Sitting of 1 July 2002

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

    Disabled People (Work)
    Mr. Gwyn Prosser: What plans he has to improve the support his Department is giving to help people with disabilities into work. [63384]
    Mr. Brian Jenkins: What support his Department is giving to help those with disabilities to get back into work. [63388]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): For the first time in the history of the welfare state, we are actively seeking to assist disabled people to work where they are ready and able to do so. We have introduced a range of measures and are making work pay for people with disabilities through the disabled person's tax credit and the national minimum wage. We are making work possible through the new deal for disabled people and a range of specialist employment programmes, and by removing benefit
    2
    barriers. In addition, Jobcentre Plus offers all disabled people who are making new or repeat claims to benefit interviews with a personal adviser to ensure that they are aware of the help and opportunities that are available to them. We are continuing the extension of Jobcentre Plus nationwide with about 225 integrated offices opening by April 2003.
    Mr. Prosser: I thank my hon. Friend for that very encouraging answer. Is she aware that, while the established new deal programmes have already had a dramatic impact on unemployment in places such as Dover and Deal, and in east Kent generally, the new deal for disabled people is reaching out and helping people who want to work or are willing to do so, but need a helping hand—the sort of people whom we meet in our surgeries week in, week out? Will she assure me that we will now build on the success of the current scheme and seek other, more imaginative and progressive ways of helping disabled people—especially young people—back into work?
    Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend is right to say that disabled people are one of the hardest-to-help groups in terms of entering employment. For many years, disabled people were told on visiting the Benefits Agency or contacting Departments that they were incapable of work. We often need longer and more tailored interventions to assist them in getting into work. The new deal for disabled people is starting to find out the best ways of doing that and we hope to build on the lessons that we are learning as the programme continues. It has not yet been a nationwide programme for a year, so it is early days, but we are encouraged by the attitude of the disabled people who contact job brokers, as well as by the way in which job brokers can match disabled people, with all their needs and requirements, to local employers who are looking for good staff.
    Mr. Jenkins: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, and offer my congratulations in so far as I and many people in this country believe that she and her Department

    3
    are at long last recognising that we cannot afford to marginalise this part of our society. Will she thank all the people who are involved in the scheme, and especially the job mentors or personal mentors? We recognise how difficult the situation is, especially for those with hidden disabilities, who are not perceived by society to have a disability, but what is she doing to tackle the residual problem of employers who fail to understand how effective some disabled people can be in the economic work force?
    Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend makes another very important point. Employers, whether small or large, reflect the attitude and awareness issues of the rest of society. Many employers will make assumptions about what disabled people can or cannot do that are based on nothing more than old-fashioned stereotypes. It is important that the Government, and all those who work with and for disabled people, assist in getting across the fact that disabled people have a lot to offer to employers of all sizes. For example, he may know—other hon. Members may not—that disabled people are less likely to take time off work than non-disabled people. They can be valuable and long-standing members of a work force, who show loyalty and provide excellent services to their employers. It is about time that employers realised that.
    There are 8.5 million disabled people in this country with £40 billion to £45 billion of spending power in their pockets. Any employer who wants to get a share of the market that they can provide would want to employ disabled people. We would encourage employers of all sizes, from the smallest to the largest, to take that on board and give disabled people a chance.
    Annabelle Ewing: What assessment has been, or is to be, made of the effectiveness of the actions of the Minister's Department in seeking to help people with disabilities to access employment, taking into account its truly abysmal record in helping people with disabilities to access the benefits to which they should be entitled?
    Maria Eagle: The hon. Lady never disappoints in terms of being churlish, as she manages to be so whenever she stands up in the House. All our employment programmes and new deals are properly evaluated. The new deal for disabled people will be properly evaluated and lessons that need to be learned from its operation and success or lack of success will be learned in order to inform changes to the programme to make it better. We have every expectation that this programme and the other specialist disability employment programmes can make a real difference in helping disabled people to access the work force. If that is not a key part of civil rights for disabled people in this country, I do not know what is.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: Anything that the Minister can do to advance and join up the various components of vocational rehabilitation will generally be welcome to Members on these Benches. Nevertheless, does she accept that there is little room for complacency, given that in this country only 20 per cent. of people with an acquired brain injury return to employment, whereas in the United States 50 per cent. do so? In the light of that and other information, will she concede that in this context joined-up government requires the active co-operation of the Department of Health, local social
    4
    services and other agencies? In particular, will she look favourably on experimenting with integrating budgets to ensure the early and smooth delivery of the whole range of essential rehabilitation services?
    Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, in that a disabled person out there in the community does not care whether it is Department of Health money or DWP money that can assist them. They want a point of contact for assistance. I agree that job rehabilitation is a tremendously important part of what we are hoping to do, and we will need to get it right if we are to make a big impact on getting disabled people back to work. Governments have not been particularly good at that in the past, so we are starting with a blank sheet.
    The hon. Gentleman may be aware of the job retention and rehabilitation pilots in the new deal for disabled people, which will ensure that we can design good, effective interventions that assist people who require help in rehabilitation to get back to work. We need to find out what works, and in doing so we must ensure that we can spread good practice to any national scheme that we come up with. An important part of any long-term intervention is to ensure that disabled people can get back into work, and we intend to make sure that "departmentalitis" does not get in the way of that.
    Mr. Stephen Hepburn: I acknowledge the good work that the Government are doing in helping disabled people back to work, but has the Minister considered introducing a grant to cover the period from the time when the person starts work until they get paid? That is a source of fear for people who may have to live in poverty during that time, which could be a major discouragement.
    Maria Eagle: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that disincentives in the benefits system and fear of what taking the step of going back to work will mean for available money can be a big disincentive to anybody contemplating going back into the labour market after an extended period out of it. That is why we changed the therapeutic earnings rules.
    The new permitted work rules allow people to try out work to see whether their health condition will allow them to stick it out before committing themselves to giving up their benefit. In addition, benefit linking rules now mean that people can try a job for 52 weeks—a full year—to see whether it works without losing their benefit, and volunteers doing voluntary work do not have to give up their benefits in order to dip their toe back into the world of work. Such interventions can do a lot to take away the fear that is felt by many of our fellow citizens who have been out of the work force for a long time when they are contemplating returning to it. The more that we can do to give them confidence in their own abilities to get back into work and to do a good job, while taking away the fear of losing money, the better.
    Michael Fabricant: The hon. Lady is right about the reliability of disabled workers. The same goes for older people in their 50s and 60s, and we should try to do away with prejudice in that respect, too. Does she agree that there is a real problem in getting physically disabled people to work in smaller businesses, which often provide exactly the right environment for them to

    5
    work, owing to the cost of providing ramps and other equipment to enable them to work there? Many small firms do not have the spare cash to invest in that equipment. What assistance are the Government giving to enable them to invest in that type of physical equipment?
    Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about access. One of our specialist disability employment programmes, access to work, provides for just that kind of help. It enables individuals who have access problems to solve them in respect of the employer whom they are going to work for and solves newly emerging problems whereby employees fall into ill health while at work. Job retention is just as important as getting people into work once they have fallen out of the labour market due to ill health.
    We therefore operate a programme, which has three times its 1997 budget and helps three times as many people. We have interventions that will help, but the hon. Gentleman may know that many employers find that the adjustments that they have to make to accommodate disabled workers can be cheap and easy, and that the benefit of excellent new employees far outweighs the cost of adjustments to enable access.

    Salary Linked Pension Schemes
    Ian Lucas: If he will take steps to support final salary linked pension schemes. [63385]
    Mr. Tony McWalter: What measures he is taking to persuade companies and concerns to continue to provide final salary pension schemes. [63393]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): We have set up wide-ranging reviews of pensions regulation and retail saving, which are to report this month, and the Inland Revenue review on tax simplification, which is to report later in the year. I believe that it is right to consider concerted and radical action to sustain schemes and raise the level of pensions saving.
    It is important that policy is informed by accurate statistics on pension contributions. We have now been informed by the Office for National Statistics that there are problems with the series from which they have been estimated in the past, notably on transfers, which, the Office for National Statistics now tells us, are derivable and could be significant. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions is correcting the record in a written answer this afternoon. The Office for National Statistics is to lead a review of the statistics, including external representatives, as a matter of urgency.
    We apologise, Mr. Speaker, for figures that were previously given in good faith by Ministers on the level of pension contributions and are now subject to review. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary is today placing the terms of reference of the review in the Library.
    Ian Lucas: I am grateful for that thorough reply. Constituents who are employed by Iceland Frozen Foods and by the Caparo group have received notification that their final salary pension schemes have been terminated.
    6
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that such unilateral action by employers, without discussion or consultation, is reprehensible? If so, what will he do about it?
    Mr. Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. It is a serious matter when such schemes are closed and I sympathise with him and his constituents. As I said earlier, that is precisely why we need to consider radical and concerted action to sustain schemes, and, as the Government have consistently said, to raise the level of pensions saving. That is why we have established the Pickering review and the Sandler review and why we are considering tax simplification. I shall consider carefully the representations that the TUC, the CBI, pension providers, and the general public make on those important matters.
    Mr. McWalter: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that there is an increasing tendency for directors to keep their final salary schemes while removing them from their employees? Is not the greatest scandal of all that employers' contributions are being slashed? While they claim simply to be changing the sort of scheme that they are producing, they are also significantly reducing the available resources. Is not it time for compulsion?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend characteristically makes a pertinent, forceful and timely point. All of us can understand the position of people whose contributions and prospects have been weakened while those who are responsible for their employment are in a more secure position. As part of the review that we are undertaking, it is important to examine ways in which we can secure fairness of treatment so that employees can have the same sort of security that bosses secure for themselves.
    Mr. Steve Webb: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his appointment, and look forward to a brave new era of constructive dialogue on pensions across the House.
    On the subject of dodgy pension statistics, the Secretary of State will be aware that his Department has just published the pensions income series, which shows a marked drop in company pension receipts among the newly retired. Does he think that those are dodgy statistics, or does he think that that has really happened—and, if so, why?
    Mr. Smith: The advice that we were given by the Office for National Statistics was—as I have described—that the figures relating to pension contributions previously given in a written answer by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions on 16 May included transfers. A footnote pointed out at the time that those transfers existed, but it also said that they were not derivable. The correction that we are making is to say that we are now advised that they could be derived, and also that they may be significant. I am not aware of any other corrections that need to be made. However, the House will be aware of the previous difficulties with pension statistics, and, in light of this experience with the ONS, I think that it would be wise to treat any figures with caution until we see the outcome of the review.
    Mr. David Willetts: May I welcome the Secretary of State to his first Question Time in his new

    7
    post? It is a pity that, at his first such appearance at the Dispatch Box, he should have to admit that a serious error has been made by his predecessor. I have to tell him that this might not be the only time that he comes to the House to admit mistakes made by his predecessor. Let me explain to the House what the right hon. Gentleman is talking about. Ministers have been boasting that we have been saving £86 billion a year in our pensions; they are now admitting that that included transfers from one form of assets to another, and that it was not new flows. That is a significant mistake in the figures that they have been boasting about in the past months and years.
    I welcome the Secretary of State's open admission that the figures that he and his colleagues have been boasting about are wrong, but does he recognise that the amounts that households are saving are now at their lowest level since records began? How on earth could Ministers seriously have believed that we were saving almost 9 per cent. of our national income—which is what they were claiming—when all the evidence suggested that that could not possibly have been the case? If their advisers had told them that the world was flat, would Ministers have believed them?
    Mr. Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—and, indeed, to the Liberal spokesperson—for his welcome. I want to take issue straight away with what the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said about my predecessor. My predecessor and other Ministers gave those figures in good faith on the basis of advice that they were given, and, indeed, having checked that they were being given the right advice. The hon. Gentleman's remarks were rather a low blow, especially as my predecessor has such a good record on sorting out the basis of pension provision, bringing help to millions of pensioners who were denied it by the Conservatives, and introducing the pension credit, which will ensure for the first time that people who save are rewarded rather than being penalised for their savings as they were under the Conservatives. I believe that we have done the right thing in announcing the correction to these figures, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept it in that spirit.
    Mr. Willetts: The blow is to the expectations of millions of pensioners. Months ago, the Government had to withdraw their figures for the assets in our pension funds; today they are withdrawing their figures for the flows into those funds. I accept that those errors were made in good faith, and that the Secretary of State, his predecessor and the Minister of State were certainly not deliberately trying to mislead the House. The fact is, however, that the figures were seriously wrong, and that Ministers regularly claimed, on the basis of them, that they showed that the basic structure—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. During Question Time, I expect questions.
    Mr. Willetts: Given that the Secretary of State used these false figures to reach the conclusion that the basic structure of pensions was right, will he accept that the conclusion that he drew was wrong, now that the figures have proved to be wrong?
    Mr. Smith: The conclusions that we drew were, first, that the basic state pension should remain the foundation
    8
    in retirement and, secondly, that we needed to bring in the minimum income guarantee—now amended in the pension credit—to give extra help to the poorer pensioners. As I have, said, we needed to bring in the pension credit to ensure that savings and modest occupational pensions were rewarded rather than penalised. So far as occupational and personal pensions are concerned, we have initiated reviews to examine the simplification and reform that is needed. We need a national consensus on the way forward on pensions; that will not be helped by the Conservatives proposing the abolition of the basic state pension.
    Mr. Frank Field: In welcoming the Secretary of State to his post, may I draw his attention to the Order Paper, which carries more questions on pensions than at any time since Maxwell stole pension funds from his workers? May I suggest to the Secretary of State that if the population of this country is not to look forward to a leaner, meaner retirement, we need to ensure that more is saved towards our retirement income? Does he accept, therefore, that the Government must introduce radical reforms, perhaps in the autumn, if they wish to reverse the fall of new pension savings to a fifth of what they were five years ago?
    Mr. Smith: The short answer to both those questions is yes: of course I take note of the number of questions on the Order Paper and of course that quite properly reflects concern in the country at what is happening to some company and occupational pension schemes. We need to consider concerted and radical action to address that situation, and my right hon. Friend is also right—as my predecessor said and as the Government have consistently said—that we need to raise savings in this country and to make building up a savings pot that genuinely provides people with security in retirement easy and accessible.
    Mr. James Arbuthnot: I congratulate the Secretary of State on taking this difficult question himself, because what he has said today about statistics is significant. Does he accept that the amount of money being paid into pension funds is significantly lower than his Ministers said previously, and given the Government's raid on advance corporation tax— £5 billion every year—is that a surprise?
    Mr. Smith: It is difficult reliably to estimate the scale of the correction that will need to be made until we see the outcome of the review, but clearly it could have a significant impact. As to the right hon. Gentleman's allusion to the changes in tax dividends and ACT, I have to say, and it bears repeating time and again, that the reason for making that change was to remove the perverse incentive in the system to distribute dividends rather than to reinvest. What is more, in increasing investment in this country to a level that had not been seen for years, it is having an impact.

    Long-term Unemployed
    Mr. Anthony D. Wright: What help he will give to the long-term unemployed in deprived areas. [63386]
    The Minister for Work (Mr. Nicholas Brown): Our policies, built on a foundation of a strong and stable economy, are helping people into work in all parts of the country.
    The new deals have already helped nearly 700,000 people into jobs nationwide—1,700 in my hon. Friend's constituency. Action teams for jobs and employment zones continue to assist disadvantaged people in the most deprived areas of the country, so far helping more than 56,000 people into work. In addition, we are introducing 20 StepUp pilots to provide transitional jobs for long-term unemployed people. I am pleased to inform my hon. Friend that one of the pilots will start in his constituency this autumn.
    Mr. Wright: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and say clearly that the difference is that under the Conservative Administration there was 20 per cent. unemployment in my constituency as opposed to 6.5 per cent. now. I concur that that is due to the new deal and the other schemes, so I welcome the new initiative, but we are faced with the dilemma that those who are left unemployed are largely those who are unskilled. What other initiatives can he introduce and what can we do to try to involve other employers in my constituency and encourage them to make a greater input to the new deal and other schemes?
    Mr. Brown: I am pleased that our schemes are having the impact on unemployment in my hon. Friend's constituency that he describes, although I believe that more needs to be done, particularly in terms of the Department's relations with employers. Specialist advisers are being appointed to a number of jobcentres to liaise directly with employers on the services that the Department provides—enhanced services through the new Jobcentre Plus arrangements, which are coming soon to my hon. Friend's constituency.
    Mr. Paul Goodman: Was the Prime Minister right when he said in the House on 12 June that the number of unemployed young people is 4,500, or is the Minister's Department right when it says that the number of unemployed young people is 244,000?
    Mr. Brown: I understand that the statistics have been correctly stated to the House.
    Paul Goggins: May I confirm that the Government are making a real difference to unemployed people in my constituency, not least the 219 long-term sick and unemployed who have been found work in the past few months by the Wythenshawe action team? When the new Jobcentre Plus offices are opened in my constituency next year, will the Minister ensure that
    10
    they are located close to Wythenshawe town centre, not in the peripheral, out-of-the-way place where the Tories put the jobcentre in the 1980s?
    Mr. Brown: The success of action teams is primarily due to the flexibility in the schemes and the outreach work that they can undertake. If my hon. Friend cares to write to me, I shall consider the location of the new Jobcentre Plus office and see what can be done to ensure that it is appropriately sited.
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) is right to concentrate on working with employers to ensure that there are opportunities for people to take up at the end of these valuable schemes. The Minister rightly said that personal advisers are assisting in that direction, but is he satisfied that enough is being done with account holders—the liaison people between Jobcentre Plus and the employers—to ensure that there is a transition process and that there are real jobs for the hardest to help to go to at the end of the scheme?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is on to an important point. We need to do more to build links between the service and the employers. After all, a substantial sum of public money has been invested in improving the service, and we need to explain ourselves not just to large companies, but to small and medium employers. We are appointing these new officials at a local level so that they can have that interface with the local labour market.

    Pickering Report
    Mr. Barry Gardiner: When he expects to publish the Pickering report; and if he will make a statement. [63387]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): Last September, my predecessor asked Alan Pickering, former chairman of the National Association of Pension Funds, to carry out an independent review of private pensions legislation. His report will be published in the next few weeks.
    Mr. Gardiner: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the biggest barriers to pension provision is the sheer complexity of the products on offer? Does he agree that that often makes it difficult for employees properly to assess and compare the products that are available? Does he also agree that, no matter what else Pickering may bring, one of the most vital things that should come from the report is simplification of the whole system?
    Mr. Smith: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. Without wanting to anticipate Alan Pickering's report, I think that it is crucial that employees are in a much better position to make informed choices. That requires a simpler range of products and the roll-out of comprehensive pension forecasts. That is why Alan Pickering was asked to report to Ministers with proposals for simplifying pensions regulation while ensuring that pension scheme members are properly protected. That is the crucial balance to get right.
    Mr. John Butterfill: The Pickering report has been wildly trailed in the press,

    11
    especially in the Financial Times. Mr. Pickering addressed the all-party group on occupational pensions only a few days age. He confirmed that one idea is to give employers the right to make membership of employer schemes mandatory. How would that sit with those employees who already have substantial personal pensions?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman's expertise in this matter is greatly and widely respected in the House. I hope that he will understand when I say that I will not be drawn into speculation about Alan Pickering's report. We will give careful consideration to all his recommendations, and we will listen carefully to the response from the public, the pensions industry, employers and trade unions.

    One Stop Service
    Roger Casale: What plans he has to offer a one stop service for those people who are out of work. [63389]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): In April this year, we created Jobcentre Plus to bring together the Employment Service and those parts of the Benefits Agency that deal with people of working age. Jobcentre Plus provides an integrated, work-focused service to people who are out of work.
    Fifty-six new Jobcentre Plus offices are already up and running. We intend to roll those out across Great Britain over the next four years. We have already announced that we plan to open around 225 more offices by April 2003.
    Roger Casale: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, which I welcome. Does he agree with my constituent, Charlene Kuye, who is a single parent engaged on a teacher training course, and with organisations such as Gingerbread, which speaks for lone parent families, that the complexity of the benefits system can be one of the major barriers to helping young people return to work? Will he continue to listen to benefit recipients and their representatives as we continue to improve the benefit system so that it is possible for people to make a seamless transition from taking maternity or paternity leave to going back to work or from training back to work?
    Malcolm Wicks: Yes, we must learn from our constituents. Our advice surgeries are our most important seminars in this respect. Although large numbers of lone parents are being enabled to get back into work, a significant proportion are still not in work. The interface with skills and education is critical. From local office level through to ministerial level at Whitehall, we have good connections with those in the world of education and skills.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Can the hon. Gentleman clarify the enigmatic answer given by the Minister for Work a few minutes ago and say which of the statistics regarding young people is correct? Are 4,500 young people out of work or 244,000? Which is right?
    Malcolm Wicks: Because of the need to be absolutely accurate about these statistics, I think it best to write to
    12
    the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman), who raised the point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The crucial thing, which the Opposition often do not want to hear, is that the new deal for young people has been a great success. With just a few exceptions, we have virtually eradicated the problem of long-term youth unemployment. People should celebrate that, because it involves a lot of work from young people, my colleagues in the Department and employers. It is a cause for celebration, not cynicism and sarcasm.
    Glenda Jackson: One frustration for some of my long-term unemployed constituents is that they seem to be precluded from entering courses to reskill and retrain them that are for longer than one day a week. Will my hon. Friend examine the situation, and will people who have been put on a course that they discover is not meeting their needs be able to change easily to another, more suitable, course?
    Malcolm Wicks: Yes. As I have indicated, we need to learn from our constituents. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would write to me with individual experiences. In all sorts of ways, not least with our basic skills initiative, which deals with the fact that too many adults struggle with literacy and numeracy, we have a very joined-up approach with the Department for Education and Skills. We are screening people in jobcentres to test their literacy and numeracy. We are trying in all sorts of other ways to put the rhetoric of lifelong learning into practice. I repeat that we need to learn, and I am happy to discuss the matter with my hon. Friend.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: The Minister will recall from earlier exchanges that not only do we not have a jobcentre in the Vale of York, there is no prospect of a Jobcentre Plus. Will he take up the case of Mr. Potter, who has been sent from pillar to post through a variety of offices? He lost his job in the farming industry in the autumn of last year and it has taken two months for a letter to be transferred to the Minister's Department from another. Will he try to help Mr. Potter to obtain unemployment benefit from the day that he lost his job?
    Malcolm Wicks: I apologise for any delay. I will take up the case of the hon. Lady's constituent. We have not yet announced all our plans, but in those rural areas that may not have a Jobcentre Plus, we need to think hard about how to provide an adequate service. We can do that through the telephone and through the Internet for some. We need to join up with other local agencies to provide the service and must be sensitive to the needs of rural areas. Although there will be a large number of Jobcentre Plus offices throughout the country, some areas will not have that facility as such, and we are thinking hard about how to ensure that the hon. Lady's constituents and those in similar areas receive the service that they deserve. Meanwhile, I will take up her constituent's case.

    Final Salary Pensions
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: What recent discussions he has had with the CBI and employer organisations on final salary pensions. [63391]
    Geraint Davies: What response he has made to representations from the TUC and others to encourage the continued provision of final salary pensions. [63392]
    The Minister for Pensions (Mr. Ian McCartney): We have frequent contact with both the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress to discuss a range of pensions issues, including final salary pension schemes. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions made clear in his recent speech to the TUC conference, it has to be worth while for employees to save, confident in what they will get in return, and easy for employers to contribute. We need a framework that builds partnership in pension provision not mutual aversion to responsibility.
    Mr. Lloyd: Does my right hon. Friend recall the so-called employers pensions holiday, when they ceased to make contributions to pension schemes? It was actually more like a pensions strike. Is he aware that one strong motivation for getting rid of final salary pension schemes is that, even on the better alternatives, employers save up to a third of their costs? That means that employees receive a final pension much worse than they had anticipated. What do the Government intend to do to ensure that employers recognise that they must make a contribution?
    Mr. McCartney: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Like him and all my ministerial colleagues, I want a maximisation of employer contributions as an investment in their work force. The whole point of the simplification review and the discussions is to develop a partnership between the Government, employers and trade unions so that each of us takes responsibility for every aspect of developing a pensions policy for the future that will guarantee investment and a secure pension. During the next few weeks, when the reviews are published, I hope that there will be productive discussions with the CBI, the TUC and others to ensure that when the Government set out their radical approach to those matters there will be a common, binding agreement on the way forward.
    Geraint Davies: When my right hon. Friend reviews pensions facilities and the partnership for the provision of pensions to which he referred, will he examine the fundamental relationship between employer contributions, employee contributions and state contributions? In doing so, will he consider the Australian model, which requires a certain level of employer compulsion in respect of any named pension fund in exchange for tax relief and productivity deals, in the knowledge that the only certain way of obtaining long-term pension contributions is by getting more jobs? That is something that we are doing and that the Opposition never did.
    Mr. McCartney: I am absolutely certain that, with those involved in the simplification review and in preparing the reports, the Government will consider a range of issues, including international comparisons, to try to encourage investment by employers. When the review is published we can join in a debate, after which I hope that we shall see the way forward to ensure a secure
    14
    future both for deferred pensioners—those who are currently investing but who are not yet pensioners—and for those who are pensioners already.
    Mr. David Ruffley: The Chancellor of the Exchequer's Robert Maxwell-style pension raid is costing the average contributing member of a pension scheme £400 a year. Will the Minister take this opportunity to say sorry to those pension holders?
    Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman has a brass neck asking that question, when there was a £34 billion mis-selling of pension funds under a Tory Government. It took the Labour Government to make sure that money was put back. A Conservative Government halved the value of SERPS—the state earnings-related pension scheme—took it off widows and forgot to tell them about it. This Government put that money back. A Conservative Government put 3 million people on the dole and those people lost pension rights because of it. Grow up.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Surely the Minister understands that everyone knows that the Government's response to the crisis in the pensions industry has been woefully inadequate. Will he admit that the £5 billion a year raid on pension funds was a dreadful error of judgment? As the Secretary of State is in the mood to apologise today, will he also apologise on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the millions of people who face a lower income in their retirement?
    Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman is another man with a record as long as his arm. He was a pensions Minister who made such a botched job of it that his constituents rightly got rid of him. Perhaps he would like to tell us about the letter that he received from the—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am answering the question—Opposition Members may not like the answer—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We must have some calm in the Chamber.
    Mr. McCartney: I am not sure why it is, but every time that I stand at the Dispatch Box, the Conservatives get excited.
    On 7 March, the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) received a letter from the Opposition spokesperson on pensions, who asked him to prepare a plan for the privatisation of the basic state pension. Perhaps he will stand up and apologise to the House for trying to get rid of the basic state pension.
    David Winnick: Should we not make it absolutely clear that the full responsibility for ending such schemes lies with employers, and that they must be held accountable? Going back to what was said earlier, is it not sickening that while so many employees could well be driven into acute financial hardship, if not poverty, in their retirement, those who make the decisions—the directors—are rewarding themselves with fat cat pension schemes, option schemes, bonuses and the rest to ensure

    15
    that, when they retire, they can live the lives of millionaires and multi-millionaires? The contrast between the two is obscene.
    Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There has been greed and greed with great excess. There is no doubt about that, but in simply saying that fat cats are wrong, we have got to do something about long-term stability and arrangements for the basic state pension, the state contribution and the private sector contribution to the future of pensions. That is what the Pickering review is about. At least the Government are prepared to advocate proposals on behalf of pensioners and to introduce schemes to eradicate the poverty that exists, a new pension scheme to prevent it in future and a new partnership between the Government on one hand and employers and trade unions on the other to ensure investment by employers in pension schemes and the certainty that when people retire they get a fair pension for the contribution that has been made.
    Mr. David Willetts: May I tell the Minister that the CBI and the TUC were represented at our pensions summit last week? He might try getting them together as well. Does he agree with the TUC that the United Kingdom pensions system is in crisis? What does he think of the latest evidence of that crisis? The Caparo steel group, which is headed by a Labour peer, Lord Paul, is trying to close down its final salary pension scheme. Lord Paul is trying to get his workers into the Government's pet stakeholder scheme instead. So a Labour peer is trying to impose a Labour policy on members of a trade union affiliated to the Labour party, and what is the reaction? They take industrial action in protest. Something is seriously wrong with the Government's pensions policies if members of a Labour-affiliated trade union are taking industrial action against the policies that the Government are pursuing.
    Mr. McCartney: My understanding is that the hon. Gentleman's summit was more of a molehill than a summit and that he made virtually no contribution to the debate on pensions. It was nothing more than a cheap publicity stunt.
    The hon. Gentleman mocks stakeholder pensions. In a year, more than 800,000 people who did not have a pension vehicle for their retirement have now got one and more than 90 per cent. of employers who did not provide access to one now do so, but that is only a start.
    As for the former members of British Steel, the hon. Gentleman should remember that his Government stood back and allowed that company to be butchered and tens of thousands of jobs—not just pensions—were lost in steel and mining communities. The whole purpose of the stakeholder pension arrangements and the simplification review is to get the common agreement of employers, first, to continue with defined benefit schemes; secondly, where those schemes do not exist, to get stakeholder pensions where employers have never before contributed to employees in the labour market; and, thirdly, to get a new partnership between employers, the Government and trade unions. If we can achieve that during the debates that will take place this summer following the simplification review, we will have gone a long way to establishing a new pensions settlement in Britain.

    Funded Pension Schemes
    Bob Spink: What recent assessment he has made of the viability of funded pension schemes. [63394]
    The Minister for Pensions (Mr. Ian McCartney): Funded provision is crucial to overall pension provision in the United Kingdom. If it is to remain viable, we need to ensure that we have an appropriate level of regulation and the right incentives to encourage employers and employees to contribute to pensions. That is why we have commissioned the Pickering and Sandler reviews, which will be published in the next few weeks.
    Bob Spink: Now that the Government have admitted that, like Enron, they gave false figures, will they admit two specific points: first, that the number of people benefiting from occupational pensions is now 10 per cent. lower than when they took office in 1997 and, secondly, that the proportion of money saved by British households last year fell to the lowest level since records began? Will the Government try to correct that situation and help those on funded pension schemes by now withdrawing the £5 billion pensions tax that they imposed?
    Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman never ceases to amaze us. I and my colleagues gave information to the House on the basis of an independent analysis. When challenged about that analysis, we rightly said that, the analysis being independent, Ministers had given the House the information that was available. As the hon. Gentleman can confirm, when it became clear that there was a need for a review and as soon as Ministers knew that the answer that I had given in good faith to the House could be questioned, we informed the hon. Member concerned, and spoke to him personally. At 3.30 pm, we will put forward proposals to ensure that an effective response is made in respect of my answer.
    More importantly, in this complex area, the last Government continued to give wrong information in a non-independent way. We have initiated a review by independent experts, and I hope that there will be an agreed settlement on how, in future, we publish statistics in this area. The hon. Gentleman's Government failed to inform people about their entitlement to SERPS, which cost widows about £1 billion a year. When Labour Ministers find that there is a problem, at least we report it to the House immediately and take action to rectify it.
    John Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best incentives that could be given for pensions would be to establish a minimum amount of money that employers must contribute—9 per cent., for example—to ensure that workers would also put in their money?
    Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is right that employers need to make contributions to pension schemes. In general, we would agree with that. I would like to wait, however, to see whether the Pickering review recommends further action on compulsion. I want to make it absolutely clear that Ministers want to ensure that the review gives an incentive to employers to contribute, and to continue to contribute, to the pensions of their

    17
    employees. It is in everybody's interests, including employers, that they invest in their employees' future through pensions.

    Crisis Loan Payments
    Mr. David Heath: What proportion of crisis loan payments were made in response to alignment claims in the last 12 months. [63395]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): Social fund alignment payments provide valuable help to people awaiting their first payment of wages on taking up work. They also help people with essential day-to-day living expenses in advance of their first payment of benefit. During 2001–02, just under half of crisis loans were made through alignment payments.
    Mr. Heath: Is not it extraordinary that the crisis loan fund, which is cash-limited and which is there to help the poorest of our constituents in the most extreme circumstances, is largely pre-empted by payments that, effectively, are made as a result of administrative delay? I am not denying that payments must be made in that instance, but I am not sure that they should be made from that fund. When the Minister wrote to me on 14 May, he said that he was considering this matter, and that new guidelines would be issued. He said that a review would be done on a region-by-region basis. Have those things yet been accomplished?
    Malcolm Wicks: I do not accept that alignment payments are made predominantly because of delays. It may interest the House to know that. during 2001–02, income support claims were cleared, on average, within 9.7 days of all relevant information being received, which is less than our target of 12 days. Similarly, we are performing well in terms of incapacity benefit and jobseeker's allowance. Alignment payments are becoming better known by our claimants, which may be a factor, but there may be an issue in relation to our procedures. I can therefore confirm that we are currently considering the detailed guidance that we offer to our staff on this aspect of crisis loans. The guidance is expected to be with staff by mid-July.
    Mr. James Clappison: Is not the fact of the matter that alignment payments are made to compensate for other payments that recipients should have received from the Government, and that, in a way, part of the crisis fund is being spent on crises created by the Government? Has not the proportion of the crisis fund so allocated substantially increased since 1997, and does not it now stand at 40 per cent. of the crisis fund, as the Minister had to admit in a written answer that he gave to me correcting, properly, incorrect information—more incorrect information—that he had given in a previous written answer? Will the Government now take urgent action to ensure that funds are not diverted from vulnerable people in that way and that the Government act promptly and efficiently in their benefit payments?
    Malcolm Wicks: I think that there is some misunderstanding about this issue. When people first apply for benefit, they may have to wait some days before
    18
    they receive it. If they are in urgent need, they will receive an alignment payment. Similarly—although in a smaller percentage of cases—if people have a job and are waiting for their first wage packet, one of the alignment payments may be made. I suspect that there is some confusion because the payments are paid through crisis loans. However, as I have said, although there are a number of factors behind the trend, we are looking at the matter carefully. We will issue the new guidance later this month.

    Private Pensions Industry
    Mr. Michael Jack: What plans he has to publish a pensions White Paper on the state of the private pensions industry. [63396]
    The Minister for Pensions (Mr. Ian McCartney): The Sandler review into long-term savings and the Pickering simplification review are due to report shortly. The Government will then consult on proposals in the autumn.
    Mr. Jack: In thanking the Minister for that answer, may I say that his combative approach to previous questions and his attacks on the previous Conservative Government are no way to respond to the real fears of people about whether they will have anything like a long-term income from their pensions? On the very day that The Times carries articles questioning the strength of our insurance companies, may I ask the Minister to bring together all the arguments about employees and employers in a White Paper that will review the whole desperate pension situation?
    Mr. McCartney: This Government have acted already. We have introduced the state second pension, which means that 14 million low-paid workers will for the first time receive an additional pension as well as the basic state pension. We have made advances in that 2 million carers and 2 million people with disabilities who were outside the system will receive an additional pension in the form of the stakeholder pension. We have sorted out the Tory Government's mis-selling of pensions, we have sorted out SERPS and we have introduced the simplification review.
    I have said on at least three occasions today that, when the reviews by Sandler and Pickering are in the public domain, the Government will publish their response to them this autumn. At that point, I will be more than happy to debate the future of pensions with the right hon. Gentleman. Three points apply to the future of pensions. The first is that employers accept their responsibility, the second is that the Government accept theirs and the third is that there should be vehicles that will enable employees to start investing in their own future. When we have got all those three pillars in place, we can modernise the state pension and the contributions that employers and employees make and will be able to secure pensions for the future.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: When the Minister looks further at private pension schemes, will he agree to consider the case of Parsons Energy and Engineering in south-west London? That American company has not merely closed its final salary scheme to existing as well

    19
    as new employees, but has halved the pension entitlement arbitrarily. Does he not agree that the trusteeship arrangements are far too weak to prevent cowboy capitalists of that kind from stealing from their own pensions funds?
    Mr. McCartney: I do not have all the details of that case but, if the hon. Gentleman writes to me, I will be more than willing to meet him and his colleagues to discuss this matter. I will then subsequently give or not give advice as appropriate to the circumstances.

    Voluntary Sector (Pensions)
    Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: What action he is taking to promote pension take-up among voluntary sector workers. [63397]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): The Government are committed to ensuring that everybody gets a decent income in retirement and to promoting pension provision among all groups of workers, including those in the voluntary sector
    Mr. Dhanda: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is she aware that, when groups in the voluntary sector bid
    20
    for extra funds for local campaigns, as is the case in my constituency of Gloucester, they sometimes find that, although the money can be used to help to employ extra staff, local campaigners or case workers, it is difficult to make up the employers contribution? However, if such groups put in an extra bid in the first instance to make up that money, the Government can help them. Therefore, will her Department do more to emphasise the fact that such groups can be supported if they make it clear that they wish money for such contributions to be part of their bid?
    Maria Eagle: Good employers who want to get good staff will make proper pension provision a part of the package that they offer. Following the introduction of stakeholder pensions, many voluntary sector employers will have to designate stakeholders and therefore offer their employees a low-cost excellent new vehicle to ensure that they can save for their retirement.
    In terms of awareness raising, it is crucial that the Government and others get across to employees and employers the importance of saving for retirement. In that regard we have high hopes that the new combined pension forecasting will enable employees and employers to see just what kind of pensions they are likely to retire on. It may well also provide a boost to ensure that people save more for their retirement.

G8 Summit
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the G8 Summit in Canada. Copies of all the documents agreed at the summit have been placed in the House Libraries. I pay tribute to Prime Minister Chrétien for his excellent leadership at the meeting.
This was the first meeting of G8 leaders since 11 September. We reviewed progress made in tackling terrorism, including steps taken to cut off terrorists' sources of financing, and action in Afghanistan and globally against al-Qaeda and other terrorist networks. I set out detailed UK proposals for curbing opium production in Afghanistan, which is the source of some 90 per cent. of the heroin on our streets, and we agreed collectively to step up efforts to deal with this menace. We also agreed a set of practical measures to enhance the security of the global transport system.
The events of 11 September proved beyond doubt that terrorists will use any means to attack our countries and our people. We therefore agreed at Kananaskis to launch a new global partnership against the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and so help ensure that these deadly materials cannot fall into the hands of terrorist groups. The world's largest stocks of sensitive nuclear and chemical materials are in the countries of the former Soviet Union, above all in Russia. The G8 therefore agreed collectively to raise up to $20 billion over the next 10 years to fund projects under the global partnership. Among our priority concerns are the destruction of chemical weapons, the dismantling of decommissioned nuclear submarines and the employment of former weapons scientists. As part of this programme, the UK plans to commit up to $750 million spread over the next decade.
We also discussed pressing regional issues. On the middle east, G8 leaders reaffirmed their commitment to the two-state vision first set out in the Saudi peace initiative: a state of Israel, secure and accepted by its Arab neighbours, living side by side in peace with a stable and well governed state of Palestine. We called for continuing efforts also on India and Pakistan.
The Kananaskis summit also marked a major shift in the G7's relationship with Russia. G7 leaders agreed that Russia will assume the G8 presidency in 2006 and host our summit that year. Taken together with agreement by both the European Union and the United States to grant Russia market economy status, and with the launch of the new NATO/Russia Council, these moves constitute a significant further step in building a strong partnership with Russia on security and economic issues. The next step is Russia's accession to the World Trade Organisation.
But the main focus of the summit was Africa. Let me remind the House why. The tragedy of Africa is that it is a rich continent whose people are poor. Africa's potential is enormous, yet a child in Africa dies of disease, famine or conflict every three seconds. These are facts that shame the civilised world. In Genoa last July, G8 leaders agreed to draw up a comprehensive action plan for Africa. Central to this proposal was the concept of a deal: that African Governments commit themselves to economic,
22
political and governance reforms, and that the G8 responds with more development assistance, more debt relief and greater opportunities for trade.
Over the past year, African leaders have developed the New Partnership for Africa's Development—NEPAD. This is an African-led initiative, which puts good governance at its heart. African countries have pledged to raise standards of governance and have committed themselves to a peer-review mechanism that will provide an objective assessment against these new standards. In response, at Kananaskis the G8 published its action plan for Africa. The plan sets out specific measures in eight areas, and I shall deal with some of them.
Peace and stability are preconditions for successful development everywhere, and especially in Africa. Eight million Africans have died in conflicts in the last 20 years. The G8 committed to intensify efforts to promote peace in the Democratic Republic of Congo and in Sudan, two of Africa's bloodiest wars, and to consolidate the peace efforts now being made in Angola and Sierra Leone.
For the long term, we need to develop the peacekeeping capacity of African countries themselves. We agreed that by 2003 we will have in place a joint plan to build regional peacekeeping forces, trained and helped by us. But we must also tackle the underlying issues that so often drive conflict. We pledged our support for the UN initiative to monitor and address the illegal exploitation and international transfer of natural resources from Africa which fuel armed conflicts, including mineral resources, petroleum, timber and water, and to support voluntary control efforts such as the Kimberley process for diamonds.
Around 50 million children in Africa are not in school of any kind. We agreed therefore to implement the education taskforce report, prepared for the summit, which will significantly increase bilateral aid for basic education for African countries that have a strong policy and financial commitment. Recent analysis by the World Bank sets out clearly which policies work. We agreed that where countries have those policies in place, we will ensure that they have sufficient external finance to meet the goal of universal primary education by 2015.
We also agreed to continue our efforts to tackle HIV/AIDS through the new global health fund, and G8 countries committed to provide the resources necessary to eradicate polio from Africa by 2005. Twenty-six countries, including 22 in Africa, have already benefited under the enhanced heavily indebted poor countries, or HIPC, initiative, receiving about $62 billion in debt relief. Eventually, 37 countries are expected to benefit.
At Kananaskis the G8 agreed to provide up to an additional $1 billion for the HIPC trust fund. That will help to ensure that those countries whose debt position has worsened, because of the global economic slowdown and falls in commodity prices, will get enough debt relief to ensure that they are able to exit HIPC with sustainable levels of debt.
On trade, we agreed to make the WTO Doha round work for developing countries, particularly in Africa. We reaffirmed our commitment to conclude the negotiations no later than 1 January 2005 and, without prejudicing the outcome of the negotiations, to apply that Doha commitment to comprehensive negotiations on agriculture aimed at substantial improvements in market access and reductions in all forms of export subsidies with a view to their being entirely phased out.

23
At Monterrey in February the international community pledged to increase official development assistance by $12 billion a year from 2006. In Kananaskis the G8 agreed that at least half of that new money would go to reforming African countries, for investment in line with NEPAD's own priorities. That is a substantial commitment by any standards—an additional $6 billion a year for the world's poorest continent. It recognises Africa's needs, but it is also a strong signal of the G8's confidence that the commitments that African leaders are making under NEPAD really will transform the environment in which our aid is invested.
The UK will contribute its share of those additional resources. I can tell the House that we expect UK bilateral spending on Africa to rise from around £650 million a year now to £1 billion by 2006—three times the level that we inherited from the last Conservative Government.
President Mbeki of South Africa said of the plan that
"there has never been an engagement of this kind before, certainly not between Africa and the G8…it is a very, very good beginning."
President Obasanjo from Nigeria called it a
"historic moment for Africa and for the whole relationship between the developed and developing world".
Africa is not a hopeless continent, as some have described it. Uganda, for example, has reduced poverty by 20 percentage points in the last 10 years, and growth has averaged around 7 per cent. a year. HIPC debt relief and aid have been used to help to provide free primary education. As a result, enrolment has doubled, putting millions of children into school. Mozambique has seen growth of 9 per cent. in the past 4 years, and Tanzania is now providing free primary education. As a result of courageous new policies, Mali has reduced poverty dramatically in the past 4 years.
Of course, we need to do more—much more—but for the first time there is a comprehensive plan, dealing with all aspects of the African plight. For the first time, it is constructed with reforming African leaders as partners, not as passive recipients of aid. For the first time, we link explicitly and clearly good governance and development.
So this is not our destination—of an African renaissance—achieved, but it is a new departure. It is a real signal of hope for the future, and it is up to us now to make it a reality. I am proud of the part that Britain has played in it. There are those who say that Africa matters little to the British people. The millions who donate to charities—who give up time, energy and commitment to the cause of Africa—eloquently dispute this. Africa does matter: to us and to humanity. We intend to see the plan through.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: May I begin by thanking the Prime Minister for giving me early sight of his statement? Kananaskis was the first G8 gathering since 11 September, and we welcome the practical steps agreed there to fight international terrorism, and to prevent the spread of weapons and materials of mass destruction. In particular, Kananaskis marked another step in Russia's re-emergence on the world stage, and I believe it right that the G8 should help to reduce her nuclear stockpiles, and very fitting that Russia will assume presidency of the G8 in 2006.
24
We also welcome the G8's renewed commitment to supporting universal primary education in developing countries, and to assisting those countries in tackling the scourge of diseases such as AIDS, TB, malaria and polio. The progress made on international debt relief is also welcome, although we note that the sums involved barely make up for the fall in world commodity prices that has recently so affected developing economies. The Prime Minister is right to herald the G8's meeting with African presidents and the UN Secretary-General to discuss the New Partnership for Africa's Development as a step in the right direction. However, only last October the Prime Minister told his party conference that a partnership for Africa meant
"no tolerance of bad governance, from the endemic corruption of some states, to the activities of Mr. Mugabe's henchmen in Zimbabwe."
I agreed with him. Does he still stand by that clear statement, and if so, does he not think that the G8 missed an opportunity to send a stark signal to dictators by using the example of Robert Mugabe to show that there will be no meaningful partnership for development with countries that do not respect political freedom and the rule of law?
The G8 summit could have demanded fresh presidential elections in Zimbabwe; it could have co-ordinated sanctions between the EU and north America; and it could have shown that we mean what we say about good governance in the African continent. Did the Prime Minister argue for those things at the conference, and if so, does he not agree that it is deeply disappointing that Zimbabwe did not merit a mention in the communiqué? or in his statement?
The G8 pledged itself
"to work for peace in the Middle East, based on our vision of two states living side by side within secure and recognised borders".
It also talked of
"the agreement on the urgency of reform of Palestinian institutions and its economy, and of free and fair elections".
Last Thursday, the Prime Minister said that, in his view, Yasser Arafat has
"an attitude towards terrorism which has been inconsistent with the notion of Israel's security."
Does the Prime Minister believe that a Palestinian Authority led by Yasser Arafat can ever be consistent with the notion of Israel's security, or does he agree with Secretary Powell, who said yesterday that if the Palestinians
"don't bring in new leaders, then we shouldn't expect…approaches"
that may be new or otherwise? Does the Prime Minister agree with that statement or the previous one?
Today, we learn that the United States is threatening to veto the extension of UN peacekeeping operations in Bosnia unless American troops are granted immunity from prosecution by the International Criminal Court. Did the Prime Minister discuss that with President Bush and other G8 leaders during the summit? Ten days ago, the Defence Secretary told the House,
"On the ICC, the Government negotiated an effective immunity".—[Official Report, 20 June 2002; Vol. 387, c. 413.]
Last week, however, he told a Select Committee that
"immunity is not quite the right word".
Which is it? Perhaps the Prime Minister can tell us what our position is.

25
Was the Prime Minister not aware of grave misgivings, which we share, that the court could be used maliciously to put our soldiers in the dock merely for carrying out their duties—[Interruption.] Labour Members may complain, but the French have been able to negotiate immunity for their troops for the next seven years as a condition of signing up to the ICC. When we sought in the course of debate to introduce similar protection, that was rejected, even though it was for British troops. Will the Prime Minister tell us once and for all what protection, if any, our troops will have, apart from the judgment of the ICC—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Please let the Leader of the Opposition speak.
Mr. Duncan Smith: They hate it when they get difficult questions as they never hear the answer—[Interruption.] Does the Prime Minister agree with the criticism of the United States launched by the Secretary of State for International Development yesterday in the media and the newspapers? If Kananaskis is to be remembered, it will be judged by what it achieves for southern Africa, especially the 13 million people starving in that region. This is an opportunity to strike up a genuine partnership with Africa that will endure beyond the following day's headlines. It is a two-way street, however, offering long-term assistance delivered to an agreed timetable from the developed world in return for a genuine commitment by developing countries to improve the governance of their people. But it takes action, not just words. If, with all the might at its disposal, and with the Prime Minister at the conference, the G8 cannot even bring itself to demand change in Zimbabwe, what hope is there for the rest of Africa?
The Prime Minister: If I may say so, I thought that that was an extraordinary demonstration of the right hon. Gentleman's priorities. I make no apology whatever for using the vast majority of the statement to deal with Africa. It was extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman had more to say about the International Criminal Court than the state of Africa. I shall deal with the issue of Zimbabwe, but first I shall deal with the International Criminal Court, which the Conservatives supported when it was debated in the House. At the time, a Conservative Front-Bench spokesman said:
"It is a great shame that in the negotiations at Rome, where our team and others bent over backwards to try and assuage the fears of the USA…the USA ultimately felt that it could not join the countries that signed up".
Another Conservative spokesman said:
"I urge the Government to introduce legislation to allow us to ratify the statute in order to realise their intention that we should be among the first 60 states to do so".—[Official Report, 27 October 1999; Vol. 336, c. 934–36.]
There is therefore a tinge of opportunism in the Conservatives' stance today. We have taken our position because we were advised that as a result of the safeguards in place—in particular the issue of complementarity, which means that provided that a nation state is capable of trying people for any crimes, the ICC does not have jurisdiction—it is inconceivable that our peacekeepers would be brought before the court in that way. The best test of whether that is correct or not is what has happened with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former
26
Yugoslavia, which has been running for seven years and has far more intrusive powers than the ICC. In those seven years, not one peacekeeper has been up before the court. The ICC is designed to deal with people committing war crimes or genocide, and I believe that that is right. I entirely understand the concerns of the United States of America, which are perfectly legitimate. Our view, however, is that they are met by the principles that I set out and the constraints on the international court's development.
On Zimbabwe, let me make it clear that it will not benefit in any way from the African plan, precisely because of the outrageous conduct of the Zimbabwean Government. That is why it is so important that the plan makes it clear that only the countries that engage in good governance will qualify for the extra aid and assistance. As for what we should do about Zimbabwe, at every level—in the European Union and elsewhere, in the negotiations with the United States—of course we raise the matter.
I looked very carefully at the words of the shadow Foreign Secretary when he was lambasting the Government for our position on Zimbabwe. I could not find a single sensible, constructive suggestion from him to deal with the matter. This is a classic instance of the Conservatives seizing on an issue, running with it hard, and having nothing but sheer vacuous nonsense to say about it.
On HIPC, the right hon. Gentleman speaks about the sum barely making up the difference. Let us be clear. When the Government came to office, we had nothing like the help in place for Africa on debt relief or anything else. What we have done through the additional aid means that billions of dollars of debt relief will be saved for those countries, so that the money can be put into education. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would welcome that. [HON. MEMBERS: "We did."] Well, I suppose that it was a welcome of sorts. It is one of the features of the Conservatives that although in general they are against spending any money, in particular they are always in favour of spending more.
On the middle east, in relation to Chairman Arafat, let me repeat what I said last week. I believe that if the middle east is to have a chance of getting the peace process that it needs, we need serious people to negotiate with. I have said why I believe that Chairman Arafat has let down the Palestinian people, in particular by rejecting the deal that was offered by Prime Minister Barak: he did a huge disservice to the process of peace in the middle east.
It is for the Palestinians, of course, to decide whom they elect. We are not in a position to decide that for them, but the point that we must make and that the Americans are making is that if they end up electing leadership that is not serious about partnering the peace process, it will be difficult to make the changes that we want. That is the reality, and it is why we and the Americans have both been saying it. The right hon. Gentleman will find that the vast majority of countries agree.
In particular, leaving aside for a moment the issue of Chairman Arafat, the key thing that the Bush speech did, and the reason why I think that it should be strongly supported, is that it set out the following principles, which are vital for progress: security for the Palestinian people,

27
and a proper security infrastructure rebuilt; political reform of the Palestinian institutions—that is vital—en route to a viable Palestinian state, living side by side with a secure of Israel. As a result, if there are those changes on the Palestinian side, there must be from Israel in return the commitment to an end to settlements, withdrawal from the occupied territories, and a resolution of the issue on the basis of United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 and 338.
That is what is important. I believe that we have the basis of a forward plan for the middle east that can work. I believe that it will work, but only if we make sure that those principles are properly implemented. I must say to the right hon. Gentleman that the attempt to make differences between ourselves and the Americans may suit the Opposition, but it does not suit the peace process at all.
Finally, let me deal with the point that the right hon. Gentleman made, in so far as he dealt with Africa at all. He said that this announcement is a deal. Yes, it is, and it gives us an important chance to make a way forward for Africa, but let us not believe that the whole of Africa is encapsulated in Zimbabwe. It is not. I am pleased to say that, increasingly, Zimbabwe is the exception in Africa, not the rule. At the same time as we take the possible action—not the impossible action—against Zimbabwe, let us congratulate those African leaders on their boldness in coming forward with the initiative, let us support it, and let us make sure that the Africa plan, which initiates the process, is carried through with the determination and vigour that has given rise to it.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: Although all sane and democratic-thinking people throughout the world will acknowledge the importance of the summit, not least as another essential reaffirmation of the fight against international terrorism, which poses the most fundamental threat to us all, I think that the Prime Minister will accept that despite the progress achieved, there were elements of serious disappointment about the summit.
Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge, not least when we hear some of the more strident tones on this side of the Atlantic as well as on the other side, that an important lesson is that progress can be best effected through efficient international institutions in which countries play a constructive role and do not run with the tide of short-term populist opinion, which, when it comes to unilateralism, far less isolationism, history proves does not work and will not deliver? Does he agree that that is an important conclusion to emerge from the weekend and from the events that have followed on since the summit itself?
Specifically, in welcoming the reaffirmation statement about the middle east process, will the right hon. Gentleman again take the opportunity to underscore the fact that it never looks good for international countries, democratically based, to be seen to be trying to dictate what other countries should be deciding, not least through a democratic process, however difficult the circumstances may be, where the leadership of those other countries and other states are concerned?
Secondly, on the issue of weapons of mass destruction, and given the importance that the Prime Minister rightly attached to the developing role of Russia on many fronts
28
over coming years, was there any discussion, or did he have the opportunity to raise, the role of Russia in giving financial and practical support to Iran to develop a nuclear reactor? As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there is considerable international anxiety as to the use to which such a facility, such a capacity, could be put. Russia will be a major and primary beneficiary of the extra funds that are being deployed, to which the United Kingdom will be contributing. Has leverage been exerted on the Russian authorities in that respect?
Thirdly, there is the central issue of African relief. Obviously, there will be a great welcome for the progress that has been achieved. The Prime Minister quoted the World Bank, but will he acknowledge that the bank has said in the context of what was achieved—that is the progress that was made at the G8 summit—that many of the poorest and most heavily indebted countries will still have unsustainable levels of built-in debt for a long time to come? Therefore, as the right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, this can be only the beginning of the process. It is by no means the termination of a process.
Finally, I return to the important lesson of international co-operation. As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, as a party that has long since supported the International Criminal Court, will he confirm again that this country will continue its commitment in that direction, and point out to the American Administration the fundamental error of their ways in that respect?
The Prime Minister: Of course, we support the International Criminal Court. It is a commitment that we inherited from the previous Government. That is quite apart from our own position.
As for the United States and the Palestinian Authority, it is important to be clear about what the United States is and is not saying. The United States is not saying that the Palestinians cannot choose who they want. They can choose who they want. The United States is merely saying that if the Palestinians choose someone who is not a serious partner for peace, that will make it far more difficult to conduct negotiations, and frankly I agree with that.
As for the WMD, it is true that there are worries about Iran's nuclear weapons programme. There are also worries about other countries' nuclear weapons programmes. However, the WMD focuses specifically on the countries of the former Soviet Union. That is important because it is in those countries that there are large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. There is the nuclear programme, and so on. They need help to clean up the nuclear submarines, for example, and we should give them that assistance.
In relation to the African situation and NEPAD, the truthful position is that, of course, there is a lot more that must be done. It is true that we will make a significant impact on the situation, but we will not manage to deal with it all. However, we have made huge progress on where we were a few years ago. The fact is that we have a plan in place that allows us to deal with all the issues in a comprehensive way, increase aid and assistance in return for good governance and deal with issues such as conflict resolution, which are dramatically important in respect of this issue. It is no use dealing simply with issues of debt and aid; we must deal with debt and aid, trade, conflict resolution and some of the specific health

29
and education issues. The benefit of the plan is that it gives us an overall framework within which we can work, but the political will must continue for many years.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the way in which the G8 has handled relations with Russia. It is very important that signals are given to the Russian people that Russia is a welcome partner at the very top table because there is a role for the Russians to play. The Americans deserve congratulations on the funding provided for nuclear stocks improvements. Long before Europeans took the issue seriously, the Americans were contributing and trying to persuade the Russians to make their nuclear stocks safe. The contrast with the United States position on the International Criminal Court is odd, as it is moving in almost the opposite direction on that issue. An America that, at its best, gives leadership and, working together with the rest of the world, gives us all something to work towards, is equally one that at certain moments, as in dealing with the ICC, heads in completely the opposite direction and gives the world the wrong view, namely, that it wants to behave above and beyond international law. That is not possible even for the United States.
The Prime Minister: What my hon. Friend says about the United States position on Russia and the problem of weapons of mass destruction is absolutely right—America has taken the lead on that issue. In relation to the ICC, America has a very clearly established position that it has held under both its current Administration and the previous one. We have an equally clear position, which has been held under both our current Administration and the previous one. It is important to recognise that there will be differences from time to time. However, it is wrong to see that as colouring the entire relationship. It is important to understand that, from time to time, on issues such as climate change or steel and the tariffs imposed in the United States, there will disagreements, but the broad basis of the relationship between this country and the United States is absolutely solid. It is a foundation stone of British foreign policy and will remain so, and it is absolutely vital that any people, from whatever quarter, who want to undermine it realise that that is not in the interests of this country, America or the wider world.
Dr. Julian Lewis: The Prime Minister made only the briefest reference to India and Pakistan. Will he expand on that, especially in the light of the very worrying report that al-Qaeda forces now seem to be moving into Kashmir? I am sure that he appreciates more than any of us the danger that will arise if such people start to fish in those exceptionally dangerously troubled waters.
The Prime Minister: That is right—it is a very substantial danger. For that reason, it is important to ensure that Pakistan does all it can to prevent terrorists from crossing the border and the line of control there. There is evidence that it has stepped up its efforts significantly. I think that we have a respite from this issue, but we have not solved it by any means. What is important is that we redouble our efforts to ensure clear dialogue on the basis of an end to any form of Pakistani complicity in terrorism, and to ensure that, in response, there is proper dialogue between the two countries about all the issues
30
between them, including Kashmir, so that the matter can be resolved as it should be—between two countries, rather than in the way in which it has been dealt with in the past few years. He is right to stress the very real and recurrent threat from al-Qaeda in Kashmir and elsewhere.
Tony Worthington: I congratulate the Prime Minister on the leadership that he is giving on Africa, which contrasts significantly with the neglect and disengagement of 18 years of Conservative government.
My right hon. Friend rightly spoke about NEPAD and the sense of partnership that it creates. That has to be so. One of the major problems is that the resources of Africa are not used for the people of Africa—they are robbed from them by corrupt elites and corrupt Governments. We must play our part by ensuring that northern firms do not support corruption and by backing the campaign that northern firms—such as BP, which has agreed to be part of it—should declare the money that they put into Africa so that the people of Africa know what is being given to their Governments and can identify the corrupt resources. Does my right hon. Friend agree?
The Prime Minister: I agree strongly. On my hon. Friend's first point, he is right, and that continues to be a major priority for the Government. His second point is also important. Part of the discussion at the G8 was about how we ensure that we put in place guidelines on the way in which companies operate in Africa. The more that companies report exactly what money they are paying to Governments, the more likely is transparency and therefore a reduction in corruption. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all that he has done in campaigning long and hard on the issue. It is partly because of the activities of people such as him that the matter now features so prominently on the agenda.
Tony Baldry: No fair-minded person would doubt the Prime Minister's commitment to Africa, but he must surely accept that the additional aid for Africa from the G8 summit is fairly niggardly. Given that President Bush, having announced the millennium challenge account at Monterrey, was not prepared to commit any further funds to Africa, would it not be more appropriate—rather than trying to pretend that something is there that is not there—to have a special summit for Africa that focuses on its real needs and tries to find the real resources that are necessary if we are to take it forward into the 21st century?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman's comments echo some of those made by the non-governmental organisations, but he is being a little unfair. The fact is that at Monterrey, as a result of the American commitment to an additional $5 billion and the European commitment to an additional $7 billion, there was a substantial uplift in aid. The agreement at Kananaskis was for countries to decide how much money they give in their own way, and we expected that half or more of that would go to Africa. Given that only two—perhaps three—of the G8 countries give as much as 50 per cent. to Africa, that is a big uplift in itself. Overall aid to sub-Saharan Africa—I speak from memory—is about $12 billion to $13 billion, so to increase that by 50 per cent. is fairly significant.

31
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we have to go far further, and we probably would have wanted to go further, but we still achieved a significant amount. Other things—I would single out conflict resolution—are as important as aid money. A particular view that I hold is that probably the single most important thing that we can do for central Africa is to get that conflict resolved and some stability in place. These are potentially rich countries, and if we can combine conflict resolution with access to our markets—it is scandalous how many tariffs against African goods remain in developed countries' markets—that, as much as the aid package, will contribute to the rebirth of Africa.
Helen Jackson: Was my right hon. Friend able to raise within the G8 the issue of American steel tariffs? Does he agree that that rather selfish unilateral action by such a major country flies in the face of the wider message that the G8 as a whole is trying to promote in the context of Africa, NEPAD and the wider development for which we all need to take responsibility?
The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We made it clear that we strongly disagree with imposing steel tariffs. We are seeking exclusions for British companies and I believe that approximately 20 have been granted. We are pressing for many more. Some 30,000 tonnes of British produce will be exempted, but we shall continue to press for more. Although I appreciate the American position, it is in the interests neither of world trade nor of the American steel industry. It is better to compete freely and openly.
Mr. Boris Johnson: The Prime Minister said that the Conservative party has no policies on Zimbabwe. I shall offer him one. I support Zimbabwe's exclusion from NEPAD, yet recently Mr. Mugabe was able to travel to Rome for a Food and Agriculture Organisation summit without a peep of protest from the Government. His chief of police, who is a very sinister man, was able to travel to Lyon, similarly without a peep of protest from the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary. Is not it insulting to the 3,000 white farmers who are about to be expelled by the end of August and the 800,000 black farmers and employees who have also been expelled by Mugabe's thugs to tell them that we can do nothing more to help them and that we cannot even enforce a travel ban on Robert Mugabe?
The Prime Minister: The travel ban is enforced on Mr. Mugabe but he cannot be prevented from travelling to the Rome summit, as the hon. Gentleman knows. However, let us be clear that whether or not he goes to the Rome summit will not affect the position in Zimbabwe. This can be done only by action by the other countries in the region and the ability of people in Zimbabwe to make a difference.
If the Conservatives' great policy, which will lead to a change of Government in Zimbabwe, is to prevent Mr. Mugabe from travelling to Rome, it shows how far
32
they are from reality and how close they are to opportunistically making political capital out of the matter.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on upholding the right of the Palestinian people to elect a President of their choice. I have returned from a working visit to Israel and the occupied territories during which I held discussions with people from a wide spectrum of opinion. I assure my right hon. Friend that a four-page speech by President Bush that contains two pages of instructions to the Palestinians and two paragraphs of exhortations to the Israelis will not advance the peace process that we all support, especially when the current charade of dismantling Israeli shanty town settlements leaves in place 145 settlements that violate international law. The decent Jewish leadership that took over from the British was able to suppress the terrorism of Begin and Shamir only when it had the integrity of an Israeli state to defend. Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the genuine movement towards suppressing the evil terrorism among Palestinian extremist groups can happen only when a Palestinian state has its integrity to defend?
The Prime Minister: First, I know that my right hon. Friend takes a great deal of interest in and has spoken passionately and persuasively on the issue for many years. I am doing my best to help the process, and I believe that that means supporting America's initiative. A state is merely a constitutional theory unless it contains institutions that can give life to it.
The most important priority is security and rebuilding the security infrastructure in the Palestinian territory. We will help in any way that we can to achieve that. The Americans are working urgently on plans to ensure that it is done. Let us suppose that we get a political process going again. We need a way to indemnify ourselves, if I can put it like that, against the next suicide bomb.
If another suicide bomb explodes and terrible carnage ensues, and more civilians die and the process collapses, it will be a long time before we get another realistic process in place. We need a valid security infrastructure with integrity so that we can be sure that the Palestinian authorities are doing everything possible to bear down on terrorism. That would mean that if any extremists who wanted to wreck the process and were hostile to the concept of Israel managed to carry out a terrorist attack, it would not derail the process. In the longer term, however, there are elements in President Bush's speech that offer us a clear way forward, provided that we engage intensively to bring that about.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Prime Minister fairly said that much needs to be done after this conference. May I remind him that, in March, a UN conference called for some 10 times more aid than was being offered at this most recent conference? Will he tell the House when the $60 billion being asked for by the African countries will be achievable, and when the all-important trade rules will be relaxed in Africa's favour?
The Prime Minister: We have to deal in the realms of the possible. It is not possible to get $60 billion, but there has been a significant uplift in the aid given, and the debt

33
relief programme is also extremely important. The idea is to get that flowing as quickly as possible. Countries such as ours have significantly uplifted their aid already. We are now providing somewhere in the region of double the amount of aid to Africa that we were a few years ago.
On trade, the recommitment to the Doha process was absolutely vital—in particular, the focus on the phasing out of agricultural subsidies. The challenge for the developed world is to come up to the mark on the reality of our position on trade, so that it matches the rhetoric of free trade that we preach in the developed world. That involves arguing our position strongly in Europe, the World Trade Organisation and elsewhere, and we shall carry on doing that. We need the united support of the House and the help of other allies to do so.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Economic conflict and collapse in Africa often feed into wars and conflicts, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. Behind that is often currency speculation, which produces the economic collapse in the first place. Is the G8 taking seriously the problems of currency speculation, and what proposals is it coming up with to deal with them?
The Prime Minister: The most important thing we can do is to ensure that proper financial systems, and proper accounting standards for them, are in place—a process that we started in 1998. I do not favour measures such as the Tobin tax, or other taxes on currency speculation. The best security against financial collapse is the integrity of financial systems and proper accounting standards to ensure openness and transparency in the way in which countries—and, indeed, companies—operate. That is the best guarantee.
Sir Michael Spicer: What did the Prime Minister tell the other G8 members about the dramatic fall in Britain's productivity rates in relation to world competitiveness that has taken place under his Government?
The Prime Minister: I am pleased to say that I was able to report that the British economy was in a strong position, not merely in relation to productivity, but elsewhere. When I think back to the time when I was in opposition and the hon. Gentleman was a Minister—[Interruption.] If we look back 10 years, we see that this country is in a rather stronger economic position now than it was then. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity to remind the House of the 15 per cent. interest rates, the unemployment that stood at more than 3 million, and the gross underinvestment in our public services at that time. So, I am pleased to say that I was able to give a rather better analysis of the state of the British economy than I would have been able to do when the hon. Gentleman was in office.
John Cryer: I was pleased to hear what my right hon. Friend had to say, particularly about debt and education. May I remind him that, more than a decade ago, almost as a direct result of International Monetary Fund policies in Rwanda, tuition fees were imposed on secondary school children there and, later, even on primary school children? As a direct result, those children were wandering the streets when the militias started recruiting and they consequently became involved in the
34
civil conflict. Will my right hon. Friend guarantee that he will do all he can to ensure that such policies are not pursued in any African country, and particularly in sub-Saharan Africa? Secondly, does he detect any inconsistency between the reactions in certain quarters to Mugabe and the previous reactions to Pinochet?
The Prime Minister: I think I will leave the last part to general speculation.
Mr. Duncan Smith: Answer the question.
The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to shout protests of support for General Pinochet, he is perfectly entitled to do so. To be absolutely honest, that is on a par with the rest of his judgments on foreign policy. As for the other question—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman should be advised against making sedentary interventions, as he is not very good at them.
In relation to the first part of the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer), there is a serious issue about Rwanda. It is extremely important that we keep up support for Rwanda and I think that we are probably the largest single donor to it, but the key to that part of Africa is a stable resolution of the conflict. We will play our part in that and we are working far more closely, for example, with the French than ever before. All those issues, such as education, can be far better dealt with in that context.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Will the Prime Minister comment on the Oxfam report published in April that shows that the European Union applies the highest tariff peaks against the world's poorest countries and also that the EU launches more anti-dumping measures against the developing world than America, Canada and Japan combined? What is he doing to puncture that hypocrisy in the EU, which pretends to be and promotes itself as the friend of the poor, but in reality keeps out their products?
The Prime Minister: We are pressing very hard for Europe to change its position, which is important. Of course, the everything but arms initiative, which has been of help to some of the poorest countries, very much came about as a result of the initiatives taken by this Government, but I have to say that the only way we will get the EU to move is by being in a position of some influence in the EU, not on the sidelines of it. That is why I have to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman's general position on Europe, and that of his Front Benchers.
Charlotte Atkins: I very much share and welcome the focus on Africa and the developing world, but during the discussions on agricultural subsidies was concern expressed about the recently passed United States Farm Bill, which massively increased production subsidies? Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that that will undermine and jeopardise our efforts to reform the common agricultural policy?
The Prime Minister: That is why it is important to try to knock down protectionism of all sorts, and concern was certainly expressed by the African countries about the United States Farm Bill and about the CAP. That is why

35
it is important that we continue our efforts to reform the CAP, which would in any event be necessary as 10 additional countries are coming into the EU.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Despite the Prime Minister's reaffirmation here today of his support for the Anglo-American alliance, has he noted that, since his recent talk with President Bush about Palestine, some commentators seem to think that the lengthening list of countries scheduled for regime change by the United States now includes the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman, both for his contribution to the transatlantic friendship and for the implication of his statement that, certainly, the United Kingdom Government are unlikely to be changed by the Conservative Opposition—that is for sure. Let me say to him that there are people on the right of politics, such as him and the leader of the Conservative party, and some, indeed, on the left who want to cause trouble for this relationship wherever they possibly can. That is wrong, it is irresponsible and it is not in this country's national interest.
Linda Gilroy: I thank my right hon. Friend for the way in which he has ensured that the African agenda is so firmly on the G8 summit agenda. A moment ago, he said that conflict resolution is particularly important, but does he agree that tackling HIV/AIDS is almost equally important due to its capacity to undermine the ability of countries to deliver on the plan? He said that that is part of the plan, but will he say more about the importance he attaches to it and whether the plan is a robust, effective and realistic response to the issue?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right—HIV/AIDS is a major part of the problem in Africa, where millions of people have died of the disease in the past few years. The frustrating thing is that people know what works: we can see that in the programmes in Uganda and other countries that have taken effective action against the HIV/AIDS epidemic. I think that I am right in saying that Africa is the only continent in the world where people's life expectations are falling rather than rising. That is blighting development in Africa.
We established the global health fund, and we are putting money into it. We are also trying to ensure that pharmaceutical companies, drugs companies and others work with us to ensure that the drugs that provide people with the most effective treatment are freely available. I agree with my hon. Friend entirely—all these issues must be dealt with together. A major part of the efforts to improve the situation on HIV/AIDS is the investment in education, sex education and poverty reduction.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: Did the G8 summit consider the recent report by the Salvation Army, which warned of an impending crisis in sub-Saharan Africa partly because of the floods, but also paradoxically because of drought? The Salvation Army report warns of a serious starvation problem. If the G8 summit considered that report, what does it intend to do about the problem? If it did not, will the Prime Minister look into that report urgently?
The Prime Minister: The Salvation Army and many others have been active on this issue, and I congratulate
36
them on the position that they have taken. An important part of the deliberations had to do with water and sanitation. It was agreed at the G8 that that would form a major part of the discussions in South Africa in September. We hope that we will be able to put forward specific proposals for dealing with drought in sub-Saharan Africa.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Prime Minister expand on his significant references in his opening statement to foreign weapons scientists? Did he have Iraq in mind? Whatever one's views on Iraq, would not it at least be wise to have an endorsement from the G8 and the United Nations before contemplating further military bombing action?
The Prime Minister: On the last point, I have nothing to add to what I have said on many occasions. On the first point, I did not have the weapons scientists in Iraq particularly in mind. Although it may seem strange and prosaic to say so, it is important to realise that large numbers of people are employed on those programmes and if we are not careful they may be poached and employed by rogue states or terrorist groups. Dealing with the scientists who have been engaged in these weapons of mass destruction programmes is an important part of the overall deal.
Mr. James Arbuthnot: The Prime Minister briefly mentioned heroin production in Afghanistan, which is a scourge not only on the streets of the west, but in Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan. Could he give more details of what steps were agreed to curb the production of Afghan heroin, given that it is estimated that about 90 per cent.—some say 98 per cent.—of the heroin in this country comes from Afghanistan?
The Prime Minister: That is right: 90 per cent. or more of the heroin on British streets comes from Afghanistan. I think that about 70 per cent. of total world production of heroin comes from Afghanistan. We are engaged in intensive efforts to destroy as much of the poppy crop as possible. For this year, we have achieved a certain level of success—not as much as we would want, but a significant percentage of the crop was destroyed. We have agreed at the G8 summit and elsewhere that we will step up those efforts for next year. That will include ensuring that the farmers in Afghanistan are given alternative sources of production, taking action against people who are trading and dealing in the drug, and in particular taking action at the borders of Afghanistan where the drugs leave that country.
One startling fact is that if we analyse what happens on the ground, we discover that the farmers in Afghanistan do not make much money out of that crop; the money is made further down the line. I believe that it is possible to persuade farming communities to engage in a better, more sustainable, legal form of production. That is what we are trying to do, and the G8 agreed that we should step up those efforts.
Mike Gapes: I agree with the Prime Minister about the importance of our relationship with the United States. However, does he share my concerns that unilateralist action by the American Administration with regard to the International Criminal Court could lead to

37
great instability in the Balkans and withdrawals from Kosovo and Bosnia? Does that not emphasise again the importance of the European Union countries working collectively for the common security and defence policy?
The Prime Minister: My understanding is that discussions are continuing on the UN situation in Bosnia. I think that we should let those discussions continue and give them a fair wind.
Mr. John Redwood: When will the EU member states sit down to hammer out a thoroughgoing reform of the common agricultural policy? I am glad that the Prime Minister agrees that the way in which it prevents fair trade for African countries is a moral outrage. Is it not time for him to get his colleagues to do something about it?
The Prime Minister: Those discussions continue the entire time. The right hon. Gentleman knows which interests are blocking reform. However, we have at least a better chance of achieving reform with the enlargement of the European Union, because if the common agricultural policy is not reformed at that stage the payments will be unacceptable. The United Kingdom, Germany and other countries are leading the charge on this; we must ensure that we overcome substantial resistance elsewhere. It will take some time, but that is what we will try to do.
Mr. Chris Bryant: I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments on efforts to reduce trafficking in heroin, not least because of the effect on south Wales valley constituencies where heroin use is becoming something of an epidemic. The next epidemic might well be crack cocaine. Was there any discussion at the G8 summit on international trafficking in crack cocaine?
The Prime Minister: There was no specific discussion at the summit, but we are working with other countries that are faced by the same menace to take all and any action that we can to deal with the problem. This is a recent phenomenon—particular countries are sourcing
38
this and particular organised gangs are trading in it. We are working very hard at a police and intelligence level to deal with it.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Although we warmly welcome the G8 summit's concentration on the NEPAD proposals, and although I hope that the Prime Minister was correct in observing that Zimbabwe is the exception rather than the norm in Africa, may I put it to him that it was unfortunate that Zimbabwe was not criticised by the summit? Zimbabwe is heavily involved in the Congo civil war; its regime has singularly failed to feed the Zimbabwean people due to attacks on farmers, white and black; and the recent election was a classic case of corruption. If we are to ensure that all other African nations can respond to the NEPAD proposals positively, surely we should be seen to be taking action, bravely and correctly, against Zimbabwe at the G8 summit and elsewhere.
The Prime Minister: Everything that the right hon. Gentleman says about Zimbabwe is right—the question is, what is the best way to effect change? My view is that the best way is to put all possible pressure on the African countries in the region that have the greatest ability to influence the situation. I was able, during the course of the G8 summit, to talk to President Mbeki and President Obasanjo about that. It is extremely important that we keep up that pressure and make it clear, as I have just done, that Zimbabwe cannot benefit from the African deal from NEPAD. We are obliged to give certain humanitarian assistance, but Zimbabwe will get no other assistance from us and from those other countries. I am afraid the tragedy is that change is most likely to come from the region or within. We must work in the most effective way possible.
It is not really an issue of courage; our position on Zimbabwe is clear and open. Sometimes, being the country that always takes the lead does not help some of the opposition forces in Zimbabwe. The right hon. Gentleman probably realises that. However, we do everything that we can and if there are sensible and constructive suggestions as to what else we can do, we will certainly listen to them.

Point of Order
4.34 pm
Mr. Andrew MacKay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you use this opportunity to confirm that all hon. Members should be entitled to take up constituency cases as they see fit on the Floor of the House and through correspondence with Ministers and, where appropriate and with the full consent of the constituents concerned, possibly even with the media? If you confirm that, Mr. Speaker, will you condemn, as I do, the remarks of the president of the British Medical Association at the BMA conference in Harrogate today who said that we should not be allowed publicly to refer to cases of constituents who are patients in the national health service even when they have specifically asked us to do so? This comes dangerously close to being a breach of privilege of this House and should be condemned by you and by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. I am confident that all Members of the House are conscious of the need to use our privilege of free speech responsibly and, in particular, to protect the privacy and dignity of individual members of the public.

Orders of the Day

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) (No. 2) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Public Trustee (Liability and Fees) Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.36 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This short but important Bill was introduced in another place and, with cross-party support, made swift progress unamended through all its stages. I know that my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Scotland appreciated the support of the Opposition parties in the other place.
  The office of the Public Trustee was created by a Liberal Government in the Public Trustee Act 1906. That Act came about in response to a series of notorious defaults by trustees, who had usually disappeared with the trust funds. Prospective trustees, or those making wills, were thought to need a safe place to entrust their money so that the true beneficiaries would receive it. That was why the office of Public Trustee was invented—to provide a completely secure official in whom absolute trust could be reposed.
  Until recently, the Public Trustee was located in the Public Trust Office but following the 1999 report of the Public Accounts Committee into the Public Trust Office, and after recommendations in a quinquennial review, a refocused role for Public Trustee work was agreed. The Public Trust Office was re-launched as the Public Guardianship Office from 1 April 2001 and the trust work was transferred to the Official Solicitor's office, to be handled alongside his existing estates work.
  The present policy for both the Official Solicitor's estates work and the Public Trustee's trusts work is to accept new cases only as a public sector trustee of last resort. That means that the Public Trustee is available to act to protect the vulnerable or persons under legal disability—such as children or the mentally incapacitated—or where there is a social need to do so; for example, where there is a family dispute and an independent person needs to step in to protect the interests of members of the family. An extreme case might be where a father had killed his wife and was in prison, and someone needed to look after the interests of the children.
  Other examples of the Public Trustee acting as trustee of last resort include where no one else is suitable or able to do so and an injustice would otherwise result. For example, if the Public Trustee were not to accept appointment, a deceased's estate would not be dealt with because, for one reason or another, it would not be economical for the private sector to act.
  Commercially viable trusts that do not involve the need for special protection for people suffering from incapacity or those who are otherwise disadvantaged have been encouraged to transfer to the private sector. However, as a result of the 1999 changes and the transfer of such work, the accommodation and overhead charges for trust work increased significantly, particularly from 1 April 2001, while the income from trust work has reduced and is projected to continue to reduce.
  However, under section 9(4) of the Public Trustee Act 1906, there is a statutory requirement for full cost recovery for trust work. The only way that we can meet
  42
  that requirement at present would be to increase fees, but the fee increases required to achieve full cost recovery would be extremely high. For this financial year, the increase would be about 100 per cent., and some of the clients affected by those fee increases would be very vulnerable people.
  A large number of the clients are elderly. There are also 50 cases where the Public Trustee looks after the interests of beneficiaries of vaccine damage or other compensation settlements. Another 100 cases involve mentally or physically disabled beneficiaries, and a further eight people benefit under charitable provisions.
  Some clients, particularly the elderly, rely on the income that they receive from their trust funds and others are reliant on the expectation of inheriting trust capital. Increasing administration fees for those people would reduce the amount of capital generating income and the amount of capital available for distribution. The Bill will therefore remove the requirement for full cost recovery for trust work to prevent those large increases in fees from occurring.
  We are also using this opportunity to regularise the position in relation to trust fees to bring fee setting for trust work in line with fee-setting provisions for other work. At the moment, the majority of fee-setting powers are held by the Minister with responsibility for the policy. However, under section 9(1) of the 1906 Act, the power to set fees for trust work is vested in the Treasury, although the sanction of the Lord Chancellor is needed. The Bill will transfer that power to the Lord Chancellor.
  The Bill will also repeal section 7 of the 1906 Act, which was an important part of the package that had been put together to reassure the public following the scandals that had occurred. It ensured that if an incumbent trustee stole the funds, or breached trust in dealing with them, the state would indemnify the beneficiary.
  The repeal of section 7 will do two things. First, it will remove the Consolidated Fund's liability to make good any sum required to discharge the Public Trustee's liability and will place that liability with the Lord Chancellor. Secondly, it will tidy up the position on the Public Trustee's liability to beneficiaries. In preparing the Bill, we found that the exception in section 7 had no legal effect and thus served no purpose, so we have taken this opportunity to remove it.
  As I have said, this is an important Bill, although short in length. It will ensure that we protect some extremely vulnerable clients of the Public Trustee from large increases in fees, while at the same time bringing up to date the financial requirements governing the work of the Public Trustee. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will support it.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. William Cash: This Bill is important in its way, and I am glad to allay the Minister's fears by assuring her that the Opposition do not intend to divide the House. It is an uncontroversial Bill. Indeed, during the Bill's passage in the other place, the proceedings were somewhat truncated—the Liberal Democrat spokesman managed only 16 lines of speech, while the official Opposition spokesman managed only 10 lines. We are not, therefore, trying to break any records by ensuring that we exceed that minimum standard. One or two things

  43
  need to be said about the Bill, however, and I intend to detain the House for a little longer than the other place was detained.
  I knew the Public Trust Office extremely well, as, when I first got married, I was living in Lincoln's Inn Fields, exactly opposite it. I would also like to pay tribute to the Liberal party, if not to the Liberal Democrats, as, although it was claimed in the other place that it was their work, the original Liberal party was responsible. The former leader of the Liberal Democrats clearly differentiated himself from the Liberal party. As a Conservative, I certainly would not do that, as the Liberals did a great deal in the 19th century that was extremely effective and very good.
  Mr. David Heath: The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that I believe that I am still on the residual body of the Liberal party executive—the real Liberal party.
  Mr. Cash: I am extremely delighted to hear that, especially as the hon. Gentleman is my opposite number in whichever party he belongs.
  We should not say simply that this is an excellent Bill, and let it sail through without comment. Only a few days ago, towards the end of last week, the Minister and I, and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), the hon. Gentleman from the erstwhile Liberal party—now the Liberal Democrats—exchanged views on the question of enduring powers of attorney and the issue of fees. That is at the heart of this Bill, too, as it is important to note, not only from the explanatory notes but from the way in which the process has been working, that there is a great deal of uncertainty about how to calibrate the fee system in the context of what we could describe generally as free—or relatively free—legal advice and when the Public Trust Office or the Public Guardianship Office is involved.
  The transfer of responsibility to the Lord Chancellor's Department represents a determination to try to reduce some of the fees substantially. As we found in relation to the statutory instrument last week, however, some of the fees being charged have increased up to threefold. There is some inconsistency in that. Enthusiastic as people might be about the proposal, the fact that the Lord Chancellor and not the Treasury will fix fees in relation to the Public Trustee's trust work—that will bring those fees into line with other fee-setting provisions—does not necessarily solve the problem. I do not want to call it the wallpaper difficulty, but the question is whether the sums required to run the functions under the Public Trustee Act 1906 will be adequate. We also need to ensure that the people who will be affected—they will often not be well-off—are not overcharged.
  I have described the balance that must be struck, but that is a matter for the future. However, I shall watch the situation as it progresses, because an inherent difficulty is implicit in the proposal; there is no answer in itself. We need to know how the money from the fees will be worked out. Will the proposal be fair and will it strike a proper balance?
  The Minister described the interesting exception to section 7 of the 1906 Act. It somewhat defies belief that a provision should have been enacted in 1906 and that it
  44
  has taken until 2002 to discover that it is of no effect. I am delighted that the Government have taken this opportunity to rectify the position, but it is astonishing that it should have taken so long to discover that simple legal fact or point of law.
  The other point that I wish to mention is the relationship between the Public Trust Office, the Public Guardianship Office and the Public Accounts Committee. Although I do not intend to do so, I could spend some time on the criticisms of the Public Trust Office made in the 35th report of the Public Accounts Committee. However, those criticisms are part of the reason why I want to spend a little more time on this debate than was taken on Second Reading in the other place. We are being asked to consider the liability in fees of the Public Trustee, so we should take account of the Public Account Committee's severe criticisms of the running of a public body.
  Given the recent changes and the transfer of functions to the Lord Chancellor's Department, we should be mindful of the fact that all is not plain sailing. In particular, I refer to three specific comments made by the Public Accounts Committee. In relation to the welfare of people with mental incapacity—I alluded to them earlier—it said:
  "Overall, we concluded that:
  The Public Trust Office is failing to ensure that the financial interests of patients are adequately protected".
  That is pretty severe criticism. Secondly, the Committee said:
  "The Public Trust Office is failing to ensure, through its visits programme, that patients funds are being used for their benefit".
  Thirdly, it said:
  "The Public Trust Office's management information is inadequate".
  A further 30 pages of material and cross-examination demonstrates the basis on which such criticisms were reached.
  It is not simply a matter of going over the past for its own sake because that would do no good. The real question is to what extent the Bill is adequate in changing the regime, attitude and behaviour of the Public Trust Office and its successor in a manner that will genuinely remedy the problems identified by the PAC. If it is not possible for the Bill, because of its long title, to ensure that the problems are remedied, the Minister must assure us that the matters reported by the PAC are being taken seriously by the Lord Chancellor's Department and that the Government are going to do something about them.
  4.56 pm
  John Cryer: Hon. Members will be pleased to learn that I shall be brief, because I want to concentrate on a constituency case.
  The PAC and the National Audit Office have produced a series of critical reports, dating back to the PAC's report of 1994 which made damning criticisms of the Public Trust Office. Having read the reports, I think it is clear that their findings are conclusive, and the Bill has widespread support on both sides of the House.
  There are various problems with the Public Trust Office. In the case that concerns me, my constituent's mother died and the Public Trust Office is holding

  45
  £40,000 of her money that it is not keen to release. In a letter, my constituent explains that it is
  "nearly 3 months later and I still have no release of the court funds. I am very sure that the £40,000 is no longer being held in a good interest bearing account, and I also have final payments to make on my mother's behalf."
  I suspect that many hon. Members will have come across similar problems with the Public Trust Office.
  The quinquennial report by the Lord Chancellor's Department mentions that, in the receivership division of the Public Trust Office, the
  "Current live caseload is about 2,750 and clients' funds total approximately £252 million."
  That is a hefty sum—about £0.25 billion pounds is being held purely by the receivership division, as in my constituent's case. I hope that the changes mean that public offices will not hold on to money for as long, and with the same determination, as the Public Trust Office and its successor, the Public Guardianship Office.
  The 1906 Act made the Public Trust Office self-financing, which means that it cannot be subsidised by the Treasury. The Bill changes that provision and the Treasury will be able to provide subsidies if needed.
  My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the repeal of certain sections. Will she assure me that future beneficiaries, who would have been covered by the liability of the Public Trust Office, will not lose out? Will she also assure me that the Bill's provisions will lead to greater efficiency?
  4.59 pm
  Mr. David Heath: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the way in which she introduced the Bill. Brevity is not necessarily a sign of inconsequentiality, and the Bill, albeit short, is important, so I cannot guarantee that I will be as brief as my colleagues in another place.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer) for his comments. Many hon. Members have constituents who have had difficulties because of the performance of the Public Trust Office, and they will be pleased to know that changes have taken place. However, we must wait to see whether those changes have been effective in ensuring a better service for our constituents.
  I am always careful when I see that we are to amend an Act from 1906, from the extraordinary reforming Government of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, who were the fount of a great deal of judicial common sense and social reform.
  Mr. George Osborne: Is the hon. Gentleman certain that the Bill was not prepared by the preceding Conservative Government and then implemented by the incoming Liberal Administration?
  Mr. Heath: Had the hon. Gentleman held his fire for a second, I would have implicated Lord Halsbury in the Bill's preparation. It was introduced by a Liberal Government, but on an all-party basis. The Conservative Opposition, who supported it, had indeed been working on a Bill when they were in government, but had not managed to find time for it. The Act, which has stood the test of time since 1906, addressed a social ill.
  46
  Let us turn away from history and consider the Bill before us. We welcome the findings of the quinquennial review and the actions that have been taken since: the creation of the Public Guardianship Office to deal with enduring powers of attorney, the move of the court funds office to the Court Service, and this Bill dealing with Public Trustee work, which has been moved to the Official Solicitor's Office.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) for mentioning our discussions last week on the fee structure, introduced by the Lord Chancellor's Department, for work on enduring powers of attorney in the Public Guardianship Office. There are parallels between the two matters of which we need at least to be aware. The fees for registering enduring powers of attorney and for first-year case set-up in receivership have massively increased, and it is legitimate to ask whether an analogous situation will occur with this Bill.
  In Committee last week I voiced strong suspicions that there is continuing cross-subsidy of the investment now being made in the service. For years, investment was sadly lacking, which may be one reason for the standard of service to which the hon. Member for Hornchurch referred. The extra investment, particularly in IT, is being paid from the fees charged under the new structure, and that is a real concern.
  Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that both Opposition parties divided the Committee on the question of the way in which the fees are being levied, not because of any grave objection to the principle of trying to ensure that we balance the fee structure, but because we wanted to ensure that, when the new structure begins to operate, we do not see threefold increases in fees?
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but the Government would respond by saying that this Bill is an attempt to remedy precisely that evil. As we know, under the 1906 Act, the present fee structure has to
  "produce an annual amount sufficient to discharge the salaries and other expenses incidental to the working of the Act and no more."
  It is hard to discern the intention of the Attorney-General, Sir John Walton, almost 100 years ago, but I suspect that it was to limit the fees so that they did not become excessive. The words "and no more" are the key. What has resulted, however, is a restriction on the Lord Chancellor's Department which is unsustainable in the present circumstances, particularly in the light of the new role of the office.
  I welcome the power to mitigate the fees. The Parliamentary Secretary has set out how essential it is to provide protection for the vulnerable people who are the recipients of this service, so that we do not allow their capital to be eroded, particularly in the direction of the Exchequer.
  According to the explanatory notes, the Government intend to reduce the current working deficit of £1.9 million and achieve recovery, less remissions, in three years. I find it a little difficult to reconcile that intention with the Bill's adduced purpose of protecting the recipient of such activities from excessive fee increases, but perhaps the Minister will offer an explanation. The suggestion is that a new cross-subsidy will be introduced, and that—excluding those who are unable to pay—people

  47
  will have to pay for the reduction in the subsidy. In other words, they will pay more than they would otherwise have paid.
  It would help if the Minister could confirm that the fee structure will be devised by order, and that the matter will be debated in the House. Will the total fee structure of the Public Trust Office form part of the departmental annual report to the House, or will it be reported in some other way? A key point—I hope that it is not spurious—is that the Bill's impact is not retrospective. It appears that the Government are currently acting illegally, outwith the 1906 legislation. What would happen if a legal challenge were mounted against the actions of the Lord Chancellor's Department, up to the point at which the Bill becomes law? That is not entirely impossible.
  When I spoke on matters agricultural, the analogous situation of the White Fish Authority was mentioned. In that case, such a challenge was mounted, and the fee structure was deemed unlawful and outwith existing legislation. Retrospective charges had to be applied unless new primary legislation were enacted to correct the problem. What would happen if such a challenge were made in this case? Would the current shortfall have to be made up between its first coming to light and its correction by means of the Bill, and a retrospective charge imposed on recipients of the Public Trust Office's services?
  I am perfectly content that the Lord Chancellor's Department should set the fees, rather than the Treasury, inasmuch as a member of the judiciary, the Lord Chancellor, should set any such fees. It is entirely proper that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department should set those fees, but I am less content that a member of the judiciary should have that Government function.
  In terms of abuse of the process, if liability were established and such sums were recovered from the budget of the Lord Chancellor's Department rather than from the Treasury's contingency funds, would they form part of the operating costs of the Public Trust Office, or of the Official Solicitor? In other words, will any costs be in effect recoverable from those who receive the service? Would such costs have to be recovered to meet Treasury rules? My suspicion is that they might, but I hope that they will not, and that contingency funds will be available from the Lord Chancellor's Department's overall vote. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can confirm that point.
  I conclude by pointing out that the Liberal Democrats have no intention of dividing the House, and we wish the Bill good progress.
  5.9 pm
  Mr. George Osborne: It is a novel experience to be called to speak so early in the afternoon, although not so novel to be called at the end of our debate.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), I support the Bill, and wish to speak as a member of the Public Accounts Committee. Sadly, most other PAC members are in a hearing at the moment, although I notice that a new PAC member, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, is in the Chamber. She may not be aware that my constituency is supposed to provide mutual aid to the
  48
  Conservatives in her Bolton, West constituency, although that has proved spectacularly unsuccessful recently—witness the fact that she is here. Indeed, the Conservatives were providing that financial aid when they lost my constituency.
  The Bill is needed to protect the vulnerable people mentioned by the Minister—the elderly, the mentally incapacitated, families with vaccine-damaged children and so on—who benefit from the work of the Public Trustee. Many would be unable to afford the increased fees which would be imposed if the existing law remained unamended. The Bill has all-party support, as has been demonstrated this evening. It has been dealt with quickly, and was dispensed with in just seven minutes in the House of Lords, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone pointed out. However, with contributions from him and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), that was never going to be the case in the House of Commons.
  Before the Bill is rubber-stamped and reaches the statute book, it is worth reflecting that chronic mismanagement of the Public Trust Office by the Lord Chancellor's Department under two successive Governments—so I am not making a party political point—led to its introduction. We should congratulate the PAC under the chairmanship of both Robert Sheldon, now Lord Sheldon, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), whose work, along with that of the National Audit Office, has exposed many of the poor financial practices which plagued the Public Trust Office. The PAC produced various reports, one of which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone. The second report of the Session for 2001 to 2002 says:
  "Public bodies that manage or regulate their clients' money, especially for people disadvantaged through mental incapacity, must meet the highest professional standards. The Public Trust Office fell below those standards."
  It also says:
  "Departments should have effective mechanisms for overseeing the work of Agencies for which they are responsible. The Lord Chancellor's Department acknowledged that its oversight of the Public Trust Office should have been better."
  As a result of that mismanagement in an office which, as the Minister said, should have commanded the highest degree of public confidence, many fees were not collected on time and it became almost impossible to trace large unclaimed balances. Members of the public had to go through filing systems or read back issues of the London Gazette dating back to 1726 to see if they were eligible to claim certain moneys. No attempt was made to alert people to the fact that they were entitled to payment. Indeed, there was even a failure to reclaim about £125,000 in VAT, which the clients of the Public Trust Office paid for in increased fees. The staff were overstretched and unable to cope and eventually the office's chief executive was asked to leave early. However, she collected a hefty bonus, which the Department was unable to do anything about.
  Mr. Cash: In fact, as was mentioned in Committee the other day, there have been three chief executives in the past year or so. I believe that the Minister will confirm that.
  Mr. Osborne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was referring in particular to Chief Executive Ms Lomas, who received a bonus.
  Ms Rosie Winterton: Before my time.
  Mr. Osborne: I believe that it happened after 1997.

