face of the Bill exactly what she has just said.
I turn to the amount of state pension credit which such individuals receive. I presume that they would all have become UK citizens at this point. Will they receive state pension credit—I emphasise "state"—as a result of this legislation if they arrive in this country as a polygamous household but are not UK citizens? The noble Baroness mentioned that there are 200. Presumably that is 200 households. Will they also receive widows' pensions, for example? Once we go down that particular route, I am not sure where the matter ends.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Neither am I, given the world that the noble Lord has opened up. As I understand it, for eligibility to income-related benefits, one has to establish habitual residence in this country. Therefore, persons in this situation who have come to this country in their sixties or seventies—it is hard to work out what family permutations might be possible—might well not have a complete retirement pension record; that seems probable. They would need to pass the habitual residence test and not fall foul of refugees' exceptional leave to remain, asylum status and so forth. They might be elderly relatives of someone who is already resident here. Normally, they would have to show that they would not be dependent upon public funds. However, if they were entitled for whatever reason under the habitual residence test, they would then be eligible for minimum income guarantee. In that sense, they would receive part of the state pension credit in the form of MIG. In response to the noble Lord, it seems unlikely that they would be eligible for the savings element of the pension credit.
134
I am told that since August 1998 immigration legislation has prevented a polygamous wife settling in Great Britain with her husband if another wife is already in the country. Given that, the number of polygamous households in Great Britain should diminish over time.
The figure of 200 was the approximate figure we have of those households eligible to claim MIG. I find it hard to envisage circumstances, other than in a handful of cases, in which someone has a complete retirement pension—that is, that he has been here for a working life of 40 years—and savings from an occupational pension, and all of his marriages occurred legitimately outside the UK. It is conceivable. I hope that answers the noble Lord.
The basic arrangement is that for one of the marriages—presumably that to the first wife—the members are treated as husband and wife. Subsequent wives are treated as dependants receiving the same moneys. The noble Lord asked why this is being done by regulation. In the light of changes perhaps in immigration law, for example, it is conceivable that legislation might need to change in future. Having a regulation power to amplify the words in the Bill seems to me to be a wise precaution.
Given the concepts of human rights and so on, it is not impossible that attitudes and conventions and the responses of government to the treatment of polygamy may change over time. Therefore, the Government might want to revisit this matter at some unspecified date in the future. It is not wise to do that through primary legislation.
Lord Higgins: I am grateful to the Minister for that further comment. I do not want to prolong proceedings unnecessarily. This subject is rather like peeling an onion—one keeps getting more and more layers that one did not expect. The noble Baroness has now suddenly said that, since 1998, if one was polygamously married quite legally in another country, one can bring in only one wife.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I did not actually say that. I said, prevented from settling in Great Britain with a husband if another wife is already in the country. In other words, going back and importing yet another one in.
Lord Higgins: I understand. Otherwise one is slap into the Human Rights Act problems. I think that we should study carefully what the noble Baroness has said to see what further complications may ensue. If anything, the matter is more complicated than I had supposed. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, as always, for her extremely clear exposition. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Transitional provisions]:
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 8, line 18, at end insert "or"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 70, standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Noakes, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 71.
Amendment No. 71 is a rather unusual amendment. It seeks to knock out the words "or savings" from Clause 13(11). Clause 13(1) states:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations make such transitional provision, consequential provisions or savings as he considers necessary or expedient for the purposes of, or in connection with",
and so on. I am not clear how the Secretary of State makes savings. It seems to me that that is probably a misprint. Am I right or wrong? I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I can well understand the noble Lord's perplexity. It is a quite technical matter. He may see the need for the words after I have explained the matter to him.
The amendment limits the power of the Secretary of State to introduce regulations that will protect pensioners who get income support—MIG—immediately prior to the introduction of state pension credit.
Clause 13 provides for the transitional powers that the Secretary of State will require in order to provide for the smooth transfer of 1.8 million pensioners from the current system of financial support in income support to state pension credit. Subsection (1) provides the power to make transitional, consequential and savings provisions. The distinction between them is quite technical. A savings provision preserves the effect of a provision that has been repealed or amended. It is normally applied in limited cases so as to preserve rights that have accrued under those provisions.
It is essential that the Secretary of State has a range of powers available to him to introduce regulations that will enable him to transfer people from MIG to pension credit without fuss and hassle. It would be unfair on these pensioners if they could lose income because the Secretary of State had not been granted the power to protect them.
No one will lose out. It is the Government's intention to ensure that a person who should qualify for protected support under the IS scheme will not lose out from the introduction of state pension credit, and that the calculation of their new entitlement will take account of the protection they receive. We do not think that there are any such people whom we would not cover by the transitional regulations. But if there are, the power to save existing provisions will ensure that if any unforeseen issues are identified before the introduction of state pension credit the Secretary of State will be able to protect the very small number of people who could be affected. Any provisions made under the savings power would then work in tandem with any of the other arrangements for transition.
136
Previous social security legislation has included powers that have permitted successive Secretaries of State to protect the position of people who transfer from one scheme to another. It seems unwise to depart from this principle now.
State pension credit is being introduced to improve the financial position of many pensioners. It makes little sense to penalise some of the poorer pensioners by removing these essentially protective transitional powers. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his arnendment.
Lord Higgins: I am sure that the draftsman gave careful attention to the provision. But it seems to me that if there is not a misprint, there is a word missing. If one leaves out the transition and consequential provisions and so on, Clause 13(1) reads:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations make such … savings as he considers necessary or expedient".
It may be that he can make savings provisions, but there is no way in which he makes savings in any possible normal interpretation of the word.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Lord is confusing "savings" in the form of cash savings, which is not what the matter is about, and saving an existing right or entitlement. That is the point about transitional protection. I agree with the noble Lord that the provision does not bear the conventional use of the word "savings". This is a quasi-legal term. It is a power to save for a few individuals the current rights that they enjoy. Without that power, he might be able to pick up only the people not protected by conventional transitional arrangements.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: Would it be helpful if the word "legislative" was inserted in front of the word "savings"?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: This is a fairly conventional clause which is put into all changes as a form of belt-and-braces safety net in case there are some instances which are not caught up by the conventional regulations which offer transitional protection. Some benefits one keeps for ever and a day—for example, invalidity benefit going over to incapacity benefit. With others one takes the people out, and so on. But one needs the extra power. The word "savings" is often used to refer to savings provisions. I can understand why the noble Lord has perhaps assumed that the term relates to cash savings. But it does not. It is about keeping those powers available.
Lord Higgins: I did not suppose that "savings" related to cash savings. It simply did not make sense. It may be a technical expression. I do not know to what extent it has ever been challenged in the courts or elsewhere, but on the grounds of clear drafting and so on, it is a remarkably esoteric and unnecessarily obscure way of putting the matter. If the provision simply wants to say that the Secretary of State may preserve existing provisions as a transitional

137
arrangement, that would be sensible. I do not want to press the point. But it is not a satisfactory way of drafting legislation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 71 not moved.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Income and capital]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Dean of Harptree): If Amendment No. 72 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 73 to 81 inclusive on grounds of pre-emption.
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 9, line 6, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
"(I) Income and capital shall be defined and treated as for income tax purposes."
The noble Baroness said: We now turn to a large batch of amendments which deal with an important part of the Bill; namely, the definition of income and capital. I referred in previous amendments to different definitions of income used in the Bill. All of these, to a greater or lesser extent, draw on the definitions of income and capital that are contained in Clause 15. There are a number of concerns which will be explored in the amendments. They are partly about the theoretical bases of the calculations and getting clarity about what is and what is not intended. Lying behind a number of these amendments are some practical issues and, in particular, the impact on savings. That is an important aim which the Government have and which we, on these Benches, share.
Amendment No. 72 is a probing amendment. It deals with the complication of defining income and capital in the Bill. It eliminates the list of income sources in subsection (1) and in later regulations and replaces it with the simple concept of using the definitions that have been developed and are used for income tax purposes.
I am sure the Committee will be aware that there is an extensive body of case law about whether something is or is not income for the purposes of tax rules. I suggest that we use that. I am well aware that the Department for Work and Pensions has developed over the years its own rules on what it treats as income, capital and so on. However, in the interests of simplicity, accessibility and understanding, I suggest that the income tax rules are a good basis. It is the Inland Revenue's core business to define income, to spot new forms of income which may not have been brought previously within the net. On the ground of public sector efficiency income might be left to the Inland Revenue while the Department for Work and Pensions deals with its core role—calculating and paying benefits.
I refer to the Government's consultation paper on pension credit in November 2000. In referring to the integration of tax and benefits, the aspiration was
138
expressed of making the pension credit more automatic and reducing overlap between the tax and benefit systems. The paper states:
"The Government will look to the tax system to consider whether there could be alignment with tax rules on the treatment of income, smoothing the path to greater tax benefit integration in due course".
That is very laudable. However, the way in which the pension credit has been constructed goes completely against that aim because it uses income concepts which are in some cases alien to those for income tax purposes and, in particular, the deeming of income to which we shall refer later.
I hope that this simpler approach—it will be consistent with the Government's aims for the tax and benefit system and more understandable and simpler for those dealing with the system—will be commend itself. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The big difference is that something like 1.7 or 1.8 million pensioners currently enjoy minimum income guarantee under social security legislation. I understand that only about 70,000 or so (if that) of pensioners who will be entitled to state pension credit pay tax. Therefore, to move all those on to a tax basis would seem to be folly.
Amendment No. 72 seeks to bring the treatment of income in pension credit fully into line with the tax system. Pension credit and its new income assessment share many of the objectives of the new tax credits, both incorporating longer awards and a simpler administration process. But we designed pension credit to suit the needs of pensioners. It is more tax-like, wherever that made sense, but we are not being driven by dogma.
Pensioners themselves are not interested in the arguments about tax-like or benefit-like systems. Most do not pay tax. They will be more interested in whether we can deliver a system effectively meeting their needs without stigma—the word used by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker—which they see as an entitlement and, therefore, have no hesitation and no obstacle to claiming. That is why we have concentrated on designing a system that effectively gives extra money to pensioners who need it most as well as rewarding thrift when we come to the savings element.
Research has demonstrated concerns about the claims process and weekly means tests. We have gone to the five-year period. The tax system and the new tax credits deal with a quite different group of people from the group pension credit has been designed to help. Unlike people of working age—those are the people the tax credits deal with—pension credit has been designed to help pensioners. Few pensioners have contact with the tax system. Pensioners' income fluctuates much less than the incomes of the working age population. Pension credit is not taxable. So where a tax-like approach was not sensible, we chose a different solution for pension credit.
For instance, the new tax credits will usually assess someone on the basis of their income over the previous year. That relates back to an earlier discussion. This

139
approach is sensible in that context because earnings do fluctuate and vary. It could not work well for pension credit.
Another example is the treatment of capital in pension credit. In the consultation document we said that we would consider the options for reforming the system to take income from capital into account:. We could follow the tax system and take actual income and savings into account but we have listened to pensioner groups which said that pensioners would find it onerous and complex to record actual income from their savings. What is gross? What is net? We decided, therefore, on the notional rather than actual rate of return, plus the £6,000 disregard. This will be simpler for pensioners who will not have to declare precisely how much interest they have received.
Not following the tax-like approach here has also allowed us to deliver on our objective of taking many pensioners out of the capital rules—by ignoring the first £6,000 of savings. I hope that the Committee agrees that this makes better sense. When I referred to 70,000 who may pay tax, I should have said that 70,000 people may come within the new tax credit framework, not necessarily paying tax.
The noble Baroness referred to the consultation document. In that document we said that we sought to simplify and raise the guaranteed minimum income level to over £100 a week by 2003. We are doing that. We said that we wanted to replace the old pound for pound withdrawal system by a much fairer system which would abolish the savings trap. We are doing that. We said that we would abolish the capital rules and replace them with an income test more in line with the income tax system. We are not doing that, as I have said, because we listened to pensioners and pensioner groups prefer the approach that we have adopted. That was riot necessarily our first thought but it is so after consultation. That is the point of a consultation paper.
We said that we would move away from the intrusive weekly means test to a system where awards are fixed over much longer time periods. We are doing that. We said that we would reduce the income tax burden on pensioners by raising the personal tax allowances available to those aged 65 or over. We are doing that.
In terms of the consultation document to which the noble Baroness referred, we have met our proposals apart from that on the treatment of capital, and there we have moved in response to pensioners' organisations and the consultation exercise. That Is, of course, what a consultation exercise is for.
In the light of this response, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Barker: Before the Minister sits down. will she clarify her statement about the 70,000 pensioners coming within the new tax credit framework? I should find that enormously helpful.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: This relates to questions about earnings: those aged between 60 and
140
64 who may or may not be in the labour market. I understand that 70,000 people could get pension credit and the new tax credit. I do not have figures on how many on pension credit will pay tax. The figure could be 10 or 15 per cent. None the less, compared with the fact that 1.7 million pensioners of those we are targeting are currently on minimum income guarantee, it is a substantial number.
Baroness Noakes: If the figure of 70,000 relates to the 1.9 million on MIG, how many does the Minister estimate will receive the pension credit? It is a considerably higher number.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We estimate the number receiving pension credit to be between 5.5 and 6 million in the total scheme.
Baroness Noakes: Of those, how many does the noble Baroness estimate will pay tax?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I cannot give the precise figure. I cannot give a breakdown between the two. It depends on the size of the family, whether one refers to singles or couples. We think that the figure may be 10 or 15 per cent.
Baroness Noakes: I cannot say that I am surprised by what the Minister said. Pensioners normally come from a working environment. They learn the concepts about how their income is taxed. The Minister seeks to create a system where pensioners feel that they can claim the pension credit without stigma. Would not it be easier if the in-work treatment of income were moved to pensions?
The pension credit feels more like a core social security benefit, with means-testing and all that goes with it, and the problems of it not being taken up rather than an extension of a pension entitlement. The noble Baroness was keen to stress that factor earlier when we referred to means-tested benefit. I believe the department is missing an opportunity.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may point out that, given that about three-quarters of the number of pensioners do not pay tax and that the tax threshold for those aged over 75 kicks in at about £6,200 after personal allowances, she can see the point at which the provision begins. Is the noble Baroness really saying that she would wish to bring all the other pensioners into a regime which meant that they would have to have annual assessments of their income based on the tax system?
Baroness Noakes: Perhaps I may clarify the situation. In moving this amendment I did not say that I was moving toward an annual assessment. It is a separate issue as to whether one can combine the tax and benefit system at some stage where one would move to assessment on an annual basis. I am simply moving an amendment which states that how one calculates income is not by any deemed rules or putting

141
things in or out, but one would simply use whatever the income tax system used as income. It is not the same as moving to an annual basis for assessment, but using the concept of income which has no additional need for regulation put forward by the department. There is both statute and case law about what is and what is not income.
My only point was that they are a set of concepts broadly familiar to those who have been in work and who have dealt with the income tax rules in their lives, notwithstanding the fact that when they retire many of them fall out of the tax net. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 9, line 6, after "In" insert "calculating re-entitlement to a state pension credit, any income or capital gains on a PEP or an ISA shall be completely disregarded, and subject to this, in"
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I believe that it will be convenient to speak to Amendments Nos. 82 and 83. As the Committee will realise, Amendment No. 73 contains one possible formulation of the point we wish to raise and Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 are alternatives in rather more technical language.
Quite simply, the amendments we are now considering are concerned with the definition of an income. In these amendments we are suggesting that income from PEPs and ISAs should not be included. On the whole, the intiatives taken by Chancellors on PEPs and ISAs have been very successful in doing something to increase the level of savings. A crucial point about them, which I believe many people found to be greatly convenient, is that one does not have to include them in the income tax return: they are totally out with the existing system.
As the noble Baroness said a moment or two ago, it is true that a very large percentage of pensioners do not pay tax anyway. I could not help wondering to what extent they have been slightly terrified by those unbelievably moronic adverts on television which keep asking people whether they have sent in their tax return. They might have given considerable worry to many pensioners who, as the noble Baroness has pointed out, do not pay tax but may have wondered in the circumstances whether they were supposed to.
As regards these amendments, there would appear to be a strong case for excluding any income or capital consequences—perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us whether it is relevant as regards the capital arrangements—to preserve the incentive which successive Chancellors have given for individuals to save. I believe that the present arrangement is convenient.
Of course, it is the case that many people, particularly those who have been driven away from with-profits funds with insurance companies and all the problems they have been running into, have been recommended in the Sunday papers to choose ISAs or PEPs rather than some other form of pension
142
provision. From the wording of Clause 15 as it now stands, I am not absolutely clear whether or not other retirement pension income is to be included in the definition of earnings. If not, there seems to be a very strong case for excluding any income from ISAs and PEPs. I hope that the noble Baroness can clarify the situation as regards these two forms of saving. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The provisions in Clause 15 abolish the rules that exclude pensioners with £12,000 or more of savings from any help. As we have said, we will apply a notional rate of return of 10 per cent on any capital sum over £6,000 disregard but £10,000 for people in residential care or nursing homes. This means that 85 per cent of pensioners entitled to pension credit will see any income received from their savings ignored entirely. Ignoring the first £6,000 of savings also helps better-off pensioners; for example, only pensioners with capital above £12,000 will face effective assumed rates of return greater than 5 per cent.
The noble Lord's amendments then consider the treatment of ISAs and PEPs. I believe that in tabling these amendments the noble Lord intended that actual income and capital gains from PEPs and ISAs should be disregarded in the pension credit income and capital assessments. Achieving such an aim would make the administration of pension credit extremely difficult. For example, we would have to find a way to distinguish the proportion of a person's fund made up of interest and capital growth and how we broke it down between the two.
In addition, I believe that the suggested policy would result in complex incentive effects. PEPs and ISAs would become a more attractive investment vehicle, and in addition to distorting the financial products market, it would also make it extremely difficult for financial advisers to give clear information and advice.
The fundamental difficulty with the proposed amendments is that the Bill, as drafted, already takes no account of actual income or capital gains from PEPs and ISAs, as I have mentioned. We are only proposing to apply a notional tariff sum of 10 per cent to capital sums over £6,000. Thus the only practical way to implement Amendments Nos. 73 and 82 within the structure of a pension credit would be to disregard the whole amount of capital held in a PEP or ISA; in other words, to set the notional rate of return to zero for those savings products. As a result, capital held in ISAs and PEPs would thus be treated more favourably than savings in other vehicles.
Amendments Nos. 73 and 82, therefore, have the same practical effect as the noble Lord's final amendment on this topic. Amendment No. 83 proposes a complete disregard of capital held in a PEP or ISA in the pension credit income assessment. They would all have significant effects on both the cost of the pension credit package and on wider incentives to save in various vehicles.

143
Any of these amendments would result in a large initial cost in the region of £300 million, with rnany pensioners with capital held in PEPs and ISAs becoming entitled to pension credit for the first time. In addition, many pensioners with capital held in different vehicles would probably respond to this policy by moving their savings into a PEP or ISA.
Eventually, the noble Lord's amendments would thus amount to a near total disregard of all capital in the pension credit income assessment at a cost of about £1 billion per year. Moreover, the incentive to save in a pension for those who expected to be eligible for pension credit would be eroded.
We developed the provisions in Clause 15 after listening to both Age Concern, which told us that pensioners did not want the hassle of recording actual income from capital and would prefer a notional rate of return, and the Financial Services Authority, which advised that a 10 per cent rate of return enables it to give clear advice to savers about the benefits of second pensions.
Therefore, I hope that Members of the Committee opposite accept that by ring-fencing ISAs and PEPs as they suggest would not only produce very substantial costs but also deform the patterns of saving in the future. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will not seek to pursue the amendments.
Lord Higgins: I am not sure whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has read the speech which the noble Baroness has just made. She said that if the amendment was accepted PEPs and ISAs would be given more favourable treatment than other forms of saving. That is the whole point about PEPs and ISAs: they are given more favourable treatment than other forms of saving. That is one of the reasons why we thought it appropriate to raise this point.
The noble Baroness said that in addition people will move their savings into PEPs and ISAs. If it is worth while to do so, they would have done so anyway. There would not be any change as far as this issue is concerned. Perhaps the noble Baroness can rebut that.
I understand the point she made as regards costs. We on this side of the House must take that into account. As regards the capital value of a PEP or ISA, I am not sure whether it is going to be the original amount put into the PEP or ISA or whether it is to be their value at this moment or whenever the Act comes into operation. If someone put £3,000 into an individual company PEP five years ago, and the value of that has decreased to, say, 50p, will he still be judged under the Bill to have capital of £3,000 when the actual value of his asset is 50p? That would be grossly unfair.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: If I am wrong about this I shall obviously write to the noble Lord, but my understanding is that when income is assessed, the value of PEPs, ISAs and other forms of capital will he taken at that point to produce a notional income. If there were to be a bust equivalent to that of the technology funds and the capital value fell and as a result notional income became exaggerated,
144
pensioners would have the right to have the assumed or putative income for those purposes reconsidered. We debated that earlier. In other words, the five-year period will apply. At the end of that five-year period. we can consider what income is being deemed.
Lord Higgins: But we are starting at the beginning of the five-year period. Let me put my example simply. Five years ago, someone had invested £3,000 in a single company PEP. Let us say that the value of that PEP is now 50p. Which capital value is to be taken into account for the purposes of the Bill?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As I said, 50p. In other words, at the point at which the snapshot is taken, the income is taken into account. Then, live years later, it is revisited. If at any time pensioners feel that it is to their financial advantage to report circumstances and to have their pension recalculated, they can.
Lord Higgins: That is a helpful and clear answer. As to the broader issue, I am impressed by the argument about cost, which, on the other side of the coin, merely reflect the loss to the individuals concerned. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 9, line 7, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: This amendment is not as well focused—in the jargon—as it perhaps might be It refers to Clause 15, which states:
"in this Act, 'income' means income of any of the following descriptions".
Paragraph (a), to which the amendment relates, refers to earnings. Let me give an example. An individual who falls within the scope of the Bill, being at a fairly low level of income and wealth, decides to take a job as a supermarket checkout assistant. Depending on how many days and hours he works, he may receive a very low remuneration. Pensioners may decide to try to make up their meagre income by taking up some form of employment—not full-time employment, but limited employment such as I have described. It would be unfortunate if they were deterred from seeking to better their circumstances by their own means because they would be clobbered for doing so. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would tell us how she envisages low earnings being treated under the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 95, which is grouped with Amendment No. 74. The amendment again concerns earnings, which we discussed in Committee last week. The amendment tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Castle would insert the words:
"£40 of a person's earnings in any week, or the whole of his earnings if less than £40, shall be disregarded".
That embodies a proposal made by the National Pensioners Convention in evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee on Work and Pensions in

145
which it told the committee that the present £5 earnings disregard is much too small to constitute an incentive to seek or accept part-time employment. Rather than including earnings in the types of income qualifying for the 60 per cent disregard, it would be simpler and more effective to retain a separate earnings disregard but raise it to a level—say, the £40 mentioned in the amendment—that would in most cases allow a day or so's work without any loss of benefit. In that way, part-time earnings could have a significant impact on pensioner poverty, if only in a minority of cases.
Last week, my noble friend the Minister told us that the Government were considering earnings anyway, and that they accept that it is a good idea for people to work when they can for as long as they can—doing light work, part-time work, and so on. I think that most people—particularly in this House—would acknowledge that work keeps people healthier and more in touch with others. It prevents social exclusion, which we know is often a problem for pensioners who are left in a single state. Where they can, people should be encouraged to do some sort of work in retirement. Even if it does not bring in much money, it is good from a social point of view. I therefore hope that my noble friend will be prepared to look with favour on the proposition in the amendment when the whole issue of earnings is under consideration.
Lord Addington: It is very odd when one has to wait this long to make a first intervention on a Bill, having listened to so much of the debate, to discover that virtually everything that one wanted to say about an amendment has already been said. My name is attached to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for the simple reason that those falling within the scope of the Bill will not be earning much money. Surely, they should benefit in that way. The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, about social interaction and not letting people think that they are totally switched off and left on the shelf is absolutely valid. Social interaction is an important part of everyone's life; we are a social animal and we need it. In our society, work is the basis of most forms of social interaction. That is a fact. I entirely endorse that point.
We are not talking about vast sums of money. We are probably talking about the national minimum wage across the board. We should include in the Bill—or at least at the first available opportunity—a provision to allow earnings. I cannot see how we would do anything other than benefit from that.
7 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I welcome—I think, although perhaps I should phrase that differently—the opportunity to debate Amendments Nos. 74 and 95, which concern the treatment of earnings in pension credit. The amendments would change Clause 15 of the Bill, which details the sources of income and capital that can be included in the income assessment.
146
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, Amendment No. 74, would remove earnings from our interpretation of income. That means that earnings would not figure in the income assessment of any pension credit claimant aged 60 or over. Earnings of their partners—of any age—would also not figure. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, said that that would not cost much. I have news for him. It would cost nearly £2.5 billion—more than the cost of the current pension credit proposed in the Bill. We have designed pension credit to match the personal needs of pensioners. We can do that only if we take into account pensioners' own resources. In the Bill, we have made arrangements that some of those resources can, in part or in full, be set aside for several different reasons.
I shall go into the substance of the matter. Some 800,000 pensioners work beyond state pension age. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden that if people can do so, it is welcome and desirable. Many of those people, of course, would not qualify for pension credit, regardless of how we treated earnings in the income assessment, as they will have second pensions and capital to put them well out of the bounds of our ambitions. However, many others working parttime—the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, gave the example of someone working part-time in Tesco—will be entitled to pension credit.
We want to have a debate on earnings, but we did not have it in mind to ignore the earnings of 60 to 64 year- olds, which would be embraced by the noble Lord's amendment. Although many in that group—and older people too—work or aspire to work, the working tax credit is better suited to complementing their needs than the pension credit. As we say in our response to the consultation yellow booklet, there are a range of small earnings disregards in the Minimum Income Guarantee. If we brought those forward into the pension credit, we would have four possible disregards, ranging from £5 a week for a single pensioner to £25 a week, say, for a single pensioner responsible for a child.
We want to consider how best to treat earnings in the context of those disregards and how best to ensure that pension credit contributes to the active ageing agenda. That is why I welcome the opportunity to refer to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden. The amendment would introduce a £40 disregard of earnings into pension credit. As my noble friend said, that is roughly equivalent to a day's work at the minimum wage. I can understand her aim. However, as the amendment stands, the disregard would apply to all people aged 60 and over and would cost nearly £200 million a year to implement.
I am sorry that I cannot produce a more explicit statement of our policy. It is an extremely complicated matter, and we are still working through the implications of the interlocking between the working tax credit and the pension credit. I assure my noble friend and noble Lords on the Opposition Benches that we are considering how the pension credit and earnings disregards will link in with the new working tax credit for younger pensioners. We are considering

147
what arrangements are best suited to rewarding and promoting our ambitions for active ageing for older pensioners who do work.
Given the costs involved—they could be exceedingly large if we took the amendment at face value—and the extent to which older workers would be drawn into a scheme designed for pensioners, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Higgins: As I said, my amendment is not well focused, as it knocks out earnings altogether. I can understand that, if we were to accept it, it would he extremely expensive. None the less, the points made by noble Lords who have spoken are important.
Can I make clear what the Minister is saying? As I understand it, she is saying that it is a complicated business—none of us would dispute that—and that there may be a particular situation for pensioners aged between 60 and 65. Above that level, can we be clear that it is the Government's intention that there should be a disregard? As I understand it, there is anyway an MIG disregard. I think that it is £15 a week for full-timers and part-timers working more than 16 hours or, in the case of a couple, 24 hours a week. I have had terrible trouble trying to find where it appears; I presume that it is in a statutory instrument, but I could not discover where.
At all events, what we are considering has two elements: the state pension consists of what used to be MIG, on the one hand, and the savings credit, on the other. Am I right to interpret the Minister as saying that there would certainly be a continuation of the MIG disregard for pensioners above 65, let us say, and that the Government are still considering whether to give a disregard as far as concerns the savings credit for people who are also in part-time work. I am not really clear at the moment what the Minister is saying.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I understand the noble Lord's point about earnings disregards. Let me clarify the current situation; the noble Lord may not have described it completely.
At the moment, the earnings disregard in general applies to all client groups in receipt of income-related benefits. The different levels of earnings disregard are as follows. and they apply across the board: £5 for a single person; £10 for a couple; and £20 for lone parents, disabled people entitled to the disability premium or aged over 60, carers entitled to the carers' premium and people in certain special occupations. The £25 earnings disregard comes into play with housing benefit and council tax benefit. If the noble Lord were to say to me that we should tidy it all up, I would not disagree. However, that is where we are. In addition, there is, of course, help with childcare costs coming through from the Tax Credits Bill. That is the current state of earnings disregards.
I do not want to make a commitment at this stage. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, will bear with me; I can understand his irritation. We should not at this point separate the treatment of earnings from earnings disregards. We seek to have a clear position
148
for those aged over 65. There is an order of difficulty relating to those between the ages of 60 and 65 and people under the age of 60. That is a complex matter that we must resolve.
Certainly, if there is an earnings disregard of any size, we must consider how it interlinks with disregarding earnings in total. If I were to say, for example, that we would keep a minimum of £5 or £10, it might be unnecessary if the subsequent earnings were to be disregarded in total for these purposes. I ask the noble Lord to allow me to return as soon as I can with a clear statement of our proposals, rather than chip away at bits of them. There are two or three different considerations at play. To be frank. I must say that I cannot answer the noble Lord's questions unless I have clearer policy parameters than I have at the moment. They are still being consulted on and worked up for reasons that he will understand.
Lord Higgins: I fear that I do understand them. The whole thing is incredibly complicated, which is a result of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's obsession with the whole idea of credits. At the point at which the Minister is not sure whether she has got it right, I really become terrified—for most of the last speech. in fact.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I believe that my description of earnings disregards was accurate. I said that I could not give the noble Lord the policy parameters on whether the disregards should be increased so that it was a full earnings disregard for those over 60 up to those who remain below the pension credit ceiling and, secondly, on the interlock between those under 60, those between 60 and 65 and those over 65.
The problem is the determination of policy parameters. Once we have done that, the rest will fall into place. The noble Lord will understand perfectly what can then be deduced. If I said, for example, that all earnings were to be disregarded or, alternatively, that all earnings were to be qualifying income, the noble Lord and I could agree on the policy implications for pension credit. I cannot do that at the moment.
Lord Higgins: That is unsatisfactory. Can the Minister clarify two points? First, in the course of this consideration, is she considering disregards in respect of both parts of the state pension credit? Secondly, should we not have, by Report. a clearer answer than she has been able to give this evening?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I very much hope that I will be able to give a clearer answer by Report. If I cannot, I shall apologise to the noble Lord.
Lord Higgins: We shall wait and see what happens. If necessary, we shall vote on it. I beg leave to w ithdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 9, line 10, leave out paragraph (d).
The noble Lord said: The amendment would remove paragraph (d), which-1 think I am right in saying—is related to annuities. It is a question of whether income from annuity contracts other than retirement pension income should be included in income as far as concerns the operation of the state pension credit. It appears to be the Government's intention that income from an annuity should count as income. But what puzzles me is the parenthesis which states,
"(other than retirement pension income)".
It would appear therefore that income from a retirement pension income annuity, typical in the case of defined contribution pension schemes, is not to be counted as income. However, if someone has an annuity contract which has nothing to do with their retirement pension income, then it is to be treated as income. That is what the wording states, but it strikes me as rather extraordinary. Perhaps the noble Baroness can explain. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Amendment No 75 is another in the series dealing with income. Subsection (1)(d), which the amendment seeks to remove, provides the power to take income from annuity contracts, other than retirement pension income, into account when calculating pension credit entitlement.
Annuities are treated as income within MIG whether they are purchased from a pension fund or other capital. The Government intend to carry forward these provisions into those for pension credit. Therefore income from annuities will be taken into account as a weekly income stream in the calculation of the guarantee credit. The weekly amount will also be used to calculate the savings credit.
We have included this provision because, so far as possible we wish to maintain a level playing field between different retirement savings products, a point we have discussed on earlier amendments. We do not want to make some savings vehicles more financially attractive, nor do we want to encourage people to transfer capital holdings into an annuity contract in order to obtain a larger amount of pension credit or, indeed, to become newly entitled to it.
I hope that I have been able to persuade the noble Lord of the need to take income from annuities into account and I trust that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Higgins: I understand the Minister's response perfectly well, but then the parenthesis,
"income from annuity contracts (other than retirement pension income)"
should not be taken into account. As presently worded, it looks as though annuity retirement pension income is not to be taken into account. I am not clear why that should be the case.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: All I can say is that income from annuity contracts other than retirement
150
pension income covers a list of incomes other than retirement pension. I understand that this paragraph specifies the additional forms. Retirement pension is covered in Clause 15(1)(c), which is defined in Clause 16, and includes in paragraph (h) retirement annuity contracts. I think that this is simply in addition to the retirement pension income that we have been discussing.
Lord Higgins: I fear that I may have slightly misled the Committee on this point.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I certainly undertake to write to the noble Lord if he requires a more detailed explanation.
Lord Higgins: I may not have expressed my point as clearly as I might have done because, as has just been pointed out by my noble friend, paragraph (c) lists "retirement pension income". In that case, I am even more puzzled. If paragraph (c) covers retirement pension income, why do we then need the parenthesis under paragraph (d)?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I understand that it is possible to turn moneys into an annuity which may have no formal or technical connection with retirement pension, although it may then be enjoyed by someone of retirement age. That, I presume, is why it has been specified in this way.
Lord Higgins: I shall need to think about the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 76:
Page 9, line II. leave out paragraph (e).
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to leave out paragraph (e). I apologise to the Committee. I do not wish to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 77 not moved.]
7.15 p.m.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 9, line 14, leave out paragraph (g).
The noble Lord said: I have been in this game for a long while. This is the more serious amendment.
The amendment seeks to leave out paragraph (g) which may be an important matter. It suggests that,
"a war disablement pension or war widow's or widower's pension"—
matters which usually raise serious concerns in the Chamber—apparently should be included as part of the income taken into account for the purpose of this legislation. Is that typically the case; namely, that such

151
items are always included in income over all the elements of social security legislation, or is this in any way unusual? I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The amendment asks us to disregard war disablement, war widow's and war widower's pensions for the purpose of calculating entitlement to pension credit.
However, I do not think that it would be right to calculate the amount of guarantee credit someone needs, or to reward pensioners for having saved, without basing entitlement on the amount of income already available to the pensioner. This amendment proposes 10 do that. It means that pension credit would be paid in addition to a war pension.
It is true that we do disregard some forms of income, such as attendance allowance. That is done because such payments are intended to meet exceptional needs or circumstances. For example, attendance allowance is paid to cover the extra costs of disability needs, not as an income replacement.
I wish to set out a worked example which I shall give with the usual qualification. If I am wrong, I shall come back to the noble Lord on the point. Let us take a war widow or war widower with a retirement pension of £77, and the average war widow or widower's pension of £175, which would total £252. Housing benefit and council tax benefit would be worth, say, £70 and could be disregarded, thus the income would be £322, tax free. If we were to accept the noble Lord's amendment, we would assume for the purposes of pension credit that the income was not £322 tax free, but rather a retirement pension of only £77, which would entitle the claimant to MIG totalling £23. I am sure that that is not what the noble Lord would wish. In no sense could that be regarded as targeting help for those who most need it.
Furthermore, the amendment would add to costs at a rate of around £250 million per year. We take the view that that would not be a reasonable use of public money, to say nothing of the proper treatment of war pensioners, war widows and war widowers. They are properly recompensed in the benefits they currently claim. To ignore those for the purposes of the amendment would be to assume an entitlement to MIG—the difference between £77 and £100—in pension credit. However, I do not think that incomes at the level to which I have just referred could possibly justify such a proposal.
Lord Higgins: I know that concerns have been expressed with regard to this point. It is helpful that the Government's view has now been put on the record. I shall need to consider it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 79 and 80 not moved.]
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 9. line 18, leave out paragraph (j).
The noble Baroness said: This is the last of a series of probing amendments looking at the element:; of income specified in Clause 15(1). Paragraph (j) states,
"income of any prescribed description".
The amendment seeks to delete the paragraph from subsection (1). The Explanatory Notes state that the paragraph would be used to bring in items such as employers' sick pay, matrimonial maintenance payments and could also be used to take into account "new types of income". I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me for pointing out that if she had an income tax definition, then she would not have to worry about prescribing additional items because those would automatically come into account, including, I suspect, new forms of income.
Perhaps I may concentrate on the element referred to as "new forms of income". Given her experience of other means-tested benefits, can the noble Baroness tell the Committee how often similar powers to specify new types of income have been used in the past; that is, why such a power is required by the Secretary of State? I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not have a clue how often that particular phrase has been used. The noble Baroness is absolutely right—
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister. I wish to ascertain how often, having taken the power, it has been used.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Baroness has rightly identified that a small number of older people have other forms of income. She cited employers' sick pay and matrimonial maintenance payments. We could, of course, seek to detail all possible income streams currently available in retirement within the State Pension Credit Bill and its regulations, but an element of "future-proofing" is always necessary to ensure that legislation is capable of being reasonably robust. It is a protection, a competence to embrace the new financial products which are continuously being developed and introduced to the market. It is for that purpose that we need this additional power.
I wish that I could give the noble Baroness a worked example. I try to do so when I can, but I cannot. But, for example, there has been much discussion in the press recently in regard to David Curry's Bill and new forms of financial products. We have to make sure that, where appropriate, any such development of new products is encompassed within the Bill. This gives us that flexibility.
I see no reason to believe that that power would be applied inappropriately. I cannot give the noble Baroness a worked example, but, in the future, should such a new scheme be devised, it would, where appropriate, fall within the framework of Clause 15.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that explanation. I think I understand what she said. We should express some concern that "future-proofing"