  49
  The failures highlighted by the PAC over a number of years were reinforced by the Department's quinquennial review, to which the Minister referred. It noted:
  "Corporate development, business modernisation, high quality client service and comprehensive, reliable financial management information systems have not materialised".
  That is Sir Humphrey-speak for a complete mess. As a result of the review, the Public Trust Office was abolished and its trust work transferred. I suspect that a sorry history of poor management and lack of financial accountability led to the current position—the Government have had to accept that the work of the Public Trustee, which has been self-supporting since 1906, cannot remain so in future. I accept that. There is no mileage to be made from making vulnerable people in our society pay for the mistakes of Whitehall.
  I end with a couple of questions which I should be grateful if the Minister would consider. The explanatory notes state rather vaguely:
  "The Bill will enable fees to be set which allow for a level of public subsidy where fee remissions are justified".
  Before we give the Bill a Second Reading, I should be interested to hear from the Minister what level of public subsidy she envisages as a result of the Bill.
  The explanatory notes also state that the current deficit is about £1.9 million. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, speaking for the Liberal and Liberal Democrat parties, made a good point. The Government state in the explanatory notes that they intend to reduce the deficit, but how will that be achieved? By how much will fees increase? Even if they do not increase by 100 per cent., which would have been the case if the law had not changed, by how much will they increase in order to reduce the deficit?
  Finally, Baroness Scotland pointed out in the other place that, as a consequence of the administrative changes that led to the abolition of the Public Trust Office,
  "the accommodation and other overhead costs attributed to trust work increased significantly from 1st April 2001, while the income from trusts work has reduced".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 May 2002; Vol. 635, c. 1050.]
  Can the Minister say why the accommodation and overhead costs increased so dramatically, so that we can be sure that we are not still suffering from poor financial management in her Department, and so that we can be reassured that the culture change about which the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome spoke will take place?
  5.16 pm
  Keith Vaz: I shall speak briefly in a very brief debate—so brief that when I saw the Minister's name appear on the annunciator I rushed in, but by the time I arrived she had finished speaking. I apologise to my hon. Friend for not being present during her speech.
  It is unusual for both sides of the House to support a measure, and I am glad that we are supporting it. I welcome the Bill, which will provide for the necessary changes to ensure that the work of the office and the trustee is made more efficient. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said that we should be cautious when we seek to amend an Act of Parliament that has been around for 100 years, but I think that that fact itself makes it ready for amendment.
  Mr. Heath: I said that it was not the Act's longevity that gave it added value, but the fact that it was introduced by a Liberal Government.
  Keith Vaz: Liberals are always claiming credit, especially for their own Acts.
  I see my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) in his place. He has the Adjournment, and I do not want to detain him or the House. I shall make three quick comments. First, I am glad that the Government have responded so positively to the points made in the quinquennial review. They have acknowledged that errors were made. However, when the Government create executive agencies, as the Conservative Government did in 1994, the degree of ministerial involvement will inevitably be less effective than if that body were part of the Government's work. With executive agencies, Ministers and officials must wait until matters are brought to their attention. We should not criticise the officials of the Lord Chancellor's Department for what they have done. They reacted as they ought to have reacted when matters were brought to their attention.
  Secondly, it is important that the work of the Public Trustee should be publicised. The fact that not many people know of the existence of that office may be due, in part, to the fact that when things go wrong, we do not get to hear about it unless we sit on the Public Accounts Committee or the matter is brought to our attention in some other way. I hope that we will hear from the Minister that the Lord Chancellor's Department will provide more information about the office, so that its work can be brought to the attention of the public, especially those who are vulnerable and who need the support of the Public Trustee. If we publicise such information, we will be much more careful about the way in which organisations and executive agencies are reviewed. That will mean that more ministerial attention is directed to that area of policy.
  As for the quinquennial review, there were resource and other recommendations. I know that the Government have accepted the recommendations, and I hope that they have all been implemented. At least we can hear from the Minister that she hopes that they will be implemented in the near future. There has been a change of name and there has been a relaunch, but it is not enough to change a name. It is necessary also to change the ethos, the structure and the way in which things are done. I hope that my hon. Friend will tell us that the process will continue.
  5.20 pm
  Mr. Cash: We have had a short but useful debate. To take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), I had some slight misgivings about the fact that, as the Minister said in another place, the office has been relaunched as the Public Guardianship Office with effect from 1 April 2001. There is a problem because we have the Public Trustee Act 1906, we have functions that are repeatedly referred to as Public Trustee functions, but we have a relaunch as a Public Guardianship Office. There could be some confusion in the mind of the public. There has been an example of that with the rebranding of the Post Office as Consignia, with a return to the previous name.
  In the spirit of co-operation and good will that has been generated during the debate, some significant points have been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton

  51
  (Mr. Osborne) raised some important points about the Public Accounts Committee and the way in which it has conducted its functions. We have also heard some criticisms about the practical operations of the office.
  I conclude by requesting the Minister to consider the uncertainty and confusion that can arise, especially when we are dealing with people who are not necessarily learned in the law. They merely want to have their affairs dealt with properly. If names are not consistent with the Act and if we do not have clarity, there may be some confusion.
  5.23 pm
  Ms Rosie Winterton: With the leave of the House, I shall respond to the debate. As has been said, it has been short but thoughtful.
  I am grateful for the support that Opposition Members have shown so as to give the Bill a fair wind. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) suggested that the work of the Official Solicitor and the Public Trustee is perhaps not widely known. I take on board his points about seeing whether we can give wider publicity to the work that is undertaken. I assure him that a considerable amount of information is available on the internet. I accept, however, that clarity is important.
  During the debate, there has, perhaps, been some confusion about the work of the Public Trustee as opposed to that of the Public Guardianship Office. I can assure the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) that our changing the 1906 Act implies no criticism of the Act. It suited the times, but obviously things have moved on.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer) referred to one of his constituents—he works assiduously on behalf of his constituents. I think that the issue to which he referred would have been dealt with by the Public Guardianship Office. Following the 1999 report and the quinquennial review, the trust work was transferred through the Public Trustee to the Official Solicitor's office. The Public Guardianship Office dealt with people who had mental incapacity problems and, perhaps through the enduring power of attorney, had receivers or needed receivers to be appointed. The work of the Public Trustee is somewhat different, as it will administer funds that have come through the trusts. As I mentioned, the Public Trustee will be responsible for administering the compensation awarded to vaccine-damaged children. None the less, in the light of the specific problems that my hon. Friend's constituent may have experienced with the Public Guardianship Office, I shall take up the matter. I think that he has written to me once already, but if he would care to do so again, I shall certainly look into the matter.
  Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), mentioned the relationship between the Public Guardianship Office and the Official Solicitor. The hon. Gentleman also spoke of the efficiency of the Public Guardianship Office and enduring powers of attorney. He mentioned the fact, as he did in Committee last week, that some fees were increased but that a number of fees went down. I was disappointed that the Opposition chose to
  52
  divide the Committee on that matter, as I believe that the remissions policy that we introduced is extremely important and protects some of the least well-off people.
  Mr. Cash: I am sure that the Minister will not be disappointed when I say that what I am seeking to do in this debate—I did so when I assisted in pressing the Committee to a Division—is to ensure that a proper balance is struck between what goes up and what comes down. That is the key point. The difficulty was that we were faced with the knowledge that there had been a threefold increase in fees, which we thought was too much.
  Ms Winterton: I think that the hon. Gentleman would also accept, however, that there was a great deal of criticism of the previous cross-subsidy, and that it was important to achieve the right balance in terms of one client paying for another's services. That was affecting some of the least well-off, so we wanted to ensure the proper balance.
  I shall now turn to the issues raised by a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), who is a member of the Public Accounts Committee. As I said, I could not quite remember all the previous chief executives of the Public Trust Office, as some of them were before my time as a Minister. The point about the Bill—this is where some of the confusion may have arisen—is that in setting the future fees, we hope to establish that there is not a statutory requirement for full cost recovery. We will consider how fees may be increased to meet certain of the Treasury criteria and to ensure that we do not face criticism from the Public Accounts Committee. We certainly want to ensure that we can have an element of public subsidy to protect the very poorest clients if necessary.
  The hon. Members for Somerton and Frome and for Stone mentioned overheads and the way in which the trust function previously operated. Prior to the transfer of the trust function to the Official Solicitor and Public Trustee, that function of the office was already operating at a deficit in cost recovery of some £500,000. Overhead costs originally increased by about £1.2 million in April 2001. That was the result of two factors—first, the higher cost of accommodation at Chancery lane, which the hon. Member for Stone recalled nostalgically, as compared to the costs of Stewart house and, secondly, the share of the higher overheads that had to be borne by the trust function at the new office. Recent discussions with my Department about projected forecasts for the current financial year suggest a further increase in overhead costs of about £700,000.
  The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome asked whether there would be retrospective liability in terms of costs not being recovered. We believe that it is highly unlikely that we would face a legal challenge from somebody who wished to pay more than they had previously paid, so it is unnecessary for the Bill to apply retrospectively. It is extremely unlikely that someone would say, "We want to take action in order to ensure that we could have paid more previously." Consequently, there will be no such liability.
  The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome mentioned fees orders. Those are made by the Lord Chancellor and are not laid before the House, but they will be considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
  Mr. Heath: May I return the hon. Lady to the potential confusion between the various offices? Can she confirm whether the legal person of the Public Trustee is now identical to the legal person of the Official Solicitor, and whether that is set out in any statute or might be incorporated into the Bill?
  Ms Winterton: Yes, they are the same person. I do not believe that it is necessary for that to be covered by the Bill, but if it is I shall write to the hon. Gentleman to confirm it.
  Mr. Cash: On the question of confusion arising in respect of legal capacity or legal personality, the use of such expressions may create confusion in itself. I am worried about people's perceptions. Many of those involved would not necessarily be able easily to make such distinctions. The same probably applies to many Members of Parliament, but that is another matter.
  Ms Winterton: I am sure that few Members of Parliament could be confused about anything. That was an extraordinary comment.
  The debate has been thoughtful and I am grateful for hon. Members' support for the Bill. I am pleased that the House has recognised the valuable work of the Official Solicitor and Public Trustee, especially that of protecting some of the most vulnerable members of our society. The Bill will enable us to continue to provide that vital protection, and to modernise some of the financial and other procedures in government.
  Many people will benefit from the Bill, and I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

  PUBLIC TRUSTEE (LIABILITY AND FEES) BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Public Trustee (Liability and Fees) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under the Public Trustee Act 1906.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
  Question agreed to.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Tuesday 9th July, if proceedings on the Police Reform Bill [Lords] have not been completed before Seven o'clock, Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means for consideration at that hour shall stand over until the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill and the Private Business may then be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours after it has been entered upon.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Wednesday 24th July, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any messages from the Lords shall have been received and he shall have notified the Royal Assent to Acts agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I call Mr. Rosindell to present a petition. He is not here. I call Mr. Pound.

  Antisocial Behaviour
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
  5.36 pm
  Mr. Stephen Pound: I regret that the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) was not in his place. The speed of our proceedings has been such that we have not so much debated as waved at legislation as it passed by. I understand why the hon. Gentleman was not present.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the subject of tonight's debate. I cannot believe that many hon. Members who are present are not as exercised as I am by the increase in complaints from their constituents that fall within the broad ambit of antisocial behaviour. Clearly, it is not a new problem. I believe that some Sumerian clay tablets were recently unearthed and that they were translated to reveal the statement: "The youth of today have no control and are causing mayhem on the streets." That was a few thousand years ago. However, we clearly have a problem and we need to deal with it.
  We owe it our constituents and the wider electorate to be thoughtful about antisocial behaviour. Simply saying that people should be locked up and swept off the streets is not good enough. We lock up more people than any other European country and we owe it to our electorate to examine the causes a little more deeply. I should like to narrow the focus slightly to concentrate on teenagers and young people, and my area of north-west London.
  When people complain about the antisocial behaviour of teenagers and young people, they must accept that the young people responsible for graffiti, vandalism, noise nuisance and all the other problems that worry us have not leapt on to the streets fully formed in their feral shape; they have a background. I understand that some, who have all the advantages in life and could be described as "A Clockwork Orange" generation, will still commit the foulest antisocial activities with no possible excuse, but we castigate and criticise many people who have been victims and are often the product of unfortunate and unhappy backgrounds.
  Tonight, I want to concentrate particularly on looked-after children—children who were until recently described as being in care. Until 1934—certainly within living memory—in my constituency, there was a huge building, which is now Hanwell community centre, into which were swept any young boys and girls who happened to be found wandering the streets of an evening. Charlie Chaplin was one famous example. He was found on the streets of Southwark and ended up in Hanwell, which I would say was a step upwards, although he did not see it that way. These young children were trained, in the case of girls, to be downstairs maids or between-stairs maids, and, in the case of boys, to be buglers or carpenters.
  We have moved on a bit from the idea of warehousing young people, and from the old idea of the children's home, and the reason that I am raising this matter tonight is that we are in transition. We have a lot of very needy young people, and we have a range of responses to their needs. We must be absolutely sure that we are proceeding sensibly and logically towards meeting their needs and the needs of the communities in which they live.
  56
  In my area of north-west London, we had a commercial organisation that placed vulnerable young children on behalf of a number of other London boroughs. I want to ask the Minister whether she would be prepared to examine the issue of cross-borough placements in this context, from the point of view of both inspection and monitoring. There is a temptation for boroughs to place young people in other boroughs, and for the old principle of "out of sight, out of mind" to apply.
  An additional problem, which I shall come to in a moment, is the definition of the term "hostel". In these circumstances, we are talking about small, residential units above shops. They are not hostels. In planning law, the definition of a hostel includes shared provision for cooking and eating. A group of small units does not constitute a hostel; therefore there can be no licence. There can, therefore, be no local authority locus, so when the local people turn to the council for assistance, the council is unable to help because the premises in question are not a licensed hostel.
  People turn to the local councillors in these circumstances, but, in many cases, they are unable to respond to their needs. Had this taken place in Victorian times, when Mr. Bumble strolled the streets, those people would at least have had a figure to go to. Now they have my colleagues, Councillors Richard Porter, Fred Varley and Shital Manro, who are just as responsive as Mr. Bumble and far more approachable than he ever was. They are, however, unable to assist.
  It is appropriate that we are considering the issue of vulnerable, fragile young people—whose needs must be considered at the same time as those of the community in which they live—at this time, because this is foster care fortnight. I would like to pay tribute to the Fostering Network for providing the lapel badges that I see many right hon. and hon. Members wearing, and for its work in raising the profile of fostering. We know that it needs 8,000 more foster carers, and that there are 45,000 children being fostered on any one day in this country.
  If those children are not fostered, they end up in the sort of accommodation that I have described. The commercial organisation to which I referred earlier is now working in partnership with the local authority. It has agreed to reduce the number of young people placed in the hostel, and I hope that the partnership between the organisation and the local authority will continue, to the benefit of all the young people concerned.
  I am also optimistic about the general thrust of Government policy in this direction, which is considering in depth the needs of young people in parallel with the needs of the local community. This issue is not capable of resolution by a simple sweep of the kind that we find described in the red-top tabloids; it is one that we have to address in some detail. I would particularly like to share with the Minister some of the developments in Ealing's children's services, and, in all honesty, to pay tribute to the Government's impressive programme of reform for better futures for vulnerable children and looked-after children in our society.
  The House does not hear often enough of the advantages and the benefits of the innovative national quality protects programme or of the significant extra resources for children's services, which we would all agree have made a real change in the lives of children and their families. That work, as we know, links in with the

  57
  Government's wider programme of commitment to education and social inclusion through education and training. It also aims to do that most marvellous and most noble of things—break the cycle of poverty and exclusion that has marginalised so many people in our society.
  Twenty years ago, when I was first elected a councillor, a 16-year-old woman came to see me with a baby in her arms. She had a terrible housing problem, which I was able to address, as we had council housing in those dim and distant days. Sixteen years later, that baby, grown to maturity, came to my surgery with her baby in her arms, but I was unable to assist. That is the cycle of deprivation that we must address, because it leads to exclusion and marginalisation. I pay particular tribute to the Government for their work on that.
  It is not necessary, I would have thought, to state that the provision of a stable, loving and secure home for children with substitute families, should no parental family exist, is the clearest way to ensure that they have the opportunity for a positive future or that successful outcomes in terms of education, health and career opportunities as well as emotional stability with such a family base to return to is more likely to succeed.
  I am delighted to tell the Minister that 80 per cent. of Ealing's looked-after children are now placed with substitute families—a very significant increase over the past three years. That is the result not just of extremely hard work by people such as Judith Finlay and Professor Norman Tutt OBE, director of housing and social services in Ealing, but of the active and ongoing publicity campaigns and outreach work with local communities to recruit local carers and reduce the number of children placed outside the borough, thereby obviating precisely the cross-borough placement problem to which I referred.
  I am also delighted to share with the Minister the fact that foster carers are actively sought and recruited in Ealing. We do not wait for them to come to us; we go out and find them. We value the important and challenging work that they do. Each year, I am honoured to attend the foster carers' awards dinner and ceremony, which celebrates their important contribution to our local community and rewards their achievements with certificates for one, 10, 20 and, in one case that I recall, 30 years of service to vulnerable children.
  We celebrate a special award for the outstanding contribution from an individual carer, nominated by the children themselves, in recognition of Ealing's first-ever black carer. I am particularly pleased to tell the Minister that Ealing, which has a population as diverse as that in any borough, matches that diversity with the diversity of its carers, who come from all ages and backgrounds and from all communities.
  The number of children placed for adoption recently reached the highest ever in Ealing—22 adoption orders were granted last year and a further 44 children are currently placed for adoption. Those figures reflect implementation of the Prime Minister's review of adoption and the establishment of the national taskforce on adoption to share good practice, on which Ealing's director of children's services is represented.
  Another development, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), the Minister of State, Department of Health, was present, was the launch last month of the Westminster and West London Consortium on Adoption. That returns us to the theme,
  58
  which I am trying to establish tonight, that local authorities need to work together on the issue, especially in London. They have tried to go it alone in assessing potential adopters and identifying suitable matches for children.
  The new consortium is an absolute breakthrough in that it provides a wider pool of adoptees and children to match up across the central and west London area. As the Minister knows, that will be further facilitated by the establishment of a national register of adopters and adoptees. The consortium model is already contributing to a marked increase in the speed of adoption and the number of children placed for adoption in Ealing and across west London.
  The Government's agenda on improving education outcomes for children in public care, following the issuing of national guidance—the Minister formerly held the relevant role—is also leading to the raising of expectations and achievement in Ealing. I do not often stand here and blow a trumpet for the London borough of Ealing, but when we do something well I think the country needs to know it. I hope that the House will allow me to say that the percentage of children leaving care in Ealing with at least one GCSE rose from 16.7 to 35.2 per cent. in 2001–02, and we are currently on course for more than 50 per cent. of year-11 looked-after children achieving that target this academic year.
  Those figures are still nationally too low, but they show the progress that can be made with a concerted effort, additional resources and partnership between children, social workers, carers and schools. A positive education is clearly the best opportunity we can give vulnerable children, especially those who grow up in the care system. Those children may be diverted from what we consider antisocial activities into useful, productive activity for the benefit of society, themselves and the community at large.
  In Ealing, we currently have five specialist teachers to help looked-after young children with their educational needs. They provide a short-term service for children not currently in school placement, and integrate them back into mainstream school places. They also offer additional support for schoolteachers and carers. In addition, they run homework clubs and SATs and GCSE pre-exam holiday clinics. The council has made a clear commitment to providing financial support for looked-after children in higher education.
  Members will probably be aware of the appallingly low number of looked-after children nationally who make it to higher education. My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) was once quoted as saying that in his constituency in any one year more teenagers go to jail than go to university. That is a horrific and terrifying statistic, and we need to take great and careful heed of it.
  In Ealing, we are not quite in that position. Thirteen young people who were care leavers are currently at university. That is 13 more than we had a few years ago, and the number is expected to rise to 25 over the next two years. That is a real response to the needs of young people, and a real diversion away from the antisocial behaviour of many young people in the past. The figure includes a young man who is a 4th-year medical student, and a young woman who I am delighted to say will start this September at the world's finest university, the London School of Economics, of which I am an alumnus. Another outstanding young

  59
  woman is studying politics at Cardiff university. Despite the fact that she has undertaken work experience in my office, she is still interested in politics.
  In addition, Ealing was very involved in the Department for Education and Skills teenagers to work programme in May this year, in which 28 young people took part, including three Ealing young people in care who had a two-day placement in Brussels with MEPs and three who had placements with fellow MPs at the House of Commons. Others chose such settings as the fire station. I cannot comment on that: the young person I had working with me seemed to enjoy herself. Opportunities for children who are often excluded from the chances that many young people in mainstream families take for granted can only increase their understanding and ability to exercise real choices about their own future, to be involved in the wider society, and to be diverted from antisocial behaviour.
  Mr. Peter Luff: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, as I did not give him notice of my intention to intervene. I welcome what he is saying about education. Will he join me in welcoming what the Government are doing by broadening vocational education to GCSE level, which is likely to engage the young people that he is talking about much more in school-based activities? It is a constructive approach. Children who are at present alienated by an excessively academic curriculum may be re-engaged as a result of that initiative.
  Mr. Pound: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. People of my generation who were divided into sheep and goats at the age of 11, who suffered the agonies of the grammar versus secondary modern school system and were often marked for life by one afternoon when they were 11 have concerns about a wholly vocational alternative in secondary education. Hon. Members may be amazed to hear me say this, but I think that the Government have got it absolutely right. They have managed to find the via media between those old extremes. They have recognised that vocational training meets the needs of particular groups of people, and by making that available while at the same time not making it a matter of stigma, they have managed to excite the support of even the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff)—and I never thought I would be able to say that in this place. I am delighted to join him in that.
  Two years ago, we were extremely fortunate to have the Minister's predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), open our one-stop shop for children in care and for care leavers. The Ealing drop-in centre has gone from strength to strength and underpins Ealing's approach to the Government's new legislation, the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, which has been implemented with additional Government resources from last September. The drop-in centre is led by young people in partnership with staff and Ealing's elected Members.
  Furthermore, Ealing's commitment to improving outcomes for children in care through the corporate parent panel, which is chaired by my old friend and colleague, John Cudmore, the leader of the council, has been an innovative and very successful model of ensuring that
  60
  joined-up local government delivers the best possible services and outcomes to children in care. I sometimes cavil at phrases such as roll-outs, initiatives and joined-up government, but in this case it actually is joined-up local government. That ensures that looked-after children are seen not just as the responsibility of the social services department, but of the whole council, which provides access to education, housing, leisure, sports and arts opportunities. Ealing council takes very seriously its responsibility to the—I pause to allow the significance of this figure to sink in—380 children in its care. That is one London borough. Ealing acts as a good parent should.
  This is the third year that young people in Ealing are organising their own consultation day: a day to demonstrate their talents and abilities. The event is called the Ealing outerlimits day and takes place at the Questors theatre. It is a mixture of serious events, such as a drama production on children's experiences of the care system and how it can be improved, and a presentation on their educational achievements. It was extremely successful last year Marks and Spencer agreed to lend a lot of new clothes for a fashion parade, but unfortunately we were bombed two days before and its shop was inside the exclusion zone. A number of people, including myself, had to produce some of our older and more exciting garments, which the children could wear with some humour, not as high fashion. The day shows their talents in dance, arts, sports and music, and culminates in a talent contest of—dare I say it—"Pop Idol" style and a barbecue and party. The event also ensures that all children can access information that they need on education, health and housing issues as well as arts, sports and music.
  I suspect that the Minister knows what is coming. This year's event takes place on Saturday 10 August. I appreciate that she may have a prior engagement with the Salford motor cycle club on that day, but if she is able to drag herself away from her two-wheeled weekend pastime, I would be delighted to invite her to attend and open the event and to meet some of Ealing's talented looked-after young people. She will also see the Government's radical policy programme translated into real action.
  I started by talking about the components of the wider problem that we describe as antisocial behaviour. I said that we should consider what makes up the groups of children and young people whom we stigmatise and, let us be honest, from whom we sometimes suffer. We do not deserve to suffer, but they do not deserve to have us lump them together in one group.
  Mr. Luff: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments, especially what he said about not stigmatising a particular group. In Droitwich Spa, where there are real concerns about antisocial behaviour, it is clear that we cannot categorise the young people who are causing the problem of bad behaviour. They come from across the social spectrum, and not from one particular group. We must not assume that just because a child is underprivileged, he or she will necessarily be a leading light in antisocial behaviour in a town. That is certainly not my experience in Droitwich.
  Mr. Pound: I am slightly worried that my membership of the Labour party may be in doubt if I continue to agree with the hon. Gentleman. I remember a group of overpaid City-employed hooligans known as the Flaming Ferraris.

  61
  They came from an elegant background—indeed, I think that the father of one of them was a Conservative peer. In the 18th century, the Mohawks, young aristos from the Hellfire club, terrorised the streets of London, setting fire to watchmen—and possibly Labour canvassers, for all I know.
  I agree with the hon. Gentleman that social background is no determinant of antisocial behaviour. However, there is ample statistical evidence, particularly in the work done by Louise Casey in the rough sleepers unit as recently as two years ago, that an enormously high percentage of people who are homeless and suffer from drug and alcohol abuse problems are products of what we call the care system. We owe it to that group of people to identify their needs and present solutions. We owe it to this country and this Parliament not to stigmatise them and lump them together.
  In Northolt in my constituency, the problem was, I sincerely hope, one of transition. Young people were moving away from the warehoused care homes and orphanages of the past into a modern, more specific and better tailored way of resolving and addressing their needs. In transition, severe problems were caused. I reiterate my earlier comment that the organisation is now in partnership with the London borough of Ealing and the local residents, which will, I hope, be in the interests of all people.
  I ask the Minister to consider the points about hostel definition, cross-borough accreditation and the assessment and checking of standards. I also ask her to accept my assurance that in Ealing we address the needs of young people as well as the concerns of the community, because ultimately they make up society. If antisocial behaviour confronts and affronts society, we need to remember that these vulnerable young people are not only a part of society but a part that we should value, cherish and recognise.
  6.2 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I am delighted to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) on raising an extremely important issue with his usual sensitivity and common sense. He commended many things to us this evening, particularly the practices in Ealing. His description of Ealing seeing itself as a corporate parent was extremely interesting. He has brought a great deal of new information to the debate.
  The Government recognise that many communities are concerned about antisocial behaviour by young people. There can be no Members who do not regularly see people at their surgeries who suffer from such problems. As the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) said, these problems are not confined to people from particular social backgrounds—they are many and varied. That is one reason why, since 1998, we have introduced a range of initiatives to tackle antisocial behaviour, along with various programmes to tackle crime. Crucially, the fear of crime caused by low-level antisocial behaviour often does more damage to communities' sense of self-confidence than more serious and isolated criminal behaviour.
  This is about getting the balance right. Throughout our period in office, as well as introducing initiatives to tackle antisocial behaviour, we have tried to demonstrate our commitment to improving opportunities for young people
  62
  who have been living in and leaving local authority care. It is a matter of doing both; these objectives do not need to conflict when tackling antisocial behaviour and trying to support people who have left the local authority system.
  Those policies are expressed in the quality protects programme and the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000. Both measures have promoted support for care leavers so that they have the same opportunities as other young people. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) introduced the Act with passion and common sense. He said that families do not suddenly stop taking responsibility for children when they are 16; that responsibility continues until they are 18, 21 and even beyond, when children regularly come back home looking for support. My right hon. Friend said that if our children come back and ask to borrow a tenner, we respond quite naturally, as we do if they come back with their washing or looking for emotional support. Equally, our responsibility as corporate parents means that we must continue to give support to children who leave care.
  We try to ensure that children leaving care can fully participate in the life of their local community as citizens, through education, training and opportunities to work. The quality protects programme has been welcomed by local authorities. I was particularly interested in my hon. Friend's description of what has been happening in his council. The quality protects programme has not only been delivered as a central Government policy but has been owned by the local authorities, which have been able to build on the principles in that programme to come up with ways of working that suit their community. The author of a report on evaluating local responses to the programme, Diana Robbins, has said
  "quality protects is an effective tool for developing local work on specific priorities; but it has already achieved changes"
  in way that local authorities work. Some of those changes may be a bit slow, but they are beginning to show through in terms of measurable outcomes.
  Our most recent data show that more children in care are being adopted and that looked-after children are experiencing fewer changes of carer—for many children in the care system, having different sets of foster parents and home settings has been extremely disruptive. There has been a complete reversal of the trend that had seen more and more young people discharged from care when they reached 16, whether or not they were ready for independence. We are now assessing young people on their skills and potential and providing them with the right level of support.
  We have also introduced the Adoption and Children Bill, which will overhaul the outdated Adoption Act 1976. It will modernise the existing legal framework for domestic and inter-country adoption. That change underpins our drive to speed up the process and provide many more looked-after children, who cannot return to their families, with a fresh start and the opportunity to live in and be part of a new family.
  The Care Standards Act 2000 established the National Care Standards Commission to ensure that vulnerable children and adults get the protection they need and that all care providers have high standards. There are now national minimum standards for the services to be regulated, and we hope that that will ensure that vulnerable children will have confidence in the quality and safety of the care that they receive.

  63
  Local authorities have a duty to ensure that they place children in accommodation that conforms to national standards and meets their needs. That applies whether the placement is in their own authority, elsewhere across London or in any other part of the country. The Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 transformed the powers that councils had to support young people into duties. It became mandatory for local authorities to make sure that they followed through their responsibilities. That is relevant to the issues raised by my hon. Friend because the 2000 Act requires local authorities to assess and meet the needs of care leavers and, crucially, to stay in touch with them, not simply abandon them when they reach the age at which they can leave care. The duty continues wherever a young person moves to.
  The Act also provides that young people should have a pathway plan, setting out the support they will need and what help the local authority will offer them if things go wrong, so that they have confidence that they will continue to be looked after even when they are living independently. The plan has to include arrangements for young people to live in suitable accommodation.
  Councils should take steps to ensure that young people have the best chance of succeeding where they are living. Arrangements for their accommodation should be linked to other arrangements for support. As my hon. Friend has said, in his own local authority, the support is keyed in to issues of accommodation, education, transport and housing. All those services need to be connected and in place to give young people the best possible launch into their adult life.
  My hon. Friend mentioned some of the difficulties that had occurred locally and I entirely understand his concerns about the impact of young people on local residents. A group of young people left local authority care and almost all of them were placed in Ealing by other local authorities. That sends a key message: we must ensure that those authorities continue to take responsibility for the children whom they have placed. They must also share information with each other; they should work together in such situations rather than acting in isolation.
  Local people living near those youngsters associated their presence with nuisance, intimidation, vandalism and other criminal acts. Although it may be hard to prove a direct link between the young people and every incident that has occurred, the residents have real concerns and they were right to express them.
  I appreciate the fact that it seems to local people that an entirely new establishment housing nine young people has been imposed on their neighbourhood. Unfortunately, the status of the property is of nine self-contained independent flats, each with its own entrance and facilities, so the service is not defined as a hostel under current planning regulations. The scheme is thus not covered by planning law and would not qualify for inspection by the National Care Standards Commission.
  My hon. Friend raises legitimate concerns about a group of nine young people leaving care who are all vulnerable and need intense support, yet difficulties are caused because their accommodation does not fall under the narrow definition of a hostel. I can reassure him that the Government are considering ways to establish best
  64
  practice in all publicly funded accommodation, including hostels. At present, they are not covered by the legislation, but I undertake to raise the issue with my colleagues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister so that we can reassure local people that regulation will be introduced.
  Through the quality protects programme and the other initiatives to which I referred, the Government stress that councils should try to take the same interest in the young people whom they have looked after as a reasonable parent would take in their own children who face the challenges of adulthood. It is important that the local authorities which placed those young people in my hon. Friend's constituency assure themselves that those young people are being offered adequate support. Like any reasonable parent, the local authorities should ensure that the young people can engage in constructive activity so that they are not left to drift and get involved in antisocial behaviour. They should be offered sufficient education and training to achieve their potential. Any parent will understand that even if support is available, young people inevitably push at the boundaries of behaviour, but it is important that local authorities which place young people maintain consistent contact and continue to provide regular support.
  The issues raised by my hon. Friend are not of the sort that can be easily and neatly resolved by central Government policy. They need to be resolved locally by all the parties getting together and involving local people. Young people are entitled to suitable accommodation with appropriate support, but their neighbours are equally entitled to go about their business free from harassment and intimidation and not to be subject to antisocial behaviour. The young people themselves have a responsibility to behave properly. They must recognise and act on their responsibility to be good neighbours.
  Where there is evidence of crime, antisocial behaviour and vandalism, the police have obligations to uphold the law and to protect the local community. Tackling antisocial behaviour locally requires co-ordinated action and the full use of all available resources. That could include the use of antisocial behaviour orders, if necessary, as well as acceptable behaviour contracts, which are being piloted in my hon. Friend's constituency. Young people enter into a contract about their future behaviour—a structured way of achieving the right balance.
  Mr. Luff: As the Minister said, this matter is of real concern throughout the country. In Droitwich Spa. I recently held a survey on the causes of antisocial behaviour and constituents' responses to it. There were several distinctive elements in those responses—including policing, antisocial behaviour orders and the need for tough sentencing. There was a strong emphasis on the need to provide more facilities for ordinary young people; there is just not enough for them to do in the average British town. Will the Minister ask local authorities and public bodies to support schemes to help young people, such as, for example, the Droitwich Spa adventure playground, which provides an outlet for the energy of young people, and the Droitwich fusion centre, which is an advice centre for kids who get into difficulties?
  Ms Blears: The hon. Gentleman is right: we need enough facilities in our communities so that young people have plenty of things to do and do not get involved in

  65
  antisocial behaviour. In my own constituency, we have the street to stadium scheme: youth workers go out on the streets and offer young people the opportunity to take part in sporting activities—such as five-a-side football and basketball—which they try to provide at reduced prices. It is often too expensive for many young people to hire time in leisure centres. The workers try to ensure that young people can use such facilities or those in local schools. Sometimes, simply setting up a basketball net in some empty space can help to engage youngsters in constructive activities. It is also important to ensure that we involve girls as well as boys. There are many successful programmes that use dance to engage girls, who may not want to play five-a-side football—although many play it and are extremely good at it. A great deal of imagination is being used to set up schemes to support our young people.
  Only a minority of young people are involved in antisocial behaviour; the vast majority want constructive activity. They are a credit to their community and make a huge contribution by helping people locally.
  I am pleased to say that things are improving dramatically in my hon. Friend's constituency, due in no short measure to his personal intervention in trying to resolve a difficult situation. He has made tremendous efforts to mediate between the young people and local residents. I was glad to learn that only last Friday agreements were reached that were satisfactory to all concerned. From now on, the flats will offer accommodation only to five young people instead of 10. I hope that those young people will, therefore, be better supported and managed and that not so many of them will congregate in the area. They will he offered a more individual support service. I am delighted that peace has broken out in the community, and I hope that things will continue to improve during the next few weeks and months.
  66
  The Government recognise the need to offer young people leaving care adequate and reliable support. We are also determined to tackle antisocial behaviour by young people, and to ensure that they are diverted both from that behaviour and from serious crime and that communities are properly protected. Those objectives need not conflict; they are intended to build healthy and safe communities. I am sure that we all share that aim.
  The way to make progress is to admit the problem and to work together. In Ealing, local council staff, the police and the owner of the flats held meetings over a lengthy period to try to manage the situation. Local residents, the young people and the local authorities which originally housed them in Ealing were also included. That is crucially important: they all shared the solution so they all have a stake in making it work in future.
  There has been a fruitful outcome to the open and frank discussion of the situation that led to my hon. Friend calling this debate. It should be possible to ensure that only the young people best suited to benefit from the support available in those flats are placed there in future. Placements must be appropriate. I hope that, in future, the local community will have the reassurance that it has sought for some time. The parties have come together and they mean to ensure that people can live in peace in their neighbourhood and make a contribution to their community. I have no doubt that the practice adopted by Ealing is some of the best in the country, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend was able to share some examples of that good practice with us.
  I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his invitation to the open day on 10 August. I shall check my appointments and will try to be there. In any event, I am sure that it will be an excellent showcase for the abilities, talent and potential of many of the young people who are leaving care in his local authority.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Six o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Medical/Dental Education
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether undergraduate and postgraduate medical and dental education programmes include infection control and anti-microbial prescribing. [60790]

  Margaret Hodge
  Infection control and anti-microbial prescribing are included in the undergraduate and postgraduate medical and dental education programmes in England, in line with the requirements of the competent authorities.

  Higher Education Students
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of applicants for higher education places have come from low income families in each year since 1997. [60252]

  Margaret Hodge
  Information on applicants to fill-time undergraduate courses in higher education is collected by the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS). UCAS does not collect any specific information about family income but rather assigns social class to applicants based upon the occupation of the parent with the highest income in the applicants household, as reported by the potential student. For applicants aged 21 or over, the occupation of the person contributing the highest income to the household is used.

  UCAS data on people applying to enter higher education in 1997 to 2001 are shown in the table.

  Percentage of home applicants to fill-time and sandwich undergraduate courses by social class

  Higher social class1

  Lower social class2

  1997

  71

  29

  1998

  71

  29

  1999

  71

  29

  2000

  71

  29

  2001

  71

  29

  1Covers professional, intermediate and skilled (non-manual) social classes.

  2Covers skilled (manual), partly skilled and unskilled social classes.

  The Government are committed to raising the participation rates for people from less affluent family backgrounds, and has introduced Excellence Challenge, including the AimHigher campaign, which is targeted at raising attainment and aspirations among young people who traditionally would not consider going to university.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the higher education institutions showing the proportion of undergraduate students of each social class. [60254]
  2W
  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

  Further Education
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what levels of funding for Further Education will be given to Bridgwater College and Carrington College in the years(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04. [65147]

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total budget is for Somerset in further education for(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04. [65146]

  Margaret Hodge
  This is a matter for the Learning and Skills Council. I have therefore asked John Harwood, the Council's Chief Executive, to write to the hon. Member with the information requested and to place a copy of his reply in the Library.

  Higher Education Funding Council
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the composition of the Higher Education Funding Council for England's settlement for the next financial year; and if she will calculate the current unit of funding per student in comparison with that apportioned in 1997. [65207]

  Margaret Hodge
  Publicly planned funding for higher education in 2003–04 was set out in the grant letter to the Higher Education Funding Council for England issued in November 2001:

  Recurrent Funding—£5,650 million

  Capital—£364 million

  Access and Hardship—£115 million.

  These figures may be amended following the outcome of the 2002 Spending Review. Publicly planned funding per full time equivalent student is set out at Table 4.8 of the Department's Annual Report for 2002. It shows a planned real terms value of £4,920 in 2003–04, compared to £4,910 in 1997–98.

  Capital Requirements (Higher and Further Education)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has(a) made and (b) commissioned of the capital requirements of (i) the higher education and (ii) the further education sectors. [64292]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 27 June 2002]The capital requirements of the higher and further education sectors are part of the confidential advice offered to my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and the Learning and Skills Council (LSC). This advice has been informed by a number of reviews, including a review of the higher education estate by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors; a report by J. M. Consulting "Teaching and Learning Infrastructure in Higher Education" (HEFCE publication 2002/31); by a further review by J. M. Consulting, published in March 2002, reporting on investment in university research infrastructure, and by ongoing studies commissioned to
  3W
  examine Estate Management Statistics and compliance with the requirements of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act in Further Education.

  Fee-paying Students
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress has been made towards meeting the targets for the recruitment of international fee-paying students in the higher education and further education sectors under the Prime Minister's initiative; and what value has accrued to the United Kingdom economy from the campaign so far. [64680]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 27 June 2002]Our targets are to attract 25,000 extra further education students and 50,000 extra higher education students from outside the EU by 2005 (compared to 1996–97). Based on actual figures for England, Northern Ireland and Scotland and an estimate for Wales, 46,609 students from non-EU countries took fill-time courses at further education colleges in the UK in 2000–01, compared to 25,102 in 1996–97 The extra 21,500 students made an estimated fee and non-fee contribution to the UK economy in 2000–01 in the region of £215 million. The non-EU total for international students in fill-time UK higher education has risen to 140,905 for 2001–02, compared to 109,940 in 1996–97. For 2001–02, the additional 30,965 students make an estimated fee and non-fee contribution to the UK economy broadly in the region of £480 million.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much and what proportion of the departmental expenditure limit for 2002–03 had been spent by 31 May; what the figures were for 2001–02; and if she will make a statement. [61014]

  Estelle Morris
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 17 June 2002,Official Report, column 130W.

  Language Teaching
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if the Government intend to improve provision for teaching(a) Spanish and (b) Mandarin at (i) pre-16 and (ii) post-16 level. [62462]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 18 June 2002]The National Curriculum requires schools to offer at least one of the working languages of the European Union. Only when they have met this requirement may they offer non-European languages.

  The Key Stage 3 National Strategy aims to achieve higher standards, good continuity, greater motivation and better learning in all subjects learnt by 11 to 14-year-olds, including modern foreign languages.

  The Learning and Skills Council takes account of national, regional and local needs in deciding how to plan and fund all post–16 (excluding HE) modern foreign language learning. It is for individual universities and colleges to decide which subjects and courses they offer students, in the light of student demand.
  4W
  The Government will publish their national languages strategy in the autumn which will outline their plans for improving the language capability of people of all ages.

  Examination Marking
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research has been undertaken by her to examine the quality and consistency of marking in public examinations. [63166]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The awarding bodies' arrangements for marking in public examinations are governed by a Code of Practice which is designed to ensure that standards are consistent within and across awarding bodies and over time. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) is responsible for monitoring compliance with the Code of Practice. QCA conducts scrutinies in a range of subjects each year covering GCSE, GCE, VCE, and GNVQ qualifications. QCA publishes reports on its websites including reports on standards over time.

  In 2000, the QCA set up an independent panel of advisers to review the adequacy of its quality assurance systems designed to maintain A-level standards. The panel reported to QCA early in 2002 with a firm endorsement of its quality assurance systems.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what statistics she collates on the number of students who have lost or had to postpone university places because the results of re-marked exam scripts arrived too late for consideration. [63176]

  Margaret Hodge
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Teachers
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) part-time and (b) fill-time teachers in maintained schools, broken down by age, moved between Government office regions in the last 12 months. [64103]

  Mr. Miliband
  The numbers of teachers in regular full-or part-time service in the maintained schools sector in England at 31 March 1999 and 31 March 2000 who moved between Government office regions are listed as follows. (This is the most recent year for which provisional data are available.) The numbers do not include teachers moving between full-time and part-time service within the maintained schools sector, or those who moved out of regular service in the maintained schools sector in England.

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Under 25

  280

  10

  25 to 29

  2,000

  50

  30 to 34

  1,140

  70

  35 to 39

  630

  70

  40 to 44

  500

  60

  45 to 49

  440

  40

  50 to 54

  240

  40

  55 to 59

  40

  20

  60 and over

  10

  10

  Total

  5,280

  350

  5W
  Some 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. of part-timers are not recorded on the Teachers' Pensions Scheme, from which the data are obtained.

  Figures may not add to totals due to rounding. Age is at 31 March 2000.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) part-time and (b) fill-time qualified teachers (i) left and (ii) joined maintained schools broken down by (A) age, (B) gender and (c) type of authority in each Government office region in the last 12 months. [64104]

  (i) Leavers between 31 March 1999 and 31 March 2000

  Under 25

  25 to 29

  30 to 34

  35 to 39

  40 to 44

  45 to 49

  50 to 54

  55 to 59

  60 and over

  Total

  Male—full-time

  North-east

  1—

  30

  30

  20

  30

  60

  110

  30

  30

  340

  North-west

  10

  90

  90

  80

  90

  140

  260

  100

  90

  950

  Yorkshire and Humber

  10

  70

  70

  50

  50

  100

  180

  60

  80

  660

  East Midlands

  10

  60

  50

  50

  50

  90

  160

  50

  40

  550

  West Midlands

  10

  90

  70

  60

  70

  130

  220

  60

  70

  790

  East of England

  10

  120

  90

  70

  70

  100

  170

  60

  80

  780

  London

  10

  190

  190

  170

  140

  150

  190

  70

  80

  1,190

  South-east

  20

  190

  130

  110

  110

  160

  240

  90

  110

  1,140

  South-west

  10

  80

  70

  60

  60

  90

  180

  70

  60

  680

  England

  90

  920

  790

  660

  660

  1,010

  1,710

  600

  650

  7,080

  Female—full time

  North-east

  30

  140

  80

  60

  70

  100

  150

  70

  80

  770

  North-west

  40

  310

  260

  190

  180

  300

  390

  200

  230

  2,100

  Yorkshire and Humber

  40

  220

  140

  110

  120

  190

  260

  120

  130

  1,330

  East Midlands

  30

  230

  140

  100

  100

  170

  220

  90

  100

  1,190

  West Midlands

  40

  320

  230

  160

  160

  280

  330

  140

  160

  1,830

  East of England

  40

  390

  280

  140

  160

  240

  320

  150

  190

  1,910

  London

  60

  740

  590

  300

  230

  250

  350

  160

  260

  2,950

  South-east

  80

  670

  450

  220

  250

  380

  500

  230

  290

  3,060

  South-west

  30

  310

  220

  130

  100

  180

  290

  110

  130

  1,510

  England

  400

  3,330

  2,390

  1,410

  1,380

  2,080

  2,810

  1,270

  1,570

  16,640

  Male—part-time

  North-east

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  10

  20

  10

  10

  50

  North-west

  1—

  10

  1—

  10

  10

  10

  40

  50

  40

  170

  Yorkshire and Humber

  1—

  1—

  10

  1—

  10

  10

  30

  30

  20

  110

  East Midlands

  1—

  1—

  10

  10

  1—

  10

  60

  40

  60

  190

  West Midlands

  1—

  10

  1—

  10

  10

  20

  50

  40

  50

  180

  East of England

  1—

  1—

  10

  10

  10

  10

  50

  50

  70

  200

  London

  1—

  10

  10

  20

  10

  20

  40

  30

  60

  190

  South-east

  1—

  1—

  10

  10

  20

  20

  50

  50

  70

  220

  South-west

  1—

  1—

  10

  10

  20

  20

  50

  30

  40

  180

  England

  1—

  30

  60

  80

  100

  130

  390

  310

  400

  1,490

  Female—part-time

  North-east

  1—

  1—

  30

  20

  20

  50

  50

  20

  20

  210

  North-west

  1—

  30

  80

  100

  100

  160

  160

  80

  90

  800

  Yorkshire and Humber

  1—

  20

  60

  80

  80

  120

  120

  50

  50

  580

  East Midlands

  1—

  20

  60

  80

  110

  110

  130

  90

  80

  690

  West Midlands

  1—

  30

  90

  120

  140

  180

  170

  80

  90

  910

  East of England

  1—

  30

  90

  140

  190

  190

  200

  110

  150

  1,100

  London

  1—

  40

  130

  150

  130

  120

  150

  80

  170

  950

  South-east

  1—

  50

  160

  180

  260

  270

  320

  150

  170

  1,560

  South-west

  1—

  30

  120

  110

  160

  220

  210

  90

  80

  1,010

  England

  10

  260

  820

  970

  1,190

  1,410

  1,510

  740

  900

  7,810

  1Less than five

  Note:

  Many of the teachers leaving the profession in this year will come back into service at some point in the future.

  (ii) Entrants between 31 March 1999 and 31 March 2000

  Under 25

  25 to 29

  30 to 34

  35 to 39

  40 to 44

  45 to 49

  50 to 54

  55 to 59

  60 and over

  Total

  Male—full-time

  North-east

  70

  80

  40

  30

  30

  20

  20

  1—

  1—

  310

  North-west

  210

  290

  170

  110

  70

  80

  60

  10

  10

  1,010

  Yorkshire and Humber

  140

  180

  110

  80

  60

  40

  30

  10

  1—

  640

  East Midlands

  120

  140

  80

  70

  40

  50

  40

  10

  10

  540

  West Midlands

  160

  200

  120

  80

  60

  50

  40

  20

  10

  730

  East of England

  190

  210

  90

  80

  70

  70

  50

  20

  10

  770

  London

  200

  360

  240

  140

  80

  70

  60

  20

  10

  1,180

  South-east

  270

  370

  200

  140

  120

  100

  50

  10

  10

  1,260

  South-west

  140

  220

  100

  80

  70

  50

  30

  10

  1—

  690

  England

  1,500

  2,030

  1,140

  810

  600

  520

  380

  100

  40

  7,120

  6W
  Mr. Miliband
  The numbers of teachers (i) leaving and (ii) joining regular full- or part-time service in the maintained schools sector in England between 31 March 1999 and 31 March 2000 are shown in the table. The numbers do not include teachers moving between full-and part-time service within the maintained schools sector, or moving between regular service in a maintained school in one Government office region to regular service in a maintained school in another Government office region.
  7W

  (ii) Entrants between 31 March 1999 and 31 March 2000

  Under 25

  25 to 29

  30 to 34

  35 to 39

  40 to 44

  45 to 49

  50 to 54

  55 to 59

  60 and over

  Total

  Female—full-time

  North-east

  370

  250

  90

  70

  90

  70

  30

  10

  1—

  970

  North-west

  1,040

  700

  300

  250

  260

  200

  100

  30

  10

  2,890

  Yorkshire and Humber

  690

  430

  190

  180

  160

  140

  60

  10

  1—

  1,860

  East Midlands

  550

  370

  170

  140

  150

  120

  60

  10

  1—

  1,560

  West Midlands

  880

  540

  220

  190

  170

  150

  80

  20

  1—

  2,260

  East of England

  920

  580

  230

  250

  240

  190

  120

  20

  10

  2,550

  London

  1,200

  1,080

  470

  330

  230

  200

  120

  20

  20

  3,680

  South-East

  1,270

  930

  400

  330

  350

  320

  180

  40

  10

  3,810

  South-west

  630

  520

  200

  180

  200

  120

  80

  10

  1—

  1,930

  England

  7,560

  5,400

  2,260

  1,930

  1,840

  1,500

  810

  170

  60

  21,520

  Male—part-time

  North-east

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  20

  10

  10

  50

  North-west

  1—

  10

  10

  10

  10

  20

  30

  20

  20

  130

  Yorkshire and Humber

  1—

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  30

  10

  10

  110

  East Midlands

  10

  10

  10

  10

  20

  10

  40

  30

  20

  140

  West Midlands

  1—

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  30

  30

  20

  130

  East of England

  1—

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  30

  30

  30

  150

  London

  1—

  10

  10

  20

  10

  20

  30

  20

  20

  140

  South-east

  10

  10

  10

  20

  20

  30

  60

  30

  20

  210

  South-west

  10

  10

  10

  20

  30

  20

  50

  30

  20

  200

  England

  40

  90

  90

  110

  120

  120

  330

  210

  160

  1,250

  Female—part-time

  North-east

  10

  10

  20

  40

  60

  40

  40

  20

  10

  250

  North-west

  30

  50

  80

  130

  190

  150

  130

  60

  30

  850

  Yorkshire and Humber

  20

  30

  60

  110

  120

  90

  80

  20

  20

  550

  East Midlands

  10

  40

  70

  110

  130

  90

  80

  30

  20

  580

  West Midlands

  20

  40

  70

  110

  140

  140

  110

  40

  20

  680

  East of England

  10

  40

  100

  160

  190

  170

  150

  50

  50

  910

  London

  10

  50

  90

  120

  160

  160

  130

  50

  50

  800

  South-east

  10

  60

  150

  250

  360

  280

  240

  80

  50

  1,470

  South-west

  40

  60

  100

  150

  230

  200

  120

  60

  30

  990

  England

  160

  380

  760

  1,170

  1,560

  1,320

  1,090

  390

  260

  7,080

  1Less than five.

  Notes:

  Some 10 to 20 per cent. of part-timers are not recorded on the teachers' pension scheme, from which the data are obtained.

  Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

  The figures are for the most recent year for which data (provisional) are available.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average length of service of(a) fill-time and (b) part-time teachers leaving maintained schools in the last 12 months was, broken down by Government office region. [64107]

  Mr. Miliband
  The average length of service in years of teachers leaving regular full or part-time service in the maintained schools sector in each Government Office Region in England between 31 March 1999 and 31 March 2000 is listed below. (This is the most recent year for which provisional data are available.) The numbers do not include teachers moving between full and part-time service within the maintained schools sector, or moving between regular service in a maintained school in one Government Office Region to regular service in a maintained school in another Government Office Region.

  Full-time

  Part-time

  North East

  15.5

  16.9

  North West

  16.3

  16.3

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  15.9

  16.4

  East Midlands

  15.6

  17.1

  West Midlands

  15.4

  16.6

  East of England

  14.1

  16.4

  London

  11.3

  15.7

  South East

  13.3

  14.9

  South West

  14.5

  14.7

  England

  14.3

  15.9

  8W
  Some 10 to 20 per cent. of part-timers are not recorded on the Teachers' Pension Scheme, from which the data are obtained.

  Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the most recent teacher vacancy rates are, broken down by local education authority area. [64120]

  Mr. Miliband
  Teacher vacancies expressed as a percentage of teachers in service in the maintained schools sector in England by local education authority in January 2001 are listed below. Data for January 2002 are not yet available at local education authority level.

  Information on teacher vacancies in January 2002 by local education authority will be published in the Teachers in England statistical volume in December 2002.

  Provisional national figures have been published in the Statistical First Release Teachers in Service and Teacher Vacancies, January 2002 (Provisional).

  Area

  City of London

  0.0

  Camden

  5.2

  Greenwich

  3.6

  Hackney

  8.0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  5.9

  Islington

  5.0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  6.6

  9W

  Area

  Lambeth

  3.7

  Lewisham

  4.2

  Southwark

  6.0

  Tower Hamlets

  8.6

  Wandsworth

  3.7

  City of Westminster

  4.8

  Barking and Dagenham

  1.7

  Barnet

  4.4

  Bexley

  4.8

  Brent

  1.2

  Bromley

  2.9

  Croydon

  3.2

  Ealing

  3.4

  Enfield

  2.7

  Haringey

  2.5

  Harrow

  4.5

  Havering

  2.2

  Hillingdon

  2.7

  Hounslow

  1.0

  Kingston upon Thames

  2.5

  Merton

  1.7

  Newham

  4.6

  Redbridge

  2.0

  Richmond upon Thames

  3.5

  Sutton

  0.7

  Waltham Forest

  0.4

  Birmingham

  0.9

  Coventry

  1.0

  Dudley

  1.1

  Sandwell

  2.0

  Solihull

  1.7

  Walsall

  0.7

  Wolverhampton

  1.6

  Knowsley

  0.8

  Liverpool

  0.0

  St Helens

  0.5

  Sefton

  0.6

  Wirral

  0.7

  Bolton

  0.3

  Bury

  0.3

  Manchester

  0.0

  Oldham

  0.7

  Rochdale

  0.3

  Salford

  0.2

  Stockport

  1.2

  Tameside

  1.3

  Trafford

  0.0

  Wigan

  0.4

  Barnsley

  1.3

  Doncaster

  0.4

  Rotherham

  0.0

  Sheffield

  0.4

  Bradford

  0.0

  Calderdale

  0.4

  Kirklees

  0.3

  Leeds

  0.8

  Wakefield

  0.5

  Gateshead

  0.4

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  0.9

  North Tyneside

  0.8

  South Tyneside

  0.0

  Sunderland

  0.8

  Isles of Scilly

  0.0

  Bath and North East Somerset

  0.7

  City of Bristol

  1.0

  North Somerset

  0.5

  South Gloucestershire

  0.4

  Hartlepool

  0.6

  Middlesbrough

  1.7

  Redcar and Cleveland

  1.5

  Stockton on Tees

  0.9

  City of Kingston Upon Hull

  0.4

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  0.3

  North East Lincolnshire

  1.6

  10W

  Area

  North Lincolnshire

  0.8

  North Yorkshire

  0.3

  York

  0.5

  Bedfordshire

  2.6

  Luton

  4.2

  Buckinghamshire

  1.8

  Milton Keynes

  1.3

  Derbyshire

  0.9

  Derby

  0.9

  Dorset

  0.7

  Poole

  2.0

  Bournemouth

  0.7

  Durham

  0.9

  Darlington

  1.1

  East Sussex

  1.4

  Brighton and Hove

  1.1

  Hampshire

  2.2

  Portsmouth

  4.5

  Southampton

  3.4

  Leicestershire

  0.7

  Leicester

  1.8

  Rutland

  0.0

  Staffordshire

  0.6

  Stoke on Trent

  1.1

  Wiltshire

  0.7

  Swindon

  1.5

  Bracknell Forest

  2.4

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  3.9

  West Berkshire

  0.9

  Reading

  4.4

  Slough

  6.7

  Wokingham

  1.6

  Cambridgeshire

  0.1

  Peterborough

  0.5

  Cheshire

  0.5

  Halton

  0.6

  Warrington

  0.7

  Devon

  1.1

  Plymouth

  0.0

  Torbay

  1.0

  Essex

  2.3

  Southend on Sea

  2.0

  Thurrock

  6.9

  Herefordshire

  1.6

  Worcestershire

  0.2

  Kent

  2.0

  Medway

  2.6

  Lancashire

  0.7

  Blackburn with Darwen

  1.6

  Blackpool

  0.5

  Nottinghamshire

  0.0

  Nottingham

  2.2

  Shropshire

  0.2

  Telford and Wrekin

  0.4

  Cornwall

  0.0

  Cumbria

  0.2

  Gloucestershire

  0.3

  Hertfordshire

  0.6

  Isle of Wight

  0.7

  Lincolnshire

  0.4

  Norfolk

  1.3

  Northamptonshire

  0.4

  Northumberland

  0.0

  Oxfordshire

  0.4

  Somerset

  0.3

  Suffolk

  1.8

  Surrey

  1.6

  Warwickshire

  1.2

  West Sussex

  1.6

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers who were trained
  11W
  in (a) London and (b) other Government office regions took their first teacher post in the capital in the last 12 months. [641081]

  Mr. Miliband
  The provisional numbers of Initial Teacher Training completers in calendar year 1999 who were in full or part time service in the maintained schools sector in the London Government Office Region at 31 March 2000 were as follows:

  Regions of ITT

  Numbers

  London

  1,870

  North East

  30

  North West

  130

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  80

  East Midlands

  90

  West Midlands

  70

  East of England

  190

  South East

  230

  South West

  140

  OU and SCITT

  30

  England

  2,880

  The numbers shown as in service may increase as a result of late receipt of annual service returns. This is the most recent available information.

  Some 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. of part-timers are not recorded on the Teachers' Pension Scheme, from which the data are obtained.

  This information was published in the Statistical of Education volume Teachers in England (including teachers pay for England and Wales) 2001 edition, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Table 9: Vacancy1 rates in maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools by grade and Government office region: 1996 to 2002

  England

  Vacancies as a percentage of teachers in post2

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  20023

  Number of vacancies 20023

  All vacancies

  0.4

  0.6

  0.7

  0.7

  0.8

  1.4

  1.2

  4,480

  Grade4

  Head or deputy head

  0.8

  1.0

  1.4

  1.2

  1.1

  1.3

  1.0

  470

  Head

  0.6

  0.7

  1.0

  1.0

  0.9

  0.8

  0.7

  170

  Deputy head

  1.0

  1.2

  1.8

  1.5

  1.3

  1.7

  1.3

  300

  Classroom teacher

  0.4

  0.5

  0.6

  0.6

  0.8

  1.4

  1.2

  4,010

  Government office region

  North East

  0.3

  0.3

  0.5

  0.5

  0.3

  0.8

  0.7

  140

  North West

  0.2

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  0.5

  0.6

  320

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  0.2

  0.1

  0.4

  0.2

  0.3

  0.5

  0.9

  370

  East Midlands

  0.3

  0.3

  0.5

  0.3

  0.5

  0.7

  0.9

  270

  West Midlands

  0.3

  0.4

  0.5

  0.6

  0.6

  0.9

  1.1

  470

  East of England

  0.5

  0.6

  0.8

  0.8

  0.9

  1.7

  1.8

  680

  London5

  1.1

  1.5

  2.0

  2.0

  2.0

  3.5

  2.6

  1,320

  South East

  0.5

  0.7

  0.8

  0.8

  1.0

  2.0

  1.4

  770

  South West

  0.2

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  0.6

  0.6

  0.5

  170

  England excluding London

  0.3

  0.4

  0.5

  0.5

  0.6

  1.0

  1.0

  3,160

  Total vacancies (numbers)

  1,610

  2,020

  2,590

  2,530

  2,910

  4,980

  4,480

  1 Advertised vacancies for full-time permanent appointments (or appointments of at least one term's duration). Includes vacancies being filled on a temporary basis of less than one term.

  2 Teachers in post include full-time regular teachers in (or on secondment from) maintained nursery. primary and secondary schools, plus full-time regular divided service, peripatetic, advisory and miscellaneous teachers.

  3 Provisional.

  4 The number of teachers in post by grade is estimated using the Database of Teacher Records.

  5 The provisional 2002 vacancy rates for the inner and outer London weighting areas are 3.1 per cent. and 2.3 per cent.. respectively (4.3 per cent. and 2.7 per cent., respectively in 2001).

  Note:

  Totals may not appear to equal the sum of the component parts because of rounding.
  12W
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to identify teacher shortages in schools for the beginning of the next academic year. [64553]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 26 June 2002]The Department for Education and Skills (DfES) is in regular contact with Local Education Authorities, notably Recruitment Strategy Managers, to share information regarding any teacher shortages.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will identify by(a) geographical area and (b) subject specialisation, where there is difficulty recruiting and/or retaining teachers. [64554]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 26 June 2002]There were 9,400 full-time equivalent more regular teachers in schools in January 2002 (provisional) than a year before. The following Table 9 shows the latest provisional teacher vacancy rates by Government office region, which reflect turnover between schools as well as indicating schools' requirements for new teachers. The table was published in SFR 05/2002 on 24 April.

  The following Table 10, also from SFR 05/2002, shows vacancy rates by subject for classroom teachers in maintained secondary schools.

  Individual schools may find recruitment and retention easier or more difficult in particular subjects depending on their particular circumstances, including geographical location, but such information is not collected centrally.
  13W

  Table 10: Classroom teacher vacancy1 rates in maintained secondary schools by subject: 1996–2002

  England

  Vacancies as a percentage of teachers in post2

  1996

  Old3 1997

  New3 1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  20024

  Number of vacancies 20024

  All vacancies

  0.3

  0.4

  0.4

  0.5

  0.5

  0.7

  1.5

  1.3

  2,340

  Main teaching subject

  Mathematics

  0.2

  0.4

  0.4

  0.7

  0.8

  1.2

  2.1

  1.9

  380

  Information Technology

  0.5

  0.7

  0.4

  0.7

  0.9

  1.3

  2.8

  2.2

  100

  Sciences5:

  Chemistry

  0.4

  0.5

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  40

  Physics

  0.5

  0.4

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  50

  Biology

  0.1

  0.2

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  30

  Other and combined sciences

  0.2

  0.3

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  270

  All sciences5

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  0.4

  0.5

  0.6

  1.6

  1.5

  380

  Languages

  French

  0.4

  0.5

  0.5

  0.7

  0.5

  0.6

  1.5

  1.2

  120

  German

  0.2

  0.5

  0.4

  0.5

  0.2

  0.4

  0.7

  0.8

  30

  Other languages

  1.4

  1.4

  1.3

  1.5

  1.2

  1.9

  3.3

  2.4

  40

  All languages

  0.5

  0.6

  0.5

  0.7

  0.5

  0.7

  1.5

  1.2

  190

  English

  0.3

  0.4

  0.4

  0.5

  0.4

  0.7

  1.8

  1.6

  320

  Drama

  0.4

  0.7

  0.5

  0.2

  0.4

  0.7

  1.7

  1.7

  60

  History

  0.2

  0.1

  0.1

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.5

  0.5

  40

  Social sciences

  0.0

  0.4

  0.2

  0.0

  0.1

  0.2

  0.4

  0.4

  20

  Geography

  0.2

  0.3

  0.3

  0.4

  0.1

  0.3

  0.6

  0.8

  70

  Religious education

  0.6

  0.5

  0.4

  0.8

  0.5

  0.7

  1.8

  1.6

  90

  Design and technology

  0.2

  0.3

  0.4

  0.7

  0.6

  0.7

  1.3

  1.3

  210

  Commercial/business studies

  0.0

  0.4

  0.4

  0.6

  0.4

  0.5

  1.3

  0.9

  30

  Art, craft or design

  0.3

  0.2

  0.2

  0.3

  0.5

  0.3

  0.7

  0.8

  60

  Music

  0.3

  0.8

  0.8

  0.7

  0.7

  0.8

  1.8

  1.9

  80

  Physical education

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.3

  0.3

  0.2

  0.8

  0.9

  110

  Special Educational Needs6

  1.2

  1.1

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Careers

  0.5

  1.0

  1.0

  1.8

  0.9

  1.4

  4.3

  1.9

  —

  Other main and combined subjects

  0.8

  0.9

  0.7

  0.7

  0.8

  1.2

  1.7

  1.7

  200

  Total vacancies (numbers)

  510

  650

  650

  860

  840

  1,140

  2,530

  2,340

  1Advertised vacancies for full-time permanent appointments (or appointments or of least one term's duration).

  2 Teachers in post include full-time regular teachers in (or on secondment from) maintained secondary schools, plus the secondary portion of full-time divided service, peripatetic, advisory and miscellaneous teachers.

  3 The number of teachers in post by main teaching subject is estimated using the 1992 Secondary School Staffing Survey for years 1996 and 1997 (old) and the 1996 Secondary School Curriculum and Staffing Survey for 1997 (new), 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001.

  4 Provisional.

  5Vacancies advertised in single sciences may be combined science classes. The distinction between single science vacancy rates and combined science has been discontinued for 1998. Corresponding figures on the old and new basis are shown for 1997.

  6 Special Educational Needs has been included in 'other, main and combined subjects' from 1997 (new).

  Note:

  Totals may not appear to equal the sum of the component parts because of rounding.

  School Fire Safety
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the estimated cost is of damage caused by fires at schools for each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement. [64303]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department does not collect this information.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will estimate how many schools have been fitted with fire sprinkler systems; what percentage of schools this represents; and if she will make a statement. [64302]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department does not collect data on fire sprinkler systems.
  14W
  If a fire should happen in a school, the Department's primary concern is the safety of pupils, teachers and other users. Regulation 17 of the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1999 requires that every part of a school building, and of the land provided for a school, shall be such that the safe escape of the occupants in case of fire is reasonably assured. Schools are also covered by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, and subsequent regulations. These include aspects of fire safety.

  To help schools manage fire safety, the Department published Managing School Facilities Guide 6, "Fire Safety", in 2000. This offers guidance on how to minimise the risk of fire, including identifying hazards and carrying out risk assessments. It also gives advice on training and on fire detection and alarm systems.

  Pupil:teacher Ratios (Suffolk)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average pupil:teacher ratio was in Suffolk in each year between 1997 and 2002 in(a) primary, (b) middle and (c) upper schools. [64390]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Average pupil:teacher ratio1 in maintained primary, middle2 and secondary schools in Suffolk LEA Position in January each year

  Total Primary

  Secondary

  Middle deemed Secondary

  Total Secondary

  20023

  21.6

  16.3

  18.4

  16.9

  2001

  22.0

  16.4

  18.7

  17.1

  2000

  22.1

  16.0

  18.9

  16.9

  1999

  22.0

  15.7

  18.9

  16.6

  1998

  22.2

  15.5

  18.8

  16.5

  1997

  22.3

  15.6

  18.8

  16.6

  1 The pupil:teacher ratio within schools is the ratio of full-time equivalent pupils to full-time equivalent number of teachers.

  2 There are no middle deemed primary schools in Suffolk.

  3Provisional

  Source:

  Annual Schools Census

  Education SSA
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which local education authorities(a) spent and (b) proposed to spend less than SSA on education, showing the extent of the shortfalls, in each of the years 1999–2000 to 2002–03. [63889]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which local education authorities failed to passport increases in education SSA; and what the extent of the shortfall was in each of the years 1999–2000 to 2002–03. [63890]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 24 June 2002]The names of the local education authorities which failed to passport increases in the education SSA were published in the LEAs' Local Schools Budgets Comparative Tables for each of the years 1999–2000 to 2002–03.

  The information requested is listed by each of the years in question.

  1999–2000

  Bath and North East Somerset

  Birmingham Blackpool

  Brighton and Hove

  Cornwall

  Darlington

  Doncaster

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  Gateshead Haringey Herefordshire

  Kingston upon Hull

  16W

  Knowsley

  Lambeth

  Lancashire

  Leicestershire

  Lewisham

  Merton

  Milton Keynes

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  North Somerset

  Redbridge

  Redcar and Cleveland

  Richmond upon Thames

  Somerset

  Southampton

  South Gloucestershire

  St. Helens

  Swindon

  Trafford

  Walsall

  Waltham Forest

  West Sussex

  Wigan

  Passporting shortfall: £24,078,000

  2000–01

  Barnet

  Brent

  North Somerset

  Redbridge

  Salford

  Somerset

  Southwark

  Passporting shortfall: £8,578,000

  2001–02

  Brent

  Bristol

  Harrow

  Northumberland

  North Somerset

  Swindon

  Wolverhampton

  York

  Passporting shortfall: £7,268,000

  2002–03

  Bedfordshire

  Brent

  Bromley

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  East Sussex

  Essex Hackney

  Hounslow

  Newcastle

  North Tyneside

  17W

  Poole

  Reading

  Rutland

  Slough

  Southampton

  Southwark

  South Gloucestershire

  Wolverhampton

  Passporting shortfall: £30,793,000.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of education SSA was included in schools' delegated budgets in each local education authority in each year since 1999–2000, ranked by order of the most recent year. [63891]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 24 June 2002]The following table shows schools' delegated budgets as a proportion of education SSA. These percentages differ from the delegation percentages published annually by the Department. Those percentages are based on the Local Schools Budget (LSB), the coverage of which differs significantly from the coverage of the Education SSA: in particular, the LSB includes expenditure financed by the Standards Fund and other specific grants, but excludes expenditure on non-school education. The percentages shown below will reflect LEAs' spending levels relative to their SSAs as well as their propensity to delegate within the LSB, and will also be affected, year to year, by changes in the scope of the SSA.

  Percentage

  LEA name

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Bath and North East Somerset

  85.6

  86.9

  86.5

  87.8

  Rutland

  88.3

  910

  89.1

  87.4

  South Gloucestershire

  83.2

  83.3

  84.8

  85.5

  Wigan

  83.9

  85.4

  85.9

  85.3

  City of Bristol

  4.0

  84.9

  84.1

  84.8

  Kingston upon Thames

  81.2

  81.7

  85.1

  84.3

  Sefton

  79.3

  84.7

  85.4

  84.0

  Poole

  80.1

  83.2

  82.2

  83.9

  Suffolk

  82.7

  82.5

  81.5

  83.8

  Havering

  82.5

  82.1

  84.0

  83.6

  Dudley

  84.4

  84.2

  82.8

  83.4

  Richmond upon Thames

  80.1

  80.3

  81.8

  83.2

  Southend-on-Sea

  83.8

  85.5

  84.5

  82.9

  Warrington

  81.5

  81.8

  83.2

  82.7

  Barnet

  84.6

  83.3

  83.4

  82.6

  Sandwell

  76.0

  79.6

  82.7

  82.6

  Leeds

  80.9

  81.2

  81.1

  82.4

  Cheshire

  83.2

  82.5

  82.4

  82.3

  West Berkshire

  81.0

  82.3

  82.8

  82.3

  Medway

  77.7

  79.8

  80.1

  82.2

  North Yorkshire

  81.7

  81.5

  81.4

  82.2

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  81.6

  82.2

  82.9

  82.1

  Dorset

  76.4

  77.2

  82.6

  82.1

  North Tyneside

  78.1

  77.8

  82.3

  81.7

  Calderdale

  77.2

  78.1

  78.8

  81.6

  Coventry

  79.3

  79.5

  81.0

  81.6

  Birmingham

  82.0

  82.6

  82.9

  81.6

  Barking and Dagenham

  76.8

  77.4

  80.8

  81.5

  Plymouth

  78.4

  78.8

  81.3

  81.4

  Northamptonshire

  82.8

  83.2

  83.1

  81.4

  Wakefield

  73.5

  76.9

  78.8

  81.3

  Warwickshire

  79.7

  82.8

  81.2

  81.3

  Harrow

  79.1

  79.9

  80.3

  81.2

  Somerset

  81.0

  80.8

  81.2

  81.2

  Nottingham

  75.8

  76.4

  79.2

  81.1

  Portsmouth

  83.0

  83.1

  81.7

  81.1

  Worcestershire

  77.5

  79.0

  79.4

  81.1

  Doncaster

  77.1

  78.1

  80.0

  81.0

  Staffordshire

  79.4

  78.6

  79.3

  81.0

  York

  82.3

  81.5

  81.1

  81.0

  Telford and Wrekin

  78.2

  79.5

  79.6

  81.0

  18W

  Percentage

  LEA name

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  North East Lincolnshire

  78.3

  79.3

  79.2

  80.9

  St. Helens

  76.4

  79.6

  80.9

  80.9

  Nottinghamshire

  81.9

  81.3

  80.8

  80.8

  Stockton-on-Tees

  79.5

  82.0

  81.8

  80.7

  Rotherham

  76.2

  79.7

  81.0

  80.6

  Oldham

  78.7

  80.8

  80.8

  80.6

  Merton

  76.5

  77.8

  79.2

  80.6

  Trafford

  79.0

  79.4

  80.9

  80.4

  Solihull

  82.2

  82.4

  82.1

  80.4

  Tameside

  76.0

  77.3

  78.9

  80.3

  Cambridgeshire

  72.1

  77.2

  79.7

  80.3

  Barnsley

  69.5

  74.5

  77.5

  80.3

  Bolton

  76.9

  78.4

  78.3

  80.2

  Durham

  76.2

  77.2

  81.6

  80.2

  Hampshire

  81.3

  81.2

  79.5

  80.2

  Essex

  79.7

  79.7

  79.7

  80.1

  Salford

  74.7

  79.4

  80.7

  80.1

  North Lincolnshire

  76.1

  78.6

  80.9

  80.0

  Stockport

  78.2

  78.5

  80.1

  80.0

  Lancashire

  75.6

  76.1

  78.7

  80.0

  Sutton

  78.6

  80.5

  80.3

  80.0

  Walsall

  78.3

  79.5

  79.6

  80.0

  Wokingham

  82.4

  83.3

  82.2

  80.0

  Torbay

  75.2

  76.3

  78.5

  80.0

  Norfolk

  80.7

  80.6

  81.1

  80.0

  Hillingdon

  82.7

  81.5

  80.3

  80.0

  West Sussex

  80.4

  79.8

  80.0

  80.0

  Sunderland

  76.3

  76.8

  78.1

  79.8

  Thurrock

  76.4

  77.0

  77.9

  79.8

  Hertfordshire

  78.6

  78.8

  79.0

  79.8

  Middlesbrough

  71.0

  75.5

  78.5

  79.8

  Cumbria

  80.6

  81.1

  81.4

  79.7

  Northumberland

  77.4

  77.9

  81.0

  79.7

  Kent

  77.5

  77.9

  78.3

  79.7

  Bedfordshire

  80.6

  80.3

  79.4

  79.6

  Kirklees

  75.6

  79.0

  79.8

  79.6

  City of Kingston Upon Hull

  72.9

  75.3

  79.2

  79.6

  Derbyshire

  79.0

  80.6

  79.6

  79.5

  Milton Keynes

  73.8

  74.7

  76.3

  79.5

  Bournemouth

  77.5

  80.0

  80.6

  79.3

  Gateshead

  75.1

  78.5

  80.8

  79.2

  Hartlepool

  74.9

  77.6

  79.2

  79.1

  Redcar and Cleveland

  75.4

  78.8

  79.9

  79.0

  Peterborough

  74.3

  80.4

  79.7

  79.0

  Waltham Forest

  78.2

  78.9

  79.5

  78.8

  Surrey

  77.1

  78.6

  78.6

  78.8

  Bury

  77.3

  79.4

  79.1

  78.7

  Kensington and Chelsea

  76.9

  81.4

  79.7

  78.7

  Derby

  72.5

  75.0

  76.8

  78.7

  Halton

  76.2

  79.0

  78.7

  78.5

  Leicestershire

  80.8

  80.3

  79.1

  78.5

  East Sussex

  77.0

  77.6

  78.9

  78.5

  Hounslow

  78.3

  79.2

  79.5

  78.4

  Enfield

  76.4

  78.2

  78.8

  78.4

  Lincolnshire

  78.6

  81.0

  79.1

  78.4

  Luton

  72.9

  76.4

  76.9

  78.3

  Swindon

  77.1

  78.0

  77.1

  78.3

  Blackpool

  72.8

  75.1

  77.9

  78.3

  Wandsworth

  75.8

  76.9

  78.1

  78.3

  Redbridge

  76.7

  77.8

  78.4

  78.2

  Blackburn with Darwcn

  71.5

  76.6

  77.6

  78.2

  Stoke-on-Trent

  76.0

  77.3

  79.3

  78.1

  Leicester

  72.1

  73.7

  77.9

  78.0

  Bradford

  69.9

  73.0

  75.8

  77.8

  Isle of Wight

  73.6

  78.0

  78.6

  77.6

  Darlington

  73.8

  74.0

  78.1

  77.6

  Shropshire

  76.8

  78.5

  78.6

  77.6

  Brighton and Hove

  74.6

  76.2

  78.0

  77.5

  Ealing

  72.5

  73.3

  75.9

  77.5

  Gloucestershire

  77.6

  77.4

  76.3

  77.5

  South Tyneside

  72.8

  73.9

  77.7

  77.4

  Westminster

  69.5

  73.8

  78.3

  77.4

  Liverpool

  72.2

  77.1

  77.8

  77.4

  North Somerset

  80.3

  78.6

  78.6

  77.3

  Devon

  74.7

  74.6

  78.1

  77.3

  Tower Hamlets

  68.0

  75.2

  76.5

  77.2

  Manchester

  69.8

  74.5

  78.4

  77.2

  Cornwall

  71.2

  71.5

  76.8

  77.1

  Southampton

  77.7

  78.8

  78.5

  77.1

  Wolverhampton

  76.9

  76.7

  78.4

  76.9

  Wiltshire

  78.1

  78.0

  76.7

  76.9

  19W

  Percentage

  LEA name

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  76.7

  77.9

  76.5

  76.9

  Knowsley

  71.1

  72.5

  75.5

  76.7

  Wirral

  75.4

  76.8

  78.1

  76.6

  Camden

  72.1

  74.2

  77.2

  76.4

  Slough

  72.0

  73.2

  74.4

  76.3

  Oxfordshire

  76.2

  76.8

  75.1

  76.3

  Sheffield

  73.9

  75.5

  75.8

  76.3

  Haringey

  69.8

  73.6

  76.3

  76.1

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  72.3

  78.0

  76.5

  75.7

  Rochdale

  71.0

  71.3

  74.0

  75.6

  Croydon

  75.5

  76.6

  76.0

  75.5

  Greenwich

  72.3

  74.7

  75.2

  75.4

  Bracknell Forest

  73.8

  74.5

  74.4

  75.3

  Bexley

  74.1

  75.4

  76.7

  75.2

  Southwark

  69.1

  75.3

  75.1

  75.0

  Herefordshire

  73.5

  75.5

  74.7

  75.0

  Bromley

  76.4

  77.3

  76.6

  74.3

  rent

  77.2

  76.2

  75.8

  73.8

  Buckinghamshire

  73.2

  73.2

  73.5

  73.6

  Reading

  72.4

  75.0

  74.2

  73.3

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  72.3

  74.6

  74.7

  72.8

  City of London

  79.2

  81.0

  84.0

  72.6

  Lewisham

  72.5

  72.7

  73.5

  72.5

  Isles of Scilly

  71.9

  72.9

  76.0

  72.0

  Newham

  63.2

  68.4

  71.5

  71.6

  Islington

  67.3

  66.7

  69.3

  69.1

  Lambeth

  69.3

  68.6

  68.9

  68.2

  Hackney

  3.1

  68.0

  67.8

  67.5

  England

  77.2

  78.4

  79.2

  79.3

  Notes

  Schools delegated budgets comprise the Individual Schools' Budget excluding the School Standards Grant (which does not form part of the SSA) as taken from LEAs Section 52 budget statements returned to the DfES each year.

  Education SSA figures are as per settlement rounds for each year.

  LearnDirect Plus
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people have enrolled on LearnDirect plus in the Portsmouth, South constituency since it began; how many courses are provided in Portsmouth, South; how much funding has been provided for these courses; and if he will make a statement.[64728]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  5,010 people have enrolled on a LearnDirect course in the Portsmouth, South constituency since the initiative was rolled out in October 2000. Learners in Portsmouth, South can choose from the current LearnDirect portfolio of 647 courses, which can be accessed at a LearnDirect centre or at home, at work or other locations. We are unable to provide information on the amount of funding provided for courses in the Portsmouth, South constituency.

  Apprenticeships
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) modern apprenticeship and (b) advanced modern apprenticeship starts there were in the Portsmouth, South constituency in each of the last three years; and if she will make a statement. [65370]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The numbers of advanced modern apprenticeships and foundation modern apprenticeships, started by people recorded as living in the Portsmouth, South constituency, in each of the last three years, are as follows.
  20W

  Advanced modern apprenticeships

  Foundation modern apprenticeships

  1999–00

  107

  111

  2000–01

  114

  169

  2001–021

  61

  148

  1 Figures for 1999–00 and 2000–01 include transfers onto AMA and FMA from other Work-Based Learning. Figures for 2001–02 do not include these transfers.

  Work Experience
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her plans are for providing further work experience for teenagers of school age. [63390]

  Mr. Miliband
  Over 95 per cent. of school pupils already undertake work experience placements in their last years of compulsory schooling to help develop the skills and attitudes essential for the world of work. The Department provides £10 million a year towards the costs of this programme, and evaluations suggest that the placements are generally satisfactory and well-received by schools, pupils and employers. We will also fund a £38 million programme over 2002–2004 to expand vocational opportunities at Key Stage 4. This includes support for over 30,000 pupils on part-time vocational courses in colleges that will often involve direct experience of the world of work.

  The Green Paper "14–19: extending opportunities, raising standards", published in February, proposes that all young people should undertake some work-related learning. Plans to develop and enhance existing arrangements for work experience will depend upon decisions yet to be taken on these proposals.

  St. Benedict's Catholic High School
  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she expects to announce a decision on the application of St. Benedict's Catholic High School, Whitehaven for engineering college status; and if she will make a statement. [64854]

  Mr. Miliband
  We plan to announce the names of the schools, following the March competition, which have been successful in meeting the criteria for Specialist School designation. on Thursday 4 July. This will include the first designations under the new specialisms, which include Engineering Colleges.

  Welsh A-level
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will ensure that UK universities in receipt of state funding accept Welsh A-level as a valid qualification for entry. [65391]

  Margaret Hodge
  Higher education institutions throughout the UK are autonomous institutions. Therefore the acceptance or non-acceptance of A-level Welsh as an appropriate entry qualification would be a decision for each individual higher education institution to take in the light of the course which the applicant wished to pursue, and the applicant's other qualifications. I am not aware of any institutions with a blanket policy of not accepting A-level Welsh.

  School Visits
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the schools visited by senior officials in her Department, broken down by(a) local education authority and (b) dates, since 1997; and how many schools have been visited by officials in her Department each year since 1997. [65578]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Detailed information on school visits by senior officials and other staff in the Department is not available, but many such visits are undertaken each year. All staff in the Department are encouraged to visit schools and experience for themselves the impact our policies have and to take back the views of teachers, governors and parents. We are currently running, in conjunction with the Secondary Heads Association, a special programme which over the next year will involve all middle managers in Schools Directorate spending three days immersed in the life of a secondary school.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the schools visited by Ministers in her Department, broken down by(a) local education authority, (b) dates and (c) Ministers, since 1997. [65577]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The information in the form requested is not held centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Leonardo Da Vinci Programme
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the reason for the delay in the payment of Leonardo da Vinci monthly programme grants by the UK Leonardo Unit. [63686]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 21 June 2002]The Agencies which administer the Leonardo da Vinci programme in the UK on behalf of the Department for Education and Skills have not been able to enter into formal contracts for 2002 projects because of delays in agreeing contracts with and receiving funding from the European Commission. I understand that funding should be available soon and I hope that this will enable contracts to be agreed and payments made for specific projects shortly afterwards.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will calculate in percentage terms the increase in costs to local education authorities and schools of the introduction of the new rates of employers national insurance. [65534]

  Estelle Morris
  The additional cost in employers' national insurance contributions in 2003–04 for English local education authorities and schools represents 0.5 per cent. of total planned spending in that year. I refer the hon. Member to the reply to the Question from the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), 24 April 2002,Official Report, column 311W.

  Investors in People
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to announce the result of the quinquennial review of Investors in People UK. [66163]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The first stage of the quinquennial review of Investors in People UK has been completed. A report has been published today, outlining the findings of the review and the recommendations that have been made as a result. The report is available in the Library. It can also be seen on the DfES website: "www.dfes.gov.uk/ consultations".

  Carlton House Terrace
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funding is given to organisations to meet the cost of property in Carlton House Terrace. [63485]

  Margaret Hodge
  The only organisation occupying premises in Carlton House Terrace that is funded by this Department is the British Academy. The British Academy's Grant-in-Aid for 2002–03 is £l3 million, including administrative and premises costs.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mrs.Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on how each CPS region is improving its own performance management. [60216]

  The Solicitor-General
  The devolved 42 area structure of the CPS empowers Chief Crown Prosecutors and their area business managers to develop their own approach to performance management, both internally within the organisation and in partnership with their local criminal justice partners. All areas have an annual business plan and conduct a follow-up review of their performance against those plans. To maintain consistent standards, and in order to compare and contrast performance across the service nationally, all areas report performance across a range of indicators within a national framework that supports the business planning process.

  In addition, area performance is reviewed independently by the CPS inspectorate.

  Acquittals
  Mrs.Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General what analysis she has undertaken to determine the reasons for(a) judge-ordered and (b) judge-directed acquittals. [60202]

  The Solicitor-General
  I regularly receive reports from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), who maintain a record of the number of cases resulting in a judge-ordered or directed acquittal and capture a broad analysis of the reasons underlying the failure of the case.
  23W
  The figures shown in the table contain an analysis for the year ending March 2002. The figures in column one represent the number of defendants whose case resulted in a judge-ordered or judge-directed acquittal together with the reasons for the outcome. The figures in column two express these as a percentage of completed Crown Court cases (not including cases dealt with under its appellate jurisdiction).

  In the year 2001–02 a judges-ordered or directed acquittal in 13,306 cases, representing 15.8 per cent. of the total. Of these, the largest figure (4,515 cases) represents cases where a judge ordered acquittal because a prosecution witness was missing, or refused to give

  Reasons for judge-ordered and judge-directed acquittals 2001–02

  Number of defendants1

  Percentage of completed cases2

  Judge-ordered acquittals

  Witness missing/refuses or unable to give evidence/complaint withdrawn

  4,515

  5.4

  Defendant medical problems

  257

  0.3

  Other indictments or sentences

  1,072

  1.8

  Doubts identification evidence

  966

  1.1

  Other evidence inadmissible/unreliable/conflicting

  3,078

  3.6

  Legal element missing from prosecution case

  771

  0.9

  Long delay or abuse of process

  565

  0.7

  Adjournment refused/P11 application refused

  600

  0.7

  Total

  11,824

  14.0

  Judge-directed acquittals

  Identification evidence unreliable

  271

  0.3

  Legal element missing from prosecution case

  243

  0.3

  Doubts over other evidence

  460

  0.5

  Confession or other evidence ruled inadmissible

  38

  0.0

  Other reason

  470

  0.6

  Total

  1,482

  1.8

  1This column shows the number of defendants whose case resulted in judge-ordered and directed acquittal.

  2 This column expresses these figures as a percentage of completed Crown Court cases, excluding appeals and committals for sentence.

DEFENCE

  Helicopter Equipment
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to install an integrated cockpit voice and flight data recorder with a health and usage monitoring system into(a) Sea King Mk 3, (b) Sea King Mk 3A, (c) Lynx and (d) Puma aircraft; at what stage these plans are; and if he will make a statement. [64850]

  Mr. Ingram
  We are examining how we can derive the maximum benefit for these in-service helicopters from integrated cockpit voice and flight data recorders, and the health and usage monitoring system. Final decisions have yet to be taken as to which helicopter types will be fitted with this equipment, and to what timescale.