153
incorporates an ability completely to rewrite the rules for ever and a day without bringing them back for discussion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 not moved.]
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 9, line 18, at end insert—
"( ) For the purposes of this Act a person's earnings shall not include anything which would be chargeable to income tax under Schedule E to section 19 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (c. 1) (schedule E) but for the operation of Schedule 8 to the Finance Act 2000 (c. 17) (employee share ownership plans)."
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 84, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 85. We have been through many examples of income which are or are not caught under Clause 15(1). Amendments Nos. 84 and 85 deal with the treatment of gains under employee share schemes.
I should point out that the drafting of the amendments leaves something to be desired. Both amendments refer to "Schedule E to section 19" of ICTA 1988, but they should refer to "Schedule E for the purposes of section 19". I hope that the Committee was not confused by this when reading the amendments.
The basic income tax rule—I am simplifying hugely—is that gains on employee share schemes are taxed as income unless there is a specific exemption. Of course, there are many exemptions as successive governments have encouraged employee equity involvement. The concern that these amendments address is whether the Department for Work and Pensions intends to treat such gains as income for pension credit purposes.
There are specific exemptions from income tax charges for employee share ownership plans—known as ESOPs—under the Finance Act 2000. Amendment No. 84 seeks to ensure that gains made by employees under ESOPs are not treated as income for pension credit purposes. ESOPs are designed to allow employees to build equity stakes—often modest ones—in their employers. The policy of successive governments has been to encourage this. I hope that the pension credit will not bring such gains within its net.
Amendment No. 85 is broader and covers all types of employee share schemes, including both unapproved and approved share option schemes, as well as ESOPs. Again, I hope that the Government will wish to continue to encourage employee involvement in their employers through direct share ownership and that they will not seek to treat the gains realised thereby as income for pension credit purposes.
I imagine that for many pensioners the issue of gains from such share rights will arise only when they are fairly near retirement, although many schemes have qualifying periods which could put such gains well into retirement age. So it is not an issue that could arise only once for a pensioner.
I know that the Government have been encouraging share ownership by employees and I hope that the Minister will look kindly on these amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Amendments Nos. 84 and 85 are linked in that they propose that earnings taken into account for pension credit purposes are net of income arising from employee share schemes. As I understand it, the first amendment proposes that earnings that are deducted from salary to invest in an employer's share incentive plan should not show up as earnings in pension credit and therefore should be disregarded in the income assessment. Similarly, the value of free and matching shares received under the plan should be disregarded. Again as I understand it, the second amendment proposes that any gain from employees' share schemes that are treated as earnings should be disregarded as income in the pension credit income assessment.
As the Committee will know, the Government fully support the widening of employee share ownership. Such schemes can only help to increase productivity. Our commitment is clearly demonstrated by the introduction of the two new tax-advantaged schemes in the Finance Bill 2000, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness. Both are very generous.
The share incentive plan—previously known, as the noble Baroness described it, as ESOP—is aimed at promoting shareholding among all employees in order to increase productivity and improve long-term performance. The share incentive scheme allows a company to bring its employees into share ownership in three ways. It can give its employees up to £3,000 of free shares annually, free of income tax and NICs; employees can contribute up to £1,500 per year out of pre-tax and NICs pay to buy "partnership shares"; and the company can award up to two matching shares for each partnership share bought.
At the same time as we introduced the share incentive plan, we introduced the enterprise management incentives aimed at helping smaller, high-risk companies to grow and become successful. This was enhanced on 1st January this year so that more companies could provide tax-advantaged share options to their employees.
The noble Baroness asks us to follow the example of the Inland Revenue and effectively to make contributions to a share incentive plan non-taxable or, in our terms, to disregard them. But she then asks us in the second amendment to steal a march on the Inland Revenue. I am sure such a thought never occurred to the noble Baroness, but she asks us to disregard any gains from employee share schemes should they be paid as earnings. As things stand, such gains, if considered as earnings, are liable to tax in the same way as any other earnings.
My department uses for its definition of "earnings" the same definition as that used to determine liability for NICs. I am pleased to tell the Committee that, as neither contributions by employees to share incentive plans, nor the value of free and matching shares

155
received under those plans. are subject to income tax or are liable for NICs, it follows that this income will be disregarded in the definition of earnings for pension credit purposes.
Turning to the next point, the noble Baroness asks us to disregard in our definition of "earnings" any benefits received by employees from employee share schemes that have the general character of earnings from employment. These benefits are subject to tax and NICs in the normal way. I am sure that the noble Baroness will understand that creating such a disregard in a benefit designed to suit the needs of pensioners with low and modest incomes when the Inland Revenue has no such exception for tax and NICs purposes—although many of the noble Baroness's arguments have been based on analogies, she is now asking to diverge from them—would, at best, be inappropriate.
Given that we have achieved the purpose intended by Amendment No. 84 and given our understandable reluctance to break new ground on Amendment No. 85, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that reply. I shall read carefully what she said in respect of Amendment No. 84. These are complex matters and I shall reflect further on whether I understand exactly what she said.
Amendment No. 85 goes beyond the narrow examples given in the Finance Act 2000. I accept that, as drafted, it may seem particularly broad, but there will be cases of ga ins being made by retired employees under approved share option schemes. These will not be regarded as within the charge to income tax because of the exemptions—their share options fall out of the charge to income tax although they fall into the charge of capital gains tax—but I am not clear whether the noble Baroness intends those kinds of gains to be treated as income. I am unclear as to whether or not we have tied up every point.
I accept the Minister's mild rebuke about stealing a march on the Inland Revenue, but I am not sure that the core of Amendment No. 85 has been dealt with correctly.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: This is very complex. I could speculate, but it might be wiser—it certainly would be safer—for me to write to the noble Baroness. If she is dissatisfied, she can press me on Report.
Baroness Noakes: I am grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 85 not moved.]
Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begins again not before 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Immigration and Asylum Appeals (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 2001
7.30 p.m.
Lord Aveburyrose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the rules, laid before the House on 17th December 2001, be annulled (S.I. 2001/4014).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these rules have aroused an enormous amount of concern throughout the whole refugee community from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees down to all those who are trying to help asylum seekers in the United Kingdom.
The rules apply to an asylum seeker whose claim is certified by the Secretary of State under Section 9(1) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. He is caught under several different headings: if he fails to produce a valid passport at the port of entry and gives no reasonable explanation for that failure, whether or not an explanation exists; if he produces an in valid passport and does not inform the officer that it is invalid; if he enters the UK for some other purpose and claims asylum only after the original leave to remain has expired; if an immigration officer decides that he does not have a well-founded fear of persecution or a right under the European Convention on Human Rights; if his case is manifestly fraudulent or any of the evidence that he presents is false; and so on.
In any of those circumstances, the Secretary of State may certify the case under Schedule 4 to the 1999 Act. Under the rules, the adjudicator's determination will be served only on the Secretary of State who will then notify the appellant or his representative. If an asylum seeker who is not certified applies to the tribunal for leave to appeal, and the tribunal refuses such leave, the decision will be sent to the Secretary of State who will forward it to the applicant and his representative at a time of his own choosing.
No time limit is laid down within which the Secretary of State has to forward the decision in either case, presumably so that he has plenty of time to formulate removal directions and serve them on the appellant at the same time as he receives the adjudicator's or tribunal's decision, thus allowing him to be taken into custody immediately. Will the Minister confirm that that is how the procedure will operate? It is not clear from the rules or the press release, which was issued by the Minister's department.
A solicitor sent me an e-mail to ask:
"Where is the impartiality and fairness of a judicial system which gives its decisions to one party only, for its own administrative convenience?".
The noble Baroness will be aware that the Law Society is critical of both the absence of a time limit, which it says is
"extremely prejudicial to the appellant"
and of the simultaneous delivery of the adjudicator's decision and the removal directions, which could nullify legitimate legal remedy against removal.

157
The Immigration Law Practitioners' Association says that it is aware of no other area of litigation where one party has no right to be told direct by the court or tribunal whether or not he has been successful. The Refugee Legal Centre makes the same point.
Why did the Government make that change to the rules? It was not proposed in the consultation paper on appeals which was issued last summer; it was sneaked in over the Christmas Recess, which suggests that the Government want to minimise discussion. The Home Secretary's press release states that it is to prevent asylum seekers from
"having a head start in knowing what the decision is, and if it is unfavourable, being able to disappear".
He added that it would contribute to
"getting a grip of the removals process, and will ensure that those who, having exhausted the appeals system, have no right to remain, actually do leave the country".
In other words, snatch squads will descend on appellants, bundling them and their families off to Harmondsworth or Tinsley House before they are even aware of the adjudicator's decision. They will have no chance to obtain legal advice on whether it might be possible to seek judicial review of the decision. I asked the Government how many asylum seekers who had exhausted their rights of appeal last year obtained leave to seek judicial review. That question has not yet been answered, but there are many such cases. No statistics are kept, and I hope that the Minister will say on what information the Government decided that it was necessary to introduce the rules separately from other reforms being made to the appeals system.
Will everybody who is certified and loses at the adjudicator or tribunal stage be detained? How long will such people be detained? If the time is short, they may not have time to consult their lawyers. If the time is long, that will be against the Government's declared policy of keeping people in custody for the minimum length of time.
There may be people who, although they have no legal right to remain, deserve consideration on humanitarian grounds. An example is the ethnic Albanian family on whose behalf it was argued in the High Court that because the wife had been raped in public, it was unreasonable to expect the family to return to Kosovo. The adjudicator said that the family's ordeal was the worst case he had heard in four years of experience. Mr Justice Turner, while refusing leave to appeal, suggested that an application should be made to the Secretary of State to exercise his discretion to allow the family to remain here indefinitely.
Had these rules applied, the case would probably not have reached the High Court. The chief executive of the Immigration Advisory Service, Mr Keith Best, has written to the Home Secretary saying that if removal directions are indeed served at the same time as the decision, rights that the appellant might still have will be nullified. Mr Best contradicts the
158
Government's assertion that in every case where the rules apply, the appellant will have exhausted all further rights of appeal.
Mr Best also thinks that there could be a right of appeal in certain circumstances, such as when the spouse or child of the appellant, having a separate locus under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, invokes the right to family life provision of Article 8 of the convention. Let us suppose, for instance, that the spouse has a serious accident after the hearing and needs indefinite care and treatment. It might then be unreasonable to expect the spouse to accompany the applicant back to the country of origin—a third world country, where no medical facilities or support exists for the severely disabled. That spouse might then be able to invoke Article 8. It is therefore not true that all the appellant's rights have been exhausted.
The UNHCR deputy representative says that judicial review may be
"the only channel by which the applicant may realise his entitlement to international protection",
for example, when relevant country of origin information is disregarded or not adequately reflected in the decision to refuse asylum.
He could have been referring to the recent experience that we had with Zimbabweans when the Minister was asked repeatedly to review cases that had already been decided, in the light of the crescendo of human rights' abuses in Zimbabwe as the election approaches. The Minister adamantly refused to consider our proposal and the individuals concerned would have had to rely on judicial review where that was possible, until suddenly one day the Secretary of State decided after all that it was unsafe to send anybody back to Zimbabwe.
In about half of the cases dealt with by the RLC since the 1999 Act came into force, the certificates have been overturned. Other agencies may not have had the same rate of success, and it must be acknowledged that the quality of representation is variable. When appellants are dispersed they may not be represented at all because of the difficulties of communication. The existing solicitor may give up the case when the client moves because of the distances involved, and it may be impossible to find a replacement in time. Thus it will be a matter of luck whether an asylum seeker is dealt with by the procedure of the order. For example, the IND habitually certifies eastern European Roma cases as manifestly unfounded, despite the huge amount of material on the violation of Roma rights. When Roma clients are competently represented, the certificates are often successfully challenged.
The people who abscond at the end of the asylum process present something of a problem. We would have agreed to discuss ways of reducing the number if the Government had decided to consult us, the voluntary agencies and the practitioners, as they normally do. First, we should like to know how long after the final decision the removal notice is generally served, and what proportion of notices cannot be served because, in the meanwhile, the person concerned has moved without giving any forwarding

159
address. Secondly, can the Minister tell the House how many people leave voluntarily when asked to do so? From this Friday, all new asylum applicants are to be issued with smart cards, as announced by the Home Secretary on 29th October last year. Will people who fail to report have their benefits suspended? Further, what will happen to the benefits of a person whose case is certified after an adverse decision is notified to the Secretary of State by the adjudicator?
These rules were produced quite separately from all other changes in the appeals system. They were not foreshadowed in the consultation paper issued last summer; they were sneaked in over the Christmas Recess. They deprive some asylum seekers and their representatives of the right to seek judicial review in circumstances where it has proved to be a necessary safeguard. I beg to move.
Moved. That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the rules, laid before the House on 17th December 2001, be annulled (S. I. 2001/4014).—(Lord Avebury.)
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am sure that the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for having raised the issue this evening. The noble Lord has a long, distinguished, and perhaps unrivalled career and history of commitment on these issues. He put the case with great clarity and gave the House a considerable amount of detail on the subject. It is, therefore, unnecessary for other speakers to repeat that ground. 1 should simply like to make a few brief points.
First, I should like to assure my noble friend the Minister that concern is not limited to noble Lords on the Benches opposite. There is concern on these Benches. We are aware of the more widespread anxiety among the people to whom the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred. I shall begin with one of the points that has been raised with me and one upon which it would be interesting to hear my friend's comments. The arrangements have already been put into practice before the time for challenging them has reached anything like a deadline. This is perceived as being unfortunate.
The second issue is one that has caused a good deal of consternation. In this very highly-charged area in terms of human well-being, emotions, psychological strain, and so on, it is important to have a very good relationship among the different people playing their part. I have in mind the legal profession, the advisers, the courts, the Government; and, indeed, the officials who have to carry out whatever may have been decided. Therefore, consultation and goodwill is crucial to achieving a civilised approach. Again, it would be helpful to hear from my noble friend why she believes there is so much feeling that there has not been anything like adequate consultation on what is obviously a very significant arrangement. I think that this is most unfortunate. I hope that my noble friend will find some way of reassuring us on this point tonight.
160
I have one further, simple point to make. When dealing with asylum, we are dealing with what is perhaps one of the most crucial issues in the whole realm of human rights. It is terribly important that justice not only be done, but that it should be seen to be done. However, to the best of our capabilities. we must also be confident about the decisions that are made. When this House debated the death penalty in the past, one of the issues quite properly raised was that of a mistake being made where capital punishment exists, with the impossibility of putting it right.
As someone who has for much of his life worked in realms not far from the issues under discussion this evening, I believe it is no exaggeration to say that. on occasion, we may be dealing with exactly such an issue. In that context, if there are any conceivable grounds whatever for challenging a decision—even at the 11th hour—and going over again what is involved in order to make absolutely certain that the rejection of a person's search for asylum is justified and right, it seems to me that that opportunity should he taken. It is, therefore, worrying that the new arrangements seem to some people to mean that irrevocable action may be taken before there has been a chance to exercise such a right. My noble friend's reassurance on those points would he most helpful.
I know that dealing with the whole business of asylum and the issue of migration is a very difficult task. I have a good deal of sympathy with my noble friend as regards the responsibilities involved. I am sure that my noble friend must be exasperated on occasion. It seems that everyone wants it both ways: they want clarity; they want firmness in everyone's interests; but when one tries to introduce clarity and firmness, people want more deliberation and discussion. Of course, there is a balance to be struck. However, on this particular issue, there is a real feeling that the balance has come down too far in terms of administrative convenience, or perhaps something a little more—dare I use the word in all friendliness?—sinister than administrative convenience. It is extremely important, therefore, that my noble friend the Minister should put our minds at ease on these issues. It may well be difficult to do so, but I believe that she should try to reassure the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, made one further important point—one that weighed heavily with me. If a matter is being handled judicially, surely it is the right of the person affected by the decision to feel confident that he is hearing from the judicial authorities as to why the decision has been made and what the possible implications may be. If there is to be an intervention by the executive, there will undoubtedly be anxieties and misgivings about what exactly is going on, and why. For all those reasons, I hope that my noble friend, who is a generous person, will agree that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was right to raise the issue, and that she will do her utmost to reassure people on these very deep and genuine anxieties.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest in that I have been a member of