  Housing
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military service properties in the United Kingdom are waiting to be sold. [54633]

  Dr. Moonie
  If "military service properties" refers to housing, most of the family quarters estate in England and Wales was sold to Annington Homes Ltd. (AHL) in November 1996. The sale to AHL did not cover Scotland. The Defence Housing Executive (DHE) leases back from 24W
  evidence, where a complaint was withdrawn, or where a witness was unable to give evidence. This category accounts for 5.4 per cent. of the total number of cases and 33.9 per cent. of the total number of judge-ordered and directed acquittals.

  A further 3,078 (3.6 per cent. of the total) resulted in a judge-ordered acquittal because of doubts over the admissibility, reliability or strength of evidence (other than identification evidence).

  A more detailed list of reasons for these outcomes will be available following the introduction of the CPS Compass Case Management System due to roll-out between April and December 2003.

  AHL the properties it needs to house service families. Under the sale agreement, DHE must hand back 13,213 properties to AHL over the first 25 years (i.e. to 2021). In financial year 2001–02, 2,305 properties were released to AHL and a further 220 family quarters still owned by my Department were passed to Defence Estates (DE) for disposal.

  To date in 2002, 1,884 leased properties in England and Wales have been handed back to AHL. On 31 March 2002 DE were actively preparing in excess of 600 houses for sale.

  More generally, the number of sites (other than housing) in disposal changes from day to day as some are sold and others come forward for disposal.

  Land Sales
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list land within the Defence Estates portfolio that(a) is being offered for sale and (b) will be offered in the next 12 months, giving its (i) location and (ii) size. [59068]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested for the Ministry of Defence is as follows.
  25W

  Site

  Location

  Area hectares(ha)

  Former range, Asfordby Training Area

  Leicestershire

  16

  —

  Former Officers Mess site RAF Watton

  Norfolk

  11.3

  —

  Seinefeine Land Gt. Cressingham

  Norfolk

  4.004

  To be acquired by highways agency for road improvements

  Part of RAF Syerston Gliding Sch

  Nottinghamshire

  17.6

  —

  Tuddenham land

  Suffolk

  0.050

  Two sites 0.025 hectares each

  Cemetery Land at Waterbeach

  Cambridgeshire

  0.606

  To be acquired by local parish for the extension of the cemetery

  Sports pitch, Bordon

  Hampshire

  1.254

  Sports pitch only. Also selling St. Lucia Lodge

  INF Greenham Common

  —

  29.88

  Council has pre-emptive right

  Land at Aborfield

  Berkshire

  29.88

  —

  4 building plots at Hermitage

  Berkshire

  0.023

  —

  RAF Edelsborough

  Buckinghamshire

  72

  Former owner has expressed interest

  Woodvale Training area

  Merseyside

  33

  —

  Oil Fuel Depot Sully

  Vale of Glamorgan

  0.10

  —

  Arras Lines

  Catterick

  6

  —1

  Ralston Ranges

  —

  28.40

  —1

  Forest Moor Farm Land

  North Yorkshire

  33.10

  Two sites

  Forest Moor Farm Land

  North Yorkshire

  87

  Three sites1

  Morfa Camp, Tywn

  Gwynedd

  40

  —

  Wellbank Camp and Bungalow

  Cumbria

  4.40

  —

  Saighton Camp

  Cheshire

  48.58

  —

  RNAD Broughton Moor

  Cumbria

  433.61

  —

  Smalmstown Farm, Longtown

  Cumbria

  101

  —

  RAF Boulmer Old Admin Site

  Northumberland

  4.04

  —1

  RE Depot, Long Martson

  Warwickshire

  0.287

  —1

  RAF Burtonwood

  Cheshire

  92.30

  —1

  Deysbrook Barracks

  Liverpool

  42.72

  —1

  RAF Church Fenton and Olla Grange

  North Yorkshire

  18.5

  —1

  RAF Shawbury site D

  Shropshire

  6.04

  —1

  RAF Shawbury site E

  Shropshire

  8.166

  —1

  Hayston Farm, Castlemartin

  Monmouthsire

  627.59

  Five sites

  Hayston Farm, Castlemartin

  Monmouthsire

  172.57

  Eight sites1

  Halton

  Catterick

  Not finalised

  —1

  Scotton Buildings

  Catterick

  0.10

  —

  Rolstone Range

  Catterick

  41

  —

  Hythe

  —

  0.065

  —

  Piling Camp and Range

  —

  42.8

  —

  Beith Agricultural Land

  Ayrshire

  37.182

  —

  Crombie Former Putting Green Dunfermline

  Fife

  0.05

  —

  Inverness-Dev site

  Inverness

  0.01

  —

  Crawfordsburn

  Co. Down

  1.064

  —

  DIVIS Mountain, Belfast

  Co. Antrim

  598.9

  —

  Dobbin Hill

  Co. Armagh

  1.057

  —

  St. Lucia

  Omagh

  1.344

  —

  Paddock, Corsham

  Wiltshire

  3.3

  —

  Elmdene. Durrington

  Wiltshire

  0.09

  —

  TAC Devizes

  Wiltshire

  3

  —1

  Marchwood Development Plots

  Hampshire

  88.01

  —1

  Coleridge Training Area

  Devon

  1.935

  —1

  Coleridge Training Area

  Devon

  5.907

  —1

  Coleridge Training Area

  Devon

  12.364

  —1

  5 Langton Park

  Wiltshire

  0.98

  —1

  TA Newbury

  Berkshire

  0.17

  —1

  Dean Hill Land

  Hampshire

  232.19

  —1

  TAC Bridgewater

  Somerset

  0.5

  Land and buildings

  HMS Mercury

  Hampshire

  7.09

  —

  Land at Wyvern Barracks, Exeter

  Devon

  4.265

  —

  OFD Turnchapel

  Devon

  2.74

  —

  Frater House

  Hampshire

  0.66

  —1

  Portsdown Main

  Devon

  18.15

  —1

  TAC Millbay

  Devon

  1.006

  —1

  Peel Circus, Corsham

  Wiltshire

  8.69

  —1

  RNCF Holton Heath

  Dorset

  28.81

  —1

  Land adj.57 Higher Wood, Bovington

  Dorset

  8.04

  —1

  Wainscott Camp

  Kent

  4.61

  —1

  Site A Monxton Road, Andover

  Hampshire

  3.5

  —1

  1Indicates land likely to be offered in the next 12 months, compared to land currently being offered.

  It should be noted that these figures represent only a "snapshot" of the situation in regard to sites in disposal. Land is declared surplus and comes forward for disposal frequently, and sites are sold on a regular basis.
  26W
  The list is also restricted to land, rather than buildings and thus does not constitute the totality of MOD sites in disposal.

  Armed Forces Exercises
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) date, (b) participating units, (c) timing, (d) nature of exercise and (e) total cost of exercise, were for each exercise involving British armed forces, originally planned for BATUS in Canada during this financial year; and if each exercise is still scheduled to take place. [62229]

  Date shinings

  Exercise

  Partcipating units

  Timings(prairie days)

  Nature of exercise

  Expected cost of exercise1 (£ million)

  16 April 2002 to 23 May 2002

  Exercise MEDMAN 1

  Scots Dragoon Guards Battlegroup

  23 April 2002 to 17 May 2002 (25 days)

  Battlegroup all arms live fire and simulation exercise

  8.3

  23 May 2002 to 27 June 2002

  Exercise MEDMAN 2

  1 Black Watch

  28 May 2002 to 21 June 2002 (25 days)

  Battlegroup all arms live fire and simulation exercises

  8.3

  27 June 2(102 to 3 August 2002

  Exercise MEDMAN 3

  1 Royal Regiment of Fusiliers Battlegroup

  2 July 2002 to 26 July 2002 (25 days)

  Battlegroup all arms live fire and simulation exercises

  8.3

  3 August 2002 to 21 October 2002

  Exercise IRON ANVIL 02

  19 (Mechanised) Brigade

  24 August 2002 to 8 October 2002 (46 days)

  The Exercise consists of MEDMAN 4 and MEDMAN 5.

  —

  (Includes Exercises MEDMAN 4 and MEDMAN 5

  19 Brigade Headquarters

  For 2 Royal Tank Regiment and I Kings Battlegroup and Brigade all arms live fire and simulation exercises.

  2 Royal Tank Regiment

  1 Kings Own Scottish Borderers join for the Brigade level exercise to allow 19 Mechanised Brigade to exercise with 3 manoeuvre Battle Groups under command.

  1 Kings Battlegroup 1 Kings Own Scottish Borderers

  40 Regiment Royal Artillery

  38 Engineer Regiment 5 Battalion Royal Electrical Mechanical Engineers

  29 Regiment Royal Logistic Corp

  1Costs are calculated by dividing the total BATUS resource consumption by the number of MEDICINE MAN Exercises. (Exercise IRON ANVIL equates to approximately 2 MEDICINE MAN exercises).

  Medical Categories (Armed Forces)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 8 May 2002,Official Report, column 181W, how many (a) women and (b) men in the (i) Army, (ii) Royal Navy and (iii) RAF are in a downgraded medical category; to which category they belong and the percentage of trained strength this represents; and if he will make a statement. [56171]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 15 May 2002]The information requested is shown in the table. My answer of 8 May 2002,Official Report, column 181W, related to certain specified Army medical downgrading categories only. My answer of 10 June 2002, Official Report, column 732W, provided a list of the medical downgrading categories used by all three services.

  Downgraded category

  Male

  Male percentage of total strength

  Female

  Female percentage of total strength

  Naval personnel by downgraded medical category

  PO

  119

  0.28

  14

  0.03

  P3P

  425

  1.01

  28

  0.07

  P3R

  219

  0.52

  85

  0.20

  P3R (pregnant)

  nil

  nil

  81

  0.19

  P7

  52

  0.12

  3

  0.01

  28W
  Mr. Ingram
  Details of British Army training exercises that are scheduled to take place in BATUS during this financial year along with their attendant costs are shown in the table. All the BATUS exercises scheduled for this financial year are still due to take place.

  Downgraded category

  Male

  Male percentage of total strength

  Female

  Female percentage of total strength

  P7RA

  247

  0.59

  46

  0.11

  P7RB

  48

  0.11

  12

  0.03

  P7RC

  56

  0.13

  9

  0.02

  P7RD

  1,349

  3.2

  225

  0.53

  P8

  61

  0.14

  7

  0.02

  Regular army personnel by downgraded PULHHEEMS employment standard

  PO

  679

  0.7

  109

  0.11

  P3—LE

  6,634

  6.8

  736

  0.76

  P3—LT

  1

  *0.00

  nil

  nil

  P3—BE

  7

  0.01

  2

  *0.00

  P3—RE (PP)

  nil

  nil

  364

  0.38

  P7—HO

  950

  0.98

  106

  0.11

  P7—HO (UK)

  158

  0.16

  12

  0.01

  P7—HO (NNI)

  541

  0.56

  35

  0.04

  P7—HO (UK not NI)

  29

  0.03

  3

  *0.00

  Regular RAF personnel by downgraded medical employment standard

  A1GIZ3

  1

  *0.00

  nil

  nil

  A1G2Z3

  2

  *0.00

  nil

  nil

  A1G3Z1

  13

  0.03

  nil

  nil

  A1G3Z5

  8

  0.02

  1

  *0.00

  A1G4ZI

  1

  *0.00

  nil

  nil

  A1G4Z5

  nil

  nil

  1

  *0.00

  A2G2Z2

  1

  *0.00

  nil

  nil

  A2G2Z3

  5

  0.01

  nil

  nil

  29W

  Downgraded category

  Male

  Male percentage of total strength

  Female

  Female percentage of total strength

  A2G3Z1

  13

  0.03

  1

  *0.00

  A2G3Z5

  7

  0.01

  nil

  nil

  A2G4Z1

  2

  *0.00

  nil

  nil

  A2G4Z4

  1

  *0.00

  nil

  nil

  A3G3Z1

  46

  0.09

  nil

  nil

  A3G3Z3

  2

  *0.00

  nil

  nil

  A3G3Z5

  10

  0.02

  nil

  nil

  A3G4Z1

  5

  0.01

  nil

  nil

  A3G4Z5

  3

  0.01

  nil

  nil

  A4GIZ4

  nil

  nil

  1

  *0.00

  A4G2Z2

  1

  *0.00

  nil

  nil

  A4G2Z3

  32

  0.07

  1

  *0.00

  A4G2Z4

  1

  *0.00

  nil

  nil

  A4G3Z1

  471

  0.97

  291

  0.60

  A4G3Z2

  3

  0.01

  nil

  nil

  A4G3Z3

  7

  0.01

  1

  *0.00

  A4G3Z4

  4

  0.01

  1

  *0.00

  A4G3Z5

  1,071

  2.20

  263

  0.54

  A4G4Z1

  264

  0.54

  40

  0.08

  A4G4Z2

  4

  0.01

  2

  *0.00

  A4G4Z3

  2

  *0.00

  nil

  nil

  A4G4Z4

  1

  *0.00

  nil

  nil

  A4G4Z5

  1,036

  2.13

  155

  0.32

  A4G5Z0

  128

  0.26

  23

  0.05

  A5G1Z5

  1

  *0.00

  nil

  nil

  A5G3Z1

  1

  *0.00

  1

  *0.00

  A5G3Z5

  6

  0.01

  2

  *0.00

  A5G4Z5

  4

  0.01

  1

  *0.00

  Notes:

  1.The figures are as at 1 May 2002.

  2.Figures have been rounded to the nearest two decimal places. Those marked with an asterisk are 0.004 per cent. or less.

  3. Army and RAF figures show medically downgraded trained personnel as a percentage of trained strength.

  4. Naval figures show totally medically downgraded personnel, including new entry trainees, as a percentage of total strength as the Royal Navy is unable to provide separate figures for medically downgraded trained personnel only.

  5. The Army PO category normally relates to personnel undergoing hospital treatment or on hospital sick leave, but may also include personnel for whom no PULHHEEMS employment standard is recorded on the personnel computer.

  Army (Recruitment)
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many applications to join the Army in each year since 1998 were rejected with no reason given to the applicant; and in what circumstances the Department refuses to give reasons for rejection of applicants. [62640]

  Mr. Ingram
  No applications to join the Army are refused without a reason being given to the applicant. However, in common with other Government Departments, it is the Ministry of Defence's policy to maintain the freedom to accept, or reject, any person for employment without giving a detailed explanation.

  Wind Farms (Scotland)
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those applications for wind farms in Scotland since January 2000 that his Department have(a) objected to and (b) not objected to. [64346]

  Dr. Moonie
  I will write to the hon. Member with a list of all wind farm proposals for Scotland received during the time specified and I will place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.
  30W
  The Ministry of Defence has received a total of 182 wind energy proposals in Scotland since 1 January 2000, of which 112 received no objection and 70 were objected to. The objections were for varying reasons of interference to low flying, radar or microwave links.

  Meteor BVRAAM Missile Programme
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the projected contract schedule for the Meteor BVRAAM missile programme is; and if he will make a statement. [64282]

  Dr. Moonie
  A draft contract for the development and production of the Meteor (BVRAAM) missile was sent to our partner nations at the end of April. A number of amendments have now been incorporated-into a final version, which was passed to our partners earlier this month. We very much hope that all partner nations will confirm within the next few weeks that they are content for the contract to be signed and that Germany will also sign the Meteor Memorandum of Understanding (already signed by the other five nations). Our aim remains to award the contract to MBDA in July.

  Chinook Helicopter
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the decision was taken by his Department not to provide a full response to letters received on the subject of the fatal accident to Chinook ZD576. [64564]

  Mr. Ingram
  No such decision has been taken.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to whom the reasons for the two suspensions of RAF Chinook HC2 flight trials at Boscombe Down in 1994 were communicated at the time. [64562]

  Mr. Ingram
  The distribution of the aircraft and armament evaluation establishment, Boscombe Down's internal minutes communicating the reasons for the temporary suspension of flight trials included the Procurement Executive, the RAF Air Operations Branch and the Director of Flying, and our Liaison Officer in Philadelphia.

  Annual Leave
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the average annual leave entitlement is for staff in his Department in 2002. [64641]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 6 March 2002,Official Report, column 314W. There have been no subsequent changes to Ministry of Defence leave entitlements.

  Bell 412 Helicopter
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 2 May 2002,Official Report, column 957W, on 84 Squadron, if the Bell 412 Enhanced Performance helicopter will be manned by RAF crews. [64824]

  Mr. Ingram
  Under current plans the Bell 412 helicopters will be part of an RAF unit and manned primarily by RAF crews.

  Invincible Class Ships
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Invincible class ships are able to embark Harrier GR7 when the vessel is undertaking its LPH role. [64820]

  Mr. Ingram
  Invincible class ships can embark GR7 in the LPH role but would not usually be tasked to do so. In the LPH role the Carrier Air Group will consist of the helicopters required to lift a full Commando Group and would therefore be severely constrained for space in which to embark fixed wing aircraft at the same time.

  Defence Logistics Organisation
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence by how much the Defence Logistics Organisation overspent its original budget estimate in the last financial year; and how this deficit was funded. [64816]

  Mr. Ingram
  The estimates provision at the start of the 2001–02 financial year for the Defence Logistics Organisation (DLO) was made up of £3,412 million for current and £612 million for capital expenditure. As I explained in my replies of 26 October 2001,Official Report, columns 405–06W and 31 October 2001, Official Report, columns 659–60W, in the normal course of business there are adjustments to these limits as the year unfolds which were reflected in the spring supplementary estimates. The revised estimates for the DLO were £4,442 million for current and £1,105 million for capital expenditure. The DLO resource accounts are still being finalised but currently show the DLO has contained its expenditure within these revised limits.

  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the duration is of the contract of the head of the Defence Export Services Organisation; and what his annual salary is in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [65267]

  Dr. Moonie
  The post of the Head of Defence Export Services (HDES) has been recently advertised as a 3-year contract, with the possibility of extension. The post is also offered as a secondment for the same duration.

  A summary of the employment terms and conditions of the former HDES was submitted as written evidence to the March 1999 House of Commons Defence Committee Report on "The Appointment of the New Head of Defence Export Services". This indicates that the HDES salary for 2001–02 would fall within the Permanent Secretary pay band (£104,292–£179,022). The defence industries council then pays an additional element that would bring the salary to the level, which the individual would otherwise receive, in industry.

  The HDES salary for 2002–03 will not be known until the current recruitment process has been completed (although the advertisement refers to an "attractive £ six figure package").

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where the overseas offices of the Defence Export Services Organisation are situated; when each office was 32W
  established; how many staff are employed; and what the cost for 2001–02 and 2002–03 is for each. [65265]

  Dr. Moonie
  Details of overseas offices of the Defence Export Services Organisation are as follows:

  Country

  Date established

  Number of staff

  Budget 2001–02 (£000)

  Australia

  1989

  2

  144.3

  Brunei

  1995

  2

  93.4

  Germany

  1991

  4

  153.7

  Greece

  2000

  1

  50.1

  India1

  1984

  2

  145.4

  Kuwait2

  1989

  9

  213.8

  Malaysia

  1986

  4.5

  169.8

  Qatar

  1998

  2

  85.1

  Saudi Arabia3

  1985

  59

  0

  Singapore

  2001

  2

  131.7

  South Africa

  2000

  2

  79.8

  South Korea

  1988

  2

  63.1

  Turkey

  1988

  1

  91.3

  UAE

  1999

  1

  88.1

  1Staff currently withdrawn

  2Four staff are employed by the Kuwait Programme Office and are funded by the customer government.

  359 staff are employed on the Al-Yamamah programme and are funded by the customer government.

  Note:

  Figures for financial year 2002–03 have not been set.

  In addition there are staff in the British embassies in Berlin, Paris and Washington DC who are responsible for a range of defence equipment issues, including defence exports.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff are employed within the Defence Export Services Organisation broken down by job title; and how many of the staff are employed in London.[65264]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are currently 610 staff employed within the Ministry of Defence, Defence Export Services Organisation (DESO), with 402 personnel employed in London.

  A breakdown of the figures is as follows:

  DESO business area

  Number of staff

  Marketing support

  136

  Military support, exhibitions, protocol and training

  114

  Export control, policy and finance/personnel

  47

  Project management

  1226

  Disposal services

  87

  Total

  2610

  1Project office staff are paid for by the customer

  2Full-time equivalent staff

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the budget for the(a) Defence Export Services Organisation and (b) the Infantry Export Support Team in (i) the past two years, (ii) the current year and (iii) future years for which estimates are available. [65268]

  Dr. Moonie
  The budgets for DESO (Defence Export Services Organisation) and the export Support Teams is presented in the table.
  33W

  £ million

  DESO

  Export Support Teams

  2000–01

  12.412

  11.920

  2001–02

  12.348

  0.288

  2002–03

  14.251

  0.366

  1Figures for Infantry Support Team for 2000–01 cannot be separated from the overall figure for the Export Support Teams.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of staff of the Defence Export Services Organisation are seconded from industry; and what functions they perform. [65266]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are currently no industry secondees working within the Defence Export Services Organisation.

  Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many days of operational capability per annum were achieved by aircraft carriers in each of the last five years; and how many days operational capability was specified for the two new carriers. [64800]

  Mr. Ingram
  The number of days of operational capability per annum achieved by the Royal Navy's Invincible-class aircraft carriers during the past five years was as follows:

  Days

  1997

  577

  1998

  494

  1999

  426

  2000

  527

  2001

  502

  Operational requirements for the future carriers are still being developed. However, it is intended that at least one of the planned fleet of two ships will be operationally available at all times and ship availability will be comparable to that achieved for the existing three Invincible class carriers.

  HMS Talent
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what savings will accrue from the withdrawal from operational service of HMS Talent ahead of her refit; and for what reasons HMS Talent has been laid up until her refit commences. [64818]

  Mr. Ingram
  HMS Talent reached her maximum permissible commission length in mid-June and has been laid-up prior to entering a long overhaul period in Devonport dockyard in spring 2003. The delay in starting the overhaul results from a need to profile the work load of Devonport dockyard efficiently, to deconflict with the refit of HMS Vanguard, and to balance available funds with more high priority competing demands. Few, if any, savings will accrue. The Royal Navy manpower released will be deployed elsewhere. Minor savings that might be realised from reduced operating costs will be offset by charges for essential services during the lay-up period.

  Tanks
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what effects the implementation of whole fleet management will have on(a) the number of tanks in the British Army and (b) their state of readiness. [64815]

  Mr. Ingram
  The implementation of whole fleet management will have no effect on the number of tanks in the British Army. Operational analysis suggests that it should lead to an improvement in operational readiness.

  Defence Attaches
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at how many British embassies defence attaches were stationed in each financial year since 1999–2000. [65269]

  Dr. Moonie
  The number of British embassies at which attaches were stationed in each financial year since 1999–2000 is as follows:

  Number

  1999–2000

  171

  2000–01

  74

  2001–02

  276

  2002–03

  81

  1Increasing to 75 by October 2000 as a result of the attach??? review

  2Increasing to 80 by October 2001 as a result of the attach??? review

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the functions of defence attaches, stating the percentage of time devoted to each function. [65272]

  Dr. Moonie
  As a result of the Strategic Defence Review, defence attaches and advisers have six core functions. The percentage of time devoted to each function is estimated as:

  Support to defence diplomacy: 33 per cent.

  Provision of operational military advice: 26 per cent.

  Provision of politico-military advice: 7 per cent.

  Support to Defence Intelligence: 5 per cent.

  Support to Defence Exports: 11 per cent.

  Representation and administrative support: 18 per cent.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many defence attaches were employed by his Department in each financial year since 1999–2000. [65270]

  Dr. Moonie
  The number of defence attaches that were employed by the Ministry of Defence in each financial year since 1999–2000 is as follows.

  Financial year

  Number

  1999–2000

  118

  2000–01

  124

  2001–02

  126

  2002–03

  127

  Ministerial Visits
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) overseas visits by Ministers in his Department and (b) visits to ministers in the United Kingdom by overseas Government Ministers and officials have taken place in each of the last three years in which United Kingdom arms sales were discussed. [65274]
  35W
  Dr. Moonie
  Defence Ministers regularly meet with their overseas counterparts and with other senior officials to discuss a range of defence matters, including defence export opportunities. Details of such discussions are not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Defence Exhibitions
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what costs were incurred by his Department in providing military land and personnel support to defence exhibitions in each financial year since 1999–2000. [65273]

  Dr. Moonie
  Assistance to exhibitions is provided from a wide range of departmental sources which contribute to a greater and lesser degree according to their responsibilities. The information requested is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Project Aquatrine
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of Project Aquatrine. [66236]

  Dr. Moonie
  Project Aquatrine will transfer the responsibility for the maintenance and operation of all the Ministry of Defence's water and wastewater assets and infrastructure in Great Britain to private sector providers.

  There are three contracts for water and wastewater service provision. An initiation to negotiate for the first contract covering South West England and Wales was issued on 16 July 2001 and it is anticipated that a preferred bidder will be selected by the end of 2002.

  Invitations to negotiate for the remaining two contracts covering Scotland and the North and East of England, to be issued to six bidders, on 3 July for the North and East of England contract and 10 July 2002 for the Scottish contract.

  The consortia invited to negotiate for the Scotland contract are:

  Brey Utilities;

  Nevis Water—comprising Thames Water plc and Scottish Water; and

  United Utilities/Morgan Est/Babtie Consortium.

  The consortia invited to negotiate for the North and East of England:

  Brey Utilities—comprising Yorkshire Water Services Limited, Earth Tech Engineering Limited, Halliburton Brown and Root Limited;

  Diamond Alliance Ltd;

  Thames Water plc; and

  United Utilities/Morgan Est/Babtie Consortium.

  It is anticipated that the preferred bidder for the Scottish and North and East England contracts will be announced in July 2003, with the contract expected to be awarded in October 2003, with go-live in April 2004.

  Colchester Garrison
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about(a) the original projected cost and (b) the current estimated cost of the building of the new Colchester Garrison. [65759]
  36W
  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is commercial in confidence, and, at this stage, is being withheld under Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  RAF Training
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the savings to the RAF would be if all subcontracted hours for initial training of pilots were transferred from the University Air Squadrons to private sector trainers. [65390]

  Mr. Ingram
  The University Air Squadrons already have significant private sector involvement with a contractor providing flying hours and support services. Significant savings arose from this contract and they will be quantified by the post project evaluation, which is due to be undertaken later this year. University Air Squadron instructors are RAF officers. We view it as an important element of training that trainee pilots have the benefit of a military environment and contact with military personnel.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many pilots trained by(a) the Joint Elementary Flying Training School at RAF Church Fenton and (b) University Air Squadrons have subsequently (i) joined the RAF and (ii) chosen not to do so in each of the past five years. [65392]

  Mr. Ingram
  All of the pilots trained by the Joint Elementary Flying Training School at Church Fenton are already members of the RAF.

  In the case of the University Air Squadrons, the numbers are not immediately available and I will write to the hon. Member when the information has been gathered and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many flying hours the 15 University Air Squadrons were contracted to provide to the RAF during each of the years of their existing contract; and how many hours were delivered in each of these years. [65294]

  Mr. Ingram
  Flying hours, using the Tutor aircraft, are provided to the University Air Squadrons as part of the light aircraft flying task contract. Although this contract was let in April 1999, it was phased in with the last aircraft delivered in September 2001. Consequently, there is not yet a history of delivery of flying hours against the contract. The contract also provides flying hours to the Air Cadet Air Experience Flights and the Central Flying School at RAF Cranwell, to train instructions and also to conduct elementary navigator training. The contract provides 30,500 hours with an option to fly up to 50,000 hours. The additional hours are paid for only if used. In the year ending March 2002 just under 40,000 hours were flown.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to renew the contract of the Joint Elementary Flying Training School at RAF Church Fenton. [65389]

  Mr. Ingram
  The contract with Babcock HCS to provide Firefly aircraft and instructors for the Joint Elementary Flying Training School, which operates at RAF Barkston Heath, RAF Cranwell, RAF Church Fenton and the School of Army Aviation at Middle Wallop, ends
  37W
  on 7 July 2003. The cost effective means of meeting the Joint Elementary Flying Training School's requirement after this will be to absorb the RAF element of the task, which is undertaken at Church Fenton, into the University Air Squadrons, where the majority of RAF pilots are already trained. The balance of the task has been the subject of a competition and a contract will be let shortly.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Joint Elementary Flying Training School at RAF Church Fenton provided the contracted hours per year to the RAF during the existing contract. [65394]

  Mr. Ingram
  Yes.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the criteria used by his Department to evaluate the success of the Joint Elementary Flying Training School at RAF Church Fenton to train RAF pilots in the elementary stage of their flying career; and if he will make a statement. [65297]

  Mr. Ingram
  Success is judged by the output of students on time, to the required standard, and with a failure rate of less than 15 per cent. The School at Church Fenton has met these criteria.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the proposed saving to the RAF is if the Joint Elementary Flying Training School at RAF Church Fenton's contract for flying hours is returned to the university air squadrons. [65296]

  Mr. Ingram
  Significant annual savings are anticipated.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria are used by the Department to evaluate the success of the 15 university air squadrons in training RAF pilots in the elementary stage of their flying careers; and whether comparative evaluation has been made with the Joint Elementary Flying Training School at RAF Church Fenton. [65388]

  Mr. Ingram
  Elementary flying training for members of University Air Squadrons is undertaken to a defined syllabus and output standard. A direct comparison of University Air Squadron trained and Joint Elementary Flying Training School trained RAF pilots is seen at the point of streaming to aircraft type (fast jet, rotary wing, or multi-engine), which follows immediately after elementary flying training. At this point, there is no discernible difference between them. Historically, a comparison of success rates through to the more difficult fast-jet front line has shown a small advantage for University Air Squadron trained students.

  Afghanistan
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if serial numbers have been systematically logged in respect of the weapons found in Afghanistan since coalition military operations began against suspected Taliban and al-Qaeda forces earlier this year. [64685]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Royal Marines deployed in Afghanistan have discovered a number of significant weapons caches. Those weapons that have not been destroyed have been handed over to the Afghan authorities. There has been no routine logging of serial numbers.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Madagascar
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Madagascar. [65002]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 27 June 2002]The Organisation of African Unity and President Wade of Senegal continue with their mediation efforts. The UK, along with EU partners and others in the donor community continues to encourage the two parties to find a solution through dialogue. The US has recently recognised Mark Ravalomanana as President of Madagascar.

  European Parliamentary Investigations
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what protocols exist on the operation of European parliamentary investigations being conducted within the United Kingdom. [65006]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 27 June 2002]There is no protocol which governs the operations of European parliamentary investigations. Temporary committees of the European Parliament are set up under its rules of procedure. A Decision of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission sets out the detailed provisions governing the European Parliament's right of inquiry and the setting up of temporary committees of inquiry.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the power members of the European Parliament have to summon witnesses for inquiries that they are conducting within the United Kingdom. [65007]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 27 June. 2002]Article 193 of the treaty on European Union provides for the setting up of temporary committees of inquiry.

  Under the Decision of the European Parliament, Council, and the Commission on the exercise of the European Parliament's right of inquiry, temporary committees of inquiry may request member states to designate an "official or servant whom they authorise to appear before the temporary committee of inquiry, unless grounds of secrecy or public or national security dictate otherwise by virtue of national or Community legislation". This is without prejudice to any other provisions of the member states which prohibit officials from appearing.

  The European Parliament may set up temporary committees under their own rules of procedure. Such committees can request witnesses and experts to make a statement or provide testimony. There is no obligation on those individuals to respond to that invitation.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the arrangements made with Spain in respect of Gibraltar Airport to unblock the progress of EC aviation measures. [66422]

  Peter Hain
  We have agreed a procedure with Spain and the Commission allowing aviation measures to be unblocked, without prejudicing any party's position on
  39W
  sovereignty, or affecting day to day operations at Gibraltar airport. When such a measure is brought forward, the Commission will judge whether or not it places obligations on airports. If so, the Council and Commission will agree to the insertion of the clauses suspending application until the implementation of the 1987 Joint Declaration of the UK and Spain on Gibraltar airport, which have featured in previous measures. If not, the text will not be amended. The Transport Council agreed Common Positions on the first measures subject to this arrangement, relating to occurrence reporting and aviation statistics, on 17 June.

  We are confident that suspension will have no material impact on the operation of Gibraltar airport. We will continue to work with the Government of Gibraltar and the authorities at Gibraltar airport to ensure that, wherever necessary, equivalent measures are implemented on a national basis.

  The Government believes that this is the best way forward until a long-term solution is found. We have always made clear that we want Gibraltar to enjoy the full benefits of EC aviation measures, as is its right. But, since the 11 September atrocities in particular, it is essential for British and other European air travellers, and the companies concerned, that EC measures to improve the functioning of the aviation sector, and especially to enhance aviation security, are taken forward quickly and effectively. It would be intolerable if all air travellers were denied the benefit of such measures because of delay

  Date

  Venue

  Event

  August

  1–2

  Brunei

  ASEAN post-Ministerial Conference (Troika)

  27–29

  Illulissat

  Meeting of the Northern Dimension (Ministerial)

  31–1

  Elisnore

  Gymnich (Ministerial Informal)

  September

  6

  Brussels

  ASEM Economic Ministers Meeting

  6–8

  Copenhagen

  ECOFIN (Ministerial Informal)

  8–10

  Nyborg

  Agriculture Council (Ministerial Informal)

  12–13

  Brussels

  Plenary Session of the Convention on the Future of Europe

  12–13

  Copenhagen

  Justice and Home Affairs Council (Ministerial Informal)

  22–24

  Copenhagen

  ASEM Meeting

  23–24

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  24

  Copenhagen

  EU—China

  24

  Cophenhagen

  EU—South Korea

  26

  Brussels

  Internal Market, Consumer Affairs and Tourism Council

  27

  Tent

  ACP—EU Ministers Meeting

  30

  Brussels

  Research Council

  30–1

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  October

  3–4

  Brussels

  Plenary Session of the Convention on the Future of Europe

  3–4

  Brussels

  Transport and Telecommunications Council

  7–8

  Copenhagen

  EU—Canada (Ministerial)

  8

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  8

  Brussels

  Employment and Social Policy Council

  10

  Copenhagen

  EU—India

  14

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs, and Civil Protection Council

  15–16

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  17

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  18–19

  Aalborg

  Internal Market, Consumer Affairs and Industry Meeting (Ministerial Informal)

  21–22

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  24–25

  Brussels

  European Council

  28–29

  Brussels

  Plenary Session of the Convention on the Future of Europe

  November

  1

  Brussels

  Culture Council

  2

  Brussels

  ECOFIN—Troika meeting on Macro—Economic Dialogue

  7–8

  Copenhagen

  EU—SADC (Ministerial)

  40W
  caused by disagreement between the UK and Spain over Gibraltar and the refusal of the Government of Gibraltar to join discussions to resolve such problems under the Brussels process.

  EU Events
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the(a) forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union for July and (b) major European Union events for the period between 1 August and December. [66082]

  July

  4—Copenhagen—EU—Ukraine

  8—Tokyo—EU—Japan

  11–12—Brussels—plenary session of the convention on the future of Europe

  12–13—Ko'ding—meeting of employment and social policy Ministers (Ministerial Informal)

  15–16—Brussels—agriculture council

  19—Brussels—Budget meeting

  19–21—Arhus—meeting of environment Ministers (Ministerial Informal)

  11–12—Brussels—general affairs council

  30–31—Brunei—ASEAN regional forum (Ministerial)

  30–01—Brunei—EU—South Korea (Ministerial Troika)

  30–31—Brunei—EU—North Korea (Ministerial Troika).

  The following are the principle events in the EU between 1 August and December 2002. The list is based on the information available at the date of issue.
  41W

  Date

  Venue

  Event

  7–8

  Brussels

  Plenary Session of the Convention on the Future of Europe

  11

  Copenhagen

  EU—Russia

  12

  Brussels

  Education and Youth Council

  14–15

  Brussels

  Internal Market, Consumer Affairs and Youth Council

  18

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  18–19

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  19–20

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  22

  Brussels

  Development Council

  25–26

  Brussels

  Budget (Council)

  25–26

  Brussels

  Industry and Energy Council

  28

  Ouagadougou

  EU—Africa

  28

  Ouagadougou

  EU—ECOWAS (Ministerial Troika)

  28–29

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs, and Civil Protection Council

  December

  2–3

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  3

  Brussels

  Employment and Social Policy Council

  5–6

  Brussels

  Plenary Session of the Convention on the Future of Europe

  5–6

  Brussels

  Transport and Telecommunications Council

  9–10

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  9–10

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  12–13

  Copenhagen

  European Council

  16

  Copenhagen/Washington

  EU—US (Ministerial)

  16–17

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  18–19

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  19–20

  Ottawa

  EU—Canada

  20–21

  Brussels

  Plenary Session of the Convention on the Future of Europe

  Visas
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on UK visa fees. [66083]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  On 26 June, the Privy Council made the Consular Fees Order 2002, which sets out the new fees for UK visas with effect from 1 July.

  Members of the House will recall that on 17 June the House approved the draft section 102 Order, made under The Finance (No. 2) Act 1987—following a debate in the Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation on 11 June. The section 102 Order provides the legal authority for the visa fee increase by allowing past deficits incurred in the costs of running the Entry Clearance operation to be taken into account when setting visa fees and for the cross-subsidisation of the costs of different entry clearance services.

  Most visa fees will go up by between 8 per cent. and 10 per cent. The main increases are:
  Standard visit visa: up 9 per cent. from £33 to £36
  The single entry visa has ceased to exist since the introduction in October 2000 of visas of leave to enter. The new standard visa for multiple entries valid for six months at £36 is cheaper than the old six-month multiple-entry visa, which provided the same level of service at a cost of £45.
  Five-year multiple-entry visa: up 10 per cent. from £80 to £88
  Settlement visa: up 8 per cent. from £240 to £260
  In addition, the long-term non-settlement visa fee will increase by 50 per cent. from £50 to £75.

  A new 10-year multiple entry visa priced at £150 is also being introduced for the first time. There is growing demand for this kind of visa. Its introduction will provide an enhanced service to regular travellers to the UK, without compromising the integrity of the Immigration Control.
  42W
  The Consular Fees Order setting new visa fees is being made not only to cover current costs but also to recover past deficits of visa fees (from April 2000), caused by the increased cost of the entry clearance operation worldwide. It is intended that these increases will return the entry clearance operation to a self-financing basis by 2003–04.

  We recognise that these fee increases will be unwelcome. However, we must make sure that the full cost of providing a visa service is covered by visa fees.

  To put these increases into context:
  These would be the first fee increase for visitor's visas since 1995
  The proposed increases still keep UKvisas within their Service Delivery Agreement commitment not to increase visa fees in real terms
  The standard visit visa at £36 is still cheaper than the old six-month multiple entry visa which provided the same level of service at a cost of £45
  Applicants now get more for their money. Since October 2000, the standard visit visa has not only allowed people to visit the UK on multiple occasions during the validity of their leave to enter, they also benefit from an enhanced and speedier immigration process on arrival.

  UKvisas is undertaking a range of measures to reduce costs and increase productivity. But these alone will not be sufficient to recover the deficit. The increases will enable UKvisas not only to recover past deficits, but also to cover the increased costs of the provision of visa services.

  East Timor
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what continuing support the Government will offer to East Timor. [66089]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Further to my answer of 25 June 2002,Official Report, column 721, I should clarify that at the Donor Conference in Dili on 14–15 May, the UK

  43W
  confirmed its pledge of £12 million to East Timor over the next three years. This brings the total UK assistance package to over £30 million since 1999.

  Western Sahara
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of France concerning the future mineral exploitation of the Western Sahara; and if he will make a statement. [64864]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I am informed that we have had no discussions with the Government of France concerning the future mineral exploitation of the Western Sahara.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations have been made to the Government of Morocco concerning their occupation of the Western Sahara. [64861]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We regularly discuss the issue of Western Sahara with the Government of the Kingdom of Morocco. My predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), raised the issue during his visit to Morocco in September 2001 and when he met with Mohammed Benaissa the Moroccan Foreign Minister during his visit to London in March 2002. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also discussed the subject with Mohammed Benaissa during his visit to London in February 2002.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the British contribution has been to Minurso for each of the past five years. [64862]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The British contribution to Minurso over the past five years is as follows:

  £

  1997–98

  934,360

  1998–99

  2,369,371

  1999–2000

  1,014,550

  2000–01

  1,984,177

  2001–02

  2,148,347

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has made to the UN Secretary General concerning the proposals by his representative on the future of the Western Sahara; and if he will make a statement. [64863]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The mandate for the UN Mission for a Referendum in Western Sahara is due for renewal on 31 July. The UN Secretary General asked UN Security Council members to choose a suitable direction for his special envoy James Baker, to pursue in helping the parties find a solution to the dispute in Western Sahara.

  UK officials have been working with American, French and other Security Council colleagues in New York and in the capitals of Security Council members in an effort to reach a consensus on a suitable direction before 31 July.

  The UK has maintained a consistent position, that we continue to support the efforts of the United Nations Secretary General in trying to find a just and durable resolution to the dispute.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which overseas Governments he has consulted since the Zimbabwean Presidential elections on their acceptance of(a) the result and (b) the legitimacy of these elections.[65999]

  Mr. MacShane
  We have discussed the result and legitimacy of the Presidential election in Zimbabwe with our European Union partners, the Commonwealth, members of the Southern African Development Community and other concerned members of the international community, including the United States.

  Correspondence
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Walsall, North of 28 May regarding a constituent. [65576]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My officials at UKvisas replied to the hon. Member for Walsall, North's letters of 28 May on 24 and 26 June 2002.

  Chechnya
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what monitoring of human rights in Chechnya has been undertaken by UK representatives. [64859]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The embassy in Moscow sends regular reports of the human rights situation in Chechnya, though the security situation has meant that we permit no British Government personnel to visit the region. There are however a number of non-governmental organisations active in monitoring human rights in Chechnya, with whom we are in close touch.

  EU Applicants
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library the Government's assessment of the economic and social impact on the United Kingdom of the accession to the EU of the Eastern European applicant nations. [61765]

  Peter Hain
  [pursuant to his reply, 17 June 2002, c. 71]The answer that was given to my right hon. Friend on 17 June contained an error. The full correct answer is as follows:

  The Government have not made an integrated study of the economic and social impact of EU enlargement on the United Kingdom. However, independent economic studies by the European Round Table of Industrialists and the Centre for Economic Policy Reform show that EU enlargement could increase UK GDP by £1.75 billion and create 300,000 jobs among the EU-15. I have placed copies of these reports in the House of Commons Library.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Countryside and Rights of Way Act
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 8 March 2002,Official Report, column 641–2W,

  45W
  what progress has been made on regional introduction of the freedom to roam under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. [63508]

  Alun Michael
  As my noble Friend the Lord Whitty answered in another place on 10 April, (HL Deb. column WA 92), we are persuaded of the potential advantages to walkers of bringing the right of access into force on a regional basis. We need to think further about the practical considerations in respect of, for example, managing access and ensuring that members of the public are properly informed of their rights and responsibilities.

  We are looking very carefully at this, and we will make an announcement when we have reached a decision.

  £ million

  Year

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  12001–02

  AHVG Outturn

  107

  126

  152

  183

  159

  Animal Welfare R&D

  4.1

  3.7

  3.4

  3.7

  3.2

  1Provisional—subject to audit

  Private Veterinary Surgeons
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much her Department has paid private veterinary surgeons for contract work with her Department(a) in total and (b) per hour in each of the last ten years for which figures are available. [63647]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 24 June 2002]DEFRA came into being on 8 June 2001. The information requested can only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on Forestry and Cork is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement. [61715]

  Mr. Morley
  The mandate of the Advisory Committee on Forestry and Cork is to improve communication throughout the EU forestry sector. It comprises representatives from private sector forestry and forest industries and enables primarily non-governmental practitioners from member states to present their views on forestry and the forestry industry, policy and developments directly to the European Commission.

  The committee has met twice in the last 12 months. The UK is represented by the Forestry Commission and the private forestry sector. The approximate annual cost of the committee's work to public funds is £400.

  The committee is currently considering the role of forestry in the context of EU rural development policy, implementation of the EU forestry strategy and the availability of wood.

  Animal Welfare
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much her Department and its predecessors have spent on animal welfare in each of the last five years for which figures are available, broken down by category. [63648]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 24 June 2002]These figures represent the outturn for the Animal Health and Veterinary Group (AHVG) and the amount spent on animal welfare R&D for the last five years. The reduction in expenditure in 2001–02 reflects the diversion of effort on to foot and mouth disease. The total figure for that year actually continued the upward trend of previous years.

  Together with member states, the commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the commission".

  As an obligation to this decision, the commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Library of the House on 26 February (Commission Document 5685/02).

  As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Scientific Technical and Economic Committee on Fisheries is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement. [61704]

  Mr. Morley
  The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries is a permanent committee set up within the European Commission as a source of highly qualified scientific assistance (particularly in the application of marine and fisheries biology, fishing technology, fishing economics or similar disciplines) in relation to the implementation of the Community system for fisheries and aquaculture. The committee holds two plenary meetings per year, plus ad hoc expert groups. The UK is currently represented by scientists from the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science and the FRS Marine Laboratory. The commission pays travel and subsistence costs: only the cost of the experts' time, as part of their broad duty to provide scientific advice, falls to national Governments. The committee draws up annual reports on the biological, technical and economic
  47W
  aspects of the fisheries resource situation and on work and requirements in relation to the co-ordination of research for the fisheries and aquaculture sector. It also provides advice to the commission on prospective proposals for action.

  As the committee's role is to provide scientific, technical and economic advice to the commission, there are no issues over accountability and transparency to Parliament.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on Community Policy Regarding Forestry and Forzest-based Industries is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement. [61727]

  Mr. Morley
  The mandate of the Advisory Committee on Community Policy regarding Forestry and Forest-based Industries is to encourage the forest-based industry to become a model sector in the field of sustainable development.

  The Committee has met once in the last 12 months. The UK is represented by members of the forestry industry. The cost to public funds for the last 12 months was £200.

  The key issues currently under consideration are securing sufficient supplies of sustainable produced raw material and the enhanced use of wood.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission".

  As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Library of the House on 26 February (Commission Document 5685–02).

  As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on Non-Food and Textile Crops is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement. [61719]
  48W
  Mr. Morley
  The Advisory Committee on Non-Food and Textile Crops is a consultative committee of the European Commission. Its purpose is to facilitate consultation with industry representatives with an interest in the EU regime for natural fibres but we understand it has not met for some time. It is not attended by officials of Her Majesty's Government and does not give rise to costs to UK public funds.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Committee for the adaptation to technical and scientific progress of the Directive on the prevention and reduction of environmental pollution by asbestos is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement. [56818]

  Mr. Meacher
  The mandate of the Committee for the adaptation to technical and scientific progress of the Directive on the prevention and reduction of environmental pollution by asbestos is to make changes to the technical annex on methods of sampling and analysis of asbestos concentrations in air or water. This Committee has not met in the last 12 months, so has had no costs to public funds and has not considered any items.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many staff were employed by her Department on(a) 2 May 1997 and (b) 31 May 2002. [60921]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 13 June 2002,Official Report, column 1402W.

  Warm Front Scheme
  Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made in reducing fuel poverty through the Warm Front Scheme; how many households have been assisted in(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01; how much the average cost was in (i) 1999–2000 and (ii) 2000–01 of assisting each household via the Warm Front Scheme in terms of (A) actual cost of the measures carried out and (B) the average cost of the administration which enabled households to receive the measures; what the measures, the planned expenditure is on warm front in (1) 2002–03 and (2) 2003–04; and what the percentage change has been in expenditure in each region of the UK since 1999–2000. [60668]

  Mr. Meacher
  The new Home Energy Efficiency Scheme, launched in June 2000 is marketed as Warm Front.

  The table provides details for the previous HEES, which provided insulation measures only (column two), Warm Front from launch of the scheme in June 2000 to March 2001 (column three) and April 2001 to March 2002 (column four).
  49W

  April 1999 to March 2000

  June 2000 to March 2001

  April 2001 to March 2002

  Number of households assisted who receive either insulation, heating or both

  339,000

  106,800

  254,600

  Average value per household (£)

  176

  322

  464

  Value of measures (£)

  59,670,000

  34,360,000

  140,600,000

  The reduction in the number of households assisted by Warm Front reflects the introduction of the package approach of measures combining insulation and heating under the scheme. There was also a slow start for gas heating due to the national shortage of trained heating engineers. Measures installed may include cavity wall, loft insulation, draught proofing, individual gas wall heaters or electric storage heaters and either gas or electric central heating systems.

  These figures do not identify the scheme managers' administration costs. Information regarding administration costs is commercially sensitive and could be used in future tender rounds to unfairly distort the competition process.

  The budget for Warm Front, an England only scheme. for the financial years 2000 to 2004 is over £600 million. The information on the percentage change of expenditure for each region in the UK is not held in the format requested for individual households and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Information on the measures installed at individual property in 2000–01 has previously been provided on 15 January 2002, Official Report, column 261W. A copy of the data referred to in that answer is available on CD-Rom in the Library.

  Numbers of varroa samples received

  Region

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Varroa positive samples

  Northern

  0

  0

  0

  2

  19

  34

  105

  141

  230

  North East

  1

  10

  30

  103

  124

  162

  132

  47

  25

  Western

  1

  28

  75

  81

  197

  198

  93

  34

  9

  Eastern

  17

  55

  31

  200

  252

  68

  17

  12

  7

  South West

  124

  166

  114

  87

  57

  25

  7

  3

  4

  Southern

  33

  176

  207

  283

  152

  53

  13

  15

  5

  South East

  128

  165

  142

  179

  116

  35

  11

  9

  6

  Wales

  1

  0

  11

  53

  54

  94

  61

  47

  15

  Totals

  305

  600

  610

  988

  971

  669

  439

  308

  301

  Varroa negatives

  Region

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Northern

  221

  345

  288

  273

  309

  213

  158

  92

  42

  North East

  588

  734

  837

  415

  611

  237

  32

  5

  1

  Western

  594

  752

  609

  617

  607

  221

  40

  10

  3

  Eastern

  530

  530

  288

  254

  168

  19

  2

  3

  1

  South West

  593

  279

  158

  86

  66

  17

  3

  1

  0

  Southern

  933

  837

  518

  214

  110

  23

  2

  3

  0

  South East

  604

  508

  286

  120

  35

  8

  6

  2

  1

  Wales

  329

  341

  310

  492

  284

  160

  43

  18

  21

  Totals

  4392

  4326

  3294

  2471

  2190

  898

  286

  134

  69

  Total no samples received

  4697

  4926

  3904

  3459

  3161

  1567

  725

  442

  370

  12002 data to 20 June

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent(a) representations she has received from and (b) discussions she has had with the beekeeping industry; and if she will make a statement. [63522]

  Mr. Morley
  My officials meet annually with representatives of the UK beekeeping sector. The most recent meeting was held on 8 November 2001, when a
  50W
  We will carry out a review of Warm Front during this financial year to look at how effective its delivery has been, the issues faced, solutions found, examples of best practice and future priorities. This will include consideration of the impact of the scheme on reducing the number of vulnerable fuel poor households.

  Bees
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) notifications and (b) confirmations of specified diseases under the Bee Diseases Control Order 1982 there were in each region in each of the last 10 years. [63521]

  Mr. Morley
  There are three notifiable diseases specified under the Bee Diseases Control Order 1982—American foulbrood; European foulbrood; and Varroosis (varroa). All new suspected cases have to be reported, and in England investigations are carried out by the National Bee Unit (NBU). The numbers of notifications and confirmations of these diseases are set out in the table below by NBU region. Data for American and European foulbrood before 1994 is not available.

  range of issues affecting the sector were discussed, including measures to control bee diseases. The Central Science Laboratory's National Bee Unit (NBU) also meets beekeepers regularly.

  Most recently, the Department has received a number of written representations from beekeepers about financial burdens placed on Bee Diseases Insurance (BDI) Ltd. We welcome BDI's role in encouraging beekeepers in

  51W
  England to play their part in the identification of notifiable diseases. However, the issue of payments by insurance companies is a matter for the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and affiliated bodies. My officials have passed these representations to these organisations as appropriate.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much has been spent by her Department on bee(a) husbandry and (b) disease prevention by category in each of the last 10 years. [63524]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department assists the beekeeping sector in England by funding a range of measures to protect bee health. Under these measures, the national bee unit provides a free diagnostic and inspection service to the beekeeping sector as well as training and education to help beekeepers become more self reliant through improved bee husbandry. The Department also supports the beekeeping sector through strategic research into bee pests and diseases.

  It is not possible to differentiate expenditure between bee husbandry and disease control. All fieldwork undertaken by the national bee unit is for the purpose of disease prevention and control. Departmental expenditure on R&D for the period 1992–93 to 2001–02 is set out in the table. Prior to 1994 the regional offices of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food were responsible for bee disease control. In 1994 this work was centralised within the national bee unit and aggregated figures are not available for earlier years.

  £

  Expenditure under memorandum of understanding with Central Science Laboratory National Bee Unit

  R&D Expenditure

  Total Expenditure

  1992–93

  —

  61,000

  61,000

  1993–94

  —

  140,000

  140,000

  1994–95

  1,511,000

  314,000

  1,825,000

  1995–96

  1,534,000

  259,000

  1,793,000

  1996–97

  1,300,000

  203,000

  1,503,000

  1997–98

  1,300.000

  215,000

  1,515,000

  1998–99

  1,300,000

  248,000

  1,548,000

  1999–2000

  1,300,000

  241,000

  1,541,000

  2000–01

  1,300,000

  226,000

  1,526,000

  2001–02

  1,300,000

  187,000

  1,487,000

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many registered beekeepers there were in each region in each of the last 10 years. [63578]

  Mr. Morley
  There is no compulsory registration of beekeepers in England. The database held by the Central Science Laboratory's National Bee Unit, which is used to maintain records of statutory inspections, holds details of some 25,000 beekeepers.

  Pollutant

  First produced

  Reviewed

  Next review

  Benzene

  February 1994 by EPAQS

  EU Second Daughter Directive limit value to be adopted in 2002

  Daughter Directive requires the European Commission to report by 2004

  1,3-butadiene

  December 1994 by EPAQS

  EPAQS second report due to be published shortly

  Carbon monoxide

  December 1994 by EPAQS

  EU Second Daughter Directive limit value to be adopted in 2002

  Daughter Directive requires the European Commission to report by 2004

  Lead

  May 1998 by EPAQS

  EU First Daughter Directive limit value adopted in 19 99

  Daughter Directive requires the European Commission to report by 2003

  Curry Report
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the timetable and implementation of the Curry report. [63525]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 26 March a series of early actions as a first step towards implementing the report. At the same time, a comprehensive process of engagement with a wide range of stakeholders was launched to explore how to translate the commission's vision into action. This has included a series of regional and sectoral events and the publication of a document, "Sustainable Food and Farming: Working Together". Feedback from these is now being analysed and will help inform construction of a Strategy for Sustainable Food and Farming in England, to be launched in the autumn. The strategy will incorporate a response to all of the Policy Commission's recommendations.

  Beef Exports
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she plans to meet her French counterpart to discuss the ban on British beef exports. [63526]

  Mr. Morley
  The Secretary of State regularly raises the French Government's illegal ban on British beef with her French counterpart. The Prime Minister also made it clear when he met President Chirac on 19 June that he expected the new French Government to lift their ban on the import of UK date—based export scheme beef rapidly.

  Air Pollution
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on what date the standards for the eight pollutants named in the National Air Quality Strategy were last reviewed; and on what date they will next be reviewed. [64666]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 27 June 2002]The standards within the Air Quality Strategy are recommended to Ministers by the Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards (EPAQS) or are based on the limit values in the European Union's Air Quality Daughter Directives. The Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards and their secretariat keep a watching brief on the literature for the health effects of air pollutants and make recommendations to the Department when they are aware of information that could change their original point of view.

  The table sets out when each of the standards was first proposed, dates of any reviews already carried out and plans for future reviews.
  53W

  Pollutant

  First produced

  Reviewed

  Next review

  Nitrogen dioxide

  December 1996 by EPAQS

  EU First Daughter Directive limit value adopted in 1999

  To be reviewed by European Commission in 2003

  Ozone

  May 1994 by EPAQS

  EU Third Daughter Directive limit value to be adopted in 2003

  Under review as part of the Clear Air for Europe programme

  Particulate matter

  November 1995 by EPAQS

  EU First Daughter Directive limit value adopted in 1999

  To be reviewed by European Commission in 2003

  Sulphur dioxide

  September 1995 by EPAQS

  EU First Daughter Directive limit value adopted in 1999

  Daughter Directive requires the European Commission to report by 2003

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many air quality monitoring sites operate in the United Kingdom; how many of these sites monitor all the pollutants named in the National Air Quality Strategy; and how many of these sites recorded air quality exceedences for each of the pollutants named in the National Air Quality Strategy. [646611

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 27 June 2002]There are a total of 1,709 air quality monitoring sites in United Kingdom. These are broken down by network in Table I below.

  Table 1: Number of air quality monitoring sites in the United Kingdom

  Number of sites

  Automatic monitoring (nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, PM10, carbon monoxide, ozone, benzene, 1,3-butadiene)

  122

  Table 2: number of sites exceeding the standards and objectives in the Air Quality Strategy in 2001

  Automatic sites

  Standard

  Objective

  Number of sites exceeding Air Quality Strategy standard in 2001

  Number of sites exceeding Air Quality Strategy objective in 2001

  Nitrogen dioxide

  Hourly mean, 200

  not to be exceeded more

  18

  4

  micrograms per metre cubed

  than 18 times per year

  Annual mean 40

  32

  0

  micrograms per metre cubed

  Sulphur dioxide

  15 minute mean, 266

  not to be exceeded more

  17

  1

  micrograms per metre cubed

  than 35 times per year

  Hourly mean, 350

  not to be exceeded more

  2

  0

  micrograms per metre cubed

  than 24 times per year

  Daily mean, 125 micrograms

  not to be exceeded more

  1

  1

  Particulate matter (PM10)

  24 hour mean, 50

  not to be exceeded more

  59

  6

  micrograms per cubic metre

  than 35 times per year

  Annual mean, 40

  1

  micrograms per metre cubed

  Carbon monoxide

  Running 8 hour mean, 11.6

  0

  0

  micrograms per metre cubed

  Benzene

  Running annual mean, 16.25

  0

  0

  micrograms per metre cubed

  1,3-butadiene

  Running annual mean 2.25

  0

  0

  micrograms per metre cubed

  Non-Automatic sites

  Number of sites exceeding Air Quality Strategy standard in 2001

  Number of sites exceeding Air Quality Strategy objective in 2001

  Nitrogen dioxide

  Annual mean, 40

  251

  per metre cubed

  Sulphur dioxide

  Daily mean, 125 micrograms

  not to be exceeded more

  8

  4

  Lead

  Annual mean, 0.5

  0

  0

  micrograms per metre cubed

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when(a) 1,3-butadienes, (b) polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons,
  54W

  Table 1: Number of air quality monitoring sites in the United Kingdom

  Number of sites

  Non-automatic monitoring:

  Nitrogen dioxide diffusion tubes

  1309

  Black smoke/sulphur dioxide

  150

  Rural sulphur dioxide

  40

  Rural nitrogen dioxide diffusion tube

  32

  Lead

  6

  Benzene

  28

  Hazardous air pollutants (PCBs, Dioxins,

  polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons)

  22

  Total

  1709

  No sites monitor all the pollutants in the Air Quality Strategy. However, London Marylebone Road monitors all the pollutants except lead. The number of sites recording air quality exceedences for the pollutants named in the Strategy during 2001 are given in Table 2 below.

  (c) cadmium, (d) arsenic, (e) nickel and (f) mercury will be added to the pollutants monitored under the National Air Quality Strategy for the United Kingdom. [64663]
  55W
  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 27 June 2002]Of these pollutants:

  (a) 1,3 butadiene is already one of the eight pollutants covered by the Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, published in January 2000 ("the Strategy");

  (b) we consulted in September 2001 on the possibility of adding polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) to the list of pollutants covered by the Strategy, and hope to make an announcement on this shortly. Levels of PAH in the UK are currently measured at 21 sites, and we hope to add a further 4 sites to the network as soon as possible;

  (c) we have no immediate plans to add cadmium, arsenic, nickel and mercury to the list of pollutants covered by the Strategy. Our monitoring shows that levels of these pollutants in ambient air in the UK are not generally a cause for concern, and the UK National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI) estimates that emissions of each have fallen significantly in recent years. Between 1990 and 1999, for example. estimated emissions of cadmium, arsenic, nickel and mercury fell by 71 per cent. 69 per cent., 47 per cent., and 65 per cent. respectively.

  We understand that the planned Fourth European Union Air Quality Daughter Directive may include proposals in respect of PAH, cadmium, arsenic, nickel and mercury. We intend to keep under review the need for separate national measures on these pollutants in the light of progress with negotiations on the Directive.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what efforts have been taken to ensure the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants plays a role in supporting the United Kingdom's input into air pollution policy making within the European Union. [64665]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 27 June 2002]The Committee on Medical Effects of Air Pollutants is a Department of Health non-departmental public body. Its advice is published in Reports and Statements, which are publicly available on the Committee's website "http:// www.doh.gov.uk/comeap/index.htm". As necessary we draw attention to that advice in contacts and in negotiations with the Commission and other member states. The advice from the Committee is taken into account in developing a UK position on proposals for new air quality legislation.

  The World Health Organisation (WHO) is currently carrying out reviews on the health impacts of particulate matter and ozone, which will feed into air pollution policy in the European Union. Department of Health officials ensure that WHO is aware of the work of the Committee.

  Environmental Performance (FTSE Companies)
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will place a list of FTSE 350 companies and their reporting on their environmental performance in the Library; and if she will make a statement. [64788]

  Mr. Meacher
  In April we wrote to companies in the FTSE350 asking them what they had done to respond to the Prime Minister's challenge to report on their environmental performance. We are currently awaiting a few late replies and will shortly be able to provide a final update to the list placed in the Library of the House in response to the hon. Gentleman's question of 21 March, showing FTSE 350 companies with details of their reporting.

  Environmental Information
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what steps her Department(a) has taken and (b) plans to take in relation to the development of labelling of environmental information for consumers; and if she will make a statement; [64791]

  (2) what steps (a) have been taken and (b) are planned by her Department to provide environmental information for consumers; and if she will make a statement. [64790]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government are keen to ensure that consumers have clear and relevant information about the environmental effects of consumer products. It has appointed the Advisory Committee on Consumer Products and the Environment (ACCPE) to look at opportunities for developing better quality environmental information, as part of the Committee's remit to advise on ways of reducing the impacts of consumer products on the environment.

  The Government are considering a number of ACCPE's recommendations for improving product information. These include proposals for improving the quality of self-declared environmental claims, which are being explored further by the Department taking into account stakeholders' views. The Government are also considering ACCPE's proposals for developing a common label for homes, cars and domestic appliances, based on the format of the EU Energy label. In the case of homes, we are looking to develop a methodology for assessing the energy efficiency of existing homes more cost effectively, and this will include a look at the possibilities for comparative energy rating. A comparative label for cars is being considered by DfT in the light of the response to their recent consultation paper on this topic.

  ACCPE has also proposed setting up a new Internet information service which could provide advice and guidance on the environmental impacts of products and the scope for making more sustainable consumption choices. It recommended that the Government should first commission a feasibility study into such a project, and this has been done. Having considered the results of this study, ACCPE have made further recommendations in their second report, "Action for Greener Products: A toolbox for change", published in May, about the practicalities of piloting a new service. The Government are currently considering how a pilot can be taken forward. Copies of ACCPE's second report have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  The Department already publishes and promotes the Green Claims Code which gives best practice advice to business and the consumer on environmental information and labelling.

  We have also published, distributed and continue to promote a number of information leaflets to help business and consumers in this area. These include "Hi I'm Green" which is a guide to the most commonly occurring environmental claims and labels on products and explains how to ask for further information; "Energy labels for refrigeration and washing appliances—helping you make the right choice", which outlines the EU energy label scheme; and "Pick the flower—the ecolabel" which explains the EU ecolabelling scheme. Copies of all these leaflets have been placed in the Libraries of the House.
  57W
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what(a) guidance and (b) legislation is (i) in place and (ii) planned with regards to labelling of environmental information for consumers; and if she will make a statement. [64789]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department's Green Claims Code provides guidance on good practice in the making of environmental claims. It is intended as an introduction to the more detailed guidance in the International Standard IS014021. The Department has no plans at present to revise the Code.

  There is no specific piece of legislation regarding environmental information for consumers, but trading standards officers have powers under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 to deal with claims that are demonstrably false. The Director General of Fair Trading can also take action against misleading environmental claims under the Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988. The Government are committed to ensuring that the regulatory framework for tackling misleading green claims is effective and will keep the need for any new legislation under review.

  In respect of individual environmental labelling schemes, the European Community Energy Label must be displayed on all new domestic refrigerators, freezers and fridge-freezer combinations, washing machines, electric tumble dryers, combined washer-dryers, dishwashers and lamps displayed for sale, hire or hire-purchase. The UK and other member states have until 1 January 2003 to transpose Directives 2002/31/EC and 2002/40/EC which will extend this requirement to household air conditioners and electric ovens. Details of relevant legislation can be found at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/mtp/ index.htm#S3

  A separate scheme, the European ecolabel award, is designed to encourage manufacturers to reduce the environmental impacts of a growing range of products, and to encourage consumers to choose products with the label. The scheme was set up in 1992 by EU Regulation 880–92, which was revised in 2000 by Regulation 1980–2000. As Regulations, these took effect automatically in UK law without further legislation.

  Participation by manufacturers is voluntary, but under the Regulations member states are required to promote the scheme and to designate competent bodies to run it. In the UK the scheme is administered by the Secretary of State. DEFRA has a website giving guidance about the scheme http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/ecolabel/index.htm, and has produced explanatory and promotional leaflets about it for business and consumers.

  Food Contamination
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether her Department is producing a strategy to reduce emissions of dioxins and dioxin contamination of food. [63904]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 26 June 2002]With the devolved Administrations, other Government Departments and Agencies my Department will shortly be producing a UK consultation paper on dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs. This will draw on the wealth of recent information coming from scientific research, both in the 58W
  UK and internationally, to improve our understanding of their formation, emissions, environmental transport and effects.

  This consultation paper will provide an opportunity for all stakeholders to consider and comment on what further actions will be required, as part of an UK action plan, to continue the trend of reducing environmental and human exposure to these compounds.

  Flood Risk
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of information compiled by the insurance industry on flood risk, based upon Environment Agency maps. [64933]

  Mr. Morley
  Ministers, and officials in DEFRA and the Environment Agency are in active discussions with the insurance industry in developing a shared understanding of genuine flood risk. In order to achieve this, DEFRA and the EA are working together to build upon the information provided by the current flood plain maps to include information on present and future flood defences. Once more informative data on risk have been developed it will be shared with the industry so that they may use it when making commercial decisions based on risk assessments. The Department continues to pursue its aim to reduce flood risk including through significant investments in flood alleviation measures.

  Sheep Dip
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when in 1991 the Health and Safety Executive met representatives from the VMD and the National Office for Animal Health to discuss sheep dip surveys; and if she will place the minutes of the meetings in the Library. [63700]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 25 June 2002]A meeting took place on 25 February 1991 between VMD, HSE and the National Office for Animal Health (NOAH) to discuss the HSE safety survey on sheep dips and Controls of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) in general. Despite extensive searches of records by all three parties in response to earlier inquiries, no minutes from that meeting can be traced.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) when in 1993 non-OP ingredients in sheep dip were removed from the market; and when the licence for such products was withdrawn by the VMD; [63698]

  (2) when in 1991 sheep dip manufacturers were asked by executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies under the remit of her Department to change the formulations for sheep dip; and on what date the changes were effected. [63701]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 25 June 2002]Almost all veterinary medicinal products contain ingredients in addition to their main active ingredient. Minor changes to these ingredients in individual veterinary medicinal products are not unusual.

  In 1993 a number of OP sheep dip product manufacturers removed phenols from their formulations. A full report of the regulatory action that led to this action

  59W
  is available on the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD)'s website. Copies of this report have also been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The manufacture of UK authorised OP sheep dip products containing phenols ceased on 31 March 1993.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she has taken to secure publication of the 1992 study into sheep dip products carried out by the Central Veterinary Laboratory for the VMD. [63699]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 25 June 20021: We are not aware of any such Central Veterinary Laboratory study into sheep dip products for the VMD.

  Fisheries
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment her departmental scientists have made, or been advised of, of the(a) stock levels, (b) fishing mortality levels and (c) estimated biological limits for each of the commercial species known to be caught by UK fishermen in the deep water at or beyond the continental shelf. [62625]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]Scientists from the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science join with international colleagues in the Advisory Committee on Fisheries Management (ACFM) of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), in agreeing and publishing annual scientific advice on the management of commercially exploited fish stocks. The latest advice from the ACFM on deep water species is contained in the committee's report published following its meeting in May 2002. Broadly, the advice on most such species is that the balance of available evidence suggests that they should be subjected only to substantially reduced—or in some cases to very low-rates of exploitation.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what advice she has received from the European Commission on the extent of competence which it may be possible to convey under the existing regulatory framework to proposed regional advisory councils as set out under its reformed Common Fisheries Policy. [62598]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]The commission's proposals for the establishment of regional advisory councils envisage that they would have the following functions:

  (a) to submit suggestions, of their own accord or at the request of the commission or a member state, on matters relating to fisheries management to the commission of the member states concerned;

  (b) to give opinions on commission or member state proposals for fisheries management;

  (c) to comment on and recommend improvements in the application of Community legislation.

  The precise role to be given to regional advisory councils will be one of the important matters to be addressed in the forthcoming negotiations in the Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will impose bag limits on the landing of fish by recreational anglers. [64383]
  60W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 27 June 2002]Limits on the amount of crabs and lobsters that hobby fishermen can take from the sea are being considered as part of the proposed shellfish licensing scheme. The Department is looking at the possibility of bag limits for other species and I would hope to be able to reach firm conclusions this autumn. Any proposals to introduce bag limits will be the subject of consultation with both commercial and recreational interests.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the outcome of the Fisheries Council held on 11 June was; what the Government's stance on the issues discussed, including its voting record was; and if she will make a statement. [62931]

  Mr. Morley
  I represented the United Kingdom at a meeting of the EU Council of Fisheries Ministers in Luxembourg on 11 June, together with Ross Finnie, Minister for Environment and Rural Development in the Scottish Executive and Mrs. Brid Rodgers, the Northern Ireland Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development.

  The commissioner gave an introductory presentation on his proposals for the future of the Common Fisheries Policy, as published on 29 May. Negotiations on this are scheduled to take place during the remainder of 2002, with the aim of reaching conclusions by the year-end. Ministers took the opportunity to state their initial reactions. For the United Kingdom I said that, though of course we would have concerns to pursue on some issues, we could support the broad thrust of the proposals, aimed as they are at addressing the risk of stock collapse and creating a sustainable future for the fishing industry: I said the commission was right in particular to have proposed an end to subsidies for building new vessels, continued adherence to relative stability as the method of allocating fishing opportunities among member states, and the setting up of regional advisory councils to improve stakeholders' involvement in decisions on the management of fisheries. I also emphasised the need to examine the socio-economic impact of the commission proposals and to be ready in the short-term to help the communities that depend on fishing to respond to what will inevitably be difficult circumstances.

  Some member states expressed similar broad support, while others indicated significant dissent, especially in relation to the reduction of fishing effort, the ending of construction grants and what they alleged was the failure of the commission's proposals to take account of the diversity of fishing operations across the EU.

  There was a useful policy debate on the commission proposal for long-term recovery plans for threatened cod and hake stocks. Aspects covered included the methodology for setting recovery targets for these stocks, the need to limit fishing effort and the ways in which this might be done, additional funding for scrapping vessels, monitoring and inspection and the introduction of emergency measures to safeguard stocks. Various views were expressed: for the UK, I gave a qualified welcome to the commission's proposal, emphasising the need for engaging with the industry in a full debate on effort control and the importance of ensuring the permanent scrapping of excess fleet capacity rather than funding the temporary tie-up of vessels. The presidency referred the dossier back to working level for development.
  61W
  On the protection of deep water species, the Council considered a joint presidency/commission compromise and by qualified majority reached political agreement on total allowable catches (TACs) and quotas for certain stocks of black scabbardfish, blue ling, greater silver smelt, ling, orange roughy, red seabream, roundnose grenadier and tusk. It also agreed, again by qualified majority, a general approach on a measure introducing a permit requirement limiting fishing capacity in relation to certain deep sea species.

  I declared the United Kingdom's opposition to this pair of measures. The permit system and associated provisions for data gathering are welcome in that they may eventually facilitate the introduction of the effort limitation that is truly needed to give these fragile stocks the protection that they need. But we could not support the package as a whole because of the lack of urgency in bringing about effort limitation and because of the unsatisfactory measures to protect these species in the interim. We do not consider that these measures go anything like far enough to protect these fragile species, given the bleakness of the scientists' advice. Setting TACs and quotas, especially when some species are omitted and not all areas are covered, is not in our view an adequate response. I also thought the levels of TAC too high and not based on sound science.

  The Council also adopted, unanimously, conclusions reiterating its commitment to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing—a very welcome conclusion in view of the threat posed to sustainable management of global fish stocks by the activities of flag of convenience vessels.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with(a) the European Commission and (b) other EU fishing nations in respect of the maintenance of the relative stability parameters throughout the period of the reformed common fisheries policy commencing in January 2003. [62623]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]I have welcomed the Commission's proposal to continue to allocate Total Allowable Catches among member states on the basis of relative stability. This mechanism has widespread support, provides a degree of predictability for fishermen and is a fair way to allocate resources. The Commission's proposal on this is one element of a comprehensive package of Commission proposals on the future of the common fisheries policy: I expect extensive discussions with the Commission and other EU member states on the totality of this package to take place during coming months.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the implications of the proposed European road map for the reform of the common fisheries policy in respect of(a) in-shore fishermen, (b) the future management of shellfish, (c) the management of multi-annual quotas, (d) the future market for the trade in quotas, (e) the confidence in retaining relative stability, (f) the opportunities to give fishing industry stakeholders executive power to make policy and management decisions and (g) the prospects for the future of the United Kingdom fishing industry. [62597]
  62W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]The Commission published its first set of proposals for reform of the Common Fisheries Policy on 28 May 2002. Our preliminary assessment is that the aims of the proposals are broadly in line with the UK view developed in the light of our consultation with stakeholders last year about the Commission's Green Paper on the subject. We shall in coming weeks be assessing, again in consultation with all interested parties in the UK, all the possible implications of the Commission's proposals.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the European Commission's proposals for fleet reductions set out on page 49 of draft Council Regulation 2002/0114. [61609]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 19 June 2002]The Commission have made clear that they do not seek to impose cuts in fleet capacity on member states. Their figures which detail fleet cuts by member states are to be taken as purely illustrative. The scale of decommissioning in any individual member state will depend on the decisions taken by the Council on measures to reduce fishing effort and on the decisions by fishermen in the light of the impact of these measures.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she intends to take on the discarding of fish caught in the EU. [64506]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department and representatives of the UK fishing industry contributed to a workshop convened by the European Commission in May on options to reduce discarding. The Commission intends to publish an action plan this year to tackle discarding as part of its proposals for reform of the common fisheries policy. We will study carefully the Commission's proposals when they are published.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the impact the seal population has on sustainable fish stocks around the UK. [64543]

  Mr. Morley
  Based on 1985 diet data it is estimated that in 1998 240,000 tonnes of fish were consumed by grey seals and 75,000 tonnes by common seals. The predominant prey species of seals were sand eels, cod and whiting and most of the fish taken by seals are likely to have been juveniles. Given the high rates of natural mortality for these species, there is no guarantee that had they not been caught by seals, they would have survived to reach a size at which they would have been available to either commercial fishermen or anglers. We are currently funding the Sea Mammal Research Unit to undertake an update of this work.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the(a) gross tonnage and (b) kilowatts of engine power permanently withdrawn from (i) the beam trawling sector and (ii) the pelagic sector under MAGP IV; and what assessment she has made of the possibility of the UK meeting the required targets set under this programme by the end of the period. [61267]

  Mr. Morley
  The MAGP IV programme covers the period 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2002. The latest information available covers the situation up to
  63W
  31 December 2001. During this period, a decommissioning scheme was operated in the UK in 1997 to permanently withdraw capacity and engine power from the UK fleet using public aid. This resulted in reductions in gross tonnage and engine power of 1,000 tonnes and 4,443 kilowatts for the beam trawl segment of the fleet, and nine tonnes and 97 kilowatts for the pelagic segment. Further reductions in the beam trawling segment are expected in 2002 as a result of the decommissioning schemes this year.

  In addition, there have also been reductions in capacity resulting from capacity penalties on licence transfers and aggregations, and action to correct discrepancies in engine power. These reductions are permanent and are included within the assessments made of the overall gross tonnage and engine power of the UK fleet. However, separate data on such reductions are not routinely produced, and could not be made available without use of a disproportionate level of resources.

  The MAGP IV programme uses a combination of targets for the total gross tonnage and engine power of different segments of the fishing fleet to be achieved by the end of the programme on 31 December 2002, along with an alternative of effort control objectives for each year that can be used for certain segments of the fleet. Both need to be borne in mind when considering whether or not the UK has met its objectives under MAGP IV. As such, using the fleet situation as at 31 December 2001, the UK was outside the targets for gross tonnage and engine power for the pelagic segment, but within the targets for the beam trawl segment. However, the UK was within the effort control objectives for both of these segments.

  GM Crops
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will set out the sequence for regulation of the approval process for GM crops in the UK. [635921

  Mr. Meacher
  Before a GMO, including a GM crop, can be released in the UK or the EU it must be assessed for safety to human health and the environment and be approved under either Part B or Part C of Directive 90/220/EEC on the Deliberate Release into the Environment of Genetically Modified Organisms.

  Directive 90–220 has been updated and is being replaced by the new Directive 2001/18/EC, which must be implemented by member states by October 2002. My Department is currently consulting the public on draft implementing regulations for England. Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Parliamentary libraries and are available on the DEFRA website www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/index). The Scottish Executive, the National Assembly for Wales and the Department of Environment for Northern Ireland will make separate implementing regulations on issues for which they have devolved powers.

  Decision making on proposed non-commercial releases of GMOs under Part B of the directive (e.g. research trials) occurs at the member state level. In England, a person wishing to undertake such a release must apply to DEFRA for a Part B consent, whereupon DEFRA seeks independent expert advice from the Advisory Committee on Releases into the Environment (ACRE) before a
  64W
  decision is taken on whether to grant or refuse a consent. Where appropriate the advice of other experts, for instance the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, will also be sought. Directive 2001–18 clarifies and extends risk assessments to ensure that "direct, indirect, immediate and delayed" effects on human health and the environment are covered. It also introduces a new requirement for mandatory public consultation before decisions on Part B applications are taken. We propose that such consultation should last for a minimum of 48 days.

  Decision-making on proposed commercial releases of GMOs under Part C of the directive occurs at the EU level. A person wishing to market a GMO in the EU must apply for a Part C consent to a competent authority of one of the member states, and the competent authority must prepare a report recommending a course of action. If the report recommends that a consent is refused, the application is rejected. If the report recommends that a consent is granted it must be forwarded to the European Commission and other member states, which discuss the application and can ask for further information, make comments on, or present reasoned objections to, the proposed release. Under the new directive, the Commission must also consult the public (for two separate periods of 30 days) while the application is being considered, and responses are copied to all member states. The Commission and member states then make a collective decision on the application, and a Part C consent is either granted or refused.

  Directive 2001–18 also introduces "post-market monitoring", under which any GMO which is granted a Part C consent must be monitored for unanticipated effects on the environment. The new directive (like its predecessor) ensures that if new information comes to light regarding the risks posed by the GMO to human health or the environment, the consent can be altered or revoked as appropriate.

  GM crops are also subject to other legislation. Varieties of the main agricultural and vegetable species, whether GM or non-GM, cannot be marketed commercially until they have been added to the UK national list of plant varieties or to the EU Common Catalogue (a compendium of member states' national lists). Addition to the national list is dependent on satisfactory completion of a minimum of two years of listing trials, to establish that the variety is distinct, uniform and stable and, for agricultural species, has a value for cultivation and use in the UK. A GM crop cannot be formally proposed for addition to the national list until it has Part C marketing approval under the deliberate release directive (and Novel Foods authorisation where appropriate).

  In addition to clearance of the crop itself, any foods obtained from a GM crop would have to be approved under the EU Novel Foods Regulation EC/258/97. The Food Standards Agency is the UK competent authority for this legislation. Furthermore, if the GM crop is a herbicide tolerant variety, the associated herbicide use would have to be approved under pesticides legislation.

  Agricultural Shows
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the criteria are for the cost-effectiveness of her Department's stands at agricultural shows. [61813]

  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA assesses which events it will attend on the basis of target audience and the messages it is trying to communicate. Also taken into account are the numbers and geographical spread of the people who attend the shows.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many visitors to the South of England Agricultural Show visited her Department's stand. [61812]

  Mr. Morley
  No head count of visitors to DEFRA stands at agricultural shows, including the South of England, have been made. The stands have been designed to represent a forward looking approach and to enable effective and accessible explanation of:the wider interests and responsibilities of the Department, and

  policies, issues and activities judged to be relevant to the potential audiences and geographical locations of the shows.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much money the Department has paid contractors for foot and mouth related work; and how much further money is owed. [58063]

  Mr. Morley
  By 24 May 2002 DEFRA and the Rural Payments Agency had spent over £1,100 million on goods and services to eradicate the disease.

  Quantity surveyors, forensic accountants and claims surveyors are currently verifying and substantiating contractor accounts.

  Wide ranging issues have arisen on the accounts. These include legal issues such as matters of contractual interpretation, forensic accountancy issues and evidential issues involving the assessment of both a large amount of documentation and proofing of witnesses. Some of these disputes will inevitably result in court proceedings, although DEFRA remains committed to resolving matters by mediation where appropriate.

  In these circumstances it is not possible at present for reasons of legal and commercial confidentiality to disclose how much, if any, further money is owed.

  Scrapie
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the contribution that she expects the Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies Regulations 2002 (S.I., 2002, No. 843) to make to the delivery of the National Scrapie Plan. [61550]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]The National Scrapie Plan is a long term programme aimed at breeding resistance to TSEs into the national sheep flock. Currently it runs on a voluntary basis. It is in no way affected by, or reliant upon, the powers available under the TSE (England) Regulations 2002, which make 66W
  provision for the enforcement and administration of EU legislation on TSEs and consolidate previously existing domestic legislation.

  Fallen Stock
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment she has made of the impact on the competitiveness of British farmers of the existence within the EU of different levels of state aid for eliminating(a) fallen stock and (b) slaughterhouse waste; [61498]

  (2) what her policy is towards state aid for the elimination of fallen stock; [61501]

  (3) what plans she has to change her policies in response to the European Commission's working paper, Animal Waste and Fallen Stock—State Aid Policy Issues; [61497]

  (4) what her policy is on the possible harmonisation or approximation of state aid for eliminating fallen stock within the EU; [61499]

  (5) if she will make a statement on the outcome of the meeting held on 27 May between the European Commission and national Government experts on the disposal of animal wastes and fallen stock. [615911

  Mr. Morley
  [Holding answer 13 June 2002]DEFRA officials attended a working group with EU counterparts and the Commission where the working paper "Animal Waste and Fallen Stock—State Aid Policy Issues" was discussed, with a view to ensuring consistency in the application of state aid rules relating to animal waste and fallen stock in all Member States. We support the harmonisation of government support given to industry for the disposal of animal wastes and fallen stock. The UK position is that the costs of the collection and disposal of livestock fallen on farm are the responsibility of the farming industry: an application of the so-called "polluter pays" principle.

  Grass
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what area is planted to short rotation coppice and miscanthus grass in the UK; and if she will make a statement. [64126]

  Margaret Beckett
  1,800 hectares of energy crops have been planted in the UK. This is primarily short rotation coppice but includes about 50 hectares of miscanthus. This Department has allocated support of £29 million to solid biomass crops through the Energy Crops Scheme, part of the England Rural Development Programme. Working with other Departments we have put in place schemes with funding of £70 million which will develop markets for biomass, including purpose grown energy crops and material from forests, in heat, combined heat and power and electricity generation. We are also working closely with the Countryside Agency which has launched the Community Renewables Initiative to help local communities develop renewable energy projects. The Renewables Obligation permits the co-firing of energy crops with fossil fuels. The Government have also welcomed the publication of the Energy Review by the Performance and Innovation Unit, which draws attention to the key role of renewable energy sources,
  67W
  including energy crops, in moving to a low carbon economy. Consultation on the key recommendations of the report will lead to a White Paper in the autumn.

  Biomass Crops
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what public money has been spent in research and promotion in each of the past five years concerning(a) biomass energy crops and (b) biofuels for road transport; and if she will make a statement. [64119]

  Margaret Beckett
  This Department co-ordinates government research into biomass energy crops and total public expenditure amounts to approximately £2.75 million per annum and has been stable at this level over the last five years. The production technology for transport biofuels from UK grown crops is mature and this results in a low research spend. Expenditure by this Department in the current financial year amounts to £20,000 on work in support of policy development. Expenditure in the previous four years was nil, although the Department does have a large portfolio of research, costing about £6 million per annum, supporting the primary production of crops such as oilseed rape, wheat and potatoes which have the potential to be used for transport fuel production. It is not possible to separately identify the cost of promotion in respect of biomass energy crops and biofuels. The Department has included generic promotion of non-food crops in its work at agricultural shows. We have also organised and attended a small number of promotional meetings and seminars linked to the development of markets for solid biomass crops. The promotion of biomass crops also takes place through our work in support of the England Rural Development Programme, the Energy Crops Scheme forming one element of that programme.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will estimate the amount of carbon saved from 1 million tonnes of biodiesel and bioethanol substituted for the equivalent amount of fossil diesel and petrol; and if she will make a statement. [64128]

  Margaret Beckett
  The replacement of one million tonnes of fossil diesel with biodiesel from oilseed rape would save between 500,000 and 700,000 tonnes of carbon. Research into the production of bioethanol from starch or sugar crops generally indicates that slightly less carbon is saved through replacing petrol with bioethanol when compared with replacing fossil diesel with biodiesel. In the Budget my right hon. Friend the Chancellor confirmed the new duty rate for biodiesel set at 20 pence per litre below the rate for Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel. The Government have also launched a second round of the Green Fuel Challenge inviting bids for pilot projects for biofuels, including bioethanol, which would qualify for duty reductions. The Forum on the Non-Food Uses of Crops is studying the potential of biodiesel and bioethanol. The Government are considering carefully the recommendation of the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food that duty on biofuels should be reduced to the rates applied to other clean fuels.
  68W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will estimate the amount of carbon saved in each of the last five years by the use of biomass crops grown in the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement. [64127]

  Margaret Beckett
  One hectare of biomass crops yielding the equivalent of eight tonnes per annum has the potential to save about two tonnes of carbon each year. Achieving these carbon savings depends on functioning end markets for the utilisation of biomass crops. Most plantings of purpose grown energy crops have, to date, been to provide fuel for the Arbre biomass power station near Selby which expects to begin full operation later this year. In April the Government launched the Bioenergy Capital Grant Scheme which will develop markets for biomass, including purpose grown energy crops and material from forests, in heat, combined heat and power and electricity generation. Further funding will be available from a Community and Household Capital Grant Scheme which will be launched later this year. Officials are also working closely with the Local Support Teams set up by the Countryside Agency, through the Community Renewables Initiative, to develop markets for renewables.

  Agricultural Shows
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the purpose was of the presence of the DEFRA stand at this year's agricultural shows; at which shows it appeared; and how she will assess its effectiveness. [63194]

  Mr. Morley
  The following list shows the venues at which a DEFRA information/exhibition stand has been or will be present.

  The purpose of providing such a stand at these events is to provide information on the interests, responsibilities and activities of the Department. Other issues are covered depending on the location, theme and potential audience.

  The cost-effectiveness of these events is kept under review by assessment of the numbers of visitors to the stand, the number of inquiries and/or requests dealt with and feedback from the show organisers.

  DEFRA information and exhibition stands

  Attendance at agricultural shows: year 2002-03

  Devon County Show

  Royal Bath and West Show

  Northumberland County Show

  Royal Cornwall Show

  South of England Show

  Three Counties Show

  East of England Show

  Lincolnshire Show

  Royal Norfolk Show

  Great Yorkshire Show

  CLA Game Fair

  Royal Lancashire Show

  New Forest and Hampshire Show

  69W

  Pig and Poultry Fair

  Grassland 2002

  Beef 2002

  Cereals 2002

  Spray and Sprayers

  Sheep Event

  European Dairy Event

  Royal Smithfield Show

  BBC Gardener's World

  Hampton Court Flower Show

  Tatton Park Flower Show

  Fruit Focus.

  Salmon
  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the tonnage of farmed salmon in England was in each year since 1990; and what the average size of the fish produced was in each year. [63361]

  Mr. Morley
  Statistics for 1990 and 1991 are not currently available.

  Farmed Atlantic salmon production in England between 1992 and 2001 primarily involves the production of juvenile fish for on-growing in Scottish marine fish farms and for re-stocking rivers. The juvenile fish concerned are fry, parr and smolts which, depending on their stage of growth have an average weight of between 1 gram and 30 grams. Details are as follows:

  Juvenile Atlantic salmon production in England—1992 to 2001

  Juvenile fish

  Number (millions)

  Estimated tonnes

  1992

  7.2

  37

  1993

  5.7

  35

  1994

  3.6

  41

  1995

  6.8

  44

  1996

  6.0

  26

  1997

  8.6

  39

  1998

  8.6

  59

  1999

  14.4

  98

  2000

  6.8

  54

  2001

  7.6

  36

  There has also been farming of some six tonnes of adult fish (estimated average weight of three kilos) in the period mainly for broodstock and research purpose.

  EU Management Committees
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the EU Committee on the implementation of the Directive establishing a Community policy regarding water is next due to meet; whether experts nominated by the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members; and if she will make a statement. [63928]

  Mr. Meacher
  Article 20 of Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy provides that the regulatory committee established by Article 21(1) will assist the Commission in making any necessary technical adaptations to Annexes I, III and section 1.3.6 of Annex V to the directive, and in setting technical specifications and standardised methods for analysis and 70W
  monitoring of water status. It may also assist the Commission in adopting guidelines on the implementation of Annexes II and V and in setting technical formats for transmission of statistical and cartographic data to the Commission.

  The committee has not yet met, and no meeting has been arranged. However, the committee is due to meet at the latest by 22 December 2002. UK representation is likely to vary according to the agenda for each meeting and may include members of the Scottish Executive and other devolved Administrations where there are items of sufficient interest.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the EU Management Committees of the common organisations of agricultural markets for dehydrated fodder is next due to meet; what the UK representation is on it; whether experts nominated by the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members; and if she will make a statement. [63963]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), on 10 June 2002, Official Report, column 917W.

  There is no set schedule of meetings for the Management Committee for Dehydrated Fodder. UK representation on this management committee depends on the agenda items under discussion. Officials from the Scottish Executive and other devolved Administrations attend as necessary in accordance with their interests. However, no representative of the Scottish Executive has attended the Management Committee for Dehydrated Fodder.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the EU Management Committees of the common organisations of agricultural markets for fresh fruit and vegetables are next due to meet; whether experts nominated by the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members; and if she will make a statement. [63965]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), on 10 June 2002, Official Report, column 912W.

  The next meeting of the Fresh Fruit and Vegetables Management Committee is scheduled for 16 July 2002. UK representation on this committee depends on the agenda items under discussion. No representative of the Scottish Executive has attended.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether experts nominated by the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of the EU Management Committees of the common organisations of agricultural markets for cereals; and if she will make a statement. [63964]

  Mr. Morley
  UK representation on the EU's Cereals Management Committee depends on the agenda items under discussion. Officials from the Scottish Executive and other devolved Administrations attend as necessary in accordance with their interests.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether experts nominated by the Scottish Executive have been members
  71W
  of the EU Committee for the adaptation to scientific and technical progress of the directive on methods of measurement and frequencies of sampling and analysis of surface water intended for the abstraction of drinking water in the member states; and if she will make a statement. [63947]

  Mr. Meacher
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 23 May 2002,Official Report, column 496W. No date has been set for the Committee to meet. UK representation would vary according to the agenda for each meeting and may include members of the Scottish Executive and other devolved administrations where there are items of sufficient interest.