161
the Immigration Appeal Tribunal for 16 years and have, therefore, seen the changes that have occurred with the number of asylum seekers increasing hugely over recent years. Although I do not always agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, he has made some very valid points tonight. I am grateful to him for enabling me to add my pennyworth. I can understand the frustration of Her Majesty's Government. I sometimes feel despondent when I have given careful, anxious and thorough scrutiny to a case, as I am required to do, while I know that it will go nowhere.
However, there are one or two fundamental questions. Can the Minister kindly tell the House how many attempted removals have been thwarted by the disappearance of the appellant in the past year? If, as I suspect, the number is not known, can the noble Baroness say what efforts have been made to quantify the problem that this piece of legislation is intended to remedy?
We all know that there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that large numbers of failed asylum seekers remain in the United Kingdom without permission. We are aware that the number of voluntary and forced removals combined bears little resemblance to the number of appeal refusals. There is not much point in this little piece of legislation if it is not going to produce results.
It is the duty of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal to apply the law as it is. This statutory instrument deals with an administrative process after the decision has been made. I am sure that the Minister understands that it does not affect the decision making process and that, while the staff of the Lord Chancellor's Department may be involved, the judiciary is not.
I still have some concerns about the rules—some of which have been clearly expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Avebury. We all know the adage that justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, expressed far more clearly than I can my unhappiness about the way in which the rules make arrangements for the determination of cases where appeals against refusals to recognise appellants as refugees have been dismissed or have been sent to the Secretary of State. That is not fair. No time limit is laid down between the date of receipt of the determination by the Secretary of State and the date before which it must be served upon the appellant. I understand that there is some kind of agreement between the Home Secretary and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that, if a determination has not been served within two months, the Immigration Appeal Tribunal will serve it by post. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would confirm that.
There are a number of "What if?" questions that need to be answered. What will happen if a determination rejecting an appeal is served by Home Office officials whose function is also to arrange for the removal of the appellant, where there is a possibility that the appellant may have the right to further recourse to the courts? Are removal directions to be served with the determination? Will the appellant
162
be taken into custody and given the opportunity to seek legal advice? Is the appellant's representative to be given the opportunity to be present when the notice is served? Is it the intention that the Home Office will employ additional staff to carry out this function? To put it mildly, the credibility rating of the Home Office in this field tends towards the low side, if not the very low side. If immigration officers are to do this job properly, they must be given the tools and the manpower.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, mentioned the lack of consultation. This has been a long-standing problem. Why is it suddenly being pushed in now? Has there been consultation, for example, with the Council on Tribunals? If there has, when did it take place and what was the process?
Finally, I make this plea. When a law is brought into force, copies of the legislation must be publicly available. This has not been the case with these rules and, more seriously, nor was it the case in the early days of the recent anti-terrorism Act. The Home Secretary had to be asked to produce a proof copy to the deputy president of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal so that he could set up a bail hearing for someone who had been arrested under the terms of the Act. He was told that he must not divulge the contents of the proof copy to anyone. That is not satisfactory. There needs to be co-ordination between the Stationery Office and the department producing the legislation, so that when an Act or a regulation comes into force it is publicly available.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, your Lordships might have some slight sympathy with the Government in their desire to speed up deportations of asylum seekers whose cases have failed. I might possibly share that sympathy to some extent. However, I do not think that sympathy is what we are being called on to express in this debate. The Government have to listen seriously to the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association, which has pointed out that these rules were produced without consultation. It goes on to say that they are wrong in principle and unworkable in practice.
Some of us who have laboured through a whole series of immigration and asylum Bills have been saying for some time that what needs to be got right is the quality of the initial decision. Many components go into the quality of the initial decision. I shall mention only a few. One is the availability of interpreters for people who have no English or very limited English. An interpreter has to be the kind of person who can enter into the state of mind of an asylum seeker who may have travelled many hundreds of thousands of miles to get here.
Another important factor is the quality of the background information on the country of origin of the person in question. For example, what are, in practice, the risks of torture if that person is returned to where he started from?
A third, highly important factor is the availability of legal advice to the applicant. Applicants cannot be assumed to understand British law, let alone the

163
workings and practice of the British immigration and asylum process. The rules assume that the applicant may not have a legal adviser. Even if he is fortunate enough to have one, he may be removed so quickly that he will not have access to deal with the latest refusal.
I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that the rules are likely to have a serious effect on those cases where emergency leave to remain is normally granted. Perhaps I may quote a comment by the London representative of the UN High Commissioner. He points out that it is essential to,
"determine whether the applicant has benefited from 'fair and effective procedures for determining status and protection needs—.
The term "protection needs" is precisely what we understand by "exceptional leave to remain". So the rules call into question the whole application of due process to any particular case.
I therefore join with and support the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in urging the Government to consult fully and, in the case of this specific measure, to think again.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, to begin on a more positive note, I think we are all relieved that the Home Office is reducing the backlog of asylum applications and is getting nearer to a coherent policy. Some of the had law has been cleared away and we are all looking forward to the White Paper next month.
However. the events of 1 1 th September have not given any greater security to genuine asylum seekers—rather the reverse. There are many people who suspect that the Government are clamping down on asylum seekers or are about to. Here we have amendments to the asylum rules which have caused a great deal of concern among the agencies which know about refugees. We all want illegal immigrants to be removed, but not without the proper safeguards that we would give to our citizens.
The accelerated procedures were reviewed and criticised by the European Union Committee of this House in March. The committee said that they were no substitute for good decisions. It even doubted whether they had any place in the EU directive. The Select Committee on delegated legislation is to examine the matter tomorrow afternoon.
The only challenge to certification is judicial review, which may now be undermined. While it is important for manifestly unfounded cases to be identified speedily and for people to be removed before they are able to abscond, it is equally imperative that asylum seekers have the benefit of legal advice throughout the legal process.
Until now, the Immigration Appellate Authority has informed both parties of the decision to an appeal. But under the amended rules, the IAA's decision goes principally to the Secretary of State and may only reach the appellant some time later. Thus the Home Office may he able to take steps to remove the asylum seeker even before he or she has heard the decision. Surely any such action would be contrary to undertakings given by the Home Office in the recent
164
cases of Pardeepan and Kumarakuruparan. At what stage under the new rules would the Home Office inform the asylum seeker's legal representative? Do the rules also apply to those who are not at risk of absconding?
Finally, if an asylum seeker reasonably decides to take legal advice following a negative decision, can the Home Office improve on its present timetable of reporting both initial decisions and appeals? I can see what the Government are worried about. There are too many unfounded cases, and applicants may disappear. But at present the process can take months. It is surely unfair to spring a decision on a family and proceed immediately to removal before any time has elapsed. I know that that is not the intention, but it may be the result.
Some have asked for a personal guarantee from the Secretary of State that no one will he removed within an agreed period after the determination, but it would be far better if the Home Office could rethink the implementation, workability and natural justice of the amended rules.
8 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I have great respect for the immigration Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on the Front Bench and for the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, who I believe is going to respond to the debate.
I had a great many more cases in the last Parliament than I had ever had before—perhaps because of the silence of the Home Office in responding to many of them. I pay tribute to the Minister for the manner in which cases are being cleared up. I am grateful to him for the way in which he has responded to a lot of cases that I have raised with him in this Parliament that dated back to the previous Parliament.
I shall dwell for a moment on the circumstances of the case to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred. I remember a deportation case involving a Lebanese several years ago that came to me just before Christmas. Cynics might say that the timing of the deportation case had some of the characteristics that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to with regard to the timing of the order. There were certainly those who thought that that might be so. It was a complicated case that totally took over my time a nd that of my secretary in the run-up to Christmas, which is a busy period, but we got in a massive submission to the Minister's office. One of the minor rewards was that the private secretary in the Minister's office with whom we were directly liaising spoke warmly about the amount of work that had gone into it and the quality of the manner in which it was set out.
The decision was upheld, but the individual then disappeared immediately after Christmas when they were supposed to be at Heathrow. That is incredibly frustrating for everybody concerned. I freely acknowledge that it is frustrating for the Government as well. It was frustrating in a modest way for me and for my secretary, but our time had been freely given, so we had to write it off to experience. I certainly would

165
not want to weigh that frustration against the rights of those who come to parliamentarians—I choose that word deliberately to embrace both Houses—with their cases.
It is tragic that those who disappear—who presumably underlie the order—potentially queer the pitch for so many others by the atmosphere that they create. I understand the Government's frustration. I might even be prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt in the circumstances, but, just as it is helpful when making umpiring decisions in cricket to be able to see a replay of what occurred, I think that on this occasion, not least because of the eloquence with which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, spoke, the Government owe the House a full and clear picture of why the provisions were brought in, and in particular why they were introduced in such a manner.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, will be responding to the debate. She has an excellent record on human rights issues and I hope that she will see the reasonableness of our case. She need not worry about the Minister from the Home Office who is sitting next to her. His often tough pronouncements on immigration and asylum issues are probably meant much more for the press. His personal actions on cases that are referred to him often display many humanitarian considerations.
I also thank the noble Countess, Lady Mar, for her contribution. She has first-hand experience on immigration appeals and her concerns must be taken very seriously.
I am delighted to support my noble friend Lord Avebury in proposing that the rules laid before the House on 17th December be annulled. A number of noble Lords have already pointed out some serious issues of concern. We are told that the change is necessary to deal with potential absconders. No one underestimates the Home Office's concern about applicants who may vanish once they know that their appeal has been unsuccessful. However, the Home Secretary has a quasi-judicial function and he cannot and should not be allowed to act as judge and jury in a matter where legal process has not been exhausted. In his rush to reach the target set for deporting applicants, the removal directions have been set at the same time as the notification. In reality, that prevents applicants exercising their legal rights by nullifying any further legitimate application by the appellant on other grounds, such as whether any provisions of the Human Rights Act have been breached or whether there is a change in circumstances in either the appellant or the country to which the appellant would be removed that might prevent the enforcement of removal directions.
Let me make it clear that we have no dispute with deportation orders taking place if all legal procedures have been followed. That is what Parliament intended. However, any procedure short of that takes away the independence of the judiciary and places the matters
166
squarely in the hands of the Secretary of State. That is not what Parliament intended. My noble friend's Prayer is designed to prevent that.
Other matters of serious concern have been highlighted during the debate. The rules were laid before Parliament just before the Christmas Recess, on 17th December, and came into force on 7th January. During that time your Lordships' House sat for only five days. The rest of that time was the Christmas Recess. That did not give enough time for consultation. Almost all immigration and asylum organisations have complained about that haste.
Last week, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, whether there were any legal means by which an applicant could enter the United Kingdom and make an application for asylum. The Minister was bold enough to say "No". Of course, we all know that that is the state of play today. We have created conditions that make our signature to the 1951 UN convention on refugees a charade. If a person cannot enter the country or is prevented from doing so, what good is a convention, which is designed to protect those who are victims of persecution?
I well understand the Minister's anxiety about those who are economic migrants, who do not qualify under the 1951 convention, but the Government make the laws and they have no right to circumvent an individual's access to law if that is provided for in statute.
Consider the cases of asylum applicants from Zimbabwe. Was it not the pressure from Parliament and my noble friend that made the Home Office rethink its policy of deportation? Surely even after the certification that a claim is without foundation, the situation may change rapidly and therefore such certification does not mean that a claim is without basis. It is a fallacy that all certified claims are "manifestly unfounded". There is a risk that people will be returned home to face persecution. We need to abide by the safeguards that the law already provides.
If my noble friend Lord Avebury had not protested so loudly, and had the Government not changed their stance, the only way of challenging refusal in such cases—and in cases in which there is no certification in force and the tribunal has refused leave to appeal—would be to apply for a judicial review in the High Court.
Before this order, decisions were sent to the appellant and his representative as well as to the Home Office as soon as they had been made. Now there is to be a fundamental change. The outcome of such appeals will be sent only to the Home Office. It will be up to the Home Office to inform the appellant of the outcome at a time and place of its choosing.
The reason offered by the Government is that the new measures will contribute towards improved enforcement of asylum appeal decisions, while upholding the independence of the Immigration Appellate Authority. That is utter nonsense. The crux of the matter is that it is to enable the Home Office to

167
deliver negative appeal decisions if the appellant has exhausted all rights of future appeal. Does that include a judicial review at the end of the appeal process?
Many of us were disturbed by a recent documentary about the immigration snatch squad. I was horrified that the Home Office was prepared to expose the identity of individuals in full view of television cameras. We would not allow such treatment in respect of those against whom a criminal conviction was pending. In this case, however, we are talking about asylum seekers who have committed no crime at all. The snatch squads would use their powers to deport and thus deny access to further legal process even if that were requested, and the applicant or his legal representatives would have no time to digest the decision on which the snatch squads acted.
Although the accountability of snatch squads is a serious concern, it is a separate issue that we shall take up in due course. In this debate, there are other concerns on which we need ministerial clarification.
Some asylum seekers are unable to appeal to the IAT, and many of them are not regarded as possible absconders. They, too, will find that their decisions have been sent to the Home Office. Will the Minister explain why the rules cover those who are not deemed to be at risk of absconding? Can she explain whether any precedent places a requirement on the IAA to inform one side but not the other of the result of the procedure? It is like a judge or a magistrate informing the police of a decision without the defendant being aware of it. The first time an appellant discovers the outcome of his case would probably be on the way to the airport, too late for any further legal process. Is that consistent with the protection of Article 6 of the ECHR? Will the Minister confirm that the rules do not breach that provision?
Will the Minister explain how and at what stage unrepresented failed appellants will be allowed to contact a legal adviser? What criteria will be used to determine which failed appellants are likely to abscond? Do the Government have any plans to establish a complaints machinery similar to the Police Complaints Authority so that there is proper accountability of the snatch squads' work'? I ask your Lordships to cast back your minds to the case of Joy Gardner which resulted in street riots in Tottenham. Surely, there is a real danger that such a situation may arise if decisions are taken but appellants are not even sure why the Home Office has ordered their removal.
My noble friend Lord Avebury, with his vast experience in human rights, has rightly challenged the Government on the rules. I look forward to the Minister's explanation with great interest.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I cannot but feel that everyone involved in this debate, whether they are advocating the solution advanced by the Government or the case in favour of asylum seekers, is in the same position: we are all between a rock and a hard place. The fact is that this country's record on asylum seekers has been, and remains, remarkably good. Of course,
168
within that good record there are occasional tragic errors. It is absolutely right that everyone should be properly concerned about those errors and seek every means by which they can be eliminated.
It is, however, also the fact that the number of asylum seekers has increased dramatically in recent times. It is also the fact that the number of those who have gone through the clue process and failed to have asylum granted is not matched by the number of those leaving the country. That is a very difficult dilemma to deal with. Tragically, those who escape the system prejudice the whole system for those who have a legitimate case and ought to remain. I think that the empirical evidence would suggest that there are far too many people in that category and that they sadly outweigh the failures of the system, if failures there be. That is the reality that we are dealing with.
I do not think that anyone takes any pleasure from the situation in relation to Zimbabwe. The Government were rather slow in acting on a case in which it was quite obvious that we were dealing with a government who had gone seriously astray and in which the rule of law as we understand it in European terms had completely broken down.
There was movement in that direction, but there has also been movement in another direction. Although I would be the first to acknowledge that there are still severe questions about the state of affairs in Afghanistan, there is marked improvement there. How is it possible to make the judgment in respect of asylum applicants from Afghanistan who have come here in tragic circumstances, as the result of a regime that no longer exists? I agree that there are question marks over the stability of the new regime there. But are we to say, as we very easily could, that we have no confidence in so much work that is being done by so many people from this country—I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for his part in this—and from America and the United Nations? They have tried to rectify a tragic situation. If we are saying that, should we acknowledge it?
The fact is that hard cases make bad law, and we have seen many hard cases. However, the generality of the law has been good. I echo particularly those who ask the Government whether the appeals mechanisms are satisfactory. The purpose of serving appeals notices in person on an applicant is to prevent his disappearance. If that meant that someone was to be immediately whistled off and put on an aeroplane when he had further legal recourse that he ought to have used, it would be wrong.
So the credible question is on the detail of how the new rules will work. That is the appropriate question to ask the Government at this stage. As only the Government can answer it, having asked it I shall sit down.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for giving us this opportunity to discuss the important points that he has raised. I was not surprised to see that

169
my noble friend Lord Judd has been joined in the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville. I think that we are all old friends and have been on this journey many times. I should like particularly to thank the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for his kind comments, and for the sting that he always brings with them. I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, for his questions and implicit support.
The moral, legal and practical anxieties that have been ventilated in this debate are very well understood by the Government. A balance has to be struck between improving the lot of those who should and must benefit from the asylum that our country rightly gives, and those who seek to abuse the system and take adventitious and improper advantage of the benefits that asylum brings. I think that no noble Lord has failed to emphasise that point, and rightly so. But, as noble Lords know, being just means that when it is right to do so we must be able to say no. I know that for many of us—I do not exclude myself from this group—that is a word we find difficult to say. I do not suggest that we should say it precipitately or ill advisedly. However, we have to separate and protect the sheep from the wolves. The mechanism which the rules provide may assist us to do that.
Many noble Lords, not least my noble friend Lord Judd and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, asked what happens if a tribunal or an adjudicator gets it wrong and there are further or other issues which should properly be taken into account. I reassure the House that we have the comfort of the availability of proper, robust legal advice and an avenue through judicial review, if the grounds are there to support it, at the disposal of the failed asylum seeker through which such decisions can be reviewed. I reassure noble Lords that there will be no worrying irrevocable step to be taken in that regard. I hope that my noble friend Lord Judd will particularly welcome that statement.
We believe that we have achieved the correct balance. The policy forms part of our wider reforms to the asylum system. Our aim is a fair and efficient system to integrate genuine refugees into society swiftly and to remove without delay those who fail to gain asylum. Everyone will continue to have a fair opportunity to put forward his or her claim, however weak or strong it may be. The measure contributes towards the developing strategy for maintaining contact with asylum seekers by means of initial briefing and reporting at accommodation centres, reporting centres or police stations as part of the asylum support arrangements. All those measures together will help to ensure that asylum seekers fully engage in the consideration of their claim.
A number of noble Lords asked about implementation. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, suggested that the rules were "sneaked in" over the Christmas Recess. I believe that that comment was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. I believe
170
that it was also echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. I by no means wish to leave him out of that illustrious company. I reassure the noble Lord that the rules were introduced under the ordinary parliamentary procedure for this kind of statutory instrument. They were published by the Stationery Office shortly before they were due to come into force. At the same time they were made available on the Internet. A press release was issued as soon as they came into force and before that, before Christmas, the next day after they were laid before Parliament, copies were sent to organisations with an interest in immigration issues. No decisions could be sent to the Home Office for delivery until the rules came into force. I reassure noble Lords that in reality no one could possibly have been affected by the new rules until all those with a recognised interest in these issues had had time to assess them.
We had a consultation process. There was consultation with the Council on Tribunals. A draft of the rules was sent to it on 28th November. It was asked to comment by the end of the week and it did so by letter received on 30th November. We replied. There was also consultation with the chief adjudicator and the president of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.
The implementation of the new method of delivering appeal decisions in person will happen gradually. Initially, only a small number of decisions will be served personally on asylum seekers, limited to four geographical locations. I reassure noble Lords that there will be a full evaluation of the policy in March to ensure that the scheme is working fairly in every case. I reassure the noble Countess, Lady Mar, that we agree that to be successful that process must be effective.
The Government understand the concerns that legal proceedings must be fair, and must be seen to be fair. That refrain echoed around the House. The courts, including the European Court of Human Rights, rightly attach importance to the perspective of the person who loses. But that person's perspective is not the only one to accommodate. Fairness is an objective concept, not a subjective one.
If the Government permit a judgment to be evaded or frustrated by another individual, or by the state, that would constitute a violation of the successful party's fundamental right to a judgment that was effective and not nugatory. Inherent in the law of human rights is the search for a fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights. Those are not my words but the words of the European Court of Human Rights.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, among many others, rightly asked me to confirm how the procedure is intended to operate. That point was echoed by a number of noble Lords. The effect of the new rules is that where, and only where, no further appeal lies from the decision of an adjudicator to dismiss an appeal under rule 15, or from a decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal to refuse leave to

171
appeal under rule 18, the notice of that decision will be delivered by the Home Office. Delivery may be by post or in person. In either case delivery will be prompt. Decisions to be posted are dispatched within two clays. Decisions to be delivered in person will be delivered within two weeks whenever possible. Legal representatives will be notified within 24 hours of a decision being served. It is intended if possible that they will be sent notification by fax as opposed to by post. I hope that that deals with the question of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich.
The changes make no difference whatsoever to the conduct of cases before the adjudicator or the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. I am happy to be able to confirm that as I know that it is something the noble Countess, Lady Mar, was rightly anxious to underline. An asylum seeker will have exactly the same opportunities as now to present his or her case.
I was also asked about the Immigration Appellate Authority, whether decisions will be served after two months and what will happen if the Home Office fails to do so. The Home Office must tell the appellate authority when and how it has delivered the decisions. The rules require that. The appellate authority will chase the Home Office. We know how efficient the appellate authority can he in that regard. If it does not receive notification within six weeks that the decision has been delivered, it will be able to follow that up. The appellate authority will keep chasing the Home Office until the decision is delivered, but it will not send it out itself.
The changes make no difference to the availability of review by the chief adjudicator under rule 16 or by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal under rule 19. The changes make no difference to the availability of judicial review. If an unsuccessful asylum seeker is applying for judicial review to the High Court, the Home Office will not remove that person from the United Kingdom for at least three days to allow the application to be made. The Administrative Court Office will accept the application by fax. If an application for judicial review is made, the Home Office will not remove the applicant from the United Kingdom until that application is determined. We have an assurance.
If the unsuccessful asylum seeker is detained, he or she is given an effective opportunity to take legal advice. Telephone calls may be paid for and details of the Immigration Advisory Service and of the Refugee Legal Centre are displayed in a number of languages in all removal centres. All of that will continue to be the case.
The new rules give the Home Office no unfair advantage. They deprive no one of the opportunity to apply for a chief adjudicator's or appeal tribunal review. They deprive no one of the opportunity to apply for a judicial review. They deprive no one of the opportunity to take legal advice. The only opportunity of which anyone is deprived by the new rules is the opportunity to evade or frustrate the carrying into effect of the judicial decision in their case. And no one has a fundamental right to frustrate justice.
172
I thank noble Lords for the way in which they have expressed their understanding of the need to distinguish between the valid asylum seeker and those who seek to abuse the system. That is an important distinction that we must all rightfully bear in mind.
The Government accept —I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, on this point—the current legal position. As the noble Lord knows, that position is that immigration cases do not engage Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights: that is., the right to a fair trial. That has been the judgment of English and Scottish courts, and of the European Court of Human Rights. But the Government willingly accept that those seeking asylum are as much entitled as any other litigant to the standards of fairness that the common law requires.
In other legal proceedings, it has for many years been the case that where a court order might be frustrated by its recipient, the applicant can apply for the order, and then can enforce it, without giving the recipient advance notice. No one has yet successfully alleged that that procedure compromises the independence or impartiality of the court, or violates anyone's fundamental rights, even where the order is in favour of the government. It is true that in each of the cases where that has been found, the recipient has the chance to have the order reviewed by a court under some procedure or another. But what we are doing here is exactly the same in this regard. It is true of instances where there is an exception and it is true in this case, too.
Under these new rules, the unsuccessful asylum seeker will not receive a mere statement of the failure of his or her appeal. Just as now, the decision delivered will be the reasoned judgment of the adjudicator or of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. That is itself an essential ingredient of fairness, because only if adequate reasons for a judgment are disclosed can the parties—and the public—understand why it was given. Only if adequate reasons for a judgment are disclosed can the unsuccessful party formulate a reasoned challenge if he or she wishes. Those fundamental rights are wholly untouched by the new rules.
I well understand the visceral reaction that to allow one party to a dispute to know the outcome before the other must be unfair. However, I reassure noble Lords that there is here no such disadvantage or unfairness. In a case involving a Belgian court fully 30 years ago, the European Court of Human Rights commented on the perceived unfairness in a case. It said:
"If one refers to the dictum 'justice must not only be done; it must also be seen to be done', these considerations may allow doubts to arise about the satisfactory nature of the system in dispute. They do not, however, amount to proof of a violation of the right to a fair hearing. Looking behind appearances. the Court does not find the realities of the situation to be in any way in conflict with this right".
I think and hope that when noble Lords have an opportunity to consider how the rules will operate, they will adopt the same position as the Court of Human Rights did in that case. I hope that they will be able to say, "In truth, there is no disadvantage, no

173
matter what the perception may originally have been". We argue—and argue strongly—that the rules do not subvert justice; but in fact, if properly looked at, they may very well sustain it.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, it only remains for me to thank most warmly all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. In particular, I thank the Minister for the careful and extremely thorough explanation that she gave of the way in which the procedures will work. That has reassured noble Lords to some extent.
However, the views of the agencies have been echoed in all quarters of the House; they are that the procedure is not satisfactory. We shall watch extremely carefully how it will work in practice. I was extremely glad to hear the Minister say that at the beginning the arrangement will be tried experimentally in four geographical areas and that there will be a review in March. I hope that the Minister will report to noble Lords in March on what the experience has been of the experiment, so that we can express an opinion on whether the procedures are satisfactory or need to be revised.
The Minister said that the rules are part of the wider reform of the appeals system. I still wonder why on earth it was necessary to rush them through in the way in which that was done. She brushed aside the concern that was expressed by several noble Lords; namely, that the rules were pushed through during the Christmas Recess. The fact is that they came into operation on 7th January, which was the day before noble Lords came back from the recess. There was therefore no satisfactory opportunity for us to consider the rules before they became law. That is the position.
The Minister said that there had been consultations. She mentioned that the draft was sent to the Council on Tribunals and that it had replied. I also believe that the chief adjudicator was a recipient of the draft at the same time. Would the Minister be kind enough to say whether the draft that was presented and the comments that were made on it could be placed in the Library of your Lordships' House? Does she accept that consultations at that level are no substitute for the involvement of the whole refugee community? I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who said that it was extremely important to have good relations between all those concerned. That does not mean simply those on one side of the fence, such as the adjudicators and the tribunal; it also includes those acting on behalf of the appellant. They were not given the opportunity to enter into the consultations.
If I understood the Minister correctly, she said that the decisions of the adjudicator would be served on the appellant within two weeks. In the case of tribunals, if decisions were not served within six weeks, the tribunals would want to know why. There seems to be a fundamental difference in the two cases that are set out in the rules. In the first set of cases—those that are dealt with by the adjudicator—the appellant will not have very long to wait. However, in the other cases, the
174
appellant may wait six weeks—or it may be such longer period of time as the tribunal is prepared to tolerate.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I make it clear—I hope that this helps the noble Lord—that it is our intention that the decisions will be served as soon as is reasonably practicable. As I said in my earlier response to the noble Lord, very few such cases are likely to be subject to the new procedure. We shall monitor how quickly the procedure can be carried out. I reassure the noble Lord that the estimates that we are currently giving are simply estimates, because the procedure has not yet been tried. I also reassure noble Lords that we shall seek to place the necessary documents in the Library.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for that assurance. But I have to warn her that I do not believe that the agencies will be wholly satisfied with what she said about the time limits. I believe that many of them would like the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department to have a fixed time within which to serve the notices instead of it being a matter of "suck it and see"; that is, "Wait to see what happens in the experiment and then we'll come back to you".
Finally, I want to take up the point that the noble Baroness made in relation to the three-day period. That seems to be a very short time within which the appellant—if he is taken into custody as a result of this process—must claim legal advice on further action by way of judicial review. Let us imagine that he is waiting to hear the outcome of his application to the adjudicator or tribunal. The first that he knows of it is when, as we said, the snatch squad descends and takes him, and perhaps the whole of his family, to Harmsworth. I did not ask the noble Baroness about that issue. What will the procedure be when it is not only a question of an individual but of the whole of his family which resides with him? Will they be taken into custody at the same time?
As I understood the Minister, having been taken to Harmsworth, Trinity House or wherever, the appellant then has only three days in which to contact his lawyer to discuss whether or not there are grounds on which judicial review can be sought. That seems to me to be a very short time. I am not a lawyer, but I believe that the agencies may have something to say on the matter.
Obviously, as a result of this debate we know a great deal more about the procedure and I am enormously grateful to the noble Baroness for that. I believe that she will find that after this evening there will be further communications between the agencies and the Lord Chancellor's Department and even perhaps with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who we are very glad to see sitting beside her on the Bench. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

State Pension Credit Bill [H.L.]
8.42 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 15.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 9, line 18, at end insert—
"( ) For the purposes of this Act, a person's earnings shall not include any income arising from rent or the release of equity in a person's principal place of residence.".
The noble Lord said: With this amendment we come back to the questions that we were discussing before we adjourned with regard to other income and other assets. I do not suppose that the amendment is by any means perfectly drafted. But I should like to explore the Government's intentions on this matter because it is an issue that may well affect a number of potential recipients of the pension credit.
The people to whom I refer are those with modest earnings who have taken advantage of the right-to-buy legislation and have probably now paid off their mortgage. They therefore have an unencumbered capital asset in the shape of their home, disposal of which is, of course, capital gains tax-free. Therefore, when the Minister referred to an unlevel playing field in the treatment of savings, this is another area where there has already been quite a tilt towards a particular asset.
It is likely that such people will wish to remain in their homes in their old age. Their home may be in an area with which they are familiar, where their friends are around them and where there are social facilities that they understand. But, bearing in mind their overall wealth, they may wish to use that asset to extract value from it. There are clearly several ways in which they could do so: they may wish to receive rental income from renting out a room to a student or someone who is temporarily residing in the area where they live; they may wish to enhance their standard of living by releasing part of the equity of the house—there are building societies that offer that particular facility; or they may wish to raise a loan taken out against the home by means of a mortgage which will be repaid after their death either by selling the house or by their heirs paying off the mortgage.
I am anxious to find out from the Government where that capital asset and the potential income that flows from it, some of which may be lumpy in the shape of equity release and some of which may be a stream of income in the shape of rental income, fits into this proposal. I look forward to hearing the Government's response. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes: I rise to support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Hodgson. The treatment of homes is clearly significant. It represents the major capital asset for the vast majority of pensioners. My noble friend's amendment refers to excluding certain forms of income from earnings, although I believe that he had in mind a broader definition of income for that purpose. My concern
176
would be to ensure that the kind of income or gains of which he spoke would be excluded. Perhaps I may ask the Minister to confirm that the value of the capital asset—the home—is not included in the capital for these purposes and, in particular, not for deemed income calculations.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As I understand the noble Baroness's last question, the principal residence—a home—is not included at any point; nor are what I would call "personal chattels". such as furniture, fixtures, a car and such other items. The use of some capital to buy a replacement car, and so on, would also be exempt from any problems in this regard. I believe that that is a sensible definition which, I hope, will be of help.
Amendment No. 86 asks that we do not treat as earnings income arising from rent or from the release of equity in a pensioner's principal place of residence. As the noble Baroness said, such forms of income would not, in any case, normally be treated as earnings. However, I am sure that it would be more helpful to the Committee if we dealt with the intention behind the amendment, which, I suspect, was to probe our proposed treatment of such income streams.
Currently fewer than 5,000 pensioners who claim MIG also receive income arising from rent in a pensioner's principal place of residence; in other words, from boarders or lodgers. Such income is riot defined or treated as earnings. Those pensioners benefit from varying levels of disregard depending upon the terms of their boarding or sub-letting arrangement. A disregard of £4 or £13.55 per week is applied for lettings without board—the level of disregard depends on whether heating costs are covered in the charge—and a weekly disregard of £20 is applied for lettings with board.
This is a complex area and we intend to cover in regulations the detail of the level of future disregards. We are seeking to simplify the rules as they currently stand. It is estimated that just under 10,000 pensioner households entitled to pension credit—unlike the 5,000 who receive MIG—will have income from boarders or lodgers. I can assure the noble Lord that the new rules that we introduce for this income stream will be at least as generous in all cases as those currently in place in relation to MIG.
I turn to the second issue concerning equity release schemes whereby a pensioner sells all or part of his home for an annuity and retains the right to live in the home for the rest of his life. Such schemes can be used to provide additional income in retirement to supplement pensions or to pay for long-term care or home repairs. The home is the largest investment for many pensioners and some plan to use it as a source of income in retirement.
We intend that under pension credit the capital available from an equity release scheme will be treated as are any other savings or capital holdings used to provide income in retirement. Such capital will be taken into account in the income assessment for the purposes of determining entitlement to the guarantee credit and rewarded in the savings credit.

177
In common with many of the other income streams that we have discussed in relation to Clause 15, our policy on equity release schemes aims to strike a balance between reforming the capital rules so that they are fair and simple and avoiding destabilising the personal finance market by incentivising one form of providing for retirement above others. This is "level playing field" stuff. If we were to treat income from equity release schemes more favourably than other forms of capital—by disregarding such income, for example—the result would be to increase the incentives to take out equity release schemes. Such a policy would treat home owners more favourably than other pensioners at an estimated cost of £25 million.
Pensioners can derive income from their principal residence by renting out rooms to lodgers or boarders or by taking out an equity release scheme on the value of their home. As we develop further the detailed treatment of different forms of income within the pension credit regulations, we shall no doubt revisit these issues. However, I hope the noble Lord is reassured that we are committed to treating pensions with such income streams with fairness and increased simplicity. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am grateful to the Minister. One matter on which I am not clear concerns equity release. If one had no savings other than a principal sum released from one's home, over and above the £6,500, which is free, the rest will have a deemed income stream of 10 per cent attached to it. Am I right in thinking that?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am not sure where the noble Lord is coming from. If the equity release scheme provides an income flow analogous to an annuity, or something like it, it will be treated in that sort of form. The read across is to income flows not capital, and therefore to notional income derived from capital for these purposes. After all, someone could take an equity release scheme for 25 per cent, 50 per cent or 75 per cent of the value of house, depending on the person's age and so forth. I believe that that should be treated as income in a similar way to other forms of retirement pension income.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: It is just that that equity release does not have to take the form of annuity. An equity release can take the form of a capital sum, which may be used in any way one wishes. It does not have to be put into a savings instrument carrying a fixed return. It can be just a capital sum, for instance, a mortgage, out of which one has a capital sum which can subsequently be deployed. Let us suppose that that sum was £20,000, for whatever reason, and one had no other savings. Would £19,000 therefore carry a £1,900 pension savings credit?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My understanding is that if there were no other savings, and we are talking of a lump sum, that would be the case. If I am wrong on that, I shall write to the noble Lord.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Before the Minister sits down I wonder whether she could answer a question I have. A number of financial services providers have been putting home income plans on the market with a view to attracting pensioners who have a property but a very low income, and persuading them that they can add to their income through a home income plan. I take it that income from a home income plan will be covered by what the noble Baroness has just said?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, that is my understanding.
Baroness Barker: Before the Minister sits down, one of the purposes for which people use equity release is in the repair of property. If equity was released for that purpose, presumably it would not be taken into account? I refer to calling down small amounts of money in order to make capital repairs.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not know. Perhaps I may follow that through. I cannot see how that would fit into any obvious policy point with which I am familiar. Perhaps I may check on that. The read across to capital is where one has capital because it has come as a lump sum. If some of that capital is used for purposes which you and I would regard as perfectly sensible, in other words, one is not getting rid of that capital by divesting it in order to increase one's pensioner credit—for example, by buying a replacement car or replacement furniture and probably, but I shall check, repairing one's home—that would then be acceptable. That would not be regarded as divesting oneself of capital which one has perfectly properly drawn down from one's property. However, if that is not the case, I shall write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. We have had a useful exploration of this topic. As I said, this is a probing amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Barker Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 9, line 18, at end insert—
"( ) For the purposes of this Act, a person's income shall exclude royalties, up to a maximum of £1,000 per year."
The noble Baroness said: All the amendments we have discussed so far on the subject of earnings have, by and large, dealt with income which is either predictable or within the control of the person who receives the benefit. Amendment No. 87 is a probing amendment to raise the issue for when the department considers what will be done about the minority of pensioners—I accept it is a minority—who are receiving small amounts of unpredictable income.
I imagine that the noble Baroness will say that the five-year assessed income period will deal with many such problems. Indeed, it will. The torment of people who receive small amounts from books which, by