  Recycling
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will make a statement about the availability of plastic recycling facilities(a) in England and (b) in Gloucestershire; [62067]

  (2) what steps she is taking to increase plastic recycling facilities; and if she will make a statement. [62068]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department does not keep a central record of recycling facilities. However, I understand that two local authorities in Gloucestershire collect plastic for recycling—Gloucester City Council and Stroud District Council. In addition, Stroud District Community Recycling group operates a kerbside collection of materials including plastic.

  We have set statutory performance standards for recycling or composting household waste for each local authority in England. Authorities are required, on average, to double recycling by 2003–04 and triple it by 2005–06. Future targets for local authorities will be even more demanding and many authorities will need to begin collecting plastic for recycling in order to meet these targets. It is up to local authorities to decide how best to meet their recycling standards, depending on local circumstances such as housing type. However, the Government is taking various steps which should help boost plastic recycling and create more facilities.

  Last year the Government set up the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP), with £40 million of Government and Devolved Administration funding, to tackle the market barriers to increased recycling. WRAP has identified plastics as a priority area in its business plan to 2003–04 and they intend to award a grant to address the lack of plastics reprocessing infrastructure, which should result in an additional 20,000 tonnes per annum of post—consumer plastic bottles being diverted from the waste stream. New plastic reprocessing facilities will create more demand for local authorities to collect recyclable plastic.

  I recently announced the arrangements for the distribution of the £140 million fund to assist local authorities in meeting their recycling targets. We expect this fund to go towards developing new and existing recycling schemes and in some cases money from the fund may well be used to extend collection schemes to include plastics. We have specifically earmarked a proportion of this funding for tackling more difficult waste streams such as plastic.

  Waste Paper Exporters
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much was granted to waste paper exporters under the PERN system in each of the last two years. [63775]

  Mr. Meacher
  In 2001, PERN revenue to accredited exporters for paper packaging waste was £3.3 million. This compares with PRN revenue to accredited reprocessors for paper packaging waste of £32 million.

  In 2000, PERN revenue to accredited exporters for paper packaging waste was £476,294. This compares with PRN revenue for accredited reprocessors of £15.5 million.

  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the reasons underlying the Government's use of the packaging export recovery note. [63780]

  Mr. Meacher
  Packaging waste recovery notes (PRNs) and packaging waste export recovery notes (PERNs) are the main method for businesses obligated under the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 (as amended) to demonstrate compliance with their recovery and recycling obligations. These regulations implement the recovery and recycling targets in the EC Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste 94/62/EC which has both environmental and single market objectives.

  Under this directive, businesses with recovery and recycling obligations may carry out that recovery/ recycling either in the UK or elsewhere, subject to the usual rules on the export of waste. In the same way, other countries may have their waste recycled by UK reprocessors.

  The PERN system provides a method for obligated businesses to demonstrate compliance with their obligations when they have recycling carried out overseas. In terms of operation, the PERN system is the same as the PRN system in that those issuing the PERN or PRN are scrutinised by the agency before they can be accredited, the system deters fraud, and allows resources to be directed at investment in the infrastructural development needed to meet targets.

  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average value was of a packaging export recovery note in each of the last two years. [63777]

  Mr. Meacher
  In 2001, the average value of a packaging waste export recovery note (PERN) was, for the different packaging materials, as follows:

  £

  Material

  Value

  Aluminium

  28

  Steel

  22

  Paper

  18

  Glass

  13

  Plastic

  24

  Overall average per tonne was £20.
  73W
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the volume of waste paper exports was in each of the last two years under the PERN system. [63778]

  Mr. Meacher
  In 2001, 179,439 tonnes of paper packaging waste was exported. In 2000, 59,608 tonnes of paper packaging waste was exported.

  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received on shortfalls in waste paper and other raw materials necessary for domestic paper mills; and what steps the Government have taken to address them. [63779]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Confederation of Paper Industries have written to explain that they are experiencing difficulties in attracting sufficient quantities of paper/fibreboard packaging waste to UK mills. We are presently discussing this matter with other relevant Government Departments and will be discussing the way forward with the paper industry, with whom we are in regular touch.

  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many packaging export recovery notes were granted in each of the last two years. [63776]

  Mr. Meacher
  In 2001, packaging waste export recovery notes (PERNs) were issued against 425,165 tonnes of packaging waste. In 2000, PERNs were issued against 315,841 tonnes of packaging waste.

  Greenhouse Gases
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how large a reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions will be achieved by the current adherents to the Bonn Agreement. [63520]

  Mr. Meacher
  The emissions limitation or reduction commitments of developed countries listed in Annexe B to the Kyoto Protocol, excluding the United States and Australia who have said they will not ratify, are equivalent to a reduction in emissions of some 4.7 per cent. below 1990 levels from these countries during the first commitment period, 2008 to 2012. This represents about 1.5 per cent. of global emissions in 1990.

  Flora and Fauna
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs how many plant and animal species have become extinct in the United Kingdom in the last 25 years. [63517]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Joint Nature Conservation Committee have advised that over the past 25 years 13 plant and animal species in total have become extinct. However, some species such as the large blue butterfly has been reintroduced successfully.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) plant and (b) animal species are threatened with extinction in the United Kingdom. [63518]
  74W
  Mr. Meacher
  My scientific advisers on wildlife issues, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, have advised that there are about 489 plant species (including a significant proportion of rare lower plants) and 1,801 animal species (the majority of which are invertebrates) which are classified as endangered and threatened with the possibility of becoming extinct. The Department's second annual report, reviewing progress towards sustainable development in 2001 states that in 1997 16 per cent. of all invertebrates, 21 per cent. lower plant species and 1 1 per cent. of all vascular plants in the UK are considered nationally scarce.

  Kyoto Protocol
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate her Department has made of the economic cost to the United Kingdom of global warming if the Kyoto Agreement is not fully implemented by all signatory countries. [63509]

  Mr. Meacher
  The costs to Annex 1 parties, including the UK, of meeting their emissions reduction and limitation commitments under the Kyoto protocol have been estimated as a reduction of less than 0.7 per cent. of GDP in 2010 according to assessments assessed by the Inter-Government Panel on Climate Change. If countries do not fully implement their commitments, this will have an adverse effect on the scale of the global effort to tackle climate change which could result in greater adverse impacts. Given uncertainties, these are not possible to quantify.

  Biodiversity
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department is taking to protect biodiversity in the United Kingdom. [63514]

  Mr. Meacher
  The UK biodiversity action plan and subsequent individual action plans for 45 habitat and 391 species set out the measures to be taken to conserve biodiversity in the United Kingdom. The UK biodiversity group report "Sustaining the Variety of Life–5 Years of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan", published in March 2001 detailed progress on the plan and made recommendations for its further implementation. The Government expect to respond to the group's report and recommendations shortly.

  Within the UK framework, responsibility for implementing the UK action plan now lies with the Scottish Executive, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly. In the Rural White Paper "Our Countryside: the Future—A Fair Deal for Rural England" the Government announced it would prepare a biodiversity strategy for England. Work streams have been established covering the major sectoral policy areas impacting on biodiversity in England including, agriculture, forestry, water and wetlands, marine and coastal, urban and development, and business. In addition, there are workstreams for the cross-cutting themes of education and local and regional action. We expect to publish the strategy later this year.

  Sewage
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is on an international ban on disposal of sewage at sea. [63516]

  Mr. Meacher
  The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73–78) has an Annex on Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by Sewage from Ships. The UK ratified this Annex in 1995 and we are working to promote its entry into force.

  The UK, other member states and those countries seeking accession to the European Union are, or will be, obliged to implement the requirements of several directives to protect the water and marine environment from land-based sewage discharges.

  For example, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive requires by 2005 at least secondary treatment for all discharges to coastal waters from sewage treatment works serving more than 10,000 inhabitants. In England and Wales this level of treatment will be provided by the same deadline for coastal discharges from treatment works serving more than 2,000 inhabitants.

  Furthermore the UK ceased sea dumping of sewage sludge (a by-product of treatment processes) in 1998 as required by the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. Such dumping is now banned in the north-east Atlantic under the OSPAR Convention. At the global level, the London Convention Protocol 1996 requires that sewage sludge may only be considered for disposal at sea following a detailed waste prevention audit, consideration of other waste management options and assessment of potential environmental impacts. The UK was one of the first countries to ratify the protocol and has been active in promoting its entry into force as soon as possible.

  Egg Industry
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what regulatory impact assessment regarding costs to the egg industry has been made by her Department in the event of enriched cages being phased out before 2012. [65227]

  Mr. Morley
  A partial regulatory impact assessment on the effect of banning enriched cages from 2012 is being prepared and will form part of the public consultation exercise.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether enriched cages for the egg industry will be allowed to operate until 2012. [65229]

  Mr. Morley
  Yes. The forthcoming public consultation will be on a proposal to ban enriched cages from 2012.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects the research will be completed into bird welfare and bird behavioural aspects of enriched cages. [652281

  Mr. Morley
  Research into systems of production is always ongoing. A specific DEFRA funded project on enriched cages will finish at the end of October 2003.
  76W
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the statement of the Under-Secretary of State,Official Report, Fifth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 12 June 2002, c. 22, on the timescale for the operation of enriched cages if she will make a statement on the phasing out of enriched cages: and when the policy was decided. [65231]

  Mr. Morley
  A public consultation will start shortly on a proposal to ban enriched cages from 2012.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which of the agencies and NDPBs sponsored by her Department have a regional organisation; and if she will list the counties and unitary authorities in each region in(a) 1997 and (b) 2002. [58935]

  Mr. Morley
  The Agencies and NDPBs sponsored by DEFRA with a regional organisation are listed as follows:

  Food from Britain

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  Milk Development Council

  Sea Fish Industry Authority

  Agricultural Wages Board

  Agricultural Wages Committee

  Regional Flood Defence Committees

  Agricultural Land Tribunals

  British Wool Marketing Board

  British Waterways

  Countryside Agency

  English Nature

  National Forest Co.

  Environment Agency.

  A full listing of the counties and unitary authorities and the history of their generation is given at http: www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/countiesnonmetua.asp

  World Food Summit
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in what ways the outcome of the recent World Food Summit in Rome will help combat the shortage of food in Southern Africa. [64802]

  Clare Short
  I have been asked to reply.

  I do not consider that the meeting helped materially to combat food shortages in Southern Africa. UN organisations did, however, convene an action-oriented meeting of Governments, NGOs and donors in Johannesburg the previous week to discuss the crisis in the region.

  Contaminated Land
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will place in the Library the results of the monitoring of arsenic, nickel, cadmium and mercury at industrial sites across the United Kingdom that her Department funded; and when she intends to publish the results. [64664]
  77W
  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 27 June 2002]Copies of the report entitled: "Monitoring of Lead, Arsenic, Cadmium, Nickel and Mercury around Industrial Sites" produced by Casella Stanger on behalf of the Department have been placed in the Library. The report was published on 4 September 2001. This report is also available electronically on the Air Quality Archive in the reports database at http://www.airquality.co.uk

  Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will place in the Library copies of the responses to her consultation on S.I. 2002–843. [61574]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]Responses to the consultation on the TSE (England) Regulations 2002 (S.I. 2002–843) are available from the DEFRA library at Whitehall Place. I will also place them in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

WALES

  Oral Questions
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many oral questions he has transferred to other Departments in each of the last 18 months. [65505]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  None.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many letters have been received by each Minister in his Department since June 1997. [63496]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information is contained in the following table.

  Letters received

  Secretary of State

  Under Secretary of State

  Inter-Departmentals

  July 1999

  21

  7

  360

  August 1999

  206

  68

  327

  September 1999

  174

  58

  559

  October 1999

  173

  57

  636

  November 1999

  138

  46

  981

  December 1999

  115

  38

  602

  January 2000

  75

  26

  870

  February 2000

  106

  35

  720

  March 2000

  102

  34

  925

  April 2000

  70

  24

  592

  May 2000

  84

  28

  587

  June 2000

  72

  24

  625

  July 2000

  65

  22

  620

  August 2000

  64

  22

  506

  September 2000

  49

  17

  389

  October 2000

  39

  13

  540

  November 2000

  52

  17

  759

  December 2000

  13

  5

  469

  January 2001

  2

  405

  February 2001

  29

  4

  454

  March 2001

  34

  10

  703

  April 2001

  16

  10

  368

  May 2001

  17

  4

  326

  June 2001

  11

  183

  July 2001

  19

  2

  546

  August 2001

  28

  1

  346

  September 2001

  25

  1

  306

  October 2001

  30

  5

  581

  78W

  Letters received

  Secretary of State

  Under Secretary of State

  Inter-Departmentals

  November 2001

  33

  2

  620

  December 2001

  13

  6

  439

  January 2002

  35

  2

  340

  February 2002

  38

  1

  505

  March 2002

  30

  5

  498

  April 2002

  21

  10

  517

  May 2002

  31

  11

  538

  Please note that my Department was established on 1 July 1999.

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was spent on press and advertising campaigns in 2001–02; and what the planned expenditure is for 2002–03. [60909]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 15 April 2002,Official Report, column 752W.

  Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the cost was of the Department's 2001 staff Christmas party; and how many people attended. [61657]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  There were two staff parties at Christmas 2001. Both were held outside core hours and neither involved any cost to the public purse.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much and what proportion of the departmental expenditure limit for 2002–03 will be accounted for by staff costs; what the figures were for 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [61034]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Running cost information for years up to 2001–02 is given at Annex 3 of the departmental report (Cm 5431). It is too early to provide a dependable forecast for 2002–03.

PRIME MINISTER

  Hunting
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Prime Minister how many representations he has received in support of hunting with hounds in the last 12 months. [63921]

  The Prime Minister
  I have received 4,770 campaign cards and 1,280 letters this year about the issue of hunting. My office has not broken them down into categories.

  All representations to me on this issue since Thursday 21 March have been passed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Rural Affairs who will consider them as part of the process he announced to the House.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Prime Minister how many special advisers he has had since June 1997; and what plans he has to alter the number of special advisers working for him. [63967]
  79W
  The Prime Minister
  The information requested is as follows:

  June 1997–18

  June 1998–20

  June 1999–23

  June 2000–28

  June 2001–22

  June 2002–27.

  Paragraph 50 of the "Ministerial Code" sets out the rules on numbers of special advisers. I do not anticipate any significant change in the numbers of special advisers in my office.

  Cabinet Sub-Committee of Green Ministers
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister what changes have taken place to the Cabinet Sub-Committee of Green Ministers as a result of the governmental reorganisation; and if he will make a statement. [65028]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer) on 24 June 2002,Official Report, column 722W.

  Mr. Alastair Campbell
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Prime Minister whether Mr. Alastair Campbell is the accounting officer for the Central Office of Information. [64873]

  The Prime Minister
  No. The chief executive of the Central Office of Information is the accounting officer.

  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on recent changes in the role of Mr. Alastair Campbell. [64875]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 28 February 2002,Official Report, column 1448W.

  Balkans
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral statement of 24 June 2002, on the Seville European Council, if he will itemise the assistance the EU has given to the Balkans to which he was referring in his reply to the hon. Member for Linlithgow. [647411

  The Prime Minister
  Between 1990 and 2000, the UK provided £74 million of bilateral assistance for reconstruction and development in the Balkans. This was in addition to the £1.7 billion provided by the EC, to which we contributed £330 million. Together with the £3 billion provided by the remaining EU member states, this amounts to a total EU contribution of £4.8 billion. Since 2000, up to the present date, the EC has committed a further £1.2 billion. In addition, we have allocated £40.6 million as a bilateral assistance since 2000.

  The EU has also offered generous trade preferences. These allow tariff free access into EU markets for 95 per cent. of industrial and agricultural products.

  Dublin Convention
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for North Thanet on 24 June 2002,Official Report, column 627, if he will indicate which article in the Dublin Convention supersedes the Sangatte Protocol; and if this assertion has been tested in law. [64871]

  The Prime Minister
  An agreement was signed with France dated 20 April 1995 in relation to the taking back of passengers who are refused admission on arrival in the UK ("the 1995 Agreement").

  That agreement covers, among other things, the arrival of asylum seekers through the channel tunnel and therefore has the effect of qualifying the relevant provisions of the Sangatte Protocol of 25 November 1991.

  The 1995 Agreement provided that, in relation to asylum seekers, it would be superseded by the relevant provisions of the Dublin Convention once that Convention entered into force. The Dublin Convention came into force on 1 September 1997. Therefore from that date, in relation to those claiming asylum, the provisions of the Dublin Convention prevail in so far as that Convention determines which state is responsible for deciding the claim.

  We are not aware that this issue has ever been litigated.

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Prime Minister which officials within his Office have responsibility for strategy on the single currency and related issues; and what their remit is. [64969]

  The Prime Minister
  Work on European Policy in my Office is headed by Sir Stephen Wall, working with other officials as necessary.

  Rail Journeys
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister what railway journeys he has taken, on official business, since 1997. [65580]

  The Prime Minister
  I last travelled by train on 1 June from Kings Cross to Darlington. I travel making the most efficient and cost-effective arrangements and will continue to use the railway service regularly when appropriate. My travel arrangements are in accordance with the arrangements for official travel set out in chapter 7 of the Ministerial Code, and the accompanying guidance document, Travel by Ministers.

  Official Visits
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the(a) schools, (b) hospitals and (c) prisons which he has visited, with dates, since 1997. [65579]

  The Prime Minister
  Records of official visits are not held in this manner and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. I have undertaken a range of visits to schools, hospitals, universities, police stations, and visited a prison last year.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Youth Unemployment
  Phil Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment his Department has made of the effect the new deal has had on youth unemployment. [63399]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Since 1997 youth unemployment has fallen by more than 40 per cent. to around its lowest level since the mid-1970s, and long-term youth unemployment has been virtually eradicated.

  The New Deal for Young People has played an important part in this success. Up to March 2002 the programme had helped over 360,000 young people off benefit and into work. Independent research has found that, without the New Deal, long-term youth unemployment would have been about twice as high.

  In my hon. Friend's constituency, nearly 400 young people have moved into jobs through the New Deal.

  Carers
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in what circumstances payments to carers for reimbursement of expenses for attending meetings are disregarded for benefit purposes. [63400]

  Maria Eagle
  All reasonable expenses incurred by a volunteer as a direct result of volunteering are disregarded.

  A volunteer is defined as someone who performs a service and does not expect or receive payment other than expenses.

  Disabled People
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the new deal for disabled people. [63401]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The new deal for disabled people is the first national employment programme to help people with disabilities move into and keep jobs, and is using innovative ways of helping them to achieve their full potential through work.

  It is too early to make an assessment of the success of the programme. As new deal for disabled people progresses a comprehensive programme of evaluation will measure its effectiveness. This will include qualitative and quantitative research with all key stakeholders. A report of this evaluation will be published.

  Action Team for Jobs
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what impact the action team for jobs initiative is having in severely economically deprived areas. [63402

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Action teams are having a positive impact on the lives of disadvantaged people in the most economically deprived areas of the country. By the end of May they had helped over 34,000 people move into work. An early evaluation study also found that 80 per cent. of these jobs were sustained jobs.
  82W
  The team working in my hon. Friend's constituency has helped over 320 jobless people into work since October 2001 and, last year, contributed £100,000 towards a new child care unit in the area.

  Funded Pension Schemes
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether he will make a statement on his long-term plans for pensions policy if the present rate of take-up of funded pensions continues. [63403]

  Mr. McCartney
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer I gave today to the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) at column 18.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to ensure that those in receipt of jobseeker's allowance take up appropriate job offers. [63404]

  Malcolm Wicks
  It is a fundamental principle of our welfare reform programme to match rights with responsibilities.

  For our part we are engaging actively with jobless people to provide them with employment opportunities. For example, our new deals for young people and 25 plus have already helped over 460,000 people to work-450 in my hon. Friend's constituency. And we plan to rollout a further 225 new jobcentre plus offices by spring of next year delivering a single, integrated service to people of working age, with a clear focus on work.

  In return, we expect jobless people to take up these opportunities. For the minority who choose not to participate in the new deal, or who fail to take up suitable job offers, we have a rigorous sanctions regime to reduce or suspend their jobseeker's allowance. During 2001–02, just over 38,000 people were subject to a Jobseeker's Allowance sanction for refusing to take up an offer of employment.

  Employment Zones
  Mr. Mahmood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of employment zones in reducing unemployment. [63406]

  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of employment zones in reducing unemployment levels. [63418]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Employment Zones are one of a range of initiatives we have introduced to help people move into work.

  The performance of the 15 Employment Zones is encouraging. By February this year they had helped over 22,000 long-term unemployed people from some of the country's most deprived areas into work.

  We are currently evaluating the Zones and the results of this will feed into their ongoing improvement.

  Private Pensions
  Sandra Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to simplify the administration of private pensions. [63407]

  Mr. McCartney
  We are continually looking for ways to improve the pension system. As the hon. Lady will know, we have already made good headway in improving access to private pensions. For exmple, we have introduced stakeholder pensions which are a straightforward way for people to save for their retirement. So far, over 800,000 stakeholder pensions have been sold. We have also improved the way the minimum funding requirement operates in advance of its replacement.

  But, of course we can do more. The current pensions regime is too complicated and that is in no-one's interest. So the Government have commissioned a number of reviews to look for ways of simplifying and improving pension provision and regulation. The Pickering review is looking at how we can cut red tape whilst making sure that scheme members are properly protected. Linked to this is the Quinquennial review of the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (Opra) which is looking at how we can ensure that the regulatory rules we put in place are clearly understood by those who need to administer them and are well policed to ensure increased security and confidence. In addition, there is the Sandler review which is looking at how the commercial retail savings market might be made to operate more effectively and efficiently, to the benefit of consumers. The Inland Revenue is also carrying out a review of the tax treatment of occupational pensions and they will consult on proposals later in the year.

  The Sandler and Pickering reviews will be published in the next few weeks with the Opra review publishing later in the year. We will consider the proposals in these reports once they are published as part of our deliberations on how best to simplify the administration of private pensions.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of private pension provision in the working population; and if he will make a statement. [63405]

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to extend private pension provision in the UK. [63413]

  Mr. McCartney
  The introduction of stakeholder pensions has extended access of private pension provision. It is clear, however, that individuals are not saving enough and more action is needed. We have already made clear the Government's recognition of the importance of this issue and the actions we are taking to address is.

  We have already extended access to private pensions in the UK with the introduction of stakeholder pensions and the requirement of employers to designate a scheme. Around 322,000 employes have already designated a stakeholder scheme and over 800,000 stakeholders have been sold. We are removing the disincentive to save for retirement that existed in the Social Security system with the introduction of the Pension Credit. We are also ensuring that individuals have the right information to
  84W
  make informed choices through the introduction of combined pensions forecasts, money purchase illustrations and our ongoing pensions education campaign.

  There is a need to ensure that the regulatory system for pensions is appropriate and not unnecessarily complicated and that the retail savings market operates as it should. That is why we commissioned Alan Pickering to review pensions regulation and Ron Sandler to review the retail savings market. Both of these reviews are due to report shortly and we will respond to any proposals in the Autumn.

  Jobcentre Plus
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what types of personal advice users of Jobcentre Plus are entitled to receive. [63408]

  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people are receiving services from Jobcentre Plus. [63409]

  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to make jobcentres more responsive to the needs of those who are out of work. [63412]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  In April this year we created Jobcentre Plus to bring together the Employment Service and the working age functions of the Benefits Agency. Jobcentre Plus provides a work focused service to all benefit claimants of working age, providing services to around five million people. Jobcentre Plus aims to deliver further improvements in customer service throughout its entire network of jobcentres and social security offices.

  Jobcentre Plus provides a full range of advice on employment and training opportunities combined with comprehensive benefit advice. This advice is tailored to the individual needs of the people using the service and will help them to move from welfare to work while ensuring they have the support they need while doing so.

  56 new Jobcentre Plus offices are already providing the fully integrated and work-focused service which we will extend progressively to cover the whole of Great Britain over the next four years. We have already announced that we plan to open around 225 more integrated offices by April 2003. As part of this upgrade to the service, everyone of working age who is making a new or repeat claim for benefit in these offices will participate in a work-focused interview with a Personal Adviser and be offered their continuing support.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many benefit offices are Jobcentre Plus offices; and when it is expected to complete the changeover. [63415]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  In April this year we created Jobcentre Plus to bring together the Employment Service and the working age functions of the Benefits Agency. Jobcentre Plus provides a work focused service to all benefit claimants of working age, providing services to around five million people.

  56 new Jobcentre Plus offices are already providing the fully integrated and work-focused service which we will extend progressively to cover the whole of Great Britain

  85W
  over the next four years. We have already announced that we plan to open around 225 more integrated offices by April 2003.

  Final Salary Pensions
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to assist employers administering final salary pension schemes. [63411]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Pickering Review of pensions regulation is looking at ways of simplifying the regulatory regime for pensions, in order to lessen the administrative burden on employers providing occupational pension schemes, including final salary schemes. This review is due to report in the next few weeks and we intend to respond to it in the Autumn. In addition, the Inland Revenue are undertaking a review of pensions taxation which is due to report later this year.

  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on final salary pension schemes. [63416]

  Mr. McCartney
  Final salary schemes have provided good pension provision for many individuals. They have been in decline since the 1960s and recently there has been an increase in the number of final salary schemes closing to new members. The reasons for this are complex, in particular that people are living longer which increases scheme liabilities, and that investment returns have been lower than in the past.

  What is required is a regime that allows sustainable pension provision. It is Government's role to ensure that the right framework is in place. That is why we commissioned the review of pensions regulation by Alan Pickering that is due to report in the summer.

  Biometric Benefit Entitlement Cards
  Mike Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to introduce biometric benefit entitlement cards. [63417]

  Malcolm Wicks
  This Department has no plans to introduce biometric benefit entitlement cards.

  Pension Service
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Pension Service in meeting the needs of all pensioners. [63420]

  Mr. McCartney
  It is very early days yet but we are committed to making a real difference to the lives of pensioners.

  The Pension Service, formally launched on I April 2002, will provide a modern, efficient and customer focused service, dedicated to combating poverty and encouraging saving for both today's and future pensioners.

  It will comprise centralised pension centres working with an improved local service nationwide which will operate in the community working with local partners to provide face to face contact for pensioners. To date ten pension centres are starting to establish themselves along call-centre lines as planned.
  86W
  A key aim of The Pension Service is to provide an excellent customer service by making use of the advances in new technology. This will be done through our call-centres. Customers can access us easily through a simple range of telephone numbers, and can get their claims and queries dealt with quickly by trained experts who understand state pensions and the needs of their customers.

  We fully recognise that not everyone can access the service using the telephone, post or internet—and for those customers there will be a community based local service.

  On current planning assumptions the local service is being introduced on a phased basis and should be in place nationwide by October 2002. It will be made up of two key elements. A direct local service, providing support directly to customers which will include a targeted visiting service both in the home and at third party locations, and a 'drop in' surgery service for outreach and take up activities; and partnership services provided with partners such as local authorities and voluntary sector organisations.

  The Pension Service sees a key shift in emphasis from processes to people: their needs, what they want and the way they want it delivered. This improved service will be rolled out over the next few years. In the interim, our customers will continue to deal with their existing social security offices until they are contacted in writing about the new arrangements.

  Workplace Training
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what he is doing to encourage an increase in labour force skills by means of workplace training. [63421]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We offer a range of work-based training opportunities to ensure that long-term unemployed and economically inactive people have the skills and experience they need to find and remain in work.

  Work-based training is an important element in the New Deals and the Work-Based Learning for Adults programme. These offer participants real work experience with employers and the opportunity to develop job-related skills.

  We are working closely with employers to ensure that their skill needs are met. For example, we are introducing Ambition programmes to enable people to gain the right skills through work experience and undertaking training designed by employers. Ambition programmes will engage with key sectors such as construction, retail, information technology and energy.

  We, and colleagues at the Department for Education and Skills and the Department for Trade and Industry, have asked the Regional Development Agencies to lead in the development of the Framework for Regional Employment & Skills Action (FRESA). This strategic partnership of organisations includes Jobcentre Plus, the CBI, the TUC, the Learning and Skills Council and local authorities. FRESAs will promote a collaborative, proactive approach to employment and skills in regions.
  87W
  They will give a clear focus to what is needed to ensure that each region has a wide range of job opportunities and a workforce with the skills employers require.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to change the entitlements to child benefit. [63422]

  Malcolm Wicks
  As a consequence of the introduction of the Child Tax Credit and the transfer of the administration of Child Benefit to the Inland Revenue from April 2003, there are minor changes to the entitlement conditions of Child Benefit contained in the Tax Credit Bill currently before Parliament.

  New Deal 50 Plus
  Colin Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the new deal 50 plus. [63423]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  New deal 50 plus has been subject to a comprehensive programme of evaluation, including quantitative surveys and qualitative research. A number of research reports have been published, the most recent of which is a summary report published in December 2001 (Atkinson, J. Evaluation of the new deal 50 plus: Summary Report. ESR103, December 2001). Copies of the reports can be found in the Library.

  Research findings show generally positive views about the programme from both clients and staff. The key element of the programme is seen to be the tax-free earnings top-up (Employment Credit). It has been successful in moving a high proportion of clients from benefits into employment. By the end of April 2002, nearly 70,000 people had claimed the Employment Credit.

  Pensions
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, (1) pursuant to his answer of 16 May 2002,Official Report, column 849W, on pensions, what the average amount contributed to pension in 2001 was for each member covered by a funded pension arrangement; and if he will make a statement on his assessment of the adequacy of this amount; [64205]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 16 May 2002, Official Report, column 849W, on pensions, if the figures in Table 1 exclude contributions to unfunded occupational pension arrangements; and if the number of members in Table 3 includes members of unfunded occupational pension arrangements. [64204]

  Mr. McCartney
  Contributions to unfunded occupational pensions are excluded.

  It is not possible to calculate reliably average contribution amounts per person. This is because relevant figures are not available from comparable data sources.

  In my written answer to the hon. Member, 16 May 2002, Official Report, column 849W, I provided estimates of contributions to private pensions. These figures contained some transfers, as indicated in footnote 6 to table 1. But footnote 6 also stated 'Information on the amount of these transfers is not available.' However I am now advised by ONS that information on transfers is
  88W
  derivable and could be significant. The ONS are examining urgently the basis on which such figures could be reliably produced and published.

  My answer of 16 May used figures published in ONS's MQ5 publication to estimate contributions to private pensions. Such contributions can also be estimated by using Inland Revenue figures on tax relief given on pension contributions and the average rates of this tax relief. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has provided details today in answer to a question from the hon. Member. The implication of the published Inland Revenue series is of a clear increase in the rate of contributions.

  However, the statistical breakdown of figures relating to private pensions produced by either method is complex. ONS are carrying out an investigation to establish the best way to calculate and present such figures as a matter of priority. This work will include external experts. Until it concludes, estimates of the level of pension contributions will need to be treated with particular care.

  Benefit Fraud/Error
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 12 March 2002,Official Report, column 859–60 ref 39869, how many cases of benefit fraud and claimant error there were in each of the relevant benefits in each year since 1995; [43819]

  (2) what his estimate is of the number of cases of (a) fraud, (b) customer error and (c) official error in respect of (i) income support and (ii) jobseeker's allowance for 1999–2000 and 2000–01. [44960]

  Malcolm Wicks
  It is not possible to provide a breakdown of how many cases of benefit fraud and claimant error there were in each of the relevant benefits in each year since 1995. However, since 1999, fraud investigators have recorded the number of cases where benefit ceases, or a change in benefit occurs, following an investigation. These figures include both fraud and customer error cases (as well as a very small number of cases where an underpayment is discovered) but it is not possible to provide a breakdown. The figures, which cover investigations across all benefits administered by the Department, are in the table.

  Number of cases where benefit rate changes following action by a fraud investigator

  Number

  1999–2000

  198,467

  2000–01

  182,569

  Comparable figures are not available before 1999.

  Separately, by means of the continuous Area Benefit Review/Quality Support Team exercise, the Department is able to provide estimates of the total number of cases of fraud, customer error and official error at any one time in Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance. Figures are given in the table below. There is a degree of overlap inherent in the sampling process between the estimates of numbers of customer error and official error in these figures, caused in part by the measurement methodology. These figures therefore cannot be added together, as the resulting figure would include double counting. This

  89W
  overlap had no impact on the final published results for the estimated overall value of monetary loss as analysts made compensatory adjustments, reducing the figures by around 1 per cent. of expenditure.

  Estimate of number of cases offraud and error and average weekly incorrectness in Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance

  1999–2000 Data

  Fraud

  Average value of incorrectness per week £

  Customer error

  Average value of incorrectness per week £

  Official error

  Average value of incorrectness per week £

  Income Support

  216,000

  51

  301,000

  13

  493,000

  18

  Jobseeker's Allowance

  120,000

  44

  32,000

  17

  125,000

  27

  2000–2001 Data

  Income Support

  204,000

  55

  296,000

  14

  476,000

  17

  Jobseeker's Allowance

  86,000

  47

  20,000

  15

  86,000

  25

  Notes:

  1. The average values represent the average weekly value of fraud or error (overpayment and underpayment) for cases where there is fraud or error (not average error per case on the live load).

  2. Figures are presented as weekly values of incorrectness because the total value of an error over all the weeks it lasted is not available.

  3. The figures are estimates based on samples, and as such are subject to sampling error; none of the changes between 1999–2000 and 2000–01 are statistically significant.

  4. The figures for fraud, customer error and official error cannot be added together. They apply to different groups of cases, and in the case of official error, there is overlap with customer error in the definition of error.

  Source:

  Area Benefit Review/Quality Support Team.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much the Government have spent on advertising(a) the Targeting Fraud Hotline and (b) other campaigns to report benefit fraud in each of the last 10 years. [53749]

  Malcolm Wicks
  There is no Targeting Fraud Hotline. The information available on the amount spent on advertising the National Benefit Fraud Hotline is in the table.

  £

  Amount

  1996–97

  476,000

  1997–98

  225,000

  1998–99

  290,247

  1999–2000

  337,672

  2000–01

  425,178

  2001–02

  0

  2002–03

  0 to date

  The Targeting Fraud campaign is part of our long-term strategy to reinforce our message that benefit fraud is wrong, unfair and will not be tolerated. Expenditure on the pilot phase of the campaign was £2.2 million spanning

  Telephone helplines

  Target Percentage calls

  Seconds

  Performance Percentage

  Jobcentre Plus Chief Executive's helpline (formerly BA and ES CE helplines)

  100

  20

  100

  Job Seeker Direct (formerly ES Direct)

  95

  20

  86.7

  CSA National Enquiry Line and Client Helplines

  85

  1—

  92.4

  20

  2—

  10

  National Benefit Fraud Hotline

  99

  3—

  96

  Disability Living Allowance Customer Care helpline

  90

  30

  18

  Retirement Pensions Teleclaim Line

  90

  30

  57

  90W
  The average levels of monetary loss in cases of customer and official error are lower than those in fraud cases, as shown in the table.

  the financial years 1999–2000 and 2000–01. The success of the pilot campaign led to the launch of the national Targeting Fraud campaign. The initial spell of advertising in March 2001 cost £4.6 million and £8.9 million was spent on the campaign running from September 2001 to March 2002.

  Information is not available on the amount spent on other advertising campaigns prior to 1997.

  Departmental Helplines
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the targets for each of his Department's telephone helplines, with performance figures for each helpline for the last year for which figures are available. [56416]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The table shows the performance of the Department's telephone helplines against their internal performance targets for the last year for which figures are available (to March 2002 except where otherwise indicated).

  Most lines are expected to answer a set percentage of calls within a specified number of seconds and this is the measure given in the table; but some operate different targets and, where applicable, this is shown in the notes.
  91W

  Telephone helplines

  Target Percentage calls

  Seconds

  Performance Percentage

  Pensions Direct

  90

  30

  58

  Customer Liaison Team (formerly Overseas Customer Service helpline)

  95

  30

  91

  MIG (Minimum Income Guarantee) Claimline

  90

  30

  98

  Retirement Pension Forecasting and Advice (RPFA)

  90

  30

  66

  Public Enquiry Office

  65

  4—

  60

  Employer Direct

  Answered

  80

  20

  5—

  Abandoned

  5

  6—

  5—

  Child Benefit Enquiry Line

  100

  5 rings

  7100

  90

  8—

  90.3

  Benefit Enquiry Line (BEL)

  Answered

  85

  60

  88.4

  Ineffective

  20 max.

  9—

  12.8

  New Deal Information Line

  85

  1.10—

  89.1

  New Deal for Disabled People

  85

  1.10—

  79

  New Deal for Lone Parents

  85

  1.10—

  87.9

  The Publicity Register

  85

  1.10—

  96.1

  Inherited SERPS Enquiry Line (BroadSystems)11

  85

  1.10—

  93.0

  Pensioner Guide Orderline

  85

  1.10—

  95.2

  Winter fuel Helpline

  85

  1.10—

  90.1

  Pensions Information Line

  85

  1.10—

  5—

  Welfare Reform Orderline

  85

  1.10—

  98.2

  185 per cent. of calls to be answered first time ie where the customer gets through on the first attempt without having to ring back again.

  2No more than 20 per cent. of calls to be abandoned (abandoned calls are those where the customer hangs up before getting a reply).

  399 per cent. of calls offered (that is those reaching the switchboard) are to be answered within three seconds. A facility administered by an outside organisation is available to take overflow calls.

  465 per cent. of all calls are to be answered.

  5These are new services for which a full year's data are not yet available.

  6No more than 5 per cent. of calls are to be abandoned after 20 seconds.

  7Calls automatically answered after three rings.

  8To be answered.

  9No more than 80 per cent. of calls should be ineffective (ineffective calls are those that receive the engaged tone, receive a network message from BT or are abandoned).

  10These centres are administered by outside organisations. In addition to the numbers of calls answered first time, they have to be answered within an average of 10 seconds.

  11Line outsourced to another provider from 7 March 2002.

  Child Poverty
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what contribution increases in child benefit have made to reducing the numbers of children living in poverty over the past five years. [57952]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Child poverty and social exclusion are complex, multi-dimensional concepts, affecting many aspects of children's lives. The third opportunity for all report (Cm 5260) sets out the Government's strategy for tackling child poverty and social exclusion and presents information on the indicators used to monitor progress against this strategy.

  As part of this strategy, since 1997 there have been significant increases in child benefit—the rate for the first child has increased by over 25 per cent. in real terms.

  Computers
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many computers were replaced in his Department in each of the past three years; how the replaced units were disposed of and by which companies; and at what cost. [60744]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department for Work and Pensions is a new Department formed in June 2001. The new Department encompasses the former DSS (and its Executive Agencies) and the former Employment Service (ES). While the new Department is currently converging the IT infrastructure of these two former Departments, the information requested is shown against the relevant Department which originally purchased the equipment.
  93W
  Employment Service (ES)

  On 1 August 1998 the Employment Service (ES) entered into a partnership agreement with EDS (Electronic Data Systems) for provision of all IT and Telephony services. This included the replacement of 41,000 desktop computers during the period October 2000 to March 2002. The replaced units were donated by EDS to Paces, a charitable organisation based in Sheffield. The cost of disposal cannot be separately identified as this formed an integral part of a commercial agreement to provide new equipment.

  Department of Social Security (DSS)

  As part of the Government's modernisation agenda, the Early Office Infrastructure (EOI) Project is currently in the process of implementing in excess of 100,000 PCs across the former DSS estate. The vast majority of computers being provided are replacing dumb terminals with no commercial value. Rollout of computers commenced in August 2001 and is due to be complete by December 2002. Approximately 60,000 computers have been deployed in this period. Disposal of IT equipment is handled by the Ministry of Defence Disposal Services Agency.

  Prior to the commencement of the EOI Project, ICL Multi-Vendor Computing disposed of computers in the former DSS. The contract allowed ICL to dispose of Computers at no cost to the Department, unless the contractor could demonstrate that the cost of disposal exceeded revenue generated by resale. Details of computers purchased in this period are shown in the table:

  Year

  1999–2000

  20,270

  2000–01

  5,825

  2001–02

  3,748

  Child Support
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to allow the Child Support Agency to impose deduction from earnings orders on service personnel; and if he will make a statement. [60768]

  Malcolm Wicks
  None.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to review the Child Support (Collection and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 with regard to service personnel; and if he will make a statement. [60767]

  Malcolm Wicks
  None.

  Antisocial Tenants
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what representations he has received on the proposal to give local authorities the power to reduce housing benefit for antisocial tenants; and if he will place related correspondence in the Library. [60442]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The idea of withholding people's housing benefit if their behaviour is persistently anti-social was raised in a Bill put before this House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field).
  94W
  We believe in the principle that rights should be matched by responsibilities and support the underlying objectives of the Bill. We are currently considering how the Bill could be put into a workable format.

  We have received some representations about the Bill. However, it would be inappropriate to publish the few letters received, as they are not in response to public consultation.

  Verification Framework
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) of 15 April 2002,Official Report, column 699W, if he will provide a breakdown for the estimated figure of £100 million of net savings from the introduction of the verification framework. [61383]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is in the table.

  Estimated net annual savings in benefit expenditure from the verification framework at January 2002 compliance levels

  £ million

  Overpayments.

  Underpayments

  Net savings

  New claims

  40

  0

  40

  Renewal claims

  53

  20

  33

  Visits

  33

  6

  27

  Total

  126

  26

  100

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division analysis

  Basic State Pension
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what would be the value of the basic pension for(a) a single pensioner and (b) married couple (i) if the link to average earnings or prices had not been repealed and (ii) if the pension had been increased in line with average earnings since then. [61151]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information requested is set out in the table. Our priority is to ensure that all pensioners have a decent and secure income in retirement and to share fairly in the rising prosperity of the country. The basic state pension will remain the foundation of income in retirement. To achieve this, we have increased the basic state pension over the last two years above the level of RPI and we have provided extra help for pensioners through the minimum income guarantee, winter fuel payments and free TV licences for the over-75s. We have given a guarantee that the basic state pension will be increased by at least £100 a year for single pensioners and £160 for couples in 2003-04 and in future years by 2.5 per cent. or the increase in the September retail prices index, whichever is the higher.

  Compared with the 1997 system, an average pensioner household will be £840 a year better off and around 1.8 million of the poorest pensioner households will be over £1,000 a year better off, and the Government will be spending an extra £6 billion a year in real terms on pensioners this year. This £6 billion includes £2.5 billion more on the poorest third of pensioners, which is three times more than an earnings link since 1998 would have given them.
  95W

  £ per week

  Single

  Couple

  Basic state pension at November 1979

  23.30

  37.30

  Actual amount in April 2002

  75.50

  120.70

  Amount in April 2002 if up-rated by higher of RPI/earnings

  105.70

  169.00

  Amount in April 2002 if up-rated with average earnings

  102.60

  164.20

  Notes:

  1. Rates are taken from November 1979 as the earnings link was broken in November 1980.

  2. The retail prices index (all items) has been used as published by the Office for National Statistics.

  3. Average Earnings Index Whole Economy (non-seasonally adjusted) has been used as published by the Office for National Statistics.

  4. Figures have been rounded to the nearest five pence at each uprating.

  Source:

  Information Centre, Analytical Services Directorate

  Alignment Payments
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many alignment payments were awarded in each of the last 10 years; what the expenditure on alignment payments was in each of those years; and if he will make a statement. 1620011

  Malcolm Wicks
  Social Fund alignment payments provide valuable help to people awaiting their first payment of wages on taking up work. They can also help people with essential day-to-day living expenses in advance of their first payment of benefit.

  The information is in the table.

  Social Fund crisis loan alignment payments

  Year

  Number of payments

  Expenditure (£ million)

  1992–93

  226,737

  9

  1993–94

  273,171

  11

  1994–95

  326,864

  13

  1995–96

  366,865

  14

  1996–97

  1344,737

  14

  1997–98

  1398,731

  17

  1998–99

  1433,851

  20

  1999–2000

  474,076

  23

  2000–01

  476,936

  24

  2001–02

  486,031

  27

  1 Technical problems with Social Fund Policy, Budget and Management Information System mean that figures for the years 1996–97 to 1998–99 may be subject to a margin of error of 5 per cent to 10 per cent. and should therefore be treated as a guide only.

  Notes:

  1. Expenditure figures are rounded to the nearest £ million.

  2. Awards including alignment payments may include other items. Source:

  Annual Reports by the Secretary of State on the Social Fund 1992–93 to 2000–01 and Social Fund Policy, Budget and Management Information System.

  Carers Allowance
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether persons over 65 who are to receive carers allowance will receive it in addition to their pensions. [62390]

  Maria Eagle
  Retirement pension (RP) and invalid care allowance (ICA) are income maintenance benefits. The former provides income replacement for those who have 96W
  reached pensionable age, while the latter provides a measure of financial support for those who have given up the opportunity of fill-time paid employment in order to care for a severely disabled person. It is a basic principle of the social security system that only one such benefit can be paid at any time because to pay both of them in full at the same time would amount to duplicate provision for the same need.

  The Regulatory Reform (Carer's Allowance) Order 2002, made on 29 May 2002, will enable older carers with little or no retirement pension to receive invalid care allowance, while those with low incomes will benefit by gaining access to the carer premium worth £24.80 a week, paid with income-related benefits such as the minimum income guarantee. This follows the substantial increases to the carer premium and to the earnings limit for entitlement to invalid care allowance made in April 2001.

  There are no plans to change these arrangements.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many applicants for DLA were(a) granted on first application, (b) rejected on first application and did not appeal, (c) granted on appeal and (d) rejected on appeal in each of the last five years. [635021

  Maria Eagle
  Information is not available in the form requested. The available information is in the following tables.

  Outcomes of first applications for disability living allowance in each of the last five years

  Year

  Successful applications

  Unsuccessful applications1

  1997–98

  211,200

  255,700

  1998–99

  175,600

  208,200

  1999–2000

  181,000

  190,400

  2000–01

  211,300

  206,100

  2001–0222

  171,200

  158,000

  1 Figures represent total number of unsuccessful applications; information is not available on how many did not appeal.

  2 Figures are for nine months to 1 December 2001

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division Information Centre; 5 per cent. data rounded to nearest 100.

  Awards of disability living allowance made on review or appeal in each of the last five years1

  year2

  Awards made on review3

  Awards made on appeal

  1997–98

  37,700

  13,100

  1998–99

  27,000

  15,400

  1999–2000

  24,800

  15,500

  2000–01

  16,600

  25,900

  2001–02

  10,400

  24,200

  1A claim for DLA which is unsuccessful in one year may not be reviewed or go to appeal until the next year, so the tables are not directly comparable.

  2Figures relate to 12 month periods to the end of February

  3Figures include reconsiderations under the new system of decision making and appeals introduced from October 1999

  4The numbers of appeals increased substantially after the introduction of the new system of decision making and appeals

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division Information Centre; 5 per cent. data rounded to nearest 100.
  97W
  Discrete figures are not available for unsuccessful appeals involving first applications for DLA.

  West Pilton Post Office
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) when officials at the Benefits Agency were first informed of suspected fraud at West Pilton post office in Edinburgh; [63481]

  (2) when officials at the Benefits Agency expect to conclude their investigations into suspected fraud at West Pilton post office in Edinburgh; [63484]

  (3) what allegations led officials at the Benefits Agency to investigate fraud at West Pilton post office in Edinburgh. [63479]

  Malcolm Wicks
  In line with part 2 paragraph 4 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information we do not discuss information about on-going investigations.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how work is defined in relation to the target of getting 70 per cent. of lone parents into work. [64123]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The lone parent employment rate is calculated using the Labour Force Survey (LFS) definition of employment. This definition includes anyone aged 16 or over who does at least one hour's paid work in the week prior to their LFS interview, or who has a job that they are temporarily away from (for example because they are on holiday). Also included are people who do unpaid work in a family business and people on Government-supported employment training schemes, in line with ILO definitions.

  Criminal Offences
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), of 20 May 2002,Official Report, column 46W, on criminal offences, which offences have been (a) created, (b) abolished and (c) redrafted. [64209]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Sections 13 and 14 of the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997 created six new offences (four triable in the Crown court or magistrates court and two offences triable in the magistrates court) by adding new sections 112(1A) and 111A(c) and (d) to the Social Security Administration Act 1992. Section 13 of the Child Support Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 creates three new offences relating to information required to be furnished to a child support officer.
  98W
  The offences in sections 112A and 111A(c) and (d) were redrafted and substituted for the previous ones by the Social Security (Fraud) Act 2001 because of difficulty in drafting linked regulations sufficiently precisely to be workable. Section 19 of the Social Security (Fraud) Act repeals the previous provisions.

  New offences created by the Jobseekers Act 1995 were brought within the scope of the offences in the 1992 Act and the original provisions were consequentially repealed by schedule 1 para 4 and schedule 2 to the 1997 SSA (Fraud) Act.

  Benefits (Scotland)
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 13 June 2002,Official Report, column 1422W on benefits, how many people in Scotland are in receipt of (a) income support, broken down by parliamentary constituency and (b) council tax benefit and housing benefit, broken down by local authority area. [63972]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information has been placed in the Library.

  National Insurance (Reduced Rate)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the contributory benefits to which married women paying the reduced rate of national insurance contributions would have been entitled to in each year since 1972. [65295]

  Mr. McCartney
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Paymaster General on 10 June 2002,Official Report, columns 838–39W.

  Widows and Widowers' Benefits
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to ensure that widows and widowers are informed of their entitlement to widows and widowers' benefits. [63414]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We recognise that at the time of a spouse's death it is important for a bereaved person to know about the full range of benefits that he or she may be entitled to.

  Information about benefits that may be claimed is made available in a variety of ways. In the case of bereavement benefits, since March 2001 the Department has issued leaflets to doctors' surgeries, post offices and support organisations. Articles explaining the new benefits were placed in a variety of magazines prior to their introduction in April 2001. As with other benefits, information and a claim form can also be accessed through a number of Government internet sites.

TRANSPORT

  Ministerial Salaries
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the annual cost was of ministerial salaries in his Department in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 2001–02. [60939]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The level of ministerial salaries are recommended by the Senior Salaries Review Body. From May 1997, in the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions there were two Cabinet Ministers, at an annual salary of £43,991; three Ministers of State, at an annual salary of £31,125; and four Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State, at an annual salary of £23,623. From June 2001, in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions there was one Cabinet Minister, at an annual salary of £68,157; three Ministers of State, at an annual salary of £35,356 and three Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State, at an annual salary of £26,835.

  Advertising
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much was spent on press and advertising campaigns in 2001–02; and what the planned expenditure is for 2002–03. [60911]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Details of media expenditure incurred by the then DTLR on press and advertising campaigns for the period 2001–02, together with planned expenditure by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department for Transport for the period 2002–03, is:Car All motoring' 0.10 0,14

  Expenditure

  Advertising—media spend (£ million)

  2001–02

  13.85

  2002–031

  9.2

  1Estimated

  Of the 13.85 million spent last year most expenditure was on safety campaigns with £8.6 million spent on road safety and £2.25 million on fire safety. £1.2 million was also spent on promoting travel line.

  Transport Costs
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the cost of(a) rail, (b) bus and (c) car travel in (i) large cities, (ii) other towns and cities and (iii) rural areas in pounds per kilometre in (A) 1997 and (B) 2001. [61286]

  Mr. Spellar
  The estimated average cost per passenger for travel per kilometre by rail, bus and car is as follows:

  £

  1996–97

  2000–01

  (a) Rail

  London Underground

  0.13

  0.15

  National Rail

  0.08

  0.09

  (b) Bus

  London buses

  0.13

  0.14

  English met area buses

  0.12

  0.13

  English shire buses

  0.14

  0.17

  100W

  £

  1996–97

  2000–01

  (c)Car

  All motoring1

  0.10

  0.14

  1Includes expenditure on purchase of vehicles spares, repairs, insurance, taxation, fuel, parking.

  Figures for bus and rail travel have been estimated by dividing total revenue from passenger fares (including revenue from payments for concessionary fares) by the total number of passenger kilometres travelled. They therefore represent an average cost to passengers over all journeys made, and do not necessarily reflect the cost for any individual journey.

  Figures for car travel have been estimated by dividing household expenditure on motoring and fuel by the estimated total number of passenger kilometres travelled by car, by those living in households.

  For rail and car it is not possible to split the revenue/ expenditure and passenger figures by area type—a single journey may cover a number of different areas.

  Figures are in current prices.

  10-year Plan
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what(a) public investment, (b) public resource expenditure, (c) private resource expenditure and (d) private investment is expected under the 10-year plan for (i) road building and (ii) road maintenance broken down by road type; and if he will make a statement. [64132]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The requested information is set out in the tables.

  10-year plan public spending on roads: 2001–02 to 2010–11, £ billion, outturn prices

  Road building

  Road maintenance

  Other expenditure

  Total expenditure

  Strategic

  Public investment

  7.1

  4.3

  2.2

  13.6

  Public resources

  3.9

  2.8

  2.2

  8.9

  Local

  Public investment

  1.3

  9.6

  0.0

  10.9

  Public resources

  0.9

  19.0

  0.0

  19.8

  London

  Public investment

  2.2

  0.0

  0.0

  2.2

  Public resources

  0.0

  2.6

  0.0

  2.6

  Total

  15.4

  38.2

  4.4

  58.0

  10-year plan public spending on roads: 2001–02 to 2010–11, £ billion, outturn prices

  Road building

  Road maintenance

  Other expenditure

  Total expenditure

  Strategic

  2.6

  0.0

  0.0

  2.6

  Local

  2.4

  0.0

  0.0

  2.4

  Total

  5.0

  0.0

  0.0

  5.0

  Note:

  Figures may not total due to rounding.

  No assumptions were made in the plan about the level of private resource expenditure, or about the breakdown

  101W
  of public expenditure and private investment between road types.The actual level of spending on roads in London will be a matter for the London Mayor.

  Correspondence (Wales)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many written representations his Department has received from people in Wales since June 1997. [64546]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department does not hold central records relating to the number of written representations received from people in Wales.

  Noise Mitigation (Biggleswade)
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for the funding within this financial year of noise mitigation measures along the stretch of the Al known as the Biggleswade by-pass; and if he will make a statement. [64912]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Tim Matthews, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. Alistair Burt, dated 1 July 2002:
  I have been asked by the Transport Minister, David Jamieson, to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about noise mitigation on the Biggleswade Bypass.
  In line with the Government's aim, set out in the 10 Year Plan, of reducing noise for the motorway and trunk road network, Biggleswade Bypass was resurfaced with noise reducing materials in November 2000.
  Although we have no plans for further noise mitigation measures in this financial year (2002/03) we do recognise that there is a case for further mitigation measures. But our priority is to deal with those sites announced in the House of Commons on 11 November 1999, and known as the Hansard List, by 2004/05. We will look at other sites, such as Biggleswade Bypass after that.

  Special Needs Transport
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to develop a system of special needs transport in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [65055]

  Mr. Jamieson
  At the local level English authorities outside London are required to develop five-year local transport plans to tackle the transport issues faced by their communities. Our guidance on LTPs makes clear the importance of improving public transport and the vital role of voluntary and community transport in bringing benefits and better mobility for all sections of society through the provision of door-to-door and other specialised services.

  Non-profit making organisations may use permits issued under section 19 of the Transport Act 1985. This enables them to run, among other things, special needs transport without the need to meet the requirements of bus operator licensing.

  Safety Risk Assessments
  Albert Owen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many safety risk assessments, in accordance with the Health and Safety at Work Act, have been carried out by(a) county highways authorities on county roads in
  102W
  England and Wales and (b) the Highways Agency on motorways and trunk roads to identify the number of locations where roads cross railway lines since the Selby train crash; and what action the authorities have taken to prevent accidents at the locations identified. [65219]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 places a general duty on employers to conduct their undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of the public. In general, this is not enforced where public and worker safety is adequately protected by a more specific and detailed law enforced by another authority, such as the Highways Act 1980 and the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

  We have endorsed the risk ranking guidance produced by Railtrack and the CSS (formerly the County Surveyors' Society) and have commended it to highway authorities and rail infrastructure authorities. Details of risk assessments and any measures installed as a result are not held centrally.

  Learning to Drive
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many responses the Department received to the consultation document, "Introducing a More Structured Approach to Learning to Drive". [65047]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 24 June 2002,Official Report, column 669W to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz).

  Vehicle Registration
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the DVLA vehicle register will provide on request details of country of registration of coaches used for school trips. [65066]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The DVLA vehicle register contains information about all vehicles used or kept on public roads in Great Britain. The fact that a vehicle has been previously registered—for example, in a different country—is recorded on the register and shown on the vehicle registration document. This fact would be disclosed on request. Details of where a vehicle was previously registered are not recorded.

  Sangatte Refugee Camp
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the cost will be to the Strategic Rail Authority of strengthening the perimeter fence between the Sangatte refugee camp and the entrance to the channel tunnel. [65743]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) will contribute towards the cost of the works in progress to increase security at the Frethun rail freight terminal, adjacent to the channel tunnel, in order to enable early resumption of full and reliable rail freight services through the channel tunnel. The works will cost around £5 million in total. The amount of the SRA contribution is still to be settled.

  Railways (Financial Support)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what the criteria are for determining whether money paid to the railway industry by(a) the Office of the Rail Regulator and (b) SRA is subject to state aid approval from the EU; [65290]

  (2) what the criteria are for determining whether money paid by the Government to the (a) Office of the Rail Regulator and (b) SRA is subject to state aid approval from the EU. [65291]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Apart from receiving money for its own administration, the Office of the Rail Regulator is not involved in receiving or paying out money. Any financial support provided to the railway industry by the SRA is compared with the EC state aid rules. Financial support that constitutes or may constitute a state aid, and is not covered by an existing state aid approved scheme, is notified to the Commission.

  Bradford Forster Square to King's Cross Service
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reason the frequency of the Bradford Forster Square to King's Cross service has been reduced to two journeys each way per day. [65230]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Great North Eastern Railway's Passenger Service Requirement, which is a key part of their Franchise Agreement, requires them to provide two services each weekday between London King's Cross and Bradford and one in the opposite direction. The new Summer Timetable does, however, provide an additional 11 daily trains between London and Leeds offering connections to Bradford.

  Public Transport (Safety)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for the compulsory fitting of seat belts on coaches used to transport pupils to and from school. [65787]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Since 1998 all coaches specifically used to transport pupils to and from school have been required to be fitted with seat belts.

  Coastguard Helicopter Services
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes are proposed for coastguard helicopter services on the south coast. [65719]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Contracts for the provision of search and rescue helicopter services along the south coast will continue until they expire in May 2003. The future location of the helicopter that is currently based at Portland remains under discussion between the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the South West Regional Development Agency.

  Iwade-Queenborough A249
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will announce the winning consortia for the Iwade-Queenborough A249 improvements; and if he will make a statement. [65594]
  104W
  Mr. Jamieson
  I expect the contract for this project to be awarded in the late summer of 2003.

  Road Tax
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much revenue he expects to be lost on unpaid vehicle road tax in 2002. [65788]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A roadside survey of vehicle excise duty evasion is currently taking place and the results will be known in the autumn.

  The last such survey took place in June 1999. This showed the level of VED evasion as 3.9 per cent. of revenue due. This equated to £191 million in 2001–2. This was offset by £110 million recovered through enforcement activities.

  Bus Fuel Duty Rebate
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 25 June 2002,Official Report, column 774W, on bus fuel duty rebate, what was the last occasion on which he received a representation with regards the fuel duty rebate; from whom this was received and what changes were suggested; and what the timetable is to take forward the review of bus subsidies. [66068]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The most recent representation we have received is a letter dated 29 May from BP Oil UK Ltd. This drew attention to the current trials of diesel emulsion fuel in London and proposed either the equalisation of the fuel duty rebate rate paid on that fuel with the rate paid on ordinary diesel or the replacement of the rebate by a payment on a per mile basis.

  The review of bus subsidies will start this month and is due to be completed by the end of February 2003.

  Urban Bus Challenge Fund
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the projects being operated as a result of the Urban Bus Challenge Fund, giving(a) the start date of the project, (b) the project location and (c) the money attributed to each project. [64965]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 27 June 2002]The results of the first Urban Bus Challenge competition were announced on 2 November 2001 Official Report, column 923W–924W. This involved awards to 24 local authorities for 32 separate schemes, details of which have been placed in the Libraries of the House. 27 of these schemes have commenced and the remainder are due to be started by the local authorities concerned this financial year.

  Bus Punctuality
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the bus punctuality figures for each of the last six years for(a) local buses including London, (b) local buses excluding London, (c) local London buses and (d) non-local buses. [64966]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 27 June 2002]Information is not available in the form requested.

  Road and Rail Intersections
  Albert Owen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in how many locations(a) motorway and trunk roads and (b) country roads in England and Wales cross railway lines. [65220]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The report of the Highways Agency Working Group "To Review the Standards for the Provision of Nearside Safety Fences" gives the following figures for the number of road over rail bridges:

  England

  Wales

  Motorways

  198

  24

  All purpose trunk roads

  313

  64

  Local roads

  3,955

  299

  4,466

  387

  The figures for local road bridges over 'live' railway lines is based on replies from CSS Area Bridge Conference members as at 8 August 2001, not all replies having been completed.

  Road Studies
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the answer of the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) of 10 April 2002,Official Report, column 103W, on the M4, if he will similarly list, by road number, the studies initiated by his Department and other Government agencies covering all or part of each road making up the Strategic Road Network, including (a) multi modal, (b) Highways Agency and (c) other studies. [64964]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 27 June 20021]The following studies initiated by my Department on the trunk road network have been or are being taken forward:

  (a) Multi-modal studies

  Multi modal studies take a broad view of significant issues affecting transport corridors across all the modes, and are proposing major investments in roads and public transport. The main trunk roads within the study areas are listed below:

  A21/A27/A258: Access to Hastings

  A14: CHUMMS—Cambridge to Huntingdon

  M60/A6: SEMMMS—South-East Manchester

  M6/M5/M42: West Midlands area

  M6: MIDMAN—West Midlands to North-West

  A453: (MI-Nottingham)

  M 18/M62/M1/Al: SWYMMS—South and West Yorks Motorway Box

  Al/A19: TA MMS—Tyneside area

  M I/A52: North/South movements in East Midlands

  M25: ORBIT—Transport Solutions Around London

  M4/M5/A303: SWARMMS—London to South-West and South Wales

  106W

  A63: Hull Corridor

  Al: (North of Newcastle)

  A12/Al20: London to Ipswich

  M60

  Junctions 12–18 (West to North Manchester)

  M27/A27/A259: South Coast Corridor (SoCCoMMS)

  M I/Al(M)/M I I/A10: London to South Midlands

  M69/M42/A38: West Midlands to East Midlands

  M4/M3: Thames Valley (London to Reading)

  A47: Norwich to Peterborough

  A34: North from Southampton

  A52: Corridor (to Bingham).

  Road Based Studies

  Road based studies are designed to address more localised or specific problems on the trunk road network, where road improvements are expected to provide the solution.

  AI: Bramham to Barton

  A66: Safety Study

  M40/A46: Longbridge roundabout

  A3: Hindhead

  MI: Junction 19

  A419: Blunsdon

  A51 17/A550: Deeside Park Junctions

  A47: Norwich to Great Yarmouth

  A5/A483: Shrewsbury to Chester

  A38: Derby Junctions.

  (b) Highways Agency

  Route Management Strategies

  The principal aim of route management strategies is to develop, in consultation with the public and other stakeholders, 10-year action plans for the HA's management of trunk roads and motorways within the frameworks established by regional transport strategies.

  A35/A3l/A30 (Southampton to Exeter)

  A417/A419 (Swindon to Gloucester)

  M5 (J21–31) (Weston to Exeter excluding J21)

  Al (London to Peterborough)

  Al2 (M25 to Ipswich)

  M62/A63/A1033 (Liverpool—Hull)

  A1(Gateshead—Scottish Border) A14 (MI—Felixstowe)

  M5 (South of J9 to North of JI5) A46 (Leicester—Lincoln)

  MI (J30–J42) (inc MI-Al Link) and M621 Leeds

  M18 (MI —M62)

  M57/M58/A5036 (M6—Liverpool—M62)

  M53/A55/A483 (Birkenhead to Welsh border)

  107W

  A64 (Al to Scarborough)

  M180/A180/A 160 (M18 to Grimsby)

  M6 (J20–44)/A74 (Warrington to Scottish border)

  A69 (Newcastle to Carlisle)

  A168/A19 (Al Dishforth to Gateshead)

  M55 (Blackpool to M6)

  M65/A56/M66 (M6 to Burnley to M62)

  A49 (A40 to A5)

  M6 (M1-.14)/A45/M45/A46 (A45-M6) and A5 (M I-Lichfield)

  Al (Peterborough to Blyth)

  M4 (J1–15) (London to Swindon excl J15) and A404/A404M

  Windsor—Beaconsfield

  A42 I/A428 (M1 to Cambridge)

  M20/M26/A20 (London to Dover)

  A47/A 12 (Peterborough to Lowestoft)

  M3 (J1–13)/M27 (J4???I )/M271 London to Southampton

  M II (London to Cambridge)

  MI/M10 (London to M6)

  A27/A259/M27 (J4–12) Southampton—Folkestone

  M25 London Orbital (North) and (South)

  A 13 London—Tilbury.

  (c) Other studies

  At any one time the Highways Agency as part of the day-to-day management of the trunk road network is progressing, and contributing to, numerous other studies concerned with development pressures, safety issues, or other matters affecting the operation of motorways and trunk roads.

  Buses
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many low-emission buses were introduced in each of the last five years, broken down by type of(a) fuel and (b) engine that cause the lower emissions [64968]

  Mr. Jamieson
  To help reduce traffic pollution, low-emission buses and other heavy vehicles are eligible for lower 'reduced pollution certificate' (RPC) rates of Vehicle Excise Duty. The numbers of buses being registered in the last five years and qualifying for RPCs, broken down by fuel/engine type, are as follows:

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Petrol

  0

  0

  0

  6

  2

  Diesel

  29

  122

  385

  583

  429

  Gas

  23

  7

  30

  12

  5

  Total

  52

  129

  415

  601

  436

  Scheme and brief details

  Estimated cost (£ million)

  Start of Works

  M60 Motorway Junctions 5 to 8 Widening. Widening the motorway from the present dual two and three lane carriageways to dual three and four lane carriageways with associated improvements to junctions.

  80

  2003–04

  A595 Parton to Lillyhall. Upgrading the route between Parton and Lillyhall, including improvements to junctions, and a dual carriageway bypass of the villages of Distington and Howgate.

  17.7

  2005–06

  A66 Temple Sowerby Bypass (dual carriageway). Removal of some 90 per cent. of traffic through Temple Sowerby, including a substantial number of heavy goods vehicles, bringing safety and environmental benefits.

  18

  Spring 2004–05

  Road Safety
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people in each of the last five years for which figures are available have been killed as a result of motorists driving under the influence of(a) alcohol and (b) drugs; what new proposals he has to stop (i) drink and (ii) drug driving; and if he will make a statement. [64717]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested is in the following table.

  Estimates of road users killed in accidents where one or more drivers were above the legal limit

  Number

  1996

  580

  1997

  550

  1998

  460

  1999

  460

  20001

  520

  1Provisional

  National road accident statistics do not identify cases where drivers involved were under the influence of drugs.

  Publicity remains a major factor in combating drink driving. We are moving to a year round more diversified campaign involving a wide variety of media. With respect to drugs, we are considering the best way of targeting advice to potential users about the dangers of driving after taking drugs.

  We intend also to strengthen enforcement by giving the police the power to undertake roadside evidential breath-testing and, where appropriate, to take blood samples from unconscious subjects in hospital. We are monitoring the impact of the new police drug recognition and impairment tests and also intend to take legislative powers to enable the police to require suspect drivers to undertake roadside tests which, could include specialised drug detection devices if they become available.

  Roads (North-West)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for new road schemes in the north-west; and if he will list those schemes, giving in each case the(a) cost and (b) commencement date. [64540]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The planned new road schemes in the Government's targeted programme of improvements that are not yet at the construction stage in the north-west are as follows. (The TPI is a programme of major road improvements announced in July 1998 in support of the Integrated Transport White Paper 'A New Deal for Transport'.)
  109W

  Scheme and brief details

  Estimated cost (£ million)

  Start of Works

  M6 Motorway Extension Carlisle to Guards Mill. Upgrading to motorway status the only non-motorway link between Central Scotland and Southern England, which will include the replacement of the Mossband Viaduct.

  65

  2005–06

  M62 Motorway Junction 6 Improvement. Improvements to the junction by providing links from the M62 motorway (westbound) to the M57 (northbound), and from the M57 (southbound) to the M62 (eastbound). The scheme will contribute to the regeneration of Merseyside and relieve congestion at the junction 6 Roundabout.

  24

  2007–08

  The start dates given are subject to the satisfactory completion of the necessary statutory procedures.

  Scheme

  Estimated cost (£ million)

  Completion date

  A500 Basford Hough Shavington Bypass.Removal of some 80 per cent. of traffic through Basford Hough and Shavington, including a substantial number of heavy goods vehicles.

  28.2

  Spring 2003

  A66 Stainburn and Great Clifton Bypass.Removal of some 75 to 80 per cent. of traffic through Stainbum and Great Clifton, including a substantial number of heavy goods vehicles.

  7.2

  December 2002

  There is also one other scheme that is not in the TPI, but which is currently under construction. This is the provision of a new junction 8 on the M62 at Warrington, and the widening of the motorway between junctions 8 and 9. The cost of the scheme is around £20 million, which is being met by the developer of the nearby Omega Development site. The expected completion date is December 2002.

  There are also a number of local authority road schemes, which have been provisionally accepted for funding by the Secretary of State. They are:

  Scheme

  Estimated cost (£ million)

  Completion date

  Alderley Edge Bypass

  38

  October 2003

  Bridgefoot Environmental Enhancement

  6

  April 2003

  Carlisle Northern Development

  22

  June 2004

  The Glossop Spur

  7

  August 2004

  Hall Lane Improvement—Liverpool

  9

  April 2005

  The SEMMMS report recommended three new road proposals to be taken forward by the local authorities. These are: Poynton Bypass; A555 MALRW; and the A6(M) Stockport north-south Bypass.

  Roads
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the total lengths of roads controlled by each local authority is, sub-divided between road classification. [66001]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The total length of public road controlled by local authorities in Great Britain was 377,346 kilometres as at 1 April 2001. A full analyses of the 11 classes of local authority roads within each of the 204 local authorities within Great Britain can be found by following the links at the following website: http:// www.transtat.dft.gov.ukJroadtraf/gorlen01.htm
  110W
  There are two other TPI schemes that are currently under construction. These are:

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to reduce the value he puts on reducing road congestion when calculating a rail scheme's value for money. [66060]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority's Freight Strategy, published in May 2001, announced that it was undertaking a review of the valuation of road congestion costs in time and money for lorry miles switched to rail. This review is on-going and I cannot prejudge the SRA's conclusions.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action the Government are taking to reduce road congestion. [64351]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It is intended that the 10-year plan will reduce road congestion below current levels by 2010. Under the 10-year plan £181.9 billion of investment will improve strategic roads, railways and local transport.

  Speed Limits
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research has been conducted(a) for and (b) by his Department into the impact of variable speed limits; what plans he has in relation to variable speed limits; and if he will make a statement. [64133]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) monitored trials on the effectiveness of variable speed limits outside schools. Variable Message Signs were installed outside schools that reduced the speed limit typically one hour around school arrival and leaving times. The result showed very little reduction in vehicle speeds and the report concluded that as a speed reducing feature they were ineffective.

  The Highways Agency is also currently trialling variable speed limits on sections of the M25. Independent monitoring and assessment of the scheme is being undertaken by TRL and the results so far have been encouraging. The area over which the variable speed

  111W
  limits operate has recently been extended. The extension is being closely monitored and results are expected next year.

  "Walking in Towns and Cities"
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action has been taken to implement the Transport Committee's report, "Walking in Towns and Cities"; and if he will make a statement. [64223]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Since the Government's response to the Select Committee was published in November 2001, a number of actions have taken place. A draft national walking strategy is being prepared and will be issued for consultation in due course. A series of regional seminars is under way throughout England and we are reviewing proposals for the establishment of an interactive website. We are developing a specification for research on attitudes to walking. Finally, we are reviewing and updating our technical guidance on walking.

  Railtrack
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when each of the asset registers are expected to be placed in the data room that is being prepared by the administrators of Railtrack; [65283]

  (2) what the status of the data room being prepared by the administrators to Railtrack is; and if he will make a statement; [65280]

  (3) what the location is of the data room being prepared by the administrators of Railtrack; [65282]

  (4) if he will place in the Library the index of reports in, or due to be placed in, the data room by the administrators of Railtrack. [65281]

  Mr. Jamieson
  These are matters for the administrators.

  Railway Byelaws
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 25 June 2002,Official Report, column 771W, on railway byelaws, for what reasons (a) Union Railways (North), (b) Union Railways (South) and (c) Hull Trains have written to the Department about their proposals for making byelaws based on the framework set; what advice, guidance and directions were given by his Department in response; and if he will list the questions raised related to the (i) interpretation and (ii) application of current byelaws by (A) GNER, (B) Arriva Trains Merseyside and (c) Thameslink. [66075]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Union Railways (North) Ltd. and Union Railways (South) Ltd. approached the Department in respect of the application of the framework set of byelaws to infrastructure for which they are responsible. The Department is in discussion with them on the most appropriate means. Hull Trains Ltd. sought advice on the procedure for making byelaws, which the Department has provided.

  GNER inquired about the level of fine available for the offence of trespass under their byelaws. Arriva Trains Merseyside inquired about changing the name of the
  112W
  operator on their byelaws. Thameslink inquired about the scope of the definition of 'authorised persons' in their byelaws.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the Strategic Rail Authority's balance sheet will reflect the potential liabilities incurred as a result of its underwriting of loans to Network Rail. [65403]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, on 27 June 2002,Official Report, columns 971–73, and to the subsequent reply given to a question from the hon. Member, Official Report, column 983.

  Potters Bar Rail Crash
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for a public inquiry into the Potters Bar rail crash. [64606]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A formal independent investigation into the causes of the Potters Bar train derailment is being undertaken by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The terms of reference allow for a thorough and broad investigation into all the circumstances and the root causes. We will await the outcome of HSE's investigations before deciding whether they raise issues which would merit further investigation by a public inquiry. Any safety-critical information that comes to light will immediately be disseminated to the railway industry to prevent any further similar accidents in the future.

  Rail Freight
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he will implement to help achieve the Government's target for an increase in rail freight; and if he will make a statement. [65170]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority set out in its Freight Strategy last year the detailed plans for achieving the rail freight growth envisaged by the Government's 10-year Plan for Transport.

  Reading Station
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the average age is of the rails at Reading station. [64597]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department does not hold such information. It is an operational matter for Railtrack.

  Railways
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what(a) guidance he has given and (b) legislation is in place with regard to delay attribution on the railways; what plans there are to change them; and if he will make a statement. [64150]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Delay attribution is undertaken in accordance with internal rail industry processes and is not specifically regulated. The Track Access Agreements between Train Operating Companies and Railtrack (which are overseen by the Rail Regulator) contain a schedule (Schedule 8) which gives high level guidance about delay
  113W
  attribution. An Industry Delay Attribution Board, with representatives from the whole of the rail industry handles the day to day detailed attribution of individual delays.

  Women's Refuges
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (I) how many women's refuges have received Government funding in each of the last five years; [59841]

  (2) how many refuges for women have been built in Britain in each of the last five years. [598421

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government's main capital and revenue funding for refuge and support provision is provided from the following sources:
  The Housing Corporation's Approved Development Plan (ADP) provides capital allocations to RSLs for the provision of social housing, including women's refuges. Revenue funding for housing management and support is provided via the Corporation's Supported Housing Management Grant (SHMG).
  Transitional Housing Benefit: provides rent and housing support costs, for those women who are eligible. (Note that from I April 2003, the elements of THB that provide support, and SHMG, will become part of Supporting People Grant.)
  Over the past five years, women's refuges will also have been eligible for funding from Government regeneration programmes, such as the Single Regeneration Budget (SRB).
  Local Government funding is provided by many local authorities. who provide a range of services, including housing and support. advice, advocacy and children's services.

  Records are not held centrally of all women's refuges in England which have received funding or been built over the last five years as funding comes from a wide range of sources, and it is impossible to quantify the total amount and the total number of units completed. However, the table shows the number of schemes funded through the Housing Corporation's ADP and Safer Communities Supported Housing Fund over the last five years. The table also shows the number of completed units through the same funding streams.

  Housing Corporation ADP and Safer Communities Supported Housing Fund

  Number of:

  Schemes approved

  Units completed

  1998–99

  13

  177

  1999–2000

  17

  234

  2000–01

  30

  45

  2001–02

  41

  226

  2002–03

  30

  n/a

  Note:

  Figures for Scotland and Wales are a matter for the devolved Administrations.

  Performance Targets
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the performance targets that his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies are required to meet, apart from those set out in the public service agreements for 1999 to 2002 and 2001 to 2004; and if he will specify for each target(a) who sets it and (b) who monitors achievement against it. [60462]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.
  114W
  In addition to its PSA targets, the former DTLR had a number of targets set in the supporting Service Delivery Agreement (SDA) agreed between the then DETR and Treasury Ministers following the 2000 Spending Review. (Those relating to the Fire Service were agreed with Home Office Ministers, whose responsibility the Fire Service then was.) Achievement against these targets is monitored by the Department's Finance Directorate and reported quarterly to Ministers and to the Treasury. The 19 SDA targets and progress against them were published in the DETR Annual Report for 2001 (Command 5105) and in the DTLR Annual Report for 2002 (Command 5405).

  Each of the former DTLR's 10 executive agencies were set key targets for 2002–03 by Ministers. These were announced to Parliament through written answers, details of which are set out as follows. Each agency chief executive is accountable to Ministers for the performance of their agency. The Department also regularly monitors performance against each agency's targets. All DTLR agencies publish annual report and accounts at the end of every financial year, which report on their performance against their targets.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers on DTLR agencies targets as given on:
  29 January 2002, Official Report, column 203W—Highways Agency
  26 March 2002, Official Report, column 678W—Planning Inspectorate
  26 March 2002, Official Report, column 947W—Maritime and Coastguard Agency
  29 April 2002, Official Report, column 554W—The Rent Service
  9 May 2002, Official Report, column 298W—Fire Service College
  15 May 2002, Official Report, column 674W—Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre
  16 May 2002, Official Report, column 795W—Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, Driving Standards Agency, Vehicle Certification Agency, Vehicle Inspectorate.

  Performance targets for executive NDPBs sponsored by the former DTLR, including outputs to be achieved, are normally agreed by Ministers and set out in the published business or corporate plan of the NDPB. Copies of such plans are available from the bodies. In most cases the Department monitors performance against these targets and for the more high profile bodies progress is discussed with Ministers. Outputs and achievements of each executive body are set out in its annual report. Copies of the annual report are available in the Library of the house.

  The Secretary of State has no powers of direction over the General Lighthouse Authorities' operational activities and those bodies are responsible for setting their own performance targets and the level of service required. A business plan for the Standards Board for England (created in 2001) is being prepared and performance targets will be agreed with the Department. The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) is required, by its Directions and Guidance from the Secretary of State, to work within its statutory framework to deliver the key rail targets set out in "Transport 2010: the Ten Year Plan" and to work with the rail industry to achieve substantial improvements in performance. Statistics in SRA's regular publications, "On track" and "National Rail Trends", provide an indication of achievement.
  115W
  No performance targets are set for the former Department's advisory NDPBs. Each advisory body normally sets its own programme of work for each year within its remit to advise Ministers on the particular policy area and agree this with the Department. No formal monitoring of performance takes place for these advisory bodies but outputs are set out in each body's annual report.

  British Transport Police
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has held with the Home Secretary about the future deployment of the British Transport Police; and if he will make a statement. [65741]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The deployment of the British Transport Police (BTP) is an operational matter for the Chief Constable. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Transport and the Home Secretary have agreed to provide central funds of £1.36 million to the BTP to support their participation in the Street Crime Initiative in London. This funding will enable the BTP to procure additional officers and equipment so that they can maximise their contribution to the initiative by targeting street crime in and around London's tube and rail network.

  TREASURY Refrigerators
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when Her Majesty's Customs and Excise first stopped the export of second-hand fridges in response to the European Regulation; when it lifted that ban, and why; when it restored it; and what the total value was of second-hand fridges exported in(a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) 2001. [62609]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 13 March,Official Report, column 1107W. Customs statistics do not separately identify the value of second hand fridges exported.

  Financial Ombudsman
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what power the financial ombudsman has to(a) impose and (b) collect fines from recalcitrant companies and individuals found guilty of selling incorrect policies. [65592]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Financial Ombudsman Service deals with complaints against financial services firms. It does not impose fines but where it decides a complaint against a firm, it can require the firm to make good the complainant's losses. The Financial Services Authority, as regulator, makes rules for regulated firms, including rules that they comply promptly with an ombudsman's decision. The FSA has a full range of disciplinary and enforcement powers over regulated firms, including the power to impose and collect fines.

  State Pensions
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 12 June,Official
  116W
  Report, column 1290W, on state pensions, what proportion of the rise for each of the listed pension schemes since 1997 is caused by (a) increases in prices and salaries, (b) a growth in the number of public servants, (c) reassessments of mortality rates and (d) other reasons; and if he will make a statement. [64500]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer of 21 June,Official Report, column 586W.

  Pensions Mis-selling
  John Mann
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on recent action which he has taken on mis-selling of pensions. [63410]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Financial Services Authority announced earlier this year that it expected to bring the review of mis-sold pensions to a close by its target date of 30 June 2002. By the end of this year the vast majority of consumers with outstanding claims will have received the compensation due to them.

  Spending Review
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has determined the date for this year's spending review announcement. [65730]

  John Healey
  The Chancellor expects to announce the date shortly.

  Regional Organisation
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which of the agencies and NDPBs sponsored by his Department have a regional organisation; and if he will list the counties and unitary authorities in each region in(a) 1997 and (b) 2002. [58941]

  Mr. Boateng
  None of the agencies and NDPBs sponsored by the Treasury has a regional organisation.

  OECD PISA Survey
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) pupils and (b) schools who were asked to take part in the OECD PISA survey refused to participate. [65134]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Nick Gibb, dated 1 July 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning how many (a) pupils and (b) schools who were asked to take part in the OECD PISA survey refused to participate. (65134)
  The numbers of pupils and schools in England that were asked to take part in the OECD PISA survey and refused to participate are shown in Table 2.1 of "Student Achievement in England—Results in reading, mathematical and scientific literacy among 15-year-olds from the OECD PISA 2000 study", published by ONS in May 2002.
  The report is available for free at: http://www.statistics.gov.uld statbase/Productasp ?v Ink=8169&More=N

  117W
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps were taken to assess the educational achievements of pupils who refused to sit the OECD PISA survey tests; and whether this information was incorporated into the PISA results. [65135]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Nick Gibb, dated 1 July 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning what steps were taken to assess the educational achievements of pupils who refused to sit the OECD PISA survey tests: and whether this information was incorporated into the PISA results.(65135)
  The educational achievement of pupils who refused to sit the OECD PISA survey test were not assessed for the reasons given in Section A.4 under 'Representativeness of the sample of students', in Appendix A of "Student Achievement in England—Results in reading, mathematical and scientific literacy among 15-year-olds from the OECD PISA 2000 study". This report was published by ONS in May 2002.
  As an alternative, test results at Key State 3 were sought directly from participating students so a comparison could be made with national statistics. However due to poor recollection by students, these data were incomplete and unreliable and therefore no comparison could he made.
  The report is available free at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/ statbase/Product.asp?v Ink=8169&More=N

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reasons the schools which refused to participate in the OECD PISA survey gave for their refusal. [65133]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Nick Gibb, dated 1 July 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning what reasons the schools which refused to participate in the OECD PISA survey gave for their refusal. (65133)
  For each school that chose not to participate in the OECD PISA survey in England, ONS attempted to ask the reasons why. Responses from schools varied in their level of detail and so it was not possible to conduct a systematic analysis. However, the most frequently cited reasons related to the time demands the survey would place upon school staff and on the selected students.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many pupils were asked to sit the OECD PISA survey test for(a) reading, (b) mathematical and (c) scientific literacy; and how they were chosen. [65137]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Nick Gibb. dated 1 July 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning how many pupils were asked to sit the OECD PISA survey test for (a) reading, (b) mathematical and (c) scientific literacy; and how they were chosen.(65137)
  Thirty-five students were randomly sampled in each participating school by ONS using lists of all students born in 1984 provided by the schools. Student sampling procedures and student response for PISA are described in Section 2.3 of Chapter 2 of "Student
  118W
  Achievement in England—Results in reading, mathematical and scientific literacy among 15-year-olds from the OECD PISA 2000 study" (ONS, May 2002).
  The survey in England assessed all 4,120 participating pupils in reading literacy. 2,292 pupils in mathematical literacy and 2,284 in scientific literacy. The subjects that pupils were assessed in were determined by which of nine PISA test booklets had been randomly assigned to them.
  The report is available for free at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/ statbase/Product.asp?v Ink=8169&More=N

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what basis schools were selected for inclusion in the OECD PISA survey; and how replacement schools were selected. [65129]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Nick Gibb, dated 1 July 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning on what basis schools were selected for inclusion in the OECD PISA survey; and how replacement schools were selected. (65129)
  Section 2.3 of Chapter 2 of "Student Achievement in England—Results in reading, mathematical and scientific literacy among 15-year-olds from the OECD PISA 2000 study", (ONS, May 2002) outlines how schools were randomly sampled for the OECD PISA survey in England and describes the steps taken to represent the different types of schools in the correct proportions. For each school that was selected to take part, two potential replacement schools had been identified. Appendix A of this report describes the sampling procedures for replacement schools, which were designed so that the replacement schools had similar educational characteristics to the original school.
  The report is available for free at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/ statbase/Product.asp?v I nk=8169&More=N.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the OECD's policy is regarding the inclusion of replacement schools in the OECD PISA survey. [65130]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Nick Gibb, dated 1 July 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning the OECD's policy regarding the inclusion of replacement schools in the OECD PISA survey. (65130)
  The OECD's specification for sampling schools for the OECD PISA survey required that a minimum response rate of 85 per cent. be achieved. Where this response rate fell between 65 per cent. and 85 per cent., it could still be achieved by using replacement sampling in line with procedures specified by the OECD. These are outlined in Section A.2 under "Replacement Sampling" in Appendix A of the ONS report, published in May 2002: "Student Achievement in England—Results in reading, mathematical and scientific literacy among 15-year-olds from the OECD PISA 2000 study".
  The report is available for free at: http://www.statistics.gov.uld statbase/Product.asp?v I nk=8169&More=N.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the schools selected as replacement schools for the OECD PISA survey. [65131]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.
  119W
  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Nick Gibb, dated 1 July 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning the list of schools selected as replacement schools for the OECD PISA survey. (65131)
  The Data Protection Act requires the Office for National Statistics (ONS) to honour any pledge that it makes to respondents before taking part in its surveys. Both the sampled schools and sampled pupils were assured before agreeing to co-operate that their decision to take part and the information they gave would be held in confidence by ONS. Consequently ONS cannot release the names of participating or non-responding schools or pupils.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of schools selected for the OECD PISA survey agreed to take part(a) prior to the inclusion of replacement schools and (b) after the inclusion of replacement schools; and what the minimum proportion of the originally selected schools is deemed acceptable by the OECD for inclusion in the international survey. [65128]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Nick Gibb, dated 1 July 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your question concerning what proportion of schools selected for the OECD PISA survey agreed to take part (a) prior to the inclusion of replacement schools and (b) after the inclusion of replacement schools; and what the minimum proportion of the originally selected schools is deemed acceptable by the OECD for inclusion in the international survey. [65128]
  The numbers of schools in England that were selected for PISA and agreed to take part (a) prior to the inclusion of replacement schools and (b) after the inclusion of replacement schools are shown in Table 2.1 of "Student Achievement in England—Results in reading, mathematical and scientific literacy among 15-year-olds from the OECD PISA 2000 study", published by ONS in May 2002.
  The corresponding response rates calculated by the OECD are (a) 59% and (b) 82% These fall below the response rates required by OECD for all participating countries of 65% and 85% respectively. The OECD therefore reviewed which schools had taken part and found that their profile of GCSE exam results was not statistically significantly different from that of all schools in England. An international review panel of experts that was established for this purpose by the OECD therefore concluded that low response from schools had not distorted English or UK results. Further details of this review can be found in Section A.4 under 'Representativeness of the sample of schools', in Appendix A of "Student Achievement in England—Results in reading, mathematical and scientific literacy among 15-year-olds from the OECD PISA 2000 study", published by ONS in May 2002.
  The report is available for free at: hup://www.statistics.gov.uk/ statbase/Product. asp?v Ink=8169&More=N

  Projected population for London and rest of England

  Projected population change

  Projected population (thousands)

  2002–07

  2007–12

  Age

  2002

  2007

  2012

  Thousands

  Percentage

  Thousands

  Percentage

  London

  45–49

  455.8

  561.2

  638.1

  105.4

  23.1

  76.9

  13.7

  50–54

  414.0

  434.1

  532.9

  20.1

  4.9

  98.8

  22.8

  55–59

  372.0

  388.3

  406.8

  16.3

  4.4

  18.5

  4.8

  Pension Funds
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average rate of tax relief was on contributions to pension funds for each of the years 1996–97 to 2000–01 corresponding to the rate of 30 per cent. estimated for 2001–02 in Table t7.9 on the Inland Revenue Website. [64125]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested is contained in the table.

  Estimated average rate of tax relief on contributions

  1996–97

  28

  1997–98

  28

  1998–99

  29

  1999–2000

  29

  2000–01

  29

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has today announced a review of Government statistics on contributions to private pensions involving ONS, DWP, Inland Revenue and external advisers.

  PFI Contracts
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate his Department has made of the payments under PFI contracts for each year from 2002–03 to 2027–28 for PFI deals which are expected to reach preferred bidder stage in the next three years. [65149]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury has no deals approaching preferred bidder stage at present.

  Demographic Change
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the Government projection is for demographic change in(a) London and (b) for all other regions in England over the next (i) five and (ii) 10 years for the age groups (A) 45 to 50, (B) 50 to 55, (c) 55 to 60, (D) 60 to 65, (E) 65 to 70, (F) 70 to 75, (G) 75 to 80, (H) 80 to 85 and (I) 85 years and over. [65143]

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

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 1 July 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question on what the Government projection is for demographic change in (a) London and (b) for all other regions in England over the next (i) five and (ii) 10 years for the age-groups (A) 45–50, (B) 50–55, (c) 55 to 60, (D) 60–65, (E) 65–70, (F) 70–75, (G) 75–80, (I) 85 years and over. I am replying in his absence. (65413).
  The attached table provides the required information.

  121W

  Projected population for London and rest of England

  Projected population change

  Projected population (thousands)

  2002–07

  2007–12

  Age

  2002

  2007

  2012

  Thousands

  Percentage

  Thousands

  Percentage

  60–64

  288.1

  337.2

  352.4

  49.1

  17.0

  15.3

  4.5

  65–69

  247.3

  251.4

  296.4

  4.0

  1.6

  45.0

  17.9

  70–74

  214.0

  207.9

  213.4

  –6.2

  –2.9

  5.5

  2.6

  75–79

  175.1

  167.3

  165.8

  –7.8

  –4.4

  –1.6

  –0.9

  80–84

  126.0

  119.9

  117.3

  –6.1

  –4.8

  –2.6

  –2.2

  85+

  117.7

  114.6

  112.0

  –3.1

  –2.6

  –2.6

  –2.3

  Rest of England

  45–49

  2,751.3

  3,115.8

  3,438.6

  364.4

  13.2

  322.8

  10.4

  50–54

  2,837.2

  2,729.7

  3,096.9

  –107.5

  –3.8

  367.2

  13.5

  55–59

  2,709.5

  2,784.3

  2,685.4

  74.9

  2.8

  –99.0

  –3.6

  60–64

  2,102.8

  2,624.7

  2,704.3

  521.9

  24.8

  79.6

  3.0

  65–69

  1,901.0

  1,988.2

  2,490.8

  87.3

  4.6

  502.6

  25.3

  70–74

  1,717.2

  1,715.6

  1,808.9

  –1.7

  –0.1

  93.3

  5.4

  75–79

  1,427.2

  1,426.9

  1,452.2

  –0.2

  0.0

  25.3

  1.8

  80–84

  1,018.4

  1,038.2

  1,060.6

  19.8

  1.9

  22.4

  2.2

  85+

  865.1

  939.6

  997.1

  74.5

  8.6

  57.5

  6.1

  Notes:

  1. ONS 1996-based long-term projections

  2. London is defined as the Government Office Region

  3. Figures my not sum due to rounding

  Northern Ireland (Euro)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the extent of the use of the euro in Northern Ireland, especially in border areas. [65589]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government have not made any assessment of euro-based transactions in the UK.