179
definition, were not terribly popular but generate enough to put them over a weekly limit, is well known to people who deal with benefits.
This is a way of saying that there are a number of such small oddities. There may be a number of pensioners who receive income over which they have no control. Can the Minister say whether such issues will he taken into account in the consideration of what will be considered as earnings?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Along with polygamy, Amendment No. 87 takes the prize for the most ingenious amendment, or the one most coming in from offside.
Amendment No. 87 proposes a £1,000 annual disregard on income from royalties, which is equivalent to a weekly disregard of £ 18. In discussing Clause 15 and the sequence of amendments we have had, I have been trying as far as I can to share with noble Lords as much of the detail of the regulations concerning what income streams will and will not be taken into account. I understand the problem we are in where I cannot lay out a tidy shopping list of regulations. However, there are still certain infrequent or less common forms of income on which we have yet to make a firm policy decision as to how, if at all. we take them into account. Income from royalties is one such area. I have to say, frankly, that until I saw the amendment it did not occur to me to consider how to deal with a book seven years down the line when one is back down to receiving £220 per year royalties.
According to the family resources survey, there are currently some 26,000 people over the age of 60 with some income from royalties. Of those, around half have royalties below the suggested limit of £1,000 per year. Although it was not mentioned by the noble Baroness, perhaps we should consider, almost in the same breath, how public lending rights are treated, which are analogous. I am thinking of a situation in which I might receive royalties of X, but my public lending rights will be, perhaps, £247. We need to have a read across in that way.
It is difficult, because of the small survey sample sizes, to say exactly how many of those 26,000 pensioners would also be entitled to pension credit, but we estimate that perhaps 10,000 might be. Income from royalties is currently taken into account and treated as a form of earnings in relation to MIG and, compared to a continuation of the current MIG policy, the cost would be approximately an extra £5 million.
These are not simple matters. As I said, until the noble Baroness mentioned it I had not picked up on the fact that we must also consider PLR and related issues, particularly given the royalties "bunch". There are very complex rules. Most royalties are received in the first two years of a book being published. There may then be another chunk if the book goes into paperback. Equally, one may have worked over a long period of years writing the book. We therefore need an equalisation mechanism. These are complex areas.
180
I know from my experience—the noble Lord, Earl Russell, will confirm this—that the issue is treated in complex ways by the tax system. We need to take care.
Perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to return to the issue when we have got our head round this small, complex system. Even the Inland Revenue has considerable difficulty working out whether Schedule D or Schedule E applies and as to whether or not the book was written by virtue of one's occupation, if one is a university academic. That counts differently for tax treatment. I believe there may be some interesting questions to follow on this matter. If 1 can write to the noble Baroness and place a copy in the Library so that we do not trouble the House on Report, I shall do so. If not, she may have to revisit the matter and I shall see whether I can get a more satisfactory answer for her.
Earl Russell: I declare an interest in Amendment No. 87. The Minister's response was generous, thoughtful and helpful. However, the problem goes a little wider than just royalties. There is a problem in cases where income is received in a regular way and the amount that is coming in when the tax is due is a great deal less than at the time when the tax is assessed.
The classic example is the woman who was bankrupted by being left I million in shipping shares. The shipping shares were assessed for duty in April 1929 and the duty was payable in October 1929. ifs it possible to have some thought on that problem as well—although I hope that those particular circumstances may not recur?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I cannot conceive how the noble Earl can contemplate the Chancellor of the Exchequer producing a situation in which shipping shares worth £1 million in April are virtually worthless by October. The noble Earl normally tells me that he is not worried—if I may paraphrase him—about what the present Government may do but what the present government after seven may do. With regard to that situation, God knows what has happened to the economic cycle—and I bet He does not either.
More generally, to make the picture more complex, one of the things that we are trying to do with the five-year assessment period is to look at stable income. Royalties of this sum are small and irregular. If they were bunched in one or two years and were substantial, that might be a reason for delaying the five-year assessment for, say, two years if that was the main source of income, until the flow had become steady. The issue is complex. I shall write to the noble Baroness or, if necessary, we shall revisit the matter.
Baroness Barker: I have no interest to declare on this matter. I did not know that my noble friend would be joining me for this debate. We were not in cahoots on this matter. I was very modest; I did not mention any interests that any noble Lords may have, and there are quite a few who have. In support of my noble friend, I would say that in a week when Enron has been in the news, share values disappearing through the floor is not as unlikely as may have once seemed to be the case. That is not a comment on our Chancellor. It is an issue

181
that I was sitting thinking about when the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, was talking about employee shares and so on.
This is a small issue. I picked it as being illustrative of small amounts of irregular income which cause problems. I accept entirely that the five-year assessed income period will make life considerably easier for people in this situation. It is a fiendishly difficult matter. I had thought about public lending rights but decided, for the sake of simplicity, not to put that down. I am very grateful to the Minister and am also rather honoured to have got the noble Baroness on a subject where she appears to know not quite as much as some Members of the Committee. It is my one score of the night. I thank her for her technical answer and look forward to her writing to me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 9, line 19, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 88 seeks to leave out subsection (2) of Clause 15. Subsection (2) confers power to make regulations to define how capital holdings will be taken into account in calculating pension credit. Paragraph 124 of the Explanatory Notes states that,
"Capital will be deemed to have an assumed rate of return for purposes of assessing entitlement to the guarantee credit and savings credit. The intention is that a ten per cent rate of return will be applied to capital that exceeds £6,000 (£10,000 in cases of people in residential care and nursing homes). Capital below this amount will not be taken into account in the assessment".
I have some difficulty with the wording of this clause which deems that an income will be forthcoming. At the present time, investments of all kinds—including long notice bank accounts—may not be yielding very much. If interest rates continue to be low and the return from investments poor, claimants could be deemed to have income which they may not actually have had.
I believe that the Government have a formula for dealing with this matter, but deeming remains on the face of the Bill. That is what concerns me. I beg to move.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: Amendment No. 91 in this group is tabled in my name. Although I do not approach the matter in quite the same way as the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, I have a great deal of sympathy with what she has said. I find the wording of Clause 15(2) curiously open-ended and opaque. We should make the position clearer. The proposed methodology for pension credit has the fundamental unsatisfactory nature that it does not coincide with reality. As pointed out by the noble Baroness, £6,000 savings carrying no credit at all and then 10 per cent thereafter leaves one with the position that the one certainty is that the person will never earn that rate of return, either zero or 10 per cent, on any part of their savings.
182
That reminds one of the old statistical joke about a person with one foot on a blast furnace and the other foot on a iceberg being statistically comfortable. In the pension credit proposals—the deeming proposals there is the reference to £10,000 savings carrying an overall 4 per cent return. That may be perfectly fair and the central objective of the Government, but in terms of what interest rates are today, let alone what they may be over the next few years, it is not a generous figure. The redemption yields on long dated gilts, which is probably the nearest comparator to pension credit, are around 5 per cent and leading UK corporate bonds are around 6 to 6.5 per cent.
Amendment No. 91 seeks to make sure that if the regulations are to be set up in this way we shall have some duty imposed on the Government to have regard to the nearest comparable savings instrument—namely, long dated UK corporate bonds. That is 15 years and over. That is the benchmark savings rate that the Government can borrow at and that people might be hoping to earn as a return. It is important for the Government to have some duty to consider that in producing regulations under Clause 15(2). Further, it is an important safeguard for people receiving the pension credit in the future.
Baroness Noakes: Subsection (2) of Clause 15 takes us into the realm of fantasy when looking at income. The Minister has said that this approach was taken because of the responses to the consultation paper issued in 2000 that this was simpler for many pensioners. Being simple does not make it fair and right. It will not be right for all pensioners. Some pensioners who have little or no income will not be troubled by this rule. However, coupled with the 10 per cent assumed rate of return, it will affect a number of pensioners with relatively modest savings.
The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Hodgson is important. It replaces the 10 per cent assumption with a more reasonable assumption in line with fairly safe investments for pensioners' money. However, even that proposal would still produce some anomalies although with the lower rate they would not be so bad. The 10 per cent rate would mean that with capital above £12,000 the assumed rate rises quite steeply. At £25,000, the House of Commons Library calculates that the effective interest rate is 7.6 per cent; and it increases at higher savings levels.
There is a fiction involved in the savings credit for pensioners with these relatively modest savings. A pensioner with savings capital of £25,000, and the effective interest rate of 7.6 per cent, under the Government's proposals will be deemed to have £36.54 per week. He would not receive any guarantee credit. With the basic state pension he would be over the £100, but he would receive a savings credit of £8.38.
If that pensioner earned only 5 per cent—he would be doing quite well at 5 per cent on £25,000—he would receive only £24 a week. So the Government would pretend to themselves that the pensioner's income is just short of £122 a week and would congratulate themselves on boosting the pensioner's income by the £8.38 savings credit. However, the reality is that that

183
pensioner has received only £109 in total including the savings credit. That is so little above the guarantee credit threshold that the pensioner might conclude that he might as well blow £19,000 of his savings, take the guarantee credit and stick at £100.
If the pensioner has index-linked securities where the yield is currently around 2.5 per cent, the position is even more dire. If that is the incentive for today's pensioners, think how little incentive the new savings credit will create for tomorrow's pensioners. I accept that it affects particularly those pensioners with savings beyond the £12,000. But those are not an inconsiderable number. I had assumed that the Government sought to create incentives for people to save for their retirement and this proposal will work in the opposite direction.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I shall give a general defence about the proposed treatment. Amendment No. 88 seeks fundamentally to alter the way we propose to treat capital by removing the power to assume a notional rate of income from capital held. The proposed amendment would force us to take actual income from capital into account. The Committee will recall that this was the approach that we initially suggested in the consultation document for pension credit. Indeed, it is the way followed by the Inland Revenue.
However—I keep repeating this—we listened to the views which emerged from that consultation process and took into account the clear advice of Age Concern and others. They told us that pensioners do not want the trouble of recording actual income from capital, or having to go into the building society to bring interest to account just because it suits the Government.
I think back to my mother's experience. She had a couple of building society accounts with modest sums in each. The last thing she wanted was to try to work out her gross and net interest and what had or had not been deducted at source. It is much simpler to add together the £5,000 here and £6,000 there. Those were the savings. On that basis, the first £6,000 would be disregarded with 10 per cent assumed rate of return on the remainder. That is infinitely simpler, preventing intrusions into pensioners' lives, checking and rechecking books and so on.
We are conscious of the need also for pension credit to preserve the equilibrium of the savings market. I have not sought to make political capital on this. We have gone perfectly properly through a series of probing amendments on different aspects. Whether we refer to ISAs, PEPs, annuities or employee share schemes, we seek not to privilege one form of savings over another for purposes of pension credit both with regard to the overall cost of pension credit and the stability of the personal finance market.
To put it bluntly, were we to take actual income from savings into account, as the amendment suggests, we would sikew pensioners' choices about how to invest their capital. They would seek different forms of capital from what might otherwise be appropriate for them. They would look for products where interest
184
was low, such as Premium Bonds, or even put money under the mattress—something we do not wish to encourage.
The noble Baroness used the word "fairness". Amendment No. 88 may seem to provide a fairer way of doing things. But the noble Baroness may be interested to note that, given a choice between the Government's proposed policy and her amendment, most pensioners with low and modest savings—those are the ones we are out to help—would gain more From a £6,000 capital disregard combined with a 10 per cent assumed rate of return (the approach in the Bill) than from the proposed amendment.
The Government's policy means that more than 90 per cent of around 3.5 million pensioners entitled to pension credit face an effective rate of return of less than 4 per cent. Something like 94 per cent of all pensioners would have a rate of return of below about 5.2 per cent as a result. But the proposed amendment would cost a substantial amount, of about £400 million, and would generally benefit better-off pensioners with large amounts of capital at the expense of pensioners with more modest savings.
That is made clear when one sees the difference between that and our current treatment in MIG. At the moment in the minimum income guarantee there is a disregard of £6,000, with a cut off at £12,000. Not only is there a rate of return at £1 in £250, which is a 20 per cent assumed rate of return, but a capital ceiling at £12,000, at which point one is no longer entitled to MIG. When pressing me on this matter, Members of the Committee should remember that we are treating savings five times more generously in imputed rates of return than under the current MIG system.
I now move to Amendment No. 91. The noble Lord's amendment suggests that the assumed rate of return on capital should be set with reference to the yield on long-term UK government bonds. This is not my field. Long-term bonds are traded every day and hence their value alters daily. However, the yield on those bonds is approximately 5 per cent. For example, I am told that the yield on a 15-year bond was 4.76 per cent on 16th January of this year.
Thus the implication of this amendment would be to halve the assumed rate of interest on capital. Applying such a low return to capital, as the amendment would suggest, would distort incentives to save away from pensions into other forms of capital. I keep rehearsing the arguments about distorting the financial products market.
The Bill, as drafted, maintains the balance in the personal finance market and a level playing field. The proposed amendment would upset that balance. It would cost an extra £300 million. That cost assumes that the noble Lord would wish to see us retain the £6,000 capital disregard, with £10,000 for those in residential care and nursing homes, in order to avoid placing increased intrusion on the vast majority of those entitled to pension credit with small amounts of capital.

185
Quite apart from the substantial extra cost going to the better off, it would be impracticable to link this huge rate of return on capital to a price that changes every day. That would require pensioners to report capital levels more regularly and would pose a new administrative burden on the Pension Service. With those explanations, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the noble Baroness. Perhaps I may take her back to the example I went through earlier. It referred to a pensioner who had £25,000 of capital which was producing 5 per cent. If it is a safe investment, that is probably what it would yield. There is nothing fancy about that. There is no income depression involved or special income bias. It is pretty straight.
On that basis, the pensioner would be deemed to have income which he does not have, so he would be deemed to deserve a savings credit of a much lower amount than one based on his actual income. What I cannot quite understand from the noble Baroness is why she is content with a formula which may seem fair and generous for some pensioners with particularly small amounts of capital but which is grossly unfair to those whose capital begins to rise above £12,000. I cannot see how the noble Baroness can sustain that position.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not want to be polemical, but I believe that is a bit rich coming from an Opposition who, when in power, introduced the income support system, which assumed a return of 20 per cent on capital. We are not inventing the social security system from scratch. We have turned an existing savings rule, which was both capped and seriously heavy in terms of its implication for deemed income, into something which is not capped and which for about 95 per cent of pensioners reflects a rate of return which will be either less than or at the existing rate of return from any capital in a building society account or long-term bond. I believe that that is a remarkably generous move to make and far in advance of everything that we inherited.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister for that explanation, which I do not find entirely persuasive. I also share the view that it is unfair to deem people to have an income which they cannot have had. I do not entirely accept the difficulty for individuals who are perhaps slightly better off and who may have earned a reasonable income during work but who are faced in retirement with not such a marvellous pension return. It is not so difficult for such people to ascertain what their rate of interest has been and to make an appropriate return as to the actual amount of. income received. I simply do not accept that that is terribly difficult.
186
I also understand the Minister when she says that we are talking about slightly better off people. They are slightly better off, but they are not wealthy. One is not wealthy nowadays if one has capital over £12,000 in the bank; many people have managed to save that while working hard. I do not see that they must be regarded as people who are so well off that they do not need any particular attention.
I will look carefully in Hansard at what the noble Baroness said. Perhaps we will come back to this on Report. I do not find the explanation all that persuasive. I am not concerned about what the previous government did; I am concerned about what it says in our legislation. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 9, line 19, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
"( ) Income shall be calculated in accordance with rules which apply for income tax purposes."
The noble Baroness said: The amendment covers several things that we have already covered. I shall not repeat the arguments. It covers the deletion of subsection (2), which we have just debated, and it covers the use of income tax rules, which we debated earlier. I shall not go over that ground again. However, the additional thing that this probing amendment would do is to delete subsection (3), which says that,
"Income and capital shall be calculated or estimated in such a manner as may be prescribed".
As the Minister knows, I favour the more natural definitions that are rooted in other parts of the financial system in this country, in particular the income tax system. However, given that we are not going down that route and that I am rapidly giving up hope of any form of Damascene conversion on the opposite Bench, I would like the Minister to say for what purposes she intends that subsection (3) would be used. For what reasons must income and capital be calculated or estimated in ways prescribed by the Secretary of State? I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I would have thought that the discussion that we have just had would have covered the point raised by the noble Baroness. For example, we are talking about a capital sum of £6,000 for exemption. In the past, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for example, tried to raise the floor and the ceiling of capital limits. I used to join him in that. It is not inconceivable that a future government may wish to revisit that issue. It is equally possible that a future government might wish to revisit the issue of a notional rate of return, as we have done with pension credit. The subsections give such powers, and obviously they will be subject to the usual parliamentary scrutiny.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that. I had understood that the rate of return was being dealt with by subsection (2), which we have already debated, and not subsection (3). However, I take it that the example that she gave shows that subsection (3)

187
covers the capital floor and ceiling. We will consider the matter further in the context of other aspects of the clause. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 90 to 92 not moved.]
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 9, line 23, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Baroness said: Having moved Amendment No. 93, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 94. They are also probing amendments.
Amendment No. 93 would delete subsection (4), which says that income,
"in respect of any period shall be calculated in accordance with prescribed rules".
Amendment No. 94 would delete subsection (5), which says:
"The rules may provide for the calculation to be macle by reference to an average over a period (which—
remarkably—
"need not consist of or include the whole or any part of the period concerned)".
So it can he some other period.
I have already said once or twice that some of the ways in which the clause is constructed represent a kind of fantasy world that the department occupies with regard to income and capital. The subsections allow the department to average out income. The Explanatory Notes refer to averaging out earnings, hut the powers would doubtless be used for other purposes as well. I am not sure that pensioners, who might understand averaging of income, would understand averaging by reference to periods other than that being referred to.
I shall not press further my main themes of using natural definitions of income and capital, but I should be grateful if the Minister could explain why these powers are needed. I beg to move.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I wish to support the amendment moved by my noble friend. Given that this is primary legislation, the provisions are extraordinarily widely and loosely drawn. As my noble friend Lord Higgins has pointed out, we do not yet have the benefit of regulations which might help in our thinking.
What gives cause for the greatest concern is the fact that there is no way of controlling any future government in respect of these important aspects of the Bill, except through regulations. I think that some form of statement included in the primary legislation would be helpful. So far we have not been able to tease out of the Government enough of their strategic thinking to give us confidence that sufficient pegs have been hammered into the ground within the primary legislation.
Earl Russell: My concerns are very similar to those of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. I think that I am somewhat allergic to overprescription, a phenomenon not by any means confined to the
188
medical profession. But in this instance I am not concerned about the policy intentions of the present Government. I am more concerned with the capacity of vires to act like minefields. They lie about and then explode under your feet many years later, when you have no idea that they are there.
In particular I am interested in the wording of subsection (4):
"A person's income in respect of any period shall be calculated in accordance with prescribed rules".
Is there anywhere else in this Bill or in any other social security law a limitation on what some future government might prescribe under that subsection? Alternatively, is it a completely open-ended power, a pure Cambyses clause that allows the Secretary of State to do whatever he likes? That point is, I think, of some importance.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It would be important if it were true in that form. It is not, because any such exercise of power is embedded in a regulation which will have to come before the House either through affirmative or negative procedures. I would remind the noble Earl, Lord Russell, of what I am sure he already knows: the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee thought that our use of regulation-making powers in the Bill was entirely satisfactory—I hope I have not put words into the mouth of the committee. It put forward no suggestions and proposed no alterations to that effect. We have been given a clean bill of health in that respect.
On many occasions the noble Earl has teased both myself and previous Ministers standing at this Box when we have had what are called the "Humpty Dumpty" clauses, in which income may be treated as capital and capital may be treated as income. When one scratches at the surface, one finds a perfectly good reason for it: it is done in order to avoid avoidance, if I may put it in those terms.
It is only sensible that a person's income in respect of any period shall be calculated in accordance with prescribed rules. The alternative would be to calculate it in accordance with no rules, which I am sure would be unwise.
By removing subsection (4), Amendment No. 93 seeks to remove the capacity of the Secretary of State to prescribe rules, within regulations and subject to parliamentary scrutiny, for how income should be calculated in respect of any period. Pension credit entitlement—the emphasis should be put on "any period" in respect of this—will be calculated on a weekly basis. The guarantee credit will be calculated by comparing the appropriate minimum guarantee with the pensioner's income. Where the appropriate minimum guarantee exceeds the income, pension credit will make up the difference.
The savings credit will be calculated by using certain percentages of the rewardable income, again on a weekly basis. Therefore, to achieve the pension credit calculation it will be necessary to ensure that both the pension credit and the income are expressed in weekly terms. Regulations will ensure that this will be the case.

189
For example—it is always helpful to give examples—it will allow a calendar monthly or a quarterly payment of an occupational pension to be converted to a weekly equivalent.
A further use of the subsection will be to allow the decision maker to attribute income. This would mean that income would be taken into account over the same period for which it was paid. An example would be where the weekly state retirement pension is paid at four-weekly intervals. Without the facility to attribute the payment over four weeks, the decision maker would need to take the whole of the amount into account when it was paid—that is, for one week—but take nothing into account for the remaining three weeks. That would create a situation where the pensioner was not entitled to pension credit for the week of payment but was entitled for the other three weeks. That would obviously be an unacceptable situation for pensioners and administrators.
Like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, we are all concerned about our reliance on delegated legislation. I reassure the Committee that the secondary powers to be introduced under subsection (4) would be used only to ensure that a correct amount of pension credit entitlement may be calculated. Therefore I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 94 seeks to remove subsection (5), which contains the power to prescribe rules, within regulations, to be used to average income over a period. This power already exists within the minimum income guarantee provisions and it will be used in exactly the same manner in the pension credit calculation of entitlement—that is, it will allow the decision maker, where an income is irregular or erratic, to calculate an average, using a reasonable period for that calculation.
If the amount of income fluctuates, we want to be able to use an average figure. The fluctuation may follow a regular pattern—for example, the younger partner of a pensioner getting pension credit who is weekly paid may normally work one day a week, but on one week in four may work two days or none. In such a case, we intend that the average is taken over one cycle of that pattern.
If there is no pattern, we intend to base the average on the last two payments, if paid monthly or at longer intervals, or the last four if paid at shorter intervals, unless that would give an unrepresentative result—for example, if it included a wholly abnormal payment such as a Christmas bonus and so on. In that case we intend to provide for the flexibility to be able to use a different period which would give a more accurate, representative result.
This is a fully tried and tested method of calculating income throughout social security. It will work to the pensioner's advantage because it will provide an accurate calculation of his/her weekly income. With those explanations—as I said, it is perhaps the averaging of the period that we should be concentrating on in this subsection of the clause—I hope the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw the amendments.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that comprehensive reply. Those of us who have spoken to the amendments have expressed disquiet about the powers in the Bill and the way in which they may possibly be used. We shall reflect further on what the Minister has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 94 and 95 not moved.]
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 9, line 29, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 96, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 97, which partially overlaps with Amendment No. 98 standing in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Castle and Lady Turner.
We are now reaching the end of Clause 15. I believe I hear sighs of relief coming from the Front Bench opposite. Amendment No. 96 seeks to remove paragraph (a) from subsection (6). Paragraph (a) states that,
"a person is treated as possessing capital or income which he does not possess".
The Explanatory Notes refer to repeating other provisions which deem a notional income from capital disposed of solely or mainly to increase extra pension credit. As most members of the Committee will know, I am a newcomer to social security matters, but I do have some background in taxation. I am very clear that if the tax system tried to incorporate this kind of anti-avoidance provision, there would have to be extraordinarily clear rules on the face of a Bill. It would not be allowed to relegate this to prescription after the event with relatively little scrutiny.
It allows the department to rewrite history, to turn it into something that fits its concept of how pension credit should work. If a pensioner gifts his capital, thus depriving himself of income, will the Minister say in what circumstances the department will seek to deem something else? What will happen if a pensioner takes the disincentive effect of the savings credit, and he blows all his capital on a holiday or a fast car? What are the principles involved in using these interventionist powers?
Amendment No. 97 would leave out two further paragraphs in Clause 15(6). Paragraph (c) allows income to be treated as capital and paragraph (d) allows capital to be treated as income. These powers are in the same category as those to which I have just referred. The Explanatory Notes give no idea as to why they are needed. Is their purpose to try to normalise the investment policies of pensioners, to deem them as having capital or receiving income had they conducted their affairs differently? If so, what personal freedoms are pensioners being allowed to have?
I hope that the Minister will tell us what she has in mind for these powers. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I have an amendment in this group—Amendment No. 98—which seeks to leave out paragraph (c) from Clause 15(6), providing for income to be treated as capital in prescribed circumstances. The power already exists under the income support regulations. Income treated in that way includes tax refunds and occasional charitable payments. It would be logical to include such payments in the types of income to be disregarded. If not spent, they would automatically become part of the recipient's capital in the same way as any other income that is not spent. I await the Minister's response with interest.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It is right that we should explore this important issue. The three amendments have been grouped together because they all relate to Clause 15(6). The first of them—Amendment No. 96—seeks to remove subsection (6)(a) which includes important powers for anti-abuse provisions designed to prevent claimants who have deliberately deprived themselves of income and capital from securing or maximising their pension credit entitlement. Under the proposed amendment, the subsection would be removed, and with it the necessary safeguard.
We intend to retain the broad framework for guarding against intentional deprivation of capital or income that exists in the minimum income guarantee. That has been built into social security arrangements for a long time. It is not acceptable for people deliberately to reduce their income levels to maximise their pension credit entitlement. We propose to adapt the rules and guidance to ensure that while protecting the integrity of the pension credit scheme we uphold our commitment to reducing intrusion into people's lives.
In practice, the regulations will have to ensure that pensioners, especially when an assessed income period is in place, will not feel that they are limited in how they choose to spend their savings. They may want to pay off a mortgage or repay previously incurred debts. That would be reasonable financial planning in which one could engage before retirement. Other examples could be installing a new kitchen, going on holiday or buying a new car. None of those examples would be regarded as intentional deprivation of capital.
The rules governing how we consider deprivation and how we apply notional income or income from notional capital will focus primarily on gifts or similar disposal, other than between the couple, such as having one's pension paid to a third party.
Equally, when a pensioner goes into residential care or a nursing home, the value of the home, which we have previously ignored for the purposes of pension credit, becomes a capital asset. It is understandable that pensioners want to pass the value of their home to dependants. It is not uncommon for them to do so just as their health deteriorates and a stay in residential care seems likely. In such cases, however, a pensioner would be judged as having deprived him or herself of the value of the home, which would be taken into account in calculating their pension credit, as it would
192
under minimum income guarantee provisions, and as it does in terms of charging assessments for local authority homes now.
I can assure the Committee that these are real issues and that they are at the forefront of our minds as we develop regulations. We want to get the balance right. We do not want to intrude into people's lives but we want to avoid the intentional deprivation of capital in order to maximise pension credit.
Amendment No. 96 suggests that we remove this legal provision from the Bill. But in doing so we would see the pension credit system laid open to the most blatant abuses. Pensioners could deprive themselves of income and capital. Even if we had clear evidence of a pensioner's intention to deprive himself of income or capital in order to gain pension credit, we would be powerless to take that income into account. That would not be fair on other taxpayers.
In Amendment No. 97 the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, seeks to remove subsection (6)(c), which contains the power to prescribe rules, within regulations, dealing with the circumstances in which income is to be treated as capital or capital is to be treated as income—what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has referred to as the "Humpty-Dumpty clauses". Paragraph (c) contains the power (already contained in the minimum income guarantee) to prescribe in regulations the circumstances in which the one is to be treated as the other. It would be used in circumstances when a payment that is regularly received, or is made in relation to a particular period, should not be treated as income; for example, a pensioner may have loaned a relative some money which he or she is repaying monthly by instalments. Although it would be regular monthly income, it clearly would be in respect of capital and, therefore, we would want it to be treated as such.
Paragraph (d) represents the reverse. It is intended that the regulations made under this power will provide for the treatment as income of a payment that has the nature of an income, although it could, as a result of general law, be regarded as a capital holding—for example, it is paid regularly or in relation to a period, such as regular payments from an annuity. I should like to reassure the Committee that secondary powers to be introduced under paragraphs (c) and (d) would be used only so that a correct amount of pension credit entitlement may be calculated. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw those amendments when we reach that stage.
Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 98, which in part is the same as Amendment No. 97. It seeks also to amend subsection (6). However, it would remove paragraph (c) only of that subsection. As I explained when dealing with the previous amendment, this subsection contains the power to prescribe, within regulations, the circumstances in which income is to be treated as capital—such as in the case of a repayment of a loan. There would seem to be little value in this subsection, but it is there for specific purposes that include benefiting the pensioner. Paragraph (c) will he used in those circumstances when a repayment

193
received regularly, or made in relation to a particular period, should not be treated as income. That applies to a loan repayment from a relative, as I explained earlier.
If it were treated as income, depending on the rate of repayment and the pensioner's weekly pension credit entitlement, pension credit entitlement would be reduced or even extinguished. For example, a pensioner may be entitled to £15 week to bring his income up to the appropriate minimum guarantee. If the loan repayment instalments were £10 a week, the pension credit would be reduced to £5 a week. If the instalments were £50, entitlement would be extinguished. If the repayment of the loan were made in one lump sum, entitlement would be extinguished for just that one week. Thus the pensioner would need to reclaim pension credit for the following week. He or she may also need to reclaim housing benefit and council tax benefit. These situations would not, I think, be acceptable for any of us.
However, if the payments were to be treated as capital, as is the Government's intention, there would be no effect on pension credit if the capital holding were equal to or below £6,000 or if an assessed income period had been set. If total capital were above £6,000 or an assessed income period had not been set, the £1 in £500 assumed income from capital provisions would apply. Given all those examples, I hope that the Committee will agree that these provisions are benevolent; that they will ensure accuracy; and that they are indeed necessary to ensure that the Bill's proposals are treated properly.
Earl Russell: The Minister has given us a very persuasive account of what will be done under the "Humpty-Dumpty clause", as I thought she would. That is why I did not ask her to do so. However, I trust that the noble Baroness will accept that there are two equally valid questions here. First, under the present Government, what will be done under this clause? Secondly, under the powers that we are creating and leaving behind in statute, what could be done under this provision? I hope that the Minister will accept that both those questions deserve answers.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I join the noble Earl in expressing that view. What may happen in the future must be a matter of concern for us all. The Minister gave a series of examples of what was good and what was bad. All that is perfectly understandable, but with the passage of time matters may be viewed differently. Reading Clause 15(6) is like reading Alice in Wonderland. Under its provisions, income can be capital, capital can be income, and people can be deemed as having capital that they do not possess. I understand the purpose behind the subsection, but someone reading it through simply could not understand it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Come on! That is daft, if I may say so politely. These are well-established
194
principles in social security legislation by which one allows income to be treated as capital. Almost every social security Bill that I have been involved with over the past 10 or 15 years has included such provisions in regard to income-related benefits. The alternative for pensioners would be much worse. If they were financially unsophisticated and made a loan, for example, which was capital and which was then repaid in instalments as weekly income, they could lose their own income in return. We are protecting them from that contingency. What we are seeking is the intent behind it. If the intent is deprivation, then that will count for our purposes. If the intent is not deprivation, we shall obviously take that into account in terms of expenditure patterns. If the flow of money comes in as though it were income when it is actually a form of capital in stages, it is in the pensioner's interest to treat that as capital, and vice versa.
There is a broader point about what governments may do 50 years from now. That is one of the reasons why we have a Parliament and why regulations are scrutinised by Parliament. If any subsequent administration, of whichever persuasion, seeks to use these provisions to abuse the purposes of this legislation and are less than benevolent in their intent to pensioners, it is for the Members of this House to be on their guard in terms of scrutiny. I cannot help it if, 20 years down the road, people fall asleep when the word "regulations" is mentioned. It is up to Parliament to stay awake.
Baroness Noakes: A few moments ago the Minister asked us to agree that these provisions are benevolent. I think I can say that neither I nor other Members of the Committee agree with her.
My noble friend Lord Hodgson referred to the provision as like something out of Alice in Wonderland. I agree. One of the points that troubled me was the Minister's reference to the repayment of loans being treated as income. That really is an Alice in Wonderland idea. Earlier, I talked a great deal about income tax. Under such concepts, never in a million years would a home loan be seen as income. But there are other branches of the law—for example, trust law—where there is no way in which the repayment of loan would be income. I am beginning to worry about what kind of wonderland the Department for Work and Pensions exists in. Like other noble Lords, I want to reflect further on the Minister's remarks. We may want to return to the matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 97 and 98 not moved.]
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Retirement pension income]:
[Amendments Nos. 99 and 100 not moved.]
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Other interpretation provisions]:
[Amendment No. 101 not moved.]
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Equal treatment for widows and widowers]:
On Question, Whether Clause 18 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Noakes: I shall try to be brief. I rise to speak partly because the clause has nothing to do with pension credit, but the Government have used the opportunity of the Bill to change the law as it relates to widowers' pensions. The clause heading says that it is about equal treatment for widows and widowers, but on another analysis the clause takes away entitlements that already exist in law for widowers.
I know I hat the Minister will say that the clause is necessary because a mistake was made that has resulted in overpayments to some men by comparison with women in the same position, but when the clause is made law it will result in men being paid less than they are currently paid. Will the Minister explain how the error arose? Legislative errors are much more likely when legislation is complex. How long did it take the department to spot the error? What is the department doing to ensure that some errors cannot happen again?
I am sure that the department is not pursuing simplicity as a strategy to counter legislative error. The Bill is proof of that. I should be interested to know what other strategies the department is pursuing.
How many individuals are affected by the clause and how much has been paid to them in aggregate because of the error? As the amounts involved could be significant to the individuals concerned, will the Minister tell us what the department will do to relieve hardship when the amounts paid are reduced if, for example, individuals have taken on financial commitments on the basis of a level of income that the department does not intend them to have in future?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The clause makes a technical amendment to the Pension Schemes Act 1993. It is necessary to ensure that men and women in the same circumstances who are entitled to bereavement benefits are treated equally. It is consequential to the introduction of bereavement benefits in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999. Those benefits came into effect from 9th April 2001. I regret that it was overlooked at the time.
The clause ensures that a widower who receives a widower's pension from his wife's contracted-out private pension scheme does not also receive a benefit from the state as if his wife had not been contracted out. That is the element of double provision. Someone who contracts out of SERPS builds up rights in an occupational or personal pension in place of the benefits that they would have received under SERPS. In return, either they pay a reduced rate of national insurance contributions or they receive a rebate of contributions paid.
Before April 1997, when the links between SERPS and private pensions were broken, those rights were known as the guaranteed minimum pension if they were in a contracted-out salary-related scheme, or
196
protected rights if they were in a money purchase scheme. When someone who had been contracted out between 1978 and 1997 reaches state pension age, the amount of their notional SERPS for that period is reduced to take account of that part of their private pension that has been funded by the rebate. That is known as the contracted-out deduction and is to prevent double provision.
A similar reduction is made from the amount of SERPS that a widow inherits from her husband if he had been in a contracted-out pension scheme. That is to take account of the widow's pension that she receives from her husband's private pension scheme.
Before the introduction of bereavement benefits in April 2001, widowers could inherit SERPS from their wives only if they were both over state pension age when the wife died. Therefore, Section 47 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 provided for a contracted-out deduction to be applied only in those cases.
With the introduction of bereavement benefits, widowers can now inherit SERPS from their wives if they are entitled to widowed parent's allowance or when they become entitled to retirement pension if they were previously entitled to widowed parent's allowance or bereavement allowance.
However—and this was the mistake—there is no power to apply a contracted-out deduction if the wife was in contracted-out employment. That is because no amendment was made to Section 47 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 when bereavement benefits were introduced by the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999.
Consequently, some widowers are currently receiving double provision—they are getting both SERPS and a widower's pension from their wife's contracted-out private pension scheme. That is clearly against the policy intention.
We estimate that, in the first year, from 9th April 2001, about 13,000 widowers will qualify for widowed parent's allowance. The figure includes men previously widowed who were receiving child benefit when the new bereavement benefits were introduced. We estimate that, of those, 3,000 to 4,000 men have received extra benefit because their wives were members of contracted-out pension schemes at some time between 6th April 1988 and 5th April 1997. The average amount of additional benefit that those widowers will receive is about £10 per week, although some amounts will be very small. The total annual cost would be about £2 million.
That double payment—which is what it is—was clearly against the policy intention. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, absolutely rightly said, a mistake was made. As your Lordships will remember, when we introduced the new bereavement benefit, we sought to provide equal access to benefit following widowhood to both men and women. We certainly did not intend to privilege men over women in that respect, as they currently are.
As I said, we estimate that 3,000 to 4,000 widowers a year are affected. We have identified them and are writing to them when their claim to widowed parent's

197
allowance or retirement pension is processed. We are explaining that, due to this mistake in the legislation, they will be temporarily receiving a higher amount of benefit than was intended. We are telling them how much the extra is, that we intend—subject to parliamentary consent—to change the legislation for the future, and assuring them that they will not have to repay any extra benefit they receive in the meantime.
The clause returns to the original policy intention and ensures that men and women entitled to bereavement benefits are treated equally. I hope that your Lordships agree that Clause 18 should stand part.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Regulation and orders]:
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 13, line 30, at end insert—

"(e) section 9(5),

(f) section 15,

(g) section 16, or

(h) section 17(2)"

The noble Lord said: I shall be very brief as time is moving on. I certainly do not propose going through all the details of the specific items that we are suggesting should be added to the list of regulations that are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure rather than the negative resolution procedure. The only reason I rise to speak to the amendment is to tell the Minister that, if it is at all possible, it would be helpful to have drafts of the regulations before Report stage. Although many orders are important, we believe that these particular ones should be subject to rather more detailed scrutiny. Furthermore, if she is going to circulate such drafts or further explanations, would she circulate them to the usual suspects who have been participating in our debates?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has used the amendment to press his point on the regulations. I shall seek to be helpful, but I cannot go beyond that assurance. I have a copy of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Select Committee report, which states,
"the bill contains a large number of delegated powers which are explained in the Department's excellent memorandum (printed at Annex 1)"
which I am sure will be tonight's bedside reading for the noble Lord, Lord Higgins.
The Select Committee did not consider the particular powers in detail, apart from one, but said that,
"there is nothing in this bill which needs to be drawn to the attention of the House".
Given the standing of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Select Committee, I am mindful of its suggestions to the House. I have circulated to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, a memorandum, in addition to the one that went to the Select Committee, on how we seek to use the powers. If the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, wishes to write to me between now and Report and
198
Third Reading, I shall try to be helpful and deal with any detailed examples that he is worried about. I shall do my best to respond to any such point.
Lord Higgins: The Committee will be grateful to the noble Baroness for the usual helpful way in which she has sought to facilitate our discussions. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
10 p.m.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 103:
After Clause 19, insert the following new clause—
"ANNUAL REPORT
The Secretary of State shall lay an annual report before Parliament on the performance of the pensions service that shall include—

(a) an estimate of the take-up of the state pension credit;

(b) the cost to the department including details of staff and telephone costs; and

(c) the percentage of pensioners paid less than the maximum state pension credit because of their deficient national insurance contribution records."