  It is entirely a commercial decision for UK business to determine whether or not they wish to accept the euro or any other foreign currency.

  EU (Sustainable Convergence)
  Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will include the economies of the applicant countries to the EU in the assessment of whether there can be sustainable convergence between the UK and the economies of the single currency. [66092]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government have said that they will complete an assessment of the five economic tests within two years of the start of this Parliament.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 23 May from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. J. Greenhalgh. [66205]

  Ruth Kelly
  A reply will be sent to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton shortly. As the right hon. Member's constituent's letter points out, there have been a number of international meetings where aid and aid spending have been discussed. We have been awaiting the outcome of these meetings, most notably the G8 summit in Kananaskis, to include the latest information in the reply.

  EU Committees
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the EU Committee on statistics relating to the trading of goods between member states is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if he will make a statement. [64910]

  John Healey
  The Committee on Statistics relating to the trading of goods between member states met on 27 and 28 June, and is next due to meet on 14–15 November 2002. The UK is normally represented by two officials from HM Customs and Excise. The Customs delegates at this committee represent all of the UK.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to her oral statement of 24 June 2002,Official Report, column 599, on the sale of school playing fields, if she will place in the Library the figures available to her Department in respect of sales between 1979 and 1997. [64703]

  Mr. Caborn
  Statistics on playing field sales were not collected until our playing fields legislation came into force. Public concern about the loss of school playing fields led directly to the introduction in October 1998 of Section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. Before Section 77 was introduced, only grant-maintained schools were required to seek consent from the Secretary of State before selling land, including areas of their playing fields. Local authorities and other schools that owned their own playing fields were free to sell without restriction.

  The then Department for Education and Employment estimated that an average of 40 playing fields a month were sold in this way before October 1998. Their estimate

  123W
  is based on the number of playing field disposals at grant-maintained schools between April 1996, when the previous Government further encouraged the disposal of playing fields by relaxing the Local Authority Capital Finance Regulations which governed the use of sale proceeds, and 1 October 1998, when section 77 took effect. During this 30-month period, some 64 grant-maintained schools were given approval to dispose of areas of playing field, which is an average of over two a month. Using the proportion of grant-maintained schools at that time compared with the number of other schools, the Department for Education and Skills estimate the total number of playing field disposals each month to have been around 40.

  Sport England
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02 what percentages of Sport England's Exchequer grant-in-aid was spent on (i) staff costs, excluding national centres, (ii) administrative expenses, (iii) publicity, promotions and communications, (iv) grants to national governing bodies, (v) grants to Sportscoach UK, (vi) grants to the Youth Sports Trust, (vii) sports science and sports medicine, (viii) national centres, (ix) grants to other national sports bodies, excluding NGBs and (x) regional support. [64846]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information requested is as follows:

  Percentage

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Staff costs excluding national centres

  20.56

  15.56

  Administrative expenses

  10.60

  9.08

  Publicity, promotions and communications

  3.29

  2.37

  Grants to national governing bodies

  17.08

  15.43

  Grants to Sportscoach UK

  3.83

  3.32

  Grants to Youth Sport Trust

  0.00

  0.00

  Sports science/medicine

  0.71

  0.23

  National centres

  6.79

  11.08

  Grants to other national sports bodies

  8.54

  7.36

  Regional support

  28.60

  35.56

  Total

  100.00

  100.00

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the projections for 2002–03 for the percentages of Sport England's grant-in-aid which will be spent on(a) staff costs, excluding national centres, (b) administrative expenses,(c) publicity, promotions and communications, (d) grants to national governing bodies, (e) grants to Sportscoach UK. (f) grants to the Youth Sports Trust, (g) sports science and sports medicine, (h) national centres, (i) grants to other national sports bodies, excluding NGBs and (j) regional support. [64847]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information requested is as follows:

  Percentage

  2002–03

  Staff costs excluding national centres

  12.76

  Administrative expenses

  6.41

  Publicity, promotions and communications

  1.66

  Grants to national governing bodies

  12.85

  Grants to Sportscoach UK

  2.69

  Grants to Youth Sports Trust

  0.00

  124W

  Percentage

  2002–03

  Sports science/medicine

  0.19

  National Centres

  11.39

  Grants to other national sports bodies

  6.67

  Regional support

  45.37

  Total

  100.00

  Sport (West Cumbria)
  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress has been made by the Sports Action Zone in West Cumbria; what investment has taken place in each of the local authorities covered by the Action Zone; and if she will make a statement. [64856]

  Mr. Caborn
  Eight months into the delivery of year one of the West Cumbria and Barrow Sport Action Zone Action Plan, programmes and projects with total funding of £1,210,031 have been approved in the zone. These vary from strategic programmes to local projects, lasting between one day and five years. The contribution so far from the Lottery funded Sport Action Zone Magnet Fund is £435,833. Partnership development with a wide range of cross boundary agendas and strategic partners has been a feature of the implementation of the Action Plan and a number of projects have emerged from the strategic programmes in the zone, resulting in additional investment and localized activities.

  In summary the position in each local authority area for primary funded Sport Action Zones programmes and projects is as follows:

  Allerdale:

  Total programme costs £169,493; magnet funding £89,000.

  Projects include:

  1. Allerdale Baton Relay race—linking local activities and events with the Commonwealth games.

  2. Stop smoking walking for health days-developed in partnership with the Health Action Zone and the Primary Care Trust.

  3. Promotion of the value of physical activity in schools and GP practices.

  4. Allerdale Community Chest small grants scheme—developed in partnership with the borough council and county council.

  5. Salterbeck Sport Development Officer and Co-ordinator—covering various Workington wards, developed in partnership with Impact Housing Association.

  6. Home Housing SOS programme—activities for young people on housing estates developed in partnership with Home Housing Association and the Millennium Volunteers Programme—aiming to foster a closer relationship between residents and social landlords.

  Barrow:

  Total programme costs £390,418; magnet funding £125,313.

  Projects include:

  1. Barrow Community Chest small grants scheme—developed in partnerships with the Barrow borough sports council.

  2. Active Living For All Consortium Programme—employing three specific sport development officers, linking Age Concern, Barrow Sport Development Team, the Community Safety

  125W
  Officer, Morecambe Bay Primary Care Trust and Health Promotion. Many smaller localized projects have been developed from this strategic programme.

  3. Barrow Equity Officer—development of opportunities and removal of barriers to participation, specifically with disability and sport.

  4. Summer Scheme 2001 and Summer Scheme 2002—activities for young people throughout the summer holidays.

  5. Sports Directory and website—development of a web-based directory of sporting provision in the borough of Barrow.

  Copeland:

  Total programme costs £460,984; magnet funding £105,500.

  Projects include:

  6. Copeland Community Chest small grants scheme—developed in partnership with the borough council.

  7. Egremont Rural Youth Works—development of a range of programmes and projects tackling anti-social behaviour in Egremont, aiming to reduce crime by 50 per cent. over five years.

  8. Healthier Communities Worker—in partnership with South Whitehaven Single Regeneration Budget—development of local activity projects linked with capacity building in South Whitehaven.

  9. General Practitioner Referral Scheme—exercise on prescription in partnership with the borough council and Health Action Zone.

  10. Summer scheme 2002 providing activities for young people throughout the summer holidays in partnership with a range of other agencies and organisations.

  Allerdale and Copeland:

  Total costs for cross-district programmes £89,700 magnet funding £48,500.

  Projects include:

  1. links and jointly funded programmes and projects with the Health Action Zone and health authority.

  2. Sports Directory—development of a directory and web-based source of information on sporting and physical activity opportunities in West Cumbria.

  3. Walking your Way to Health schemes.

  4. Co-ordination of Cardiac rehabilitation stage IV throughout West Cumbria.

  Allerdale, Barrow and Copeland:

  Total costs for cross-district programmes £74,640 magnet funding £67,320.

  Projects include:

  1. Research on the impact that sporting activities bring to the wider economic and social agendas.

  2. Administration assistant for the zone manager.

  Allerdale, Barrow, Copeland, Carlisle, Eden and Kendal:
  Total costs for cross-district programmes £24,796 magnet funding £7,500.

  Projects include:

  Adults Other Than Teachers—in partnership with the local education authority and Cumbria Sport. Training of adults to participate in the delivery and development of extra-curricular activities linked to Cumbrian schools.

  National Lottery
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will provide a list for each distributor of lottery money of how much money from held funds has been committed, and to whom and when the commitment was made. [65777]
  126W
  Mr. Caborn
  Money raised by the National Lottery for good causes is paid into the National Lottery Distribution Fund (NLDF). Any interest earned is added to the amount available for distribution. Money is subsequently drawn down from the fund by lottery distributors when it is needed to pay grant recipients and not before.

  Commitments by the 15 lottery distributors at 31 March 2002 totalled £4,127,025,203. This is broken down as follows.

  £

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  1,058,936.426

  Sport England

  847,653,000

  New Opportunities Fund

  881,804,894

  Community Fund

  549,556,460

  Arts Council of England

  245,735,456

  Millennium Commission

  229,000,000

  Film Council

  59,866,380

  Sport Scotland

  53,300,138

  UK Sports Council

  50,913,971

  Sports Council of Wales

  39,435,417

  Arts Council of Wales

  37,839,215

  Scottish Arts Council

  35,566,366

  Arts Council of Northern Ireland

  18,112,610

  Sports Council of Northern Ireland

  14,360,700

  Scottish Screen

  4,944,170

  These funds will have been committed by distributors to a great number of projects, which could not be listed individually except at disproportionate cost.

  Select Committee Report
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she will publish the Government's response to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee's Fourth report on Communications. [66471]

  Tessa Jowell
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I are today jointly publishing the Government's response to the Select Committee's Fourth report on Communications. The response is available on both the DTI (www.dti.gov.uk) and DCMS (www.culture.gov.uk) websites. Copies of the response were laid before Parliament earlier today and placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Liabilities Management Authority
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she expects to publish the White Paper on the Liabilities Management Authority. [65114]

  Mr. Wilson
  The White Paper on managing the nuclear legacy will be published shortly.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with British Energy and BNFL on the proposed Liabilities Management Authority. [65003]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 27 June 2002]Since the announcement made by my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 28 November 2001,Official Report, column 990, my officials have had

  127W
  discussions with both companies on a range of issues, including the setting up of the Liabilities Management Authority (LMA).

  A White Paper on managing the nuclear legacy will be published shortly. This will set out the Government's proposals for the LMA as a body responsible to Government for ensuring that public sector civil nuclear liabilities are dealt with safely, securely, cost-effectively and in ways which protect the environment for the benefit of current and future generations.

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made on the development of policy on nuclear liabilities management; when she expects to publish the White Paper; and if she will make a statement. [64857]

  Mr. Wilson
  The White Paper on managing the nuclear legacy will be published shortly.

  Energy Policy
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what targets have been set for the development of combined heat and power plants. [64345]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government have set a target of at least 10,000 MWe of installed combined heat and power by 2010. A draft "CHP Strategy to 2010" was launched for consultation by me on 15 May. The closing date for responses is 7 August 2002. The draft strategy sets out measures to support the achievement of the Government's CHP target. Copies of the draft strategy have been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Arms Exports
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what net cash flow from the Export Credits Guarantee Department was attributed to defence exports in each of the last five years, broken down by(a) interest rate support, (b) claims paid, (c) interest paid and (d) operating expenses. [62032]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 21 June 2002,Official Report, column 589W.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what support Trade Partners UK provided to assist British companies to attend or exhibit at the IPAS 2002 (International Police & Security Equipment Exhibition) in Iran; and which(a) companies and (b) amounts were involved. [62015]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Trade Partners UK provided no support to British companies to attend IPAS 2002 in Iran.

  Redundancy Payments
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much was paid out from public funds in redundancy payments in lieu of companies in liquidation in the last financial year. [62791]

  Alan Johnson
  For the financial year ending 31 March 2002 the redundancy payments service paid some £208.7 million to redundant workers out of the National Insurance Fund. Most of their former employers were insolvent but in some cases the service made payments 128W
  where solvent employers were unable or willing to pay. The figure includes statutory redundancy pay, unpaid wages, unpaid holiday pay and payments to compensate workers for not receiving proper notice. It does not include some £15.2 million in tax and national insurance contributions paid on behalf of workers and £2.1 million paid in pension contributions.

  Heat Transfer Technology
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she is taking to encourage the development of interseasonal heat transfer technology in the UK. [62551]

  Mr. Wilson
  Ground source heat pumps (GSHP) are a proven and reliable technology that can be commercially attractive in certain situations. DTI helped fund the establishment of a UK heat pump network in 1999 to promote the technology. The Government now encourages the development of this technology through the Carbon Trust's "Action Energy" programme, which is supported by DEFRA, the Scottish Energy Efficiency Office, the National Assembly for Wales and Invest Northern Ireland. The Carbon Trust currently supports the following GSHP activities:

  (i) a new study to monitor the performance of domestic GSHP systems on three sites;

  (ii) a proposed new study of a GSHP system in a single commercial building;

  (iii) two small part-funded R&D projects;

  (iv) the UK Heat Pump Network.

  Export Finance (Energy Production)
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the coal power plants which have had British business involvement with ECGD assistance since 1992; and if she will make a statement in each case on(a) project name, (b) country location, (c) capacity in MW, (d) estimated carbon emissions and (e) the value of the loan guaranteed. [63200]

  Ms Hewitt
  The table lists the name, country location, capacity in MW, estimated carbon emissions per year, and the value of the loan guaranteed by ECGD for each of the coal-fired stations for which ECGD has guaranteed the repayment of a loan since 1992. The list does not include projects for which ECGD has solely provided overseas investment insurance and other insurances since such cases are treated as commercial in confidence.

  In estimating the value of carbon emissions it has been assumed that, upon completion, the stations will operate for 60 per cent. of the time (5,256 hours per year). It has also been assumed that carbon makes up 27.3 per cent. of the atomic mass of CO, and that coal produces CO, at 0.687 tonnes per MW per hour.

  These assumptions are taken from the greenhouse gas protocol website www.ghgprotocol.org and are the 1999 average values for power plants in "Economies In Transition" (i.e. markets where ECGD most commonly provides guarantees).

  It should be noted that for most large power stations ECGD is only one of several financial providers.
  129W

  Project

  Country

  Capacity (MW)

  Carbon emissions (tonnes per year)

  Loan value (£ million)

  Balagarh

  India

  500

  492,481

  3.5

  Budge Budge

  India

  500

  492,481

  64.5

  Dalate

  China

  700

  689,474

  17.8

  Fuzhou

  China

  700

  689,474

  63.1

  Nantong

  China

  660

  650,075

  20.0

  Fushan City

  China

  100

  98,496

  22.1

  Gao Bei Dian

  China

  1—

  1—

  3.3

  Shaijao 'C'

  China

  1—

  1—

  42.5

  Omblin

  Indonesia

  200

  196,992

  60.9

  Dalian

  China

  700

  689,474

  66.5

  Dandong

  China

  700

  689,474

  67.8

  Majuba

  South Africa

  3,600

  3,545,864

  239.0

  Harare and Munyati

  Zimbabwe

  255

  251,165

  7.1

  Shandong

  China

  3,000

  2,954,887

  213.5

  Sual

  Philippines

  1,200

  1,181,955

  296.6

  Bulawayo

  Zimbabwe

  120

  118,195

  5.6

  Manjung

  Malaysia

  2,100

  2,068,421

  522.3

  Afsin-Elbistan

  Turkey

  1,080

  1,063,759

  8.4

  1Not known, as ECGD's records do not show the capacity of these stations. Both cases involved the basic supply of goods and so details of construction/capacity were not required. Shaijao was underwritten in 1993 and details of loan utilisation are no longer available.

  Telephone Exchanges (Essex)
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which telephone exchanges in Essex have been converted to DSL; and what plans there are to convert the remaining exchanges. [63772]

  Ms Hewitt
  BT's website provides details of enabled exchanges by county: "http://www.bt.com/broadband/"

  According to the information they provide, 35 exchanges in Essex have to date been enabled to provide ADSL services.

  BT announced on 18 June that they will enable an exchange where a specified number of users have registered their interest, and will publicise how many more registrations are needed to reach the target. At first this offer will cover 300 exchanges, to be followed by a further 600.

  Job Sharing
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to encourage businesses to employ job-share employees. [63668]

  Alan Johnson
  We are working with a wide range of businesses to raise awareness of the business benefits of flexible working, including job sharing. In addition, through our successful £10.5 million Work-Life Balance Challenge Fund programme, we are providing support and guidance to employers who want to adopt flexible working.

  Evidence to date indicates an increase in people taking up opportunities to job share in projects supported by the Challenge Fund. We are also actively disseminating the emerging best practice, so that more businesses and employees will be able to benefit from flexible working arrangements.

  In addition, from April 2003, parents of children aged under six and disabled children aged under eighteen will have a right to request to work flexibly (which includes job share) and employers will have a duty to consider
  130W
  requests seriously. This important new right will be accompanied by a package of support for both employers and employees.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of the Department's staff are job-share employees. [63669]

  Ms Hewitt
  There are currently 10 staff sharing five jobs in DTI HQ and its agencies. The assumption is that all posts will be open to part-time and job share staff. If, exceptionally, there are objective reasons why a job may not be undertaken on a part-time or job share basis, the reasons would be stated clearly in the advertisement.

  Nuclear Installations
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), of 10 June 2002,Official Report, column 968, if she will place in the Library a copy of the presentation from the Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations. [63909]

  Mr. Wilson
  HSE is placing copies of the Chief Inspector's presentation in the Libraries of the House. It is also available on the HSE website.

  Office for Civil Nuclear Security
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry with whom the office for Civil Nuclear Security discussed the potential vulnerability to attack of the Sellafield MOX plant, following the terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September 2001; and if she will place in the Library a declassified version of the report prepared by the OCNS on SMP security. [63839]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Office for Civil Nuclear Security consulted with HSE's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and other Government departments and agencies as appropriate, as well as the Sellafield site licensees in considering the consequences of the attacks in the United States last September and in reviewing security measures in place at Sellafield. OCNS reports concentrate on security measures and as it is not Government policy to disclose details of security measures taken at civil nuclear sites, I will not be placing any declassified versions in the Libraries of the House.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether there is a prohibition against employing staff members of non Governmental organisations or independent research institutes as specialists for the office for Civil Nuclear Security. [63840]

  Mr. Wilson
  There is no such restriction. All applicants for posts to be filled are assessed on their suitability to meet the requirements of the post and vetting requirements. OCNS, as elsewhere in Government, is an equal opportunities employer.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she plans to increase the operating budget of the Office for Civil Nuclear Security. [63837]

  Mr. Wilson
  It has been agreed by the Treasury that the budget for the office for Civil Nuclear Security will be increased by £200,000 for the financial year 2002–03 and by £300,000 for the financial year 2003–04 in order to cover additional security and vetting posts.

  Public Holidays
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the cost to business of each public holiday in(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland. [64534]

  Alan Johnson
  Based on the most recent data available on Compensation of Employees from the Regional Accounts (produced by the Office for National Statistics), the estimated cost of a bank holiday to UK business in 1999 was £1.89 billion. The breakdown by country is(a)£1,610 million in England (b) £80 million in Wales (c) £160 million in Scotland and (d) £40 million in Northern Ireland. These figures are probably an overestimate since they assume that all businesses are closed on bank holidays; and that all employees, who do not work on bank holidays, are still paid.

  Retail Sector (Start-up Assistance)
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what Government sponsored financial assistance is available to those wishing to start an enterprise within the retail sector. [64930]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The SBS operates a number of programmes aimed at helping small businesses in all sectors (including start-ups) to obtain finance. These include: Regional Venture Capital Funds; the Phoenix Fund; and the soon to be launched Early Growth Funding programme.

  In addition, the SBS has been providing advisory support to start-up businesses identified with the potential for high growth. Since October 1999, some 8,500 pre and early start businesses have received support from Business Link Operators to assist them in reaching their high growth potential.

  The SBS is currently consulting across Government and with the business support organisations in the private and public sectors, on a comprehensive strategy for helping people to start a business. The SBS Consultation document of 6 May sets out the issues involved and invites proposals for how to address them. A key theme is the need for resources to be targeted to ensure high quality help is available to all who seek it. Following the consultation exercise in July, an action plan will be published in the Autumn to detail the steps that the Government and key stakeholders will take to help more people to start and grow a business.

  Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether a decision has been made on whether to extend the Small Firms Loan Guarantee scheme to excluded sectors. [64931]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I have received representations from a variety of bodies over a period of time about the extension of the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme to excluded business activities. The Scheme is currently being considered as part of the DTI's wider review of business support.

  Temporary Agency Workers
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make an announcement on the Commission proposal for a directive on temporary agency workers. [58081]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government will begin a 16-week public consultation on the Commission proposal for a directive on temporary agency workers from today. It will give interested parties an opportunity to comment on the Commission proposals and their likely impact on the UK.

  Nuclear Waste Storage (Dounreay)
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with the UKAEA on the progress of construction of facilities at Dounreay for the long-term storage of nuclear waste. [65 1131

  Mr. Wilson
  None.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the European Energy and Transport Forum is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement. [61711]

  Ms Hewitt
  The European Energy and Transport Forum is a consultative committee which was established by the European Commission on 11 July 2001. Its purpose is to consider Commission initiatives in the field of energy and transport and gives its views. Its mandate is Commission Decision 2001/546/EC. The Forum comprises 34 members, including five from the UK. These were selected by a Commission process set out in Commission Decision 2001/C 205–06. The Forum has not yet met. When it does it will establish a programme of work that will, no doubt, include issues from the Commission White Paper on Transport and the Commission Green Paper on Energy Security. No costs to UK public funds arise from the Forum. More details are available on the EU website "http://europa.eu i nt/com m/energy"-transport/en/forum en.html

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Consumer Committee is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement. [61699]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Consumer Committee was established by the European Commission in its "Decision (2000/323/EC)" of 4 May 2000. The Committee's mandate is to:constitute a forum for general discussions on problems relating to consumer interests.
  give opinions on Community matters affecting the protection of consumer interests.
  133W

  advise and guide the Commission when it outlines policies and activities having an effect on consumers.
  inform the Commission of developments in consumer policy in the member states.
  act as a source of information and soundboard on Community action for the other national organizations.

  The Committee meets on average four times a year in Brussels.

  The Committee is composed of 20 member members and 20 alternates appointed by the Commission for a 3-year (renewable) mandate (1 per member state plus five representatives from the European consumer associations: AEC, ANEC, BEUC, COFACE, EURO COOP).

  The secretariat and the presidency of the Committee are held by the European Commission. There is no cost to the UK public funds.

  The items for consideration in the Committee are based on the requests for opinion made prior to each meeting by the Commission.

  The minutes of meetings and Committee Opinions are published on the European Commission website.

  Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on what assistance is available to firms that expand beyond the definition of SME. [65005]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 27 June 20021]The Department has a range of support available for larger companies. This includes support for regional investment, innovation, collaborative research and development and knowledge transfer, exports and international trade and competitiveness activities in particular sectors such as the aerospace or automobile sectors. They also benefit from the Department's major investment in maintaining the excellence of the UK's science and engineering base.

  Details of the Department's activities in these areas are set out in DTI's expenditure plans report (Cm 5416) which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry submitted to Parliament on 14 June.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what targets have been sought from or set for each local authority for increasing use of renewable energy; and what funding is contingent upon the achievement of these targets. [64284]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 25 June 2002]The Government are committed to promoting a positive and strategic approach to regional planning for renewable energy development in the UK. Last year, we initiated the preparation of regional studies, including regional assessments of the potential for renewables and targets, representing the practical capacity achievable in regions by 2010. These studies have now been completed and the findings were published by Oxera in February 2002. These findings have also been channelled to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's office, who are currently revising the Planning Policy Guidance Note, PPG22, to give local planning authorities more up-to-date guidance on renewables planning.
  134W
  I have also announced the allocation of £1.7 million worth of work in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, to take forward the facilitation of renewable energy planning. In addition, the Scottish Executive will continue to work with local authorities in Scotland on renewables planning. This is the first tranche of funding from the £2.5 million for planning announced by the PIU energy review. In addition to the DTI funding, the bids we received showed that matched funding of over £2 million can be expected from local organisations.

  That is a real boost to this work and a very encouraging indication of the interest being taken at local level in renewables planning. This fund will be used to support the development of sub-regional targets and to take forward initiatives such as good practice guidelines and further stakeholder engagement in renewable energy developments.

  The Renewables Obligation, which came into force on 1 April 2002, is the main instrument through which renewable energy development will be supported. The Obligation will be backed up by direct Government funding worth over £260 million for the period 2001–04, including the allocation of £74 million for the development of offshore wind projects, £78.5 million for the establishment of energy crops and biomass schemes and £20 million to kick-start a major solar PV demonstration scheme.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what targets she has set the Insolvency Service executive agency for 2002–03. [66090]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Insolvency Service's planning assumption is that compulsory insolvencies will total 28,000 in the year to 31 March 2003, and I have therefore set it the target of completing 28,500 case administrations in the year to 31 March 2003 and to maintain the levels of Income Payment Orders achieved.

  I have set the Service two new targets for 2002–03. The first is to publish quarterly results of the Service's User Satisfaction Index and introduce a benchmark score by 31 March 2003; and the second is to achieve IiP re-accreditation in the autumn of 2002.

  I have also set it the targets of containing increases in the unit cost of administering bankruptcy and compulsory liquidation cases by 1 per cent. in real terms over the period 2002–04; and containing increases in the cost of investigations of bankruptcy and compulsory liquidation cases by 10 per cent. in real terms over the period 2002–04. These increases reflect plans by the Service to invest in information technology and staff resources to prepare for implementation of the Enterprise Bill and are expected to generate net reductions in unit costs over a five-year period.

  I expect the Service to continue to achieve the levels of proceedings for disqualification taken against unfit directors as in previous years and reports on cases of criminal misconduct as in 2001–02. At the same time I look to the Service reducing the average time of the conclusion of disqualification proceedings arising from non-compulsory insolvencies from 27.5 months to 26 months by 31 March 2003; and to increasing the

  135W
  percentage of disqualification cases concluded within 30 months from 72 per cent. to 78 per cent. and those within 24 months from 33 per cent. to 40 per cent.

  I also expect the Service to check and action at least 98 per cent. of Insolvency Services Account payment requisitions within four days or the due date, and to action 100 per cent. of invoices for payment within 30 days of receipt and 95 per cent. of invoices for payment within 20 days.

SCOTLAND

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were in employment(a) at the most recent date for which figures are available and (b) in May 1997 for each constituency in Scotland. [61293]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Eric Joyce, dated 1 July 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about employment in Scotland. (61304)
  ONS publishes employment rates but not levels from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) for parliamentary constituencies.
  The attached table gives estimates of working age employment rates for each constituency in Scotland for the periods March 1997 to February 1998, and March 2000 to February 2001. These estimates are from the LFS and are not seasonally adjusted.

  Annual working age' employment rates 2 by parliamentary constituency; Scotland; March 1997 to February 1998 and March 2000 to February 2001; not seasonally adjusted

  Per cent

  March 1997 to February 1998

  March 2000 to February 2001

  Scotland

  71.0

  73.1

  Aberdeen Central

  74.2

  70.5

  Aberdeen North

  81.8

  81.5

  Aberdeen South

  81.1

  81.8

  Airdrie and Shotts

  66.0

  62.2

  Angus

  78.7

  77.3

  Argyll and Bute

  70.7

  71.2

  Ayr

  77.2

  70.0

  Banff and Buchan

  72.8

  77.5

  Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross

  66.3

  77.5

  Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley

  65.0

  67.7

  Central Fife

  66.8

  70.2

  Clydebank and Milngavie

  68.1

  68.6

  Clydesdale

  70.4

  73.3

  Coatbridge and Chryston

  62.2

  64.6

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  70.5

  71.2

  Cunninghame North

  66.5

  66.7

  Cunninghame South

  64.4

  69.9

  Dumbarton

  73.3

  72.2

  Dumfries

  71.6

  72.4

  Dundee East

  70.4

  69.9

  Dundee West

  64.9

  61.3

  Dunfermline East

  71.9

  75.8

  Dunfermline West

  78.8

  78.5

  East Kilhride

  75.2

  84.0

  East Lothian

  73.9

  72.6

  Eastwood

  81.6

  79.4

  Edinburgh Central

  64.7

  76.1

  Edinburgh East and Musselburgh

  76.9

  71.8

  Edinburgh North and Leith

  72.4

  78.3

  Edinburgh Pentlands

  77.3

  81.2

  Edinburgh South

  66.5

  66.0

  136W

  Annual working age1 employment rates2 by parliamentary constituency; Scotland; March 1997 to February 1998 and Marchuary 2001; not seasonally adjusted

  Per cent

  March 1997 to February 1998

  March 2000 to February 2001

  Edinburgh West

  76.7

  80.8

  Falkirk East

  73.3

  78.6

  Falkirk West

  74.3

  74.4

  Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  68.5

  74.6

  Glasgow Anniesland

  60.2

  71.7

  Glasgow Baillieston

  55.5

  59.9

  Glasgow Cathcart

  64.5

  70.4

  Glasgow Govan

  69.1

  61.5

  Glasgow Kelvin

  66.6

  60.6

  Glasgow Maryhill

  49.1

  58.7

  Glasgow Pollok

  57.9

  64.4

  Glasgow Rutherglen

  64.0

  63.5

  Glasgow Shettleston

  48.6

  54.3

  Glasgow Springburn

  49.7

  57.4

  Gordon

  85.5

  84.1

  Greenock and Inverclyde

  73.2

  76.8

  Hamilton North and Bellshill

  66.0

  70.9

  Hamilton South

  61.0

  61.9

  Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber

  77.2

  79.5

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  64.1

  72.4

  Kirkcaldy

  73.3

  66.7

  Linlithgow

  79.4

  78.6

  Livingston

  81.2

  78.6

  Midlothian

  78.2

  80.0

  Moray

  71.7

  79.6

  Motherwell and Wishaw

  64.7

  59.8

  North East Fife

  71.0

  78.7

  North Tayside

  77.5

  82.1

  Ochil

  65.4

  67.3

  Orkney and Shetland

  81.3

  87.3

  Paisley North

  63.3

  63.4

  Paisley South

  71.4

  79.2

  Perth

  78.4

  81.6

  Ross, Skye and Inverness West

  77.2

  77.4

  Roxburgh and Berwickshire

  75.8

  84.2

  Stirling

  72.6

  71.7

  Strathkelvin and Bearsden

  76.7

  74.1

  Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale

  79.5

  84.7

  West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine

  76.1

  85.2

  West Renfrewshire

  76.0

  81.6

  Western Isles

  78.9

  78.5

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

  2Working age people in employment as a percentage of the working age population

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey, Annual Data

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Terrorists
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his plans to inform persons suspected of involvement in terrorist activities that their cases will not be pursued. [63943]

  Dr. John Reid
  We are still considering how best to implement the proposals which we and the Irish Government made in relation to this following the Weston Park talks. In the meantime, any inquiries received in relation to individuals wishing to establish whether they are wanted in Northern Ireland in relation to suspected terrorist activities have been communicated to the Attorney-General, who has referred them to the prosecuting authorities and the police.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (I) how many people suspected of involvement in terrorist activities have been informed
  137W
  by the Northern Ireland Office since 10 April 1998 that they are no longer wanted by the prosecuting authorities; [63945]

  (2) how many people residing outside the United Kingdom and suspected of involvement in terrorist activities have been informed by the Northern Ireland Office since 10 April 1998 that if they return to any part of the United Kingdom their cases will not be pursued by the prosecuting authorities. [639421

  Dr. John Reid
  As a result of inquiries received and referred to the prosecuting authorities and the police, 32 individuals have been informed over the past two years that they are not wanted for arrest in relation to terrorist offences. In accordance with the policy announced by my predecessor on 29 September 2000, an additional 25 persons, who had left Northern Ireland without completing their sentences, have been informed since then that they can return to Northern Ireland without serving more time in custody and that the prosecuting authorities and police have confirmed they will not face fresh charges.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many people suspected of involvement in terrorist activities will benefit from the provisions contained in paragraph 20 of the joint proposals published by the British and Irish Governments on 1 August 2001; [63944]

  (2) how many people stand to benefit from the measures envisaged in paragraph 20 of the joint communique issued by her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Irish Republic on 1 August 2001 following their meeting at Weston Park. [56292]

  Jane Kennedy
  The British and Irish Governments recognised at the talks at Weston Park last summer that the issue of terrorists on the run needed to be dealt with. Paragraph 20 of the joint communique made following those talks committed both Governments to taking steps to resolve this issue. The Government stands by that commitment and is considering the options for discharging it. Until the Government have concluded how best to resolve the matter, it is not possible to give a reliable estimate of how many people it would effect.

  Evelyn Glenholmes
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the decision was taken not to proceed with outstanding prosecutions against Evelyn Glenholmes; at which point she was informed of this decision; and if he will place the relevant correspondence in the Library. [63941]

  Dr. John Reid
  Ms Glenholmes' case was reviewed in 1995 by the Director of Public Prosecutions for England and Wales. He concluded that the evidence against her was insufficient and that the outstanding prosecution and extradition request to the Republic of Ireland should be dropped. Inquiries were made on her behalf in 2000 in the light of her wish to return to Northern Ireland. She was informed that there were no outstanding prosecutions against her.

  Annual Leave
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the average annual leave entitlement is for staff in his Department in 2002. [64649]

  Jane Kennedy
  The average annual leave allowance entitlement of Northern Ireland civil servants and home civil servants in 2002 was 26 days.

  Annual leave allowances are as follows:

  Probationers

  22 days allowance (increasing to 25 days after one year in service or on appointment if there has been a previous period of casual service providing there has been no break in service exceeding 12 months).

  Full rime staff

  25 days during qualifying period

  Grade A

  30 days after 10 years service

  Grade B1

  30 days after 10 years service

  Grade B2

  30 days after 15 years service

  Grade D2-C

  30 days after 20 years service

  Senior civil servants

  30 days on entry to the service.

  Members of Parliament (Personal Data)
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information is held by his Department on each hon. Member in relation to(a) personal relationships, both current and past, (b) financial status and dealings,(c) connections with companies and interest groups,(d) connections with Governments and (e) published works; and what was held in January 2002. [61828]

  Jane Kennedy
  Ministers and officials in this Department have access to published reference sources, as well as to the information about hon. Members made publicly available by the House authorities, for the purpose of parliamentary business.

  Police and Prison Officer Fatalities
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list those members of the(a) RUC and (b) Northern Ireland Prison Service who resided in the Ards borough council area and have been killed in the line of duty since 1972. [62395]

  Jane Kennedy
  The PSNI does not maintain records of the address at the date of the death or by council area. If a next of kin changes address after the death the previous address is deleted from the system. The information provided in the table is therefore based on that currently available and should not be taken as being definitive.

  Records are not maintained of the addresses of members of the Northern Ireland Prison Service who were killed in the line of duty. However, since 1972, 29 members of the Northern Ireland Prison Service have been killed.
  139W

  Members of the RUC killed in the Ards borough council area since 1972

  Name

  Rank

  Number

  Date of death

  S. J.Montgomery

  Constable

  14875

  7 September 1981

  S.A.Fyffe

  Sergeant

  13620

  4 November 1983

  W. McDonald

  Sergeant

  11363

  12 August 1984

  S.C.McHenry

  Reserve Constable

  R12176

  28 February 1985

  W.L.Smyth

  Constable

  14417

  22 May 1986

  D.E.Patterson

  Constable

  11352

  10 November 1986

  L.M.Robinson

  Constable

  10395

  16 September 1990

  S.Todd

  Constable

  13206

  15 October 1990

  S.Gillespie

  Constable

  13296

  2 May 1991

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Sudan
  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if her Department is responsible for co-ordinating the Government's policy on the peace process in Sudan. [64805]

  Clare Short
  The day-to-day co-ordination of UK Government policy on the Sudan peace process is led by Alan Goulty, UK Special Representative for Sudan. Alan Goulty reports jointly to both the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Development. He is supported by a joint DFID/FC0 team, the Sudan Unit.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations he has made to the Government of Sudan regarding the legalisation of female genital mutilation. [64601]

  Clare Short
  Our embassy in Khartoum has made representations at ministerial level in Khartoum, both bilaterally and in co-ordination with EU Partners, on the Sudanese Government's reported plans to legalise female genital mutilation (FGM). The Government of Sudan reassured us that there were no plans to legalise the practice. The embassy also works closely with Sudanese civil society groups in advocating the eradication of FGM. It forms part of the campaign for ratification of the UN Convention on the Eradication of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in which we have actively supported the growing women's rights movement and UN attempts to address these issues. In particular, our embassy has ongoing contact with UNICEF. We have also funded various projects aimed at eradication of FGM, including the national advocacy campaign for 2002–03.

  Uganda
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the level and impact of her Department's financial support for the Education. Management Information System in Uganda. [64980]

  Clare Short
  DFID's financial and technical support for the Education Management Information System (EMIS) in Uganda has achieved a high level of impact and has contributed greatly to improved decision making in education and the establishment of a rational well-managed education system.

  European Heads of Government Meeting
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the outcome of the European Heads of Government Meeting in Seville on 21 and 22 June regarding trade and development. [62925]

  Clare Short
  The meeting of European Heads of Government at Seville considered trade and development in the context of the EU's preparations for the World Summit on Sustainable Development which will be held in Johannesburg later this year.

  It was agreed that the EU should continue to seek a comprehensive and timely conclusion to the Doha Development Agenda, in order to increase the benefits of trade liberalisation as an engine for the sustainable development of developing countries, and support efforts to create regional free-trade areas between them. The EU will invite other developed countries to join its positive agenda on globalisation, trade and finance to help developing countries benefit from access to developed—country markets so that globalisation can work to the advantage of all.

  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the outcome of the European Council Meeting in Seville on 21 and 22 June regarding trade and development. [64670]

  Clare Short
  The meeting of European Heads of Government at Seville considered trade and development in the context of the EU's preparations for the World Summit on Sustainable Development which will be held in Johannesburg later this year.

  It was agreed that the EU should continue to seek a comprehensive and timely conclusion to the Doha Development Agenda, in order to increase the benefits of trade liberalisation as an engine for the sustainable development of developing countries, and support efforts to create regional free-trade areas between them. The EU will invite other developed countries to join its positive agenda on globalisation, trade and finance, to help developing countries benefit from access to developed-country markets so that globalisation can work to the advantage of all.

  Arms Trade (Indian Sub-continent)
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which licence applications her Department has examined for arms exports to(a) Pakistan and (b) India since January 2000; and how many her Department (i) supported and (ii) opposed. [65450]

  Clare Short
  Along with the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence my Department provides advice to the Department of Trade and Industry on relevant export licence applications.

  The advice given to the Department of Trade and Industry is exempt from disclosure under Part II, Section 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, as information whose disclosure would harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion.

  Millennium Development Goals
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on progress towards the millennium development goals. [64702]

  Clare Short
  Latest forecasts from the World Bank suggest that globally, meeting the 2015 target of halving the proportion of people living in extreme poverty is attainable. There has been progress. During the 1990s, the proportion of people living on less than %1 a day in the developing world fell from 29 per cent. in 1990 to 23 per cent. in 1999. This was mainly due to the substantial progress made during the 1990s in east Asia and, in particular, China.

  In the developing world, progress has also been made during the 1990s against almost all the other 2015 millennium development targets. The proportion of children completing a full course of primary school increased from 68 per cent. to 73 per cent.; the under-five mortality rate decreased from 88 to 84 deaths per 1,000 births; and the proportion of people with access to an improved water source increased from 73 per cent. to 79 per cent.

  However, to meet all of the 2015 targets we must do more. The sub-Saharan African region presents the biggest challenge to meeting the 2015 targets. We therefore need to make an enormous effort internationally to accelerate progress in Africa.

  A detailed description of progress towards all the 2015 targets is contained in a recent World Bank publication: "World Development Indicators 2002", which can be found at the following website: http://www.worldbank.org/data/ wdi2002/worldview.pdf

  Development Partner Countries
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if updated data on the gender disparity in secondary education in UK development partner countries have been published. [64955]

  Clare Short
  We expect updated data on gender disparity in secondary education in developing countries to be published by the World Bank within the next two months. We will then use it to update our reporting against our Public Service Agreement targets.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the nature of the problems with the data on primary education in UK development partner countries that are published by the World bank. [64981]

  Clare Short
  There are difficulties both in the coverage and the timeliness of primary education data compiled by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), and published by the World bank, for some of the major UK development partner countries.

  The problems with coverage which we have encountered in reporting against the Public Service Agreement targets are due partly to the difficulty of calculating net primary enrolment rates (ie proportion of children of primary school age in school), often due to lack of data on the ages of children in school. Gross
  142W
  enrolment data (which use the total number of children in school regardless of age) are relatively easy to obtain for most countries, but do not give a clear picture of the number of children who are out of school.

  In some countries the reliability of the pupil data is also questionable due either to lack of technical capacity, poor school record keeping, or, in a few cases, political manipulation of the figures. Calculating net enrolment rates also requires figures for the population of school age children, which are often based on out-of-date census data. Where there are doubts about the reliability of either the pupil or population figures, UNESCO can often either decline to publish figures for a country, or revise earlier figures.

  For most countries, it can take a long time for data produced at country level to be provided to international bodies (principally the UNESCO Institute for Statistics), be verified by them and published in international reports. For example, the latest officially published net primary enrolment figure for Uganda is 57 per cent. although we knew from our work in country that the figure is much higher and is probably over 85 per cent. This published figure is more than five years old.

  We are working at country level and with the World bank and UNESCO Institute of Statistics to improve the availability of timely data on primary education to assist with policy making, both for developing countries and for bilateral donors and the international community.

  United Nations Development Programme
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the progress of the work of the United Nations Development Programme in HIV/AIDS. [64979]

  Clare Short
  UNDP, as one of the co-sponsoring organisations of the joint UN programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), plays an important role in helping create enabling policy, legislative and resource environments for an effective multisectoral response to the epidemic. UNDP's key areas for action lie in supporting developing countries to take effective leadership, in developing capacity for action, promoting a rights-based approach and in impact mitigation.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the progress of the work of the United Nations Development Programme in energy and the environment. [64977]

  Clare Short
  DFID is providing support to UNDP's Poverty and Environment initiative, which aims to ensure that `win-win' options for reducing poverty while improving the environment are reflected in the strategies and practices of developing country Governments and their international partners. We are supportive of the work of UNDP as an implementing agency of the Global Environment Facility and of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. We are also supportive of UNDP's co-sponsorship of Energy Sector Management Programme (ESMAP) and their work in the Global Village Energy Partnership.
  143W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had with representatives of the United Nations Development Programme about the progress of its work on poverty reduction. [64687]

  Clare Short
  I met UNDP's Administrator, Mark Malloch Brown, in Monterrey in March. We discussed a range of issues, including UNDP's work to promote the Millennium Development Goals for poverty reduction.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had with representatives of the United Nations Development Programme about the progress of its work on democratic governance. [64695]

  Clare Short
  Democratic Governance is one of UNDP's six priority action areas, and an area that DFID also prioritises in its work. I last had discussions with UNDP's administrator, Mark Malloch Brown, on this and other issues at the UN's Conference on Financing for Development (FfD) in Monterrey in March 2002.

  My officials work closely with UNDP colleagues on democratic governance programmes in a number of partner countries. There is also regular contact between headquarters staff. For example, last month DFID's Chief Governance Adviser and other governance advisers met with the resident experts working at UNDP's newly established Thematic Facility on Governance, based in Oslo, Norway.

  I have also accepted an invitation from UNDP to speak at the launch in July of their 2002 Human Development Report which has as its main theme the examination of the challenges of democratic governance and development.

  Afghanistan
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the withdrawal of female foreign aid workers from field operations in northern Afghanistan. [65726]

  Clare Short
  We are concerned about reports of insecurity in northern Afghanistan, including sexual attacks on women aid workers. The United Nations temporarily suspended the involvement of female staff on field missions in the north, but this suspension has now been lifted. Some non-governmental organisations have withdrawn staff as a precautionary measure. We support the actions of the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary General, Lakhdar Brahimi, who has written to President Karzai, and visited the north to discuss security issues with the various factions.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her Department's response has been to the(a) World Food Programme and (b) UNHCR donor appeals for Afghanistan. [65553]

  Clare Short
  The UN World Food Programme's (WFP) current appeal is for %285 million (approximately £204 million) to feed up to 9.8 million people for nine months. Since October 2001. my Department has contributed £7 million towards WFP's operations inside Afghanistan—for both direct procurement and transportation of food, technical support and logistical support to help speed up the movement of food aid into the country.
  144W
  We have also provided £3 million to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) in response to its %271 million (approximately £194 million) appeal to support its operations for refugees in the region. This has included technical personnel, material and financial support.

  We have allocated a further £2 million each to WFP and UNHCR, which will be disbursed shortly.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much of the financial assistance committed by the United Kingdom Government to the reconstruction of Afghanistan has been disbursed since April, broken down by UN agency. [65555]

  Clare Short
  Since April the UK has given £5 million to the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund, the first donor to do so. In addition we have allocated over £10 million to UNAMA, UNDP, UNHCR, WFP, UNICEF and WHO and are currently in discussion with them to identify where the money might best be used. We are also in the process of disbursing £15 million to a range of NGOs, quick-impact projects and to the Afghan Authority for the Co-ordination of Assistance.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her assessment is of the food security situation in Afghanistan. [65554]

  Clare Short
  The food security situation throughout Afghanistan remains grave, as a result of decades of conflict and four years of drought. These shocks have overwhelmed the capacity of Afghan communities to cope with the loss of agriculture and livestock production, unemployment and burgeoning debt burdens. Afghanistan currently meets less than half of its national grain requirements, and around half its population is dependent on food aid. However, improved security and political stability will help provide a better environment for the efforts to improve food security in the country. Since October 2001, my Department has contributed £7 million to the World Food Programme and £2 million to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, for the provision of both emergency food aid and measures to increase food security.

  Food Shortage (Southern Africa)
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to tackle the shortage of food in southern Africa. [64798]

  Clare Short
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers I gave to the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) on 17 June 2002,Official Report, columns 58–59W.

  Cotonou Agreement
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the improvements in the development, trade and political relationship between the EU and Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific that will be achieved by the Cotonou Agreement. [64693]
  145W
  Clare Short
  The ACP-EU Partnership Agreement, often referred to as the Cotonou Agreement, was signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000. Pending ratification by all member states and two thirds of the ACP states, it will enter into effect.

  The Cotonou Agreement is the successor to the Lome Conventions. It marks the most important revision of the relationship between EU and the ACP states since the first Lome Convention was signed in 1975. It provides an overall framework for political dialogue, development co-operation and trade relations with 78 developing countries. Together with the wider on-going reform of EC development assistance, the Cotonou Agreement is a step towards improving the European Community contribution to the meeting of the millennium development goals.

  Most importantly, the Cotonou Agreement has established poverty reduction as its central aim. Respect for human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law together with the importance of good governance underpin the agreement and have been given much more emphasis than in past relations. A process for consultations and possible action has been defined if these basic elements of the agreement have been breached. The principle of partnership between EU and ACP states has also been reaffirmed in the agreement, supporting the emphasis on mutual responsibility and dialogue. Likewise, consultations with civil society in all aspects of the implementation of the agreement have been put to the fore.

  One of the most important aspects of Cotonou is the new trade deal between EU and the ACP, whereby ACP's access to the EU market will be maximised while promoting their gradual integration into the global economy. The EU is now committed to open its markets to a substantial block of developing countries.

  EU Committees
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when the EU Committee on implementation of the programme of assistance to promote the transition to a market economy and to strengthen democracy and the rule of law in the partner states of eastern Europe and central Asia (Tacis) is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive have been members of it; and if she will make a statement. [64907]

  Clare Short
  The next meeting of the Tacis Committee is scheduled for 24 July 2002.

  Schedule 5 of the 1998 Scottish Act sets out areas of policy that are reserved, that is, where responsibility has not been devolved to the Scottish Executive. Section 7(1) of schedule 5 states:
  "International relations, including relations with territories outside the United Kingdom, the European Communities (and their institutions) and other international organisations, regulation of international trade, and international development assistance and co-operation are reserved matters".

  The United Kingdom is represented on the Tacis Committee by officials from my Department and by members of staff from the United Kingdom Permanent Representation to the European Union in Brussels.
  146W
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when the EU Committee on financial and technical assistance and economic cooperation with developing countries in Asia and Latin America is next due to meet, what the UK representation is on it, whether representatives of the Scottish Executive have been members of it; and if she will make a statement. [64906]

  Clare Short
  The next meeting of the EU Committee on financial and technical assistance and economic co-operation with developing countries in Asia and Latin America (ALA) is scheduled for 18 July 2002.

  Schedule 5 of the 1998 Scottish Act sets out areas of policy that are reserved, that is, where responsibility has not been devolved to the Scottish Executive. Section 7 (1) of Schedule 5 states:
  "International relations, including relations with territories outside the United Kingdom, the European Communities (and their institutions) and other international organisations, regulation of international trade, and international development assistance and co-operation are reserved matters."

  The United Kingdom is represented on the ALA Committee by officials from the Department for International Development.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when the EU MED Committee (financial and technical cooperation between the Community and Mediterranean non-member countries) is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive have been members of it; and if she will make a statement. [64909]

  Clare Short
  The next meeting of the EU MED Committee is scheduled for 17 July 2002.

  Schedule 5 of the 1998 Scottish Act sets out areas of policy that are reserved, that is, where responsibility has not been devolved to the Scottish Executive. Section 7 (1) of Schedule 5 states:
  "International relations, including relations with territories outside the United Kingdom, the European Communities (and their institutions) and other international organisations, regulation of international trade, and international development assistance and co-operation are reserved matters."

  The United Kingdom is represented on the MED Committee by officials from the Department for International Development.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when the EU Committee on aid for Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive have been members of it; and if she will make a statement. [64908]

  Clare Short
  The next meeting of the EU CARDS Committee on aid for Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is scheduled for 24 October 2002.
  147W
  Schedule 5 of the 1998 Scottish Act sets out areas of policy that are reserved, that is, where responsibility has not been devolved to the Scottish Executive. Section 7 (1) of Schedule 5 states:
  "International relations, including relations with territories outside the United Kingdom. the European Communities (and their institutions) and other international organisations, regulation of international trade, and international development assistance and co-operation are reserved matters."

  The United Kingdom is represented on the CARDS Committee by officials from the Department for International Development.

  Commission on Intellectual Property Rights
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the conclusions were of the Commission on Intellectual Property Rights. [65552]

  Clare Short
  The Commission on Intellectual Property Rights report is due to be launched in mid-September, DFID will receive an embargoed copy one week prior to this. Conclusions will not be publicised before the launch date.

  Western Sahara
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support has been given in each of the past five years to the refugee camps of the Sahrawi people of the Western Sahara. [64860]

  Clare Short
  Our support to the refugees from the Western Sahara is mostly channelled through the European Commission's Humanitarian aid Office (ECHO).

  Total ECHO assistance to Sahrawi refugees in the Western Sahara

  Euro 000

  1997

  7,000

  1998

  17,200

  1999

  7,500

  2000

  13,935

  2001

  15,570

  Source:

  ECHO Global Plan 2002.

  Community prescribing by:

  Structured:

  Average waiting time (weeks) by drug action team area

  In-patient detoxification

  Specialist

  GPs

  Counselling

  Day care

  Residential rehabilitation

  Sunderland

  1—

  5

  1—

  6

  2

  2

  Manchester

  26

  4

  2

  4

  4

  4

  Birmingham

  24

  24

  8

  8

  1

  4

  Teesside

  Middlesbrough

  0

  6

  4

  0

  1—

  2

  Hartlepool

  12

  10

  1—

  1—

  0

  12

  Stockton

  7

  20

  1

  0

  0

  7

  Central London

  Camden

  5

  42

  8

  3

  8

  8

  City of London

  6

  23

  6

  4

  1

  3

  Hackney

  4

  23

  2

  2

  2

  4

  Islington

  5

  41

  8

  11

  7

  21

  Lambeth

  28

  25

  2

  1

  8

  4

  Lewisham

  22

  5

  4

  3

  8

  1—

  Southwark

  29

  25

  4

  3

  8

  12

  Tower Hamlets

  10

  12

  6

  6

  2

  14

  Waltham Forest

  6

  3

  1—

  0

  0

  0

  Wandsworth

  10

  2

  0

  0

  4

  4

  1Information not supplied

  148W
  Approximately 19 per cent. of this support is attributable to contributions from the UK.

  We also contribute to the budgets of UNHCR and WFP who cooperate closely with ECHO in providing support to the Sahrawi refugees. In addition in 1997–98 we provided £79,000 in direct humanitarian assistance.

  Poverty
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the comprehensiveness of her Department's poverty reduction strategies in recognising the multidimensional nature of poverty. [64697]

  Clare Short
  The Government's first and second White Papers on International Development clearly recognise the multidimensional nature of poverty and commit us to supporting the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). My Department has set out comprehensive strategy papers for achieving the MDGs and thus reducing poverty. These papers provide DFID with the necessary skills and knowledge it needs to engage with partner government and support their efforts to implement nationally owned and administered plans for reducing poverty.

HEALTH

  Heroin
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will commission a report on the average waiting time for treatment for heroin addiction in(a) 1997 and (b) 2002 in (i) Sunderland, (ii) Manchester, (iii) Birmingham, (iv) Teesside and (v) Central London; and if he will make a statement. [63771]

  Ms Blears
  The Department commissioned an England-wide research project into waiting times for substitute prescribing and in-patient detoxification for opiate users in 2000. The project is due to report this summer.

  Average waiting times for drug treatment services in 2001 in the areas requested are given in the table. This is the latest data available, and comparative data are not available for earlier years.
  149W
  The national treatment agency for substance misuse issued waiting times guidance to drug action teams in March 2002. This sets out recommended maximum waiting times for each type of treatment, and the national treatment agency is monitoring the progress of drug action teams in working towards these. In April 2002, each health authority area received an uplift in central funding for drug treatment of at least 30 per cent. to support this work.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) with reference to the announcement by his Department on 4 February, regarding the assessment of multiple sclerosis patients, who will be responsible for arranging the tests; [54025]

  (2) when the payment by results agreement on drugs for treating multiple sclerosis will come into effect. [54024]

  Ms Blears
  The UK health departments have reached agreement with manufacturers on a risk-sharing scheme for the supply of disease modifying treatments for multiple sclerosis on the national health service to patients who meet criteria set by the Association of British Neurologists (ABN). Full details of the scheme were issued in Health Service Circular (HSC) 2002/004 on 4 February 2002. The scheme started on 6 May 2002 for those centres with the appropriate infrastructure in place. Some centres will start later depending on the work that has to be undertaken to set up specialist clinics.

  The scheme involves groups of patients being specifically monitored over the lifetime of the scheme to confirm the cost-effectiveness of these treatments. Monitoring of patients and potential price adjustments under the scheme are expected to continue over 10 years.

  The ABN recommends that initial assessments be undertaken by designated consultants to whom patients should be referred by other neurologists, not directly by general practitioners. The precise service arrangements and referral protocols will be for local agreement taking into account the current spread of specialist services.

  Acquired Brain Injury
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to ensure that rehabilitation services for those with acquired brain injury are maintained in advance of the National Service Framework provision; [56437]

  (2) what plans he has to improve access to vocational rehabilitation for individuals with acquired brain injury. [56434]

  Jacqui Smith
  Recently announced budget settlements for the national health service (annual average increase of 7.5 per cent. above inflation over the five years 2003–04 to 2007–08) and personal social services (PSS) (annual average increase of 6.0 per cent. above inflation over the three years 2003–04 to 2005–06), will provide the investment needed to support services which best meet patients' and users' needs.

  The national service framework for long-term conditions and the clinical guideline on the initial assessment, management and first referral of patients with head injury that the National Institute for Clinical
  150W
  Excellence is developing will help improve access to rehabilitation services for people with acquired brain injury generally.

  The Government are investing in job retention and rehabilitation pilots which will evaluate the relative effectiveness of health and employment strategies in supporting people with long-term conditions to remain in or return to work.

  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 4 February 2002,Official Report, column 788W, what plans he has to assess the number of people who successfully return to work following a brain injury. [56468]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department does not plan on assessing the number of people who return to work after a head injury.

  However, jobcentre plus management information systems monitor the outcomes (including job entries) of its services and programmes for disabled people including those with brain injury.

  We are keen to help ensure that disabled people, including those with head injury, are able to return to work whenever possible. Currently local authorities are taking the lead on joint investment plans on the welfare to work for disabled people initiative. The idea of these plans is to provide effective and joined-up services for disabled people who want to work, to stay in work, or to move closer to the world of work.

  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with the Department of Work and Pensions in relation to vocational rehabilitation for individuals with acquired brain injury. [56432]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has held no discussions with the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) specifically in relation to vocational rehabilitation for individuals with acquired brain injury. However, the Department is playing an active role in agenda, working in partnership with DWP on job retention and rehabilitation pilots, health and work and joint investment plans for disabled people.

  Head Injury
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those meetings that have taken place in the last 12 months with the voluntary and professional organisations involved in rehabilitation services for people with head injury. [56501]

  Jacqui Smith
  Last November, the Department held a scoping workshop to inform the development of the national service framework (NSF) for long-term conditions. A wide range of stakeholders, including professional and voluntary organisations, patients and service users, carers and experts attended the workshop. This included those with a particular interest in rehabilitation service for people with head injury, including Headway, the UK acquired brain injury forum (UKABIF), and the British society of rehabilitation medicine (BSRM).

  The NSF project team has also visited hospital based rehabilitation units across England including Leeds, London, Cambridge and Wakefield.
  151W
  Additionally, departmental officials have held separate meetings with representatives of Headway (October 2001 and April 2002) and the UKABIF (April 2002).

  Care Homes
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when care home providers received the requests for information and documents required by the care home regulations; and by which date the providers were required to respond. [60797]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Care Homes Regulations 2001 were laid before Parliament on 12 December 2001 and came into effect on 1 April 2002. The regulations were contained in booklets setting out the national minimum standards for care homes for older people and for care homes for younger adults and adult placements, published by the Department. In March 2002, the Department issued order forms along with guidance on the Care Standards Act directly to providers who were already registered. The National Care Standards Commission issued, from February 2002, application packs to providers not previously registered and new to regulation. Those applying to register care homes were required to respond by 31 March 2002. As some delays occurred in issuing registration packs, the National Care Standards Commission has not penalised any care home which has responded after that date.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will investigate the level of service available to care home owners from(a) the National Care Standards Commission and (h) the Criminal Records Bureau. [65000]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 27 June 2002]I am satisfied that the National Care Standards Commission has made good progress in getting up to speed with its responsibilities, taking account of its extremely large initial workload and the transitional arrangements relating to the commission's establishment. The Department has regular formal and informal monitoring arrangements in respect of the commission's performance.

  Measures are being taken to overcome the early operating difficulties experienced by the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB), which have led to delays in responding to applications for disclosures. We are determined that the CRB will be in a position as soon as possible to meet the high standards of service that it has made clear it will deliver to its customers. The short-term implications for particular service areas using the CRB service are being closely monitored.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when there will be an investigation of the impact of inspection costs linked to the transfer of free nursing care to care homes. [650011

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 27 June 2002]The Department is currently consulting on amendments to the Care Homes Regulations 2001. There are no specific plans to investigate the inspection costs to the National Care Standards Commission as a result of these. The overall costs of inspection are monitored routinely by the Department.
  152W
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the differences between the full costs of operating efficient, good quality care in care homes and the average fees paid by local authorities. [64270]

  Jacqui Smith
  In October 2001 the Government published an agreement, "Building Capacity and Partnership in Care", which states that: "Fee setting must take into account the legitimate current and future costs faced by providers as well as the factors that affect these costs and the potential for improving performance and more effective ways of working". We expect councils to follow this advice when setting the costs of care. According to independent consultants, Laing and Buisson, the vast majority of councils have recently agreed fee increases in excess of 3 per cent. and some councils have agreed much higher increases—one third of councils increased fees by in excess of 10 per cent.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce a care home modernisation grant payable to local authorities to be paid in line with local care homes' compliance with national minimal standards. [64271]

  Jacqui Smith
  Decisions about the distribution of resources to local councils for personal social services are likely to be announced later this year.

  NHS Cancer Plan
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 10 May 2002,Official Report, column 401W, on the NHS Cancer Plan, what consultations he undertook and what representations he received prior to developing the two-week-wait target for cancer diagnosis in the NHS Cancer Plan. [60818]

  Ms Blears
  A cancer waiting times multi-disciplinary working group met in 1997. The group made recommendations to improve access to cancer services including the need to set specific waiting time targets for all stages of the patient journey. The first of these was the introduction of the two week out-patient waiting times standard. The NHS Cancer Plan introduced further targets to reduce the time patients have to wait for diagnosis and treatment.

  Weight
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether overweight and obesity has decreased since the setting of milestones for its reduction within the national health service framework for coronary heart disease. [61475]

  Ms Blears
  The annual health survey for England provides information on the prevalence of overweight and obesity for the general population. Based on figures from the health survey for England 2000, the year for which the latest data are available, 45 per cent. of men are overweight and 21 per cent. obese, and 34 per cent. of women are overweight and 21 per cent. obese.

  The national service framework for coronary heart disease was published in March 2000. Pending the publication of data for the years 2001 and 2002 no information exists to determine the national impact of the milestones.
  153W
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has collated on the health promotion milestones set within the national service framework for coronary heart disease in relation to obesity and overweight. [61478]

  Ms Blears
  It is the role of strategic health authorities to manage the performance of primary care trusts against the milestones of national service frameworks (NSF).

  However the Department has commissioned work to review local activity relevant to the prevention aspects of the national service framework for coronary heart disease.

  The results suggest that implementation of local prevention programmes and the availability of quantitative data in response to the NSF has been variable. As a first step in addressing this the Department is preparing a handbook aimed at helping primary care professionals to deliver the NSFs.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many registered patients in England had a recorded body mass index of above 35 in(a) April 2001 and (b) April 2002. [61474]

  Ms Blears
  Although we do not hold data centrally on the body mass index (BMI) of registered patients, data are available on the BMI of the general population. The health survey for England for the year 2000 provides the most up to date information on the prevalence of overweight (BMI 25–30) and obesity (BMI over 30) among UK adults. The Survey found that 45 per cent. of men are overweight and 21 per cent. obese, and 34 per cent. of women are overweight and 21 per cent. obese.

  The national centre for social research hold data for BMI above 35 but these data are not published as part of the health survey for England.

  Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he and Ministers in his Department have had with representatives of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health in the last three months. [61455]

  Jacqui Smith
  The then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my noble Friend the Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, met Professor David Hall, President of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health on 19 March this year to discuss neonatal care.

  Also on the 23 April this year I met with the Children's Taskforce.

  Home-based Care
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people the Government estimate are in care homes but who could be treated in their own homes; and what targets they have for increasing capacity for home-based care. [614351

  Jacqui Smith
  The NHS Plan, published in July 2000, set a target to increase by 2004 the numbers of people helped to live in their own home by 50,000 through home care and other support.
  154W
  The Department does not collect information about people currently in care homes, who might be cared for in their own home.

  Chiropody
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the findings of Feet First II were; and if he will make a statement on his response to the review. [61841]

  Jacqui Smith
  We currently have no plans to publish any findings from the review of "Feet First".

  In April 2001 the then Minister responsible for the policy area, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), made a statement about the review in his response to a question from the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell). I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 10 April 2001, Official Report, volume 366, column 604W.

  Asthma
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the trend in the incidence of asthma in children. [61857]

  Jacqui Smith
  The reasons for the increase in the prevalence of asthma among children (and adults) particularly over the past 30 years are largely unknown and are likely to be due to a number of different factors including an over-sensitivity to substances that irritate the airways, and deterioration in air quality

  Due to the rise in the prevalence of asthma and the fact that the causes remain unknown, the Government have and continue to sponsor research in this area. Research is continuing both on asthma in general and on possible links between outdoor and indoor air pollution and asthma. The Medical Research Council always welcomes high quality applications from the scientific community for support into any aspect of biomedical research and these are judged in open competition with other demands on funding. The Department's spend on directly commissioned research projects on asthma since 1997 is an estimated £7.24 million.

  The national service framework (NSF) for children will be setting standards to improve the health and healthcare of children and young people. Asthma will be considered in depth from prevention through to an acute attack within the work on the NSF.

  GPs
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are served, on average, by each general practitioner in the North West. [63498]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is shown in the list.

  North West

  1. NHS Plan GPs—3,722

  2. Unrestricted principals and equivalents (UPEs)—3,595

  3. Population—6,608,382

  NHS Plan GPs per 100,000 population—56. 3

  UPEs per 100,000 population—54.4
  155W
  Notes:

  1. NHS plan GPs include GMS unrestricted principals, PMS contracted GPs, PMS salaried GPs. restricted principals, assistants, salaried doctors (para. 52 of the statement of fees and allowances) and PMS others;

  2. UPEs include GMS unrestricted principals, PMS contracted GPs and PMS salaried GPs; and population data based on 2,000 ONS population projections; and

  3. Population data based on 2,000 ONS population projections.

  Source:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics.

  Herbal Remedies
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths occurred in each of the past five years as a result of the use of traditional or herbal remedies. [63822]

  Ms Blears
  It is not possible reliably to estimate the number of deaths attributable to the use of traditional or herbal remedies.

  The yellow card scheme provides for voluntary reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions by doctors, dentists, coroners and pharmacists. It was extended to include all herbal products in October 1996.

  The table provides details of the number of reports received each year since 1997 in relation to herbal products as well as the number of reports with a fatal outcome.

  Year received

  Total number of report

  Number with a fatal outcome

  1997

  46

  0

  1998

  40

  0

  1999

  64

  0

  2000

  139

  1

  2001

  74

  1

  2002 to date

  31

  2

  A report of a suspected reaction does not necessarily mean that it was caused by the medicine. As the scheme is voluntary, not all adverse reactions are reported.

  It is generally recognised that the reporting rate for medicines supplied over the counter is lower than for prescription medicines. Therefore, data obtained on suspected adverse reactions associated with herbal medicines through the yellow card scheme, cannot be directly compared to reporting for licensed pharmaceutical medicines. With herbal medicines in particular, consumers often do not tell their general practitioner or pharmacist that they are taking a herbal remedy.

  Mencap
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received recently from Mencap about housing for older people with learning disabilities; and if he will make a statement. [64473]

  Jacqui Smith
  We recognise that there is particular concern about the position of people with learning disabilities living with older carers aged 70 and over. They and their families must be able to plan for the future in good time. Promoting supported living for older people with learning disabilities is one of the priorities for both 156W
  the revenue and capital elements of the £42 million learning disability development fund, announced in the White Paper "Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21" Century" published in March 2001. The fund has been made available to the new learning disability partnership boards, now established in each local authority area. Each partnership board has produced a local plan to improve services for people with learning disabilities and their families.

  I have received a copy of Mencap's report, "The Housing Timebomb" (June 2002), which considers housing, care and support issues affecting people with learning disabilities living with older parents. We will consider the report and its recommendations carefully.

  Audiology Services
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to spend more than the £20 million investment in audiology services announced on 24 December 2001. [65084]

  Jacqui Smith
  Since 2000–01, we have invested £30.75 million in modernising hearing aid services, including the provision of digital hearing aids. Recently a team led by James Strachan, chief executive of Royal National Institute for the Deaf, has been successful in negotiating a significant reduction in the cost to the national health service of purchasing digital hearing aids. These price reductions will enable the rollout of modernised services to proceed more quickly.

  Health Action Zone (Cumbria)
  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what policy initiatives have been introduced by the Health Action Zone in Cumbria; what progress has been made in identifying problems needing special attention; and if he will make a statement. [64855]

  Jacqui Smith
  Over the last year the ethos of the North Cumbria health action has changed following the development of local health groups. These groups determine the needs of their respective areas and the appropriate degree of resources.

  A number of projects have been funded by the local health group in Copeland over the last 12 months. These include:

  Welfare advice in primary care;

  A physical activity directory;

  A healthy communities worker;

  Debt advice service;

  A community cardiac rehabilitation programme manager; Howgill community garden;

  A smoking cessation adviser; as well as a number of smaller local projects such as the;

  Aqua aerobics in Mirehouse and healthy eating and physical activity in Distington.

  Private Finance Initiative (Bradford)
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the status is of the Bradford Hospital Trust PFI bid to redevelop Bradford Royal Infirmary and St. Luke's Hospital [64868]
  157W
  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 27 June 2002]Bradford Hospitals National Health Service Trust is currently preparing their outline business case for this scheme. Subject to its approval, the trust is expected to go out to tender by placing an Official Journal of the European Community notice early next year.

  Care Provision
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish statistics for levels for the provision of care, broken down by area. [650161

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 27 June 2002]The Department publishes a wide range of health and social care statistics for relevant areas and some of these statistics are available broken down by level of care. As well as printed publications available in the Library, these statistics may be found on the Department's website.

  The address for health care statistics is: www.doh.gov.uk/ public/pub_health_care.htm.

  The address for social care statistics is: www.doh.gov.uld public/pub_social_care.htm.

  Details of the numbers of approved foster carers taken from the TSP application forms for the five years 1998–99 to 2002–03

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Local authority names

  Directly contracted by local council

  Contracted via independent agency

  Total number of foster carers

  Directly contracted by local council

  Contracted via independent agency

  Total number of foster carers

  Directly contracted by local council

  Contracted via independent agency

  Total number of faster carers

  Barking and Dagenham

  116

  10

  126

  89

  10

  99

  77

  33

  110

  Barnet

  66

  0

  66

  79

  18

  97

  83

  40

  123

  Barnsley

  147

  0

  147

  137

  0

  137

  122

  7

  129

  Bath and North East Somerset

  101

  2

  103

  97

  6

  103

  99

  6

  105

  Bedfordshire

  156

  12

  168

  139

  13

  152

  190

  13

  203

  Bexley

  113

  32

  145

  87

  31

  118

  108

  15

  123

  Birmingham

  707

  67

  774

  670

  62

  732

  657

  0

  657

  Blackburn

  78

  0

  78

  80

  0

  80

  63

  1

  64

  Blackpool

  88

  0

  88

  97

  4

  101

  91

  0

  91

  Bolton

  150

  1

  151

  149

  1

  150

  152

  1

  153

  Bournemouth

  84

  0

  84

  72

  0

  72

  84

  4

  88

  Bracknell Forest

  45

  0

  45

  32

  1

  33

  70

  0

  70

  Bradford

  186

  0

  186

  185

  0

  185

  190

  0

  190

  Brent

  162

  23

  185

  150

  45

  195

  114

  58

  172

  Brighton and Hove

  233

  8

  241

  344

  6

  350

  336

  9

  345

  Bristol

  272

  40

  312

  232

  40

  272

  232

  40

  272

  Bromley

  103

  29

  132

  77

  82

  159

  77

  82

  159

  Buckinghamshire

  141

  0

  141

  126

  9

  135

  275

  0

  275

  Bury

  124

  4

  128

  133

  5

  138

  108

  6

  114

  Calderdale

  132

  0

  132

  120

  6

  126

  120

  2

  122

  Cambridgeshire

  323

  0

  323

  295

  4

  299

  281

  3

  284

  Camden

  93

  0

  93

  106

  40

  146

  132

  33

  165

  Cheshire

  444

  0

  444

  444

  0

  444

  360

  0

  360

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cornwall

  355

  0

  355

  325

  0

  325

  342

  1

  343

  Coventry

  229

  9

  238

  208

  32

  240

  210

  40

  250

  Croydon

  0

  0

  0

  149

  6

  155

  281

  14

  295

  Cumbria

  298

  3

  301

  295

  0

  295

  250

  2

  252

  Darlington

  48

  0

  48

  54

  8

  62

  59

  7

  66

  Derby City

  368

  0

  368

  210

  3

  213

  184

  4

  188

  Derbyshire

  444

  0

  444

  444

  0

  444

  447

  2

  449

  Devon

  326

  6

  332

  363

  8

  371

  363

  8

  371

  Doncaster

  130

  0

  130

  130

  0

  130

  233

  2

  235

  Dorset

  276

  0

  276

  276

  0

  276

  263

  0

  263

  Dudley

  152

  0

  152

  150

  4

  154

  150

  4

  154

  Durham

  237

  1

  238

  256

  1

  257

  215

  0

  215

  Ealing

  110

  0

  110

  180

  0

  180

  125

  0

  125

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  109

  0

  109

  205

  0

  205

  170

  0

  170

  East Sussex

  347

  0

  347

  347

  0

  347

  300

  0

  300

  Enfield

  0

  0

  0

  107

  1

  1

  118

  107

  11

  118

  Essex

  514

  34

  548

  625

  5

  630

  430

  0

  430

  Gateshead

  133

  0

  133

  120

  2

  122

  120

  0

  120

  Gloucestershire

  330

  0

  330

  266

  0

  266

  650

  140

  790

  Greenwich

  135

  0

  135

  150

  35

  185

  150

  35

  185

  Hackney

  250

  0

  250

  160

  12

  172

  183

  50

  233

  158W
  Figures on national health service in-patient care are available for a range of areas from the hospital episode statistics (HES) database and may be found at the HES website at: www.doh.gov.uk/hes/index.html.

  Stroke
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals have not been equipped with stroke units; and in which areas they are. [60133]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 12 June 2002]Stroke sentinel audits 1999–2001 carried out by the Royal College of Physicians, showed that the number of people treated in a stroke unit had increased. However, none of the data identify individual hospitals. The next audit will be available later this year.

  The monitoring of the national service framework stroke standard, April 2002 milestone, requiring the development of integrated stroke services will be available shortly.

  Fostering
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many foster parents were registered by(a) region and (b) health authority in each of the last five years. [61355]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]The information available is shown in the table.
  159W

  Details of the numbers of approved foster carers taken from the TSP application forms for the five years 1998–99 to 2002–03

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Local authority names

  Directly contracted by local council

  Contracted via independent agency

  Total number of foster carers

  Directly contracted by local council

  Contracted via independent agency

  Total number of foster carers

  Directly contracted by local council

  Contracted via independent agency

  Total number of foster carers

  Halton

  61

  0

  61

  57

  0

  57

  68

  2

  70

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  65

  0

  65

  155

  40

  195

  188

  56

  244

  Hampshire

  670

  19

  689

  910

  0

  910

  750

  0

  750

  Haringey

  289

  109

  398

  128

  11

  139

  128

  1

  1

  139

  Harrow

  86

  5

  91

  160

  4

  164

  119

  15

  134

  Hartlepool

  72

  1

  73

  69

  3

  72

  67

  0

  67

  Havering

  106

  0

  106

  74

  6

  80

  100

  0

  100

  Herefordshire

  162

  0

  162

  138

  2

  140

  143

  4

  147

  Hertfordshire

  445

  0

  445

  472

  10

  482

  470

  10

  480

  Hillingdon

  67

  0

  67

  76

  19

  95

  97

  51

  148

  Hounslow

  132

  32

  164

  72

  23

  95

  42

  34

  76

  Hull

  267

  18

  285

  284

  18

  302

  314

  4

  318

  Isle of Wight

  190

  0

  190

  110

  0

  110

  115

  0

  115

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Islington

  151

  25

  176

  151

  0

  151

  151

  0

  151

  Kensington and Chelsea

  104

  0

  104

  104

  0

  104

  104

  0

  104

  Kent

  605

  0

  605

  609

  6

  615

  620

  15

  635

  Kingston Upon Thames

  65

  1

  66

  75

  0

  75

  75

  0

  75

  Kirklees

  104

  1

  105

  107

  1

  108

  113

  0

  113

  Knowsley

  164

  0

  164

  164

  0

  164

  164

  0

  164

  Lambeth

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  130

  0

  130

  Lancashire

  587

  13

  600

  550

  19

  569

  500

  35

  535

  Leeds

  420

  0

  420

  430

  0

  430

  430

  0

  430

  Leicester City

  196

  0

  196

  190

  0

  190

  210

  0

  210

  Leicestershire

  220

  0

  220

  256

  0

  256

  270

  0

  270

  Lewisham

  186

  0

  186

  200

  30

  230

  220

  40

  260

  Lincolnshire

  300

  60

  360

  277

  3

  280

  263

  3

  266

  Liverpool

  530

  1

  531

  390

  0

  390

  400

  400

  Luton

  169

  0

  169

  110

  0

  110

  91

  23

  114

  Manchester

  420

  40

  460

  420

  0

  420

  360

  29

  389

  Medway

  160

  0

  160

  165

  6

  171

  165

  6

  171

  Merton

  120

  1

  121

  120

  1

  121

  104

  3

  107

  Middlesbrough

  110

  0

  110

  70

  2

  72

  77

  3

  80

  Milton Keynes

  267

  47

  314

  216

  37

  253

  220

  35

  255

  Newcastle Upon Tyne

  230

  0

  230

  203

  25

  228

  270

  37

  307

  Newham

  227

  25

  252

  246

  29

  275

  253

  22

  275

  Norfolk

  617

  0

  617

  501

  1

  502

  509

  10

  519

  North East Lincolnshire

  127

  0

  127

  114

  1

  115

  114

  1

  115

  North Lincolnshire

  176

  0

  176

  179

  0

  179

  186

  0

  186

  North Somerset

  160

  0

  160

  160

  0

  160

  160

  0

  160

  North Tyneside

  140

  0

  140

  185

  2

  187

  135

  0

  135

  North Yorkshire

  300

  0

  300

  160

  0

  160

  360

  0

  360

  Northamptonshire

  708

  28

  736

  720

  28

  748

  564

  0

  564

  Northumberland

  170

  0

  170

  160

  2

  162

  140

  2

  142

  Nottingham

  243

  25

  268

  45

  25

  70

  220

  15

  235

  Nottinghamshire

  327

  0

  327

  400

  0

  400

  420

  13

  433

  Oldham

  143

  0

  143

  141

  3

  144

  144

  1

  145

  Oxfordshire

  355

  0

  355

  350

  0

  350

  350

  3

  353

  Peterborough

  160

  0

  160

  152

  14

  166

  150

  0

  150

  Plymouth

  135

  9

  144

  132

  0

  132

  261

  0

  261

  Poole

  64

  1

  65

  64

  1

  65

  75

  1

  76

  Portsmouth

  102

  6

  108

  109

  9

  118

  107

  7

  114

  Reading

  47

  0

  47

  59

  8

  67

  58

  4

  62

  Redbridge

  78

  3

  81

  80

  4

  84

  92

  5

  97

  Redcar and Cleveland

  70

  0

  70

  65

  0

  65

  70

  0

  70

  Richmond Upon Thames

  52

  0

  52

  46

  5

  51

  45

  12

  57

  Rochdale

  73

  0

  73

  76

  0

  76

  81

  4

  85

  Rotherham

  245

  0

  245

  120

  0

  120

  133

  0

  133

  Rutland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  3

  Salford

  270

  0

  270

  396

  0

  396

  460

  10

  470

  Sandwell

  330

  6

  336

  330

  6

  336

  220

  6

  226

  Sefton

  214

  0

  214

  221

  0

  221

  236

  0

  236

  Sheffield

  390

  0

  390

  650

  1

  651

  650

  1

  651

  Shropshire

  232

  0

  232

  227

  0

  227

  205

  0

  205

  Slough

  0

  0

  0

  58

  3

  61

  60

  7

  67

  Solihull

  79

  9

  88

  111

  8

  119

  60

  5

  65

  Somerset

  714

  0

  714

  701

  0

  701

  556

  3

  559

  South Gloucestershire

  92

  10

  102

  110

  6

  116

  122

  3

  125

  South Tyneside

  142

  0

  142

  142

  0

  142

  142

  0

  142

  Southampton

  250

  0

  250

  250

  0

  250

  206

  12

  218

  Southend

  87

  0

  87

  97

  0

  97

  150

  0

  150

  Southwark

  206

  0

  206

  206

  0

  206

  290

  0

  290

  St. Helens

  83

  8

  91

  73

  12

  85

  73

  18

  91

  Staffordshire

  327

  18

  345

  365

  10

  375

  367

  85

  452

  Stockport

  150

  0

  150

  150

  0

  150

  150

  0

  150

  Stockton

  93

  0

  93

  83

  0

  83

  69

  5

  74

  Stoke on Trent

  156

  1

  157

  152

  2

  154

  162

  1

  163

  Suffolk

  225

  0

  225

  225

  0

  225

  280

  0

  280

  Sunderland

  218

  0

  218

  218

  0

  218

  218

  0

  218

  Surrey

  264

  0

  264

  229

  16

  245

  256

  29

  285

  Sutton

  70

  0

  70

  51

  10

  61

  55

  10

  65

  Swindon

  165

  0

  165

  279

  0

  279

  310

  0

  310

  Tameside

  122

  0

  122

  130

  12

  142

  120

  I

  1

  131

  160W 161W

  Details of the numbe rs of approved foster carers taken from the TSP application forms for the five years 1998–99 to 2002–03

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Local authority names

  Directly contracted by local council

  Contracted via independent agency

  Total number of foster carers

  Directly contracted by local council

  Contracted via independent agency

  Total number of foster carers

  Directly contracted by local council

  Contracted via independent agency

  Total number of foster carers

  Thurrock 48

  0

  48

  52

  1

  53

  82

  0

  82

  Torbay

  85

  0

  85

  75

  0

  75

  79

  0

  79

  Tower Hamlets

  101

  0

  101

  135

  0

  135

  117

  0

  117

  Trafford

  69

  0

  69

  67

  0

  67

  81

  0

  81

  Wakefield

  286

  0

  286

  280

  0

  280

  235

  0

  235

  Walsall

  120

  2

  122

  120

  9

  129

  147

  15

  162

  Waltham Forest

  136

  15

  151

  76

  11

  87

  110

  15

  125

  Wandsworth

  177

  0

  177

  183

  5

  188

  167

  10

  177

  Warrington

  171

  0

  171

  109

  0

  109

  120

  0

  120

  Warwickshire

  369

  0

  369

  395

  0

  395

  560

  0

  560

  West Berkshire

  0

  0

  0

  49

  0

  49

  54

  14

  68

  West Sussex

  453

  15

  468

  500

  30

  530

  500

  25

  525

  Westminster

  86

  0

  86

  87

  2

  89

  102

  23

  125

  Wigan

  101

  0

  101

  191

  0

  191

  170

  4

  174

  Wiltshire

  400

  0

  400

  280

  0

  280

  190

  0

  190

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  56

  0

  56

  46

  5

  51

  44

  1

  45

  Wirral

  143

  0

  143

  150

  0

  150

  160

  0

  160

  Wokingham

  63

  0

  63

  63

  0

  63

  63

  0

  63

  Wolverhampton

  210

  8

  218

  202

  11

  213

  184

  0

  184

  Worcestershire

  390

  2

  392

  760

  12

  772

  439

  16

  455

  Wrekin

  88

  0

  88

  101

  3

  104

  146

  10

  156

  York

  80

  0

  80

  55

  2

  57

  57

  4

  61

  Total

  29,805

  H45

  30,650

  30,166

  1,085

  31.251

  30,645

  1,532

  32,177

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Local authority names

  Directly contracted by local council

  Contracted via independent agency

  Total number of foster carers

  Directly contracted by local council

  Contracted via independent agency

  Total number of foster carers

  Barking and Dagenham

  46

  0

  46

  75

  0

  75

  Barnet

  79

  50

  129

  110

  27

  137

  Barnsley

  130

  0

  130

  177

  0

  177

  Bath and North East Somerset

  137

  6

  143

  129

  10

  139

  Bedfordshire

  157

  35

  192

  174

  0

  174

  Bexley

  116

  10

  126

  106

  0

  106

  Birmingham

  934

  217

  1,151

  934

  217

  1,151

  Blackburn

  66

  0

  66

  87

  6

  93

  Blackpool

  101

  0

  101

  111

  0

  111

  Bolton

  150

  0

  150

  150

  I

  151

  Bournemouth

  80

  0

  80

  80

  0

  80

  Bracknell Forest

  71

  0

  71

  45

  0

  45

  Bradford

  185

  0

  185

  173

  0

  173

  Brent

  103

  57

  160

  146

  12

  158

  Brighton and Hove

  225

  33

  258

  289

  60

  349

  Bristol

  244

  40

  284

  248

  40

  288

  Bromley

  80

  158

  238

  100

  60

  160

  Buckinghamshire

  165

  10

  175

  137

  10

  147

  Bury

  132

  0

  132

  172

  0

  172

  Calderdale

  115

  0

  115

  66

  0

  66

  Cambridgeshire

  271

  11

  282

  280

  11

  291

  Camden

  85

  0

  85

  130

  0

  130

  Cheshire

  714

  0

  714

  762

  0

  762

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cornwall

  351

  3

  354

  334

  0

  334

  Coventry

  166

  0

  166

  170

  0

  170

  Croydon

  252

  30

  282

  218

  0

  218

  Cumbria

  240

  6

  246

  210

  0

  210

  Darlington

  49

  12

  61

  51

  0

  51

  Derby City

  184

  0

  184

  186

  0

  186

  Derbyshire

  455

  0

  455

  455

  0

  455

  Devon

  310

  26

  336

  303

  30

  333

  Doncaster

  170

  0

  170

  244

  0

  244

  Dorset

  256

  1

  257

  251

  0

  251

  Dudley

  25

  0

  25

  124

  7

  131

  Durham

  215

  0

  215

  225

  0

  225

  Ealing

  125

  0

  125

  117

  0

  117

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  75

  19

  94

  70

  19

  89

  East Sussex

  264

  25

  289

  253

  0

  253

  Enfield

  93

  0

  93

  93

  0

  93

  Essex

  479

  0

  479

  506

  0

  506

  Gateshead

  130

  0

  130

  130

  0

  130

  Gloucestershire

  650

  140

  790

  270

  0

  270

  Greenwich

  126

  65

  191

  92

  0

  92

  Hackney

  170

  57

  227

  0

  0

  0

  Halton

  73

  0

  73

  68

  0

  68

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  188

  60

  248

  182

  54

  236

  Hampshire

  364

  0

  364

  1,100

  0

  1,100

  162W 163W

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Local authority names

  Directly contracted by local council

  Contracted via independent agency

  Total number of foster carers

  Directly contracted by local council

  Contracted via independent agency

  Total number of foster carers

  Haringey

  128

  11

  139

  196

  35

  231

  Harrow

  74

  0

  74

  70

  0

  70

  Hartlepool

  67

  0

  67

  54

  1

  55

  Havering

  78

  8

  86

  84

  0

  84

  Herefordshire

  145

  3

  148

  156

  4

  160

  Hertfordshire

  500

  10

  510

  393

  0

  393

  Hillingdon

  97

  50

  147

  103

  50

  153

  Hounslow

  43

  0

  43

  48

  0

  48

  Hull

  333

  0

  333

  330

  22

  352

  Isle of Wight

  120

  0

  120

  155

  0

  155

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Islington

  109

  0

  109

  93

  0

  93

  Kensington and Chelsea

  94

  0

  94

  94

  0

  94

  Kent

  685

  25

  710

  800

  0

  800

  Kingston Upon Thames

  75

  0

  75

  73

  0

  73

  Kirklees

  120

  3

  123

  143

  5

  148

  Knowsley

  164

  0

  164

  160

  0

  160

  Lambeth

  119

  157

  276

  130

  0

  130

  Lancashire

  500

  35

  535

  520

  0

  520

  Leeds

  385

  0

  385

  380

  0

  380

  Leicester City

  235

  3

  238

  250

  0

  250

  Leicestershire

  274

  0

  274

  251

  0

  251

  Lewisham

  152

  31

  183

  143

  0

  143

  Lincolnshire

  291

  0

  291

  288

  0

  288

  Liverpool

  350

  0

  350

  412

  0

  412

  Luton

  109

  0

  109

  118

  0

  118

  Manchester

  401

  21

  422

  401

  0

  401

  Medway

  170

  6

  176

  170

  6

  176

  Merton

  90

  3

  93

  113

  0

  113

  Middlesbrough

  86

  11

  97

  99

  9

  108

  Milton Keynes

  192

  0

  192

  207

  0

  207

  Newcastle Upon Tyne

  321

  19

  340

  290

  28

  318

  Newham

  288

  70

  358

  237

  40

  277

  Norfolk

  882

  30

  912

  872

  47

  919

  North East Lincolnshire

  110

  11

  121

  146

  9

  155

  North Lincolnshire

  136

  0

  136

  142

  0

  142

  North Somerset

  92

  0

  93

  160

  0

  160

  North Tyneside

  140

  0

  140

  155

  0

  155

  North Yorkshire

  360

  0

  360

  178

  15

  193

  Northamptonshire

  576

  0

  576

  580

  0

  580

  Northumberland

  172

  2

  174

  172

  2

  174

  Nottingham

  195

  17

  212

  227

  0

  227

  Nottinghamshire

  415

  19

  434

  415

  19

  434

  Oldham

  117

  0

  117

  118

  28

  146

  Oxfordshire

  350

  0

  350

  330

  13

  343

  Peterborough

  130

  0

  130

  145

  0

  145

  Plymouth

  270

  0

  270

  260

  0

  260

  Poole

  77

  4

  81

  91

  4

  95

  Portsmouth

  107

  0

  107

  108

  0

  108

  Reading

  64

  4

  68

  70

  0

  70

  Redbridge

  92

  4

  96

  99

  1

  100

  Redcar and Cleveland

  70

  0

  70

  61

  0

  61

  Richmond Upon Thames

  56

  7

  63

  42

  0

  42

  Rochdale

  126

  7

  133

  100

  21

  121

  Rotherham

  120

  0

  120

  154

  0

  154

  Rutland

  3

  0

  3

  3

  0

  3

  Salford

  439

  50

  489

  441

  52

  493

  Sandwell

  220

  0

  220

  310

  0

  310

  Sefton

  233

  0

  233

  130

  0

  130

  Sheffield

  388

  0

  388

  334

  24

  358

  Shropshire

  207

  0

  207

  113

  0

  113

  Slough

  48

  8

  56

  29

  0

  29

  Solihull

  71

  0

  71

  59

  0

  59

  Somerset

  704

  0

  704

  628

  2

  630

  South Gloucestershire

  121

  3

  124

  125

  3

  128

  South Tyneside

  97

  15

  112

  61

  0

  61

  Southampton

  205

  10

  215

  205

  10

  215

  Southend

  195

  0

  195

  105

  0

  105

  Southwark

  210

  30

  240

  170

  0

  170

  St. Helens

  75

  16

  91

  90

  0

  90

  Staffordshire

  478

  0

  478

  360

  0

  360

  Stockport

  192

  84

  276

  189

  86

  275

  Stockton

  73

  9

  82

  0

  0

  0

  Stoke on Trent

  170

  7

  177

  178

  32

  210

  Suffolk

  350

  0

  350

  350

  0

  350

  Sunderland

  238

  0

  238

  301

  0

  301

  Surrey

  212

  37

  249

  307

  0

  307

  Sutton

  63

  21

  84

  67

  9

  76

  Swindon

  259

  0

  259

  189

  0

  189

  164W 165W

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Local authority names

  Directly contracted by local council

  Contracted via independent agency

  Total number of foster carers

  Directly contracted by local council

  Contracted via independent agency

  Total number of foster carers

  Tameside

  98

  7

  105

  102

  0

  102

  Thurrock

  82

  0

  82

  56

  0

  56

  Torbay

  133

  0

  133

  126

  0

  126

  Tower Hamlets

  109

  0

  109

  200

  0

  200

  Trafford

  84

  4

  88

  90

  21

  111

  Wakefield

  240

  0

  240

  245

  0

  245

  Walsall

  180

  13

  193

  142

  0

  142

  Waltham Forest

  76

  3

  79

  83

  5

  88

  Wandsworth

  157

  3

  160

  0

  0

  0

  Warrington

  93

  0

  93

  180

  0

  180

  Warwickshire

  573

  0

  573

  516

  0

  516

  West Berkshire

  52

  15

  67

  73

  14

  87

  West Sussex

  463

  17

  480

  463

  0

  463

  Westminster

  102

  23

  125

  110

  0

  110

  Wigan

  170

  4

  174

  65

  0

  65

  Wiltshire

  250

  0

  250

  240

  0

  240

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  37

  0

  37

  38

  0

  38

  Wirral

  196

  0

  196

  240

  0

  240

  Wokingham

  28

  0

  28

  28

  0

  28

  Wolverhampton

  170

  0

  170

  160

  0

  160

  Worcestershire

  219

  0

  329

  281

  0

  281

  Wrekin

  95

  0

  95

  181

  19

  200

  York

  125

  2

  127

  71

  6

  77

  Total

  30,342

  2,023

  32.365

  30,353

  1,206

  31,559

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what statistics his Department holds on the coverage of private medical insurance for over-65s. [59002]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]I have been asked to reply.