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 103 stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Noakes. It seeks to insert a new clause calling for an annual report to be laid before Parliament. This is an important amendment. I refer to the various issues we have raised during the course of debate. It is appropriate that an annual report should be laid before Parliament which includes, first, an estimate of the take-up of the state pension credit. Previously, I have referred to that matter. We are concerned about take-up, as, indeed, are the Government. On previous amendments we discussed the likely extent of take-up, or, rather, the likely extent of the failure to take up the state pension credit on the part of its intended beneficiaries. That being so, we must obviously keep tabs on what is happening under the provisions of the Bill. Therefore, we think that it is right to include the provision.
Secondly, we suggest that the cost of the provision to the department, including details of staff and telephone costs, ought to be included in the annual report. As we mentioned earlier, a department should take suitable measures to ensure that as many people as possible are aware of the provision and whether they are entitled to it. However, one also needs to have some idea of what the cost of the provision is likely to be and whether it is too high or too low. One should also take account of the actual cost of the state pension credit itself as that is closely correlated with the extent to which it is taken up.
Thirdly, the amendment refers to those pensioners who are paid less than the maximum rate of pension because of their deficient national insurance contribution records. Provided that we do not manage to make provision for them at later stages of the Bill, we should have some idea of how many are involved and to what extent they suffer if they are not treated fairly. However, that is a matter to which we shall return at later stages. We shall have to consider to what

199
extent the provisions of the Bill as they now stand are or are not fair. This is an important amendment. My noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts has an amendment grouped with this which I shall leave him to address. We hope that the Government can accept this proposal which is extremely sensible and is not unprecedented. I beg to move.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: Amendment No. 104 in my name is grouped with Amendment No. 103. I should like to begin by making clear that I strongly support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Higgins. It is clearly important with such a complex Bill that Parliament should hear a bout its operation on a year by year basis. The annual report is clearly a good way of doing that.
However. I should like to go further. The annual report mentioned in the amendment proposed by my noble friend is essentially a bird's eye view. I am concerned about the operation of the proposal from the point of view of those who will receive the pension credit. I am looking, so to speak, from a worm's eye view. Service level indicators are, of course, increasingly prevalent as a measure of corporate performance. I believe that they could usefully be brought into play here. The kinds of areas that I have in mind are, for example, standards set for telephone answering. Earlier the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, mentioned the use to which the telephone is likely to be put in the implementation of the new proposal. We all know that that kind of operation can lead to endless requests to -Press five, press three, press six, press seven", followed by, "I am afraid that all our lines are busy. Please call again later". That kind of response will infuriate people who seek to take advantage of the pension credit or are entitled to it. A service level indicator for that kind of thing would be a good way to make sure that the scheme is properly implemented.
Clearly, implementation will be absolutely critical. There could be similar SLIs for response times to correspondence and response times to reviews and appeals. No doubt, other Members of the Committee and the Minister will have their own views as regards what constitute the critical aspects of service level performance. Clearly, to be effective SLIs need to be published in advance and a report needs to be produced later showing how the department managed—or did not manage—to achieve the levels set for it in the following year. That is a useful way of adding to the annual report. Those who will receive a pension credit will find comfort in that, in that they will be able to see how the scheme operates. I hope that the Minister will look with favour on the amendments.
Lord Fowler: I strongly support these very important amendments. Until this point in Committee we have necessarily been dealing with a great deal of detail. The amendments are more general but they are also entirely basic. They would require monitoring of what takes place once the Bill has been enacted. All the commentators talk about pre-legislative scrutiny. I in no way decry that; it is obviously very important.
200
However, the big gap in our defences involves post-legislative scrutiny—scrutiny of the wad in which legislation works in practice.
In the pensions area, the intentions of legislation and of its authors can be defeated by the way in which legislation is implemented. Mistakes can go on for years. There was an example of that only last week. The widows of thousands of former soldiers were deprived of many millions of pounds in pensions, in some cases for as long as 50 years, because of a blunder by the Ministry of Defence. The Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1952 made pensions tax free if they were,
"granted on account of medical unfitness attributable to or aggravated by naval, military or air force service".
The Royal Navy and the RAF followed that ruling and did not deduct tax, but civil servants administering Army pensions failed to take account of the legislation and continued to tax. As I said, that went on for about half a century. Had it not been for the efforts of one man, it would doubtless still be going on now.
We could also consider a case that I know only too well—that involving widows and the state earnings-related pension scheme. The intention of the legislation was absolutely clear. It was to bring widows' entitlements entirely into line with occupational schemes. The legislation was introduced by myself in a Statement in the other place. We debated the legislation on Second Reading and in Committee, and I even published a separate leaflet on the subject. My Minister of State, who went on to become Prime Minister—John Major—promised a publicity campaign. However, we moved on after the 1987 general election. There was no publicity campaign and one leaflet continued to give the wrong advice for years afterwards. Ministers took responsibility but in fact the leaflet never went near Ministers, as the Permanent Secretary said in her evidence. It did, however, go through the hands of more than 100 civil servants. Had there been a checking process—this is my point—it is inconceivable that such a mistake would have taken place or lasted for so long.
My point is that we must improve our monitoring process. Personally, I should very much like to monitor the impact of the Government's £5 billion a year pensions tax, which they have imposed and which I believe is having a dire impact on pensioners of the future. However, that is probably beyond the scope of this Bill.
However, our ability to monitor the effectiveness of the legislation is not beyond the scope of the Bill. As I made clear at Second Reading, I support the Bill and giving the extra entitlement to many thousands of people, who often, through absolutely no fault of their own, have not had the opportunity to build up an adequate pension. That is why I support the principle and practice of what is being done. But it is in everyone's interest that the Bill works as it is intended to do, that the credit is efficiently administered, as my noble friend Lord Hodgson has just said, and that it reaches the people whom it is intended to reach.

201
I believe that the type of provisions set out in these two amendments should be an essential part of all our legislation. I consider the post-legislative scrutiny in this country to be woefully inadequate. I believe that this Bill can put that right, at least so far as concerns pension credit. I suppose that it is too late for the House to divide. I am a new boy in that respect but I suspect that that would be highly unpopular on the other side. However, I hope that we can return to the matter on Report. I believe that there is a consensus on all sides that this is an area that needs to be tackled urgently, and there is absolutely no reason why we cannot tackle it now in this legislation.
Baroness Barker: The hour is late and I shall not delay the House for very long. I wish simply to add to the arguments that have already been deployed. Throughout the Bill there has been a great deal of discussion about the assumptions on which the pension credit is based. There have been a great many misgivings about some of those assumptions. But in what I hope the Minister will accept has been a very constructive debate, there has been a large degree of consensus that we should seek to take the Minister and her department at their word.
Members of the Committee who have already spoken are absolutely right. In many respects this is a theoretical construct. I return to a point that I made at Second Reading: one of the tests of this measure will be the extent to which it fits in with the lives of older people. On that I believe that a great deal has yet to be proved. A measure of this kind, which will take so many pensioners within its scope, has within it a great deal of potential to go wrong. It may not; I hope that it does not.
However, I believe that not only will the proposals be informative for the purposes of this and future social security legislation but they will perhaps have a profound effect upon tax legislation, other benefits legislation and, in particular, legislation which comes increasingly from the Department of Health. Given that so much decentralisation is taking place in that department, its legislation is extraordinarily difficult to fathom. For all those reasons, which go beyond the scope of the Bill, I believe that the measures are important. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept them.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I was fascinated to listen to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, about pre and post-legislative scrutiny. In terms of, on the one hand, the use of pilots so that one has a learning loop before one extends possible policy nation-wide and, on the other, the amount of what I call "tracker research", in which we try to check the implications of our policy for the individuals concerned and thus again to have a learning loop, and in terms of all the legislation in which we have been involved since 1997, I should have thought that a person like the noble Lord who had followed the developments of social security over the past few years would recognise that we have tried very hard to build
202
that in where appropriate. It is absolutely right that not only should there be pre-legislative scrutiny; there should also be post-legislative scrutiny. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that we have a fairly honourable record in that respect and in many ways have broken new ground.
I turn to the amendments. Amendment No. 103 would require an annual report on the performance of the Pension Service to be laid before Parliament. Amendment No. 104 would require an annual report on the planned service levels and past performance of the Pension Service to be laid before Parliament.
The amendments would ensure accountability and transparency for the service that we provide to our pensioner customers and clients. I wholeheartedly support that objective. I believe it is inconceivable that we would not report publicly on all aspects of the Pension Service in exactly the same way as we do in relation to the Child Support Agency, and so on. But this reporting should not be limited to the areas listed in the amendment. These areas are indicative and I am sure are not meant to be exhaustive.
I can assure the Committee that the arrangements we have in place for reporting on the performance of the Department for Work and Pensions should provide Parliament with a comprehensive assessment of the performance of the Pension Service. The precise nature is still being developed, but we shall have arrangements in place which clearly detail the performance of the Pension Service each year and which are robust enough to more than meet parliamentary reporting standards.
A range of service and performance targets and indicators are well established within the Benefits Agency, the unit with operational responsibility for delivering services to pensioners at present. They include how many times a telephone rings before one answers. My complaint on performance indicators is that if one is not careful, one ends up assessing the things one can count and not the things one cannot count, which are qualitative. We then sometimes think that the quantitative is more important than the qualitative. There are issues about how we turn customer service into things which can be assessed and not just mechanically assessed; for example, how quickly one answers the telephone. None the less, we are currently developing proposals for performance indicators that will apply to the Pension Service. They will be reflected in the final route for reporting on performance of service.
It may be helpful if I remind the Committee of the reporting requirements that apply to the Department for Work and Pensions as a whole. The department will continue to present its annual departmental report to Parliament. That provides a comprehensive picture of performance across the whole department. The departmental report provides an account of departmental performance against its public service agreement objectives. It also provides an account of how the department has expended money voted to it by Parliament. That covers the cost to the department of administration for each customer group, including pensioners.

203
On the question of administration costs, the primary route for the majority of customers to apply for their pension credit entitlement will be via the telephone, building on the model that has become well established for minimum income guarantee. The costs for administering pension credit are expected to be broadly the same, or slightly less, than for the current telephone-based costs for assessing minimum income guarantee. That will be the result of streamlining the administration and simplifying the rules. However, until the pension credit design is finalised, that can be only an estimate.
I turn to other specific items that are listed for inclusion in any annual reporting. I, too, think it important that we focus on securing maximum take-up of pension credit and we expect the number of successful claimants to build up over time. As I said earlier, we are putting in place arrangements to ensure that everyone who is entitled to pension credit knows in good time what they need to do to take up their entitlement.
Estimates of take-up of income-related benefits are currently published annually. However, DSS Research Report No. 100, entitled, Overcoming Barriers: Older People and Income Support, provided evidence of significant under-reporting of capital by pensioners responding to the Family Resource Survey. They failed to mention it and made it even more difficult for the department confidently to estirnate take-up among pensioners. In order to tackle that problem, we have commissioned large-scale research from the Office for National Statistics and the National Centre for Social Research, which will enable us to improve the accuracy of the information we use to estimate take-up in future. If noble Lords wish to know what that research will look at, I am happy to write to them or to put a note in the Library.
Amendment No. 103 refers to the position of pensioners who have a reduced state pension because of their deficient national insurance contribution records. I think that the noble Lord and I simply disagree on how we respond to this. I think that those who have made a full contribution should have that reflected. For those who have a less than full contribution, any private money should be first set against that before they then move into the pension credit system.
The Government are committed to the evaluation of pension credit. We shall ensure that we have completed necessary baseline studies before the introduction of pension credit and will put in place processes to monitor the effects of the policy over time. The Department for Work and Pensions already has in place much of the data we need to provide an accurate baseline. As I have mentioned, we have commissioned major new research to help us to understand more about the many pensioners who will become newly entitled to pension credit in 2003. The information provided by that research will help us to understand and overcome potential barriers to take-up and assist in the marketing of pension credit when it is launched.
204
We are committed to maintaining effective arrangements for monitoring performance and reporting to Parliament. I can assure the Committee that the arrangements we have in place will deliver much more information than is required by the amendment. I therefore hope and believe that noble Lords will accept that the amendments we are considering are unnecessary. In the light of that I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Fowler: Before the noble Baroness sits down. perhaps I may say that I have listened to her and she has used a great many words. Can I ask her straight whether she is setting her mind and her face entirely against any idea of there being an annual report to this House as far as concerns pension credit?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No, Members of Committee, certainly not. I said that it is inconceivable that the pension agency will not be reporting annually. We need to explore whether it reports in a separate report or whether that report on the pension service is embodied in the annual report of the Department for Work and Pensions.
Our position is that we are not only deeply committed to pension credit but proud—I repeat, proud—of what we are seeking to do through the Pension Service. That will produce, for the first time, a service tailored to the needs of pensioners. In advancing that it is inconceivable that we should not want to draw the Chamber and the wider public's attention to our objectives and the degree to which we are able to meet them, including our public service level agreements. The only question is whether we end up with a ring-fenced report on the Pension Service and therefore the pension credit, or whether it is incorporated in the departmental report. We can pursue that matter on another occasion if Members of the Committee want.
The notion that we should not want to bring full information to Parliament, to the voluntary organisations and to pensioners about their entitlement and the degree to which we can encourage them to take up their entitlement and the level of service that we can now offer for the first time, is inconceivable.
Lord Higgins: Whether or not there should be a separate report is perhaps a matter to which we may return later. It depends to what extent the department's report may reasonably be regarded as a best seller. Subject to that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 104 not moved.]
Clauses 20 to 22 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Administration]:
[Amendments Nos. 105 and 106 not moved.]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 23, leave out lines 13 to 22 and insert—
"(4) Subsection (4A) below applies where a statement is made in the House of Commons by or on behalf of the Secretary of State which specifies—

(a) in relation to any of the items referred to in subsection (I)(b)(i) to (iv) above, the amount of the alteration which he proposes to make by an order under section 150 or 152 above or by or under any other enactment, and

(b) the date on which he proposes to bring the alteration into force ("the proposed commencing date").

(4A) If, in a case where this subsection applies, an award of state pension credit is made in favour of a person before the proposed commencing date and after the date on which the statement is made, the award—

(a) may provide for state pension credit to be paid as from the proposed commencing date at a rate determined by reference to the amounts of the items specified in subsection (1)(b)(i) to (iv) above which will be in force on that date, or

(b) may be expressed in terms of the amounts of those items in force at the date of the award."

The noble Baroness said: I should be in dire disgrace if I had said "not moved" to this amendment. I was hoping at least to have some modest acknowledgement from the noble Lord. Although he has put pressure on us for not producing regulations, he might at least compliment us on so far not having to bring forward a series of government amendments to amend their own legislation, which has sometimes been the fate of previous Bills.
Paragraph 17 to Schedule 2 provides for the introduction of a new Section 159B to the Social Security Administration Act 1992. The purpose of this amendment is to change the wording of the new Section 159B to prevent a technical difficulty which might arise in the pension credit decision making process. Having identified this possible glitch, I feel that it is right to introduce a preventative amendment now.
The introduction of new Section 159B to the Social Security Administration Act 1992 gives the Secretary of State the power to make routine adjustments to pension credit for uprating purposes. This includes the power to make advance decisions on entitlement to pension credit on the basis of uprated amounts after the uprating order has been made.
However, the problem we have identified is that it would not allow decisions on entitlement using uprated amounts in the time period between the Secretary of State's announcement of the uprated
206
amounts and the date the uprating order is actually made. In other words, the decision-maker can only anticipate the new rates once the order has been made.
The Government's aim is to facilitate advance claims for pension credit and to invite invitations to claim it four months in advance of the person's date of retirement.
It is feasible that such an invitation to claim is sent, and therefore that the claim for pension credit is made, during the time period I have just mentioned—between the Secretary of State making a statement in the House of Commons about the proposed uprated amounts of pension credit, and the date the uprating order is made.
So, for example, the uprating statement would normally be made in November, but the uprating order would not normally be made until February. Therefore, people who reached retirement age in, say, April, would be invited to claim pension credit in December—four months prior to retirement age. But decision-makers would be prevented from adjudicating on their claims using the rates which would apply when the person reached retirement age in February.
Such a problem has been encountered in the past, with claims to retirement pension. The result was that advance claims for retirement pension were stockpiled until the uprating order was made, thus incurring an increased administrative burden and cost. The Social Security Act 1998 introduced a new section—Section 155A—to the Social Security Administration Act 1992 to deal with that problem.
This amendment, specifically new subsection (4A), introduces an equivalent provision for pension credit while maintaining the original powers in the current draft. It would allow decisions to be made on advance claims to pension credit based on uprated amounts where the claim related to a period starting after the uprated amounts became payable; and the Secretary of State had made a statement in the House of Commons about the proposed uprated amounts of pension credit; but the order which brought the uprated amounts into force had not yet been made.
It is essentially a technical amendment, necessary to ensure that the claims process for pension credit can take place in a logical and legally sound manner. It is right that we take action now. I hope that the Committee will accept this technical amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an amendment.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past ten o'clock.

  Anti-social Behaviour Orders
  Anti-social Behaviour Orders
  Women Offenders
  Women Offenders
  Raves
  Raves
  Seasonal Agricultural Work: Student Permits
  Seasonal Agricultural Work: Student Permits
  Azerbaijan: OSCE Embargo
  Azerbaijan: OSCE Embargo
  Colliery Productivity
  Colliery Productivity
  Mines Rescue Service
  Mines Rescue Service
  Employment Tribunal Forms
  Employment Tribunal Forms
  Income Support Adjustments: Cost to Department
  Income Support Adjustments: Cost to Department
  Electronic Patient Records
  Electronic Patient Records
  Nursing Homes
  Nursing Homes
  Marine Environment
  Marine Environment
  Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration: Public Access
  Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration: Public Access
  Northern Ireland Bill of Rights
  Northern Ireland Bill of Rights
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Golden Jubilee Celebrations
  Golden Jubilee Celebrations