  None.

  Health Checks (Over-75s)
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made of the effectiveness of over-75 health checks. [56049]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Medical Research Council has been funding a trial of assessment and management of elderly people in the community since 1994. The Department has contributed towards the funding of this study. The study is being conducted in over 100 general practitioners practices in the UK covering nearly 33,000 people aged 75 years or over registered with participating practices. It will determine both the cost effectiveness of these different strategies of assessment and management and their effectiveness as measured by mortality, hospital admissions and quality of life. Findings will be available in autumn 2002.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Re-offending
  Mr. Ross
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress the Social Exclusion Unit has made on its project on reducing re-offending by ex-prisoners. [65921]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Social Exclusion Unit has published its report on reducing re-offending by ex-prisoners today.
  166W
  The report sets out the enormous cost, both in financial and human terms, of re-offending by ex-prisoners and makes recommendations for reducing the risk of re-offending in the future.

  Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what requirement there is for people looking to sell their houses to remove asbestos from roofing before doing so; and if he will make a statement. [64442]

  Mr. Leslie
  There is no such requirement. Our proposals to require sellers and their agents to market homes with a seller's pack will help raise the awareness of sellers and buyers. The seller's pack will include a home condition report that will disclose the presence of asbestos where it is a safety hazard and is apparent from a visual inspection of the property. The necessary legislation will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if a further bid will be considered for PFI credits for an integrated clothing project by the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority; and for what reason the original bid was refused. [64904]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Authority's bid, which was made on behalf of a number of fire authorities, was assessed according to the criteria set out in Fire Service Circular 3/2001, dated 14 February 2001, a copy of which is in the Library. It did not score as highly as some of the other bids received. Unsuccessful bidders were given feedback on their bids. Any future bid in respect of this project would fall to be considered under the criteria attached to that bidding round.

  Planning
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which organisations Baker Associates consulted when preparing a consultation brief for the Department on possible changes to the Use Classes Order and Temporary Uses Provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. [64591]

  Mr. McNulty
  The research carried out by Baker Associates included: a survey sent to all local planning authorities in England, in-depth case studies involving the views of a wide range of participants, and seminars and workshops at which developing ideas were tested. The research report does not include a list of all the organisations involved in the study. Nor does the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister hold this information centrally.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister for what reason Baker Associates were chosen, and what qualifications they have, to carry out the original research

  Housing Corporation ADP

  £ million

  Region

  1996–1997

  1997–1998

  1998–1999

  1999–2000

  2000–2001

  2001–2002

  London

  408.4

  261.6

  252.2

  264.2

  315.3

  341.2

  South East

  120.4

  82.7

  64.8

  71.5

  77.3

  93.5

  South West

  77.0

  48.4

  40.8

  42.3

  48.3

  51.1

  East Midlands

  53.4

  34.6

  27.6

  28.3

  32.2

  34.4

  Eastern

  65.3

  44.4

  36.7

  38.3

  43.7

  51.6

  West Midlands

  87.6

  57.8

  46.7

  45.1

  52.3

  58.5

  Yorkshire and Humber

  70.0

  47.3

  40.0

  43.2

  44.8

  47.7

  North East

  35.9

  21.7

  18.9

  18.4

  20.5

  22.9

  North West

  85.8

  58.5

  55.4

  61.4

  57.0

  51.2

  Merseyside

  40.2

  26.5

  23.2

  25.4

  25.6

  21.4

  Total

  1,044.0

  683.4

  606.3

  638.1

  717.0

  773.5

  Notes

  Table shows gross ADP. It excludes grant provided by Housing Corporation HQ manual payments which cannot be attributed to regions.

  LASHG

  (in £ million)

  Region

  1996–1997

  1997–1998

  1998–1999

  1999–2000

  2000–2001

  2001–2002

  London

  89.3

  108.0

  74.3

  81.0

  116.6

  112.5

  South East

  119.8

  130.6

  124.8

  109.9

  123.2

  140.9

  South West

  32.9

  30.8

  35.0

  43.6

  52.0

  58.2

  East Midlands

  14.4

  10.8

  8.9

  14.8

  15.7

  12.7

  Eastern

  51.2

  42.9

  46.9

  46.2

  58.9

  58.7

  West Midlands

  19.1

  24.2

  26.6

  18.0

  17.9

  15.2

  Yorkshire and Humber

  7.3

  4.4

  5.2

  4.0

  2.9

  3.3

  North East

  1.6

  0.5

  0.8

  0.4

  0.7

  0.5

  North West

  10.0

  8.1

  10.0

  9.0

  10.3

  7.0

  Merseyside

  3.7

  3.1

  2.2

  1.2

  1.9

  1.5

  Total

  349.3

  363.6

  334.6

  328.1

  399.9

  410.4

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many wind turbine applications there have been in each of the last three years, broken down by planning authority; and how many of these were successful. [65020]

  Mr. McNulty
  The information requested is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.
  168W
  in preparing a consultation brief for the Department on possible changes to the Use Classes Order and Temporary Uses Provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. [64592]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister places its research contracts by competitive tender based on a contractor's technical capacity to carry out the work.

  Social Housing Grant
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much social housing grant has been spent by(a) the Housing Corporation and (b) local authorities in each region in each year since 1996–97. [63906]

  Mr. McNulty
  The following tables (rounded to one decimal place) show the Housing Corporation Approved Development Programme (ADP) expenditure and Local Authority Social Housing Grant (LASHG) for the years 1996–97 to 2001–02.

  Planning Green Paper
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many responses he has received to the Planning Green Paper; and how many of these were from organisations. [65021]

  Mr. McNulty
  16230 responses were received to the Green Paper. The Smith and Williamson report comprised a detailed analysis of the 10.417 responses using the standard form, and includes a breakdown by interest
  169W
  group. A copy is available in the House Library. Further information is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Regional Assemblies
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures he intends to take to ensure that equality issues are integral to the work of regional assemblies. [65182]

  Mr. Raynsford
  As stated in paragraph 7.17 of the Regional Governance White Paper, "Your Region, Your Choice", we are proposing that elected regional assemblies should be under a duty to exercise their general powers with due regard to the principle of equal opportunity for all (and to report annually on progress in fulfilling this duty); to eliminate unlawful discrimination; and to have regard to the need to promote equal opportunities for all persons irrespective of their race, gender. disability, age, sexual orientation or religion.

  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures he intends to take to ensure equal representation of women on regional assemblies. [65183]

  Mr. Raynsford
  As stated in para 7.16 of the Regional Governance White Paper, "Your Region, Your Choice", the Government wants to encourage women, and other traditionally under-represented groups, to stand for election to regional assemblies. We are proposing that assembly members should be elected by the Additional Member System of Proportional Representation, which can facilitate diversity in the selection of candidates by political parties. We are also planning to apply the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2001 to regional assembly elections, so that a political party can choose to adopt positive measures that aim to reduce inequality in the numbers of men and women elected as candidates to the party.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Child Abductions
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to her answer of 20 June 2002,Official Report, column 530W, on child abductions, to which countries the children were abducted. [652771

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Further to my answer on 20 June 2002,Official Report, column 530W, on child abductions, the information is in the table.

  2002 outgoing cases from the United Kingdom

  Country

  Number of cases

  Return of child achieved

  Other result achieved

  Pending

  Australia

  3

  —

  —

  3

  Belgium

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Canada

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Cyprus

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Czech Republic

  1

  —

  —

  1

  France

  10

  1

  1

  8

  Germany

  3

  2

  —

  —

  Ireland

  16

  2

  2

  12

  Israel

  1

  —

  1

  2

  Italy

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Netherlands

  2

  —

  —

  2

  New Zealand

  2

  1

  1

  —

  170W

  2002 outgoing cases from the United Kingdom

  Country

  Number of cases

  Return of child achieved

  Other result achieved

  Pending

  Portugal

  2

  1

  1

  —

  Poland

  1

  —

  —

  1

  South Africa

  3

  —

  —

  3

  Spain

  7

  2

  1

  4

  Sweden

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Turkey

  3

  —

  —

  3

  USA

  16

  3

  2

  11

  Contact Centres
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many contact centres for absent parents and children there have been in England over the last five years, broken down by(a) health authority and (b) region. [64522]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Child contact centres are run by the voluntary sector. No current data are kept on how many child contact centres exist or their location. The Child Contact Centre Working Group. which is facilitated by the LCD, will be undertaking a mapping exercise of child contact centre service provision in England and Wales. 264 child contact centres in England are currently affiliated to the National Association of Child Contact Centres (NACCC). The Government are working in partnership with NACCC, through the working group, to develop standards for child contact centres and a national network of child contact centres, which will provide safe and meaningful contact between children and their non-resident parent.

  Annual Leave
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the average annual leave entitlement is for staff in her Department in 2002. [64655]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  (a) The annual leave entitlements for staff below the Senior Civil Service in LCD and its agencies is as follows.

  LCD Headquarters and Associated Offices, and the Public Guardianship Office

  Grades AA to SEO and equivalent

  22 days on entry to the civil service;

  25 days after one year's service;

  30 days after 10 years' service.

  Grades 7 and 6 and equivalent

  25 days on entry;

  30 days after 10 years.

  Court Service

  Spans 1-9 (AA to Grade 6)

  22 days on entry;

  25 days after 1 year,

  30 days after 10 years.

  (b) The annual leave entitlement for members of the Senior Civil Service is currently set by the Cabinet Office at 30 days.

  The actual average annual leave entitlement could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the cost was of the Department's 2001 staff Christmas party; and how many people attended. [61658]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Lord Chancellor's Department 2001 Christmas party was not paid for by the Department.

  Road Traffic Accidents
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on the role of hearing costs in settlements resulting from serious road traffic accidents. [650251]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The settling of a dispute of any kind is a private matter between the parties and the court has no role in determining the basis on which the parties settle. Where the parties to a dispute have reached an agreement on all issues, including which party is to pay costs, but have not agreed the amount of those costs, then if they both agree, they may start "costs only" proceedings, whereby the court will determine the level of costs payable. This procedure was introduced in July 2000.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what discussions she has had with representatives of the(a) legal profession and (b) insurance industry on bringing quicker settlements to cases where a serious injury has been sustained as a result of a road traffic accident. [65024]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Ministers and officials of this Department have regular discussions with both the legal profession and the insurance industry. However, since the introduction of the Civil Procedure Rules in April 1999,

  Judicial appointments 1 May 1997 to 21 June 2002

  Total

  Women

  Black

  Asian

  Lords of Appeal in Ordinary

  5

  0

  0

  0

  Heads of Divisions (excluding Lord Chancellor)

  4

  1

  0

  0

  Lords Justices of Appeal

  20

  2

  0

  0

  High Court Judges

  52

  3

  0

  0

  Circuit Judges (including Judges of the Technology and Construction court)

  208

  37

  1

  0

  Recorders1

  389

  66

  1

  6

  Assistant Recorders2

  381

  64

  7

  6

  District Judges (including Family Division)

  156

  40

  1

  5

  Deputy District Judges (including Family Division)

  470

  129

  2

  4

  District Judges (Magistrates court)

  15

  5

  0

  0

  Deputy District Judges (Magistrates courts)

  111

  21

  2

  1

  Immigration Appeals Tribunal Vice Presidents

  15

  3

  1

  1

  Immigration Appeals Tribunal Part-time Legal Members

  46

  6

  0

  2

  Fill-time Immigration Adjudicator

  60

  17

  2

  3

  Part-time Immigration Adjudicator

  492

  147

  15

  23

  Fill-time Chairman Employment Tribunal

  58

  7

  2

  2

  Part-time Chairman Employment Tribunal

  202

  50

  4

  3

  Fill-time Chairman Appeals Tribunal

  65

  24

  1

  1

  Part-time Legal Panel Members Appeals Tribunal3

  767

  257

  5

  9

  1Those appointed on promotion from Assistant Recorder on merit, but not including those promoted automatically to Recordership because of the abolition of the post of Assistant Recorder. It also includes those appointed direct to Recordership under the new arrangements after April 2000.

  2Those appointed as Assistant Recorders prior to the abolition of the post of Assistant Recorder in April 2000.

  3Includes re-appointments.

  172W
  the specific issue of quicker settlement of disputes concerning injuries sustained in a road traffic accident has not been discussed.

  Judicial Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many judicial appointments she has made since I May 1997 in each category; and how many are(a) women, (b) black and (c) Asian. [63803]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The table shows the number of appointments in the main categories of the judiciary made between 1 May 1997 and 21 June 2002. It shows the total number, the number of women judges and those judges who have stated on an ethnic monitoring questionnaire that they are of black or Asian origin.

  The Lord Chancellor is committed to the principles of equality of opportunity and appointment on merit and is keen to see an increasingly diverse judiciary. The number of women and minority ethnic judges should be seen in the context of the composition of the profession from which judges are drawn. In 2000–01 5.4 per cent. of banisters with over 15 years' experience were of ethnic minority origin (there were no comparable figures for solicitors) and 14.4 per cent. of barristers with over 15 years' experience were women and 15.5 per cent. of solicitors with over 15 years' experience were women. The average length of time lawyers are in practice before being appointed to first rung judicial appointments is between 15 and 20 years. Those appointed to the more senior levels have much longer experience in the profession.

  The proportion of ethnic minority and women judges in post has been steadily increasing over the years. For example, in April 1998 the proportion of women in the main tiers of the judiciary was 10.3 per cent. This had increased to 14.4 per cent. by April 2002. The proportion of ethnic minority judges in post in April 1998 was 1.6 per cent.; in April 2002 it was 2.3 per cent.

  Repossessed Homes
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the rules issued by the Law Society relating to the handling of surplus funds arising from the sale of repossessed homes and efforts to return such funds to the original mortgagee who is not a client of the solicitors who holds those funds. [639141

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  None. But if the hon. Member wishes to pursue the matter, he should write to me setting out the substance of his concerns.

  "Making Decisions"
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what consultations she had with(a) Right to Life, (b) Alert, (c) Care, (d) the Pro-Life Alliance and (e) the Hospice Movement, when preparing the document "Making Decisions: Helping People who have Difficulty Deciding for Themselves"; and if she will make a statement. [64446]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  As part of the preparation of this guidance, groups who had specialist expertise in certain issues were contacted to confirm that the information given on these issues was factually correct, and accurately represented the current law on decision-making on behalf of mentally incapacitated adults. It was not possible in terms of time and resources to make contact with every group in the area of mental incapacity and the organisations listed were not consulted prior to publication. The consultation paper has, however, been sent to a wide audience, including Alert, Care, the Pro-Life Alliance and organisations within the Hospice Movement. The Government will consider all responses and amend the guidance as necessary to ensure that it reflects the needs and concerns of all mentally incapacitated adults and those who care for them.

  Office for the Supervision of Solicitors
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) if she will make a statement about the operation of the OSS; [63802]

  (2) what proposals she has concerning the operation of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. [64830]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The performance of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS) has been in some respects disappointing. The Lord Chancellor has therefore asked the Legal Services Ombudsman to maintain increased oversight of the OSS and to report to him regularly on progress against a range of issues. He expects to receive the Ombudsman's report on the integrity of the data provided by the OSS and her advice as to future performance measures this autumn.

  Immigration Appellate Authority
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many adjournments there have been in hearings dealt with by the IAA since January 2001; and of these how many have been requested by the(a) IAA, (b) Home Office, (c) appellant's representative and (d) appellant, respectively. [63459]
  174W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  During the period 1 June 2001 to 31 May 2002, the IAA heard 84,254 cases; of these, 17,893 adjudicator hearings and 449 tribunal hearings were adjourned.

  Figures prior to June 2001 are not available.

  Information about which party requested the adjournment is not available, save and except as is implied by the statistics provided in answer PQ 63460.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the decision was taken to relocate the Immigration Appellate Authority court in Leeds; what options are being looked at for an alternative venue; what consultations have taken place with(a) users, (b) staff, (c) representatives and (d) interpreters; what she calculates the implications of this move are for the satellite courts; and when she expects to announce her decision. [64869]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The IAA is not currently planning to shut the existing hearing centre in Leeds—they are opening an additional centre in Bradford which was identified from possible options in the Yorkshire area. This is part of the publicised expansion of the IAA to deal with 6,000 asylum cases per month from November 2002. Consultation on the new site has taken place within the IAA, and with the Home Office and Legal Services Commission. Staff and adjudicators will be given the option of moving to the new site in Bradford if they wish to do so.

  As part of the expansion of the IAA the emphasis has been placed on larger hearing centres. Small satellite courts, consisting of only one or two hearing rooms, have less flexibility in relation to listing and hence lower efficiency. As a result, it is intended that the IAA will cease to use its small satellite courts as the new centres come on stream. The hearing centre at Leeds is not, however, classified as a satellite court.

  Announcements in respect of new hearing centres will be made once lease and contractual negotiations have progressed sufficiently to assure completion.

  Correspondence
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the average length of time is that her Department has taken to reply to hon. Members in the last 12 months. [65382]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The average length of time to reply to correspondence from hon. Members during the period 1 June 2001 to 31 May 2002 was 18.56 days. The Whitehall target for responding is 20 days.

  Judges (Complaints)
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) how many complaints she has received about judges since I May 1997; [65380]

  (2) how many letters of reprimand he has sent to judges since 1 May 1997. [65381]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 26 June 2002,Official Report, column 95 1 W. Since that reply was prepared the Lord Chancellor has sent an additional letter reprimanding a judge, bringing the total to 24.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many statutory instruments have been(a) introduced, (b) removed and (c) amended by her Department since 1 January; and what the (i) cost and (ii) saving has been in each case. [646331

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  A list of statutory instruments has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. It includes those originated by the Lord Chancellor's Department and signed by or on behalf of the Lord Chancellor since 1 January 2002, and also Orders in Council made during that period for which the Lord Chancellor's Department was responsible. A list of Northern Ireland statutory rules signed by or on behalf of the Lord Chancellor is also included. Where any such instrument amended or revoked another instrument, the name of the amended or revoked instrument is mentioned in the table.

  Policy decisions implemented by secondary legislation may or may not result in costs on the one hand, or savings on the other. It is not possible, save at disproportionate cost, if at all, to attribute specific costs or savings to specific statutory instruments.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Drugs
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the key performance indicators for drugs in prisons seek to make a differentiation between opiates and cannabis; and if he will make a statement. [61778]

  Hilary Benn
  The Prison Service's key performance indicator based on random mandatory drug tests does not separate drug types found. It provides a composite figure and as such is the best measure of overall drug misuse in prisons. Separate figures relating to the nine drug types tested are available and are used locally and nationally for management purposes.

  New figures for 2001–02 will be available shortly and will be placed in the Library.

  Custodial Sentences
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many London residents, broken down by ethnic origin and offence, were issued with a custodial sentence at magistrates courts in the last 12 months. [58906]

  Hilary Benn
  Information is not currently collected in the form requested.

  Louis Farrakhan
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the ruling in the Court of Appeal concerning Louis Farrakhan. [54478]

  Beverley Hughes
  We were extremely pleased to have won this case in the Court of Appeal. This vindicates the view of my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary and his predecessors that the Home Secretary has the right to 176W
  exclude someone from the United Kingdom if it is considered that their presence is not conducive to good public order.

  Ministerial Accommodation
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what publicly owned accommodation is made available to him in his official role; how many nights he has been in residence at each of these properties in the last 12 months; and what the total cost was of maintaining each of these properties in the last 12 months. [55094]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 9 May 2002]I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on 28 February 2002,Official Report, column I 443W and my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) on 21 January 2002, Official Report, column 599W and 28 January 2002, Official Report, column 91W.

  The Home Office leases one property, acquired for security reasons, as the London residence of the Home Secretary of the day.

  The total running costs of this property in 2001–02 were £12,122 including utilities and ground rent of £7,100.

  In addition, a major programme of cyclical refurbishment—the first for some years—is now largely complete. This was needed to maintain the repair and value of the property and to deal with the impact of substantial flood and storm damage. Subject to final bills, the estimated committed expenditure in 2001–02 was £85,000. Completion of this cycle of work will put the property on a sound footing for the future; no further major refurbishment work should be required.

  European Border Management
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the first drafts of the European Commission Communication on European Border Management will be released. [57919]

  Beverley Hughes
  The communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament towards integrated management of the external borders of the member states of the European Union was deposited for parliamentary scrutiny on 17 May 2002. The communication proposes the following action in the short and medium term:

  A common corpus of legislation

  A common and operational co-ordination mechanism

  Common integrated risk analysis

  Inter-operational personnel and analysis

  Burden-sharing between the member states and the union.

  The Government are supportive of closer co-operation between national border authorities of the European Union, which we believe is one of the ways to tackle the criminal networks responsible for human trafficking and illegal immigration. We are also keen to discuss practical ways of strengthening the European Union's external borders, in line with our frontiers protocol. We welcome the fact that the commission is responding to calls from member states for action in this area.
  177W
  The Government will provide Parliament with detailed views on this document in its explanatory memorandum. which was submitted on the 29 May.

  Conviction Rates
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress towards meeting the Government's pledge to bring 100,000 more criminals to justice. [56386]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 23 May 2002]In the year ending March 2000, 1.1 million offences were brought to justice. In the year ending March 2001, this figure was 1.02 million. The most recent data (for the year ending November 2001) shows an improvement in performance. 9,900 more offences were brought to justice than in the year ending July 2001.

  Domestic Violence
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women have been victims of domestic violence in each of the last five years. [59850]

  Mr. Denham
  Domestic violence is not separately identified in recorded crime statistics collected by the Home Office. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) collects figures from police forces on the number of recorded incidents of domestic violence. Incidents can be counted in the HMIC figures regardless of whether or not the incident is subsequently recorded as a crime, and all incidents initially recorded as domestic violence are counted regardless of the final outcome.

  The British Crime Survey (BCS) can provide trend information on the number of incidents of domestic violence against women.

  Number of BCS incidents of domestic violence against women, 1997 to 2000

  Thousands

  Year

  Number

  1997

  583

  1999

  560

  2000

  354

  Source:

  1998. 2000 and 2001 British Crime Surveys

  The 2001 British Crime Survey estimates that there were, in total 354,000 incidents of domestic violence against women in England and Wales in 2000. This was a decrease from the previous sweep, the 2000 BCS, which estimated there were 560,000 incidents against women in the year preceding that survey (1999). This in turn was a reduction from the 1998 BCS, which estimated that there were 583,000 incidents of domestic violence suffered by women in 1997 in England and Wales.

  Young Offenders
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average length of time prisoners at Feltham (A and B) young offenders' prison spent locked in their cells each day was in(a) 1995, (b) 2000, (c) 2001 and (d) 2002 to date; and if he will make a statement. [61374]
  178W
  Hilary Benn
  The Prison Service collects information on average time unlocked at each establishment, but does not break those figures down below establishment level.

  The average time unlocked for all prisoners at Feltham young offender institution (Y0I) for the periods specified is given in the table.

  Average week day time unlocked at Feltham Y01

  1995–96

  7.9

  2000–01

  10.3

  2001–02

  8.0

  April 2002

  7.1

  Criminal Justice System
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the work of the Criminal Justice Joint Planning Unit in relation to the development and testing of joint and shared performance measures and the date envisaged for the production of a set of indicators on criminal justice system priorities. [59658]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 12 June 2002]The current criminal justice plan already contains joint objectives and public service agreement targets for the criminal justice system as a whole. These are the targets towards which the criminal justice agencies must collectively work.

  The Criminal Justice Joint Planning Unit is currently working with the criminal justice agencies in Merseyside to examine the whole range of targets, investigate inconsistencies and develop a set of joint and shared performance measures for that area. Once they have been agreed, they will be further tested in a number of other criminal justice areas.

  Our intention is that the shared indicators will be introduced into the next set of local criminal justice business plans during 2003–04.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter of 8 May from the hon. Member for Northavon regarding Mr. Jason Davis and Ms Elaine Smith, a constituent. [61409]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]A reply to the hon. Member was dispatched on 10 June 2002. This was within the Prison Service's 20 working day target for ministerial correspondence.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he will reply to the letter to him dated 9 April from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Rahemi Aminulah; [61680]

  (2) when he will reply to the letter to him dated 22 April from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Zakaria Hussein; [61686]

  (3) when he will reply to the letter to him dated 22 April from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. S. Balekey. [61678]
  179W
  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 27 June 2002.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will provide an answer to the question tabled by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton on 11 June regarding the letter to chief police officers Ref. 62195. [64607]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  I replied to the hon. Member's question on 25 June 2002,Official Report, column 841W. I apologise for the delay in responding.

  Royal Prerogative of Mercy
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the review of the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy; what its findings have been; what action he plans to take; and if he will make a statement. [61339]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]Applications for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy are rare. Each one is considered on its own merits. The review completed last year (which did not lead to any significant change of policy or practice) was conducted by means of communications between Ministers and officials, and legal advice to Ministers. The Code of Practice on Access to Government Information indicates that such internal discussion and advice is exempt from the commitments to provide information in that Code.

  Justice and Home Affairs Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the outcome of the Justice and Home Affairs Council held on 13 and 14 June was; what the Government's stance on the issues discussed, including its voting record was; and if he will make a statement. [629321

  Mr. Blunkett
  I together with my right hon. Friend the Deputy First Minister and Minster for Justice for Scotland, and my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Filkin, represented the United Kingdom at the Justice and Home Affairs Council in Luxembourg on 13 June.

  A points

  The A points were approved as in document 9825/02 PTS A 31 and ADD I and COR 1 (a copy of which has been placed in the Library), except points 23, 24, 25 and 45.

  Terrorism

  The Council noted a terrorism threat assessment document, Europol reports on security measures taken since 11 September and extremist terrorism, and a report on the current list of terrorist organisations. The Director of Europol reported on the work of the Europol Counter-Terrorism Task Force, noting that the provision of information to Europol had improved but remained insufficient and that more could be done to improve co-operation with the United States.

  Activities of the Spanish presidency on the subject of violence against women, to he submitted by the Ministers
  180W
  of Education, Justice, Home Affairs and Health at forthcoming Councils:

  The presidency presented a study on measures adopted by member states to combat violence against women and a guide to good practice to mitigate the effects of and eradicate violence against women.

  Illegal immigration and external borders

  During a general debate on illegal immigration and asylum, I called for the Seville European Council to deliver concrete results so that citizens could see the relevance of a European Union (EU) approach. I said that the message should not be one of fortress Europe but a coherent policy which opposed racism, welcomed legal inward migration, protected refugees and ensured that each member state accepted its responsibilities. I supported common action to work to protect the European Union's external frontier, arguing that this should be achieved through the use of joint operations at weak points in the border, extensions of the immigration liaison officer network and greater use of Europol's expertise, rather than through the establishment of a new border police. I also supported the need to complete work on common asylum measures and co-operation with third countries in a spirit of "positive conditionality", involving the provision of assistance to support returns and develop migration infrastructures.

  The Council also noted a presidency report on progress made in the fight against illegal immigration, agreed conclusions on measures to be established for the prevention of and the fight against illegal immigration and the trafficking of human beings by sea and agreed a plan on the management of external borders.

  Proposal for a Council regulation establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the member state responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the member states by a third-country national:

  In discussing key aspects of the draft Dublin II Regulation, the majority of member states, including the United Kingdom. said that the existing Dublin Convention criteria should be taken as a starting point but that procedures should be improved and time limits shortened. Two member states with difficult external frontiers argued that they should not be penalised by virtue of their geographical position. Two other member states also opposed the proposed new criterion on tolerated illegal presence.

  Proposal for a Council Decision on the implementation of specific measures for police and judicial co-operation to combat terrorism in accordance with Article 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP:

  The Council reached a general approach on the Council Decision. Portugal, France, Ireland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom maintained parliamentary scrutiny reserves on the text.

  Proposal for a Council Framework Decision laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of drug trafficking:

  The Council reached a general approach on the majority of the text. However, member states were divided by a proposal to permit the imposition of lower

  181W
  penalties for trafficking in small quantities of drugs. The presidency concluded that discussions on this item would continue under the Danish presidency.

  Proposal for a Council Directive to improve access to justice in cross-border disputes by establishing minimum common rules relating to legal aid and other financial aspects of civil proceedings:

  The Council agreed that the scope of the draft Legal Aid Directive should be limited to cross-border claims.

  Proposal for a Council Regulation creating a European enforcement order for uncontested claims:

  The Commission presented its proposal for a European enforcement order. This would abolish, in uncontested cases, the requirement for a court to examine the procedure by which a judgment was issued in another member state before recognising the validity of that judgment.

  Civilian aspects of crisis management:

  The presidency reported that member states had met the targets set by the Gothenburg European Council for the provision of officials and judges to international missions intended to strengthen the rule of law in third countries.

  Any Other Business

  The Commission presented its revised scoreboard on the implementation of the Tampere European Council conclusions.

  Mixed Committee

  The Mixed Committee with Norway and Iceland met at ministerial level in the margins of the Council. It noted the existence of two negotiating mandates for the association of Switzerland with the implementation of the Schengen acquis, the Dublin Convention and Eurodac acquis; of a general approach on the proposal for a Decision amending Article 40 of the Schengen Convention, subject to parliamentary scrutiny reserves from Germany, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom; of conclusions concerning the new requirements for the Schengen Information System (SIS) and a technical solution for the participation in the SIS by the United Kingdom and Ireland., reflecting the partial participation of the United Kingdom and Ireland in Schengen; and of a plan on the management of external borders.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reduce the amount of paperwork for volunteers completing forms required by the Criminal Records Bureau. [61766]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]In order to ensure that Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) Disclosure Applications are processed accurately and in the interests of public safety 42 questions are asked of applicants. This is the case for all applicants, whether their positions are voluntary or paid.

  There are no plans to reduce the amount of information requested for volunteers completing forms required by the CRB to process disclosure applications.

  The CRB offers two application channels to request a disclosure, the telephone application line and the paper application form route. A third option is planned to be
  182W
  introduced later this year, when applicants will be able to apply via the CRB website. These measures have all been put in place to help keep the amount of paper work to a minimum.

  Work Permits
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people who were awarded work permits to recruit them to(a) UK police forces, (b) UK schools and (c) the UK NHS from (i) India, (ii) South Africa, (iii) Bangladesh and (iv) Jamaica have returned to those countries in the last five years. [62634]

  Beverley Hughes
  Work Permits (UK), who administer the work permit arrangements, do not collect information to determine the number of work permit holders who return overseas.

  The full number of work permit approvals issued for the Government, health and medical industry and education and cultural industry, for (i) India, (ii) South Africa, (iii) Bangladesh and (iv) Jamaica for the previous five years is listed in the table. It encompasses all of the sector, including the United Kingdom police forces, United Kingdom schools and the national health services (NHS), but also any other employers within these sectors. The way in which information is collated does not provide a separate breakdown for the requested specific employer groups.

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Government sector

  India

  0

  0

  0

  3

  14

  7

  South Africa

  0

  0

  5

  83

  212

  73

  Bangladesh

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  Jamaica

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  Total

  0

  0

  5

  86

  229

  82

  Health and medical sectors

  India

  189

  457

  916

  1,940

  4,134

  2,411

  South Africa

  243

  753

  2,024

  2,882

  4,141

  2,631

  Bangladesh

  0

  9

  16

  24

  24

  9

  Jamaica

  11

  25

  199

  322

  315

  134

  Total

  443

  1,244

  3,155

  5,168

  8,614

  5.185

  Education and cultural sectors

  India

  121

  159

  232

  331

  559

  368

  South Africa

  28

  47

  73

  360

  1,986

  920

  Bangladesh

  10

  10

  9

  19

  28

  8

  Jamaica

  1

  2

  1

  8

  360

  136

  Total

  160

  218

  315

  718

  2,933

  1,432

  Note:

  The figures for 1997–2001 are for the calendar years. Figures for 2002 are for those tip until 18 June.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will propose amendments to the criminal injuries compensation legislation in order to entitle victims of child abuse to benefit from the funds in those cases where the victim(a) lived with abuser and (b) the abuser was a close relative. [61922]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 18 June 2002]We conducted a thorough review of the criminal injuries compensation scheme following a public consultation exercise launched in 1999, and made a number of
  183W
  significant changes to the scheme with effect from 1 April 2001. As part of that exercise we considered whether to change the rule which precludes payment of compensation for intra-family sexual abuse which occurred before 1 October 1979. However, we decided for a number of reasons that the rule should not be changed.

  Hunting
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost has been of policing(a) demonstrations and other events arguing against legal restrictions on hunting and (h) hunting events (i) in 2001 and (ii) so far this year. [63438]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of vandalism, criminal damage and other offences apparently carried out by those supporting hunting were reported to the police(a) in 2001 and (b) so far this year. [63437]

  Mr. Denham
  Figures for incidents reported to the police are not collected centrally. Details of those that the police then record as crimes are submitted to the Home Office by forces. Overall totals are broken down by type of offence, but information on the motivation of those who carry them out is not included.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent analysis he has made of a link between changes in crime and changes in the number of children(a) born to teenage women, (b) born outside marriage, (c) born into poverty and (d) in one-parent families; and if he will make a statement. [62409]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 19 June 20021: There is no evidence of a link between changes in the level of crime and changes in the number of children born to teenage women, outside marriage or in one parent families. Research, however, has suggested that the following risk factors are cumulatively important:

  poverty and poor housing;

  poor parenting (including neglect, abuse, harsh and inconsistent discipline, lack of supervision and marital conflict);

  association with delinquent peers, siblings and partners;

  low measures of intelligence, poor performance and persistent truancy;

  high levels of impulsiveness and hyperactivity; and

  being brought up by a criminal parent or parents.1

  The Home Office has also undertaken research to explore the influence of aggregate demographic and socio-economic factors on the level of crime. This demonstrated a link between changes in certain socioeconomic variables, such as changes in GDP, the stock of economy-wide goods, and the number of young males aged 15–20; and property crime.2

  Work is on-going to develop and improve the Home Office models and to examine the impact of a wider range of socio-economic factors on crime trends.
  184W
  1"Reducing offending: an assessment of research evidence on ways of dealing with offending behaviour"; HORS 187.

  2"Modelling and predicting property crime trends in England and Wales"; HORS 198.

  Dutch Somalians
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with his Dutch colleagues about Dutch Somalians who have left the Netherlands to settle in the UK. [63446]

  Beverley Hughes
  We are aware of increasing numbers of individuals of Somali origin arriving in the United Kingdom and claiming local authority support. It is in response to this issue that we have introduced an amendment to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill. The purpose of this amendment is to clarify in law the duty that local authorities have to provide social assistance to these individuals, and will limit support available to this category of person when they have support available elsewhere.

  The Dutch have recently expressed concern about this issue. My officials are in the process of liaising with other Government Departments and the Dutch Embassy in London about setting up channels of communication with the Dutch in response to this issue.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will meet the representatives from the Sikh Secretariat on 4 July to discuss the issues set out in the Sikh Agenda for the UK Government; and if he will make a statement. [63615]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 21 June 2002]My noble Friend Lord Filkin is meeting a group of representatives from a number of Sikh organisations, likely to include one from the Sikh Secretariat, on 31 July to discuss issues relating to the British Sikh community.

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Sikhs are serving as police officers in England and Wales, broken down by police authority. [63608]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 21 June 2002]The information is not collected centrally.

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many antisocial behaviour orders have been issued in each police authority area. [63879]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 24 June 2002]Official statistics on the number of antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs) issued are based on quarterly returns received from magistrates' courts committees (MCCs). From 1 April 2001 MCC areas were aligned with all police force areas.

  The latest available information up to December 2001 is given in the table.
  185W

  Number of antisocial behaviour orders issued 0as from / April 1999 to 31 December 2001 by police force area and MCC

  Police force area/MCC

  ASBOs issued

  Avon and Somerset

  27

  Bedfordshire

  4

  Cambridgeshire

  8

  Cheshire

  2

  Cleveland

  9

  Cumbria

  2

  Derbyshire

  12

  Devon and Cornwall

  11

  Dorset

  4

  Durham

  13

  Essex

  —

  Gloucestershire

  4

  Metropolitan police1/GLMCA

  41

  Great Manchester

  26

  Hampshire

  7

  Hertfordshire

  9

  Humberside

  13

  Kent

  17

  Lancashire

  17

  Leicestershire

  5

  Lincolnshire

  2

  Merseyside

  17

  Norfolk

  18

  Northamptonshire

  8

  Northumbria

  18

  North Yorkshire

  11

  Nottinghamshire

  16

  South Yorkshire

  11

  Staffordshire

  10

  Suffolk

  7

  Surrey

  4

  Sussex

  9

  Thames Valley

  9

  Warwickshire

  3

  West Mercia

  51

  West Midlands

  67

  West Yorkshire

  19

  Wiltshire

  —

  Dyfed Powys

  —

  Gwent

  2

  North Wales

  1

  South Wales

  4

  England and Wales

  518

  1Including City of London

  Carrier Liability
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to consult the freight transport industry over the recent amendments to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill imposing fines on lorry operators. [64305]

  Beverley Hughes
  Due to the tight legislative timescale, a formal consultation process in respect of amendments to the penalty regime has not been possible on this occasion. There was widespread consultation prior to the introduction in April 2000 of the regime, the provisions for which are contained in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. There was further consultation when the regime was extended first to rail freight trains and then to freight shuttle trains. Industry representatives and other interested parties have been informed about the proposed changes to the legislation and have been sent copies of the draft code of practice for determining the level of penalty. We would welcome their comments 186W
  during the remainder of the parliamentary process, and meetings are being arranged between officials and representatives.

  Public Service Pensions
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of(a) the aggregate liability for pensions and (b) the increase in liability for pensioners in the most recent year for which information is available for (i) the police, (ii) the Prison Service and (iii) the Immigration and Nationality Service. [63883]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 24 June 2002]Police authorities are in the process of estimating, for the first time, their accrued liabilities for pensions in preparing their accounts for the year ended 31 March 2002. The Government Actuary's Department estimated as at 31 March 2001, that the liability in Great Britain for the police pension scheme was around £25 billion.

  Those employed in the Prison Service and in the Immigration and Nationality Service participate in the principal civil service pension scheme, which is managed by the Cabinet Office. Cabinet Office civil superannuation resource accounts 2000–01 (HC554) give a capitalised value of the liabilities of the scheme as at 1 April 2000 of £58.6 billion. A breakdown of this amount between different parts of the civil service is not available.

  There is no baseline against which to measure a change from one year to the next, so no figure for the increase in liabilities is available.

  Criminal Records Checks
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for how long the Criminal Records Office retains information sent to it in respect of those for whom criminal records checks in connection with work with children are sought, in the case of data subjects(a) with and (b) without criminal records. [638821

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 24 June 2002]Information that is received by the Criminal Records Bureau from individuals who are applying for criminal records checks in connection with working with children is retained on the database for a period of six months, after which it is archived for a period of 10 years. There is no distinction made by the Criminal Records Bureau in the retention of such data between those individuals who have criminal records and those who do not.

  The Criminal Records Bureau has and is continuing to work in close association with the information commissioner to ensure that it adheres to data protection legislation.

  DNA Samples
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals have their DNA samples held by the police. [64244]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 June 2002]DNA samples and the profiles derived from them are held on behalf of the police by the national DNA database
  187W
  custodian at the Forensic Science Service. As of 19 June 2002, the national DNA database holds 1,662,827 samples taken from individuals in England and Wales.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether an individual who has been required to provide a DNA sample by the police has the right to have that sample destroyed in the event of an acquittal for the charge which prompted the sample being taken. [642421

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 June 2002]An individual does not have the right for their DNA sample to be destroyed in the event of an acquittal. Under section 82 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, amending section 64 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, a chief constable may decide to retain DNA samples in all cases, including following acquittal or a decision to drop a prosecution, except where the sample was taken as part of a mass screening process and the individual does not consent to the retention of the sample. Samples can only be used for purposes related to the prevention or detection of crime, the investigation of an offence or the conduct of a prosecution.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there is central access to DNA samples held by different police forces. [642431

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 June 2002]DNA samples are retained in England and Wales by the laboratories authorised to analyse them. They are the Forensic Science Service, the Laboratory of the Government Chemist and Cellmark. The laboratories submit the DNA profiles from these samples to the Forensic Science Service which acts as custodian of the national DNA database.

  As the custodian, the Forensic Science Service inputs, updates and manages the information on the national DNA database and searches it for intelligence data at the request of the police.

  Asylum Seekers
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if Clause 25 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill will ensure that adequate provision is made for asylum seekers with special medical needs. [57995]

  Beverley Hughes
  Asylum seekers have access to national health service care in the same way as people who are settled here. Clause 26 (previously clause 25) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill contains a power to enable the Secretary of State to provide accommodation centre residents with facilities relating to health. Using this power, we intend to provide on-site primary health care to asylum seekers in accommodation centres.

  Asylum seekers with special health needs will only be housed in accommodation centres if the on-site health care provider is equipped to deal with their needs or if it is possible make other arrangements that would still enable them to live at the centre. Each case will be considered on its merits.

  Police
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (I) what discretion is given to individual police services in recruiting police officers that do not match the prescribed eyesight criteria set by his Department; [62655]

  (2) what national standards are set by his Department for (a) unaided and (b) aided vision for new recruits to the police service. [62656]

  Mr. Denham
  The Home Office provides guidance to forces on eyesight standards. The present guidance for eyesight is that candidates' unaided vision must be 6–24 or better in either eye and aided vision must be 6–12 or better in either eye and 6–6 binocularly.

  All forces are expected to follow the guidance, but responsibility for the appointment of constables rests with the Chief Officer of each force.

  A Home Office project is under way to establish national recruitment standards (NRS) for the police service. It is reviewing all current entry requirements, to ensure they are job related, evidence based and non discriminatory. The eyesight guidelines are currently under review as part of the NRS project.

  When the new standards are in place, forces will be required to follow them.

  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there were in Nottinghamshire on 31 March of each year since 1981; and how many there are expected to be on 31 March 2003. [64246]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 June 2002]The table sets out police numbers for each year since 1981. I am told by the Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire (Mr. Stephen Green QPM) the force has a target strength of 2,434 officers for 31 March 2002.

  Police force performance does not depend solely upon the number of officers available. The proposals in the White Paper "Policing a New Century: A blueprint for reform" set out a radical and ambitious programme of reform, with the overall aim of reducing crime and the fear of crime and to tackle anti-social behaviour. The test of success will be whether the measures being put in place will make a real difference to the quality of life of individuals and communities up and down the country.

  The public have a right to expect the same high standards of service wherever they live and the Government propose to put a framework in place to ensure that all police forces come up to the standard of the best.

  Nottinghamshire Constabulary: Police numbers 1981 to 2002

  Year (as at 31 March)

  Police officer numbers

  1981

  2,241

  1982

  2,252

  1983

  2,249

  1984

  2,229

  1985

  2,150

  1986

  2,210

  1987

  2,226

  1988

  2,252

  1989

  2,298

  1990

  2,316

  1991

  2,336

  189W

  Nottinghamshire Constabulary: Police numbers 1981 to 2002

  Year (as at 31 March)

  Police officer numbers

  1992

  2,331

  1993

  2,327

  1994

  2,328

  1995

  2,319

  1996

  2,318

  1997

  2,323

  1998

  2,323

  1999

  2,225

  2000

  2,204

  2001

  2,212

  20021

  2,323

  131 January

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what mechanism exists to prevent duplication of activity between(a) HMIC, (b) the Police Standards Unit, (c) the Audit Commission and (d) Home Office-based teams in respect of the police. [64241]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 June 2002]Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), the Police Standards Unit, the Audit Commission and the Home Office have separate but complementary roles which together seek to ensure that the police service in England and Wales is efficient and effective.

  A steering group chaired by myself, due to my responsibility for policing, oversees implementation of the police reform programme and ensures a cohesive and prioritised approach to police activity. Senior Home Office officials, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary and the Police Standards Director attend these meetings.

  There are close working relationships between HMIC and the Police Standards Unit. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary and the Police Standards Director meet regularly. Their respective roles are clearly defined. HMIC has an independent inspection and monitoring role as distinct from the police standards unit's policy implementation and support role.

  There are well developed mechanisms for co-ordination of HMIC and the audit commission's work which in turn ensure that both those organisations' work is properly integrated with that of the police standards unit. There are regular meetings between Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary and the Audit Commission Controller. There are formal agreements in place where duplication is possible, for example on the integration of audit and inspection of best value performance plans.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what targets have been set within the police for the recruitment and retention of officers from ethnic minorities; and what the latest outturns are in respect of these targets. [63621]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 24 June 2002]The latest recruitment figures available are as at 30 September 2001. The following table shows, by police force, the minority ethnic (ME) officer strength target for 2009, ME officer strength and percentage as at 30 September 2001.
  190W

  Police force

  2009 target (percentage)

  Number of ME officers September 2001

  Percentage of ME officers September 2001

  Avon and Somerset

  2.0

  39

  1.3

  Bedfordshire

  10.0

  42

  4.0

  Cambridgeshire

  4.3

  34

  2.5

  Cheshire

  1.0

  9

  0.4

  City of London

  7.3

  18

  2.6

  Cleveland

  2.0

  18

  1.3

  Cumbria

  1.0

  4

  0.4

  Derbyshire

  3.3

  51

  2.8

  Devon and Cornwall

  1.0

  15

  0.5

  Dorset

  1.0

  10

  0.7

  Durham

  1.0

  14

  0.9

  Dyfed-Powys

  1.0

  5

  0.5

  Essex

  1.9

  31

  1.1

  Gloucestershire

  1.6

  16

  1.4

  Greater Manchester

  7.6

  200

  2.8

  Gwent

  1.1

  18

  1.4

  Hampshire

  2.0

  39

  1.1

  Hertfordshire

  4.7

  35

  1.9

  Humberside

  1.1

  16

  0.8

  Kent

  2.0

  50

  1.5

  Lancashire

  5.0

  57

  1.7

  Leicestershire

  11.0

  98

  4.8

  Lincolnshire

  1.2

  10

  0.8

  Merseyside

  2.0

  81

  2.0

  Metropolitan Police

  25.0

  1,117

  4.4

  Norfolk

  1.0

  15

  1.0

  Northamptonshire

  2.3

  28

  2.4

  Northumbria

  1.5

  35

  0.9

  North Wales

  1.1

  7

  0.5

  North Yorkshire

  1.3

  6

  0.4

  Nottinghamshire

  3.5

  66

  2.9

  South Wales

  1.5

  45

  1.4

  South Yorkshire

  3.3

  86

  2.7

  Staffordshire

  1.8

  31

  1.5

  Suffolk

  1.1

  20

  1.7

  Surrey

  3.2

  29

  1.4

  Sussex

  2.4

  31

  1.1

  Thames Valley

  5.4

  94

  2.5

  Warwickshire

  4.0

  24

  2.6

  West Mercia

  2.0

  23

  1.2

  West Midlands

  16.1

  382

  5.1

  West Yorkshire

  9.5

  148

  3.0

  Wiltshire

  1.0

  10

  0.9

  Note:

  Figures have been set to 1 per cent. for areas below 1 per cent.

  The targets for retention are that the percentage of minority ethnic officers leaving the service through resignation or dismissal each year should equal the percentage of white officers leaving each year under similar circumstances within three years in each of the following bands:

  six months to under two years service

  two years to under five years service

  five years to under 10 years service

  with demonstrable, significant progress made each year to reduce the overall figure.

  Figures for March 2000 act as baseline and forces' progress against targets is due to be monitored at 31 March 2003.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there were in England and Wales on(a) 9 September 1999 and (b) 31 May 2002. [64090]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 24 June 2002]Information for the specified dates has not been collected centrally. However, on 30 September 1999 there were 125,394 officers and on 31 January 2002 (the latest date for which figures are available) there were 128,748 officers in England and Wales. This was a record number.
  191W
  The increase in police strength reflects the impact of the crime fighting fund (CFF), which is enabling forces in England and Wales to recruit 9,000 officers over and above previous recruitment plans in the three years to March 2003.

  Prisons
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the fire insurance problems facing new privately funded prisons. [59446]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]The new privately managed prisons to be built at Ashford, Middlesex and at Peterborough are facing problems in securing insurance cover for fire. These problems are being addressed both by the consortium that is to build and operate the prisons and by the Prison Service and the Home Office.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with which companies the Prison Service have contracts for the transport of prisoners to court: if he will place the terms of their contracts in the Library; what assessment he has made of the effect of transport delays on the operation of courts and the associated costs to public funds; how many times penalty clauses have been invoked against each company, with the sums involved in each case; and if he will make a statement. 1625991

  Hilary Benn
  The Prison Service has entered into eight contracts with private sector companies for the movement of prisoners from prisons and police stations to court. These are set out in the table.

  Contract area

  Company

  South West England and South Wales

  Reliance Custodial Services

  South and South East England

  Premier Prison Services

  London

  Securicor Custodial Services

  East Anglia

  Group 4 Court Services

  East Midlands

  Group 4 Court Services

  West Midlands and Mid Wales

  Premier Prison Services

  Greater Manchester, Merseyside and

  Group 4 Court Services

  North Wales

  Northern England

  Group 4 Court Services

  Contract documentation, excluding those parts which contain price sensitive information, are available in the Library.

  Contractors, prisons and the police are all aware of the effect of late deliveries to court and the potential cost to public funds. Each contract is monitored by a team of Prison Service staff against a series of performance measures. These cover a range of issues including delivery to court. Failures against the performance measures result in the application of penalty points and if these exceed a prescribed total in any single year they result in the application of a financial remedy.

  Financial remedies have been applied on six occasions since 1999 and have affected all contractors. The total sum recovered or withheld is approximately £621,000. This is made up as follows.
  192W

  Company

  Occasions

  Total value (£)

  Group 4 Court Services

  1

  60,000

  Premier Prison Services

  1

  36,000

  Securicor Custodial Services

  2

  500,000

  Reliance Custodial Services

  2

  25,000

  The £500,000 in financial remedies imposed upon Securicor related to performance shortfalls during the years 1999–2000 and 2000–01, when shortages of staff contributed to a number of failures to meet the requirements of the contract, including the timely delivery of prisoners to court. The situation was the subject of discussion between Home Office Ministers and members of Securicor's senior management, as a result of which an improvement plan was produced by the company. This has now been implemented and there are indications that it is beginning to achieve positive results.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish his response to the joint thematic report "Through the Prison Gate" published by the Chief Inspector of Prisons and the Chief Inspector of Probation. [66650]

  Hilary Benn
  "Through the Prison Gate" was the first joint thematic report by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons and Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Probation on the theme of resettlement. The two chief inspectors have provided an authoritative and thoughtful analysis of what the prison and probation services are doing together to reintegrate offenders back into the community and so reduce re-offending, and of what more both services need to do. I am very grateful to them for this analysis, much of which is reinforced in the report "Reducing re-offending by Ex-Prisoners" published today by the Social Exclusion Unit (SEU).

  Both of these reports recognise the importance of identifying the factors which need to be addressed for individual offenders if the risks of them re-offending are to be reduced. They also recognise the importance of developing an integrated approach to the management of offenders throughout their sentence.

  The chief inspectors' report makes recommendations on the need for:
  a national resettlement strategy;
  the position of short-term prisoners to be taken into account when reviewing the sentencing framework;
  the Prison and Probation Services to develop the what works strategy and to achieve consistency and continuity in preventing re-offending and reintegrating offenders into the community;
  a case management approach, and for the Prison and Probation Services to review the respective roles of their staff at different stages of a prison sentence;
  the Prison Service to develop a strategy for prisoners to be located closer to home;
  the Prison and Probation Services to develop a co-ordinated partnership plan as part of their what works resettlement strategy;
  both services to develop a joint strategy for drug and alcohol misuse;
  both services to provide guidance on the role of home detention curfew (HDC); and
  both services to ensure that a national public protection policy is developed for the assessment and management of risk in all cases.

  193W
  Many of these issues are also picked up in the SEU report. The Government will now be producing an action plan setting out our proposals for taking forward the recommendations. In drawing up that action plan we will also take account of the recommendations made by the chief inspectors.

  As the chief inspectors acknowledge, the Prison and Probation Services have made progress in developing and co-ordinating their resettlement policies under the what works approach. However, there is a need for greater overall strategic direction including greater sharing of good practice and performance targets.

  We have already taken steps to provide greater strategic direction by making arrangements for the establishment of the Correctional Services Board, which will bring together the heads of the Prison and Probation Services and the chair of the Youth Justice Board. Outside experience and skills will be provided by non-executive members. Early priorities for the board will include the development of a strategic plan for the correctional services, with a particular focus, as the report recommends, on improving provision for those sentenced to less than 12 months, and, in particular, 18 to 20 year old offenders.

  In taking forward both the chief inspectors' and the SEU reports we will also be developing a national resettlement strategy. Details will be set out in the action plan which will now be developed.

  That action plan will also include proposals for developing and piloting a case management approach, as recommended by the chief inspectors, building upon the pilot schemes which the Prison and Probation Services are already running.

  "Through the Prison Gate" draws attention to the benefits of keeping prisoners closer to their homes in the months before release and to the benefits of home detention curfew in helping prisoners prepare for release. We believe that HDC can play an important part in helping offenders to settle back into the community in a controlled way.

  We also recognise the advantages for resettlement of prisoners being able to serve their sentences closer to home. Although the increasing prison population makes it difficult to achieve this we will continue to explore both nationally and regionally what more can be done to minimise the number of prisoners held outside their home area.

  The importance of tackling drug and alcohol problems is highlighted in both "Through the Prison Gate" and the SEU report. A good deal of investment has been made by both services in this area, but there is clearly more to be done, particularly in ensuring continuity of care and of provision in the community. We will be addressing this issue further as we take forward the planning and implementation of our resettlement strategy.

  "Through the Prison Gate" also highlights the importance for a national public protection policy of the assessment and management of risk in all cases. The effective management of dangerous offenders is a priority for both the Prison and Probation Services. Both services have a detailed programme of work in support of their public protection objectives, and are represented on the
  194W
  Home Office Dangerous Offenders Advisory Group. The establishment of multi agency public protection panels has placed a statutory duty on police and probation services to make joint arrangements for the assessment and management of sexual, violent and other offenders who may cause serious harm. These panels work closely with the prison service and other agencies in managing the risk presented by such offenders. In addition the National Probation Service is working with the Police Information Technology Organisation on the development of a joint police/probation database, which will cover all offenders falling under the public protection duty placed on the police and the National Probation Service by the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000.

  Both services are also working together with the Parole Board to develop revised guidance on the setting of licence conditions to ensure a more consistent approach and are piloting the use of electronic monitoring as a licence condition, focusing in particular on dangerous offenders.

  A detailed commentary on all the recommendations contained in the inspectorates' report describing work currently in hand by the Prison Service and the National Probation Service has been placed in the Library.

  "Through the Prison Gate" together with the SEU report, has set out a challenging set of tasks and the new Correctional Services Board. We will in due course be publishing an action plan setting out our detailed proposals in response to the SEU report, and the recommendations of the chief inspectors.

  Police Authorities
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many households there are in each police authority. [64539]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Nigel Evans, dated 1 July 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the number of households in each police authority area. (64539)
  The latest available estimates, for the three month period ending November 2001, are given in the table attached.
  These estimates are from the Labour Force Survey and are not seasonally adjusted.

  Number of householder in each police authority in England and Wales; Autumn (September to November) 2001; not seasonally adjusted

  Thousands

  All households in England and Wales

  22,002

  Police authorities:

  Avon and Somerset

  646

  Bedfordshire

  239

  Cambridgeshire

  290

  Cheshire

  381

  Cleveland

  225

  Cumbria

  228

  Derbyshire

  421

  Devon and Cornwall

  657

  Dorset

  299

  195W

  Number of householder in each police authority in England and Wales; Autumn (September to November) 200/; not seasonally adjusted

  Thousands

  Durham

  272

  Essex

  667

  Gloucestershire

  254

  Greater Manchester

  1,066

  Hampshire

  805

  Hertfordshire

  470

  Humberside

  396

  Kent

  662

  Lancashire

  591

  Leicestershire

  361

  Lincolnshire

  275

  Merseyside

  574

  City of London

  1—

  Metropolitan Police District

  3,005

  Norfolk

  341

  Northamptonshire

  245

  Northumbria

  606

  North Yorkshire

  298

  Nottinghamshire

  436

  South Yorkshire

  559

  Staffordshire

  415

  Suffolk

  291

  Surrey

  422

  Sussex

  636

  Thames Valley

  816

  Warwickshire

  203

  West Mercia

  507

  West Midlands

  1,044

  West Yorkshire

  896

  Wiltshire

  266

  North Wales

  283

  196W

  Number of householder in each police authority in England and Wales; Autumn (September to November) 200/; not seasonally adjusted

  Thousands

  Dyfed Powys

  195

  South Wales

  513

  Gwent

  243

  1Sample size too small for reliable estimate

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey, Household Dataset

  Children in Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children in care have been(a) homeless, (b) in bed-and-breakfast accommodation and (c) in temporary accommodation in each of the last five years. [64525]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

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

CABINET OFFICE

  Departmental Website
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when the Cabinet Office website will be amended to reflect the recent organisational changes. [63580]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office website has been amended to reflect ministerial changes.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.

Special Constables
Lord Campbell of Croyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is their policy to encourage an increase in the number of special constables.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, special constables are a key element of our police reform agenda. We are working on a package of measures designed to help reverse the decline in numbers by improving the way in which they are recruited, managed and deployed. We are particularly keen to improve liaison with employers. After all, Specials bring a wealth of training and experience to their wider workplace. By the end of this year we shall publish guidance on good practice and we have set aside £300,000 to help "Specials champions" drive forward initiatives to improve the recruitment and retention of Specials.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his reply. Are the Government concerned about reports of fewer candidates volunteering to become Specials? If that is correct, are the Government doing their best to reverse the situation?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes, my Lords, we are concerned about that. As I made clear in my Answer, we would like to reverse the decline. I am happy to say that my right honourable friend Mr John Denham
2
announced, at the annual Ferrers award, that the Government are working on a package of measures. I am sorry to see that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is not in his place. When at the Home Office, the noble Earl instituted a special award for special constables. At the presentation of that award on 18th June my right honourable friend announced the package of measures that I laid out in my Answer, which seek to reverse the decline, to encourage people to apply to be special constables and to encourage them to stay as special constables. We regard that as very important.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, is the Minister saying that the campaign, which was launched on 2nd January by the Minister, John Denham, and which cost half a million pounds, has not proved to be successful? What response has there been to those proposals?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am not saying that the campaign has not been successful. However, a sustained campaign is required to indicate the Government's commitment to special constables, and a sustained process is required by which the merits of being a special constable are brought to people's attention so that we can indicate to the public at large that we want people to take up such places. I cannot give the noble Baroness the precise results of the campaign, but I shall write to her.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware—I would be very surprised if he is—that when I was a young constable I was violently assaulted on Tyneside and knocked to the ground? A bus driver came to my rescue who, I was delighted to discover, was a special constable. That illustrates the importance of the Special Constabulary. I remind the House that not so many years ago Special Constable Glen Goodman lost his life to the IRA in

3
the course of his duty. Does my noble and learned friend agree that we should all pay tribute to the work of special constables?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I entirely agree with the sentiments behind my noble friend's remarks. I was not aware of the assault on him but I was aware of the sacrifice of Special Constable Goodman in Northern Ireland. The role that special constables play is second to none. For that reason we are very keen to encourage recruitment and retention.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, what is the age group of special constables?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer that question. I shall write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I, too, recognise the valuable part played by special constables. I am grateful to my noble friend for raising the issue. The Minister has referred to a package of measures that the Government hope will address the fact that since 1997 the number of special constables across London has dropped by 51 per cent and across England and Wales by 37 per cent. The police believe that one of the main reasons for that fall is that there has been so much micro-management from Whitehall. Will the Government now agree to undo some of the extra bureaucracy that they have loaded onto the police force in general?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, having looked at the figures, the noble Baroness will be aware that the total number of special constables has decreased from 19,000 in December 1992 to 12,000 in September 2001. A number of reasons are given for that decline. One is the profile of special constables and another is that significant numbers of special constables want to join the full-time constabulary. A variety of reasons have led to this situation. The critical point to make clear is that we support special constables, we want to see more of them and we are taking steps to achieve that.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, when special constables retire, for whatever reason, are exit interviews held? If not, perhaps such interviews would give the answer to the conundrum that the noble and learned Lord has enunciated.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am not aware of whether or not there are exit interviews and, if so, what they show. Steps have been taken to try to find out why the numbers have gone down. There appear to be a variety of reasons and, as I say, the answers are inconclusive. Again, I make it clear that we support the special constables and want to see more of them.
Lord McNally: My Lords, can the Minister say whether recruitment from ethnic minorities into the
4
Special Constabulary is part of this campaign? If so, does he see that as a stepping stone into recruiting more people from the ethnic minorities into the full-time police force?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is a vital part of the campaign. Having regard to the fact that significant numbers move from the Special Constabulary to the full-time constabulary, it can be an extremely useful stepping stone to increasing the number of black and minority ethnic groups who form part of our full-time constabulary.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, have the Government an open mind as to the prospect of paying special constables?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we do not pay them at the moment, but we are looking at whether allowances should be improved.

Prostate Cancer
2.44 p.m.
Lord Ezraasked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take in respect of prostate cancer in the light of the information published by the Institute of Cancer Research on 27th May.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the information published by the Institute of Cancer Research on 27th May highlights the importance of prostate cancer and the efforts being made to understand the disease. That is why the Government started the NHS prostate cancer programme in September 2000. It is also why the Government are increasing the money spent on directly-funded research to £4·2 million a year by 2003.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer and welcome her to the Dispatch Box. Bearing in mind that 10,000 men are killed by this dread disease every year, is it not regrettable that, according to the report of the Institute of Cancer Research, to which the noble Baroness referred, prostate cancer research is 10 years behind equivalent research for other major cancers? Also, what progress has been made in replacing the PSA test? That is a matter of great concern. It is widely used but does not sufficiently indicate aggressive forms of the disease. I should point out that I asked this Question over two years ago, on 23rd May 2000, and it appears at col. 639 of Hansard.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his kind words and much appreciate them.
It is always difficult to anticipate and read across from one form of research to another. A survey carried out between 1989 and 1998 showed that our researchers were producing 5 per cent of the total

5
research output. Therefore we are holding our own arid the £4·2 million we are committing will certainly help.
As the noble Lord rightly said, he has drawn attention to the PSA test in the House before and we are grateful for that. But two problems are associated with the test. First, raised PSA levels do not always indicate cancer and the test misses cancers which are present when PSA levels are low; secondly, the test does not distinguish between aggressive and slow-moving cancers. A great deal of research has been funded over the past year or two, of which I shall be glad to give the noble Lord written evidence, including specific studies on the PSA test. We are also standardising the test across the UK so that it is of a uniform quality. That will also make a difference.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that raising awareness among at-risk groups, particularly with this form of cancer, is of the utmost importance? What are the Government's plans for further raising public awareness?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. Prostate cancer is problematic because of the element of embarrassment associated with it. But we are making progress. In July 2001 the prostate cancer management research programme was introduced. Its intention was to provide an informed choice for men. A pack is being circulated among GPs, who were consulted. It gives a lot of information and enables men to make an informed choice on both the tests and the treatment, which in itself is problematic. That too will help GPs. We hope it will be in the surgeries by the summer. In relation to other forms of raising awareness, some interesting research is about to begin on Afro-Caribbean men who have a high incidence of the disease. It is imperative that we get the results of that research out as fast and as effectively as possible.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, in view of the research which consistently shows that processed tomato products, as opposed to fresh tomato products, are very beneficial and that the taking of tomato juice or tomato sauce on a regular basis is an effective preventive not only for prostate cancer but also for breast cancer, will the Minister suggest to the Department of Health that through health education they encourage people to go on to tomato juice?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I shall do my best. One of the problems connected with research related to diet is that people are susceptible to making either the right or wrong choices. However, I shall certainly take the suggestion back to the department.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, while I warmly acknowledge all the help given by my noble friend Lord Hunt in response to the concern expressed—more especially by our good and noble friend Lady Howells of St Davids about the finding that black men are much more prone than others to
6
prostate cancer and in its most virulent form, can my noble friend Lady Andrews say what recent further progress has been made in increasing research in this important policy area? Finally, I, too, rejoice at the presence of my noble friend at the Dispatch Box this afternoon.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. The noble Baroness raised the question in the House a year ago. Research into the incidence of the disease among Afro-Caribbean men is about to start at Bristol and in London, as is research on other risk factors connected with genetic and family history. So we have made progress.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we need a major expansion of research—as my noble friend Lord Ezra said—so that we can rapidly develop a screening test which is better able to predict the aggressive forms of the disease? Does she also agree that for too long the cancer charities have borne the major cost of cancer research, and that it is about time that the Government made a reality that others would recognise their aim of trying to match what the cancer charities have put in?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, since 1999 we have increased spending on prostate cancer by 20 times to the present figure of £4·2 billion—by four times in the past four years. We are delighted to work in partnership with Cancer Research UK and all the cancer charities. They part-funded and helped with the prostate management cancer research programme. They do invaluable work. But we are spending significantly more than we were.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box for a full House. A smaller group of noble Lords had the pleasure of the noble Baroness at the Dispatch Box on a more select occasion recently.
Can the Minister tell us how many men over 50 have had a PSA test following the department's informed choice project? And is the department satisfied with the take-up?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I cannot give the figure for the number of men over 50 who have already had the PSA test. This year's informed choice programme will be properly evaluated so that we shall have those figures in a year's time. If there are figures, of which I am simply ignorant, I should be happy to look for them.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, in view of the figure of £4·2 billion being spent on prostate cancer research, can the Minister tell us what is the comparable figure spent on AIDS research in this country? The figures given today for the number of people who have died are quite horrific.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, it is £4·2 million. I am afraid that I do not have the comparative figures for AIDS research. I think that all noble Lords would

7
agree that the figure of 10,000 avoidable deaths is far too high. We are committed to a national screening programme if and when we have the improvements in testing and treatment.

Criminal Records Bureau
2.53 p.m.
Lord Corbett of Castle Valeasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Criminal Records Bureau is meeting its targets for processing applications.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Criminal Records Bureau is not meeting its disclosure application processing service standards. It has introduced a performance improvement plan including revised procedures, rapidly recruiting additional staff, increasing resources and extending working hours. There is a special procedure for teachers. The application backlog has been outsourced to Hays Plc's Chennai (India) data processing centre.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that response. Since Capita, the private service provider, is taking taxpayers' money to deliver an agreed level of service, will it be fined for failing to do so? When is it expected that the target time of three weeks to process applications will be met so that both voluntary bodies and local authorities can get the protection that the Criminal Records Bureau was set up to provide to the public?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, Capita and the CRB have to work together to ensure that they deliver the performance standard to which my noble friend refers. It is vital that that is delivered. Once that standard has been delivered one can start determining what the consequences are of not having met it before. But the critical matter is to ensure that Capita and the CRB work together to deliver that standard as quickly as possible.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I support the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Corbett. Why is the Criminal Records Bureau in such a shambles? It takes over three months to carry out a criminal record check on people working in the sensitive fields of childcare or teaching. That has a serious impact on applicants—particularly those working in the field of resettlement—employed in non-sensitive jobs. What will happen later in the year when not only will sensitive checks be required but people will have to produce their records to employers? How will the Government meet the target when full disclosure is required whether or not people are in sensitive jobs?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the process has been going since March of this year. Everyone agrees that it was a sensible policy to have a CRB
8
which could make disclosures of the kind that it makes. It is not meeting its target. I made that absolutely clear in my original Answer. We are working as hard as we possibly can to try to ensure that it will meet its targets. A recovery plan has been agreed between the Criminal Records Bureau and Capita to try to meet those targets. I agree entirely with the noble Lord that in relation to teachers or anyone who works with either children or other vulnerable people, it is important that the check is made and that it is made within a reasonable time. That is what we are working towards. But we need time to get there.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, the Minister has referred to the fact that there is now outsourcing of this processing to Madras in India. Can he tell the House what guarantee there is of the integrity of the information being outsourced? If, by any remote chance, there was a slip-up and information was not kept confidential, against whom would an individual have to bring a complaint and a case? Would it be against Capita or against Hays which controls the system in Madras?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the material that is being sent to India is the application forms. It does not include the material which will be matched with the application forms. The application form involves people giving their name, address and the particular job that they are applying for and some other information. It does not include the information that comes from, for example, the police national computer. Having said all that, there are plainly security considerations. We have made checks to ensure that the levels of security are reasonable.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord says that the CRB is not meeting its targets. By how much is it missing them?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Corbett said, the intended target is that 90 per cent of enhanced disclosures should be issued within three weeks. The precise figure of how many we are meeting within three weeks is not known, but it is dramatically below that.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the concern in the voluntary and charity sector that more than 2 million applications per annum are now being made? It is reckoned that it costs roughly £10 to £20 in administration charges for each application. There is a £12 fee in respect of each application which is waived in respect of volunteers only. But, on any reckoning, the charity and voluntary sectors have to bear something like £30 million plus a year in extra overheads under the process. Will the Government give sympathetic consideration to assisting the voluntary sector in meeting those charges?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as the noble Lord rightly points out, in relation to volunteers the

9
fee has been waived completely. However, registered bodies must countersign applications so that not just anyone can apply. Those registered bodies charge voluntary organisations. We have tried to keep the costs down as much as possible. But a balance must be struck between getting that protection—namely, ensuring that there is a CRB check before someone works with children or young people—and, on the other hand, not being able to do it because of the costs. We think that a sensible balance has been struck. We have heard the representations made. Our response to those representations was to make it free for volunteers. We think that that is about the right balance.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that this is merely the latest in a long list of alleged failures by this company? How long will it continue before the Government receive large penalty payments from the company? Is it possible to appoint another company in its place, or has it got the Government over a barrel for five years?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I said to my noble friend Lord Corbett, it is critical to reach a solution with the company as quickly as possible. If that is not possible, we will have to examine the legal remedies.

Northern Iraq
3 p.m.
Baroness Coxasked Her Majesty's Government:
What assurances they can give to the Kurdish people living in the Iraqi Kurdistan region of northern Iraq that their security will be protected in the event of the outbreak of military offensives in the region.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, the Government remain committed to preventing a recurrence of the grave humanitarian crisis which led to the establishment of the northern no-fly-zone.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does she agree that since 1991 the socio-economic and political progress made by the 3·6 million Kurdish people who live in northern Iraq has been remarkable? Does she also agree that there is now widespread anxiety that since the United States appears committed to an attack on Iraq, Turkey might take advantage of any military offensives in the region to pursue its own agenda, creating chaos and disaster in the region? What assurance can the Minister give to the Kurdish people with regard to those concerns?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, is right; I am aware that Kurdish areas are better off than Baghdad-controlled Iraq, because the Kurds have the political will to make the oil-for-food
10
programme work for the people. Those improvements have occurred despite the attempts of the Iraqi regime to obstruct the programme in northern Iraq. For example, it has repeatedly delayed the arrival of demining equipment which could save lives.
With respect to the anxiety mentioned by the noble Baroness, we have repeatedly made clear that no decision has been made to launch an attack on Iraq. With respect to Turkey, it supports the territorial integrity of Iraq and is co-sponsor of the Ankara process. Turkey has demonstrated its commitment to securing peace and stability in northern Iraq and, as I have said, will remain committed to preventing another humanitarian crisis in northern Iraq.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that 13 per cent of the oil-for-food programme has helped the Kurdish people enormously in improving their lives? What assurance can Her Majesty's Government give to the Kurdish people that even if the sanctions were lifted, they would have 13 per cent of the oil revenues? Finally, will my noble friend tell the House whether the Government will support a permanent solution for the Kurdish people within Iraq?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, it would be difficult for us to give guarantees about the percentage of oil revenues which continue to go to northern Iraq, given that we do not know the outcome of the possible circumstances alluded to by my noble friend. It would be extremely rash of us to do that. Furthermore, we have always supported the territorial integrity of Iraq. We want to see autonomy, not independence, for the Iraqi Kurds and the Kurds have made it clear that that is what they want.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the Kurdish people of northern Iraq on the economic progress they have made. Will the Minister say what further steps the Government are taking to persuade the KDP and the PUK to form a unified administration so that they are better able to protect the people they serve from any future Iraqi incursions? Furthermore, does the Minister agree that if there are military operations in the region, as postulated by the question, it would not only cause immense harm to the Kurdish people of northern Iraq but would have a destabilising effect all around the region, in particular in Turkey?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we welcome the progress made by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) on the Washington agreement and we encourage the dialogue that has taken place as a result. Again, it would be wrong to speculate; I made it clear that no military action is planned and that remains the position.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I understand the reply that the Minister has given to the House. However, does she agree that in 1991 the principal casualties as a result of the unconcluded Gulf War

11
were the Kurdish/Iraqi people and that they are right to feel a sense of apprehension with weapons of mass destruction situated close to their enclave and because within half an hour of their cities there are tanks which could roll into those areas should hostilities occur?
Does she also agree that one of the best signals that could be sent to the Kurds in that area would be to ensure that the policy she has announced today—that is the right to autonomy within a federated Iraq—should be agreed with the US State Department and with Turkey?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, noble Lords will be aware that there is discussion and dialogue between ourselves, the United States and others with respect to the situation in Iraq and that those discussions will continue. As regards the noble Lord's specific question about weapons of mass destruction, UN measures played a vital role in frustrating the ambitions of Saddam Hussein to develop them. We continue to press for the earliest possible resumption of UN weapons inspections to ensure Iraq's full compliance with its disarmament obligations and we will continue to do so. It is a cornerstone of our policy and it remains important under a number of UN Security Council resolutions.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, will the Minister indicate what arrangements would guarantee the availability and distribution of humanitarian supplies to Iraqi Kurdistan in the event of prolonged military action?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate will understand when I say that it is not in our power to give such guarantees. However, we remain committed to preventing a grave humanitarian crisis, as I made clear in my original Answer. That is why the northern no-fly-zone was established in 1991 and that will continue to be a key part of our strategy.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, will the Minister accept that we on this side of the House welcome the continuing commitment to safeguard the Iraqi Kurds through the no-fly-zone and other arrangements because they certainly need it and are under constant threat? We also welcome the longer-term vision—I am afraid that it is only that at present—of a federal Iraqi democratic state.
However, will the Minister clarify the most important question of all? When it becomes necessary to use force against Saddam Hussein—as it will—are Her Majesty's Government prepared to go along with that or not? We need to know that before the event.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have made it absolutely clear that no military action is planned. In a statement made in April, the Prime Minister said that we would consider the matter in a calm and measured way. That continues to be the position.

Business
3.8 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on the G8 Summit.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Filkin on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 3,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 4 to 13,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 14 to 48,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 49 to 69,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 70 to 88,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 89 to 100,

Schedules 6 and 7,

Clauses 101 to 108,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 109 to 140,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 141 to 143.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill
3.9 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Guarantee of continued judicial independence]:
Lord Glentoranhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, at end insert "and the legal profession"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. I was instigated by the Law Society of Northern Ireland. This morning I reread the Hansard report of our debate on the amendment in Committee. Having received no further arguments from the Law Society, I do not intend to move it.
[Amendment No. 1 not moved.]
Lord Maginnis of Drumglassmoved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 1, after "Appeal" insert "or judge of the High Court"

13
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to ensure that the eight judges of the High Court, along with other senior judges, should not be appointed by the commission. I am disappointed that the Government have not relented on this. In Committee the issue was clouded with irrelevance with regard to who would or who would not become a Privy Counsellor. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, argued that because judges of the High Court are not Privy Counsellors, they could not be appointed in the same way as the Lord Chief Justice and the Lords of Appeal. However, when the point was put to her by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, the noble Baroness admitted that only on a few occasions do the Lords of Appeal exercise their UK-wide responsibilities. If that is the case, then it does not appear to me to be relevant whether High Court judges are appointed in the same manner.
In Northern Ireland we face a difficulty in that we are living in a period of transition. We are in a hugely difficult situation in which the whole political process is finding it hard to bed down. The one element of life in Northern Ireland that has been consistent over the past 30-plus years is the judicial process. Yet it appears to us that this legislation may reduce the appointment of High Court judges to a farcical process; that is, something in the nature of Buggin's turn. That is because the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are going to be put in the position where they have to strike a deal. However, even today they are not natural allies, although because of the special nature of politics in Northern Ireland, they work together. But it is possible that the First and Deputy First Ministers may grow far further apart in years to come.
The best way in which I could describe what is likely to happen to the High Court judges is that they will be appointed by a form of sectarian rotation. If such a move were to be decided in your Lordships' House, then it is not something on which we could congratulate ourselves.
No matter where you go in Northern Ireland, a huge emphasis has been placed on the sectarian balance. But it is one that—certainly in recent times has never emerged in terms of the appointment of High Court judges. We have sought all kinds of ways and means to resolve the problem. With regard to positions in the district and borough councils and, indeed, in the Northern Ireland Assembly itself, we have adopted the d'Hondt system. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal would not want to see such a system applied to the appointment of High Court judges.
It is essential for the Government to take this away and look carefully not only at whether we may be creating a climate of jeopardy for the judiciary or whether potentially we may be undermining the existing stability of the judicial process, but whether we may be introducing something that will have a knock-on effect, thus further destabilising those who are having foisted on to them the responsibility to agree to the terms of the appointment of High Court judges.
14
I have set out my logical and serious arguments for this amendment. I do not want to spoil the case with the stark truth; that is, with my personal perception of what is going on. But throughout our consideration of the Bill, I sense that something may be encapsulated within it that is designed to weak en the traditional links between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom and to provide a high-speed highway for links with the Irish Republic.
In respect of the judiciary and of judges of the High Court, I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal will do his best to set my mind at rest by assuring me that the provisions contained in the Bill are not simply the means by which to regularise a process that is now secretly under way; rather, that those in the Irish Republic both have been and are being consulted in respect of judicial appointments in Northern Ireland. We shall return to the matter at other points in the Bill where, for no good or accountable reason that I can think of, special consideration is to be given to bodies within the Irish Republic which are not helpful either in a practical sense or in any sense, given the disquiet that such matters can cause in Northern Ireland.
The Lord Privy Seal will do us all a service if he can let me know on which occasions in recent times consultation has been held in respect of the appointment of High Court judges either with government Ministers or perhaps, more discreetly, through the Law Commission. We need to know exactly what is the level of liaison and whether the form of appointment that has been outlined in the Bill before us is to facilitate it even further.
I wish to raise one or two other matters. In Grand Committee on 11th June, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, indicated at col. CWH13 of Hansard that. the implementation of the Bill and its various elements would take place in stages. I do not wish to stray on to matters which will be discussed later, but my own experience suggests that there has been precipitate activity in the Northern Ireland Office and that matters which are only just at the consultation stage are being overridden by the implementation process. To put it in colloquial terms, someone is at his work.
I want to believe that what we achieve in terms of judicial appointments will be transparent and secure; that it will not be open to question or the kind of conflict that we have seen—I say this with some sadness—in terms of the appointment of the Chief Constable. That kind of conflict endangers everything that we in Northern Ireland have struggled to put in place. I cannot believe that that is the objective of the Bill. I know that your Lordships would not allow its objective to be the damaging or undermining of the Belfast agreement, which is still in its infancy.
But we have seen this happen from Weston Park to more recent events in Northern Ireland. We have seen a sleight of hand that is hugely disturbing for those of us who have to live with the situation in Northern Ireland. It is for that reason—returning to the issue of High Court judges—that I and most noble Lords want an assurance that the process will be transparent and

15
not one which is so flawed that it will create further distrust and destruction in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal was kind enough to write to all noble Lords who took part in the Grand Committee proceedings and to commend the quality of their contributions. We are all grateful for that. We recognise the noble and learned Lord's touch in so doing, and we are grateful for it.
High among the matters that were referred to by many noble Lords in the course of the Grand Committee proceedings was a recognition of the extraordinary quality of the performance of the judiciary in Northern Ireland over the past 30 years and more. There was no dissenting voice. I have far less experience than many noble Lords who took part but, nevertheless, I was able to say that in the years when I had responsibility as Secretary of State, and before that as a Law Officer, I never heard it seriously contended that the judges were other than wholly impartial and showed the highest degree of judicial integrity.
What I want to say in support of the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, is limited to this: the High Court judges are the cornerstone of the judiciary. The compliments paid to the judiciary as a whole extended right across the board, to the resident magistrates as well as to the higher ranks of the judiciary, but the High Court judges are the cornerstone. They undertake the Diplock hearings, where they are the judges of fact as well as of law, sitting without a jury in cases where that is necessitated by what is still called "the emergency". Their jurisdiction extends to the highest and most serious offences and their powers of sentence extend to sentences of life imprisonment and extremely long finite sentences. They exercise the function of judicial review, which is always extremely important. I tend to think that that is more difficult in Northern Ireland, with its special circumstances, than elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
There is a character distinction to be made between the High Court judges and the remainder of the judiciary which should be reflected in the provisions in the Bill for their appointments. I do not endorse everything that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis. I do not dissent from what he said latterly because I understand his suspicions. I do not advance what I am saying in support of him as an endorsement of his suspicions, but I warmly endorse his anxieties about the means of appointing the small body of High Court judges in Northern Ireland on the recommendation of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting together. The High Court judges should be separated from their jurisdiction.
We shall come back to this issue again in other amendments and there will be other opportunities to reflect on the Judicial Appointments Commission. But there is an important character distinction. If I may
16
put it this way, you will know it when you see it. I have seen it for quite a long time. I therefore support the amendment.
Lord Morris of Aberavon: My Lords, I rise to express my concern at the Bill as it now stands. I read the proceedings in Grand Committee. I was not persuaded about the distinction between judges of the Court of Appeal and High Court judges in this respect. If I recall correctly, the point was made that a judge of the Court of Appeal is a Privy Counsellor. I did not attach any importance to that in that context.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, had much longer experience than I had as Attorney-General. I visited Northern Ireland frequently every few weeks for the purpose of meeting the judges and talking to them—I always had a meeting with the Lord Chief Justice—all in the interests of ensuring that I, as an outsider, knew a little of what was happening.
The problem—I hope that the Government will listen to this point—is that you have here a small core of very high quality judges. That is beyond argument. Secondly, they carry out their very difficult functions as High Court judges, sitting as judges both of law and of fact in Diplock cases. It was my function and that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, when he was Solicitor-General to take away from a number of people each week their right to trial by jury if they were alleged to be concerned with offences under the schedule. I was always conscious of the high quality of the judges who exercised that onerous responsibility as judges of fact and of law in criminal trials.
The problem that has not so far been canvassed is that judges of the Court of Appeal—to my astonishment—are substantially interchangeable with High Court judges. Judges of the Court of Appeal sit to hear ordinary trials that a High Court judge would normally hear. There is a very small number of judges of the High Court and above in Northern Ireland. It is sometimes difficult to find someone to hear a case: he may already have heard the judicial review, and then his function is to hear either the main trial or the trial in the Court of Appeal. Therefore, to my surprise, there is a much greater degree of interchangeability than one would find in an English or Welsh jurisdiction.
Likewise, High Court judges sit in the Court of Appeal, but it is the fact that it happens the other way round that causes me concern—although it is not unknown for even the Lord Chief Justice to take a trial from time to time in various parts of England and Wales, but it is unusual to say the least. Therefore, I ask the Government to consider carefully what is the real basis for this distinction. I am concerned, as I was when I read the debate that took place in Committee.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I want briefly to express my full support for the case made by my noble friend Lord Maginnis. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, has calmly and accurately illustrated the enormity of what the Bill sets out to do. To illustrate the point, if the Bill were to

17
apply in Great Britain to England and Wales, we would have the Prime Minister and the leader of the Conservative Party appointing and sacking Her Majesty's judges. However skilfully some may try to dress the matter up and to camouflage it, that is essentially the problem.
My noble friend Lord Maginnis is perhaps more hopeful than I. He said that there could be a change within 10 months at an Assembly election. The general view has been expressed by the news industry—I do not always uphold its views but there seems to be a conclusion across the board—that there will be a change of parties, so that without any reflection on the integrity of those who might be appointed, according to the polls we could have a First Minister and a second Minister who were even more opposed than at present.
The problem is that they would have to act jointly. I can hardly see the Prime Minister and the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition acting jointly on a matter as fundamental to British justice as the proposal in the Bill. The appointment of judges would simply become a matter of conflict between the First Minister and the second Minister. As has been implied and stated, instead of judges being appointed on merit alone, we would end up with a bargaining situation between the two Ministers: "You get one, and I'll get one", without any regard to merit. That is the horrifying thing about this provision.
I feel strongly that High Court judges must not under any circumstances be made pawns in a political game, as the Bill proposes.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I am straightforward in my support for the amendment. My noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, have stated very clearly the seriousness of the amendment and of the situation of the eight High Court judges in Northern Ireland. There is a strong case for the Government to do some rethinking.
To touch on the politics of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, this should be a straightforward technical Bill devolving power in regard to the judiciary and the Northern Ireland judicial system. But, unfortunately, too great a reference to politics has been introduced, unnecessarily, in the form of overstatements and over-actions in different parts of the Bill. A great deal of this was discussed in Committee. I have no intention at this stage of going over any of the arguments. I hope that the Government will realise that they are hearing arguments concerning the small print politics included in the Bill which need not have been there.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I hope that I shall be able to give noble Lords greater assurance than we seem to have been able to manage to date. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, that the Government have given these
18
issues very careful consideration. We too want a transparent system which generates the trust that is necessary to make the Bill work.
These amendments were considered both in another place and in Committee. The intention is to give High Court judges the same appointment procedures and tenure as the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Justices of Appeal. I regret to say that the Government have not been persuaded by the debate on the issue so far. Perhaps I may recite some of the reasons why.
First, the review was clear. The Judicial Appointments Commission should appoint all judges up to and including High Court judges. I do not depart for one moment from the warm endorsement given to the judges by all noble Lords in Grand Committee, and reiterated quite properly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew. That was a unanimous view.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, that the High Court judges are one of the cornerstones of the judiciary and that they have had, to date, the character and distinction which mark them out for the proper role. All of those who have been burdened with that office in Northern Ireland have discharged the duty with distinction. These changes in the structure do not seek to change any of that. The case for excluding the most senior members of the judiciary from the remit of the Judicial Appointments Commission has not been made out, we respectfully suggest, for the High Court judges. We are looking to the future at what will be the next structure once devolution takes place.
The Chief Justice and the Lord Justice of Appeal are members of the Privy Council, as has been rightly noted by a number of noble Lords, not least by my noble and learned friend Lord Morris. But there is an important distinction. The Lord Justices of Appeal are members who potentially have responsibilities beyond Northern Ireland jurisdiction. This has not so far made much demand on their time, but they could be called on to act as Privy Counsellors in the future. That is perhaps more likely now, given the Privy Council's role in determining devolution matters. The issue is not simply whether they have done so in the past. They retain that potential and will do so in the future.
The Government agree with the review that it is appropriate to differentiate at this level of the judiciary. That line was taken with Scotland, where appointments and removals at the equivalent level are devolved. The amendments would remove that provision.
I know that there is concern. The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, talked about Buggins' turn for judges. Buggins has never lived in the courts of our country and I do not think that he is going to get there now.
Clause 5 makes it plain that merit is the only criterion that will be operated. Subsection (2) says:
"Only a person selected by the Commission may be appointed, or recommended for appointment, to a listed judicial office".

19
Subsection (7) says:
"The First Minister and deputy First Minister must, on being informed by the Commission of the outcome of the reconsideration of its decision, appoint, or recommend for appointment, the person selected by the Commission after the reconsideration".
Subsection (8) says:
"The selection of a person by the Commission to be appointed, or recommended for appointment, to an office (whether initially or after reconsideration) must be made solely on the basis of merit".
If the First Minister and Deputy First Minister cannot agree on the commission's first recommendation for appointment, they must accept the commission's second recommendation, as set out in Clause 5(7). It is plain that the Lord Chief Justice will have a vested interest in making sure that the judges so appointed are of the highest possible calibre so that the high standards that have always prevailed in Northern Ireland will continue.
As I said in Grand Committee, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland currently makes a significant contribution to the deliberations on appointment, because he has the most intimate knowledge of Northern Ireland, its judiciary and those who seek proper judicial office. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor makes no bones about the reliance that he places on the Lord Chief Justice's good judgment.
I hope that noble Lords agree that the structure that we have put in place for High Court appointments is robust. Not only that, it underlines the importance of merit continuing to be the only criterion that will determine office—not Buggins' turn or political interference, but real quality. That is what Northern Ireland needs and has always had. The Government are determined that Northern Ireland will continue to benefit from that.
Of course I understand the anxiety when we chart a new course, but we have to have a little courage and trust. The judiciary is well supported by a vigorous independent Bar and legal profession, which is drawn from and reflective of the community as a whole. Those good men and women have been trusted to date and the Government feel that they can be trusted in the future, together with a proper structure that will support them and enable them to come to the right decisions.
The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, asked again about commencement. Clause 86 sets out the position succinctly. It says:
"The preceding provisions of this Act (with the Schedules) shall not come into force until such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint".
Subsection (2) says:
"An order may appoint different days for different purposes".
We shall be able to look at the right time for these provisions and set that time for implementation when all is ready. I assure noble Lords that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and this
20
Government are as jealous as anyone to maintain the integrity of the judicial system in England and Wales and, as it should properly extend, in Northern Ireland.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, can she explain Clause 5(3)? Does it mean that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, acting jointly, can foist on the commission a candidate whom the commission did not want?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, that is not the proper interpretation of Clause 5(3).
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, in that case I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would explain the proper meaning of that subsection.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Clause 5(3) enables the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, acting jointly, to require the commission to add an extra person to that which needs to be appointed. It would be preferable if I could explore the issue further and come back with a fuller explanation. My interpretation is that the subsection would not enable the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to oblige the commission to recommend someone who would not properly be appointed in accordance with the normal procedures. I shall certainly come back to that.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, perhaps I can fill in a little time while the noble Baroness gets some advice. It would seem extraordinary if we were asked to vote on the issue when the noble Baroness cannot explain the meaning of the clause and says that it does not mean what it appears to mean, but that she does not know what it means.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, if there is a vacancy, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister can require the commission to select a person, but it is for the commission to decide whom it recommends. The First Minister and Deputy First Minister cannot specify that they want, for example, the noble Lord to be selected. They can simply say that they want someone to be selected for the post. That is my understanding. They cannot identify the person.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down—and perhaps to fill in a little more time—I have a further question. In Committee I asked whether she had any information about the extent to which Lords of Appeal and Lord Justices of Appeal in Northern Ireland had served in the Privy Council in an English jurisdiction. Not surprisingly, she was not able to answer at that time. She said today that the responsibility has not made great inroads into their time. I wonder whether it has made any inroads.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, there has been the potential for that, but it has not happened. We did a quick trawl on this. In 1997, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland was invited to sit as a Privy

21
Counsellor in a particular matter. Regrettably, his other commitments made it impossible for him to sit. Requests can be made, but it depends on whether judicial officers are free to sit on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on a particular date. The important issue is that the potential is there. They are invited to sit from time to time, subject to availability. As I said earlier, it may become more important to have someone with a proper understanding of the worries and concerns of Northern Ireland when the Privy Council comes to deal with devolved issues, as will happen in future. One can envisage that there may be a greater call on their time in the future than there has been so far. They will obviously sit as just one of a number.
Lord Morris of Aberavon: My Lords, I am grateful for that explanation. It is obvious that, in practical terms. they have so far not acted outside their jurisdiction. That is therefore not an argument that should unduly influence us. However, I am finding it difficult to follow the Privy Council argument itself. It is certainly an argument for making Lord Justices of Appeal Privy Counsellors. However, it is not an argument that is directly relevant in distinguishing the form of appointment of High Court judges who may be asked to perform within Northern Ireland precisely the same functions as those performed by Lord Justices of Appeal. I fear that the Privy Council argument is a complete red herring, or I may be unduly dim-witted and cannot understand it.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I would never suggest that the noble and learned Lord is dimwitted or anything of that sort. On this occasion, however, I would say that he has perhaps failed to see the force of the arguments that we are putting forward. Perhaps I should make those arguments a little more clearly to assist him. As I said, the Lord Chief Justice has been asked on one occasion. Before 1997, however, previous Lord Chief Justices sat as Privy Counsellors. The noble and learned Lord wanted in particular to know what has happened since 1997, and that is our understanding of the situation.
I have emphasised that, in future, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council will sit to rule on devolution issues, possibly including whether the Assembly's legislation is within the competence of the devolved Administration. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, will agree that it would be important to ensure that those sitting in the Privy Council on such matters have some expertise and knowledge of those matters. Whereas they currently form part of a pool of people who can be drawn upon to sit in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, subject to their availability, it is particularly important that those with particular knowledge are available to assist the Privy Council on devolution issues.
It is a distinction because of that important potential to sit on broader jurisdictional issues. It also precisely mirrors the line taken in Scotland. There is therefore a certain symmetry between the rules that we have put in place in one part of the United Kingdom and those
22
that we have put in place in another. I know that Northern Ireland has always been very anxious about parity of treatment. There is parity in the rules that we have put in place for Northern Ireland and for Scotland.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me, but she has managed—perhaps because I do not have a legal background—to magnify the confusion that. I felt when I arrived here today. Her argument on the role which Privy Counsellors may have to play in deliberating on devolved government and devolution issues seems to be self-contradictory. Is she saying that our High Court judges will not be Privy Counsellors although they will have to adjudicate on devolution issues in Northern Ireland? Or is she saying that judges who have a competence throughout the United Kingdom will be required to adjudicate on devolution issues in Northern Ireland? As she can cite only one occasion when a Lord Chief Justice has been required to serve as a Privy Counsellor, and no occasions on which a Lord Justice of Appeal has been required to do so, is it likely that the services of High Court judges will be called upon first? I am beginning to wonder whether the whole issue is an absolute and total red herring and has little to do with the issue that we are trying to resolve.
Baroness Scotland of .Asthal: My Lords, I am happy to assist the noble Lord. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council will sit from time to time to determine a variety of issues such as those affecting the Commonwealth and countries in which the Judicial Committee is the final court of appeal. Additionally, it will now have jurisdiction in relation to devolved matters. When the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council sits, it will be able to draw upon any number of Lord Justices of Appeal or Lords of Appeal in Ordinary who are fit to sit in the Privy Council. The Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland is one of those. When an issue relates particularly to devolution, it may be particularly important to ensure that the complement of judges sitting to hear that issue possess some knowledge of that subject and its history. Such judges may therefore be drawn from the pool of judges to sit on the issue thereafter.
High Court judges are not Privy Counsellors and cannot be called to sit as a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. All judges in Northern Ireland might have to decide devolution issues. However, the Privy Council is the final Court of Appeal on such issues. I hope that that explanation is a little clearer.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I think that we require a certain element of discipline here. As I understand it, we are at Report stage and the Minister should not be subjected to this type of harassment. There should be one speech after the Minister's speech and no more.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, the answers that we have been given today are not sufficient to satisfy us. They are not sufficient in relation to the

23
Privy Counsellor issue, and they have not even attempted to provide the assurance I requested on the role of the Irish Republic. Consequently, and because the situation in Northern Ireland is currently in jeopardy, I feel that I would be failing in my duty if I did not press the issue to a Vote.
3.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 90; Not-Contents, 158.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare,L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Ackner,L.

Kimball, L.

Alenby of Megiddo.V.

Laird, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Lane,L.

Astor of Hever.L.

Lyell, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Blaker, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L

Blatch,B.

Blood, B.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L. [Teller]

Boardman, L.

Bowness,L.

Marsh, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

May of Oxford, L.

Brightman, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Miller of Hendon,B.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Molyneaux of Kilkad, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Monro of Langholm, L

Butterworth, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Byford,B.

Noakes,B.

Caithness, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Onslow, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Palmer, L.

Chorley, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Coe,L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Cooke of Islandreagh, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Rawlings, B.

Cox,B.

Renton, L.

Craig of Radley.L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Rogan, L. [Teller]

Cuckney, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Seccombe, B.

Denham, L.

Sharpies, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ecclen of Winton, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Elles,B.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Elton, L.

Swinfen,L.

Fitt,L.

Tebbit, L.

Freeman, L.

Thatcher, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Glentoran, L.

Trumpington, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Vinson, L.

Holderness, L.

Vivian, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Warnock, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Andrews, B.

Ahmed, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Allen of Abbeydak,L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Avebury, L.

Amos,B.

Bach,L.

24

Barker, B.

Lipsey, L.

Barnett,L.

Listowel, E.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Berkeley, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Borrie, L.

Brennan,L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Brookman, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Bruce of Donington, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Christopher, L.

McNally.L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Maddock, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Mar and Kellie,E.

Crawley, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Desai,L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dholakia, L.

Mitchell, L.

Dixon, L.

Morgan, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Dubs, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Northover, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

Orme, L.

Ezra,L.

Ouseley, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Falkender.B.

Peston, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Plant of Highfield,L.

Fearn, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Filkin,L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Puttnam, L.

Gale,B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gavron, L.

Rea,L.

Geraint,L.

Redesdale, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gilbert, L.

Rennard, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Richard, L.

Golding, B.

Rodgers of Quany Bank, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Rooker, L.

Goudie,B.

Russell, E.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sandberg, L.

Greengross, B.

Sawyer, L.

Grenfell, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Grocott,L.[Teller]

Scott of Needham Market B

Hamwee, B.

Serota R

Hardy of Wath,L.

Sewel, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Harrison, L.

Sheldon, L.

Haskel, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L

Hayman, B.

Simon, V

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Smith of Clifton L

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Smith of Leign, L.

Hooson, L.

Stallard, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hoyle, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Hylton,L.

Tenby, V.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Islwyn, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Uddin, B.

Jeger, B.

Walmsley,B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Warner, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Weatherill, L.

Jones, L.

Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

Jordan, L.

Whitaker, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kirkhill,L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Layard, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.(Lord Privy Seal)

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.9 p.m.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Listed judicial offices]:
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]

G8 Summit
4.10 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords. with the leave of the House, I beg leave to repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the G8 Summit in Canada. Copies of all the documents agreed at the summit have been placed in the House Libraries. I pay tribute to Prime Minister Chretien for his excellent leadership at the meeting.
"This was the first meeting of G8 leaders since September 11th. We reviewed progress made in tackling terrorism, including steps taken to cut off terrorists' sources of financing, and action in Afghanistan and globally against A1'Qaeda and other terrorist networks. I set out detailed United Kingdom proposals for curbing opium production in Afghanistan, which is the source of 90 per cent of the heroin on our streets; and we agreed collectively to step up efforts to deal with this menace. We also agreed a set of practical measures to enhance the security of the global transport system.
"The events of 11 th September proved beyond doubt that terrorists will use any means to attack our countries and our people. We therefore agreed at Kananaskis to launch a new global partnership against the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and so help ensure that these deadly materials cannot fall into the hands of terrorist groups. The world's largest stocks of sensitive nuclear and chemical materials are in the countries of the former Soviet Union—above all, in Russia. The G8 has agreed collectively to raise up to 20 billion dollars over the next 10 years to fund projects under the global partnership. Among our priority concerns are the destruction of chemical weapons, the dismantling of decommissioned nuclear submarines and the employment of former weapons scientists. As part of this programme, the UK plans to commit up to 750 million dollars, spread over the next decade.
"We also discussed pressing regional issues. On the Middle East, G8 leaders reaffirmed their commitment to the 'two state' vision first set out in the Saudi peace initiative: a state of Israel, secure and accepted by its Arab neighbours, living side by side in peace with a stable and well-governed state of Palestine. We called for continuing efforts on India/Pakistan.
26
"The summit marked a major shift in the G7's relationship with Russia. G7 leaders agreed that Russia will assume the G8 presidency in 2006 and host our summit that year. Taken together with agreement by both the European Union and the United States to grant Russia market economy status, and with the launch of the new NATO/ Russia Council, these moves constitute a significant further step in building a strong partnership with Russia on security and economic issues. The next step is Russia's accession to the World Trade Organisation.
"But the main focus in the summit was Africa. Let me remind the House why. The tragedy of Africa is that it is a rich continent whose people are poor. Africa's potential is enormous. Yet a child in Africa dies of disease, famine or conflict every three seconds. These are facts that shame the civilised world. In Genoa last July, G8 leaders agreed to draw up a comprehensive action plan for Africa. Central to this proposal was the concept of a deal: that African governments commit themselves to economic, political and governance reforms; and that the G8 responds with more development assistance, more debt relief and greater opportunities for trade.
"Over the past year, African leaders have developed the New Partnership for Africa's Development—NePAD. This is an African-led initiative, which puts good governance at its heart. African countries have pledged to raise standards of governance and have committed themselves to a peer-review mechanism which will provide an objective assessment against these new standards.
"In response, at Kananaskis the G8 published its action plan for Africa. The plan sets out specific measures in eight areas. Peace and stability are preconditions for successful development everywhere, especially in Africa. Eight million Africans have died in conflicts in the last 20 years. The G8 committed to intensify efforts to promote peace in the Democratic Republic of Congo and in Sudan—two of Africa's bloodiest wars—ancl to consolidate peace in Angola and Sierra Leone.
"For the long term, we need to develop the peacekeeping capacity of African countries themselves. By 2003, we will have a joint plan in place to build regional peacekeeping forces, trained and helped by us. But we must also tackle the underlying issues which so often drive conflict. We pledged our support for a UN initiative to monitor and address the illegal exploitation and international transfer of natural resources from Africa that fuel armed conflicts, including mineral resources, petroleum, timber and water, and to support voluntary control efforts such as the Kimberley process for diamonds.
"Around 50 million children in Africa are not in school of any kind. We agreed to implement the education taskforce report which will increase significantly bilateral aid to basic education for African countries with a strong policy and financial

27
commitment. Recent analysis by the World Bank sets out clearly which policies work. Where countries have those policies in place, we will ensure that they have sufficient external finance to meet the goal of universal primary education by 2015.
"We will also continue our efforts to tackle HIV/ AIDS through the new global health fund. G8 countries committed to provide the resources necessary to eradicate polio from Africa by 2005.
"Twenty-six countries, including 22 in Africa, have already benefited under the enhanced HIPC—heavily indebted poor countries—initiative, receiving 62 billion dollars in debt relief. Eventually, 37 countries are expected to benefit.
"At Kananaskis the G8 agreed to provide up to an additional 1 billion dollars for the HIPC trust fund. This will help to ensure that those countries whose debt position has worsened because of the global economic slowdown and falls in commodity prices will get enough debt relief to ensure that they are able to exit HIPC with sustainable levels of debt. On trade, we committed to make the WTO Doha round work for developing countries, particularly in Africa. We reaffirmed our commitment to conclude the negotiations no later than 1st January 2005 and, without prejudicing the outcome of the negotiations, to apply our Doha commitment to comprehensive negotiations on agriculture aimed at substantial improvements in market access and reductions of all forms of export subsidies, with a view to their being phased out.
"At Monterrey in February, the international community pledged to increase official development assistance by 12 billion dollars a year from 2006. In Kananaskis the G8 agreed that at least half of this new money would go to reforming African countries for investment in line with NePAD's own priorities. This is a substantial commitment by any standards—an additional 6 billion dollars each year for the world's poorest continent. It recognises Africa's needs. But it is also a strong signal of the G8's confidence that the commitments African leaders are making under NePAD really will transform the environment in which our aid is invested.
"The United Kingdom will contribute its share of these additional resources. I can tell the House that we expect UK bilateral spending on Africa to rise from around £650 million a year now to £1 billion by 2006, which is three times the level we inherited from the previous government.
"President Mbeki of South Africa said,
`there has never been an engagement of this kind before, certainly not between Africa and the G8 … it is a very, very good beginning'.
"President Obasanjo from Nigeria called it an,
`historic moment for Africa and for the whole relationship between the developed and developing world'.
"Africa is not a 'hopeless' continent, as some have described it. Uganda has reduced poverty by 20 percentage points in the past 10 years; growth has
28
averaged around 7 per cent a year. HIPC debt relief and aid have been used to help provide free primary education. As a result, enrolment has doubled, putting millions of children into school.
"Mozambique has seen growth of 9 per cent over the past four years. Tanzania is now providing free primary education. As a result of courageous new policies, Mali has reduced poverty dramatically in the past four years.
"Of course we need to do more; much more. But for the first time there is a comprehensive plan dealing with all aspects of the African plight. For the first time it is constructed with African reforming leaders as partners, not passive recipients of aid. For the first time we link explicitly and clearly good governance and development.
"This is not our destination, of an Africa renaissance, achieved. But it is a new departure. It is a real signal of hope for the future. It is up to us now to make it a reality. I am proud of the part Britain has played in it. There are those who say Africa matters little to the British people. The millions who donate to charities, who give up time, energy and commitment to the cause of Africa, eloquently dispute this. Africa does matter; to us and to humanity. We intend to see the plan through."
4.20 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. I assure him, as I am sure will the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that we very much welcome the commitment of the G8 to support education in developing countries and to assist them in tackling the scourge of diseases like AIDS, TB, malaria and polio. The progress made on international debt relief is also very welcome.
The Prime Minister understandably focuses on the G8's meeting with African presidents and the UN Secretary-General to discuss the New Partnership for Africa's Development. It is an important step in the right direction. But does he share my surprise that the Statement was not more forthright on the matter of dictators who have despoiled Africa and on the case of Mugabe in particular? Indeed, the Statement mentions almost every single African country except Zimbabwe where it has been reported recently that children are now starving to death.
We are told that there can be no partnership for development with countries which do not respect political freedom and the rule of law. But what does that amount to in the case of the racism, violence and corruption so evident in Zimbabwe? Did the Prime Minister press the summit to demand fresh presidential elections or to co-ordinate sanctions between the EU and North America?
On a wider theme, we have heard much recently of the doctrine created by the Prime Minister that claims a right to require other countries to change their governments or to exclude certain parties from power: for example, last year Austria; this year France; or intervention in the former Yugoslavia. And now we

29
have the Prime Minister's statement that African countries must have proper commercial and legal systems and respect for the processes of democracy. Did the summit try to define exactly what criteria third countries have to meet to pass the acceptability test and receive support? If not, can the noble and learned Lord undertake to lay before the House a document which sets out in detail what this country's own criteria are? This surely must be a key working text of an ethical foreign policy.
Can the Leader of the House say whether there were discussions on the implications of the creation of the International Criminal Court for the fight against terrorism? Has he any news on the latest situation with regard to the UN operation in Bosnia? As he will recall, we expressed our concern in this House on the issue now being raised by President Bush. We wanted the ICC to work but we also wanted to protect our own troops against malicious prosecution. The French Government wisely put a declaration and reservations into the Rome Statute designed to protect their military personnel against the jurisdiction of the court. This House tried to achieve the same for our forces. The Government resisted it. Does the noble and learned Lord now regret that? Would not sensible safeguards for troops engaged in lawful operations set the court on the firm basis we all want from the beginning?
Kananaskis was the first G8 gathering since 11th September. Naturally. we welcome the practical steps agreed to fight international terrorism and prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. We also welcome the full re-emergence of Russia on the world stage. It is right that the G8 should help to reduce her nuclear stockpiles and fitting that Russia will assume the presidency of the G8 in 2006.
I turn briefly to the communiqué on transport security. Can the noble and learned Lord explain what is meant by minimum standards for the issue of travel and identity documents by October 2002? What, in the Government's view, is involved in recommendations on minimum standards for the application of biometrics in procedures and documents by spring 2003? Does he anticipate that any of that will require domestic legislation? And can he assure the House that the sharing of information on certain passport data will accord with this country's rules on data protection?
We welcome the attention being given to container security although the lead times seem long. But, given the aspiration in the communiqué only to seek to agree standards on reinforcing flight deck doors on passenger aircraft by April 2003, can he say when the Government expect improved security to be in place on U K carriers?
We note the balanced statement on the Middle East, which we endorse. But what is the meaning of the statement by the Prime Minister that,
"we have got to have a Palestinian leadership with whom we can negotiate seriously"?
In the noble and learned Lord's view, does the Palestinian authority have such leadership today?
30
On Afghanistan, can he tell the House whether British troops will be involved in action to eliminate opium production and trafficking as was agreed at the summit?
Finally, the noble and learned Lord may not yet have seen on the communiqué on co-operation projects on counter-terrorism in guideline ix that,
"measures will be put in place to ensure effective protection of sensitive information and intellectual property".
What are the implications of that for the issue of academic freedom that is of such concern to this House on the Export Control Bill to which we shall soon return?
If the summit is to be remembered, it will be judged by what it achieves for Africa and whether the G8 and, no less important, African leaders can make good the aspirations set out. We have learnt through decades of bitter experience that the size of the aid promises does not necessarily lead to long-term development and prosperity. Against this background, does the noble and learned Lord think that the £200 million cost of the summit, as is alleged, was excessive? What will be the cost to United Kingdom taxpayers of hosting the summit in 2005?
4.27 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. I make some congratulatory remarks to the Government although in some matters I shall be closer to the criticisms of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde.
I congratulate the Government on what I understand was very much a UK initiative with regard to the opium crop in Afghanistan. The UK Government seized upon it, rightly, and then pursued it, bringing their allies along with it. The Government should be fully commended.
Although we shall come to the issue in the questions, I also congratulate the Government on the position that they have taken consistently to try to do something serious about the continent of Africa. I have reservations about some of the conclusions of the summit. However, I wish to make it plain that in my view the United Kingdom in this respect has been consistently more proactive than many other members of the G8.
I regret the brevity of the reference in the Statement to the Middle East. It is a matter of only three or four lines. At this extremely troubling and even fateful moment in history, at least two questions should be asked. First, what position do the United Kingdom Government take in the light of the G8 Summit Statement and of the earlier Statement from Seville, Spain, about the EU summit, where, specifically Israel was asked to cease military operations in occupied territories? That was not reflected in the summit Statement. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can tell us exactly where the Government stand.
On the other side of the troubling equation of the Middle East, allegations have been made in particular by some leading American politicians on the deep

31
involvement of the leader of the Palestinian authority, Yasser Arafat, in terrorist operations. There are implications that at Ramallah and elsewhere evidence has been turned up to show that there are close links between terrorist operations and Mr Arafat himself. I do not expect to receive a straight reply on the matter, but perhaps the Government, along with other G8 leaders, would consider publishing any evidence that they may have of Mr Arafat's direct involvement in terrorism. Obviously, that is very germane to the question about whether or not he can be accepted as the democratically-elected leader of the Palestinian interest in the Middle-East.
On Bosnia, my remarks are somewhat close to the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, though I approach them from a rather different angle. I very much hope that the Government will not blink on the subject of the International Criminal Court. Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that any government with a proper judicial process—with proper rights of defence and a recognition that people are innocent until proven guilty—may try any case of this kind in its own courts about its own nationals. It is only where such cases cannot be adequately dealt with for one reason or another that the ICC comes into the picture. It is important to make that observation because, as someone with considerable respect for the American judicial process, I do not believe that miscreants, or others, who are involved in war-crime activities would not be properly tried in that country. Therefore, such cases would be unlikely to come before the ICC.
We on these Benches cannot fully accept that any country, however excellent its standards and however high its implementation of such standards, can be found never to be likely to be guilty of any crime at all in the international field. Would it were so! Let us be honest, every country has some bad apples. That must include the United States, and certainly this country. The great thing about the ICC is that it looks into such matters most carefully.
I have a few questions to ask the Minister on the two major issues. As regards weapons of mass destruction, I should declare an interest as a board member of Senator Nunn's nuclear threat initiative (NTI). In that context, I should point out that, according to NTI, Russia probably has the capacity to create 80,000 nuclear weapons. It is estimated that the great majority of the nuclear arsenal in Russia is still not fully protected. Anyone who has visited the Arctic Sea, or, for that matter, the Black Sea, will have seen deteriorating nuclear submarines in water up to their conning towers at any time. The situation is extremely grave; indeed, one could say that it is most frightening.
Can the Minister assure the House that the finances now being made available for the purposes of cleaning up Russia will enable those concerned at least to secure the most dangerous and vulnerable sites as quickly as possible? That is all the more important in the light of the fact that, since the US/Moscow/Russia treaty came into effect, the much more careful inspection and
32
monitoring provisions of the original START treaties have been abandoned. It is an extraordinarily troubling situation.
Due to lack to time, I am unable to pursue that matter further. I shall conclude by asking the Minister one or two questions about Africa. We welcome the new 12 billion dollars for ODA announced at Monterrey, though that sum seems to have more than one function—half is to be used for Africa. The estimate of Kofi Annan is that Africa needs between 40 and 60 billion dollars a year to deal with its desperate problems. Therefore, 6 billion dollars is a relatively small sum of money. As regards the pursuit of dealing with corruption in government, which is a serious issue in Africa, and of dealing with money laundering, can the Minister assure the House that there will be full co-operation from western governments? I have to say that that has not been forthcoming in all G8 countries, especially as regards money laundering. Without such help, it is simply useless to expect African governments to do on their own what can be done only as a combined effort.
Finally, whatever happened to that wonderful vision expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, at the US Federal Reserve Bank earlier this year? Can the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House tell us whether that is still in play, or whether it has simply disappeared?
4.35 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for the general support, subject to the usual caveats and questions, that they offered. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, made a point with which I entirely agree; namely, that there are dictators who have despoiled Africa and corrupted the economies. That is the whole purpose behind the present approach. It is legitimate—indeed, it is right and ought to be mandatory—that, in future, countries that seek aid from those who are wealthier should recognise the collateral obligations that that aid is properly spent, and that internal judicial systems are there to work.
It is very important that there should be internal judicial systems. In my experience, no country will ever be able to attract inward investment if there is no mechanism for the proper independent, non-corrupt, impartial settlement of civil disputes. Allied to that—and this almost always follows—is that if you have an independent, non-corrupt civil system and an independent civil judiciary, it is inevitable as night follows day that a criminal system will have to be established.
The noble Lord raised the question of Zimbabwe and asked why there was so little reference to it in the Statement. I should tell him that it is essentially because the House of Commons and the House of Lords have been given a Statement from the Prime Minister in order to bring them up to date with the present situation. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, is in his place. I believe that he would agree

33
with me that the question of Zimbabwe has frequently been discussed, and rightly so, in this place. It was raised at the G8 summit. I do not pretend that it was the core of the discussion but, if any country wants assistance of any sort, it must conform to the norms of a civilised society, and I do not refer to the United Kingdom alone. It must conform to what general international norms dictate.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked for definitions of "independent commercial legal systems". It is not possible to have one-size-fits-all; nor would one wish it to be so. After all, we are a very close colleague of the United States, but the system in that country is not the same as the one that applies in this country. Indeed, its systems are not the same as ours because some of them are Roman law systems in the former states that were French or Spanish properties, while others, which did not have that good fortune, have common law open systems like ours. Their laws are different: one size will never fit all. However, one can have a peer review like the one that is due to commence in Africa. This is a very long journey. No one pretends that it will happen overnight.
The question of the International Criminal Court was raised by both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, though in slightly different forms. The noble Lord asked whether I had any regrets in this respect. I had the great pleasure of assisting my noble friend Lady Scotland in the passage of the ICC legislation through this House. We were an early signatory to the treaty: we ratified, and we did right. The noble Lord asked whether it was perhaps disproportionate to think that members of the armed services "acting lawfully" might be subject to prosecution. No member of the Armed Forces acting lawfully has any prospect at all of being arrested or prosecuted.
The noble Baroness is quite right in what she says. We spent a little time in our debates on—I am afraid to fall into jargon, but it is useful shorthand—pointing out that the statute relies specifically on complementarity. Its jurisdiction does not even begin to be thought about until the internal national jurisdiction has displayed the bad faith of which the noble Baroness spoke.
As regards the noble Lord's question, which was not rhetorical, I shall, nevertheless, offer a rhetorical answer in return. Is it to be said that the servants of international organisations should be free of all jurisdiction if those countries that could take jurisdiction refuse it? I know of no state organisation all of whom's agents are perfect. If one is dealing with gross crime, it seems to me that those alleged crimes should not go unpunished. I believe that there is an international criminal tribunal sitting at present. I know it to he true: I have been there. Indeed, I was present on the day that Madame Plavsic surrendered herself to the jurisdiction. I do not believe that the United States has ever objected in principle to that tribunal or to other tribunals that have been set up. The world has long changed. Domestic jurisdictions are not always sufficient, and if they are not, the gap in law must be filled. I do not regret the passage of the Bill; I rejoice in it. It was a distinct step forward.
34
I believe that I have dealt with the questions of the noble Baroness on the International Criminal Court. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord asked about Russia. It has significant problems. The only way to deal with them is to behave co-operatively. President Putin shows himself to be a statesman and not an internal politician. He wishes to join the G8; he wishes to have the presidency, which has been agreed; and he is determined on reform in a country that has had no significant change for the better part of a century. Russia has vast problems and the international community must engage in them. The capability of weapons or the dangerous relics of nuclear armaments must be dealt with in our interests as well as in the interests of Russia.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked about transport. A start has been made. We have been supportive of the initiative for the compulsory fitting of reinforced cockpit doors to all passenger aircraft and the last plane on which I flew—I believe that it was a Virgin plane—had such a door and not just because I was a passenger! Russia retains a reserve on some of the ambitious dates put forward. We have to deal with ship and port security plans—it is not just a matter of dealing with aircraft—and we have to deal with systems of automatic identification for ships. Some are in place and some are not.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness asked about the Middle East. Our attitude, which is plain, was set out at Seville: we wish an end to the occupation and the early establishment of a viable democratic, peaceful and sovereign state of Palestine on the basis of the 1967 borders, if necessary with minor adjustments to be agreed. I repeat what I said quite unambiguously that there is no prospect of this Government, or any successor government, abandoning the absolute right of the state of Israel to exist within stable and secure boundaries as a democratic state in a part of the world where democracy is not universal.
Recently the Foreign Secretary said that it is not within our gift to choose the leaders with whom we deal. There are many leaders of foreign countries with whom we are not entirely in sympathy, but we do not have the luxury to pick and choose.
In relation to Afghanistan, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked about drugs. It is not simply a matter of destroying crops. We need to build local capacity in the security sector and we need to rehabilitate the rural infrastructure with roads and irrigation. That is the work of many years, as the present situation is the consequence of decades of wilful destruction. We need to introduce modest schemes, such as micro-credit schemes, to underwrite small loans for small farmers and we need agricultural input provision, such as seed, fertiliser, tools and expertise. It is not simply a matter of armed forces, although they discharge their duties magnificently.
The noble Lord asked about academic freedom. I believe that the objection to the Export Control Bill has been wholly misconceived, as may be realised.
The noble Lord spoke about Africa where there is a fantastic opportunity. NePAD is capable of being made to work. The noble Baroness spoke of the

35
Secretary-General's figures, which are substantial—up to £6 billion a year. It is true that the Secretary-General spoke about much more, but I understood that he was speaking about total investment and we are hoping to provide the infrastructure upon which substantial increased investment can be based.
The noble Lord asked about the cost of the G8 summit. The cost to the United Kingdom Government must have been one of the smallest because our delegation was one of the smallest. It was of the order of 25 to 28 officials with about five security people.
The noble Baroness asked whether evidence relating to Mr Arafat's involvement in terrorism existed or whether it would be published. I do not know the answer. I read various assertions, followed by vigorous counter-assertions and I have no personal knowledge or any means of judging whose assertion is correct.
I have dealt with Bosnia. I take the point about the significant numbers of weapons in Russia. I cannot guarantee that they are fully protected, although substantial resource is being provided for clean up and protection in Russia.
On the specific question of the noble Baroness about the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I believe that my right honourable friend Mr Brown made it clear that we would need additional money for Africa, with which we agree. Donations will not be enough. We want engaged investment, which the wisest, most prudent and most imaginative of the African leaders recognise. It is still in play; it has not been abandoned. I accept that the Statement is only a summary of substantial achievement, but it is an optimistic summary.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, while it is right that corruption in all its forms should be denounced, and without seeking to defend dictators in Africa, does my noble and learned friend accept that fault in relation to Africa lies not entirely within Africa? Does he recall the years of the Cold War when the dictatorship in Zaire was fully supported by Western governments because it sat on the right side as far as Communism was concerned? Does he also recall that decades of strife in Angola were artificially fostered by the United States arming the UNITA rebels of Savimbi? Perhaps we may take comfort from the fact that the problems in Africa are now being given serious consideration. I welcome the support promised to Angola so that it can stabilise a long-lasting peace.
In terms of support for Africa I believe that we have moved a long way. Some of the rather mean comments about the summit have to be set aside the words of President Mbeki of South Africa who says that this is the end of an époque of colonialism and neo-colonialism. Although it may be a long time before that journey is completed, at least we are making an honest start.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. If one wants to attack bad
36
governance and corruption in Africa perhaps one should occasionally look at the beam in the eye closer to home. He has a vast experience of South Africa and knows as well as I do that the first free elections took place only in 1994, which was barely eight years ago. When one considers that extraordinary achievement, he is right to challenge those who are mean-hearted and mean-spirited.
My noble friend has made a soundly-based point about Angola. Too often the countries of Africa have been used as the playthings and the client states of other states which have behaved ignobly. The other evening I had the pleasure of speaking to the Ambassador of Angola who represents his government's view that there is a vast amount to do, and that, although the war has recently ceased, they are intent on further progress.
Let us consider the example of Mozambique on which the Prime Minister reported in his Statement. There has been a terrible, remorseless civil war for many years and tragedies and catastrophes due to the weather and floods. Those are significant factors and we should not overlook them.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, is it not extraordinary that neither in the two press conferences given by the Prime Minister nor in the two documents specifically about Africa published by the conference was Zimbabwe mentioned, though four other African countries which have had troubles were mentioned by name? Is not the situation in Zimbabwe going from disastrous to catastrophic, whether in the realms of human rights, the rule of law or now starvation? Would not this have been a good opportunity for the G8 governments to have impressed on the African leaders who were present the importance of their making clear to Mr Mugabe the importance of his abiding by the African statement,
"good governance and human rights as necessary preconditions for Africa's recovery"?
Is not the reality that Mr Mugabe will take this conference as a licence to carry on exactly as he wishes?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I bow to no one in my respect for the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, in his concerns, about which I have often spoken in this House. I do not believe that Mr Mugabe regards himself as being in need of any sort of licence. He has determined upon his activities, which have been roundly condemned in every section of this House and by the British Government on many occasions. References are made to the need for humanitarian concerns and respect for human rights to be put at the forefront of the NePAD partnership.
It is true that there is no specific reference to Zimbabwe in the Statement which I read out. But time after time in this House, to my knowledge and that of the noble Lord, my noble friends Lady Amos and Lady Symons have repeated the Government's view on Zimbabwe. There comes a time when one may need

37
to focus on other things, particularly as there has been constant reporting on Zimbabwe in this House virtually on a weekly basis.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I welcome what the Leader of the House and the Statement on the summit said about tackling endemic poverty in Africa. The figure he announced today, which was announced previously, of 6 billion dollars additional funding is to be welcomed. Can he set out to the House precisely how that will be linked to anti-corruption measures and whether we will retaliate directly against governments by reducing aid programmes if there is corruption in those countries?
The noble and learned Lord said that he dislikes the way in which African countries have been used as playthings and client states. Does he agree that the sale of arms, particularly to places like Liberia, Angola, Mozambique, Rwanda and the Sudan, has inflamed conflict in those areas over the years and debased the countries which simply continue to sell arms without any concerns for the consequences? Indeed, in the sale of sophisticated air traffic control systems to countries like Tanzania we have played a part in not tackling the root problems of poverty but rather selling devices which will be of no real use to the people of those countries.
The Statement made reference to the WTO Doha round. I particularly welcome what the Leader of the House said today about the emphasis that will be placed upon trade. Does he agree that the best way in which to help African countries pull themselves out of this systemic and endemic policy is by encouraging fair and free trade with African countries?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said in his concluding remarks; that is the way forward. We are trying to offer not simply financial assistance, but also technical and resource assistance, in which we have significant expertise fortunately, to build an appropriate infrastructure whereby our colleague countries in Africa can develop investment and fair trade themselves. It is 6 billion dollars a year so it is a substantial figure. We shall have to work in partnership with the African countries, recognising a number of matters. First, that they are sovereign nations; secondly, that we are entitled, in all decency and with all due thought, to wish their co-operation. A nation which is providing assistance is entitled morally to say that these are conditions for the assistance. It is not a case of punitive sanctions or punishment; it is a case of a co-operative venture. After all, NePAD stands for a new development and the "P" is for "partnership".
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, in relation to the contribution by the United Kingdom to the plan for Africa, can the Minister say whether what I understood to be the incremental element in the British contribution comes from a rearrangement of the spending plans of the Department for International Development, from a reserve within that
38
department, or from outside that department altogether and thus from the contingency reserve of the Treasury?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I can answer the noble Lord with the assistance, I say readily, of my noble friend Lady Amos who was present at the summit—and I like that benefit. In 1997 the aid budget to which the noble Lord referred was £332 million. It is rising to £632 million. By the year 2006 it will be £1 billion. So it is not simply a case of rearranging the cheques; it is a significant advance.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, does the Leader of the House agree that the Statement is intended not just to update Members of Parliament in both Houses but is also a Statement to the rest of the world as to how the Prime Minister saw the summit? If he agrees that that is the point of the Statement, on reflection does he consider that it might have been better for the Prime Minister to have included a serious attack on Mr Mugabe and other African leaders who have failed to follow the excellent standards that NePAD wishes? Indeed, the noble and learned Lord said that an impartial judiciary is an essential to any government. That is certainly not the case in Zimbabwe and a good many other African countries. The Statement gives the impression that the whole of Africa will benefit, whether or not the countries comply with the good governance criteria. Does the Minister feel, therefore, that it might have been better to have set out that position a little more clearly?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, no. I know that one of the unfortunate aspects of this procedure is that the Statement is not available to many noble Lords ahead of time or indeed at all. But I remind the noble Earl that copies of all the documents agreed at the summit have been placed in the House Libraries. In the nature of things, particularly as we have other important business today, this is simply a summary of what was agreed. One of the documents in the Library is the G8 Africa Action Plan.
I take up the noble Earl's point. The New Partnership for Africa's Development offers something different. African leaders have personally directed its creation and implementation. They have formally undertaken to hold each other accountable for its achievement. They have emphasised good governance and human rights as necessary preconditions for Africa's recovery. That deals fairly and squarely with the noble Earl's question as to whether or not they receive the money for not doing anything. It is clearly present in paragraph 4 of the action plan, which states:
"this will lead us to focus our efforts on countries that demonstrate a political and financial commitment to good governance and the rule of law, investing in their people, and pursuing policies that spur economic growth and alleviate poverty".

39
Many would think that that was particularly directed at, among others, Mr Mugabe and Zimbabwe, and I would be one of them.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that there will be a wide welcome for the emphasis on education in the Africa plan? Does he agree that while the goal of universal primary education is of course a totally worthy one and deserves every support, educational aid needs a wider concept? Education and good governance will be extremely important in making a success of the partnership plan. Does he also agree that the ultimate test will be that the educational element should be an increasing element and should be seen in the widest possible context?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I totally agree. The original aim to which the noble Lord referred is a noble one, though it is rather distressing to call it a noble ambition that children should be able to look to the certainty of primary education. However, the noble Lord is quite right; it must be assistance by way of education and good governance and we must remind ourselves that we are living in an IT age where primary education will form a less important component.
When the noble Lord speaks of education and good governance he is quite right. But I can think of a number of western countries where non-corrupt good governance is of fairly recent origin.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord's repetition of the Statement is enormously welcome among those who work in NGOs and civil society organisations. I chair the board of Christian Aid. I am sure that there will be huge welcome for what has been said about Africa in particular.
I know that in Africa there will be many who would have liked a higher level of commitment of resources to the problems. But most people will welcome the Statement for what it represents in terms of engagement with the issues. I want to stress that and to ask a question with regard to the Middle East. I know that that is a fractious issue at the moment, but the Statement, even in its brevity, seems to commit the G8 to engagement with the issues, including the United States' leadership. That surely is the most significant part.
Would the noble and learned Lord like to comment on the fact that for millions of Palestinian people—who have lived with poverty, oppression and the denial of their rights, as they see it, for a long time—it is difficult to connect with a policy which seems to have been framed in terms of "who we will not talk with" rather than in terms of addressing how we might resolve some of those issues?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is right in both approaches.
40
Engagement with the issues is critical. We are fortunate in this country that, because of our history over the past century, we have a knowledge of those parts of the world that we were formerly engaged with in a non-co-operative sense. We have the historical traditions which enable us to offer real engagement with the issues. This is not a party political point at all. I believe that we in this country should rejoice that it is significantly as a result of our initiatives that we shall be engaged in the tasks which have been mentioned.
It is true that many Palestinians feel that they have been left behind and left out. I reiterate what the Prime Minister said and what the meeting at Seville agreed on. There are the two ambitions for the state of Israel and the state of Palestine. Our Government's efforts are entirely devoted to trying to assist both objectives to become realities. But I cannot pretend for a moment—it would be idle to do so—that there is any solution immediately on the horizon.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the summit has obviously gone extremely well so far as concerns Africa. The Prime Minister and the Government deserve a great deal of credit for that.
I turn to Bosnia. Did the Government—the Prime Minister—get any indication from the United States at the summit that it would take this somewhat abrupt position in the Security Council? Did we have any indication at all, for example, that the Americans were claiming total immunity for their people from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court? Did we have any indication that they are prepared to bring UN peacekeeping operations to a standstill in order to assert that immunity? If they did give such indication I should be interested to hear about it; if they did not, I am afraid that I should also be interested to hear about that.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we knew, obviously—it has been not least a matter of public record—of the United States' serious reservations about the International Criminal Court. If I remember rightly, there were proposals—how far they got I am not entirely certain—that legislation should be introduced. Certainly, at least two senators and several congressmen were interested in introducing legislation into the United States' Congress which would have fairly dramatic consequences for the ICC. What has happened is that the United Nations' mission in Bosnia and Herzegovnia has been rolled over—not for very long; it was a 72 hours extension, until 3rd July. I can assure my noble friend Lord Richard and the House that we are urgently trying to look for a solution that meets all our needs.
The United States has been making a contribution in Bosnia. Of the 18,000 SFOR troops, 2,500 are US troops. The noble Lord is quite right, there is a difference of view, of emphasis and of nuance in our respective approaches to the International Criminal Court. The British Government believe that those concerns are not properly founded for the reasons given, among others, by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams.

41
I personally suggest respectfully to my American friends—some of whom are lawyers—that they have mistaken what the statute means. But we have made our position perfectly plain. We have signed and ratified. We had an interesting debate in the Chamber. A large number of states have now ratified. But I stress that the statute allows complementarity, and, indeed, insists upon it.

Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill
5.6 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 3 [Judicial Appointments Commission]:
Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 32, leave out "five" and insert "six"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment seeks to change the balance in the make-up of the Judicial Appointments Commission from a majority of lay people to a majority of the judiciary. There will be, I understand—I have done this count several times because there was a certain amount of confusion in Committee-13 people on the commission. It is to be chaired by the Lord Chief Justice. I am assured that barristers and solicitors are not to be considered part of the judiciary. I see the noble Lord, Lord Desai, disagrees with my numbers.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I am sorry, I thought that Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 had to be withdrawn before the noble Lord could move Amendment No. 5. Is the noble Lord moving Amendment No. 5?
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, as I understand it, I am moving Amendment No. 5.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is quite right. We disposed of the other amendments earlier.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord. For a moment I thought that I had lost it—it would not be for the first time—at the Dispatch Box in your Lordships' House.
I go back to my argument. There are to be 13 people on the commission. Without going into the detail again, six will be from the judiciary and seven will be lay people, albeit including a barrister and a solicitor.
Our last debate, I believe, strengthened my case. In that debate all noble Lords, including the Government, agreed that for the past 30 years the most solid and most clearly independent rock in the democratic governance of Northern Ireland has been the judiciary.
That debate decided the relative position, selection and so on of the High Court judges, who, I understand, can also be judges of appeal. It is vitally important that we do everything we can to defend the independence of the judiciary. It is clear that in relation to appointments that is so. A quick reading of the
42
"Duties of Commission" on page 30 of the Bill shows that those duties are legal and to a large extent technical. To place those duties on a commission which is a lay commission—the majority of its members lay, with guidance by a minority of judiciary—is illogical.
I move the amendment because the whole logic of the two short debates that have already taken place today is that the judiciary is the finest independent body in the Province. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, said in Committee that lay people would bring serious, interesting and good advice to the commission. I entirely agree. But that lay advice and intelligence should not form a majority.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I do not know whether he has misunderstood, but he referred to page 30. He will of course know that that refers to the Law Commission, not to the Judicial Appointments Commission.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I accept that. I beg to move.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I support the amendment. It is even more important than it was about an hour ago, as we have now ensured that the appointment of High Court judges, the very core of the judicial process in Northern Ireland, will be a matter for the commission. It is therefore inappropriate that we should legislate to provide that the majority within the commission will be members of the laity.
There has been a tradition for senior judicial appointments in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Government are not going to take us through Report by pulling in a little bit of what happens in Scotland; including another little bit of what happens in England and Wales; but discarding a little bit of what has traditionally happened in Northern Ireland, while adhering to other arguments pertaining to different factors. In Committee, I discovered little consistency in or justification for the arguments used by the Government for aspects of the Bill.
I must ask a question that I shall consistently ask today and until I receive an answer: does consideration of such external pressures mean that we cannot have a majority of those who are best qualified—some might say, those who alone are qualified—to make a judgment on the appointment of High Court judges and others in Northern Ireland? The change that we seek is not huge; we ask only for one further judicially qualified person to be substituted for one lay person. That is a reasonable request. It would restore the previous balance, albeit under a different form, for appointing High Court judges.
Perhaps I put too fine a point on it when asking the question about external pressures; perhaps I should press the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal and the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, on what pressures and considerations feature in consultation with either the judiciary or members of the government in the Irish Republic.

43
If there were a majority of judicial members on the commission, I should have a great deal more confidence in its professionalism and integrity, which can be, and over 30 very difficult years has been, measured. I support the amendment. If one deputy county court judge were added to the judicial members, that would satisfy most of us that matters were being deal with in a transparent manner.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, without voicing the slightest criticism, of course, I am slightly surprised that Amendment No. 5 has not been grouped with Amendment No. 6. The arguments for the one are inextricably linked with those for the other. I therefore propose to make a speech that may be out of order; I shall now be told that it is.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I understand that Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are grouped together.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. They are not grouped on my list—out of date, as usual. It is most reassuring that, in spite of myself, I am in order.
I remain unhappy about the Judicial Appointments Commission. I need not repeat that we have a highly respected judiciary. It is therefore worthwhile asking ourselves how that judiciary has been appointed throughout 30 or more years of supreme test. It is probable that the high regard in which the judiciary is held, on the basis of its record, arises at least in part from how it has been selected and appointed.
That system is operated by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. If they do not know—for it is the fact—everyone will doubtless assume that the Lord Chancellor exercises enormous care in selection and in consultation with the people who are most likely to know whether a potential judge, a candidate for the judiciary, will make a good job of it. Those people have experience of the candidates through working with them, having them appear before them and being their colleagues. They are consulted on the basis of their relevant experience. In the context of public confidence in Northern Ireland, that system has the advantage of operating not only away from the battlefield but above the battle. That is no small advantage.
So the question is, "Why change?". If we are up against our old friend, perception, I contend that perception looks both ways. I do not know why the advantages that I have identified are thought to be outweighed by an untried and—I judge—unwanted innovation. Within the innovation, there is a built-in cause for anxiety. By what criterion is a lay member of the commission expected to discern the relative merits of a candidate for the judicial Bench? No matter how diligent that lay member was—in this country, people are very diligent, when appointed to such offices—he could, in practice, not know anything that could bear
44
on the question of the merit of a candidate. Yet, the clause demands that candidates should be appointed solely on merit. How is a layperson to discern the merits or demerits of a particular candidate? I am not counting barristers or solicitors, who come from within the profession; they are dealt with as a separate category by the clause.
It is foreseeable that the inclusion of any lay members in the commission—let alone five—will conduce to a lack of confidence, rather than add to public confidence in the system. I say that because the public are clever enough to know that a lay member cannot, for the reasons that I gave, discern much in the way of merit. The public will assume that those members will, probably, have had regard to factors other than merit, notwithstanding the fact that the clause says that any appointment must be made solely on merit.
Lay members cannot assess the merit of a potential judge, any more than they could judge the merit of a potential surgeon. There are not many of us in the Chamber who would wish to see our potential surgeons selected because they reflect the community and chosen, in part, by the laity. Will it not be assumed that the lay members have been influenced by something else? People in Northern Ireland have too much experience of such "something elses", and it is a mistake to allow them to taint a hitherto unblemished system, particularly such a vitally important one.
Those are my misgivings about the commission as it is to be set up. If we are to have lay members, there should be four, not five. The judicial members should be not five, but six.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I support what my noble friends have said about the amendment. I did not have the pleasure and the privilege of being present at the first day of Grand Committee. I was in attendance upon the American ambassador, who was going about his lawful occasions.
I missed this debate in Committee, but I have, of course, read it. In moving the amendment, my noble friend Lord Glentoran quoted the review and its suggestion as to what the commission should consist of. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, will recall that the review recommended four or five lay members. When the noble Baroness replied to my noble friend, she sensibly recounted how the commission would be made up and added some detail about the judicial members. She concluded that analysis with the following words:
"We think we have the balance right".
Now, because I was not present in Grand Committee, I cannot know whether the charm with which the noble Baroness made that remark and subsequent remarks enabled her to skate over some slightly thin ice in the logic of her argument. On the basis of my experience with her on other occasions in Grand Committee and today, I would have no difficulty in believing that that charm was exercised. However, after she said those words, she did not

45
adduce any further argument as to why the balance was right and why five lay members were better than four, a contingent suggestion made by the review.
The noble Baroness did speak about why lay members were useful on such a commission, and she concluded that part of the analysis with the following words:
"The five lay members may add something of real value".— [Official Report, 11/6/02; col. CWH 23.]
I agree that, in logic, it is possible that a fifth member would add 25 per cent—or more—to the value of the work done by the other four, but the noble Baroness's concluding statement does not, of itself, reinforce her earlier remark about having the balance right. I hope that the noble Baroness will fill out her argument as to why the balance is right. I diffidently suggest that she did not do that in Grand Committee.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I find the argument somewhat strange. As far as I can see, there will be the Lord Chief Justice and five commissioners nominated by the Lord Chief Justice. There will also be a barrister and a solicitor. From the trade union of lawyers and judges, there will be seven people, plus the Lord Chief Justice. There are five lay members, so my arithmetic tells me that things are stacked eight to five against lay members.
It could be argued that there should be no lay members, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, suggested. That is a different argument, which could, perhaps, be made in the context of another Bill or another devolved administration. However, in this context, it is possible to suggest that, good as the judiciary has been in the past 30 years, it would still be better to have a judiciary that was not only meritorious but acceptable to the community.
I shall cite the example of what happens in England. We might think that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and his predecessors, in their infinite wisdom, always appointed the best people. However, those people are, largely, men—white men—probably from Oxbridge. They may be meritorious, but there is little regard for other elements. It is not said that women or people who have not been to Oxbridge or people from the ethnic minorities do not have merit; it just so happens that our beautiful, neutral, impartial system ends up getting only Oxbridge people. It happens in every system.
In Northern Ireland, more than anywhere else, a system that was—from one point of view—above the battle, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, said, was—from another point of view—part of the battle. We must let bygones be bygones, and it is for that reason that I suggest that there is no conflict between selecting people on merit and having a lay element to tell the specialists that, in considering two people of merit, we should think of other factors. It is easy for a closed trade union of specialists to select
46
only their own clones. Perhaps we ought to change; perhaps the current balance—eight to five —is not all that bad.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I never like to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai. He is unique—particularly so today, as he appears to be supporting the Government's position from the Back Benches. I am also reluctant ever to take the part of the lawyers against the laymen. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, is right: the lawyers are a difficult closed shop. Frequently, they are highly dangerous people. We suffer far too much with them. However, even with the—I almost said prejudices, but they are not—feelings borne of experience that I have, when called upon to decide whether I would trust members of the judiciary and the legal profession or the nominees of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, particularly thinking of who they may well be in a couple of years' time, I have to come down on the side of the lawyers. It hurts me to say so and I hope that it does not set a precedent for me, but that is the way I feel.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, independent persons in Northern Ireland are an endangered species. I have served on various boards and commissions in Northern Ireland with them. At present, I serve on a new one called the Northern Ireland Policing Board and we have nine so-called "independent" members. They were recently involved in the appointment of a new chief constable in Northern Ireland, but they had no experience and therefore had to be trained. These independent members spent many weeks undergoing training on how to appoint a chief constable.
They then proceeded with the selection of a chief constable and what happened was absolute chaos. First, people involved in the appointment leaked the events to the press, in particular the Irish Times in Dublin. Secondly, the appointment was seen to he biased. Thirdly, one of the candidates threatened to take a case for religious discrimination. I have to say that my experience of independent members of the new Northern Ireland Policing Board is not very good. On Saturday morning, one so-called "independent" member actually took part in a BBC Radio Ulster programme on behalf of the SDLP. So much for his independence.
I should like to return to the system w.e had previously in devolved Northern Ireland pre-1972 whereby the Lord Chancellor appointed those judges, not the people who present themselves under the facade of being independent.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I rise to say that not for the first time in this House I find myself provoked in a gentle way by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. I rise to speak for myself, but I believe that it is also the case with other colleagues on these Back Benches. If we disagreed with the Government, we

47
would speak. As we do not disagree with the Government, we see no point in wasting the time of the House.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I did not attend the Grand Committee. I have an excuse for that, but I shall not weary your Lordships with it. However, I have carefully read Hansard and I have seen the arguments portrayed. In my efforts to be a realist, I do not resist the existence of laymen on the commission—that is the flavour of the year in which we live and it would be foolish to try to put things back where they were—but I just do not understand why there is a majority of lay people.
I can well understand that there are one or two lay people in order to make what occurs transparent to those who are not members of the judiciary—and that serves a most useful purpose—but why the majority? The search is for the greatest merits in the candidate. I do not suppose that the lay people will have any chance of seeing the QC, who is likely to be one of the proposals, in action in court if he be a Recorder or some other temporary judicial person. They will have no specific experience of him. In the small profession in Ireland, it is easy to lose a good reputation and what is a person's reputation is his stock in trade. That will be known to other members of the profession, but the lay person will not know. Certainly not all five will know—it may be only one or two.
I do not understand what is the function of the majority. Obviously something underlies it, but it is a little like—
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way because I believe that he is labouring under a misapprehension. There are six judicial members and we include among them the one lay magistrate. Of course he will sit in a judicial capacity as a lay magistrate. We then have a solicitor and a barrister, both of whom noble Lords will know are conversant with the law. There are then five lay members. So in fact, one could say in terms of lawyers versus non-lawyers, using the football analogy, that we have them eight:five.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am not quite sure of the purpose of the interruption, particularly as the Opposition were called to recognise the limitations in the second stage of the Bill. A number of questions were preceded by the phrase, "Before the noble Baroness sits down", a formula which I thought was frequently used but which is not apparently available on Report. That is news to me.
In any event, the intervention by the noble Baroness does not bear upon the amendment. The reason for the amendment is to translate a majority on the judicial side. They are now a minority of one; the lay people succeed by an extra one. It is a little like saying to the passengers on a liner, "You know nothing about the
48
technical side of this ship, but you take over the engine room. Those who do know about it will go up to the cabins which you occupied".
I should like the noble Baroness to explain to the House exactly what is the function of the lay people, except to see that the system is fair; that the decision appears on the face of it to be sound and reasonable; and to ask any questions which they may believe have not been asked by the lawyers who have expressed their views. I hope that we will be told why the particular numbers were hit upon. There must be some explanation, but, as has been pointed out already. to say, "I think we have just got the balance right", is a conclusion and not an argument.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, in supporting the amendment I shall quote from the views of the SDLP and Sinn Fein when they were discussing this very issue:
"The SDLP would prefer to see more lay members than judicial members because the danger in the system that we are reconstructing is that the judiciary will have too much influence, power and control in the appointment of judges. As politicians, we in the SDLP believe that that is too much power to give to that body".
Sinn Fein warmly supports that view and states:
"One can reasonably anticipate a corporate approach to the appointments process. There is a very real possibility of little or no change and another lost opportunity".
I have quoted that only to demonstrate what could happen if we do not foresee the dangers in this part of the Bill.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hope that I will be able better to satisfy noble Lords in relation to this issue. As I said in Grand Committee, the review struck a careful balance in its recommendations. During the consultation exercise, some argued that the lay involvement went too far—as some noble Lords have argued today—while others argued that the involvement did not go far enough. I do not hesitate to repeat what I said on the previous occasion: I believe that the provisions set out in the Bill have the balance about right.
On a number of occasions I have been asked to explain the purpose of the lay members and what they add to the process. Not least I have been asked that by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, who, with his customary charm, complimented me on my charm. Perhaps we should have a mutual admiration society in that regard.
I could not put it better than to echo the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, a few moments ago. He set out the basis on which the lay members add something. However, I should say—in particular to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew—that, unlike surgeons, judges operate in the court to which lay people become subject. Judges are to be seen, to be commented on and they have imposed on them a charge to communicate with the public the rightness of their judicial office.
Noble Lords know that, over a period of years, concerns have been expressed that, although many judges are sufficiently erudite in considering

49
judgments, they do not always communicate their thinking to the public at large in the way that perhaps one would best like to see such statements delivered. So, when choosing between two excellent candidates, both of whom may have the advantage of a first class brain, an ability to define the law and to express themselves with precision in judicial terms, sometimes it is helpful to choose the candidate with the greater humanity. That can be judged as easily by a lay member as by a judicial member.
One must look at the question of confidence, not only in relation to Northern Ireland but more widely. Our judges must win the confidence of the public. People must be confident that judges are not too remote, that they understand the ordinary cares of the everyday man. The public must be confident that judges will speak simply and in a straightforward manner, using the plain language that is necessary. Noble Lords will know already that the greatest lawyers do use plain rather than convoluted language. All those factors can be judged with precision by a lay member. Courtesy can be so judged, as can integrity.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. It sounds as though the function of the commission is to promote the High Court judge to the Court of Appeal. Therefore, people come to watch him and find that he may not enunciate what he wishes to do with a characteristic clarity or has some other error. But we are not promoting judges up the judicial ladder; we are dealing with the appointment of someone who is not a judge to the position of a High Court judge.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has it exactly right, but he or she has to demonstrate that they are able to communicate in a plain and easily understandable way. The noble and learned Lord has acknowledged the fact that it is now very much accepted that lay people will form part of the assessment process for many different bodies in many different areas of appointment. Indeed, when we consider disciplinary matters, lay members also participate in those. The reason why the "fashion"—as the noble and learned Lord put it—has changed is because it has been demonstrated that there is merit in including those who do not share the specialisation of a particular area. It is important to include that input in a determination.
Perhaps I may return to the numbers. The numbers are fairly balanced. As I remarked earlier, one will have six judicial members, in which I include the lay magistrate. That is because the lay magistrate performs a judicial role. When a lay magistrate serves on the Judicial Appointments Commission, he or she sits in a judicial capacity as a judicial officer and cannot be viewed as a "lay" person, in terms of being outwith the judicial process.
One has two members of the profession, both of whom will be legally trained. One can suppose that, in the ordinary way, they would be excellent representatives of the two sides of the profession. Lastly, there are five members who could properly be
50
described as "lay", having no legal or other appropriate training. The number of five lay members was chosen rather than four better to provide the reflectiveness required. Such reflection of the community at large is easier to achieve with the larger number. As I have pointed out already, we believe that the balance is eight 'to five and not, as has been suggested, either equal or including a smaller number of lawyers.
We believe that the lay members will bring a valuable perspective and alternative skills to this difficult process, in particular in the situation of Northern Ireland. It is important that the public is confident about what is transpiring, as well as being confident that the balance it wishes to see struck is being maintained.
I turn now to Amendment No. 7. Noble Lords seek here to stipulate that a deputy county court judge shall be one of the judicial members of the commission. Again, as I pointed out in Committee, this would go against the review, which recommended one judicial member from each tier of the judiciary, carefully balancing the number of legal representatives against the number of lay representatives. Noble Lords will know that a deputy county court judge does not form a separate tier of the judiciary. For that reason, I ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.
I should tell noble Lords that the people currently making up the "lay persons" sitting on judicial interviews are departmental officials or retired officials. That participation of a lay element in the judicial process, in the choosing of our judiciary, is already in place in our system. We are not seeking to put in place anything terribly new here. However, we are seeking to comply with what is now taken as good practice and to follow as closely as we can the recommendations of the review.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the noble Baroness states that there is nothing particularly new about the concept of lay persons in this role. What is rather different here is that it will not be a Minister in a department nominating officials to serve as lay persons, but gentlemen 'with a long history—in at least one case—of involvement in terrorism.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, on that point, I cannot add any thing beyond the comments I have made today and previously in Grand Committee. To recite the arguments again would not take us any further.
As I have said, we think that we have the balance about right. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, wishes to speak.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, the Minister says that they have got the balance right., but the review body put forward the suggestion that if you took the smaller figure, four, you would have four lay members, two members of the professional bodies and six judicial members. The commission would have been equally split and the Lord Chief Justice. sitting as chairman, would have the deciding vote. By moving to

51
five lay members, that deciding vote of the Lord Chief Justice has been taken away. Those who are non-judicial—a phrase which appears in the clause and the schedule—would be in the minority in the group.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, five was chosen because it was felt that that number would better reflect the breadth of view needed through the lay membership. We do not accept that there will be the straight vote indicated by the noble Lord in his summation of how it will fall out. Of course greater weight should properly be given to the views of those with the widest knowledge of these subjects. It is likely that that will rest heavily with the Lord Chief Justice. Ultimately, his recommendation will determine who is appointed. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that it is highly unlikely that the Lord Chief Justice will exercise his judgment in a capricious or ill thought-out way. The commission will thicken his understanding and bring perceptions and information that he should properly take into account before making his determination, but it would be wrong if I allowed the House to proceed on the premise that there would in some way be a straight vote.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords—
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I remind the House that we are at Report stage and not in Committee.
To conclude, The review recommended "four or five"—it did not state "four"—and, in accordance with the review's recommendation, the Government have chosen five.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I do not know whether it is out of order but the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, wanted to speak before the Minister sat down.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I am grateful. My recent arrival in the House means that I am unpractised in its traditions, for which I apologise.
Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may take up a point that she has made. I believe that she has lumped together the judicial members of the panel with the barrister and solicitor and suggested almost that they were of equal status. Most noble Lords will agree that among the judiciary—I have not known a case where it has been otherwise—there has been an acceptance that the authority of our courts derives from the Crown. But that has not been the case with our barristers. I believe that, quite recently, two barristers refused to take silk because they were asked to take the oath. If that is the case, then among that stratum of the legal profession—there is no reason why it should not apply to solicitors—there is something which places political objectives and political aspirations above and beyond the judicial considerations. I raise the issue to alert the Minister to that particular point.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the point that I thought I had made clearly—I am content to
52
make it again—is that the barrister and solicitor are not lay members because they are legally qualified. As such, they do not fall into the definition of "lay". They have a separate category. For the avoidance of doubt, the review recommended four or five lay members and around five judicial members. We chose five lay members and six judicial members. We have faithfully maintained the balance recommended in the review and I hope that your Lordships will be content with that.
Lord Kilclooney: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene but the rules are clearly set out and we have not been following any of them. I know that this is a courteous House but the time has come when I must intervene. The rules in regard to debate on Report are fully set out in the Companion at paragraphs 6.121, 6.122 and 6.123 on pages 128 and 129. We had an extensive Grand Committee and no one can suggest that the issues have not been fully debated. We must abide by our rules on Report as a general courtesy to all Members of the House.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords and noble and learned Lords who have taken part in this extensive debate. I start where I propose to end. In an almost arrogant way, I am quite convinced—if I come across as arrogant, I make my apologies—that the Opposition have clearly won the intellectual argument today. There is absolutely no justification or clear argument for why the balance of membership of the Judicial Appointments Commission should be as it is. The noble Baroness is a good friend of mine and she knows that I would never wish to be rude to her, but she has tried to fudge the numbers and to pretend, in Northern Ireland of all places, that a barrister and a solicitor are something to do with the judiciary.
The Government strongly opposed their joining in the independence clause at the beginning of the Bill. The Minister said in Grand Committee that they cannot be independent; that we cannot organise a system where we can see that they are independent. They are, quite rightly, not independent—and they never should be again in a community such as Northern Ireland. The various groups of people need barristers and solicitors who are prepared to work within the thinking, environment and political aspirations of the different communities. So to pretend that a barrister or solicitor in Northern Ireland is as independent as a member of the judiciary—especially when the suggestion is made by a member of the profession—I find slightly difficult.
Another issue which concerns me is again down to basic living in Northern Ireland. I believe in my heart of hearts that the Government are wrong. If we go ahead and allow a majority of lay people on the commission, the appointments process will boil down to political bargaining. It will be the "Your turn this time, my turn next time" syndrome. I accept that the merit principle is there—of course it is— but the Minister and other noble Lords have said that if there

53
are two super candidates—although she did not say where they may come from politically—it is highly likely that they may well be the best two candidates available. But it is also highly likely that one will come from one community and the other from the other. It is also highly likely that everyone will know who is outstandingly the better of the two candidates. But that is not what will decide the appointment. The decision in Northern Ireland will be made through political bargaining within the lay majority of the commission.
That is the sadness of it. I do not say this with any pride. I see the Minister shaking her head, and I feel exactly the same way as she does. It is a sadness, but it is a reality. To be arrogant once again, it is very rare that I have been as positive from this Dispatch Box about things that happen or will happen in Northern Ireland. But on the occasions when I have been, I am afraid that I have been proved right. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 94; Not-Contents, 170.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Hanham, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L

Anelay of Si Johns, B.

Hogg,B.

Astor ofHever, L.

Holderness, L.

Attlee.E.

Hooper, B.

Blaker, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Blatch, B.

Howell of Guildford,L.

Blood, B.

Hunt of WirralL.

Boardman, L.

Jopling, L.

Bowness, L.

Kilclooney, L.

Bridgeman, V.

KimbalLL.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Laird, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Luke, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lyell, L.

Burnham, L.

McColl of Dulwich,L.

Buscombe, B.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Byford,B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Caithness, E.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Miller of Hendon,B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Colwyn, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Cooke of Islandreagh, L.

Monson, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cox,B.

Moynihan,L.

Craig of Radley.L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Craigavon, V.

Naseby, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Northbrook, L.

Denham,L.

Onslow.E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Palmer, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Elliott of Morpeth,L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Elton, L.

Platt of Writtle.B.

Fitt, L.

Rees,L.

Fowler, L.

Renton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Rogan, L.

Glentoran, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Goschen, V.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Seccombe,B.[Teller]

54

Sharples, B.

Trumpington, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Vinson, L.

Stewartby, L.

Vivian, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Wakefield, Bp.

Swinfen, L.

Warnock, B.

Tebbit, L.

Weatherill, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hardy of Wath.L.

Addington, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Ahmed, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Haskel,L.

Amos,B.

Hayman, B.

Andrews, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Avebury, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Bach, L.

Hooson, L.

Barker, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Howie of Troon, L,

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hoyle, L.

Berkeley, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Hylton, L.

Blackstone, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Borrie, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Islwyn, L.

Brennan, L.

Jacobs, L.

Brett, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Jeger, B.

Brookman, L.

Jones, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Jordan, L.

Burlison, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Christopher, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Layard, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Lipsey, L.

Crawley, B.

Lockwood, B.

David, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Desai,L.

Dholakia, L.

Mclntosh of Hudnall. B.

Dixon, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Dormand of Easington, L.

McNally, L.

Dubs, L.

Maddock, B.

Elder, L.

Mar and Kellie.E.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Falconer of Thornton, L.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Falkender, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Falkland, V.

Mitchell, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Morgan, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Fearn, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Filkin,L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Newby, L.

Gale,B.

Northover, B.

Gavron, L.

Orme.L.

Geraint,L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Pendry.L.

Gilbert, L.

Pitkeathley.B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Golding, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Puttnam, L.

Goudie, B.

Radice, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B

Grabiner, L.

Razzall, L.

Grenfell, L.

Rea,L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Redesdale, L.

Hamwee, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

55

Richard, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Rooker, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Russell, E.

Thornton, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Sawyer, L.

Turnberg, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Uddin,B.

Serota R

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Sharp of Guildford.B.

Wallace of Saltaire,L.

Sheldon, L.

Walmsley, B.

Shutt of Greetland,L.

Warner, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

bimon, V.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Whitaker, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Whitty,L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Wilkins,B.

Steel of Aikwood,L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Williams of Elvel.L.

Strabolgi, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seat)

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.11 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostynmoved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 3, at end insert—
"(6A) A person may not be appointed to be a lay member unless he has declared in writing his commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this group contains Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 14. Amendment No. 8 stands in my name, Amendment No. 9 is in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Smith of Clifton and Lord Shutt of Greetland, and Amendment No. 14 stands in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Rogan, Lord Maginnis, Lord Laird and Lord Kilclooney.
Amendment No. 8 derives from the helpful debate which the noble Lords, Lord Smith and Lord Shutt, originated in Grand Committee. I promised to think about it and have done so. I hope that the amendment that I have brought forward is satisfactory to both noble Lords and to the rest of the House. If carried, my amendment will mean that a person cannot be appointed to be a lay member unless he has declared his commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means. I believe that that meets the point that the two noble Lords were making.
Amendment No. 14 would impose a statutory disqualification on anyone who had been convicted of a criminal offence at any time in Northern Ireland or elsewhere and had a custodial sentence passed, whether suspended or not. That is far too rigid. I echo the generous words of the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, who said in Grand Committee that the fact that a man has a past does not mean that he has no future. He also gave illustrations outside my experience of people who had been guilty of crime in the past and who now genuinely wanted to make a constructive contribution to the future of Northern Ireland.
56
Apart from its rigidity, Amendment No. 14 is far too wide. Having secured Amendment No. 8, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments to a Division. I beg to move.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for tabling Amendment No. 8, which is virtually identical to my Amendment No. 9, which I shall not move. The amendment derived from one that we moved in Grand Committee, which gathered some support. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, suggested that the declaration might be written. If I recall rightly, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, also supported that. I support Amendment No. 8, which strengthens the Bill in the right direction.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I would like to believe that the government amendment would somehow help us, but it is old hat. We have had this before. I was a member of Dungannon District Council with someone who signed a similar declaration. Between the time he took his seat and the time he was shot in possession of a terrorist weapon I was one of his primary targets. I am sorry to disillusion the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal, but the signature will not be worth the piece of paper that it is written on.
When we debated the issue in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, told us how he had served a term in prison. He is not the only one to have done so. I served my week in Crumlin Road for a civil disobedience offence at the time of the Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1985–86. I went there not so much with great reluctance, but having found it exceedingly difficult to persuade anyone to prosecute me for my admitted offence. As a mark of civil disobedience, I did not pay my car road fund licence or my television licence. I had to write a considerable number of times to convince the authorities that I had committed an offence. Having been brought to court and said that I would not pay the fine for the road fund licence offence, I was taken to prison. As I arrived at the prison gates in front of the television cameras, somebody noticed that I was being brought in a police car for which the road fund licence had not been paid.
I never discovered whether mine was a civil or a criminal offence. If it was a criminal offence, and if the offence of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, was similarly so, I am sure that the commission could survive without either of us. The greater number of people in Northern Ireland respect and keep the law and would be eligible to serve on the commission. Why do we make this concession as though somehow the world would come to an end if we did not have an ex-terrorist as a member?
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal has cleverly argued my specific comment—I see him smiling, so he knows the offence that he has committed—as though it were a general principle. It is not. I would be the first to admit that there are those who have committed serious offences who regret it and seek to make a contribution to society. However, that

57
does not mean that they have to be accommodated in a specific post or appointment such as this. It is inconsistent with the whole concept of the law and respect for the law that those who have broken the law— whether deliberately and purposively, or as a part of organised crime and organised terrorism—should be given responsibility for administration of the law.
I propose our Amendment No. 14 for two reasons. First, I hope to show by example that a signature attesting to good behaviour and to eschewing violence is not worth the paper on which it is written. Secondly, I hope that we put in context the idea that everything that had been open to such people should again be open to them because they are remorseful or have made reparation.
Throughout our consideration of the Bill. I have consistently pressed the Lord Privy Seal and the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, to tell me what is behind this lack of transparency and lack of straightforwardness, and also to tell us what external commitments have influenced this Bill. They have consistently refused to respond to me on those points. I now ask the question again. What external influences are being implemented or will be implemented? How is it intended that that will be done?
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I have to say that I have some sympathy with the Lord Privy Seal's Amendment No. 8. In general, however, it seems a good rule that legislation should be framed in a manner that relates solely to its real purpose and that we should eschew pious hopes wrapped up in pious words.
We all know that Mr Adams, for example, is a former—in inverted commas, with a question-mark—member of the IRA army council. We also know that he is currently claiming to be a man of peace, and that many people accept this claim and indeed make it on his behalf. We also know that, since he has been a man of peace, he has attended IRA funerals and IRA celebrations and lauded those who have committed murders and other crimes as terrorists. I do not think that it would be terribly difficult for him to go on from his claims to be a man of peace to make a declaration in writing of,
"his commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means",
while maintaining all his links with those terrorists who, despite the Belfast agreement, are currently rearming and collaborating with other terrorist movements around the world. The amendment is therefore a charming idea, but I do not think that it amounts to anything very much.
As for Amendment No. 14, which would disqualify those who have convictions for criminal offences entailing a sentence of more than six months, I think that there is a great deal in it. I certainly know that there are terrorists who have repented and set out to try their best to repay the debt that they have incurred to society. I personally know in particular one former IRA man who, having committed the murder of a
58
British soldier and confessed to that murder, has since steadfastly opposed terrorism at very great risk to his own life. His life is of course still under threat, even in these days of the peace process.
So if the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, presses his amendment to a Division, I shall certainly join him in the Lobby. I would not oppose the amendment proposed by the Lord Privy Seal; I just do not think that it is worth a damned thing.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I entirely endorse the spirit of the Government's Amendment No. 8. However, at the risk of my being accused of hair-splitting, I wonder whether the Lord Privy Seal would agree that, whereas a Quaker or indeed any other pacifist could with a totally clear conscience declare his commitment to non-violence, anyone who believes in the concept of a just war, or even in the simple right of a nation to defend itself against internal or external aggression, would find it hard to do so. Not many people, after all, believe that Osama bin Laden could be defeated by "exclusively peaceful means". As far as I can see, there is nothing in the amendment limiting the commitment to non-violence exclusively to Northern Ireland affairs; it is non-violence full stop. I wonder whether the Lord Privy Seal would care to comment on that.
Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, earlier today it was said that we must create confidence in Northern Ireland and the institutions that we are creating. However, there is little confidence in Northern Ireland at the moment. In fact, there is a developing crisis about the future of the Belfast agreement. The matter has become so critical that the Prime Minister is rushing over to Northern Ireland on Thursday. Although the Government's Amendment No. 8 is of course progress, it does not go far enough. The words are exactly the same as those in the Mitchell report and those in the Belfast agreement. Those words were signed up to by none other than a current member of the IRA army council, the Minister of Education in Northern Ireland, Mr Martin McGuinness. Yet just recently, when a Catholic applicant to the new Police Service of Northern Ireland was attacked, the same Minister who signed up to exactly those words refused to condemn that attack.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I speak briefly in favour of Amendment No. 8. I do so for precisely the reasons just advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney. However, I have a rather different point of view on the matter. I believe that if we are to build confidence in the future in Northern Ireland, not only must that future be built on the basis of peace and nonviolence, but we must draw into the process those who previously refused to participate in the democratic process. Although I have much sympathy with what has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Maginnis and Lord Tebbit, in questioning the sincerity of some of those engaged in this process, like the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, I have encountered some of those who have renounced violence. Like him, I should like them to remain engaged in the process.

59
I particularly remember the case of Liam McCloskey, an INLA man who was the last of the hunger strikers. He went further into the hunger strike than anyone other than Bobby Sands, losing both his eyesight and his locomotion. It was at that point that, at the behest of his mother, the prison chaplain took him off of the strike. He subsequently regained consciousness. At first, he was deeply resentful at not being able to be martyred, rather like some of the suicide bombers so much in evidence in the Middle East today. There was the same sense of giving your life to the cause in which you believe, possibly because of a lack of any kind of hope—that was certainly true in his case—of making any change in a peaceable manner.
In due course, when transferred from the Maze to, I believe, Magilligan prison, he heard of a plot to kill one of the warders. Because he had then undergone a change of heart and a change of mind with regard to espousing violence, he reported the matter to the prison governor. McCloskey's life was threatened for having done that. When he eventually came out of prison he committed himself to the cause of peace and non-violence. He is not alone; people from paramilitary organisations on both sides have done that. They are the people who have to be drawn into this process if we are to leave the viciousness of the past behind us.
I believe that on the first day's sitting of the Northern Ireland Assembly Mr David Trimble said that we all have a past but what is important is the future. Amendment No. 8 seeks to ensure that those wishing to be part of that future commit themselves to a non-violent approach and work exclusively in terms of peace and democracy. Although some of those who sign a piece of paper may not do so with the sincerity that we would wish, there will be many others who will. What is important is to go on building a civil society in Northern Ireland which is democratic, peaceful and in the tradition we would wish in this Parliament.
Sinn Fein argues that oath taking keeps it out of another place. We have to do everything we can to test the sincerity of such statements. If the kind of provision we are discussing were to be a model for putting Sinn Fein on the spot about taking its place and playing its part in another place, it would be all to the good.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I support what my noble friend Lord Alton says. Like him, I have met a number of former terrorists and paramilitaries on both sides who have totally changed their ways. They are the kind of people who need to be included. I therefore support the Government's Amendment No. 8. I consider that Amendment No. 14 goes too far, particularly as regards the words,
"if he has been convicted at any time … of a criminal offence".
I stress the words "at any time".
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I know through my dealings with the Maranatha community
60
that there are a number of people who have truly repented of past violence, who have served the community, and who wish to go on serving it. No one could possibly say that that is wrong. However, there must be a distinction drawn between people one would welcome doing that and people who would, if appointed, have power. We are debating the issue of the lay members who would have power. I do not believe that we have the right to gamble whether they would be genuine or not. If people wish to repent and reform, there are many ways of doing so without allowing them power over the community. There have been too many examples among the paramilitaries of people mis-using their power.
I am much inclined to support the amendment, but I feel that in this particular case it would not be right to allow our wish to trust and to be inclusive to hold sway at the expense of the people who would suffer if we made a mistake. There is room for the people we are discussing to serve the community without their being able to make decisions.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, asked whether any external commitments had been made in the context of either Amendment No. 8 or Amendment No. 14. I know of none.
I cannot add to the purpose of Amendment No. 8. I am most grateful for the generous welcome given by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton. It seems to me that we have tried to meet a genuine concern. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, said that it was pointless to put into legislation words that did not really matter. Amendment No. 14 falls into that category. It does not refer to a sentence of six months or more but to conviction,
"at any time in Northern Ireland or elsewhere of a criminal offence and has had passed on him a custodial sentence (whether suspended or not)".
It is worth considering what that actually means. It means a conviction in the Republic of Ireland or a conviction for criminal speeding. If the speeder was a persistent offender, he could have received a seven-day suspended sentence. That would constitute a disqualification in terms of membership of the body we are discussing. I put the following example gently to the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis. I refer to someone who drives on the wrong side of the road in Turkey while on holiday and is given a seven-day suspended sentence.
The whole measure is, when one looks at it—I put this as moderately as I can—quite nonsensical. It would disqualify people of the quality, for instance, of Nelson Mandela. It would nevertheless not necessarily disqualify those with convictions for which they had not received a custodial sentence although we might rightly abominate them. It would cover every type of criminal offence. I refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton; namely, that it would cover any offence at any time. Therefore, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act would have no place here, nor the concept behind it. The measure is simply not workable. For that reason alone it should be rejected.

61
My fundamental point is this. As regards someone who has repented—I cannot speak as eloquently as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, or the noble Lord, Lord Hylton—and who wishes to start afresh in a community he has wounded, we should not impose an absolute statutory disqualification for all time. The fact of being in possession of a conviction and sentence does not entitle one to be put on the commission we are discussing, but this amendment if carried—I urge your Lordships not to do so—would constitute a statutory disqualification for all time and the old curse of Northern Ireland of too long a history and too short a history, as one of your Lordships told me privately, would be embodied in statute.
As my noble friend Lady Scotland has said on many occasions, the Bill is designed to work for a better future. It cannot come into effect automatically and the devolved powers we are discussing will not be implemented until the Government are satisfied that it is safe to do so. To start off with what is embodied in Amendment No. 14 would constitute a deep and continuing mistake.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, he has not answered my question about the commitment to non-violence being totally unqualified.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. I am so sorry. As the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, pointed out, the measure is a direct quotation from the Mitchell principles and would be understood in that way.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Judicial Appointments Commission]:
Lord Roganmoved Amendment No. 10:
Page 73, line 23, leave out "may" and insert "must"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 10, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 11. As the Bill stands, discretion is afforded to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to terminate a judicial appointee membership on the recommendation of the Lord Chief Justice. By these two amendments I seek to remove that discretionary power from the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.
The issue arises as to when the Lord Chief Justice would make a recommendation to terminate and when it would be appropriate not to do so. Further to that is the issue of—we shall discuss this in more detail—acting jointly. As the Bill is drafted, either the First Minister or Deputy First Minister has a veto on removal, even if the Lord Chief Justice recommends that removal action be taken. That is clearly a ludicrous situation. I do not believe that it is the Government's intention to vest in the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister those discretionary powers.
When the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, discussed Clause 5(7) several hours ago, she made great play of the fact that the word "must" was being used rather
62
than "may". I respectfully suggest that similar arguments should be used in relation to the amendment.
Amendment No. 11 seeks to make a similar change in respect of lay members. Some of us are concerned about Paragraph 2(4)(b) of Schedule 2, which is the "criminal offence" provision. As the Bill stands, either the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister may veto the removal of a person convicted of a serious offence. That is surely not what was intended.
Paragraph 2(4)(a) raises questions about the phrase "without reasonable excuse" and whether someone who fails to exercise his or her functions for a period without such an excuse should be permitted to stay. That again involves a de facto veto from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I am not normally one for prescriptive Acts and Bills but this is a judicial Bill and it will have to be interpreted regularly. There is much merit in what the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, proposes, in terms of clarification. The provision appears in a schedule to the Bill and is not in the Bill itself. I presume that the intention is that it should be guidance to whoever interprets the legislation when it is enacted, as I hope it will be. This is a tidying up and clarifying amendment.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords. we have already had the benefit of a helpful discussion on these amendments in Committee. They seek to remove any discretion from the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in the case of dismissing lay or judicial members of the Judicial Appointments Commission.
I welcome the opportunity again to express the Government's thinking in this area. With regard to judicial members, the Bill provides that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister may remove a member on the recommendation of the Lord Chief Justice.
With regard to lay members, the Bill provides for dismissal in certain cases. Our policy in these cases is quite clear. We would expect the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to act. We believe that it is important to put a certain degree of trust in the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and not tie their hands by compelling them to dismiss a member automatically. With regard to lay members, a number of the reasons for dismissal are matters that could differ in their seriousness. For instance, if a lay member had been convicted of a serious offence, no doubt everyone would agree that he or she should no longer be a member of the commission. However, if he had been convicted of a. minor driving offence, for example, it is fairly clear that that person should riot be removed from the commission. One needs to leave the First Minister and Deputy First Minister some discretion in such matters.
I hope that that explanation will assist noble Lords and that it provides the reasons why we believe that the discretion should remain where it is. I hope that the

63
noble Lord will withdraw the amendment. I pray in aid all that I said at greater length on this matter in Committee.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
6.45 p.m.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglassmoved Amendment No. 12:
Page 75, line 33, at end insert—
"() Committees or sub-committees may not include persons who would not be eligible to be members of the Commission."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 13. Both amendments relate to the appointment of committees and sub-committees within the commission.
I have examined the list of duties that the commission is likely to have. It appears, I believe, in Schedule 1. A commission of 13 perhaps needs committees but I am at a loss to understand why it would need sub-committees.
I hope that the Government appreciate and will accept the common sense of the amendment. It seeks to ensure that, having set the current standard for membership of the commission—I do not believe that that standard is stringent enough—it would be wrong to have committees or sub-committees on which people would be eligible to sit although they would not meet the standard that is required to be a member of the commission as a whole.
Amendment No. 13 proposes that the commission may not delegate any of its functions in paragraph 11(1),
"unless approved by the majority of judicial members of the Commission".
By and large, I have explained why members of committees or sub-committees should at least measure up to the standards that apply to the commission as a whole.
In terms of delegating functions, the commission should not further jeopardise the judicial process. It could delegate responsibilities that require judicial know-how to a sub-committee although no member of that sub-committee had in-depth knowledge of the judicial process or of what is required.
Both of the amendments are simple. I genuinely believe that they would improve the Bill, although we have to take into consideration the fact that some dubious individuals may be permitted to be members of the commission. Having said that, I hope that the Government will agree to the amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, these amendments were discussed extensively in Committee. As noble Lords will know, the Bill provides that the
64
commission may establish committees or subcommittees which may include persons who arc not members of the commission. The Bill also states that where committees are dealing with appointments, they must include a member of the commission and, unless that person is a lay member, a person who is eligible to be a lay member as well. Noble Lords will recall that that issue was extensively debated in another place. This latter amendment was made in light of the views of Members in another place that it was appropriate for there to be a member of the commission on all committees dealing with appointments.
On the face of it, Amendment No. 12 goes considerably further. It requires that the committees of the Judicial Appointments Commission have the same membership criteria as the full commission. However, in practice the only persons who would be prevented from membership of committees would seem to be retired judges, barristers or solicitors. I know that a number of comments have been made in this House about lawyers generally but I do not think that that is one which would merit their continued exclusion. I am not sure why such lengths are being gone to to achieve that. Given that we have already sought to achieve an appropriate relationship between the full commission and its committees, I ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.
Amendment No. 13 prevents the commission from delegating any of its functions unless approved by a majority of the judicial members of the commission. Other amendments tabled earlier by noble Lords sought to increase the judicial membership of the commission. With this amendment, noble Lords perhaps show a similar wariness in regard to the role to be played by the lay members.
We should remember the nature and extent of the appointments that are likely to be made. If one considers the appointments made in the year 2000–01, the Lord Chancellor was responsible for making a total of 40 appointments in 2000 and 90 in 2001. To date for the year 2002 we have had about 52 appointments. The appointments commission will have to involve itself in a broad range of appointments from tribunal, county court judge, magistrate, justices of the peace, lay panellists, and so on. It is important for it to be able to do its work through committees. As noble Lords know, in the main it has been left to the commission to decide its working practices under its chairman the Lord Chief Justice who, I should imagine, will be a jealous chairman in terms of his practices and procedures.
As I have said on a number of occasions, the review went into some detail in striking the right balance between lay and judicial members of the commission and was clear about the benefit that lay people could bring to the appointment process. Those benefits apply across all the functions of the commission. We are not convinced that lay members should play a lesser role in deciding what functions the commission

65
should or should not delegate. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I listened carefully to the Minister. I despair increasingly about making this legislation the kind of Bill that I believe that Northern Ireland deserves. However, I shall not waste the time of the House. I have made my point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Appointment to most senior judicial offices]:
Lord Roganmoved Amendment No. 15:
Page 3, line 22, leave out "First Minister and deputy First Minister" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 16 to 34. Clause 4 is concerned with the appointment of the most senior judicial officers including a judge of the High Court, an issue which we debated earlier at length. The amendments seek to remove the role of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister from the appointments procedure either as consultees or persons making recommendations.
As has been mentioned several times in debate, there is real and genuine concern in Northern Ireland with respect to the politicisation of the judicial appointments process. Recommendations by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister—they are politicians—to a Prime Minister seems excessive and unnecessary. Let us consider what advice the First Minister and Deputy First Minister could provide to the Prime Minister on appointing the Lord Chief Justice or justices of appeal other than a perceived political opinion or religious background. Given the numerous legal challenges to decisions already made in the light of the agreement, the inclusion of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in the process of selection poses obvious problems in the future. In paragraph 6.104 the review states:
"In the Northern Ireland context it is important to keep any hint of political input out of the appointments process".
The Bill attempts to do the exact opposite.
Devolution does not necessitate devolution of the judicial appointments process. Indeed, one does not follow the other. Devolution relates to the legislature. It relates to the executive and to government. When we speak of the judiciary, it is a separate branch of the state. Again, I refer to subsection (5). The First Minister and Deputy First Minister must act jointly in making a recommendation. That provides the MLAs concerned with the power of veto over the process of appointment with respect to any potential appointee. I submit that the Belfast agreement did not dictate that all decisions which had to be made by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister must be joint decisions. I contend that such language was the creation of the draftsmen of the Northern Ireland legislation.
66
Clause 5 makes provision for the appointment of listed judicial officers by virtue of the Judicial Appointments Commission making recommendations to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Schedule 3 relates to the transfer of functions in respect of those appointments from the Lord Chancellor to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. As has been stated, it is not something that must take place as part of the process of devolution, or of the devolution of criminal justice functions. Judicial appointment functions are and should remain separate. Further to that is the consequence of the perceived politicisation of the appointments process. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords. again, we debated this group of amendments in Committee and I am afraid that there is little more that I can add. Overall, the effect seems to be to turn over to the Lord Chancellor the role of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in the process of appointing judges.
Perhaps I may clarify the purpose of the legislation. In the Bill, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have the role recommended for them in the review, which recognised the importance of a carefully managed degree of political accountability. The importance of this role 'was also discussed at length in another place. In the devolved scenario we must give the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in Belfast the same trust as we extend to the Lord Chancellor in Westminster. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that devolving justice matters, including judicial appointments to the Northern Ireland Assembly, would be a positive and welcome development that would help to underpin the stability of that institution.
We have spoken many times during the course of the passage of the Bill about the important principles, such as independence. The principles at stake here are also just as important. We are talking about trust. It cannot be emphasised enough. When a decision is taken to devolve, in the light of security and other relevant considerations, we must demonstrate our commitment by trusting the devolved administration with the outworkings of that decision. We cannot take one step and not the other. For that reason, I ask for these amendments to be withdrawn.
7 p.m.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 16 to 26 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Appointment to listed judicial offices]:
[Amendments Nos. 27 to 34 not moved.]
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendment No. 35:
Page 4, line 33, leave out from beginning to "office" in line 34 and insert—
"(8) The Commission must, so far as it is reasonably practicable to do so, secure that a range of persons reflective of the community in Northern Ireland is available for consideration by the Commission whenever it is required to select a person to be appointed, or recommended for appointment, to a listed judicial office.
(9) But the selection of the person to be appointed, or recommended for appointment, to the listed judicial"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Privy Seal, I move the amendment standing in his name on the Marshalled List. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Desai for focusing our attention on this issue during Grand Committee.
The idea of a statutory requirement to secure a reflective judiciary was discussed extensively both in another place and at Grand Committee. The notion has been resisted in the past because judges must not be appointed with regard to representativeness or reflectiveness, but exclusively on merit. Judges must not be appointed to "even up the numbers", as distinct from being appointed on merit. Judges do not represent or reflect parts of the community but the whole community, and must do justice according to law for the benefit of the whole community.
The review did not contradict this principle. It recommended that merit should remain paramount. We believe that everyone present in the Chamber would agree with that principle. However, as there is a body of support for the idea that the objective of securing a reflective judiciary should be given statutory expression, we undertook to revisit this matter on the understanding that any provision would need to be subject to the principle of appointment on merit.
We have reconsidered the matter. We are now in a position to offer noble Lords a wording that reflects the recommendation of the review. Perhaps I may remind the House of the review's recommendation. It recommended that,
"it should be a stated objective of whoever is responsible for appointments to engage in a programme of action to secure the development of a judiciary that is reflective of Northern Ireland society, in particular by community background and gender, as can be achieved consistent with the overriding requirement of merit".
This amendment requires the Judicial Appointments Commission, so far as it is practicable, to ensure that a range of candidates reflective of the community are available for consideration for appointment to listed judicial offices. There is, however, strong competition for appointment to the judiciary and any appointment must be made on merit. The Government have made it clear that it is desirable to have a reflective judiciary but that is to be achieved without prejudice to each and every appointment being made on merit.
First, as I said earlier, there was a concern that any reflectiveness provision could be taken to undermine the merit principle. The review is clear that this should remain paramount. The amendment is equally clear:
68
any selection of the person to be appointed, or recommended for appointment, to the listed judicial office must be made solely on the basis of merit. Secondly, the provision requires that a range of candidates reflective of the community will be achieved only in,
"so far as it is reasonably practicable".
The new provision focuses on securing the pool. Together with the changes made by the Bill to the eligibility criteria and the commitment to a programme of outreach outlined in the review implementation plan, the amendment demonstrates the Government's commitment to a judiciary appointed solely on merit, as I have said on a number of occasions, while giving every encouragement to those eligible from across the whole of society to apply for judicial appointment. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I have a purely drafting point to make. Can the noble Baroness—the Minister—confirm that the new subsection (9) to Clause 5 as outlined in the Government's amendment is correctly printed on the Marshalled List? On the face it, it does not appear to me to make sense.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, before the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, responds—perhaps she could answer a separate question while advice is being secured in response to the drafting matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. Once upon a time, Secretaries of State on arrival in Northern Ireland were given three large dossiers to read. Part of one of those dossiers included words that the Secretary of State should avoid using. My recollection of 13 years ago is that Secretaries of State were advised that they should not refer to "the community" but to "both sides of the community".
I realise that times change and that a totally different form of language may apply 13 years later. Indeed, it is possible that that has been so since the Belfast agreement. However, if the wording used has changed in the intervening period, it would be helpful to know whether there is a definition of the phrase "reflective of the community" anywhere else in the Bill.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, before the Minister responds, perhaps I may follow on from the question just raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. Varying descriptions are used by academics of the word "merit". I wonder precisely how the Government intend to define the word. Incidentally, I believe that they are right not to derogate from that principle. They are also right to use the word "reflective" rather than "representative". However, there will be concern about what the Government mean by the use of the word "merit".
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I must be careful now, because I must not stand up to speak after the Minister has replied. If I may say so, I think that

69
this amendment is rather a clever piece of drafting. It will be completely unenforceable. No one will be able to complain that something was not done when it was "reasonably practicable" for it to be done, or vice versa. However, I believe that it serves a number of gods whose wrath it is important not to incur. I particularly endorse the use of the word "reflective" rather than "representative" for the reason given by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, during the Grand Committee proceedings. She said that it was,
"a more sensitive word to use when describing where a judicial officer may come from but not what he will in fact do".—[Official Report. 11/6/02; col, CWH 35.]
If you talk about someone being "representative", it may imply that he will do what he is told to do.
The amendment is a complex, but necessary, piece of drafting. I congratulate all concerned on their ingenuity. As I said, I do not believe that it will help anyone, but it is a necessary addition to the Bill.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for dealing with the question that I raised in Grand Committee.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, for his compliment—the full force of which I take on board—in relation to the ingenuity of the Government on this occasion.
I shall deal with the questions in reverse order. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked what "merit" means. It means the worth and fitness for judicial office. There is no precise definition of "merit", but it is clear that it means the best person to fit the job or the person who is clearly best suited for that particular judicial office and the excellence that is required, as opposed to any other criterion.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, raised a question about the word "community". "Both sides of the community", as the noble Lord will know, tended to refer to the religious communities in Northern Ireland—both Catholic and Protestant. The word "community", as used here, has a much wider meaning and refers to the peoples of Northern Ireland. Although there are two dominant communities in that country, there are also others. It refers to the totality of the community as opposed to just the two sides.
On the issue of "reflectiveness", I hope that I have dealt with the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I am trying to remember what it was.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I can remind the Minister. It appears to me that the word "office" has been left out after "judicial".
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, one has to read the line together with the Bill. The word "office" is already in the Bill. The words that we are adding do not make sense until they are put into the Bill. It is already there. I can see vigorous nodding from those in the Box to tell me that I have the matter aright.
70
The word "reflective" best meets the needs of this part of the Bill. If one were to re-write other parts of the legislation, one would perhaps use "reflective", as opposed to "representative", because it is a much more sensitive word and indicates precisely what we mean. We do not mean that those appointed to other bodies will represent specific contingencies on that body; we mean that they will be reflective of the community. We use that word because it has the nuance that is absolutely essential. In relation to the judiciary, that needs to be underlined because of independence and other factors. To be honest, I believe that we probably would have used the word "reflective" in the past, but language changes and we choose what is best for today.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.15 p.m.
Schedule 3 [Appointment to listed judicial offices]:
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Removal from most senior judicial offices]:
Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 37:
Page 5, line 33, after "office" insert "for a maximum of three months"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this short amendment was tabled in Grand Committee. On reflection, I was not happy with the response given by the noble Baroness. I felt that something had been missed. There is a possibility that under subsection (8) of new Section 12B, in relation to the suspension of the Lord Chief Justice, a hole could appear when a decision is taken to suspend the Lord Chief Justice while something else happens. In the response we were encouraged to believe that that was hypothetical because it will never happen. I can go along with that, but if one believes that it will never happen, why is that provision in the Bill at all? If it is to be in the Bill. it should have all the necessary safeguards.
In Grand Committee the human rights issue was also mentioned. I feel that the human rights issue would be on the side of the Lord Chief Justice. If I were Lord Chief Justice and I were to be suspended, I would want to know that I had some security so that whatever should happen next would happen. I would want to know that I was not to be left festering, as has happened in other parts of our democracy, for years on end while some court or tribunal decides what is to happen to me. It is not a big deal. I do not feel that it is in any way political, but it is a safeguard arid it is tidying up. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is right to say that we spoke about this matter in Committee. Clause 6 provides for the removal of judges from the most senior judicial offices. I believe that we all accept that it is highly unlikely that the circumstances will arise to make consideration of those provisions necessary, but they have to be in the Bill just in case.
There are difficulties. Amendment No. 37 places a time limit of three months on the suspension of the Lord Chief Justice, while the Prime Minister and the

71
Lord Chancellor consider making Motions for the presentation of the Address to Her Majesty for his or her removal. We have discussed this amendment and we do not anticipate any difficulty with the exercise of the power to suspend, but we have to remember that the power is given to the Prime Minister for use only when he and the Lord Chancellor consider the making of a Motion for an Address to remove. Making those two the final arbiters as to whether the power is exercised is an important point. The power to suspend clearly will not be exercised lightly. As I explained before, we expect action under this clause to be taken extremely rarely, if ever. We hope that the matter would be over quickly, but we cannot know for sure how much time a tribunal may take to report. For that practical reason we require the flexibility that the amendment seeks to remove.
On the previous occasion I said that speed will be of the essence. On that occasion the noble Lord asked whether we could, at least, bring the matter back to the House. We know the workings of this place and the other place well. The removal of the Lord Chief Justice, even for a temporary suspension, would exercise people's minds greatly. I am sure that it would cause a huge amount of debate the moment that it happened, and it would be likely to be a matter that would be kept under rigorous review by Her Majesty's loyal Opposition if no one else.
Speed will be of the essence, but the reason why we say that it would be unwise to prescribe a time limit is because we would never know how long that time limit should be. It would have to be done properly and speedily. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord. Nothing that we say will limit in any way the opportunities for individual Members in the other place or here to put down appropriate questions, to ask for a statement or anything of that kind. If such a matter were to take place, it would be momentous indeed, and it would be given the attention that it deserved.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that explanation. I am still pretty uneasy, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Clause 7 [Removal from listed judicial offices]:
Lord Maginnis of Drumglassmoved Amendment No. 39:
Page 6, line 1, leave out from second "the" to end of line 2 and insert "Lord Chief Justice"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to my feet to speak to Amendments Nos. 39, 40 and 41. Earlier this evening I might have risen with a feeling of frustration. I now rise with a feeling of fearfulness as to what is going to happen when this Bill becomes law in Northern Ireland.
At every other line in the Bill I see the responsibility that is being placed on the shoulders of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister acting jointly. If I said that that was a head-in-the-sand attitude, no
72
personal offence would be intended towards those who have responsibility for putting the Government's case. But the reality is that those increasing responsibilities on the First Minister and Deputy First Minister require the exercise of such time and attention that the whole process could literally run into the sand.
It appears that my proposal to delete in page 6, line 1,
"the First Minister and deputy First Minister, acting jointly",
and to insert "Lord Chief Justice", and in line 4 of the same page to leave out,
"First Minister and deputy First Minister",
and insert, "Lord Chief Justice" will have little sympathy from the Government. Perhaps I should not be so despondent at this point but what has happened heretofore has not encouraged me. Amendment No. 41 of course is a consequential amendment.
In so far as I formally move these amendments, I appeal again to the noble Baroness who will respond to explain how we are to achieve what the Bill seeks to achieve through the offices of two Ministers who are, in political terms, chalk and cheese, oil and water? Where will we find this coming together, this acting jointly? However, I am not as despondent as my noble friend Lord Molyneaux—he tells me I am not as old. I believe that, when it comes to the crunch, the good sense of the people of Northern Ireland will not impose upon us government by leaders of parties other than those currently in power.
However, to propose the sort of legislation that we are seeing here tonight is to increase unbearably, and unsustainably, the pressures on the First and Deputy First Ministers. Whether it be now or at Third Reading, the Government have an obligation to come forward with something which will have some appeal and some sympathy, and which will create some confidence across both traditions in Northern Ireland. What we have heretofore falls far short of that expectation. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am much encouraged by the optimism of the noble Lord, Lord Magginis, in the people of Northern Ireland. I confess that that is a confidence I share. We have to trust the good sense of the people of Northern Ireland—both communities—who have, on a number of occasions, chosen bravely to stand together for peace when others would want to separate them. I commend and wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord's emphasis.
Amendments Nos. 39 to 41 place the power to remove or suspend a person from a listed judicial office in the hands of the Lord Chief Justice alone rather than with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. The Bill currently invites all three to share the burden. I hope that, as I go through this a little slowly, your Lordships will find that there is more comfort and reason to feel secure than may have been thought at first blush.
The Bill currently provides for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to perform this function only on the basis of a recommendation from a judicial

73
tribunal and—this is important—with the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice. This role reflects the position held by the First Minister in Scotland.
We expect action under this clause to be a rare event. But the process of removal from judicial office is very much linked to the process of appointment. The review recommended a role for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in appointments to provide political accountability. The same holds true for the removal procedure.
All Amendments Nos. 39 to 41 achieve, therefore, is to remove the element of political accountability advocated by the review. The noble Lord should also be reassured that the Bill provides the safeguards that any removal can only take place on the recommendation of a tribunal and with the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice. So if the noble Lord was fearful that the First Minister or Deputy First Minister could somehow go off on a frolic of their own, then that fear has no basis. There has to be a recommendation and the Lord Chief Justice has to agree. The noble Lord will know better than I that the current Lord Chief Justice is a formidable individual.
I consider that it is appropriate that the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice, in his capacity as the head of the judiciary in Northern Ireland, to the removal of the holder of a listed judicial office should be sought. We are confident and content that the provisions as drafted achieve an appropriate balance. Therefore I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, says in response to my points. I believe that she lives in hope rather than expectation—certainly she forces me to do so—for the simple reason that there is an expectation that somehow First Ministers and Deputy First Ministers will roll over and Lord Chief Justices will reign supreme. If this is merely intended to be a cosmetic exercise as the noble Baroness suggests, then it is unfair to the First and Deputy First Ministers, and it is unfair to those of us who are trying to understand the process. Ultimately it may also be unfair to the community. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be adjourned during pleasure until not before 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, and read a first time.

Vehicular Access Across Common and Other Land (England) Regulations 2002
7.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty)rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 14th May be approved [30th Report from the Joint committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these regulations derive from powers contained in Section 68 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, which came into force on 1st April 2001.
The regulations provide a solution to problems which were discussed at some length in your Lordships' House and in another place during the passage of that Act, but originated in a particular example in relation to a common in north-west Hampshire. There the owner of the common had pointed out to the residents that vehicular access to their premises was across his land, and that it was a criminal offence for them to drive across it without lawful authority. Because it was a criminal offence, no rights of access had been acquired through long use, but he would be prepared to grant a legal right of access in return for compensation.
The residents were most concerned about this, given that the accesses had been in existence for many years and there had not been any suggestion before that they did not have a legal right to use them. Without a right of vehicular access, sale of their properties would be blighted. Furthermore, the amount of compensation being demanded was in their view excessive. We rapidly realised that this problem was not, in any sense, confined to north-west Hampshire. Similar problems arose in other parts of the country with different landlords and with different configurations of the ownership and access patterns. Frankly, it is impossible to estimate the full extent of the problem, but it is clear from cases which have been drawn to our attention that it is more widespread than at first thought.
The Government looked at the issues thoroughly and, as was requested in both Houses, brought forward amendments to the then Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, which became Section 68 of the Act. Section 68 of the Act provides for the creation of a statutory easement in circumstances where a vehicular access crosses land over which it is an offence to drive, and where the use of the access has been for such a time, and in such a manner that, had it not been an offence to drive across the land, a right of access would have been acquired through prescription. The intention is that the statutory easement should convey on owners of the premises essentially the same rights as they would have acquired through prescription, in circumstances where the landowner is either unwilling to grant an easement, or is seeking excessive compensation for doing so.
The section provides the power to make regulations setting out the nature of the statutory easement, the procedures to be followed when an application is

75
made, how disputes should be resolved, and—crucially—the compensation sum payable to landowners in return for the easement coming into force over their land.
During the passage of the Bill and since a number of Members of this House have taken a keen interest in these provisions and looked forward to the regulations being provided under it, in drawing up the procedures we have taken into account the many points put to us by noble Lords and others during a number of consultation exercises undertaken since October 2000.
The regulations therefore prescribe the process to be followed. That involves the owner of the premises submitting to the landowner an application which contains the information and other details set out in a schedule to the regulations. It is important that the application should contain comprehensive information as that will form the basis of the registration of the easement with the Land Registry at the end of the process.
The process then provides for the landowner either to accept the application or object to it by serving a counter-notice. The procedures envisage one further exchange between the two parties—by the serving of an amended application or amended counter-notice, before one of them decides to invoke the dispute resolution procedures. Where the dispute is over the value of the premises, disputes can be settled by a chartered surveyor either agreed by the parties or appointed by the president of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. All other disputes—for example, about whether the qualifying criteria are met, or the terms and limitations attached to the easement—would be resolved by the Lands Tribunal.
Once agreement on all matters has been reached by the parties, the owner of the premises has to pay the compensation sum to the landowner, who must issue a receipt. If the landowner refuses to accept the compensation, it can be paid into court. The regulations provide that the easement comes into existence on payment of the compensation sum.
Noble Lords are probably particularly interested in the compensation sum prescribed by the regulations. Our objective has been to strike a fair balance between the interests of the landowner and the owner of premises desiring access where access has been established. It has therefore always been our intention that landowners should receive some compensation in return for rights coming into existence by statute over their land. That was not of course the position that was taken by all the speakers in your Lordships' House or another place. But we believe that that balance is needed and we believe that approach to be compatible with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights.
We listened carefully to the views expressed on the compensation sums in this House, in another place, and by the organisations and individuals who have commented on this issue since October 2000. The conclusion we have reached is that the compensation payable in respect of older premises, already in
76
existence at the point when it became an offence to drive on common land, should be a relatively small amount. We therefore propose that the compensation sum should be 0.25 per cent of the value of premises in existence on 31st December 1905 and 0.5 per cent for premises coming into existence after this date, but which were in existence on or before 30th November 1930. For all other premises the figure proposed is 2 per cent. Those are significant reductions in the sums that owners of premises might expect to pay without these regulations, when compensation of up to 10 per cent of the value of the premises have been sought by landowners in some circumstances.
We believe this strikes an appropriate balance. I look forward to your Lordships' contributions in commenting on the regulations. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 14th May be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Whitty.)
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for bringing these regulations before your Lordships.
I start by declaring a former interest. I was at one time a trustee of the Horsell Common Preservation Society. One of the cases to which the noble Lord referred was a case brought by a Mr Hanning on behalf of that society. I am no longer a trustee, but am very much in support of its position on the matter.
The regulations, as the noble Lord has said, provide for the implementation of the principles set out in Section 68 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. When that piece of legislation was passing through this House, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who was then in charge of the Bill stated:
"This problem which the Government seek to resolve concerns cases where a property owner has been driving to his home across common land unhindered and continuously for many years".—[Official Report, 16/11/00; col. 421.]
The Minister correctly identified part of the problem but only part of it. There is a separate problem, which I shall now briefly describe.
The problem especially affected the Horsell Common Preservation Society. Premises adjacent to Horsell Common were not a home. For many years, they were quasi-industrial premises and were being used covertly for light industrial purposes. The local planning authority made several attempts to enforce the fact that the business being conducted on those premises was unauthorised. Those attempts failed. The premises continued to be used for unauthorised purposes for a considerable period. Eventually, an easement was sought to the effect that the company had used the road through Horsell Common for so many years that it was entitled to it as of right. Horsell Common Preservation Society went to court, won its case and that was the end of the matter at the time.
However, the mischief—if I may describe it in such terms—remained. The Government, recognising the problem, as did the society, laid these proposals. Unfortunately, despite representations from a number

77
of sources, the regulations do not differentiate between domestic and industrial or commercial property. The arrangements that the Government propose for compensation for the owners of domestic property are about right. I have no strong views on that. But they are clearly not right for commercial property.
The plain fact is that had the owners of the property to which I referred, the covert commercial users, gained unhindered access through Horsell Common to their premises, they would have enhanced the value of their property by not 2 per cent but by 200 to 300 per cent. It is wrong that the only compensation they would have been required to pay is the modest figure provided for in the regulations.
The difficulty for the Horsell Common Preservation Society was not only the financial considerations, unjust though they were, but the fact that the use of the road through its common was highly environmentally disadvantageous. I watched the vehicles thundering through myself. From time to time, they placed users of the common in danger. They severely damaged the road and forced the common preservation society to undertake great expenditure to keep the road in reasonable condition.
The arrangements in the regulations to allow easements for commercial property users are inadequate and unsatisfactory. I hope that the Minister will reconsider them. I made those representations to the Minister in a letter to which I have not yet had a reply. It was sent comparatively recently, so I do not complain about that. I hope that he will accept that there is a problem, the nature of which I have described, and will be prepared to consider how to find a solution to it. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, we on these Benches also thank the Minister for laying the regulations. As the Minister said, they were the subject of extensive consultation and, like the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, I agree that the balance now achieved is probably about right.
However, I should like to raise three issues with the Minister to which he may be able to reply. The first is that of common land of which there is no known owner. To date, there is no commitment to sorting out that question, although it has been discussed. The result is that anyone owning property fronting onto such land at present finds it impossible to sell other than to cash buyers because mortgage lenders seek the certainty of an easement, which cannot be granted as there is no one to grant it. They may accept insurance indemnity cover. One possible solution may be for the valuation of the easement to be made by a chartered surveyor and for all the money to be, in effect, put on one side into a trust for a time. But there is concern about what happens where there is no known owner: who shall make the grant?
The second problem is the question of access over village greens, which is a different issue and something of a legal minefield. I have certainly not understood all
78
of the issues involved. But what concerns us most is that, for similar reasons to those obtaining where there is no known owner, there is a danger that people so affected would not be able to sell their house. That is extremely difficult for them. They are locked in until they can sell their house. Has the Minister any proposals for such cases? Is there a deadline by which the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs make proposals for village greens?
The final issue concerns compensation. Regulation 11(1)(2) states:
"Subject to paragraph (2), the compensation sum shall be 2 per cent".
Is that the maximum, or will it be levied at 2 per cent? For example, Hertfordshire County Council charges nothing, while Guildford Borough Council at present judges anything between £500 and £1,500, depending on council tax band, which is usually much less than 2 per cent. Will they be allowed to continue to charge less than 2 per cent, or is 2 per cent the requisite sum?
The consultation document published in July 2001 states that where authorities,
"wish to grant an easement for less than the price set out in the regulations, it will be open to them to consider whether. in accordance with the relevant provisions of Part VII of the Local Government Act 1972, they wish the seek the Secretary of State's consent for a disposal at less than the best consideration reasonably obtainable. In such a case, specific consent would only be required if the undervalue exceeded that permitted by paragraph 6 of the Local Government Act 1972 General Disposal Consent 1998".
Does that still apply? Is that what is proposed?
With those three reservations—on which I hope that the Minister will enlighten us—we welcome the regulations.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I do not think that the Horsell Common Preservation Society has ever received such a high profile. I declare an interest. I am president of the society. It does not mean that [have to do anything, but it was set up by my grandfather for the benefit of the public around Woking.
Such problems have arisen with many commons in areas of considerable habitation—many houses. The proportions of 2 per cent and 0.25 per cent are completely reasonable. I know that the Government absolutely hate my telling them how well they have done; they get embarrassed and crawl—well, I have been told that that is the case.
I emphasise the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp: is 2 per cent the maximum? Do people have to charge the maximum or do they have discretion, as would be reasonable? Above all, I support what was said by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne about industrial access.
It is all fine and large an old-fashioned and long-established right being tidied up, which is the case for domestic, private houses The Government seem to have got that about right, if in a slightly complicated and obtuse way. Having said that, it is another matter to allow a commercial company to have an enormous increase in its assets at what could be either public or private cost. As we have heard, Guildford Borough

79
Council and Hertfordshire County Council own a lot of common land. Why should they give an extra subsidy to commercial concerns to increase their value by a sleight of hand?
I know that we cannot amend secondary legislation. We must say either "yea" or "nay", which is a clumsy thing. However, I shall trust to the wisdom, common sense and ability to listen of the Minister. He should pay attention to what the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, my noble friend Lord Trefgarne and I have said. I hope that he will think that we have been sensible and reasonable: I think that we have. Our point needs substantial consideration.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I am also happy to support the Motion, but I shall ask my noble friend the Minister one question. I apologise if I appear naïve in asking it. I read the supporting documents, and I am looking for an assertion that the compensation that will be paid is a once-and-for-all payment that will go with the property to which it applies and will not be re-applied to subsequent owners when they sell. I am sure that that is the case, but I should be grateful for such an assurance.
I shall indulge in a small personal anecdote. Last year, I sold a house on a common adjacent to the Malvern Hills. The common was owned by the Malvern Hills Conservators, and there was a frontage of about six metres between my garage and the road. When I came to sell, I discovered that, because of the legislation, a payment was required. When I bought the house, my surveyor, my lawyer and everyone else who advised me were unaware that compensation would have to be paid. Certainly, they did not alert me to that possibility. It never occurred to me that I was doing anything illegal by taking my car out of my garage and putting it on the road. It was necessary to reach an agreement, in great haste, with the conservators on a payment, so that I could go ahead with the sale of the property.
It strikes me that I am not alone in facing that difficulty. There are hundreds of houses around the Malvern Hills that abut onto common land, and the owners have not the faintest idea that they are acting illegally by driving in and out of their driveway across the common land. I hope that one of the effects of passing the regulations will be that DEFRA and its regional offices will undertake a publicity campaign to make people aware that they will have to deal with compensation. It may be that the landowners—in this case, the conservators—will not go out of their way to get it, but people will have a nasty shock when they come to sell their house.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I also thank the Minister for bringing the regulations before us. Our discussions today will be slightly briefer than the discussions we had about the relevant part of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, on which we spent many hours. As noble Lords have suggested, that Bill had huge repercussions for some people,
80
repercussions of which they were totally ignorant. People were not aware that they were not obeying the law within the law.
I have one or two questions for the Minister. On these Benches, we thank the Minister for the fact that the Government listened to that debate. As the Minister will know, we raised the issue in Committee, on Report and at Third Reading. The Minister agreed that, in some cases, the charges were too high and that, in some cases, they were too low. One of the problems was that the costs needed to be at a certain level to cover the cost of administering the registration of the easements. We thank the Government for listening.
The Government originally proposed a figure of 4 per cent. The level is now 2 per cent. Other noble Lords asked whether it was 2 per cent maximum or up to 2 per cent. I looked through the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, and, as far as I could see, that is not defined as such. It is, I think, just 2 per cent, not up to 2 per cent. I seek a little clarification because, unless people actually seek easements, they do not have to get one. It is only in cases in which a party wants to instigate the process that there must be a response from either the owner of the land or the parish council. That is the scenario that has come up today. Can the Minister confirm that I am right in my understanding, which is that if people do not seek an easement, they need not go through the process? If they do, the relevant figure represents a maximum and not an "up to" figure. Having considered the matter, I understand that there is a certain leeway for councils and individuals in deciding whether to enact the full amount. I presume that the 2 per cent figure is a maximum, and I should be grateful for clarification.
I am grateful to noble Lords and to those in another place who spoke during the passage of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. Subsequently, however, I have had correspondence from Sally-Jane Raes of Chorleywood, who was concerned about the higher level of compensation. She felt that the legislation should read "up to 2 per cent". We cannot alter the regulations, but the Minister should clarify that.
I do not know whether Sally-Jane Raes has written to the Minister. In her letter to me, she mentioned several other things. One was the situation of those—perhaps themselves elderly—who live in older properties. Many such people are what I describe as property-rich but cash-poor. Have the Government considered making an easement on their behalf? Another point that she raised was that the market value of a house should be set at 1993 levels, not 2002 levels; that would make a huge difference. The interpretation of the law changed in 1993 in the Court of Appeal judgment. What is the Government's view of that? The final point that she raised was that car parking, as such, was not covered by the Act. I think that I am right in saying that we did not debate that issue. Have the Government considered whether there should, under the terms of easement, be specific allocations for parking, in cases in which a lack of space on the driveway means that cars are parked on the common, not the driveway?

81
In another place, my honourable friend Mr Sayeed highlighted the fact that the Law of Property Act 1925 was never intended to stop people driving over the common to their home—not, I note, their business. It was intended to stop members of the public driving on a common while others were on the common for air and exercise. It is true that, between 1925 and 1993, no one was prevented from driving to his or her house across the common. However, the court has now denied that presumption of free access.
My honourable friend also asked how the regulations would deal with a case in which a house was sold but the former owner did not take up a request to buy the rights of access—perhaps he did not drive or did not want the rights. What position is the new owner in? That issue was raised in the other place. Will the Minister enlarge on it today?
My honourable friend Sir Paul Beresford also raised concerns in another place. He raised the issue of whether common land might be held by more than one person. If the common land were in private ownership, it might have been subdivided, and rights of access could go across more than one owner's land. What would be the position in such a case?
My noble friend Lord Trefgarne asked about the position of businesses. Again, I looked back through our deliberations, and I found that it had slipped through the net. We did not address that issue. I asked whether the legislation applied just to a house or to the fields or farm behind it. That has implications too. In Committee and at other stages of the Bill's passage, we decided that it referred only to the property. My noble friend has raised an important issue. We dealt only with domestic property, not business property. No doubt, the Minister will clarify that.
I have also had a long correspondence with Sir Sydney Chapman with regard to a letter that he received from William Pumfrey. I hope that the Minister has a copy of that letter; I understood that he was writ ten to about the matter. As it is a long and full letter, I do not want to go through it in detail. The Minister indicates that he does not have a copy so it may be helpful to the House if I cover a couple of the points raised.
Mr Pumfrey raises an interesting point. Considering the law as it previously stood, he does not see why the property should be dealt with differently and considers that Section 68 should apply to all. He makes a lengthy legal argument. Perhaps it will be more helpful if I pass the letter to the Minister after the debate. I want to indicate the fact that he has raised queries about the regulations.
As noble Lords have said, the difficulty we faced in Committee and in taking the CROW Bill through the House related to the fact that the easement and arrangements fell between parish councils and individual owners. It was the responsibility of parish councils to try to get the best possible value for all their parishioners and therefore some parishes decided to charge a high rate. We welcome the fact that the Government have imposed a maximum of 2 per cent.
82
They are sensible arrangements but raise issues not only for individuals and their properties but also for parish councils in the longer term.
Finally, Regulation 15 relates to the creation of the easement and begins:
"Upon payment of the compensation sum either".
I wonder whether it should read,
"upon receipt of the payment",
because a payment can be made but not received. I do not know whether it is normal legal practice within drafting orders. The Minister can perhaps clarify the matter. I support the points raised by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne.
8 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again, but my noble friend Lady Byford has put into my mind a new and important query. It relates to the access to agricultural land over common land. Let us assume that access to a farm is over common land and that we reasonably say that 2 per cent goes to the farmhouse. As the farm is a business, if the Minister accepts the force of the argument put forward by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne and supported by myself, how do we separate out the difference of access over the land to a private house and access over the same land to a farm or a business? I hope that the Minister will forgive me for intervening a second time. It is an important point arising from what my noble friend Lady Byford said.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, some interesting and complex points have been raised. Perhaps I may first deal with the issue of commercial versus domestic properties. The recollection of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and other noble Lords is correct; we were talking largely in terms of households or houses. Nevertheless, the argument that there has been an established practice of access morally and legally must equally apply to legal commercial activity. The example raised by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, was of covert extension of the premises into a business activity for which planning permission had not been obtained. However, where there is established use, logically it does not matter what the premises were previously used for. Therefore, commercial use—I shall turn to agricultural use in a moment—establishes the same dilemma as regards the compensation to be given to the landowner and the rights to be given to the property.
In the commercial case, the valuation of the premises would reflect their commercial value. If there is a change of use, the situation changes. If one is moving from a residential to a commercial activity, the previous arrangement falls and the valuation is then based on commercial use. If the commercial activity is non-legal—if there is no permission for it—the landowner has a case that the valuation should reflect the commercial activity. The noble Lord. Lord Trefgarne, raised an important point but in most circumstances—except in a change of use or an

83
unlawful use—the valuation of the property would yield a higher return to the landowner if it were commercially used.
As regards the agricultural dimension, it would be unusual if the only access were at the same point as the access to the farmhouse. In any case, a valuation would relate to the total area for which access was being sought. That could be a house, a commercial property or land. The application must clearly describe the premises which are served by the access and they would be valued accordingly. If there were other access to the farmland, one would expect the application not to include it because that would raise the price. In rare circumstances where the only access was to the farmhouse and the land, the logic of the situation would be that the compensation would be based on the valuation of the totality of the premises to be covered by that access. However, that situation would be rare and special provisions may need to apply. It is probably unlikely to arise.
I repeat that if there is increased commercial activity, or if there is changed commercial activity or a change of use of any kind, the provision for the valuation based on previous commercial use or domestic use is no longer valid. In that situation, and only in that situation, will a new owner, for example, have to face up to a second sum of compensation. In normal circumstances where a valuation has been made and the compensation paid, a new owner would not be faced with further compensation. The easement would stand, as it would in common law, for the future unless there were a change of use.The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, asked whether 2 per cent was the maximum or the set fee; in other words, whether one could negotiate up to the maximum. Under the regulations, 2 per cent is the prescribed amount. We are talking about a situation which must be dealt with by regulation and 2 per cent is the figure. Of course, that does not preclude landowners and those who require access reaching a settlement of less than 2 per cent outside the regulations. That would apply to local authorities as much as it would apply to private landowners. Therefore, people can reach a lower figure, but not via Section 68 of the Act or via these regulations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, asked about the situation in which ownership of the common land is not known. That is difficult conceptually because the situation could not arise if the owner were not known; if the person requesting access raised the issue, no one would apply for the compensation or would require it.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I speak from personal experience. With regard to small plots of common land, it can be incredibly difficult to discover who is the lord of the manor and to whom moneys should be paid. As a consequence, if the land covers an area on which a mortgage is to be raised, then the mortgagor will ask, "Have you got an easement?". I must respond by saying, "No, because I do not know whom I should pay". "Right, you cannot have a mortgage". This is an important point.
84
I do not know how it is to be dealt with, but such circumstances can arise. I have been involved in exactly that kind of case at home.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I see the problem. I suppose that there is an obligation on those seeking access to try to find out who is the owner, but if that is not possible and no owner comes forward to claim compensation, then it is conceivable that such compensation might be required at a later stage. However, at the time of any change of ownership, the situation would remain as it stands at that point; namely, that no easement would be required and no easement would be granted. Given that, it would be difficult for a mortgagor to make a stipulation.
Provided that the normal searches had been carried out and that efforts were made to trace the owner and to check whether that owner was likely to require compensation, then the position is clear.
The issue with regard to common land forms part of a significantly wider matter. During the course of our debates on the Bill I recall that my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel, who is not in his place this evening, raised the issue at some length and has returned to it subsequently. It needs to be addressed as part of a much wider problem. There are unregistered areas of common land, in particular on town and village greens, where the provisions might otherwise make it a criminal offence to assert access. Furthermore, there are certain obscurities with regard to the legal position in those situations. Regrettably it is not always possible to offer a clear legal view since many cases go back into the mists of time.
However, the Government have indicated that they are considering the matter as part of an administrative review of legislation generally on common land. We hope shortly to announce an initiative in the area. However, I regret that I cannot give a full answer tonight.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I shall be brief. There is a continuing problem with regard to non-ownership and village greens because of the issue of mortgages. I think that the Minister should bear it in mind.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I accept the point made by the noble Baroness. That is why the matter will form part of our consideration on a wider review of common land. Not only in this area are there potential legal problems with regard to the unclear situation of the legal owners. Regrettably it applies in a number of areas around the country, and will probably apply in areas about which we do not yet know. As I have said, the problem will be addressed as part of a consideration of the wider context.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked a series of questions. She queried why property values were to be set at current levels; namely, at the point at which someone files an application rather than freezing values at any given point, such as in 1993. It is

85
reasonable that at the point at which compensation is paid, that compensation should reflect market values at the time. That is why we have stipulated the current value rather than fixing it at the point at which the law was clarified.
The noble Baroness asked about payment by instalments. Nothing in the regulations would prevent an agreement from being made which allowed the payments to be made in instalments, if that was agreeable. However, the 2 per cent is the prescribed rate.
The noble Baroness also asked about car parking. The matter was not touched on when we debated the primary legislation. It might be covered by the easement, but it would have to be proposed as a part of the application at the time. I think it would also have to be an established practice and position about which no one would argue. For that reason, I think that the number of circumstances under which this procedure would cover car parking arrangements would be relatively limited.
The noble Baroness also referred to a letter which I regret I have not seen personally, although I appreciate that it is with the department. As a result of that letter, the noble Baroness asked why there is a differential between the various ages of property. The answer is that the law changed in 1925 and 1930. Indeed, one could argue that before 1925 no criminal offence would have been involved and that any payment would not be logical. My noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel—I hope that he will not mind my referring to his words in his absence—has made the point quite forcefully. On balance, we reached the conclusion that there was a residual possibility of a human rights issue for the landowner and therefore we have prescribed the minimal 0.25 per cent rate. However, the reason for the differentiation is that the law changed during that period, in particular in 1930.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for allowing me to intervene. The whole thrust of Mr Pumfrey's letter turns on the fact that, because the law changed, it has implications. Previously they may have been acting legally, but that was no longer the case once the law changed. That is the ground on which Mr Pumfrey's argument is based.
I appreciate that the matter is technical and legalistic. However, if the Minister is happy to receive a copy of the letter, then I shall ensure that it is sent.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I shall certainly respond.
She also raised a question of whether this should be regarded as a receipt rather than a payment. It states in Regulation 13 that, on payment:
"The land owner shall …provide the applicant with a written receipt".
That then provides evidence of payment. The two are inter-related. I think that the noble Baroness will find that it is normal to refer to "payment" rather than to "receipt" in regulations of this kind.
86
My noble friend Lord Faulkner raised the issue of publicity. As the regulations come into effect we shall consider the need for publicity both for those seeking access and for the landowners involved.
I believe that I have now dealt with most of the questions that were put to me.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, could he clarify the position with regard to what happens when a house owner has secured an easement, perhaps through the provision of these regulations, and then secures a dramatic change of use for those premises from simple residential purposes to light industrial use? The value of that property will then be hugely enhanced. Presumably, however, the owner would not have to pay anything more. Would that be the case?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, on any change of use the landowner would have the right to return to indicate that the valuation of the property in its legal change of use should be reflected in the easement. Therefore the difference should be paid by the new owner or the owner who had acquired planning permission for wider purposes. Indeed, even if the property had already been valued for commercial purposes, but those purposes were then significantly extended, the reflection would also apply.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt yet again but I have picked up a point from what the noble Lord said. If a man who has a large garden and a farm at the back through which people pass suddenly gets permission for change of use for housing or an industrial estate, the value of his land goes through the roof. Normally if you have a ransom strip you immediately go on holiday and open a Swiss bank account because it becomes very valuable indeed—I believe that the courts have found it to be up to a third of the value of the property.
If someone gets an enormous increase in value, it seems rather unfair on the local authority—let us say Guildford Borough Council—or the Malvern Hills Conservatives or even a private owner of common land that they should not get some of that enormously enhanced value. The 2 per cent on existing rights for houses seems absolutely reasonable and no one will argue about that, but to limit it to 2 per cent of the increased value of a whacking great commercial gain strikes me as a little unfair. It is of no benefit to the Government and it could be construed as a disadvantage to local authorities—some of which own large chunks of common land and look after it for the benefit of the community—that they should not be able to benefit from it. Perhaps the Minister will look at the issue again, think about it, and then come back to us.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, procedurally I cannot come back to the House. Clearly the noble Earl has raised an issue. Although of course we are talking about a situation where access has been established in the previous use and not about ransom strips in the

87
normal sense, if there is a huge increase in the value of the land as a result of planning permission change and industrial development, 2 per cent of the increase seems a reasonable return. However, there may be situations where that is not apposite. We shall have to see how matters work out. I am certainly happy to learn from instances such as the one referred to by the noble Earl.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.21 to 8.30 p.m.]

Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 7.
[Amendments Nos. 40 to 43 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Tribunals for considering removal]:
Lord Maginnis of Drumglassmoved Amendment No. 44:
Page 6, line 23, leave out "First Minister and deputy First Minister, acting jointly" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment and Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 are in many ways the reciprocal of Amendments Nos. 39 to 41. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Amendment No. 44 removes the powers of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to convene a tribunal to consider the removal of the Lord Chief Justice and places this power in the hands of the Lord Chancellor. Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 remove the First Minister's and Deputy First Minister's role in convening tribunals to consider the removal of any other judicial post holder. They instead provide for either the Lord Chief Justice or the Lord Chancellor to convene these tribunals.
The review recommends (at paragraph 6.136) that,
"removal from office of a judge or lay magistrate should only be possible on the basis of the finding of a judicial tribunal constituted under statutory authority and convened by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister or the Lord Chief Justice, that a magistrate or judge was unfit for office by reason of incapacity or misbehaviour".
By removing the role envisaged for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in this process, these amendments are directly contrary to the review. They also remove the local political accountability which the review was careful to inject into both the appointment and the removal processes.
From other amendments tabled to Clauses 4 and 5 both in Grand Committee and by colleagues in another place, it is clear that the noble Lords are again wary of the role to be played by the First Minister and
88
Deputy First Minister in the appointment and removal process. It is clear that many noble Lords would prefer these powers to remain in the hands of the Lord Chancellor at Westminster with an equal role for the Lord Chief Justice as a nod to devolution.
The Government have faithfully reflected the review in this area. There are also safeguards in that the Prime Minister must be consulted before a tribunal to consider the removal of the Lord Chief Justice and other Lords Justices can be convened, and that the Lord Chief Justice must be consulted in regard to other removals.
We must have faith in the new institutions and give every opportunity for devolution to work. I urge noble Lords to examine these issues in the round and to see that they contribute something of significance, and therefore to withdraw the amendments.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I have listened to what the Minister has said. I shall not repeat the caveat that I have applied. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Lay magistrates]:
Lord Maginnis of Drumglassmoved Amendment No. 47:
Page 8, line 8, leave out paragraph (d).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I may have been wrong in the drafting of this amendment, which seeks to remove paragraph (d) in subsection 5. I made some assumption that the following two lines applied to subsection 5(d). Perhaps I may leave matters to those who have tabled Amendment No. 48, which is grouped with this one. I am generous enough to admit that it is a better amendment than mine.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 49 and 50, grouped with this one. I do not need to argue for Amendment No. 49. It is the repeat of a previous amendment in terms of the wording. Amendment No. 50 seeks to add a new subsection:
"The Lord Chancellor must remove a lay magistrate from office if he has been convicted of a criminal offence".
I have little to add, other than to say that the amendment makes patently good sense. Again, I believe that if the Government are not determined to sever—or at least to weaken—the link between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, they will accept the amendment.
I noted the alacrity with which the Lord Privy Seal sought to avoid my question about whether there is some external arrangement relating to the appointment of High Court judges and other senior personnel. He dodged it like a centre three-quarter by applying the question simply to an amendment that was under discussion at that time. It is a serious question; it is a general question; and one that I might appropriately put again in terms of Amendment No. 50, I beg to move.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I am slightly surprised at the weight that is given to the Lord Chancellor in

89
dealing with lay magistrates. In relation to Amendment No. 50 dealing with the removal of lay magistrates by the Lord Chancellor, I should like to think that there would be no difference in criteria as between Northern Ireland and England and Wales. I do not know the answer, but the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General has now joined us and I am sure that he will be able to enlighten us if the noble Baroness does know, as I am sure she does. I do not know what the Scots do up in the wild Celtic regions, but I should like to think that in this respect the Northern Ireland judiciary will operate through the Lord Chancellor, if that is the way in which the system is to be set up, and that there will be no difference in the way in which lay magistrates are removed from office for similar or identical reasons.
My amendment relates to the Lord Chancellor having a free hand. The noble Baroness said in Committee that if somebody lived 100 yards over the defined border, a decision would be needed on whether they can act. I am not sure whether that is relevant. On the issue of people convicted of a prescribed offence, once again we are trying, in a very difficult climate, to put together a criminal justice system that the whole population can believe in and trust. I warned the Grand Committee that I would go on about this. Whatever happens, we have to attempt not to play politics or to get involved in quid pro quos somewhere way down in the seamy underlying issues of the Bill. We have to be up front and make it clear that there are no overrides such as,
"unless the Lord Chancellor otherwise determines in the case of a particular person".
That is not necessary. It is untidy. In my life as a soldier or in industry, if I produced a document detailing a well thought-out and logically argued case I would not then say at the bottom, "But if I think something different then we'll do something different". I am sure that the same applies to the noble Baroness and to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, yet that happens throughout the Bill. This is another case in which a set of conditions has been seriously prescribed—referring to lay magistrates in this case—right down to subsection (5)(a), (b), (c) and (d), followed by,
"unless the Lord Chancellor otherwise determines".
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, it seems extraordinary that the Government should seek a discretion of the kind that the amendment of my noble friend Lord Glentoran would rule out.
Like a number of other noble Lords, I served for two years as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. In that capacity, I had responsibility for the appointment and discipline of the lay magistracy in the county palatine of Lancaster. It was a difficult time, during the disturbances around the question of the community charge. In areas around Liverpool in particular, a number of elected councillors had refused to pay their lawful taxes and had been so convicted.
It never occurred to me—nor did it even occur to their supporters—that the consequence of that should be that they would be dismissed from the Bench. The
90
reasoning was clear. It would be impossible for them, having been convicted of an offence, then to be on the Bench trying somebody else for a similar offence.
I hope that the noble Baroness will tell us what sort of reasons would move the Lord Chancellor to determine that a criminal offence should not disqualify a person from sitting as a magistrate.
Looking at the other amendments in the group, I again find myself in great sympathy with the line taken by the Ulster Unionists, for exactly the same reason. A magistrate cannot run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. It is as simple as that. Unless we uphold that principle, we shall once again create a different standard for the administration of justice in two parts of the kingdom. The more the Government talk about the peace process, the normalisation of affairs in Northern Ireland and the end of the emergency, the more frequently we find them legislating to make permanent a different standard of justice in the two parts of the kingdom. Unless Ministers are fundamentally stupid, which I do not believe to be the case, there is only one conceivable reason why they should do that: because they do not regard Northern Ireland as a part of the United Kingdom like the other parts of the kingdom. That is the ethos behind the Bill. That is why I object to it most strongly.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords,I shall deal first with the comment made last by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. I understand that this is an area that excites passion and that there are strong feelings on it. However, it is wrong to say that Her Majesty's Government do not see Northern Ireland as a fundamental part of the United Kingdom. It is. However, it is a part of the United Kingdom that has been troubled these past 30 years. Noble Lords in all parts of the House, together with those in Northern Ireland, now have to seek to chart a new path. We need courage to do that. We also need to be temperate and brave in looking at what is best and which road we should all travel on. We are not helped in that difficult task if the bona fides of what we are trying to do together are not properly understood.
We are looking to craft a way forward that will enable us, with safety and with proper safeguards and conditions, to place Northern Ireland in a position in which its people would wish to be within this United Kingdom. The Bill does nothing to detract from that purpose.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that. Can she assure me that the policy of her party—I hope that she can speak for her party on this occasion—is no longer to seek the union of Ireland by consent, as it has long been?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord knows well that every Minister who speaks from this Dispatch Box does so on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. The Government's policy is clear. If we needed any further clarity, we find it in the Good Friday agreement and in the review, which was

91
undertaken with great skill and fortitude by the members who were charged with this difficult task. Notwithstanding the passions and the difficulties, we are not assisted in helping to craft this new path by expressions that seek to undermine the bona fides of that effort.
One of the points that was clear in Grand Committee—and I think that we all took comfort from it—was agreement on the fact that we all want the same things. We may have expressed our objectives in different ways, but our aim—what we all seek to achieve—was identical. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is shaking his head. I hope that he will not do so when I say that it was hoped that we would be able to secure a good and secure way forward which would enable devolution and to create conditions which would enable the system of justice in Northern Ireland to continue on the safe path down which it had started. There cannot be any disagreement about that.
Let us turn to this group of amendments. These amendments were tabled initially in Committee and address the important issue of qualifications for lay magistrates. I welcome the opportunity to repeat the reasons why they should be resisted. Amendment No. 47 removes from the list of disqualification provisions for lay magistrates, which can be waived by the Lord Chancellor, the paragraph stating that candidates who have been convicted of a prescribed offence are disqualified.
The review recommended that the criminal justice functions of justices of the peace should be undertaken by the new office of lay magistrate. The Bill will allow the Lord Chancellor to prescribe, within parameters, the circumstances in which a person would not be eligible for appointment as a lay magistrate. Amendment No. 48 seeks to remove the Lord Chancellor's discretion in applying these qualifications. The Lord Chancellor has this discretion in making justice of the peace appointments in England and Wales.
If this amendment were accepted, the Lord Chancellor would not, for example, be able to appoint candidates who departed in even the smallest way from the eligibility criteria. This would exclude, for example, a candidate who lived just five miles beyond the prescribed distance. The Government believe that such flexibility is essential, and therefore ask that this amendment be withdrawn.
Amendment No. 49 provides that a person convicted of a criminal offence will be disqualified without the caveat that it may be waived by the Lord Chancellor. Amendment No. 50 requires the Lord Chancellor to remove a lay magistrate if he is convicted of a criminal offence. The effect of the provisions would be, first, to remove any discretion the Lord Chancellor has to prescribe offences which might merit disqualification, so that even minor driving offences would be caught; and, secondly, to remove any discretion to set aside convictions in deciding to appoint such an individual as a lay magistrate. It might therefore be said that those knowingly or unknowingly driving with a defective headlight, for example, should
92
not sit as magistrates. Although I shall not do so, one could cite other such examples. There are minor issues which the Lord Chancellor is quite properly entitled to disregard.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the noble Baroness may correct me, and she almost certainly will, but would that not be an offence under the Road Traffic Acts which did not qualify as a criminal offence?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, that is precisely right. However, the prescription which the amendment provides covers any conviction that occurs in a criminal court such as a magistrates' court. Those caught with a defective headlight are summoned to the magistrates' court, dealt with for the offence and perhaps fined. So all such minor infringements are caught by the amendments.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, what is the difference between the Lord Chancellor's powers to remove magistrates in England and Wales and those which are proposed in the Bill for removing magistrates in Northern Ireland?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as I understand it, the Lord Chancellor's powers are not materially different from those which prevail in England and Wales; they are exactly the same. It is only parity; we are not doing anything unusual. I understand the suspicion which some feel that somehow, through sleight of hand, something else may be happening. I can only reassure your Lordships that that is not the case.
I also understand, if I may put it colloquially, where noble Lords are coming from. However, the Bill has struck a balance, and we believe that it is the right balance. Lay magistrates play a relatively modest, if important, role in the justice system. We think that it would be regrettable if there were no flexibility to disregard relatively minor criminal convictions if the case for appointing an individual were otherwise overwhelming. We are not making it something that "shall happen"; it merely gives the Lord Chancellor a discretion to say that, in an appropriate case, it may happen.
As the Leader of the Opposition has noted in another place, just because a person has a past, that does not mean that he or she cannot play a role in the future. If I may respectfully say so, that sentiment has been very graphically displayed today in the very generous comments of the noble Lords, Lord Tebbit and Lord Alton, about those who have turned over a totally new leaf after a very troubled past. We support that sentiment. We disagree with these amendments which seek to remove that possibility.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I have listened to the Minister's reply, but again I am not convinced. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, about motoring offences seemed to contradict the Minister's point. Especially in these circumstances, I regret to say that I am not a legal mind. I hope that

93
the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, will press his Amendment No. 48. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 48 to 50 not moved.]
9 p.m.
Schedule 4 [Functions of justices of the peace]:
Lord Maginnis of Drumglassmoved Amendment No. 51:
Page 86, leave out line 36.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Grand Committee we had an interesting debate on the issue of binding over to keep the peace and binding over to be of good behaviour. On that occasion I was totally overwhelmed by the Minister's citation to me of a 600-year-old law which I believe was the Justices of the Peace Act 1361. Even I do not remember that.
It was to some extent the fact that we were going back so far to justify something that appeared to me on the surface to be an infringement of human rights; that is, the binding over to be of good behaviour, that persuaded me to look at the measure more carefully. I was also moved by the fact that in the opening minutes of the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, berated the Government for the lack of awareness of human rights in the Bill. I thought that perhaps I could motivate those who sit adjacent to the noble Lord to some excitement over the issue on this occasion.
I discovered—I hope that I have interpreted it correctly—that binding over to keep the peace dates back to yesteryear and that, as the noble Baroness reassured me, it is often made subject to a condition, for example, that the person bound over to keep the peace shall not possess, use or carry a firearm. That measure pertains to the Firearms Act 1968. I discovered that formerly there was power to bind over a person to be of good behaviour in cases where that person's behaviour did not amount to a breach of the peace but was found to be contra bonos mores, which has been described as conduct which is,
"wrong rather than right in the judgment of the majority of contemporary citizens".
That may be a contravention of Article 10(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
I draw the noble Baroness's attention to the judgment in Hashman and Harrup v UK (2000) 30 EHRR 241. I do not know what those figures mean, but the noble Baroness will. In that case, the European Court of Human Rights said that,
"the nature of requirements imposed on a person bound over to be of good behaviour was insufficiently precise to qualify as a `restriction … prescribed by law' under the ECHR, Article 10(2), so that binding over the applicants to be of good behaviour had been a breach of their rights under that Article".
Further investigation suggests that the power to bind over to be of good behaviour is not 600 or so years old but dates back only to the Justices of the Peace Act 1968. It is therefore for the Government to
94
decide whether new legislation—particularly the new legislation we are discussing—should incorporate within it that vague and ill-defined binding over to he of good behaviour. If the conditions applying to that are wrong rather than right in the judgment of the majority of contemporary citizens, and if that is the basis on which the bound over to be of good behaviour element is included, one has to ask whether we are talking about contemporary citizens in terms of a specific area, or an area that would encapsulate the entire area of Northern Ireland, or whether it would extend beyond that into the United Kingdom as a whole. That judgment of contemporary citizens must be exceedingly hard to define.
I am certain that the learned noble Baroness will understand that over 30 years elements within Northern Ireland have become particularly litigious and will find any weakness or contradiction in the law and use it as a route to a metaphorical goldmine. On that basis, I appeal to the Government to look carefully at whether they are prepared to go to the wire on this particular issue, or whether a binding over to keep the peace which can be qualified by other legislation is the way forward. I beg to move.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I am impressed by the diligence with which the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, has researched into the legal archives. Although I agree with him that human rights are of vital importance and should be a crucial leitmotif throughout the Bill, without notice I do not have recourse to expert advice in order to form a judgment on what the noble Lord said. I look forward to hearing the learned noble Baroness enlighten me.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am most happy to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis., accurately referred to the case of Hashman and Harrup., but I want to put the matter in context. I explained the situation in Committee but I am more than happy to help again.
As noble Lords know, the amendment deals with the question of whether someone should be bound over to keep the peace and to be of good behaviour. In brief, Amendment No. 102 seeks to amend new Section 103A of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978, to remove the power given to courts of record to bind over to be of good behaviour, but not to change the power to bind over to keep the peace. The noble Lord's memory was right: I said, and I say again, that this power has been available since the Justices of the Peace Act 1361. The effect of the amendment, therefore, would be to remove a power that has existed for centuries.
The purpose of new Section 103A is simply to put beyond doubt the fact that courts of record exercising a criminal jurisdiction will retain any power to bind over persons before them, which they currently

95
possess. It is expected that a court, when making such an order, would be careful to specify what is required of a person,
"to be of good behaviour",
in any particular case before it. The difficulty, as I understand it, with the Hashman and Harrup case was that there was a general assertion to be of good behaviour but no specification of how that good behaviour should manifest itself. The proposal is that when courts bind a person over to keep the peace and to be of good behaviour, they go on to specify, "In that, you are to refrain from or fail to do A, B, C and D". That will be the proper basis on which the exercise of that judicial function will be made. Then we confidently expect that any judicial officer so doing would be ECHR compliant.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I am not convinced that this is not a very liberal interpretation of the law. I detect that the Minister is slightly amused by my layman's assertion. Within the duality of this provision, binding over to keep the peace is adequate. It will, because it can be qualified, serve the purpose. Binding over to be of good behaviour is vague in terms of its qualification and geography, to the extent that I wish to press the amendment to a vote.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, the Question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content". To the contrary, "Not-Content". I think the Not-Contents have it.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Clause 19 [Judicial oath or affirmation]:
Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 52:
Page 13, leave out lines 28 to 39 and insert "take the oath of allegiance and the judicial oath or make the appropriate affirmation"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment goes back to the thorny problem of the oath of allegiance. I am back on my harpsichord, as it were. We should let sleeping dogs lie. We should stay in line with the agreement.
Why do the Government have to push the politics too far in this technically legal Bill? It is clear in the Northern Ireland agreement that various matters do not need to be—and, indeed, cannot be—changed. Northern Ireland is, despite the Good Friday agreement—within that agreement and outwith it—an integral part of the United Kingdom. That argument can be used in relation to a number of issues raised in the second half of the Bill. But the one part of the democracy of Northern Ireland which has to be independent is the judiciary. Criminal justice is part and parcel of a "totally independent system". By that we mean a system which is totally divorced from and independent of party politics and national politics of any kind.
Therefore, why should those in the judiciary carrying out their daily work in Northern Ireland operate under any conditions different from those
96
which pertain in England and Wales? The answer is that there is absolutely no need. There is no need as regards politics. There is no need as regard the Good Friday agreement. Unless there are some funny, hidden ideas of which I know nothing, there is no obvious need. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, knows only too well, the power and independence, and all that goes with that—the majesty of an independent judiciary—has to stem from a power somewhere within our realm. That power is our sovereign. No logical objective rhyme or reason has been given in Committee, or in any debate that I have heard in this House, as to why this part of the judicial system needs to change.
Judging by earlier remarks in debate, the situation could arise with judges sitting together in an appeal court who have operated under a different system. It breaks the unanimity of the British judicial system. Why do our Government wish to do so? I fail to understand. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, I support the noble Lord. In doing so, perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 53 and 54.
The affirmation will be taken by the most senior office holders in Northern Ireland. There is a distinction between "upholding" and "according to". "Upholding" is a more positive assertion of interest than simply "according to". Although I may not take the issue to a vote, I suggest that the amendments tabled have validity. Those with responsibility for the administration of justice must uphold the continued independence of the judiciary.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, at this time of night, perhaps one may be forgiven for allowing one's mind to turn towards the words of the Magnificat which are relevant to the amendments referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan:
"Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace according to thy word".
"Upholding" is not exactly right. 1 part company with him there.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I may interrupt my noble friend, I believe that he was quoting the Nunc Dimittis and not the Magnificat.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, that is absolutely right. The Magnificat would not have met the point. It is because of the lateness of the hour to which I have already alluded.
I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Glentoran and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, for this reason. A good deal of symbolism is involved with the oath of allegiance. We have all noted previously that Northern Ireland has a good deal of symbolism. Some can be abused but some are very important. I believe it to be important that the oath of allegiance should continue to be taken in Northern Ireland for the point recently made by my

97
noble friend Lord Glentoran. It is important that there should be no unnecessary departure from what is common to the remainder of the United Kingdom.
As we all recognise, there are circumstances in Northern Ireland that are separate from those that obtain in the rest of the United Kingdom. Therefore, to change the oath in the way provided by the Bill may not perhaps matter if it was not going to cause affront. However, I am afraid that it will cause affront to people who actually represent about two-thirds of the population of Northern Ireland, and who uphold the Union with the United Kingdom.
One looks, therefore, to see whether there is any principle behind the proposal. I cannot see what principle there can be; indeed, principle points in the opposite direction because, forseeably, you will have a court sitting with a judge who has taken one oath while the other judge may have taken another. That is not just untidy; it is undesirable for rather obvious reasons. So what about expedience? Where does the expedience lie? One should perhaps consider the report of the review body. As I said in Grand Committee, the review body argued this case extraordinarily faintly. Indeed, if any noble Lord has the document to hand, the relevant paragraphs are 6.125 and 6.142. It is very much a case of, "Well, it's possible … but on the one hand … and, on the other … it could be an obstacle to people taking the oath".
I have never heard of anyone who has been inhibited from accepting judicial office because of the oath, but perhaps the Minister will be able to enlighten us in this respect. It seems to me to be a wholly disproportionate affront to those who represent the Unionist persuasion in Northern Ireland, which, as I said, is the great majority. It is not an irrational affront. By acceding to this rather tentatively argued case in the review report, the Government would, by implication, be accepting that there was something rather shaming—something that could be criticized—in the oath as it is at present administered. That would be a very grave wrong; it is a wholly rational objection that I believe Unionists take to this proposal. I hope that noble Lords will agree that the downside is wholly disproportionate to whatever advantage there may be to this proposal.
I have one further point to raise. I believe that the Minister may be able to deal with it because the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General is sitting next to her on the Front Benches. It is not suggested that there should be some alleviation of the requirement to take the oath for Northern Ireland judges who are appointed at the Court of Appeal. As we have been reminded today, those who sit in the Court of Appeal become Privy Counsellors. When you become a Privy Counsellor, perhaps the noble Baroness will confirm that you take an oath of allegiance and then go on to take another rather blood-curdling oath about secrecy and what will happen if you do not observe it. It is not suggested that the Northern Ireland judges should be relieved of that obligation. I wonder why.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I understand that the form of oath required of police constables and, I believe, of Queen's Counsel in Northern Ireland has already been
98
modified. Therefore, there seem to be good precedents for also modifying the oath that applies to judges and other judicial officials.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, while I sat here in the Chamber listening to this short debate the following thought came to my mind. I wonder what our American friends would make of it if a proposition were brought forward that judges in, say, Hawaii took a different oath from that taken by judges in California, or in New York State. Perhaps I may bring the idea a little closer to home. What would he thought if judges in, for example, the Basque Country took a different oath from that taken by judges in Madrid? What conclusions might come into the minds of Basque people, whether they were in favour of the activities of ETA, or peaceable citizens?
Let us take the matter a little further. If the oath put forward by Her Majesty's Government is so good, and if it is an oath that is suitable for the people of Northern Ireland, why do the Government not seek to introduce it in the remainder of the kingdom? By such a method they could ensure that all judges took the same oath. I can only assume that they see profound reasons why such an oath should not be introduced here and why the present oath taken by judges in England should not be changed in the way that they propose to change the oath in Northern Ireland.
I am sure that the noble Baroness believes that my own experiences have led me to a particularly jaundiced view of Northern Ireland legislation. I assure her that what leads me to a jaundiced view of the legislation is that it continues and exacerbates the situation in which there are two standards of law, two standards of justice, two standards by which we judge criminals within one kingdom. To my mind that is not acceptable. Nor is it acceptable to me that judges in one part of the kingdom should take one oath and in another part of the kingdom a different oath.
The Minister will probably quote Scotland to me, but she will recollect that a different history applies there—a history of how the two kingdoms were united. There is also the manner in which Scotland has been allowed, within the kingdom, to maintain its own systems of law ever since the union of the two kingdoms. This provision does not merely allow something that exists to continue, but it introduces a new difference, a new division, a new schism, to which I object most profoundly.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I agree with the Government and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, about Amendments Nos. 53 and 54. I do not see how one can easily uphold a usage. I believe that the phrase "according to" is adequately firm and unequivocal. However, the important amendment in this group is Amendment No. 52. I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and those who support him from various parts of the House. I do not want to prolong the debate at this time—although it is not particularly late—or to repeat points that have been made in Grand Committee.

99
However, I remind noble Lords that no concessions at all have been made to the sensitivities and sentiments of Unionists south of the border. So be it. There is nothing that we can do about that, but sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Why should we lean over backwards to pander to the sentiments of hard-line republicans who, as public opinion poll after public opinion poll have demonstrated, comprise no more than 12 or 12.5 per cent of the population of Northern Ireland?
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, there is a simple answer to that. The republicans in this kingdom have guns and bombs and they are willing to use them. The Unionists in the Republic of Ireland do not have guns and bombs and they do not wish to use them.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Lord has made an excellent point.
Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, the point has been made that because the oath for members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and QCs has been changed that is a good precedent to follow. I have never heard such a foolish argument in my life. There is no definition of how it was a good precedent. It has been a most unfortunate precedent. It has helped to bring about the demise of the Belfast agreement. I am afraid that the Government do not realise the damage that this Bill continues to do to the Belfast agreement. I warn them yet again that the Belfast agreement is in great danger of collapse. This Bill and this particular provision form a further nail in its coffin.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, at the risk of repeating what I said in Committee, perhaps I can say briefly that I feel very strongly that, since in any case there are a number of references in this Bill, rightly, to the Crown, it is extremely difficult to understand why, in the major issue of the oath, we wish to behave as though the sovereign did not exist. In the Belfast agreement, as has been said, we are committed to allowing the majority to decide their fate; so long as they choose to stay in the United Kingdom they are entitled to have the same relationship with the sovereign as the rest of us.
On the police oath, I believe I am right in saying—though I shall have to check—that the police oath for Wales still swears allegiance to Her Majesty. Therefore that is not necessarily a precedent. But the important point is that, in relation to the Belfast agreement, the people have a right to stay within the United Kingdom, with all that that implies, including allegiance to the Crown, for as long as they wish.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, of course this short debate provokes similar passions to those it evoked in Committee, and indeed many of the points made then have been made again this evening. I shall
100
try not to go over everything I said in Committee. I am sure noble Lords will have the benefit of reading it if they so choose.
Let me say straight away to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, that judicial and police matters are fully devolved in the Basque country; it is one of the ways they sought to resolve some of their difficulties. I regret to tell the noble Lord, therefore, that in terms of lighting upon that as an example of similarity, it was perhaps an unhappy choice. In the Basque country they have done exactly what we are seeking to do in relation to Northern Ireland.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Perhaps she can tell us whether it solved the problems of the Basque country.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, if I may respectfully say so, that is not a terribly helpful approach to take and I know that that was not the noble Lord's intent. But that must be his difficulty and not mine.
The issue here must be taken extremely seriously. We are trying to chart a new way. Many noble Lords are anxious to keep to the old way, but we hope that the new way will be a little better. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, is right in saying that we are not changing the Privy Council oath. That perhaps underlines the difference we were speaking of earlier—the difference between those who become Privy Counsellors and those who do not.
But one must examine the oath carefully. The oath in Clause 19 replicates exactly the wording recommended by the review. In recommending this oath the review group recognised the need to take account of the independence of the judiciary as well as Northern Ireland's wider constitutional status. Noble Lords will be aware that the review body examined the implications of this recommendation in considerable detail, and the Government fully support its findings.
I hear what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, says in relation to the section which deals specifically with this recommendation. But one must look at it in the round. I took a little trouble, after the comments made by the noble and learned Lord, to look again at the report. The noble and learned Lord may find it helpful to cast an eye on the introduction to the report which deals with the modus operandi adopted by the review, particularly in relation to the matters taken into account. If the noble and learned Lord looks at paragraphs 1.5 through to 1.31, it will be seen that, in coming to its recommendations, the review body took a holistic approach to the information it culled from various sources. Its investigation into this area was extensive. Its firm recommendation—and we see no reason to gainsay it—was that the oath that has been devised and put into the clause would be the most appropriate.
In Committee, we dwelt for some considerable time on the importance of the word "realm", which I believe noble Lords accepted encapsulates the reality of this

101
kingdom; namely, a United Kingdom of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The word "realm" can only he given that definition.
So the oath is a more modern oath. It does not specifically mention Her Majesty, but it still encapsulates by the way it is phrased the reality that this is a kingdom. The clause brings it much more into the modern day age.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 53 and 54. I agree with the comment made by a number of noble Lords that "according to law" is the more accurate phrase. Indeed, "according to law" is the phrase adopted in the current oath of allegiance and the judicial oath. We see no reason to change it. Therefore, for all those reasons, hut more particularly for the reasons I gave at great length in Committee, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply and I thank all noble Lords who have supported the amendment. I believe that once again the intellectual argument in relation to the oath has been won by this side of the House. I was not in any way debating whether the oath in the Bill was any better than any other oath. What I wished to debate, and the purpose of my amendment, was to maintain the status quo. I have said a number of times throughout the passage of the Bill that it has gone overboard politically when it is a technical judicial Bill. It seeks to change the environment in the judicial affairs of Northern Ireland. That is wrong.
I have said again and again that my colleagues on this side of the House and I are doing our best to advise the Government on the best way to maintain the peace agreement which they set up so successfully, but which, perhaps in hindsight, was set up in rather too short a space of time and with insufficient small print clearly defined. However, they set it up. It was a great achievement. It was welcomed and it was supported. It is no longer welcomed or supported by a large majority of the population. The Government must take that on board. Not only must they take it on board, but they must realise, and I wish they would understand, that day-by-day they are destroying the peace agreement which they set up in my province. This is yet another way of doing it. It is yet another little nail into the coffin of that peace agreement.
I just wish I could get through to someone in Government and get them to believe that what we are saying from this side of the House is in relation to sensitivities, not in relation to great dramatic changes in what the Government wish to do. We are totally behind the Bill in what it seeks to do. What we are upset about are the political nuances which are getting under the skin, upsetting and continuing to destroy the confidence of people who need the reverse done to them.
Those noble Lords who know me, know that I speak sincerely. I believe totally in what I am saying. I cannot accept the Government's rejection and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
102
9.39 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 52) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 34; Not-Contents, 98.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Attlee,E.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Blatch, B.

Marlesford, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Mayhewof Twysden, L.

Burnham, L.

Miller of Hendon,B.

Byford.B.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Monson, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Northbrook, L.

Ferrers, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Park of Monrnouth, B.

Glentoran, L.

Patten, L.

Greenway, L.

Renton, L.

Henley, L.

Rogan, L.

Kilclooney, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Kingsland, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Laird, L.

Stewartby, L.

Lyell, L.

Tebbit, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L

Vivian, L.

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Grenfell, L.

Addington, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Hamwee, B.

Amos, B.

Hardy of Wath,L.

Andrews, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Bach, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Barker, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Berkeley, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Blackstone, B.

Hoyle, L.

Borrie, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Brennan, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Brett, L.

Hylton,L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Jones, L.

Brookman, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Burlison, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Lipsey, L.

Chandos, V.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Crawley, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

David, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Desai,L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Dixon, L.

Maddock, B.

Donoughue, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mitchell, L.

Dubs,L.

Morgan, L.

Elder, L.

Pendry, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale,B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rennard, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Gale, B.

Rooker, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Roper, L.

Gilbert, L.

Russell, E.

Golding, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Goodhart, L.

Sharp of Guildford,B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Shutt of Greetland.L.

Goudie, B.

Simon, V.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

103

Smith of Leigh, L.

Whitty,L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Wilkins, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Thornton, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Wakefield, Bp.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.50 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 not moved.]
Schedule 7 [Functions of Advocate General]:
Lord Lairdmoved Amendment No. 55:
Page 95, line 20, leave out "Public" and insert "Crown"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not want to take up too much time today because much of the argument has already been rehearsed and time is moving on. In moving Amendment No. 55, I want to speak also to Amendments Nos. 57, 59, 62 and 70. The effect of the amendment is to move the word "Public" and insert the word "Crown" in the concept of the prosecutor's service for Northern Ireland. It will then be the "Crown Prosecution Service" for Northern Ireland.
This may seem to be another occasion on which the Unionists are trying to produce more British symbols and to enhance those which exist. That returns us to the point made with great passion by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, in relation to an earlier amendment, that the situation in Northern Ireland is not very good. It is extremely poor and fragile.
I greatly fear for the Belfast agreement. It is a difficult situation for those of us who from the Unionist perspective have put a great deal of political stock, time, emotion and effort into working the Belfast agreement. We now find ourselves on extremely difficult territory. We are on crumbling territory; a quicksand which is likely to suck us in to our detriment. Large sections of the Bill do not come into effect until after the Assembly elections next year. I share the concern of noble Lords that the result of the Assembly elections will be such that the Bill will never be brought into force in Northern Ireland.
It is not merely a case of asking for the word "Crown" to take the place of the word "Public" in order to be in line with the rest of the kingdom. It returns to the basic point and to the difficulties we have in Northern Ireland in trying to keep together a community that has been under threat. It has undergone extreme difficulties and believes that its way of life, the basis by which it calculates its day-to-day activities and its values have been taken from it.
The use of the word "Public" is yet another example of that and it has produced a difficult situation. The Government, in trying to create a situation in which public prosecutors are separate from the police service, have produced two sets of initials which are almost identical. To members of the public, the public prosecution service and the Police Service of Northern Ireland will seem to be the same organisation. That is
104
how ludicrous the situation is. In my view, and in the view of most people in Northern Ireland, the change is being made simply to appease the Irish republicans and because, as the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, said, they are armed to the teeth and we are not.
That is a fact of life and it is very sad and difficult. I say to noble Lords that when as a result of this Bill and other actions the Belfast agreement tumbles down, please do not come around and say that you were not warned. Please do not come around and ask what we can do about it. We have done a lot to save the situation but we cannot work miracles. I beg to move.
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to name the new prosecution service the "Crown prosecution service for Northern Ireland" rather than the "public prosecution service". We discussed the matter in Grand Committee. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Laird, I wish to make three points.
First, there never has been a Crown prosecution service in Northern Ireland. This is not a case of changing the name of something that already exists. Indeed, there has not been a service of the kind intended under the provisions of the Bill. At the moment the Director of Public Prosecutions runs a much smaller office than the new public prosecution service will be. As noble Lords know, under the Director of Public Prosecutions, the new prosecution service will take over the conduct of and be responsible for all prosecutions in Northern Ireland. So this is not a case of changing the status quo; it is a question of giving a name to a new organisation.
Secondly, why has that name been chosen? It is the name proposed by the review. It was widely welcomed during the consultations following the publication of the review report and the draft legislation. I understand that only one party had any difficulty with the name. As I pointed out in Grand Committee, the name states exactly what the service will be: it will be a public prosecution service. The name emphasises that it will be a neutral prosecution service for the public and in the interests of the whole public. It is an entirely appropriate name, not least because the head of the service will be the Director of Public Prosecutions, and thus a public prosecution service makes sense.
Thirdly, I refer to the confusion that has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Laird. I beg fundamentally to disagree. I suggest that no one in Northern Ireland will be the slightest bit confused. The police will be called the "police", while the prosecution service will be called either the "public prosecution service" or, if an acronym is preferred, it will be the "PPS", like the CPS in England and Wales. That will not under any circumstances be confused with the police service. Therefore I do not believe that there is any good reason for changing the name because of the risk of confusion.

105
While I respect and understand the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, this is not an occasion for any concern about the name. I invite him to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may direct him to Schedule 8 to the Bill, on line 21 of page 99. He will notice that the office referred to is:
"Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service".
Is that a slip?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I am happy to answer the question put by the noble Baroness, although I do not think that it arises out of anything that I have said. It is a reference to the Crown Prosecution Service which exists in England and Wales and therefore it relates to that and not to anything else. I hope that that helps the noble Baroness.
Lord Laird: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for setting out his reasons for not accepting the amendment. I must say that there was nothing surprising in what he said, but the debate has allowed me the opportunity to make my points. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendment No. 56:
Page 96, leave out lines 35 to 43 and insert—
"32 In section 9(1) of the Official Secrets Act 1989 (c. 6) (proceedings for offence under that Act), for "Attorney General for Northern Ireland" substitute "Advocate General for Northern Ireland".
33 In Article 8(11) of the Iraq and Kuwait (United Nations Sanctions) Order 1990 (S.I. 1990/1651) (as substituted by the Iraq and Kuwait (United Nations Sanctions) (Second Amendment) Order 1990 (S.I. 1990/2144)) (proceedings for offence under that Order). for "Attorney General for Northern Ireland or" substitute "Advocate General for Northern Ireland or the Attorney General for".
33A In section 31(1) of the Chemical Weapons Act 1996 (c. 6) (proceedings for offence under section 2 or 11 of that Act), for "Attorney General for Northern Ireland" substitute "Advocate General for Northern Ireland".
33B In section 117(3)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11) (proceedings for offence committed for purpose connected with affairs of country other than United Kingdom), for "Attorney General for Northern Ireland" substitute "Advocate General for Northern Ireland".
33C In—

(a) section 55 (proceedings for offence under section 47 or 50), and

(b) section 81(1) (proceedings for offence under section 79 or 80),

of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (c. 24), for "Attorney General for Northern Ireland" substitute "Advocate General for Northern Ireland"."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment standing in the name of my noble and learned friend the Lord Privy Seal. It is a technical amendment which adds further offences to
106
the list of those in relation to which the Advocate-General for Northern Ireland must give consent before a prosecution can be undertaken.
As your Lordships will recall, after devolution the new local Attorney-General will have no power to consent to prosecutions. The Director of Public Prosecutions will exercise most consent provisions, but a very few—for example, in the fields of national security and international relations—will be exercised by the Advocate General for Northern Ireland. Schedule 7 lists the offences for which the Advocate General's consent will be required. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 [Public Prosecution Service]:
[Amendment No. 57 not moved.]
10 p.m.
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendment No. 58:
Page 18, line 36, at end insert—
"(8) The Director may set up and maintain such offices, in such places in Northern Ireland, as he considers appropriate for the exercise of his functions."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the criminal justice review recommended that the Public Prosecution Service should establish local offices from which the bulk of the prosecutorial work in their respective areas would be conducted.
We had originally thought it unnecessary to provide specifically for this in the Bill. However, given that such a power exists in the Prosecution of Offences (Northern Ireland) Order, we have now taken the view that we should replicate this in the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill for the purposes of clarity. There is an equivalent provision in the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 in respect of the English and Welsh Crown Prosecution Service. I hope that your Lordships will agree that the amendment is fully consistent with the review and can therefore be accepted. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 36 [Exercise of functions by and on behalf of Service]:
[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendment No. 60:
After Clause 37, insert the following new clause—
"EQUALITY AND NON-DISCRIMINATION
(1) Section 75 (duty on public authorities to have regard to need to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between different groups) and section 76 (discrimination by public authorities) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (c. 47) are amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3) of section 75, after paragraph (cc) insert—
"(cd) the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland;".
(3) After subsection (4) of that section insert—
"(4A) The references in subsections (1) and (2) and Schedule 9 to the functions of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland do not include any of his functions relating to the prosecution of offences."
(4) In subsection (7) of section 76, after paragraph (e) insert—
"(ea) the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland;".

107
(5) After that subsection insert—
"(8) This section does not apply to a decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland not to institute, or to discontinue, criminal proceedings or, where such a decision has been made, to any act done for the purpose of enabling the decision whether to institute or continue the proceedings to be made or for securing that the proceedings are discontinued.
(9) No injunction may be granted in respect of a contravention of this section by the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland unless the court is satisfied that it would not prejudice any decision to institute criminal proceedings or any criminal proceedings.
(10) Where a party to proceedings for a contravention of this section applies for a stay of those proceedings on the ground of prejudice to a decision to institute criminal proceedings, or of prejudice to particular criminal proceedings, the court must grant the stay unless it is satisfied that continuance of the proceedings for the contravention would not result in the prejudice alleged.""
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, during Grand Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, drew to our attention the issue of whether the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions should be designated under Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act. I am grateful to him for raising that point. A similar amendment had been tabled in another place by the honourable Member for Newry and Armagh in respect of designation for both Section 75 and 76 purposes.
As noble Lords will be aware, Section 75 places a statutory duty on bodies to,
"have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity",
between groups within the nine categories of people set out in the Northern Ireland Act. It also requires them to,
"have regard to the desirability of promoting good relations between persons of different religious belief, political opinion or racial group".
Section 76 makes it unlawful for a body to discriminate on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion.
In response to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, I explained that the Government kept the list of bodies subject to designation continuously under review. We thought it right that as many bodies as possible should be subject to such duties but that we needed first to consider the consequences that designation might have on bodies such as the prosecution service.
I drew attention to the fact that a decision to prosecute must be made independently and based on the facts alone, as I am sure all noble Lords will agree. While we supported the idea of designation in principle, we needed to give careful thought to how the independence and integrity of the director and the prosecution process could be maintained.
As I told noble Lords who participated in the debate in a letter last week, I am pleased to say that we have made good progress in looking at that issue. I am grateful to the Director of Public Prosecutions and his colleagues, who have played a significant role in working through these issues. The progress has been such that we are now in a position to use the Bill as a vehicle for designating the Director of Public
108
Prosecutions for the purposes of both Sections 75 and 76, rather than waiting to do so through another vehicle.
We have identified certain limited safeguards which will give the protections necessary to ensure the continuing independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the even-handedness of the prosecution process. With those safeguards in place, these duties can now be accepted.
So far as concerns Section 76, what we have done is essentially to replicate the exceptions that are made for the English and Welsh Crown Prosecution Service, which is subject to a similar statutory duty in respect of race relations.
There is no exact equivalent to Section 75 for the English and Welsh Crown Prosecution Service, but we have applied the same principle of safeguarding the prosecution process. That is done by seeking in both cases to put the prosecution process into a different category.
For the absence of doubt, I should make it clear that the obligation under Sections 75 and 76 will apply to the Director of Public Prosecutions in relation to the recruitment of public prosecutors. That is an important part of what the amendment is designed to achieve.
In Grand Committee, I said that the normal vehicle for designating bodies under Section 75 was a designation order. But, as I hope noble Lords will agree, the benefit that we have by bringing this forward is that, by using the Bill before us, we are able to include the exceptions to which I have referred, and for the reasons I have identified. That makes it sensible to bring this proposal forward at this stage. I hope that noble Lords will agree that this is a beneficial amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, it seems to me that the exceptions that have been explained to us by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General are sensibly drafted. They are certainly necessary, and I am reassured by the fact that apparently Sir Alasdair Fraser, the DPP for Northern Ireland, is entirely content with them. I believe this to be a very satisfactory amendment.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I wish my remarks to be treated as being generous and not to be misunderstood. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General was not present at another part of the Grand Committee proceedings where I alluded to the slowness with which these issues were addressed in terms of Section 75 at an earlier stage of the period after the Belfast agreement. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the phrase "under continuous review". At that stage, "continuous review" appeared to some of us to be bordering on eternity. On this

109
occasion, eternity has been swept away. It has been done extremely briskly, and I congratulate the Government on having done it.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for taking on some issues that I raised in Grand Committee.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I can only thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the noble Lords, Lord Brooke and Lord Desai, for welcoming the amendments. I am very glad to have managed to achieve something which appears to produce such favour in the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 45 [Functions of Chief Inspector]:
Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 61:
Page 27, line 2, leave out from "of" to end of line 17 and insert "all organisations in possession of criminal investigatory powers"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have come rather late at night to a part of the Bill which I view as especially important. Perhaps progress on it is slightly unclear. If it is, that is probably my fault. I was hoping—perhaps hope against hope—that after Grand Committee the Government might come forward with an amendment to solve the problems. I sensed that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal agreed—I apologise if I am wrong—that, to put it politely, the functions of the chief inspector in Clause 45 need a little work. They need tidying up. I sensed that Members on all sides of the House, including the Government, felt that the list was not complete. Perhaps it could not be complete. I had hoped that we might be able to include an all-encompassing clause with examples, as has happened elsewhere in the Bill. Amendment No. 61, which would add,
"all organisation in possession of criminal investigatory powers",
was drawn up after much thought, not just by myself, but by some rather brighter brains down the corridor.
Unless the Government are inclined to table their own version, I would rather reserve the main thrust of the debate and any decisions on the amendment until Third Reading. To some extent this depends on what the Government want to do. I have said that I have no intention of dividing the House tonight, but I wish to be in a position to press the amendment on Third Reading if we cannot reach an accommodation before then.
Unless the noble Baroness or the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal tell me that it will not be possible, I feel that we can go forward on the issue before Third Reading. I know that there are sensitivities relating to the police ombudsman and others and I know that Mr Des Browne from the other place has done some work behind the scenes. If noble Lords in the Unionist party agree, I would prefer not
110
to press the amendment tonight. If the Government wish to come in, far be it from me to stop them. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lyell): My Lords, advise the House that if Amendment No. 61 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 62 to 66 inclusive.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I shall be brief at this time of night. I agree with the substance and the sentiment expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran.
I shall make a similar point to that which the noble Lord made on the Government's slowness in tabling amendments to Clause 45 that they have recognised are necessary. I am particularly, but not exclusively, concerned about the position of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, who has extremely limited accountability at present. The only alternatives to what the police ombudsman may decide are judicial review or an annual report to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. That was not the intention of Dr Maurice Hayes, whose report led to the establishment of the police ombudsman.
I do not want to speak for or appear to put words into the mouth of Dr Hayes, but it appears from some of his comments that he is not a little disquieted by the lack of accountability from the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland.
It is essential that the remit of the new chief inspector of criminal justice is as comprehensive as possible in order that he or she can properly fulfil his or her functions. As the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, intimated, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Des Browne, accepted that point in Committee in another place. Therefore, in my interpretation, the Government have already accepted that the list of organisations which should he inspected by the chief inspector should be as comprehensive as possible. Why is there such tardiness in completing the list?
From correspondence which I have seen, I understand that, before the end of April, an additional 19 organisations including the police ombudsman were consulted about their possible inclusion in the list of organisations in Clause 45. As there has already been proper consultation, and as the Minister in another place has accepted the need for a comprehensive list of organisations, it is now wholly appropriate that the chief inspector's remit should be extended to include that list of defined organisations.
The point is particularly important in so far as, in Committee in another place, the Minister indicated that the role of the chief inspector of criminal justice would be to "cross cut" various organisations in the course of his or her inspection. Therefore. if a given case involved, for example, the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the forensic department and the pathology lab as well as the police ombudsman, the chief inspector should be able to trace the case right through all those organisations. Currently, however,

111
the chief inspector's cross-cutting inspection would be curtailed and the trail would run out when he or she reached the office of the police ombudsman.
Such a position is wholly unreasonable and untenable. It really is beyond my comprehension, as I imagine it is beyond the comprehension of many noble Lords, that the Government have been so tardy in trying to complete the list of organisations that will fall under the remit of the chief inspector of criminal justice.
At this time of night I shall not pursue other issues such as Consignia or the Financial Services Authority. I should hope that all such organisations will be included on the Government's list, which we hear about, of 19 other organisations. However, on the basis of events already occurring daily in Northern Ireland, of all those organisations, none has a greater impact and causes more concern in relation to unaccountability than the office of the police ombudsman.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for the approach of the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Maginnis. Perhaps I can remind the House that this group of amendments comprises Amendments Nos. 61, 63, 64, 65, 66 and 67. Amendment No. 61 is distinct and I shall deal with it separately if I may. However, Amendments Nos. 63 to 67 inclusive deal with a wish to include specified organisations.
The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, said that the Government had been tardy. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are in a process of consultation with about 20 bodies, with a view to adding to the list of specified organisations at Clause 45(1). My colleague, Des Browne, wrote to the organisations concerned on 28th February inviting responses by 19th April. We have had a number of meetings and interim correspondence with various of those organisations but many of them wanted more time to consider the issues. My colleague, Des Browne, agreed that the deadline should be extended to the end of June.
We are still having consultation with many of the possible candidates. Further organisations can, of course, be added by order by virtue of Clause 45(6). Because of the suggestion from the former Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee—to which, I have said on many occasions, we pay careful attention—we have put down a government amendment to Clause 89 making that order-making power subject to affirmative resolution, which constitutes a protection for the interests of this House.
I am sorry to say that Amendment No. 61 is misconceived but I understand from the spirit of the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that essentially it is a questioning if not a probing amendment. The trouble with Amendment No. 61, were it to be carried, is that the chief inspector could inspect only organisations in possession of criminal
112
investigatory powers. However, that would exclude most of the organisations mentioned in subsection (1) of Clause 45. It would exclude, for example, the Compensation' Agency, health and social services boards and health and social services trusts, the Juvenile Justice Board, the Probation Board for Northern Ireland and so forth. The desired outcome would not be achieved by Amendment No. 61.
I believe that I set out the position as regards Amendments Nos. 63 to 67 inclusive. The Government have not been tardy. Organisations have understandably asked for a little more time and my colleague rightly gave it to them. I hope that that explanation is of assistance.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal for those comments. He is right to say that Amendment No. 61 is entirely probing, as I said in my opening remarks. However, I hope that the Government will have something significant, solid and prescriptive in the form of an amendment by Third Reading.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I simply want to help the noble Lord as he is always extremely courteous and helpful to me. I do not believe that the consultation will be concluded by Third Reading. I do not want any misunderstanding to creep in.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that comment. Perhaps we could have some further meetings between now and then outside the Chamber. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I have to advise your Lordships that Amendment No. 63 is identical to Amendment No. 66. Therefore, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 66.
[Amendments Nos. 63 to 68 not moved.]
Clause 46 [Further provisions about functions]:
[Amendment No. 69 not moved.]
Clause 48 [Reports]:
[Amendment No. 70 not moved.]
Clause 50 [Duties of Commission]:
Lord Roganmoved Amendment No. 71:
Page 30, line 40, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
"() In performing its duties, the Commission may consult any equivalent national law commission."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at this late hour I beg your Lordships' indulgence to speak briefly to Amendment No. 71. Your Lordships will be aware that perceptions count for much in Northern Ireland. A perception which I am afraid will gain credence in Northern Ireland is that something strange is going on; in other words, that murky dealings are going on as regards the requirement for the Law Commission to be obliged to consult the Law Reform Commission of the Republic of Ireland.

113
I remind your Lordships that the Bill states:
"In performing its duties the Commission must consult".
What is the special reason why the Law Reform Commission of the Republic of Ireland should be put in the same privileged position as the Scottish Law Commission and the Law Commission? For what reason is the Republic of Ireland placed ahead of any other Commonwealth country and any other member state of the European Union? I again ask the noble and learned Lord the Minister to explain fully why the Government included the Law Reform Commission of the Republic of Ireland as a compulsory consultee. My fear is that there may be a resulting perception—or perhaps misperception—in Northern Ireland. That would be prevented if noble Lords agreed to the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, most noble Lords would be surprised if I did not endorse the amendment that was moved by my noble friend Lord Rogan.
Earlier this evening, I asked the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal a specific question about external influences in Northern Ireland in respect of judicial appointments and other matters pertaining to the judiciary. I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord understood the nature of my question. With respect, he bypassed it by alluding only to the specific amendment that I had moved.
It is important for us to discover here and now why there has to be a particular and specific reference to the Irish Republic in this context. We have to discover what part the Irish Republic currently plays—directly or indirectly—through government, government agencies, the law commission of the Irish Republic and any other way in the day-to-day work and structure of the judicial process in Northern Ireland. We need to know what the future intentions are. Will that arrangement be increased? If it currently exists—many of us suppose that it does—what are the intentions with regard to regularising it? It is totally and utterly unacceptable that such a situation should, in some opaque fashion, be allowed to occur.
There is a lack of confidence in Northern Ireland at the moment. There is a feeling that the efforts that we made to reach an equitable and fair agreement in the Belfast agreement in April 1998 are being constantly, deliberately and callously eroded to the extent that the whole process is in great danger. I therefore hope that, despite the late hour, the noble and learned Lord will give us a full and detailed answer about the dilemma that is facing us.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I expect to hear from the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House that there is a provision in the Good Friday agreement or in some predecessor agreement that explains and justifies the inclusion of the Law Reform Commission of the Republic of Ireland in this little group in Clause 50(4). If there is such a provision, I am sure the noble and learned Lord will identify it. if there is not, I express my support for the amendment. That is
114
not out of lack of sympathy for the need in appropriate cases to consult with and to act congenially and consistently with the legal processes in the south, in the Republic. I say "where appropriate" because there will be circumstances where it is not.
Having had some involvement over quite a. long time in the negotiations which reach their culmination in what has been described rightly as the great achievement of this Government in 1998, the Belfast agreement, I have long recognised the need, where appropriate, for consistency with what is happening in the Republic; and for bringing into consultation organisations in the Republic.
However, I have also a vivid recollection of the suspicions and anxieties of which the noble Lord spoke in moving the amendment. If there is no specific provision in any agreement which is responsible for and explains the inclusion of the Republic of Ireland's Law Reform Commission in this group, I anticipate that those suspicions will be fuelled. We can all regret the fact that they exist but, equally, I am sure we agree that there is a duty on all of us not unnecessarily to reinforce them.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, is plain. The document where one finds this recommendation is the review recommendation 245. It is quite plain and unambiguous that that is what should be done and we have accepted that. Whether or not one agrees with every recommendation, the noble and learned Lord's experience of the review is that it was certainly a painstaking and wide consultative exercise carried out with a composition which was widely representative of different views in. Northern Ireland. I believe that its conclusion is right. It strikes me as being particularly appropriate because there is a close historic and legal common tradition in different ways—not altogether a tradition of uniformity but a legal, cultural and historical tradition—which has in the past united the Republic, Northern Ireland, Scotland and England and Wales. Perfectly fairly, the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, asked me why it should not include the Commonwealth or the European Union. My answer is plain. What similarity of legal tradition is there between our legal and judicial system and that of France, Germany, Spain, Italy or Belgium? There is virtually none. They are not accustomed to jury trials. They are accustomed to inquisitorial not accusatorial trials. Their entire tradition, I think I can say about France and Belgium, has been post-Napoleonic. That has not, happily, been our experience.
I suggest to noble Lords that it is necessary to understand that this is not exclusive. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent wider consultation. Indeed, certain state jurisdictions in the United States might be helpful; otherwise the descendants of the Napoleonic code and tradition in the United States would not be suitable. So it is perfectly simple. There is no conspiracy. There is no hidden agenda. The louder I say it, and the clearer and more unambiguously I say it, the better.

115
I believe that the noble and learned Lord also asked whether there was interference in any other way in the day-to-day judicial process in Northern Ireland. There is not. If there were any attempt to interfere improperly in any way from any quarter—whether Republic of Ireland, or other—with the judicial process in the Province, I know that the noble and learned Lord would be the first to join me in saying that it would encounter a very prompt bloody nose from the judges. There is no conspiracy. It is perfectly sensible to look at the traditions that we have shared. I have in mind legal traditions that are not entirely uniform; they are sometimes diverse.
The suggestion here is based on recommendation 245, which brought about the requirement in the legislation that these relevant—I stress the word "relevant"—law commissions in countries with a similar common judicial and legal tradition should be consulted. One can find conspiracies everywhere, even a conspiracy of one. But, I am sorry to say, there is no conspiracy—even at this hour of the night.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may say that I am reassured to a degree by his response. However, under the present arrangement is a High Court appointment bounced off the Irish authorities before it is implemented? Is that what is happening? Is that what this provision in the Bill is intended to perpetuate?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, perhaps I may explain the position again. What we are looking at here is the Law Commission, which has nothing at all to do with the appointment of judges. That is a matter for the Judicial Appointments Commission. However, they share one characteristic—namely, a common noun—but they share no other. I do not believe that I can explain the position any more plainly.
The commission that we are discussing is the Law Commission. It is a scholarly body that seeks to reform the law. I appreciate that it must be regarded as an uphill struggle, because many of its reports in the United Kingdom have not been dealt with for the past 20 years. I repeat: this has nothing to do with the appointment of judges. Law commissions consider the substance, the structure, and the process of law. They do so in a detached, dispassionate, academic and scholarly way. They produce their reports, after which a draft Bill is produced. Then, 20 years later, someone does something about it—on a lucky day with a following wind. At this point, your Lordships will understand that I am not, in any circumstance, talking with a word called "taxi" on my mind.
116
When we introduce and act upon the forthcoming excellent "red report" from the Leader's group on working practices, which I commend to the House, and after it has received unanimous acceptance on 17th July, there will be opportunity in September for Grand Committees to sit and scrutinise Law Commission Bills. Indeed, only those—I speak directly to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain—who have a pulsating interest in law reform Bills would be expected, let alone required, to attend.
This provision has nothing to do with the appointment of judges. However—a famous word in your Lordships' House—if it did have to do with the appointment of High Court judges, to use the noble Lord's graceful phrase, High Court appointments are not "bounced off" the Irish Government. They are not the business of the Irish Government, any more than it is our business to try to interfere with who the Chief Justice of the Republic of Ireland is, excellent though he may be in every way.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, I believe that the Minister said that this Bill would in no way prevent the Law Commission from consulting any other common law jurisdiction. I have no difficulty with that. However, if that is the case, why specifically put into the Bill the Law Reform Commission of the Republic of Ireland? Why not leave it in the same way as any other common law jurisdiction to which reference could be made?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, under the duties of the commission, as specified in the Bill, it is directed—rightly, one would have thought—to consult with relevant proximate law commissions. That is why the Law Reform Commission of the Republic of Ireland is not singled out; it is included with the Law Commission of England and Wales—an excellent body—and the Scottish Law Commission. I repeat that it is not directed to look at Italy, Spain, France, Germany, Belgium or even Luxembourg because, even with the best telescope in the world, it would be difficult to find any benefit in mandatory consultations with them. So we are looking for proximate and relevant jurisdictions; in other words, the voice of reason is speaking however quietly.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Prisoners: Resettlement
  Prisoners: Resettlement
  Trafficking People
  Trafficking People
  Justice and Home Affairs Council, 13 and 14 June
  Justice and Home Affairs Council, 13 and 14 June
  Single Currency
  Single Currency
  Malawi
  Malawi
  IMF: Accountability
  IMF: Accountability
  RPIX
  RPIX
  Deaths of Privates Benton, James, Gray and Collinson
  Deaths of Privates Benton, James, Gray and Collinson
  Trafalgar
  Trafalgar
  RAF Human Centrifuge Contract: Environmental Tectonics Corporation
  RAF Human Centrifuge Contract: Environmental Tectonics Corporation
  Courts Martial
  Courts Martial
  ASTUTE Class Submarines
  ASTUTE Class Submarines
  Strategic Sealift Capability
  Strategic Sealift Capability
  Radioactive Waste
  Radioactive Waste
  Small Farmers: EU Subsidy Scheme
  Small Farmers: EU Subsidy Scheme
  Casualty Watch Surveys
  Casualty Watch Surveys
  Mixed Sex Wards
  Mixed Sex Wards
  Borderline Substances Advisory Committee
  Borderline Substances Advisory Committee
  Embryonic Stem Cell Research
  Embryonic Stem Cell Research
  Government Documents: Availability to Peers
  Government Documents: Availability to Peers
  Electoral Commission: Accountability
  Electoral Commission: Accountability